11t1Ai`ernent Plan Update - Comox Strathcona Waste Management

Transcription

S
IL COflCI
11t1Ai'ernent Plan Update
CH2M HILL Canada
Limited
in association with
Praxis Inc.
..
In 1995, the Regional District of Comox-Stratheona (RDC-S) prepared a solid waste
management plan in accordance with guidelines established by the Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection (MWLAP). The Plan was prepared using a three stage process: Stage i
was completed in 1993, and Stages 2 and 3 were completed in 1995.
This document is an update of the 1995 Plan. The RDC-S retained CH2M HILL
Canada Limited to assist their staff in developing the Plan Update. CH2M HILL was assisted
by Praxis Inc. who was responsible for public consultation during development of the Plan
Update.
During preparation of the Plan Update, this initial draft will be submitted to a "virtual
committee" of stakeholders. Comments from that committee will be incorporated into the
draft plan that is made available to the public. After receiving public comment on the draft
plan, a final Plan Update will be prepared.
Description of Waste Management System
This section provides a brief description of the key elements of the Plan Update. It is
organised by topic including:
• reduction and reuse;
• public education and promotion;
• material collection and recycling;
• processing markets and market development;
•• composting;
• household hazardous waste;
• demolition, land clearing, and construction waste; and
• transfer and landfill.
........
.....
Reduction
and Reuse
• Continue selling backyard composters as needed
• Maintain composting education through the Master Composter program
and the composting education centres
• Evaluate user-pay initiatives on a case by case basis
• Assist promoting select reuse opportunities and continue crosspromotion of reuse and repair centres in Regional District of ComoxStrathcona (RDC-S) publications
• Establish a task force to coordinate procurement policies and to
establish district standards where appropriate
• Identify larger industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste
generators and offer assistance regarding waste reduction opportunities
• Continue existing policies for differential tipping fees
• Support senior government programs
Public
• Continue current funding current education and promotion initiatives
......... .........
• Increase the emphasis on ICI sector education....... ..... _ _ duration
.........
.........
YALE CF CO1TtNTS
and
Promotion
Programs
Prepare a 3year education and promotion (E&P) plan
Coordinate E&P activities with municipalities and other service
providers
Implement an internal communication strategy
Continue using "recycling family" cartoon characters and create new
"family members"
• Use a variety of communication methods
• Develop a website
• Maintain records of E&P activities
• Evaluate impact of E&P programs
• Use community resources when possible
Cross-promote solid waste management activities with other
RDC-S departments
• Maintain telephone hotline number
• Seek funding opportunities with non-profit organizations
Material
Collection
and
Recycling
• Continue Multi Material Drop-off Depot (MMDD) program expansion
• Conduct a plastics collection pilot program at two MMDD locations
Consider conducting a pilot mixed waste paper collection
• Hire a ICI waste reduction coordinator and target reduction
opportunities in this sector
Processing,
Markets, and
Market
Development
• Ensure that markets are available for compost products
Adopt procurement policies
• Consider funding sma1lscale initiatives to develop local markets
Composti n g
• Attempt to formalize an arrangement with Comox Bay Farms allowing
residents and small commercial enterprises to drop-off grass, leaves and
small trimmings
Continue offering the Master Composter program
• Continue promoting composting education through schools, public
events and the Regional District's composting education facilities
• Work with the sewage commission to investigate opportunities for
incorporating appropriate solid wastes (such as grass, leaves, chipped
wood, food) into the biosolids composting operation
• Continue encouraging backyard composting and reduction programs in
the rural areas and island communities
• Continue to evaluate private sector compo.sting proposals on a case by
case basis
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Demolition,
Land
Clearing, and
Construction
Wastes
Transfer and
Landfill
Options
Sponsor one household hazardous waste cleanup event each year in the
Comox Valley
Continue promoting the use of rechargeable batteries and the
collection of spent batteries for recycling
• Encourage Id establishments to store used dry cell batteries for
recycling
• Consider a ban or differential tipping fee on select materials if
additional industry programs are implemented
o Increase public education of liquid chemical drop-off facilities
Encourage involvement of volunteers and existing non-government
organizations to promote management alternatives at the grass roots
level in the community
Encourage MWLAP to increase the number of products accepted and
to open more depots in the Regional District
• Include construction and demolition contractors in the RDC-Ss ICI
education program
• Include wood, concrete, asphalt, and other residual materials from
deconstruction, land clearing and construction projects when
developing procurement policies
Allow private sector facilities to operate in accordance with their
permits, but reserve the right to consider requiring operational
certificates and implementation of differential tipping fees at those
facilities in the future
• Investigate increasing the amount of wood from demolition and
construction projects that is chipped and used in the biosolids
composting project
Include promotion of reduction and reuse of gypsum in the education
program
Campbell River Landfill
• Ins-tall two new monitoring wells, analyze groundwater monitoring
results, evaluate groundwaterieveis and flow direction, and take
appropriate actions based on the results of the monitoring results
* Prepare an operating plan and operational certificate, and revise
closure plan
• Install a bear fence
• Conduct capital and operating improvements for storm water, odour,
and leachate
• Conduct detailed evaluations regarding potential suitability of Block J
as a future landfill site and waste export opportunities
Pidgeon Lake Landfill
• Conduct investigations recommended in the Hazco operation study
and the landfill groundwater monitoring program
• Install a bear fence
• Conduct detailed comparison between a new, engineered landfill and
waste export opportunities
• Update operational and closure plans, and prepare an operational
certificate
TABLE OF CDNTEi1S
Sayward Landfill
No changes to the current disposal system
Cortes Island Landfill and Transfer Station
e Evaluate adding a roof to the transfer facility
Hornby island Landfill and Transfer StatIon
* Evaluate adding a roof to the transfer facility
Gold River Landfill and Transfer Station
Develop a permanent transfer station
• Install a fourth well on the eastern boundary of the site
Request an exemption from the B.C. Landfill Criteria to close the
landfill using a cover of compact granular fill
Continue current groundwater monitoring program
• Encourage the Village to submit surface water analysis to the RDC-S
• Conduct a survey of down gradient water wells within 2 km of the
landfill
Tahsis Landfill
• Continue current groundwater monitoring program
• Consider installing an additional monitoring well
Encourage the Village to submit surface water analysis to the RDCS
• Prepare operations plan and an operational certificate, and update the
site closure plan
Encourage the Village to conduct operational improvements
Zeballos Landfill
• Consider entering into a contract with All Brawn Industries to conduct
operations at the landfill
• Explore other options for waste disposal if required
• Prepare operations plan and an operational certificate, and update
closure plan
Kyuquot and Area G
• Allow Gold River to continue servicing the area
• Request that the Village permit a private collection firm to service
Kyuquot in conjunction with commercial collection in the Village if
they decide to cease operation.
rnTE.1iIur.iahr. IfT
Administration
During the past five years, the solid waste system in the regional district has functioned well
with good communication between the RDC-S, it's member municipalities, and relevant
stakeholders. No changes are planned to those roles and responsibilities during this Plan
Update.
Funding Requirements
Two funding options for the plan are shown in Table E-i. In Option 1, there would be no
change to the current level of tax-based funding of Plan expenses. In Option 2, activities that
benefit all property owners, such as closure costs, program administration, and education
and promotion, would be paid for through property taxes. Option 2 was the funding method
recommended in the 1995 Plan.
Asshown, the two optionsprovide a range of different methods for funding the plan. In
Option 1, tipping fees would increase from the $4 per tonne level in 2001, to a range of S6o
to S68 per tonne (in 2001 dollars) over the five-year plan horizon. Property taxes would pay
for a very small part of total expenses.
In Option 2, property taxes would increase from $0.09 per thousand dollars of assessed
value (S13.5o per year on a $150,000 home), to S0.59 per thousand dollars of assessed value
(S89 per year on a $150,000 home), and tipping fees would range from S44 to $53 per
tonne.
Table E-1
Plan Fundir Options (n 2001$)
I
2001 L 2002
2003 [ 2004
2005
2006
Option 1: No increase in Property Tax
Revenues from 11 pping Fees
Revenues from Tax
Tip Fee
Tax per thousand
Taxper$i50,000home
$2,250,750[$3,042,107 $3,105,107 $2,902,l07$2,962,107 $2,842,107
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$45
$67
$68
$63
$63
$60
$0.09
$009
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$12.93
$12.93
$12.93
$12931 $12.93
$12.93
Option 2 1995 Plan Property Tax
Revenues from Tipping Fees
Revenues from Tax
Tip Fee
Tax per thousand
Tax per $150,000 home
$2,250,750 $2,306,012 $2,413,486 $2,209,855 $2,319,151 $2098496
$78,371
$539,720 $539,720 $539,720 $539,720 $539,720
$45
$51
$53
$48
$49
$44
$0.59
$0.59
$0.59
$0.59
$0.59
$0.59
. $89.06
$89.06
$89.06
$89.06
$89.06
$89.06
V
TA
CE CO NT ENTS
The funding options are based on a number of assumptions, including:
The planned actions are carried out over the year planning horizon at indicated
funding levels
• Program implementation is phased to keep funding levels reasonably stable over the five
year period (see Section ii for details)
• Revenues equal expenses each year
As shown, regardless of how the Plan is funded, implementing the Plan will require
collecting substantial additional revenues above current levels (current tipping fees are S45
per torme), Part of the reason for the increase in funding requirements is that forecast
disposal is growing much more slowly than anticipated during the last plan. The two main
reasons for the reduction in disposal include:
1. A slowdown in the local economy
2. The RDCS has also had outstanding success in its programs to reduce waste from
disposal: the percentage of waste requiring disposal has increased from ii percent in
1994 to 34 percent in 2OOO
iik:IS1LI'ITi1ii
Section
Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................... j
Descriptionof Waste Management System...............................................................
Administrationand Funding.......................................................................................v
Administration.................................................................................................v
FundingRequirements....................................................................................v
1.
Introduction .............................................................* ............................
1-1
1.1
1.2
1 .3
2.
3.
Background................................................................................................... 1-1
Objectives...................................................................................................... i-i
Methodology................................................................................................ 1-2
Municipalities and Island Communities Existing Conditions .......... 2-1
2.1
Overview....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
UrbanAreas................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 Campbell River................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.2 Comox..............................................................................................2-3
2 .2.3 Courtenay........................................................................................2-4
2.2.4 Cumberland..................................................................................... 2-5
2 .3
Rural Areas...................................................................................................2-6
2 .3.1 Gold River........................................................................................ 2-6
2 .3.2 Tahsis...............................................................................................2-7
2.3.3 Zebalios............................................................................................2-8
2.3.4 Sayward and Area H ....................................................................... 2-9
2 .3.5 Urban Areas Outside Municipalities..............................................2-9
2 .4
Island Communities.................................................................................. 2-10
2.4.1 Hornby Island ............................................................................... 2-10
2 .4.2 Denman Island............................................................................... 2-11
2 .4.3 Cortes Island.................................................................................. 2-12
2 .4.4 Quadra island................................................................................ 2-13
Remote Areas............................................................................................. 2-13
2.5
2.5.1 Kyuquot.......................................................................................... 2-13
2.5.2 Government Facilities, Forestry Camps and Fish Farming....... 2-14
2 .6
First Nations .............................................................................................. 2-15
Material Quantities.................................................................................... 2-16
2.7
2 .8
Material Compositior................................................................................. 2-16
Reduction and Reuse ....................................................................... 3-1
Overview........................................................................................................ 3-1
3 .1
,2
RDC-S and Member Municipality Initiatives ............................................3-1
3
3 .2.1 8ackyard Composting.....................................................................3-i
3 .2.2 User-Pay Initiatives......................................................................... 3-1
3.2.3 Reduction and Reuse Education....................................................3-2
3.2.4 Reuse and Repair Centres...............................................................3-2
3.2.5 Procurement Policies......................................................................3-2
3.2.6 Waste Audits and Reduction Plans for ICI Establishments.........3-4
3.2.7 Differential Tip Fees and Disposal Bans..................................................3-6
vi
TASLE OF CONTENTS
3 .3
3 .4
•
•
4.
Public Education and Promotion Programs.....................................4-1
Overview.......................................................................................................4-1
Provincial and Federal Governments.........................................................4-1
4 .2.1 British Columbia Ministiy of Education........................................4-1
4 .2.2 Eco Education BC............................................................................4-1
4 .2.3 Environmental Choice Program.....................................................4-1
Existing Conditions......................................................................................4-2
4.3
4. 3 . ' Regional District of Comox-Strathcona.........................................4-2
4 .3.2 Municipalities and Island Communities........................................4-5
4. 3 .3 Local Non-Governmental Organizations.......................................4-5
Waste Management Survey.........................................................................4-5
4.4
F
uture
Actions: Proposed RDC-S Education and Promotion Program..,4-6
4.
4.5.1 Allocate Adequate Staff Time and Budget to Education and Promotion
..........................................................................................................4-7
4.5.2 Target Programs to Specific Audiences ........................................4-8
4 .5 . 3 Prepare a 3-Year E&P Plan............................................................4-8
4 .5 . 4 Coordinate E&P Activities with Municipalities and Other Service
Providers..........................................................................................4-9
5
Maintain
a Consistent "Look" for the Program........................... 4-10
4 .5 .
4.5.6 Use a Variety of Communication Methods.................................. 4-10
4 .5 . 7 Develop aWebsite..........................................................................4-10
4.5.8 Keep Records of Efforts................................................................ 4-11
4 .5 . 9 Evaluate the Impact of E&P Programs........................................ 4-11
4 .5.10 Use Community Resources........................................................... 4-11
4.5.11 Cross-Promote Solid Waste Management Activities.................. 4-12
4 .5.12 Maintain Telephone Hotline Number.......................................... 4-12
4.5.13 Seek Funding Opportunities..........................................................4-13
Material Collection and Recycling .................................................... 5-1
Overview........................................................................................................5-i
5 .1
5 .1.1 Program Objectives..........................................................................5-1
5 .1.2 Recycling Service Designations......................................................5-1
5.i. 3 Priority Materials ............................................................................5-2
5.1.4 Waste Management Survey Results...............................................5-3
Existing Conditions......................................................................................5-3
5 .2
5 .2.1 Industry Product Stewardship Programs......................................5-3
5 .2.2 Residential Programs......................................................................5-4
5.2.3 IC! Programs ...................................................................................5-6
Options and Planned Actions......................................................................5-8
5 .3
5.3.1 Increasing the Number of MMDD Depots ....................................
4 .1
4 .2
5.
Senior Government Programs ....................................................................3-7
3.3.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................3-7
Future Actions............................................................................................ 3-10
3.4.1 Backyard Composting................................................................... 3-10
3.4.2 User-Pay Initiatives....................................................................... 3-10
3 .4 .3 Reduction and Reuse Education ..................................................3-10
3 .4 .4 Reuse and Repair Centres............................................................. 3-10
3 .4 .5 Procurement Policies .................................................................... 3-10
3.4.6 Waste Audits and Reduction Plans for ICT Establishments....... 3-11
3 .4 . 7 Differential Tip Fees and Disposal Bans...................................... 3-12
3.4.8 Senior Government Programs...................................................... 3-12
5.3.2 Conve rting to the Haul-All Depot System .....................................5-9
6.3.3 Enhancing Plastics Recycling ...................................................... 5-z2
6.3.4 Enhancing Mixed Waste Paper Recycling ................................... 5-12
6.3.6 Enhancing Office Paper Recycling ............................................... 5-13
Processing, Markets, and Market Development ...............................6-i
6.x
6.2
Overview .......................................................................................................6-x
Processing ...................................................................................................6-i
6.2.1
6 .2.2
6.3
Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 6-i
Future Actions ............................................. ................................6-3
Markets .........................................................................................................6-3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
Newspaper .......................................................................................6-3
Cardboard ........................................................................................6-4
Office Paper ..................................................................................... 6-4
6.3.4 Oid Magazines .................................................................................6-4
6.3.5
6.3.6
Mixed Paper .....................................................................................6-4
CIear and Coloured Glass ...............................................................6-4
6.3.7 Metal ...................,.... ....................................................................6-^
6.3.8 Plastics ............................................................................................. 6-6
6 .4
7.
Market Development ...................................................................................6-6
6.4.1 Overview of Market Development Measures ................................6-6
6 .4.2 Provincial Government Responsibilities ....................................... 6-7
6.6
Future Actions .............................................................................................6-8
6..i Regional District of Comox Strathcona and Local Government
Responsibilities... ........................................................................6-8
Composting 7- 1
7.1
Overview ........................................................................................................7-x
7.1.1 The Composting Process ................................................................7-1
7.1.2 Provincial Composting Regulations ...............................................7-z
7.2
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1 Regional District of Comox-Strathcona Programs .......................7-2
7.2.2 Waste Management Survey ............................................................ 7-4
7.2.3 Municipalities and Island Communities .......................................7-6
7.2.4 Private Composting Facilities ......................................................... 7-6
7.3
Planned Actions .......................................................................................... 7-7
i
HouseholdHazardous Waste ...........................................................8-i
8.f
Overview .......................................................................................................8-1
8.2
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 8-i
8 .2.1 Provincial Programs ........................................................................ 8-^
8.2.2 Regional District and Other Programs ..........................................8-3
Survey and Case Studies ..............................................................................8-4
8.3
8.3.1 Waste Management Survey ........................................:...................8-4
8.3.2 Case Studies .....................................................................................8-5
8.4
Future Actions .............................................................................................8-7
8 .4.1 Annual HHW Cleanup Events ........................................................8-8
8.4.2 Batteries ...........................................................................................8-8
8.4.3 Other initiatives ..............................................................................8-8
Demolition, Land Clearing, and Construction Waste .......................9-1
9•
9.1
Overview ...................................................................................................... g-I
9.2
DLC Legislation and Regulations ............................................................... g-1
9.2.1 Waste Management Act ................................................................. 9-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DLC Stakeholder Committees ....................................................................9-2
9.3.1 Provincial Demolition Materials Diversion Strategy (British Columbia)
..9-2
9.3.2 Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste Reduction
AdisorvCommittee (Alberta).......................................................9-3
Impediments
to Expansion of 3Rs Activities.............................................9-3
9 .4
DLC Material Markets.................................................................................9-4
9 .5
9.5.1 Wood................................................................................................9-4
9.5.2 Concrete and Asphalt......................................................................9-5
9 . 5. 3 Gypsum............................................................................................9-6
9.6
Private DLC Landfills ..................................................................................9-6
9.6.1 Surgenor Sand and Gravel Ltd.......................................................9-6
9.6.2 Upland Excavating Ltd....................................................................9-7
Future Actions.............................................................................................9-8
9 . 7
Transfer and Landfill Options ....................................................... b-i
10.1
Regulatory Overview..................................................................................10-1
10,2 Landfill Quantities and Capacities.............................................................to-i
10.3 Transfer & Landfill by Community...........................................................10-3
10,3.1 Campbell River Regional Landfill ................................................10-3
10.3.2 Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill....................................................10-7
10.3.3 Sayward Landfill............................................................................10-9
10.3.4 Cortes Island Landfill and Transfer Station................................10-9
10.3.5 Hornby Island Landfill and Transfer Station..............................10-9
10.3.6 Gold River Landfill and Transfer Station ....................................10-9
10.3.7 Tahsis Landfill ..............................................................................b-u
10.3.8 Zebailos Landfill...........................................................................10-12
10.3.9 Kypquot and Area G....................................................................10-13
10.4 RDC-5 Closure/Post-Closure Fund........................................................10-13
Administration and Funding .......................................................... 11-1
11.1
Administration............................................................................................11-I
11.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................11-1
11.1.2 Recommended Roles and Responsibilities..................................11-2
11.1.3 Staffing...........................................................................................11-2
11.2
Funding.......................................................................................................11-3
11.2.1 Funding Methods..........................................................................11-3
11.2.2 Funding Requirements .................................................................11-3
9 .3
10.
ii.
Appendices
Appendix A British Columbia Industry Product Stewardship Programs
Tables
Table E-i
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 3-1
Table 8-i
Table 8-2
Table io-i
Table 10-2
Table 10-3
Table 10-4
Table 11-1
Table 11-2
Table 11-3
PlanFunding Options (in 2001$) ...................................................................v
ResidentialRefuse Collection in the RDC-S .............................................. 2-1
RDC-S Summary Statistics for 1994 and 2000 .......................................2-17
Historic Per-capita Generation, 3Rs and Disposal.................................. 2-18
2000 Generation, 3Rs, Disposal............................................................... 2-19
Differential Tipping Fees at Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake Regional
Landfills........................................................................................................3..7
PPC/CPSP and TSA Depots........................................................................ 8-2
Edmonton Eco Station Rates (All fees must be paid in cash) ..................8-6
ForecastDisposal By Area (In Tonnes).................................................... 10-2
Service Area and Year of Closure for Existing Landfills......................... 10-3
Tipping Fees for Waste Disposal at the Campbell River and
Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfills (Effective august i, 2001) .................. 10-4
RDC-S Landfill Closure Costs................................................................. 10-13
PlanFunding Options (In 2001$) ............................................................."-3
RDC-S Solid Waste Revenues and Expenses (2 001$): Option 1 CurrentProperty Tax Levels......................................................................nRDC-S Solid Waste Revenues and Expenses (2 001$): option 2 PropertyTaxes as Recommended in 1995 Plan........................................ 11-6
Figures
Figure4-1
Figure4-2
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure 8-1
Environmental Choice EcoLogo.................................................................4-2
Zero Waste Wednesday Advertisement.....................................................4-4
Multi Material Drop-off Depot Annual Tonnages from 1998-200 1
Estimate.......................................................................................................5-6
City of Calgary Recyclables Collected 1995-2000 ................................... 5-10
Why did you start composting (those who compost)
(Praxis Inc., 2001) .......................................................................................7-4
Reason for not composting (those who do not compost)
(Praxis Inc., 2001) .......................................................................................7-5
Where did you dispose of used liquid chemicals? (those that dispose
ofliquid waste) (Praxis Inc., 2001) .............................................................8-5
SR's
The fi rst "3R's" of the "5R-hierarchy" of waste management: reduce,
reuse, recycle, recover, and residuals management.
B-train
Waste transfer trailer configuration where two transfer trailers are
pulled by a single tractor unit.
Ban
The forbidding of the disposal or certain recyclable materials from
waste disposal facilities. This is usually enforced through municipal or
regional bylaws.
Biosolids
Bylaws
Residual sludge from wastewater treatment plant operations.
A Iaw passed by a municipality or regional district.
Capture The percentage of available material collected from customers
provided with a solid waste management service (e.g., blue box
recycling, organics waste collection, backyard composting).
Composting
The process of controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes
that are separated fr om the waste stream either at the source or in the
initial stages of a recovery process. This includes backyard,
neighbourhood, and regional facilities.
Contaminated Soil Soil that is contaminated with substances that provincial government
policies and regulations do not allow to be deposited in a municipal
landfill.
Database
An information system (usually computerized) that can be quickly
accessed.
Deposit/Refund
System
A system of purchase whereby a deposit is added to the retail price of
an item or product, and the deposit is refunded upon return of that
item or product to point-of-purchase after use.
Disposable
Any product or material that is designated to be thrown away.
Disposal Fee The fee charged at designated disposal and recovery facilities for the
disposal of waste. These are usually applied as " dollars per tor ► ne" of
wasted disposal.
Diversion
The recycling or composting of materials that would otherwise have
been disposed of in a landfill.
Demolition, Land
Clearing and
The sector of the waste stream originating from the construction and
demolition industry and from waste left after land clearing operations.
Construction
(DLC)
Dry Recyclables
Recyclable materials, excluding organics and food.
x^^
GLOSSARY
Ferrous Metal
Metal containing iron.
Generators
Sources of waste generation, typically used to refer to the residential or
the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) sectors.
Geotextile
Any permeable textile used with foundation, soil, rock, earth, or any
other geotechnical engineering-related material as an integral part of a
structure or system.
Household
Hazardous Waste
(HHW)
A substance and any products used to contain it which is explosive,
corrosive, flammable, reactive, and/or toxic. This waste originates
from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources in
quantities of less than 5 kg or 5 litres over 30 days.
Industrial,
Commercial,
Institutional (ICI)
The sector of the total solid waste stream that originates from small
manufacturing and processing and transportation industries, such as
governments, hospitals, and educational institutions.
Island
Communities
The communities of Denman Island, Flornby island, Cortes Island,
and Quadra Island.
Leachate
The liquid effluent produced by the action of precipitation percolating
through a landfill. May contain traces of any materials disposed of in
the landfill.
Legislation
Laws passed by the Federal or Provincial Government.
Manufacturer
Responsibility
The principle in which manufacturers as well as consumers of products
and packages are responsible for the costs of managing those products
and packages throughout their entire life cycle.
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF)
A facility at which recyclable materials are separated into individual
commodities using varying degrees of mechanized and hand-sorting.
MWLAP
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
The discarded materials, substances, or objects which originate from
Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) residential, light industrial, commercial and institutional sources,
including semi-solid sludges, household hazardous wastes and any
other substances which are typically disposed of in municipal-type
landfills. MSW does not include special waste or biomedical waste.
Non-Ferrous Metal A metal not containing iron.
Organic Waste
The part of the waste stream that consists solely of animal or vegetable
matter and can typically be used to create compost.
Post-Consumer
Material
Any material produced for consumption that has served its intended
use and has been separated from municipal solid waste for the purpose
of recycling.
Potential
Generation
Projected quantity of waste generated in the absence of any efforts to
reduce waste.
GLOSSARY
Problem Waste
Any material product which presents a problem in its recycling,
recovery, or disposal. Present examples include gypsum wallboard,
automobile tires, batteries, and household appliances.
ProcessIng
The receiving, sorting, cleaning, and packaging of recyclabies so that
they are ready for shipment to end markets.
Processor
Firms that purchase recyclable wastes from intermediate processors or
directly from waste generators, reclaim the usable portion, and provide
these materials to remanufacturers or use them in their own
manufacturing process.
Procurement
Policy
Policy that guides the purchasing of services and materials. It is a
mechanism that can be used to favour the purchase of materials that
contain a recycled content.
Recyclable
Material
(Recyclable)
Material for which appropriate processing technology exists to create a
product which has a beneficial enduse and a stable market.
Recycle The process of source separating from the solid waste stream products
that are no longer usable in their present form and that can be used in
the manufacture of new products. This includes composting.
Reduce
The decreasing of the volume, weight, or toxicity of materials that
enter the solid waste stream. This includes activities that result in
greater ease of efficiency or reuse of a product or recycling of
materials.
Remanufacturers
Firms that use materials reclaimed from waste to manufacture new
products with recycled content. Few of these products are ma percent
recycled material; most contain a mixture of reclaimed and virgin
material.
Residuals Waste that requires handling in a disposal facility (e.g., incinerator or
landfill). This may be non-recyclable waste materials from a recycling
processing or composting operation.
Reuse
The repeated use of a product in the same form but not necessarily for
the same purpose.
Secondary
Material that technically can be reused as a raw material in the
Materials
manufacture of a new product.
Solid Waste
Stream
Source Reduction
. The aggregate of all solid waste components,. and also the process
through which they move from paint of generation to ultimate
disposal.
An activity that eliminates or decreases the generation of waste. For
the purposes of this plan, source reduction also includes backyard
composting.
Source Separation The separation of recyclables from the solid waste stream at the source
of generation (typically in the home or workplace) so that recyclable
material is kept clean and marketability is improved.
xv
GLOSSARY
Special Waste
Dangerous goods, as defined in the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Regulations of Canada, that are wastes intended for treatment,
disposal, or storage. Does not include sewage or refuse collected on
behalf of a municipality from residential premises. Term is frequently
used interchangeabIy with "hazardous waste."
Tipping Fee
Same as disposal fee
Toxic
A substance that tends to destroy life or impair health.
Transfer Station
An intermediate facility in the waste system where local waste
collection vehicles deliver their loads for further trans-shipment in
larger waste hauling vehicles to final disposal.
User-pay Principle The concept whereby the more waste a generator produces, the more it
will cost that generator.
Waste
Composition
The characterization and qualification of the substances and materials
that make up the waste stream.
Waste Exchange
A service whereby people can list, leave, or pick-up materials and
products without charge.
Waste
Minimization
Reducing the quantity of waste requiring disposal through waste
reduction, reuse, or recycling. Also referred to in this strategy as the
sum total of reduction, reuse, and recycling as a percentage of potential
generation.
xv
1.
Introduction
The Regional District of Comox-Strathcona (RDC-S) retained CH2M HILL in 2000 to
update the regional district's Solid Waste Management Plan. This plan update addresses
existing conditions within the RDC-S, forecasting tonnages and costs, and actions that the
RDCS will implement in the future.
:T;;!LiI1.11I.D
The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks (MOELP) established
guidelines in June 1990 for preparation of Solid Waste Management Plans by Regional
Districts. These guidelines were prepared in response to the enactment of Bill 58, The
Province of British Columbia Waste Management Amendment Act (August, 1989). In
addition to establishing these guidelines, the Province had set a goal of reducing solid waste
disposal by 50 percent by the year 2000.
In accordance with MOELP planning guidelines, the RDCS conducted a three-stage solid
waste management plan in the mid-iggos. Stage 2, completed in 1995, built on the analysis
conducted during Stage 1, which was approved by the MOELP in March 1993. Stage 2
included the evaluation o solid waste management options and recommended options for
inclusion in the solid waste management plan. Stage 3, completed in 1995, centred on the
preparation of the solid waste management plan and implementation.
1.2
Objectives
The overall purpose is to update the RDC-S Solid Waste Management Plan and outline the
future course of solid waste management in the District. The update will rely on the format
and much of the information that is included in the Stage 2 Report of the District's existing
solid waste management plan, dated January 1995, and on additional analysis as necessary
to determine the best way to address the challenges of the future.
Specific objectives of the Plan Update remain consistent with those outlined in the 1995
Plan. They include:
a The plan should be developed in an open, public process. The vehicle for this process will
include the formation of a 'virtual committee" of stakeholders who will provide
comments and guidance on each section of the plan. In a series of public open houses,
local businesses and residents will be asked to provide feedback on the draft Plan
Update.
a The plan must adopt strategies that promote pollution prevention and sound resource
management. To the extent practicable, the plan should follow the polluter pay principle,
wherein consumers and producers of products and packages that become waste must be
responsible and accountable for the cost of managing the wastes they generate.
a Evaluations should be done on the basis of three major criteria: ability to divert waste
from disposal, environmental and social impacts, and cost effectiveness.
11
t NTRODtJCTION
• Effective, ongoing, two-way communication between the RDC-S and local residents,
businesses, and institutions is crucial to the success of the plan.
Education and promotion of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling is critical to the
this solid waste management plan. The plan must ensure that the benefits
associated with reducing wastes going to landfills are communicated to all sectors of
society, particularly to youth through the schools.
success of
• All landfills in the RDC-S will be developed and operated in conformance with the B.C.
Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste (Criteria), except when environmental and
economic conditions are such that exemption to one or more aspects of the Criteria is
warranted.
The plan must recognize regional differences and allow for flexible implementation of
options tailored to the needs of specific communities in the RDC-S.
Information about existing programs was obtained using a comprehensive system of
telephone interviews and site visits. Information was collected about all aspects of existing
waste management practices from representatives of senior and provincial governments, the
regional district, local municipalities and island communities, private hauling and recycling
companies, and non-government organizations (NGOs).
Estimates of existing and past reduction, reuse, and recycling (3Rs), disposal and generation
were prepared using the best information available. Waste composition information was
prepared using analysis conducted for the 1995 Plan. Analysis of future options was
conducted using information from current RDC-S programs, telephone conversations with
knowledgeable industry persons, published data, and cost and diversion data from
CH2M HILL's files.
CH2M HILL obtained cost, quantity, and capacity estimates for each landfill, along with
recyclable quantities and information about existing collection and transfer programs in the
regional district from the RDC-S Population forecasts were obtained from the B.C. Ministry
of Management Services.
'iu Iii riii IIIrf I isiIflEaiIsLIti] iii iiI!IiIE
Ii1!TLo1iIi IEIi.iii
2A
Overview
This section provides a discussion of existing refuse collection and disposal, recycling and
reuse opportunitIes, composting initiatives, program promotion and education, and the
future direction of RDC-S municipalities and island community members. It also presents
current estimates and forecasts of future quantities of materials generated, reduced, reused,
rec y cled, and disposed.
A brief summaiy of residential refuse collection service in the regional district is shown
Table 2-1.
Tab'e 2-1
Residential Refuse ColIecton in the RDC-S
Location
Population
Can Limit
Extra Can Charge
Hauler
Campbell River
31,253
2 can limit
$1.42 per coupon
Salish Disposal
Comax
12,252
2 can limit
$2.00 per ticket
Salish Disposal
Courtenay
15,803
2 can limit
$1.25 per sticker
Salish Disposal
Cumberland
2,718
2 can limit
No additional charge
Sun Coast Waste
1,724
2 can limit
Self-haul to transfer
station
Canadian Waste
794
2 can limit
Urban Areas
Rural Areas
Gold Piver
Tahsis
Do not collect mere than Municipality Employee
two cans, self-haul to
landfill at no charge
Zeballes
196
_________________ _______________
lcan limit
$1.50 per sticker
Public Works
Department
Sayward & Area H
496
2 can limit
$1.50 per sticker
Canadian Waste
Hornby Island
1,037
Full user pay system
$2.00 per bag
Salish Disposal
Denman Island
1,1163
Full user pay system •$2.00 per ticket
Island Communities
Sun Coast Waste
Cortes Island
987
2 can limit
Self-haul to transfer
station, no charge
Cortes Waste Hauling
Quadra Island
2,722
n.a.
na,
Coastal Waste
2-
2. MUMCIPALITIES AND ISLAND CCMMIINITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.2.1
Campbell River
Refuse Collection and Disposal
The District of Campbell River recently awarded a refuse collection and hauling contract to
Salish Disposal from May 2001 to December 31, 2006. At the District of Campbell River, an
estimated 4,386 tonnes were collected in 2000 from 8,354 households and duplexes and
sent to the Campbell River Regional Landfill. Multi-family residents and the Industrial,
Commercial, Institutional (ICI) sector make their own arrangements for collection. Waste is
collected once a week for residents and there is a two-can weekly limit which was established
in 1995. Coupons for 12 extra bags can be purchased at the municipal hail for $17. The
District encourages residents to place bags in garbage cans for easier collection by the rear
end loader.
During the winter of 2000, a pilot project looked at biweekly collection of refuse. The pilot
was successful, and the District plans to change to biweekly refuse collection with a
maximum of four bags/cans per pick-up in October 2001.
Recycling and Reuse Opportunities
Vancouver island Recycling operates a RDC-S-sponsored recycling depot in Campbell River
that accepts materials included in the Multi-Material Drop-off Depot (MMDD) program and
office paper. Island Bottle and Recycling operates a depot that accepts beverage containers,
mixed paper, non-ferrous metal, and automotive batteries. In addition, there are several
private recycling services available to residents. The CR Returns Recycling depot, owned and
operated by the Campbell River Recycling Society, closed in 1997.
Curbside collection of recyclabies is offered by Go Green, World Wise Recycling, and Salish
Disposal. Materials accepted include tin, glass, aluminum, all recyclable paper, egg cartons,
#1 and #2 plastics, and toys and clothing in good condition.
in 2001, the District of Campbell River issued a tender for collection services. The options
included implementing a blue box program. The District decided not to implement a blue
box program, largely because of the added costs compared to the current system. Campbell
River currently works with the RDC-S to encourage recycling through the MMDD Program.
Local MMDD bins are located at the Campbell River Sportsplex, Strathcona Gardens
Recreation Complex, and Discovery Mall. Another MMDD bin is located south of Campbfl
River along Highway 19 at the Oyster River Fire Hall in Black Creek. Residents can also
deliver ONP for recycling to 15 three-yard bins at selected locations in the Campbell River
area.
The Campbell River Refund Centre acts as the official collection point for household
hazardous waste and paint products.
Composting Initiatives
The District of Campbell River cross-promotes the RDC-S backyard composter sales and
public education initiatives. The Campbell River Regional Landfill accepts compostable yard
waste (e.g., grass and leaves). Renewable Resources, a local private facility, composts wood,
fish offal, grass and leaves.
2. MUMOPALITS AND SLAND COMMUNfl]ES EXS11NG CUNDTrc
Program Promotion and Public Education
The District of Campbell River offers links to local recycling information on their website
(www.dcr.be.ca ). The Campbell River Recycling Society also has a website with links to
information about waste reduction and recycling.
Future Direction
After implementing the noted changes to its refuse collection system, the District does not
plan any major program changes over the next five years.
2.2.2
Comox
Salish Disposal is under contract to the Municipality to collect waste from all residential
locations, and to haul that waste to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill. West Coast's frontend loader trucks provide weekly service to about 3,150 single-family households in Comox.
The single-family waste collected by West Coast is set out in bags and cans.
Salish Disposal operates the RDC-S's designated staffed recycling depot for the Comox
Valley. The Town of Comox encourages participation in the RDC-S's MMDD system, where
residents can drop-off recyclables at Canex CFB Comox, Quality Foods, and the Comox Mall.
There are also twO three-yard bins to which residents can deliver ONP for recycling.
The Comox Return Centre provides refunds for all beverage containers including juice,
water, pop, wine and spirits In glass, plastic, metal or Tetra Paks. It also acts as.the Comox
Valley's Paint and Paint Product Return Centre.
Comox currently composts leaves and grass that residents who show proof or residency
drop-off at the works yard from 8:oo a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. The feedstock is
placed in windrows and turned ocèasionally. Processing takes up to two years. No permits
are in place for this facility, and no equipment is specifically dedicated to it. Approximately
300 yd is processed annually by the facility, which has a capacity of about ioo tonnes per
year. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated by the municipality to be
$1,500. The end product is used by Comox's parks department for the cultivation of plant
beds around town.
All programs are supported by word of mouth.
Future Direction
Comox foresees no changes at this time; however, program modifications will occur as the
population increases.
2. MUNICIPALTES AND SNID CC1MUNTIES EXST1NG OCHOITIONS
2.2.3
Courtenay
Salish Disposal is under contract to collect all residential and ICI waste in Courtenay, and
provides weekly service to about 5,000 single-family households. There is a weekly limit of
two 77-litre garbage receptacles with maximum weight of 25 kg each. The galvanized steel,
plastic, or rubber receptacles must be no more than 6o cm in diameter and 90 cm deep. A
maximum of four 50-litre garbage bags (maximum weight i6 kg) over the. two-can limit will
also be removed if they have a garbage sticker attached to them. Stickers may be purchased
at City Hall for 51.25 each. Multi-family residents and the ICT sector have private contracts
with Salish Disposal. The City of Courtenay has established the following fixed collection
rates for refuse: 57.50/month for households plus 81.25/ additional bag, S6.o/ month for
apartment units, and 51.37 to S37o for commercial containers. All residuals are hauled to
the Pidgeon LakeRegional Landfill.
Iii June 2000, Courtenay started a curbside blue bag recycling program that collects plastic
milk jugs, metal food containers, mixed waste paper, newspapers and magazines, and
cardboard and boxboard. Salish Disposal collects recyclables biweekly, on the same day as
garbage day, in dedicated, side-loading trucks All households pay 512 per year from City
taxes towards this program. Multi-family, strata, patio homes, apartments, and commercial
units can participate in this program by placing approved blue bags of rec yclables in the
commercial cardboard container on the property. The City estimates that fewer than
50 percent of households are using this service, and as of June 1, 2001, iy6 tonnes of
recyclables had been collected and diverted from the. landfill.
Courte nay residents can also drop-off recyclables at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill, at
local RDC-S MMDD sites at Thrifty Foods, Courtenay Country Market, and Driftwood Mali,
or at one of the six three-yard ONP recycling bins. In addition, one MMDD bin is located just
south of Courtenay along Highway 19 at the Royston Shell Station. Contrary to what might
be expected, after implementation of the Courtenay curbside collection program, tonnages at
the three MMDD bins in Courtenay increased. Total recyclables delivered to those three bins
were 17 percent higher during the January to May 2001 period than ii theJanuary to May
2000. period. It's possible that the.new program increased overall awareness of recycling.
Several private recycling firms operate in the Courtenay area, including Go Green and
Evergreen Recycling. These firms offer business and residential collection of recyclables for a
fee. The Journey Program also provides an office paper collection service to local businesses,
schools, and government offices for a fee. Comox Valley CARE (Citizens Action for Recycling
and the Environment) volunteers assist with the RDC-S's Spring Clean Up Day, when
household hazardous wastes are collected. The, Courtenay Return Centre prbvides. refunds
for all beverage containers including juice, water, pop, wine, spirits in glass, plastic, metal or
Tetra Paks.
The City of Courtenay has no composting programs, but it supports the RDC-S's backyard
composter and public education initiative.
Pidgeon Lake accepts compostable yard waste (e.g., leaves and grass).
2.4
2. MUNICIPALITIES ANC ISLANC COMMUNITIES EXISTING C0tUlflo
The City of Courtenay produced io,000 "Semi-Transparent Blue Bag Curbside Recycling
Program" brochures for S6,000 to assist in program promotion. On the last Friday of each
month a one-quarter page city newsletter is published in local newspapers (e.g., The Echo
and The Record) to update citizens.
Future Direction
In the future, the City may extend the curbside collection service to include glass and
plastics.
2.2.4
Cumberland
Sun Coast Waste was recently selected by the Village to collect refuse from 900 single family
residents until 2003. Residents can set out maximum of two — 77 L containers per week.
Additional refuse must be labelled with a sticker, which can be purchased at the Village
offices and attached for collection. Salish Disposal collects dumpsters from multi-family
residents and local businesses.
Cumberland residents and businesses have access to the RDC-S recycling drop-off services
available throughout the Comox Valley, as described above. Evergreen Recycling offers
curbside collection service to residents and businesses for a fee. Recyclables can be dropped
off by residents at the MMDD located at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill and at the RDCS sponsored staffed depot (operated by Salish Disposal) which is located in Cumberland.
Comox Valley Auto Recyclers is located on Royston Road.
Cumberland hosts an Annual Community Clean-up, when residents can bring in stored
materials for disposal, with the exception of household hazardous waste and other toxic
materials.
Composting initiatives
Cumberland supports the RDG-S's backyard composter sales and composting education
program.
A supplementary flyer is added to the annual tax notice to provide information about waste
collection and reduction opportunities. Flyers are also sent to residents for special events
such as the Community Clean-Up.
Future Direction
Eventually, the Village would like to move toward curbside collection of recyclables;
however, there does not appear to be sufficient support in the community for such a
program. In general, Village residents appear satisfied with the current direction of solid
waste initiatives.
2-J
2. MUN1CIPALJT1ES AND SLAND COMMUNITIES EXJSTING CONDTCNS
23
Rural Areas
2.3.1
Gold River
Refuse CoHection and Disposal
The Village of Gold River collects residential waste on a weekly basis. A two-can maximum is
enforced, and excess waste must be dropped off at the depot for $75/T (minimum charge
s3.5o). This facility is open to the public Wednesday to Sunday from 10:00 a.m. - 2:45 p.m.
The RDC-S contracts with Canadian Waste to transport waste from Gold River's 40-yd bins
to the Campbell River Landfill. A new village bylaw approved in 2001 requires residents to
have a garbage can with a lid, a requirement that was invoked to assist with keeping the
neighbourhood clean and in the hope of deterring bears. Businesses contract with the Village
of Gold River for the rental of two cubic yard bins and waste collection from a twice weekly
to an as-needed basis. However, restaurants must have waste collected weekly during the
summer.
The Gold River Landfill was closed to residential and commercial refuse in 1998, with the
exception of wood chips and yard waste, which is transported to the Campbell River
Regional Landfill for disposal.
Gold River has three MMDD bins that collect newspaper, magazines, mixed paper, glass,
metal food cans, boxboard and cardboard. These facilities are located at Paviess Gas, at the
Arena and Community Centre, and at the Drop-off Depot. Canadian Waste collects these
materials and transport them to Campbell River for marketing.
Gold River has a staffed recycling depot at the old materials recovery site where residents
can drop-off MMDD materials and deliver car batteries, tires, scrap metal, and paint
products. Residents who wish to dispose of or pick-up items that are in good condition may
do so at free store located at this site.
A voluntary Gold River office paper collection started in 1999. The Village of Gold River
office, Western Forest Products, local pulp mills, and schools all collect office paper in clear
plastic bags to be sent to market. The Village offers a commercial cardboard collection to
customers twice a month at a charge of 845 per month 825 for monthly rental of two yd 3 bin
and S2o for two pick-ups. In a program that resulted from the '999 landfill cardboard ban,
cardboard is sent by truck to the Lower Mainland for processing.
Beverage containers are collected at the depot. Once a month, alternating community groups
(e.g., Boys Scouts, Lions Club, hockey teams) are given the opportunity to return the
containers for a refund.
The Gold River drop-off depot does not accept household hazardous wastes, which must be
delivered by residents to a Provincial collection depot.
The Village of Gold River promotes the RDC-S backyard composter program and sells
composters at the village office. In order to deter bears, the Village recommends that
residents not add food waste to the units. For those residents who do not have composters,
the Village accepts yard and garden prunings, small branches (up to 8"), grass clippings, and
leaves at the drop-off depot. These materials are composted at the old landfill site, even
2. MUNIc1PAUT1S AND SLANC COMMUNFIIES EXISTG CONETO
though no official composting program is in place. The end product is used at the landfill and
for filling holes around the village. Wood chips are also accepted at the landfill as cover
material.
Gold River produces a flyer two to three times per year, and the Boy Scouts deliver the flyers
to roughly 600 households at an estimated cost of $500 annually. These flyers may also be
jointly produced with other environmental issues (e.g., water conservation). The Village also
occasionally uses the local newspaper for program promotion.
Future Direction
The Village will continue to assess various options for garbage collection and for handling
waste delivered from West Coast communities.
The Village transfer station is a temporary facility that requires some improvements to make
it a long-term operation.
2.3.2
Tahsis
The Municipality of Tahsis has one employee who collects waste from 300 households on
Wednesday and 12 businesses on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, for disposal at the Tahsis
landfill. A local bylaw states that a maximum of two bags/cans of waste per week can be set
out for collection; however, most residents only have one. In 1998, the Tahsis Landfill's
closure was extended to 2023.
During Clean Up Week in May, residents can dispose of large items (e.g., appliances and
furniture), wood, and yard waste. Residents can also schedule large item pick-ups at no
charge throughout the year.
A recycling drop-off facility located outside the Public Works Yard collects mixed paper,
newsprint, tin and aluminum, glass, milk jugs, hard and soft plastics, batteries, used oil, and
household hazardous waste from residents and the commercial sector. A local building
supplier bales and transports recyclables on an as-needed basis to Vancouver Island
Recycling in Campbell River.
An unsupervised Free Store, located outside the Public Works Yard, is open to residents
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Household hazardous waste collection takes place once a year.
Tahsis supports the RDC-S's backyard composting and education program.
Program promotion takes place through word of mouth.
2 MUNICIPALITIES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONcUTIONS
Future Direction
Where Tahsis will go from here is undecided at the moment. The decisions depend on public
demand which, in turn, is tied to finances and to the status of Doman Western Lumber Ltd.'s
mill, which is currently closed.
2.3.3
Zebaflos
The Public Works Department collects residential refuse from roughly ioo locations and
transports it in a side loader to the Zeballos landfill. fri 1998, a one container per week limit
was established for households, with stickers for additional waste available for $1.50 per
container at the Village Office. The Public Works Department collects residential waste on
Thursday and from 10 commercial sites on Monday. Because it is necessary to keep the
Village as clean as possible to deter bears, residential waste may also be collected on Monday
during the fall.
The Village has several concerns regarding the Zeballos landfill. As the landfill is not fenced
or manned, there is concern about bears entering the site and about individuals who do not
live in the Village dropping waste off without paying for the service. The Village would also
like RDC-S assistance to purchase a new garbage truck.
The Village and the RDC-S are considering entering into a contract with a wood processing
company (All Brawn Industries) which would conduct operations at the landfill site. The
firm would make use of compostable materials delivered to the site as part of its operations,
recover and market other recyclables, and keep the landfill in an orderly manner with daily
supervisions. A gate would be installed at the landfill. It is hoped that this arrangement
might address some of the Village's concerns about the landfill operation.
There is one drop-off depot in the Public Works Yard for recyciables. This facility is open
from lo:oo am - 11:00 am on Saturdays and is manned by Solid Waste Action Team
(SWAT) volunteers. Residential cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, tin, glass, and milk jugs
are collected along with cardboard from local businesses. The RDC-S pays the Zebailos
General Store to transport recyclables to Campbell River.
The Zeballos General Store refunds bottle returns and accepts tin.
Semi-annually, once in the spring and once in the faIl, there is a pick-up large household
items (e.g., couch, stove). Taxpayers pay for this service, and SWAT volunteers organize the
event.
Composting lnitiatives
Zebalios promotes and sells anaerobic Busch Industries backyard composters.
An add is placed in The Privateer four times per year reminding residents to recycle and
three times a year flyers are printed to remind residents of solid waste topics. SWAT
volunteers .speak at school and help with flyer drops.
25
2. MUNICiPALETEES AND ISLAM} COMMUNITIES EXISTENG CONoITia
Future Direction
The main issues that the Village would like to address are improving operations at the
Zeballos landfill and eventually replacing the Village garbage truck.
2.3.4
Sayward and Area H
Canadian Waste recently renewed its refuse collection contract with the RDC-S until March
2 00 4. Approximately 215 residential pick-ups take place by side loader on Thursday. All
waste is collected in either bags or cans and is transported to the Campbell River Regional
Landfill. A limit of two bags/cans is in place, and stickers for anything that exceeds this limit
can be purchased for S1.5o each from the Canadian Waste driver. Households pay 8126 a
year for refuse services — 830 for disposal and $96 for collection. Commercial locations
have refuse collected by private waste collection firms.
Recyc li ng and Reuse Opportunities
The RDC-S sponsors a Clean-up Campaign four times a year, while Sayward contributes
funds from refuse collection fees. At these events, the RDC-5 contracts with private haulers
to collect recyclables, including cardboard, boxboard, newspaper, magazines, tin cans, glass,
and some plastics. Tree trimmings and large items such as furniture and white goods are
also collected. At the event held on April 7-8, 2001250 kg of cardboard,1,080 kg of
newspaper and magazines,150 kg of glass, and 150 kg of tin and aluminum were diverted
from landfill disposal. There are no private companies offering curbside collection at this
time.
Residents interested in purchasing a backyard composter can call the Village Office or the
RDC-S to request an Earth Machine. When it is convenient, the composters are either picked
up by the Village Office or dropped off by the RDC-S.
Public notices are displayed throughout the community to promote the Clean-up Campaign.
In addition, an advertisement is published in the Sayward News two weeks before the event.
Future Direction
At this time, the Say-ward community and administration believe the current system works
well and changes are not needed. If new regulations are created, they foresee the need for
financial assistance from the RDC-S to ensure that Sayward meets any new requirements.
2.3.5
urban Areas Outside Municipalities
Solid waste collection in the areas surrounding Courtenay, Comox, and Campbell River is
provided by private collection firms on a subscription basis. Solid waste is also hauled
directly to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill and the Campbell River Regional Landfill by
residents and commercial establishments.
2^
2. MUHICIPALIPES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
Recyc'ing and Reuse Opportunities
Residents in these areas also have access to the MMDD program, the ONP bins, and the
staffed depots available to residents living in municipalities.
Residents in these areas can contact the RDC-S if they wish to purchase a backyard
composter.
Residents in these areas are included in the RDC-S's promotion and education programs.
Future Direction
These areas will continue to be served by private collection firms and the RDC-S's waste
reduction, reuse, and recycling programs.
2.4
Island Communities
24.1
Hornby Island
Salish Disposal uses rear-loading hydraulic trucks to collect waste from two 40-yard
dumpsters on Hornby Island weekly during the summer and monthly during the winter,
Roughly 250 tonneS of waste was disposed at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill during
2000. There is no curbside collection of refuse on the island for either residential o.r
commercial waste; instead, residents pay a user fee of S2 a bag at the waste transfer station,
while commercial clients pay S20 for a pick-up truck load.
The Hornby Island transfer station was redesigned with two bays and constructed in 1996
for an approximate cost of S 20,000. The Hornby Island Recycling Depot opened in 1978 and
today recycles and reuses as much as 50 percent of the Island's waste stream. In June 2001,
the program was presented with a merit award from the Recycling Council of British
Columbia for outstanding commitment to waste reduction in the province.
A wide range of recyclable items are accepted at the Depot, including many grades of paper,
vegetative food waste, yard waste, beverage containers, most plastic containers, plastic bags,
metals, glass, batteries, empty paint cans, motor oil; and tires. Four part-time employees
work from 15-25 hours a week at the Depot.
Hornby Island has a 1,500 ft2 Free Store that accepts, but is not limited to, clean clothing,
shoes, toys, books, appliances and furniture for reuse. This facility is open to the public
24 hours a day, seven days a week and is staffed by local volunteers.
The recycling program is directed by the Hornby Island Recycling Committee, under the
umbrella of the Hornby Island Residents' and Ratepayers' Association (HIRRA). The RDC-S allocates funds raised through local property taxation and through management contracts
with HIRRA, to support the Hornby community in its recycling and reuse initiatives.
2-IC
I:
2. MLJMCIPALETIES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONOIT C
Hornby Island has composted waste collected from local businesses, campgrounds and
residents since the early 1990s. A xo-foot long, two-chamber composting barrel with
receiving tray is located at the Hornby Island Recycling Depot, and a io foot by 4 foot
vermicomposter bin is also located at this site. It is estimated that 90 percent of households
have backyard composters.
A locally produced 30-minute video, "Hornby Recycles", is one method used to describe
recycling and reuse opportunities on the Island. Copies are sold for 520 at Recycling Depot
and the Co-op. Printed media are also used on occasion to commemorate local events and
promote environmental stewardship. Hornby Recycles also has information on the Hornby
Island website located at www.hornbyisland.com/Recycle/index.html and promotes
activities through The First Edition, a local newspaper.
Future Direction
Hornby Island foresees an increase in the refuse fee per bag in the future. They will also
continue to pursue different markets for glass.
2.4.2
Denman Island
Refuse Collection and disposal
Sun Coast Waste currently holds the refuse collection contract for Denman Island; however,
this service will be tendered during the fall of 2001 for a three-year contract. Waste is
collected from 550 households and island businesses weekly on Wednesday from May to
September and biweekly on Wednesday for the rest of the year. This equates to roughly
39 pick-ups annually. Rear-end loaders collected and transported 66 tonnes of waste to the
Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill in ?000.
The Denman Island system is a user-pay refuse collection system. Residents purchase tickets
at Denman Hardware for S2 per bag, while businesses pay $i per bag. For large item
disposal, residents must contact Sun Coast Waste directly to make collection arrangements.
The Denman Island Recycling Centre is a drop-off facility that accepts mixed paper, tin,
glass, cardboard, milk jugs, and plastic. One paid employee and one to two volunteers from
the Denman Island Waste Management Committee (DIWMC) assist the public and answer
questions. A bottle depot and a 1,500 ft2 Reusable Store are located at the recycling centre.
Composting on Denman Island is a personal initiative. Residents can either purchase their
own backyard composter or an Earth Machine from the RDC-S:
Island programs are promoted at the end of each year in an annual newsletter that contains
the garbage collection schedule and recycling articles. Advertisements and articles are also
printed in the Hornby/Denman Island Grapevine Newspaper on an as-needed basis.
21
2. MUNICIPALITIES AUG ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
Future Direction
No new projects are anticipated at this time. In 2000, Denman Island diverted
approximately 40 percent of its waste stream from landfills. At a minimum, they would like
to maintain this diversion percentage as the population increases.
2.4.3
Cartes Island
Refuse CoHection and Disposal
The RDC-S contracts with Cortes Waste Hauling to collect waste every Saturday from
residents throughout the year and transport it to the Cortes Island Transfer Station.
Residents are billed directly by the RDC-S for this service at an annual cost of S65. In
addition, residents can self-haul directly to the transfer station and drop-off waste at no
charge, with the exception of a $40 fee for automobiles. Transfer station operations are
funded by the RDC-S and the cost of transport and disposal of waste for disposal is paid for
by local property taxes. Three 40-yard rolloff containers are located at the transfer station
and a private company is contracted to transport the waste to the Campbell River Regional
Landfill on an as-needed basis. In general, waste is transported biweekly during the summer
and once every five to six weeks in the winter. A weekly two-bag limit is enforced on Cortes
Island, with a maximum of 35 lbs. per bag. Commercial businesses have private negotiations
and contracts with waste collection/transportation firms.
The Cortes Island transfer station upgrades were completed in 1995, with the processing
building/off ce completed in 1994. The transfer station is a three-bay lock block facility that
holds three 40-yard containers. The processing building/ofce costs were around S15,000
and equipment was roughly $10,000, while the transfer station construction cost about
S7o,000 including three containers.
Residents bundle recyclables such as paper, cardboard, newsprint, #1 and #2 plastics, tin,
aluminum, glass, and terxtiles in onion bags for weekly collection at the same time as refuse.
Half of the collection vehicle is dedicated to recyclables, the other half to refuse. Recyclables
are transported to the Cortes Island Recycling Centre located at Squirrel. This 20 -acre
facility opened in ,June 1995, has two employees (one full-time and one _part-time), and
offers a large drop-off facility that is open to residents and the commercial sector. Materials
accepted are the same as in the curbside program, and beverage containers are also collected
on a donation basis. Recyclables are transported off Cortes Island four to five times a year
and sent to market. . There is also a Free Store, run by volunteers, located at the Recycling
Centre.
Household hazardous wastes are collected at the Recycling Centre; to date, Soo gallons have
been collected in 2001. Private companies are contacted for collection on an as-needed basis.
Cortes Island encourages backyard composting and supports the RDC-S's composting
initiative. To date, close to 450 Earth Machines have been sold on the Island, which is
nearing the saturation point.
2-12
2. MUNICIPALITIES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONOITIO
Friends of Cortes Island is a local group that spreads the word regarding environmental
issues such as waste management and water conservation. The Island also promotes its
waste management programs through a weekly newsletter {The Cortes Marketeer}, posters,
and the Island's website which is located at www.cortesisland.com .
Future Direction
By the end of December 2001, the Free Store will be expanded by 600-700 ft' to allow more
room to store large recyclable items such as fridges and mattresses. A new 140 ft2 household
hazardous waste shed is expected to open in October 2001. Cortes Island would also like to
expand their current plastics program.
2.4.4
Quadra Island
Individual residents and businesses engage in private contracts with Coastal Waste, which
delivers waste to the Campbell River Regional Landfill.
One MMDD bin is located at Cove Centre; however, it does not accept plastic milk jugs or
office paper. Residents also self-haul recyciables to various locations in Campbell River.
Residents purchase backyard composters from the RDC-S.
Promotion and education is primarily done by word of mouth.
Future Direction
No new initiatives are planned at this time.
The RDC-S, an area of 20,290 square kilometres, includes vast expanses of sparsely
populated terrain. This section documents current waste management practices in the
remote areas of the RDC-S.
2.5.1
Kyuquot
Current waste management practices in and around Kyuquot include the transfer of
residential and commercial waste to the Gold River Landfill via Nootka Sound Service Ltd.
and the Uchuck III, a motor vessel. One Gold River municipal dumpster is located at the
dock during the summer for tourists, fishers, and residents. Under contract to the RDC-S,
Nootka Sound Service Ltd. delivers about 34 dumpsters of garbage to Gold River each year.
In 2000, roughly Siz,000 was spent on transportation and tipping fees.
21
2. MUN€CfPALITIES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
Other waste management methods include self-hauling by residents to the Zeballos Landfill,
ocean dumping, small-scale burying, and burning. Native reserves in the area make their
own arrangements for waste collection.
Recycling is a personal effort. With the exception of beverage containers, which can be
placed in two wooden totes at the dock, there is no organized recycling program in Kyuquot.
The general store has a backyard composter, as do numerous residents.
2.5.2
Government Facilities, Forestry Camps and Fish Farming
Fair Harbour
There is no permanent settlement at Fair Harbour. Facilities consist of a forestry recreation
site with 20 sites and a Coast Guard wharf.
The Village of Zeballos has an annual contract with the Ministry of Forests to collect a
dumpster located at the recreation site and transport the waste to the ZebaIlos Landfill from
May 24th to just after the Labour Day weekend. No recycling or composting takes place at
Fair Harbour.
There has been increased interest in this area, and several applications have recently been
received for acluaculture development.
Highways
The Ministry of Transportation and Highways awarded Mainroad Contracting the overall
road maintenance contract, which includes waste collection of bg barrels in the RDC-S.
Mainroards subcontracts the litter barrel collection for the Campbell River and Courtenay
Areas to Bruce Russell. An estimated 45 tonnes of garbage was collected from these locations
between July i, 2000 and June 30, 2001. Litter barrels at Miller Creek were removed;
however, the contractor still continues to monitor this site, as bags of litter are still being
disposed of at the site. Other areas are looked after by the individual yard's foreman who
cleans out the barrels at least three times a week during the low season and daily over the
peak season. In 1999 the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was charged Ssoo for the
disposal of one tonne of waste at the Cartes Island Waste Management Facility.
Parks
B.C. Park's main contractor for the operation and maintenance of campsites arid day use
areas is 333 Maintenance and Security, while Tom Hart looks after Smelt Bay on Codes
Island. Waste collection and disposal is part of this overall contract, and 333 Maintenance
and Security sub-contracts out for waste collection. Contractors collect refuse on an asneeded basis at some locations and up to twice a week in high traffic areas. At the more
remote locations where there is no operation and maintenance contract in place, Parks staff
collect waste. In 1999 B.C. Parks was charged 5552 for the disposal of six tonnes of waste at
the Codes Island Waste Management Centre.
Salish Disposal collects the waste from three large waste disposal bins located at Miracle
Beach Provincial Park. A private collection firm deals with the disposal of waste for a
number of small containers at Elk Falls Provincial Park.
2_
2. MUNICIPALIflE5 AN ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXIST1NG CONTIO
Wharves
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has contractors to Collect waste from the
wharves and transport it to transfer stations within the RDC-S. In 19, the DFO had
26.5 tonnes of waste dropped off at the Cortes Island Waste Management Centre for a fee of
$2,575 or S97.17/tonne.
International Forest Products
International Forest Products oversees logging operations by Kyuquot and Chamiss Bay. In
2001 there are approximately 12 active camps, each housing an average of 25 people. Each
camp has an incinerator to burn waste materials. Batteries, scrap metal, oil filters, and
beverage containers are all collected for recycling. On-site dry land sort is either landfihled or
burned depending on site permits, or it may be boomed or barged and transported to
another dry sort outside of the region.
Marine Harvest Canada
Marine Harvest Canada, a subsidiary of parent company Nutreco, fish farms along the west
coast. The firm employs 25 full-time staff who work an eight day on, six day off schedule. At
least half of the employees are on site at any given time. Two houses are available to staff
while on duty, Household waste is driven to Zebailos and disposed of at the local landfill,
while large waste items and oiled feedbags are trucked by staff to the Campbell River
Regional Landfill. Mortalities are placed in leak-proof storage totes and, when full, are
transported by barge to Fair Harbour and by road to Renewable Resources in Campbell
River. It is estimated that 12 totes per year are sent to Renewable Resources. Beverage
containers are collected on site for refund. Marine Harvest Canada tried recycling feedbags
at one point, but they were unsuccessful because they could not find a market for the oiled
bags. This company is presently working towards ISO 14000 certification.
. •IFThsiii:
As part of this Solid Waste Management Plan Update, representatives from the following
First Nations were contacted by telephone regarding concerns or recommendations on waste
management issues. Messages were left for all of these individuals, requesting that they
contact the RDC-S if they had any comments.
• Florence Wilie of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (west coast area, including
Kyukuot, Mawachaht and Nuchallat)
Brian Kelly, Manager of the Cape Mudge Band (Cape Mudge area)
• Melinda Knox of the Comox Band (Comox area)
• Aubrey Roberts, Chief of the Campbell River Band (Campbell River area)
• Phil Fern-i, Manager of the Ehattesaht Band (West Coast area)
• Robert rvlckerracher, Manager of the Mamillikulla Band (Campbell River area)
Rita Sundberg, Manager of the Kwakuitl Band (northern RDC-S)
To date there have been no comments or concerns regarding solid waste issues.
2-15
2. MUNIOPALITIES AND ISLAND COMMUMTIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.7
Material Quantities
The quantity of materials removed from the waste stream in the RDC-S has been estimated
based on comprehensive analyses of waste diversion conducted for the 1995 Plan and a
second analysis conducted by RDC-S staff in 2000. Waste disposal quantities have been
measured at scale facilities at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill, the Campbell River
Regional Landfill, and the Gold River Landfill. For the Tahsis and Zeballos landfills which do
not have scales, waste disposal estimates were prepared based on analysis originally
conducted during preparation of the 1995 Plan.
Summary material quantity statistics for 1994 and 2000 for the main population centres in
the RDC-S are shown in Table 2-2. As shown, the RDC-S has been very successful in
reducing the quantity of waste sent to landfill. Total disposal has declined from 33,260
tonnes in 1994 to 43,894 tonnes in 2000. In 2000, it is estimated that 34 percent of the solid
waste generated in the RDC-S was reduced, reused, or recycled.
Table 2 -3 shows generation, 3Rs, and disposal on a per-capita basis. As the table indicates,
per-capita waste generation has increased slightly and per-capita disposal has declined from
0.65 tonnes per capita in 1990 to 0.44 tonnes per capita in 2000.
Table 2-4 shows 2000 generation, recycling, and disposal by material type. The composition
of the RDC-S waste stream has been estimated based on the waste diversion analysis
referenced in Section 2.7, and on disposed waste composition estimates originally prepared
for the 1995 plan and adjusted to reflect the new waste diversion totals.
26
2.MU .HCIPALITIES ANfl ISLAJD COMMUHITIES EXISTRJC COH[)ITIOUS
Tab'e 2-2
RDC-S Summary Statistics for 1994 and 2000
Yea
District 84
District 72
District 71
0th
Denman Floinby Comox
Island
Island
Valley
Othe /
Total Sayward Codes Quadra Campbell Total
Island
Island
Rwer
Gold
River
Tabsis Zeballos Other
_______ _______ _______
Population
Total
______
RDCS
TOTAL
_______
95,438
1994
981
962
51,333 53,276
426
859
2,538
34,671
38,493
2,090
984
227
368
3669
2000
1,163
1,037
57,569 59768
456
987
2,723
37,897
42063
1,843
849
210
349
3,251 105,082
558
22773
23,801
1,173
570
119
0
1063 31070
32,917
895
530
116
22
Generation (Tonnes)
1994
200
246
33,425 33,871
300
170
2000
345
449
34,715 35,508
298
485
_____
Reduction, Reuse, Recycling (Tonnes)
1994
15
88
2000
161
210
1,863
1,563 69,988
_______ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______
59,535
_______
4,475
15
45
0
1,103
1,163
.588
28
20
0
637
6,275
11,832 12,203
29
216
255
11,043
11,542
240
62
24
22
349
24,094
4372
________
Disposal(Tonnes)
_______
______
1994
185
158
29,053 29,396
285
125
558
21,670
22,638
585
542
99
0
1226
53,260
2000
183
239
22,883 23,305
270
270
809
20,027
21,375
655
468
91
0
1,214
45,894
3Rs. Percent ol Generation
1894
2000
8%
470/s
36%
13%
13%
5%
26%
0%
E%
5%
50%
5%
17%
na.
34%
11%
47%
34%
34%
10%
44%
24%
36%
35%
27%
12%
21%
na.
22%
34%
2-17
2 MUNtCPALITIES AND lSLAMD COMMUNITIES EXISTING COrf01T1QNS
Table 2-3
Historic Per-capita Generation, 3Rs and Disposal
Disposal
3Rs
Generation
E
Year
Population Total Waste Percent Tonnes
per j
Tonnes Total waste Tonnes
3
I
Total 3Rs Percent
Disposed (in
capita
per capita generated per capita
Disposed
osed
tannest
3
Recycled
tonnes)
disposed
ycled recycled
recycled (in tonnes) generated
1990
81,892
53,546
100.0%
0.65
0
0.0%
0.00
53,546
0.65
1994
95,438
53,260
89.5°x6
0.56I
6,275
10.5%;
0.07
59,535
0.62
2000
105,082,•
45,894
65,6% 0.44
24,094,
34.4%
0.23
69,988
0.67!
Tonnes per Capita R2 cycled and Disposed
CSS
Percent cycled and Dsposed
50%
o-55
0.70 . ....................................................................................o.ez.....
0.60
^
o ss
9.52
100%
I
80%
0.50
f
0.44
{
Clsp' sed
0.40
50%
j Disposed
Recyced
0.30
^r^s -
pGeneratkoej;
® Recpcied
40%
0.20
20%
0.10
0.00
3
1990
1994
2000
0%
1990
1994
2000
2-118
2. MUMOIPALmES AND ISLAND COMMUNITIES EXISTING CONDIT1O
Table 2-4
2000 Generation, 3Rs, DsposaI
2000 Generation,
by Material
Material Type
%
Tonnes
2000 Disposal
by Material
Tonnes
%
-
22,116
31.6%
7,929
11.3%
14,187
20.3%
ONP
4129
5.9%
2,306
3.3%
1,823
2,6%
CCC
6,369
9.1%
4,585
6.6%
1,784
2.5%
Fine Paper
1 540
2.2%
540
0.8%
1000
1 .4%
MWP
7,839
11.2%
0
0,0%
7,839
11.2%
630
0.9%
241
0.3%
389
0.6%
1,540
2.2%
256
0.4%
1,283
1.8%
3,219
4.6%
545
0,8%
2,674
3.3%
1,890
2.7%
317
0.5%
1,573
2.2%
Coloured
910
1.3%
153
0.2%
767
1.1%
Non-recyclable
420
0.6%
70
0.1%
350
0.5%
4,059
5.8%
324
0.5%
3,735
5.3%
Ferrous
2,660
3.8%
324
0.5%
2,335
3.3%
Non-ferrous
1,400
2.0%
0
0.0%
1,400
2.0%
4,899
7.0%
135
0.2%
4,765
6.8%
PET
210
0.3%
31
0.0%
179
0.3%
HDPE
700
1.0%
102
0.1%
597
0.9%
Film Plastic
1,510
2.3%
0
0.0%
1,610
2.3%
Other Plastic
2,380
3.4%
0
0.0%
2,380
3.4%
Food & Yard Waste
15,817
22.6%
5,399
7.7%
10,418
14.9%
Food Waste
10,078
14.4%
587
0.8%
9,491
13.6%
YardWaste
5,739
8.2%
4,812
6.9%
927
1.3%
19,377
28.4%
9,762
13.9%
10,115
14.5%
M,ite Goods
1,190
1.7%
1,067
1.5%
123
0.2%
Bulky Goods
2,100
3.0%
0
0.0%
2,100
3.0%
Textiles
1,330
1.9%
0
0.0%
1,330
1.9%
HHW
1540
2.2%
123
0.2%
1,417
2.0%
Wood
8,119
11.6%
7,232
10.3%
886
1.3%
Other Compostable
2,660
3.8%
0
0.0%
2,660
3.8%
Other Non-camp
2,660
3,8%
1,340
1.9%
1,320
1.9%
630
0.9%
0
0.0%
630
0.9%
69,988,
100.0%
24,094
34.4%
45,894
66.6%
Paper
Box Board
0MG
Glass
Clear
Metal
Plastic
Other
•
Tonnes
2000 3Rs
by Material
Brown Goods
TOTAL
Dh.1I [I] ii1 iii
I
(41 FI
Overview
3.1
This section addresses waste reduction and reuse by focusing on measures applicable to:
The RDC-S and its member municipalities
Senior levels of government (Provincial and Federal)
Reduction and reuse initiatives that are in place or under consideration, in the RDC-S include
backyard composting, user pay initiatives, education and promotion, reuse and repair centres,
procurement policies, waste audits and reduction plans for ICI establishments, and differential
tip fees.
3.2.1
Backyard Composting
Numerous communities throughout North America promote backyard composting as an
important waste diversion strategy- Since backyard composting programs do not require
material collection programs or development of centralized processing facilities, they are
generally regarded as one of the most cost-effective diversion strategies available to a
jurisdiction.
Existing Conditions
The RDC-S has sold residents subsidized Earth Machine backyard composters since 1995 for
335 a unit. By June 2000, the RDC-S estimates that 6,990 backyard composters have been
distributed, resulting in an iS percent saturation rate of RDC-S households, which is near the
percent target established in the 1995 Plan.
20
Education and promotion of backyard composting is important to the success of a program. A
discussion of steps taken in the RDC-S to promote backyard and community composting in the
District is provided in Section 4.
3.2.2
User.Pay Initiatives
Successful reduction of waste requires a financial incentive for residents to reduce waste. This
can be achieved by implementing, for example, a variable can, metered bag, or metered tag
system. A key component of this system is to charge a progressive rate for each additional
garbage unit collected above the basic service level (e.g., one can per week).
Four user-pay systems that would likely offer the greatest waste reduction impacts for the RDC5, convenience to the users, and administrative ease to program operators include:
i) Variable Can System: Customers sign up for a "subscription level," a specific number of
cans or units of service that are collected weekly from customers. Rates are calculated based
............................onthesubsoribed service ieveLGenerally each additional cancostsmorecreatinginaentive
3-I
3. REDUCTION AND REUSE
to reduce waste generation. Subscription levels could include yard waste and recyclables
collection. Customers supply their own cans, or special cans could be provided as part of the
collection service.
2) Metered Bag: Residents purchase standardized marked bags at local retail outlets. Bags are
priced at a level that covers the cost of collection and waste disposal. Waste set out in
different containers is not collected. Some people object to this approach because it requires
the use of disposable bags (which, in themselves, create waste) and precludes the use of
reusable garbage cans.
3) Metered Tag: Instead of purchasing bags, residents buy tags at the same cost as the bags.
These tags are attached to bags or cans that do not exceed the defined maximum size. One
potential drawback is that tags can be easily stolen.
4) Standardized Container Rental: Each resident receives one or more standardized, reusable
containers that are rented out on a monthly basis. This system has an initial capital cost, but
it allows for greater control over the amount of garbage received.
Existing Conditions
As shown in Table 2-1, most jurisdictions in the RDC-S have can limits, and many require
residents to purchase tags for any waste set out over that limit.
3.2.3
Reduction and Reuse Education
Education and promotion are widely considered to be essential elements of any source reduction
and reuse program. Many programs will not succeed without extensive education and
promotion at all levels, especially at the local community level. Focusing on delivery of
education and promotion at the local level instead of through mass media not only allows for
opportunities to channellocal community resources; it also allows communities to gain a sense
of program ownership. A detailed description of reduction and reuse education and promotion
initiative is provided in Section 4.
3.2.4
Reuse and Repair Centres
Reuse and repair centres refer to free Stores and other facilities that promote the reuse and
repair of goods that might otherwise be sent to a landfill as waste.
Existing Conditions
In the RDC-S, there are also existing private and non-profit thrift stores and free stores in the
Comox Valley, Campbell River, Hornby Island, Denman Island, and Cortes Island. A number of
stores offer refillable Containers (e.g., Edible Island Food Store and Samson Soap), and there are
second-hand clothing stores, diaper services, and second-hand building materials outlets and
special events that provide re-use opportunities for local residents and businesses within the
RDC-S.
3.2.5
Procurement Policies
By applying the 4R's methodology (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recover) at each phase of the
material life-cycle (planning, acquisition, operations, utilization and maintenance, and disposal),
procurement activities can be more environmentally responsible. When purchasing,
environmental considerations should be integrated with other criteria, such as performance, life
expectancy, quality, and value for money.
3-2
Many environmental practices can be phased in over time without additional costs. Although in
some cases green products may cost more, the overall effect of adopting environmentally
appropriate purchasing practices can result in significant savings when the total costs of
purchasing, operation, and disposal are considered.
Existing Conditions = R©C-S
There are no defined RDC-S procurement practices in place at this time. However, the RDC-S
purchases post-consumer content photocopy paper, has duplex photocopiers available to staff,
and, with the introduction of e-mail, the amount of paper used has decreased considerably.
Existing Conditions - Federal Government
Through its Greening of Government Operations initiative, the Federal Government has
established guidelines for all federal departments to follow to integrate environmental
considerations into their operations. This initiative developed best practices guidelines that
should be applied with existing policies, regulatory considerations, cost-effectiveness, and
technological feasibility considerations. Procurement best practices include evaluating potential
purchases, as outlined in the Treasury Board's Material iVlanagement Environmental
Guidelines, and providing green training to officers with purchasing authority to improve
decision-making, such as implementing Environmental Purchasing Policies available from
Environment Canada. Waste management best practices are as follows:
• Realize Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) target of
reduction by the year 2000, using 1988 as the base year
50
percent
• Identify waste reduction opportunities, taking advantage of existing auditing tools and
procedures
• Develop and implement a waste reduction action plan, including an awareness program for
employees
• Separate waste streams at source to facilitate reuse, recycling, and proper disposal
m Compost organic waste where feasible
• Collect environmentally-harmful wastes at a central location, and store and dispose of them
safely
• Implement a coordinated program to reduce the use of paper by switching to electronicallybased communication
Existing Conditions - Provincial Government
•
As a major consumer of goods and services, British Columbia Purchasing Commission
implemented an Environmental Purchasing Policy in 1995. This policy ensures that B.C.
ministries and agencies are "environmentally-friendly" by using goods and services which take
environmental concerns into account.
The Purchasing Commission's responsibilities include utilizing lifecycle analysis of produces to
consider environmental impacts of production and disposal; increasing demand for
environmentally sensitive and recycled products by purchasing them where it is efficient to do
so, to ensure that the market remains viable; and increasing recycling activity where possible
(e.g., through the collection of paper and waste oils for recycling).
33
3. SEDUCTION AND SEUSE
The Purchasing Commission will support the market for recycled and environmentally sensitive
products by increasing both supply and demand, where practical and effective, and will
encourage economic development in recycling and related industries.
The policy's premise is that, by purchasing environmentally sensitive materials and disposing of
its waste in an environmentally responsible manner, government can:
Encourage development of environmental value-added products and processes which
increase import replacement, job creation, and conservation of resources while reducing
waste disposal charges and landfill dumping
Set an example in waste management leadership by recycling
Increase public awareness on the quantity, quality, and true cost of environmentally
sensitive products available
Several initiatives based on this policy have already been put into action since program
implementation. These include:
• Project Paper Push, the governments paper recycling project
Using lifecycle analysis of products to guide purchasing decisions (e.g., Eco-Choice
standards)
• Improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions by converting government vehicles to
alternative fuels
Examining opportunities to reduce excess packaging (to reflect the National Packaging
Protocol)
• Government-wide push for purchasing recycled paper
• Introducing technologies and encouraging actions to reduce travel needs (e.g., video
teleconferencing, bicycle parking)
• Reducing paper consumption
Encouraging proper collection/disposal of waste oils and the use of re-refined oil
The Purchasing Services Branch supports procurement initiatives through Policy #2.05:
Environmental Considerations in Procurement, which was last updated in December 1995. This
policy states that the Purchasing Services Branch supports the market for recycled and
environmentally sensitive products by increasing both supply and demand, where practical and
effective, and by encouraging economic development in recycling and related industries. To the
extent possible (based on a case by case analysis), the Purchasing Services Branch uses life cycle
analysis to determine the true cost to the environment and will use Environment Canada
ECOLOGO specifications when applicable and available.
3,2.6
Waste Audits and Reduction Plans for ICI Establishments
Waste audits and reduction plans have proven to be an effective means of reducing waste in ICI
establishments. Some jurisdictions have mandated their preparations for new developments or
for larger existing businesses,
Usually, a waste reduction plan is begun by completing a waste audit. The following steps should
be accounted for in a waste audit and reduction plan:
3, REDUCflON AND REUSE
i) Composition of the Waste Stream -The first step in the audit process is to look at what
materials are currently being disposed of and in what quantities. When developing a waste
reduction plan it is best to concentrate on high volume materials (e.g., cardboard for
retailers and paper for offices).
2) Determine Weight/Volume - Find the weight and volume of the disposed materials that
could be recycled/composted. For example, restaurants typically generate large quantities of
food waste, while retailers generate cardboard. If the establishment generates a high volume
of cardboard, it may pay to look at baling the material, which can also help increase the
cardboard's marketability.
3) Sources of Waste - Observe the overall operation and determine where the waste is being
generated and if this material can be:
Reduced (e.g., make two-sided copies)
Reused (e.g., reuse packing material)
Recycled (e.g., collect and recycle office paper)
4) Collection System - Position collection containers in locations where recyclables are being
generated. The easier the access, the higher the participation rate will be. Clearly mark all
collection containers, and make it as hard as possible to contaminate the recyclabies.
5) Current and Projected Costs - After implementing the recycling prägram, conduct a second
waste audit to see if the program has significantly reduced the amount of waste generated. If
it has, reducing the collection schedule or container size can save money.
A waste reduction plan is a broad term encompassing all waste management strategies - source
reduction, recycling, composting - that results in a reduction of the waste going to a combustion
facility or landfill.
Existing Conditions
The RDC-S does not currently have a formal waste audit program and has no requirements
regarding the preparation of waste reduction plans.
35
Case Study: Greater Vancouver Regional Distiict - Recycling Works Program
The GreaterVancouver Regional District (GVRD) offers information arid assistance to
businesses who wish to develop a workplace recycling program through their Recycling Works the Recycling Program That's Good for Business campaign. In ig, they produced the
Recycling Guide for Business which describes program initiation, efficiency and cost-effective
improvements, program expansion, purchasing recycled products, material reuse, and waste
reduction in the office. This document also contains a directory of recycling services, depots and
products. The Regional District provides businesses with signage for specific recycled materials
(e.g., beverage containers, office paper, and newspaper) at no charge. They also provide program
posters and stickers for a nominal fee (e.g., "both sides now" - use old papers for new drafts, "be
two faced" - use both sides. The GVRD also has three-page tip sheets that are designed to give
specific industries a brief overview on setting up a recycling program or improving an existing
one. In addition, the Regional District offers numerous free services to businesses:
• On-site recycling and waste reduction consultants and program review
• Co-ordination of company "Green Teams"
• Employee training seminars
• Presentations and workshops
Loan and setup of a business recycling information display suitable for lunchrooms or
reception areas
Specific consultation topics available include:
Starting or improving a business recycling program
• Waste auditing and program assessments
• Environmental purchasing programs and policies
• Waste arid packaging reuse and reduction programs
Employee environmental awareness and education
"Green" marketing for your business
3.2.7
Differential Tip Fees and Disposal Bans
Differential tipping fees and disposal bans are two closely related strategies that can provide a
dramatic boost to efforts to keep recyclable or undesirable materials out of landfills, thus
protecting the environment. This initiative has been applied to a variety of products in various
jurisdictions in British Columbia and throughout North America. Differential tipping fees and
disposal bans are based on the principle that as restrictions are imposed on the type, quantity,
and cost of material accepted for disposal, waste generators will be forced to reduce or eliminate
waste or find disposal alternatives. Source reduction is often the ieast costly and, therefore, the
preferred option. In principle, all materials that can be readily separated from waste by
generators should be charged a differential tipping fee or banned. These techniques work only
when alternatives to disposal are available, arid when they can be enforced,
Existing Conditions
The RDC-S implemented differential tipping fees for recyclable or undesirable materials in July
1996 to assist with diverting these materials from the Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake
Regional Landfills. Current differential rates are summarized in Table 3-i. Of particular interest
is the fee 'for mixed solid waste containing recyclable material. This charge is more than double
per tome when compared to the regular mixed refuse rate, and is definitely incentive to ensure
that ctistorners separate recyclable materials from refuse. The RDC-S has zero-tolerance policy
with regards to recyclable material in refuse. Customers have the option to separate out the
recyclable materials for appropriate disposal at either the facilities provided at the landfill or at
REDU1ON AND REUSE
various private sector locations and pay the regular tipping fee, or pay the differential rate to
have the entire load landfilied. In addition, customers from outside of the RDC-S are charged up
to 150 percent more for waste disposal than RDC-S residents.
Table 3-1
Differential Tipping Fees at Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfills
Aug ust 1, 2001
Generated
nsrde the ROC-
S Boundaries
Generated
Outside the
RDC-S
Boundanes
$45.QO,T
$135.00rr
$3.00
$900
$105.00/f
$250.0OfT
MINIMUM CHARGE: 0-70 kg
$10.00
$2500
Hydrocarbon contaminated soil which meets all of the specifications set
out in section 41.1 f the Special waste regulation and is deposited for treatment and short-term storage at the landfill site
$10.00
$10.00
Refrigerators, Freezers, and Air Conditioners (per item) $15.00
$15.00
$105. DOlT
(entire load)
$250.00/T
(entire load)
sio,00
$25.00
Free of charge
$3.00
Free of charge
$3.00
Materials Accepted
___________________________________________________________
Mixed Commercial, Yard Waste. CD, Tires
MINIMUM CHARGE: 0-70 kg
Corrugated Cardboard
Carcasses, Offal
Mixed Solid Waste Containing Recyclable Material (Zero-tolerance, all
loads containing cardboard, newspaper, magazines, scrap metal, tires,
clean wood, and brush)
MINUMUM CHARGE:
Clean Fill —material requiring no remediation or other processing and
suitable for immediate use as landfill cover
0-1 000 kilograms
Over 1,000 kilograms
3.3
Senior Government Programs
Several provincial•and federal initiatives that were pending at the time of the last RDC-S Solid
Waste Management Plan have been implemented and/or completed at this time. Although the
RDC-S, its residents, and ICI establishments do not have direct control over these initiatives, it
is important to recognize the significant role that these initiatives can have in helping meet
waste reduction goals.
3.31
Existhig Conditions
The majority of these programs are industry product stewardship programs, whereby industry
and consumers are taking life-cycle responsibility for the products they produce and use. By
regulating stewardship responsibility the government-managed and taxpayer-financed waste
management programs. Industry product stewardship programs are "second generation cradle to cradle" environmental management programs based on principles of industry
efficiency, accountability, and environmental responsibility. The RDC-S will continue to register
support for the following programs. A more detailed description of each program can be found
in Appendix A.
3.7
I REDUCT0N AND REJSE
National Packaging Protocol
In 1990, a broad, multi-stakeholder consultation comprising federal, provincial and municipal
governments, industry and environmental and consumer interest groups formed the National
Task Force on Packaging. The same year, the National Packaging Protocol endorsed a voluntary
agreement with industry to reduce packaging waste across Canada. Three target reductions
goals were set 20 percent reduction by 1992; 35 percent by 1996, and 50 percent by the year
2000. By the end of 1996, a 51 percent reduction in the weight of packaging waste sent for
disposal was achieved, resulting in the year 2000 milestone being met four years ahead of
schedule.
Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation
i8,
This regulation came into effect October 1,
expanding the deposit-refund system to include
all ready—to-drink beverages (e.g., pop, juice, sports drinks and water in any type of container),
except milk, milk substitutes, infant formula, and meal replacements. Polycoated and flexible
pouch containers were granted an exemption until October 1, 1999, in order to develop a viable
recycling solution.
Beverage deposits (So.o5-So.2o) are paid at the time of purchase and refunded upon container
return to local depots, retail outlets, and liquor/wine/beer stores. This regulation Sets an
85 percent recovery rate goal within two years. To date, there has been over an 84 percent
return rate.
Financial Incentives to Recycle Scrap Tires ("FIRST")
Introduced in June 1991, this is the first Canadian program of its kind with a goal of dIverting
over 90 percent of used tires from the waste stream by establishing a viable tire recycling
industry. A S3 environmental levy .on the sale of all new tires generates, on average, an
estimated Sii,00,000 in revenues annually.
Over 2.5 million scrap tires are reclaimed annually from all parts of the province. As of March
2001, over 27 million passenger tire equivalents (PTEs) have been diverted from landfills and
from other forms of disposal at a total cost of over S46 million. The program currently captures
about 285,000 PTEs per month.
Tires are being manufactured into recycled products such as tire crumb which is sold for making
animal mats, roofing products, asphalt sealants, running tracks, crumb rubber asphalt, and play
surfaces.
Lead Acid Battery Collection
The B.C. lead acid battery collection program was implemented in June '99', with a goal of
increasing the recovery rate of used vehicle batteries to g8 percent. Since the program began the
number of batteries has consistently exceeded 100 percent per year, indicating that batteries are
being pulled from storage.
Return of Used Oil Regulation
In 1992, the Return of Used Lubricating Oil Regulation created the first regulated industry funded and operated product stewardship program in North America. The used oil program was
implemented to provide customers with the opportunity to return used oil to retail /depot
facilities for recycling. In 1998, 56 percent of the estimated 50 million litres of lubricating oil
available for recovery from domestic and industrial users was recycled.
a RUCflON AND REUSE
Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Solvents, Pesticides and Gasoline
The Post Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Reg. 111/97) was passed on
= March 27, 1997. This regulation requires the producers of solvents/flammable liquids, domestic
pesticides, and gasoline to take cradle to cradle responsibility for management of their products
that contribute to the household hazardous waste stream. Since January 1998, residuals of these
products have been collected from householders at a province-wide depot network and at public
events. The RDC-S is actively lobbying the Province to locate a depot in the Comox Valley.
Eco-fees" range from $o.io to S2.40, depending on the type of residual and container size.
300,000 equivalent litre containers of household hazardous waste have been
collected without relying on tax dollars. Tn 1999, a reported recovery of S1,483,000 from "ecofees" were paid by consumers at the point of sale.
Since 1998, over
Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation
The Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Reg. 200/94) came into effect
September i, 1994. This regulation requires the producers of consumer paint products to take
cradle to cradle responsibility for the management of their products that contribute to the
household hazardous waste stream. Since September 1, 1994, leftover paint has been collected
from B.C. householders through a province-wide depot system. On June 26, 1997, this
regulation was amended to include all paints sold in pressurized containers (aerosols).
•
"Eco-fees' range from $o.io to Si, depending on the size of the paint can. Since the program's
inception, the paint industry has developed advances recycling and reuse technologies to
manage over 14 million equivalent litres of paint returned by consumers.
Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceutical industry voluntarily established the pharmaceuticals stewardship program
in November 1996. The Medications Return Program requires that all brand-owners of
pharmaceutical products sold in B.C. take cradle to cradle responsibility for the safe
management of their products which would otherwise enter the household hazardous waste
stream.
In order to ensure consumers are not discouraged from properly disposing of their waste
medicines, the regulation does not permit brand-owners to charge consumers a fee.to return
regulated product residuals. As of March 2000, 28,286 kg of unwanted, expired medications
had been collected for safe disposal.
Source Reduction and Reuse Education Assistance
It is recommended that the provincial government complement the efforts of the RDC-S and its
member Municipalities in conducting reduction and reuse education. However, rather than
conducting programs for a general audience, provincial efforts should emphasize technical and
financial assistance to local organizations involved in promoting waste reduction reuse. Recent
research suggests that waste reduction and reuse education has its greatest impact when
delivered intensively to a targeted audience. Source reduction and reuse initiatives would
include:
• Public service announcements and media advertisements
• Reduction and reuse hotline
• Smart-shopper programs
..........................S.ch...progr2.ms
3-9
3. REDLCTO AND REUSE
Directories/guides for repair, rental, and used-goods services
Waste reduction awards, recognition events
Improved labelling on products that promote waste reduction
This section provides a discussion of future actions that will be taken by the RDC-S in the area of
reduction and reuse.
3.4.1
Backyard Composting
In the next five years, backyard compostirig will continue to be an important part of the RDC-S's
waste reduction strategy. The RDC-S Will continue to sell composting units as the need arises,
and will promote and provide education about backyard and community composting at schools
and community events, through the Master Composter program, and at the composting
education centre.
Estimated Cost: Compost units are sold at full cost. Education and master composter program
will be funded at current levels.
3.4.2
User-Pay Initiatives
The RDC-S supports the principle of user pay rates for collection and disposal. The RDC-S will
evaluate support of initiatives on a case by case basis.
Estimated Cost: None.
3.4.3
Reduction and Reuse Education
See Section 4.
3.4.4
Reuse and Repair Centres
The RDC-S will set aside funds to help promote selected useopportunities. Promotional
activities could include publishing directories of reuse opportunities, preparing brochures,
running advertisements in the media, or helping fund special events such as CARE "garbagefree" events. The RDC-Swill cross-promote reuse and repair centres in Regional District
publications.
In the past, the RDC-S has considered opportunities for reuse at transfer stations and landfills in
the Regional District. This option has not been pursued because of the cost of developing and
operating such facilities, and the potential for liability from injury.
Estimated Cost: An ongoing program cost.
3.4.5
Procurement Policies
The RDC-S and all local government departments should develop policies and procedures to
encourage their suppliers to provide products and services in a manner that will foster waste
reduction and reuse. As an example, the City of Richmond has taken a number of ste ps to
become known as a "green" municipality, demonstrating leadership for the environment
through a variety of policies, plans, and actions. The City's recently developed environmental
purchasing policy and guide to environmental purchasing are concrete examples of this ongoing
I REEUCEON AND REUSE
commitment to the environment, a commitment the City of Richmond wishes to shares with
those who provide services and products to Richmond.
In its approach to green procurement, the RDC-S will establish a task force to coordinate
policies and to establish district-wide standards where appropriate (e.g., bulk purchase of
recycled oil). Development of the task force and a purchasing policy should be part of the RDC-S
strategic plan. Task force members could include the RDC-S, member municipalities, the school
districts, iVorth Island College, and CFB Comox. Once a set of policies is established, it could be
put forward as a model for large private sector businesses and institutions. Suppliers should be
encouraged to take the following steps:
• Use reusable or minimal packaging materials
• Provide products that achieve their function with minimal use of materials
• Provide products that last longer than their traditional counterparts
• Use compost-based products in government operations
• Agree to take back their products and materials for reuse
• Use second-hand materials and equipment
In addition to drafting procurement policies, a key objective of the task force would be to draft a
series of "best practices" to be followed by local government that would include ways that
government employees can reduce waste in their daily operations, including double-sided
copying and reusable utensils (e.g., coffee mugs), and seeking to minimize the use of packaging,
particularly at events that are highly visible to the general public.
To implement this program, the RDC-S will draft a set of policies to encourage reduction and
reuse and allocate staff time to evaluate conformance with these policies. The RDC-S could
prepare an example procurement policy or a brief document describing the many areas in which
procurement policies can favour waste reduction and reuse (e.g., buying in bulk, requiring
reports to be duplex copied, requiring suppliers to use returnable pallets). Efforts would be
required to publicize the new policies to ensure supplier awareness.
Procurement officers could offer discounts to suppliers who demonstrate waste reduction and
reuse practices. This discount may represent an unrecoverable cost if the government agency
cannot recoup it through reduced disposal fees. One way to better evaluate price preference is to
mandate that solid waste disposal costs be factored into the tender price. This approach has
been implemented successfully in Vermont under its "life-cycle costing" law.
The program could be extended to major private sector firms on a voluntary basis, with a
modest promotional campaign. In particular, guidebooks listing ways in which purchasing
departments could foster reduction and reuse could be distributed to larger companies in the
province.
Estimated Cost: At this time, the RDC-S plans to implement only policies that do not result in a
noticeable increase in the cost of materials. About one-quarter of a qualified waste reduction
specialist would need to be devoted to guiding this program forward. This would be part of the
duties of the new ICI specialist position discussed in Section 5.
3.4.6
Waste Audits and Reduction Plans for ICI Establishments
The RDC S will develop a program that will identify larger ICI waste generators and offer to
provide them with assistance in determining ways to reduce the quantity of wastes going to
landfills. Visits to ICI organizations will be conducted by the RDC-S staff to provide information,
cii
. REDUCTION AND REUSE
advice and training RDC-S staff would actively encourage source reduction, alternatives
practices, and technologies that generate less waste.
This technique for waste reduction could be used as a business image-builder and could give
participating businesses a competitive edge. Institutions can benefit from image-building as
well, by being seen to be cooperative community leaders, who are careful with taxpayer's money
The RDC-S will sponsor annual contests and provide awards to businesses and institutions that
implement innovative solutions to reduce waste. In addition to conducting waste audits, RDC-S
staff will assist businesses in developing reduction plans. This program would also coincide with
initiatives to promote added recycling by id firms as discussed in Section 5.
Estimated Cost: The cost of this program is shown as part of the ICI recycling program in
Section 5 (a full-time ICT waste reduction and recycling specialist plus $3a,000 per year in
promotional materials and expenses).
3.4.7
Differentia' Tip Fees and Disposal Bans
The RDC-S will continue its existing policies for differential tipping fees. The RDC-S will
evaluate applying differential tipping fees to other materials.
3.48
Senior Government Programs
The RDC-S will continue to support senior government stewardship programs.
3-12
IIT1;.] ill . i
4.1
Overview
This section provides a brief overview of relevant public education and promotion (E&P)
activities by the provincial and federal governments, and existing conditions in the RDC-S. It
also describes the results of the recent waste management public consultation survey, and
discusses a proposed education and promotion program and future courses of action for the
RDC-S.
•
•
isiiflTfltiiiiIii
4.2.1
•
•
•
British Columbia Ministry of Education
The British Columbia Ministry of Education, Curriculum Branch is responsible for the
development, implementation, and monitoring of provincial curriculum standards and
progress for kindergarten to grade 12. Students have the opportunity to learn about waste
diversion practices in grade five and eight science classes. However, environment and
sustairiability topics are accepted throughout kindergarten to grade 12 as cross-curricular
activities, provided they meet the Ministry's prescribed learning outcomes. It is noted that
the kindergarten to grade seven curriculum will be undergoing revisions in 2001, followed by
grades eight to 10 and grades eleven and twelve.
4.2.2
•
t1trsA'L1iiiiirffi
Eco Education BC
Eco Education BC is an environmental education provider initiated by the BC Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks. It offers fun and interacti-ve workshops across BC for
students in grades four to six, independent learning resources, and an educational website. It
also offers educational resources to teachers and youth employment experiences. A
travelling education program called the "Green Team" has expanded since 1995 to include
workshops on water and grizzly bear conservation along with environmental protection and
waste reduction. The latter concentrates on natural resources and environmental
stewardship issues, including the impact of consumerism on the environment and the
impact of making environmentally sound product choices. Modules on compost, household
hazardous were developed in the mid 19905. In 1996, the Green Team Teachers Guide was
produced, as was a promotional video entitled Choices for Teachers. That same year, the Eco
Ed E-Team component of.the Environment Youth Team was initiated. In 2000, the Eco
Education in Action learning resource was developed for teachers and facilitators to further
integrate environmental education into their curricula.
4.2.3
Environmental Choice Program
Environment Canada's ecolabelling program, the Environmental Choice Program, provides
a market incentive to manufacturers and suppliers of environmentally preferable products
.ml services, thereby helping consumers identiz products and.s.ervices .th.at.are.les.s.harmfui
4-i
4. PUSLCATI0N EDIJCTION AO PROMOTCN PROGRAMS
to the environment. In order to obtain the EcoLogo (Figure 4-1), a product or service must
be made or offered in a way that uses recycled materials, is reusable, reduces hazardous byproducts, improves energy efficiency, or provides some other environmental benefit.
Figure 4-1
Environmental Choice EcoLogo
4.3
Existing Conditions
4.3.1
Regional District of ComoxStrathcona
RDC-S Full-time and Temporary Contract Positions
In 1997, the RDC-S hired a full-time Waste Reduction Coordinator to identif y, coordinate,
and facilitate waste reduction, reuse and recycling (3R) activities in the RDC-S. The
coordinator investigates opportunities, develop programs for 3R's activities, and promotes
awareness of and participation in those programs by the public (e.g., compost education
program). The Coordinator's responsibilities include:
• Managing the multi-material drop-off depot (MMDD) program which includes
overseeing the collection contracts and liasing with contractors, day-to-day program
operations, site monitoring for collection frequency and monthly material volumes,
dealing with public complaints, and determining where new depots should be located.
Assisting with public programdevelopment and promotional material, and ensuring a
weekly presence of waste reduction, reuse and recycling activities in local newspapers
and on the radio. In 1998, a professional designer was hired to develop a series of
characters that define the look of the RDC-S program, these characters can be found on
program advertisements, flyers and display boards, and in the Don't Treat Your Trash
Like Garbage radio jingle that was created 2000. The Waste Reduction Coordinator
oversaw these consultants' work. Over prime promotional months (May to September),
the Coordinator also submits weekly press releases to local newspaper and radio stations
on program-related topics.
4, PUBLICATION EDUcrEoN AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS
Working with member municipalities to develop promotional materials. In 1998, the
RDC-S assisted with a general information pamphlet about local waste management
changes for Gold River; in 1999, it assisted with a flyer for multi-family dwellings for the
City of Courtertay.
Obtaining buy-in from local businesses for the RDC-S's programs and issues through a
variety of activities. For instance, the Show Us Your Eagle campaign asked the general
public to create eagles out of reused materials. Local businesses supplied prizes, and
Eagle FM promoted the campaign. In 2001, the RDC-S started a Join the Green Team
program to assist with waste reduction efforts in pre-existing recycling clubs and school
green teams. After a summer-long promotion, in children took a pirate sailing trip in the
Comox Harbour. The activity program Zero Waste Wednesday holds monthly contests
based on the MMDD program.
Conducting research and analysis of trends within the field of solid waste management
and preparing reports and recommendations on those areas which will complement and
enhance the District's solid waste management plan.
• •
Since 1999, the RDC-S has hired a temporary contractor from April to October to provide
the public and school groups with composting information and to supervise the RDC-S's two
compost education sites. This individual also attends numerous public events, such as the
Comox Home and Garden Show and Nautical Days, to promote composting education.
In 2001, the RDC-S hired two additional temporary contract positions, one for the Campbell
River area and one for the Comox Valley. These individuals assisted with the preparation
and promotion of broader 3R's education programs from May/June to August respectively.
The majority of the work was performed at schools and at public events such as the Filberg
Garden Show, Market Days, Children's Festivals, the Salmon Festival and the Cornox Valley
Fall Fair.
Program Promotion
The RDC-S promotes recycling and composting initiatives through Recycling and Reuse
Directory pamphlets for Comox Valley and Campbell River, and distributes flyers and
posters for district events such as the HHW Spring Clean-up. Composting, HHW Spring
Clean-up, and recycling are promoted through advertisements on radio and in local
newspapers such as the C'omox Valley Record, which promotes Zero Waste Wednesday
(Figure 4-2). Recycling and composting information is also promoted at weekend events
during the summer. The RDC-S also cross-promotes member municipality initiatives, such
as Courtenay's recycling program.
4. PU3tJC.'T1ON EDUCTION AO PROMOTION PROGRAMS
Figure 4-2
Zero Waste Wednesday Advertisement
[jooZ
!tF :
STEP
ON IT!
saves
YOU
In 2000, the RDC-S spent S2o,521 on newspaper advertisements, nearly triple its 1999
expenditure of S7,452. These fees included advertisements in the Rural Shopper, Gamp bell
River Gourier Islander, ampbeil River Mirror, Comox Valley Record, and comox Valley
Echo.
Master Composter Program
The RDC-S implemented its first Master Composter program in the fall of 2000. In this
educational outreach program, volunteers attend a training course and then assist with
community composting education and publicizing composting initiatives. Individuals
maintain their Master Camposter status by volunteering eight to. 10 hours over one to two
years on composting activities such as:
Teaching composting classes
• Helping people in their neighbourhoods who have requested assistance
• Giving educational presentations at schools
• Staffing booths at environmental expos and shopping centres
• Assisting with community projects (e.g., compost give-a-ways, composter bin sales)
The RDC-S has budgeted Sio,000 for 2001 to fund the Master Composter Program.
4. PLLICATION EDUcTION AND PRCMCrION PROGRAMS
4.3.2
Municipalities and Island Communities
The public education and promotion programs in municipalities and island communities
generally include the publication of waste reduction information in newsletters, newspapers,
and pamphlets. Hornby Island Cwww.hornbyisland,comRecycle/index.htj), Cortes Island
(www.cortesisland.com ), and Campbell River (www.dcr.bc.ca ) also provide recycling
information on their websites.
See Section 2.0 for additional information about municipality and island community public
education and program promotions.
4.3.3
Local NonGovernmental Organizations
In the Comox Valley, Citizens Action for Recycling and the Environment (CARE) provides
information and promotion of waste reduction initiatives to Comox Valley residents, In
conjunction with the RDC-S, CARE organized the Spring Clean-up household hazardous
waste drop-off day at Driftwood Mall in 2000 and 2001. The organization also promotes
solid waste initiatives at public events such as the Fall Fair, Union Bay Days, and Earthfest.
CARE has recently centred its efforts on wastewater treatment and water conservation
research within the RDC-S.
In the Comox Valley, there are also various thrift stores, free stores (in Cumberland and
Courtenay), and businesses that offer products in refillable containers.
4.4
Waste Management Survey
In 2000, the RDC-S retained Praxis Inc. to conduct a public consultation survey as a means
of understanding attitudes and behaviour related to waste management and reduction
practices. Data was collected by random telephone surveys of 424 RDC-S residents in
October 2000. The survey was 15 minutes in length, and the overall response rate was 36
percent.
Highlights of the survey results include:
It is estimated that annual production of household waste is about 3.1 million containers
(garbage cans and bags).
• Eighty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they had curbside pickup of garbage.
There was no significant difference in the amount of garbage produced by different
communities, and no significant difference in the amount produced, regardless of
whether or not the household had curbside pickup.
• Among those who have curbside pickup, just over 50 percent have taken garbage to a
disposal site within the past year. The average number of trips to a disposal site for this
group is 4.6 times per year, mostly associated with yard and construction waste.
• Almost 90 percent of households reduce waste through returning recyclable products to
depots. Recycling, including donation of materials, is conducted by 97 percent of
households. Of the materials recycled, newspaper is recycled by 7 percent of those who
recycle and aluminum cans are recycled by 60 percent of recyclers.
• The survey revealed that only 5 percent of households returned tetra paks. While it is
possible this low rate of return reflects a low level of use of these products, it is more
............. likelythatthe rateof returnisassoiated ..wit.htheia...of awarenesst.ha..the..eprodlcts
4. PULCAT1CN SCUCTION AND PRO MOTION PROGRAMS
can be recycled. By comparison, a 1999 Alberta study revealed 54 percent of tetra paks
were returned. Comparing provincial data between BC and Alberta, it is interesting to
note that both p rovinces recycle (by weight) roughly the same amount of aluminum
cans; however, Alberta recycles five times the volume of tetra paks. Given that the
purpose of the surcharge on these products is to keep them out of landfills, further
investigation of the awareness of tetra pak recycling may be warranted. The low level of
return for tetra paks may also be a convenience issue, since they are not accepted at all
recycling locations.
Composting is carried out by 56 percent of households in the study area. Those who
compost their household waste produce on average 1.47 containers of trash per week. By
comparison, those who do not compost produce 1.77 Containers of trash per week. On an
annual basis, this difference equates to 257,000 containers of trash. The main barriers to
composting are physical space (33 percent) and attitude (29 percent). Those who
indicated they are "not interested and have no time" to compost produce an average of
2.3 containers of trash per week and represent about nine percent of households in the
study area.
• For many, composting is a recent activity. Almost 40 percent of households started
composting within the past five years. There is also a significant demographic difference
among those who started composting within the past five years: almost 50 percent of
them are families with children.
Just under 50 percent of households indicated they are storing used paint. Eighteen
percent of households are storing liquid chemicals such as solvents, chemicals and
flammables. Without adequate information, there is a significant risk of improper
disposal of these products. Twenty-two percent of those who disposed of liquid
chemicals placed them in the garbage. A further 10 percent dumped them down the
drain in their yard.
Overall, the awareness of recycling depots and landfill locations is very high (89 percent
and 70 percent respectively).
• Seventy percent of respondents indicated they would like to learn more about programs
offered by the Regional District to reduce waste, The survey indicated that 42 percent of
respondents are aware of composting education sites, but only 8 percent have used them.
• Just over 40 percent of respondents recalled seeing advertisements related to waste
reduction programs over the previous six months.
• In terms of unaided recall, newspapers had by far the greatest impact. Almost two-thirds
of those who recall seeIng an ad related to waste reduction noted that it was in the
newspaper. Eighteen percent of households indicated they had seen flyers about waste
reduction regarding locatioti of sites and types of products that can be recycled. The least
mentioned media were TV ads, radio, posters and billboards (each had less than 5
percent).
iEi' 1 1..I
[SI ii.]s1*IS
I 1iIi1
[iII1
III] ILl iii
1'] iit.iIi.iii .XTI1 ii
There are several reasons for recommending an education and promotion (E&P) program
for. .th.e.RDC.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. PU8LJCAT0N EDUCTION AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS
• The Waste Management Survey conducted by Praxis Inc. states that 70 percent of
individuals surveyed would be interested in learning mare about RDC-S reduction
programs. Survey results indicated that increased E&P would be beneficial far tetra paks
and household hazardous waste.
The recommended waste management strategy will impose many changes in the way in
which individuals and organizations think about and manage their waste.
Successful reduction of the quantity of wastes going to the RDC-S landfills will require
devoting significant resources, including staff and finances, to educating internal staff,
residents, and businesses on the solid waste diversion options.
The main features of an E&P program that will be required to implement the RDC-S's waste
reduction plans are described below. To maximize the effectiveness of the program, 13
strategies have been proposed to assist with the following: setting goals and objectives;
planning content, themes and messages; staffing; building relationships with other 3R
service providers, and achieving success.
The RDC-S's approach to implementing an effective E&P program will include the following
tasks:
i. Allocate adequate staff time and budget to E&P
2. Research different segments of the population who are targeted for programs
3. Prepare a three-year E&P plan
4. Coordinate E&P activities with municipalities and other service providers
5. Maintain a consistent "look" for the program
6. Use a variety of communication methods
7. Develop a website
S. Keep records of efforts
9. Evaluate the impact of E&P programs
10. Use community resources
ii. Cross-promote solid waste management activities
12. Maintain telephone hotline number
13. Seek funding opportunities
Further information on each of these individual recommendations is included in the
following sections.
4.5.1
Allocate Adequate Staff Time and Budget to Education and Promotion
In recent years, experience has shown that successful reduction, reuse, and recycling
programs are usually accompanied by a well-funded E&P program. The RDC-S's three-year
plan must show work effort equal to the staff available, it must be recognized that not all
needs can be met immediately.
17
4. PUEUcATICN EDUCflCN AND PROMOTCN PROGRAMS
In addition to the RDC-S, Municipalities must also contribute to the E&P effort by taking
part in community-specific promotions and participating in the region's E&P working group.
The RDC-S will Continue to assign responsibilities for answering a central information line to
existing support staff if possible, or will add additional staff if needed. They will also need to
continue funding for E&P activities other than staffing (e.g., brochures, media coverage, and
training manuals).
Estimated cost The RDC-S has a full-time waste reduction coordinator and spent about
$30,000 on advertisements and other promotional materials in 2000. This level of funding
will be maintained for basic education and promotion.
4.5.2
Target Programs to Specific Audiences
Each program that the RDC-S implements will have a targeted audience. FOr residential
recycling, the targeted audience may be all the single- and multi-family residents in the
region. For ICI initiatives, the audience may be all businesses with more than five
employees. Whatever the targeted audience, it is critical that the broad audience be further
defined and refined so that the appropriate E&P activities can be planned.
The intent of the research is to develop "pictures" of target audiences - determining
characteristics such as demographics, attitudes, present involvement in recycling and waste
reduction, motivations, preferred way of receiving information, etc. The results of the recent
waste reduction surve y will provide valuable insight into target audiences.
It is recommended that the ICI sector be the RDC-S's main focus for educating and
motivating individuals concerning waste reduction and recycling programs. This research
will lay the groundwork for a regional E&P plan.
Estimated cost: Will be part of the duties of the half-time Id program coordinator.
4.5.3
Prepare a 3-Year E&P Plan
An E&P plan is a schedule or "blueprint" of activities that will be undertaken to support
waste reduction and recycling activities. A plan ensures effective use of staff time and budget,
as well as offering a benchmark for measuring success,
Rigorous planning will ensure that staff resources and budget are allocated carefully,
avoiding the chaos that can occur when a number of initiatives are launched simultaneously.
Planning will also help ensure that the RDC-S builds on existing resources and does not plan
an education program without first having a need for it. For example, the RDC-S should not
begin preparing a school program before talking to school administrators and teachers about
their needs and wants.
An E&P plan houid address the following questions:
Who will you be talking to? (the target audiences)
Why are you communicating? (broad goals/specific objectives)
What do you want to say? (core messages)
• How you will measure the success of your efforts? (evaluation)
• What will the costs be? (budget)
Reinforcement of goals, themes, instructions, and ideas is necessary for progressive and
consistent diversion.
4, PU$UCATION ERUCT€QN AND PRGMCT1ON PROGRAMS
When f tnding and staff commitment is available, the RDC-S will develop a comprehensive,
three-year regional E&P plan, with input from target audiences, providers of service, and
other jurisdictions. The plan should address immediate, short- and long-term actions
pertaining to the following programs:
• Residential waste reduction and reuse
• Residential backyard composting
• School program for waste reduction and recycling
• Residential recycling
• ICI waste reduction and recycling
• Demolition, landclearing, and construction (DLC) waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Estimated cost: It is recommended that the RDC-S budget for consulting time to assist in the
preparation of an E&P plan and development of program identification and materials. in the
first year, the RDC-S should budget for consulting costs of approximately $25,000, plus
some time from existing staff.
4.5.4
Coordinate E&P Activities with Municipalities and Other Service
Providers
Comprehensive E&P activities should be coordinated with municipalities, nonprofit or
private industry agencies, and the regional district. Providers meet regularly to discuss
activities, share ideas and resources, and plan joint initiatives.
In addition to meeting with service providers within their boundaries, many regional
districts and counties meet regularly with neighbouring jurisdictions to share ideas and
resources and to work on collaborative efforts and avoid duplication.
The RDC-S will seek to coordinate its efforts with those of local municipalities, nonprofit
groups, private enterprise, the federal and provincial governments, and, where possible
other regions. Steps to achieving this coordination include:
• Establishing a local working group
» Meeting with other Vancouver Island Regional Districts
• Contacting governments to learn of present and planned programs
• Developing a regional E&P plan through which other agencies can gain insight into the
district's intended actions.
The RDC-S will consider funding small community actions that would assist in reaching
waste reduction and recycling goals. Although the amount given to each project might be
small, the potential impact, both in terms of public relations and diversion, may be great.
The RDC-S will coordinate its programs with schools and other local community groups.
Much has been written about the importance of public involvement in shaping program
design and maintaining a successful program.
The RDC-S will consider bringing together a working group of providers of recycling and
waste reduction services quarterly to achieve the following objectives:
• To. give input into the three-year regional E&P plan
• To discuss each provider's E&P activities
• To look for possible areas for corporation
®........ To work_through shared issues in waste. re.duction_and recycling ..... .........
.........
.................
4, PUSLIC.AflON EDUCTON AND PROMQTON PROGP.AMS
• To plan joint initiatives
E&P activities should focus not only on the external audiences that will receive services but
on internal audiences such as municipal staff, regional staff, and elected officials. Those who
deliver services, provide information about the services, or make decisions regarding the
direction and funding services must be informed and involved.
Finally, the RDC-S will implement an internal communications strategy with actions to
inform and educate internal staff and politicians. Suggested actions to address the needs of
internal audiences include presentations, memos, one-onone discussions, and site tours.
This internal strategy should be included in the three-year E&P plan detailed in
Section 4.3.5.
Estimated cost: None.
4.5.5
Maintain a Consistent "Look" for the Program
Program recognition is one of the keys to successful waste reduction and recycling programs.
A consistent program "look" or identification - a logo, slogan, character, mascot, style,
graphics, or colour scheme - can help establish program recognition.
The RDC-S will continue using their "recycling family" cartoon characters and create new
"family members" (e.g., leaf, grass blade) for composting initiatives.
The RDC-S will print all E&P literature on recycled content paper or treeless paper.
4.5.6
Use a Variety of Communication Methods
it is important to have the desired message repeated often, using a variety of communication
methods (e.g., print materials, newspaper advertising, cable television interviews, radio
spots, personal contacts, telephone support, press releases, presentations, and posters).
Using as many communication tools as are affordable increases the likelihood of messages
being heard and of behaviours being changed. Low-cost or no-cost options include public
service announcements, press releases, utility bill inserts, and newspaper articles.
The RDC-S will use a variety of communication methods to promote recycling and waste
reduction. Methods should be chosen based on information from target audiences on their
preferred ways of receiving information, advice from other jurisdictions, and cost
considerations. The RDC-S will use print media - newspapers, magazines, newsletters, and
flyer4. Publication Education and Promotion Programs s - as its primary communications
tool and will also consider preparing public service announcement messages for cable
television and radio.
4.5.7
Develop a Website
Websites are an excellent media for education and program promotion. The RDC-S will
prepare a Request for Proposals to tender the design, construction, and quarterly
maintenance of a website. By changing various information throughout the year, industry
and the public will see which programs and activities are taking place over a given season.
IC
4. PULICA1ION EDUCIIGN AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS
The website could also be expanded to cover other departments within the RDC-S (e.g.,
utilities, planning, and parks).
Estimated cost: The RDC-S is in the process of developing a website that will cover all of its
departments. For the solid waste plan, the RDC-S will budget $20,000 initially, followed by
a small sum in subsequent years to integrate the website into its programs.
4.5.8
Keep Records of Efforts
Records are important for documenting efforts in E&P and are useful for reporting to the
Board, for referral, and for future planning. Records for each E&P activity should include:
Examples of materials produced
• Copies of any media coverage
Letters or other responses from the public
• Costs
a Contacts
Relevant recycling rates or participation rate information
a Any formal or informal feedback on efforts
Notes for future planning
The RDC-S will maintain an accessible archival file for each E&P activity in a central area.
Estimated cost: Ongoing, no added cost.
4.5.9
Evaluate the tmpact of E&P Programs
Waste reduction staff need information on the impact of E&P programs on the public
awareness and behaviour, not only to make any necessary modifications to activities, but
also to help justify the program's existence to decisionmakers.
The information needed to evaluate the effects of an E&P program might be gained through:
• Anal ysis of recycling rates, monthly participation rates, and capture rates
• Levels of contamination
• Media coverage
• Personal interviews
• Soliciting opinions at community events and meetings
• Mail or drop-off surveys
Focus groups
• Mail-back response cards
• Website.
The RDC-S will include evaluation as part of every E&P program. Approximately 10 percent
of the cost of a program should be spent on evaluation. Results should be communicated to
appropriate audiences including politicians and the general public.
Estimated cost: The recent waste management survey was a good example of this type of
initiative. It would be useful to conduct a follow-up effort in three to five years.
4.5.10
Use Commuffity Resources
Most successful waste reduction and recycling programs use community resources wherever
....................possible tcobtain comm unitybuyin participation, and voiunteerheipExampleso..f................
4-1
4. PULTION EDUCTICANC PROMCTCN PROGRAMS
community resources that may be of use in the delivery of services include graphic
designers, printers, media outlets, and communications consultants.
Existing avenues of communication (e.g., existing newsletters, service club meetings, special
events) can provide access to the community in a relatively cost-efficient way. Local
organizations and societies always look for topics of interest to inform their members.
Providing information about 3Rs programs to these groups can help reduce costs and
increase the effectiveness of messages.
It is recommended that the RDC-S make an inventory of community resources to be used
when service support or community access is needed. Community resources include:
Welcome Wagon
* Schools
• Library
Service clubs
* Chambers of Commerce
• Boy Scouts and Girl Guides.
4.511
CrossPromote Solid Waste Management Activities
In an integrated solid waste management system, many opportunities exist to promote
different components of the system together. It is both cost-effective and efficient to
mention one waste reduction program (for example, depot recycling) when other programs
(backyard composting or source reduction) are being promoted. Audiences can be informed
about their choices, such as user-pay garbage disposal or tree recycling. Cross-promotion
also helps establish the essential links between various solid waste management options.
The RDC-S will strive to cross-promote solid waste management activities with other RDC-S
departments. For instance, with the water conservation department, decreasing the length of
time lawns are watered decreases grass growth. This, in turn, decreases the amount of grass
that is landflhied.
4.5.12
Maintain Telephone Hotline Number
Recognizing the public's need for ready access to information on waste reduction and
recycling programs, successful programs offer and promote the use of their central
information line.
The B.C. Recycling Hotline, (800) 667-4321, responds to questions from throughout the
province, such as requests for information on HHW disposal options.
The RDC-S has established, and will maintain, a designated phone number to respond to
these requests. The Waste Reduction Coordinator will respond to questions at (Soo) 3316007 or (250) 334-0389.
Estimated cost: No added cost.
2
4. PULICA11ON DUCTlON AND PROMOTON PROGRAMS
4.5.13
Seek Funding Opportunities
Working with non-profit organizations opens up numerous funding opportunities for
education projects. The Green Source (2000), produced by Environment Canada, is a
reference to Canadian funding sources for environmental projects by non-profit
organizations.
EcoAction Community Funding Program (Environment Canada)
This is a funding program that helps carry Out action-oriented projects that protect or
improve the environment in their community. Funding is available up to a maximum of
Sioo,000 for a period of two years, with the average amount being $25,000. To receive this
funding, every dollar received from the federal government must be matched by a nonfederal government sponsor. This can include cash contributions and in-kind support.
In Alberta, the Town of Okotoks received a 4O,OOO EcoAction2000 grant for a residential
sustainable environmental education initiative. The For Future's Sake program was founded
by the Town of Okotoks and the Healthy Okotoks Coalition; it will target waste and water
conservation from April to October 2001.
Friends of the Environment Foundation (TD Bank)
This foundation provides funding support for worthwhile community-based initiatives that
make a positive difference to the Canadian environment. Non-profit and charitable
organizations can apply for.funding, which varies with each project.
SheD Environment Fund
This fund provides up to 85,000 for innovative, action-oriented ways of improving and
protecting the Canadian Environment. Canadian residents may apply on their own, or on
behalf of a service club, charitable or volunteer organization, environmental group, youth
group, or others.
Estimated cost: None, performed by existing staff.
43
This section covers the collection of material, both waste and recyclables. In planning an
integrated solid waste system, it is important to consider collection of waste and recyclables
together, because changes in one material stream will affect the other.
Many of the programs discussed in this section were developed in response to actions
recommended in the i
Plan, such as the Multi-Material Drop-off Depot (MMDD)
program. The collection programs in the RDC-S are working well, and this plan recommends
enhancements to these programs to divert additional materials from landfihling.
A discussion of program objectives, recycling service designations, priority materials for
recycling, and summary results from the 2000 Waste Management Survey follows.
5.1.1
Program Objectives
The following program objectives, originally developed during the 1995 Plan Review, will be
used to guide material collection programs in the RDC-S:
• Make the opportunity to recycle available to all residents and the ICI establishments in
the RDC-S.
• Emphasize source separation by generators to maximize the quality of recovered
materials and to minimize processing requirements.
Integrate incentives that encourage recycling in conjunction with reduction and reuse
efforts.
• Enhance and supplement existing recycling activities.
• Foster cooperation between RDC-S, member municipalities, and private enterprise to
maintain a viable recycling industry offering employment opportunities in the RDC-S.
• Design programs that have the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions such as market
pricing, industry product stewardship programs, and uncertainty surrounding reduction
and reuse impacts to the waste stream.
• Allow flexibility for programs to fit the unique requirements of the many different areas
within the RDC-S.
5.1.2
Recycling Service Designations
The RDC-S is characterized by diverse topography with many different types of waste
generators and transportation modes. To make recycling widely available, programs must be
designed to reach each type of generator in most or all geographic locations, and to
accommodate the different program requirements for each generator type. To accomplish
this, and allow analysis of alternative programs, RDC-S generator type and program service
area designations have been categorized as the following:
5. MATERAL CDILECflON AND RECYOJNG
• Urban SingleFamily (SF) includes 80 percent of the households in Campbell River,
Courtenay, Comox, and Cumberland, plus 50 percent of surrounding households in the
Electoral Areas of School Districts 71 and 72 (excluding island communities).
• Urban Multi-Family (MF) includes the remaining 20 percent of urban households;
represents the estimated number of households living in larger complexes from which
waste is collected by a front-end loader.
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (IC!) refers to all establishments in
School Districts 71 and 72, other than those located on the islands.
Gold River includes all residential and ICI waste in Gold River.
• Rural and Island Communities consists of all residents and the Id establishments
in School District 84 (except for Gold River) pIus 50 percent of the residents in the
Electoral Areas of School Districts 71 and 72. It includes all residential and Id waste on
the island communities.
5t3
Priority Materials
Selection of materials for inclusion in new RDC-S programs depends upon a variety of
factors, including diversion potential, collection and processing requirements, and market
conditions. Sometimes these factors conflict - for example, in the case of mixed waste paper
that is a significant percentage of the waste stream but has a low secondary market value.
While specific commodities may change based on future analysis and updates of market
conditions, this plan recommends the following hierarchy for targeting new materials in any
RDC-S recycling program. To ensure cost-effective implementation, high priority materials
should be targeted in all programs. Moderate to low priority materials may be targeted if a
more aggressive program is desired, or added to programs later, as market or collection
variables become more favourable.
High Priority:
Old Newspaper (ONP)
Old Corrugated Cardboard (0CC), including boxboard
Fine Paper
Glass (clear and coloured)
Metal (ferrous and nonferrous)
Old Magazines (0MG)
White Goods
Moderate Priority:
Mixed Waste Paper
• PET Plastic
• HDPE Plastic
Low Priority:
• Film Plastic
• Other Plastics
• Textiles
• Brown Goods
5. MATERA. COLLEC1ON ANC RECYcLING
It is noted that ONP and 0MG are now sorted and separated. Aluminum is a high priority
material that is managed through the provincial beverage container deposit program.
5.1.4
Waste Management Survey Resifits
The Praxis 2000 Waste Management Survey provided information about opinions and
habits of those who recycle in the RDC-S. A summary of some of the relevant information
related to recycling follows.
The survey documented that 88 percent of households use recycling depots. The average
number of containers of garbage produced by those who recycle is 1.57 per week, compared
to 2.62 containers per week for those that do not recycle.
Over 40 recycling depots were identified by respondents. The most frequently mentioned
were: Comox Mall (92), Sportsplex (), Thrifty's (36), Airforce Base (24), Supervalue (13),
Quality Foods (12,) and Anderson Road (12). Almost 90 per cent of respondents choose the
recycling depot based on proximity to where they live.
The most commonly recycled products are newspaper (75 percent) and cans (61. percent).
About one-quarter of respondents visit recycling depots once a week. One-third go every
other week, and just aver one-quarter go once a month.
Between visits to the recycling depot, the garage is the mast common place to store
recyclable materials
percent). Visitors to the recycling depots more frequently tend to
store the material on the main floor of their house, in laundry rooms, cupboards, and spare
rooms. Those who visit the depots once a month or less have a greater tendency to store
materials in the basement or garage.
5.2
Existing Conditions
Section 5.2 provides a description of the recycling and residual solid waste collection
methods employed in the RDC-S, including industry product stewardship programs and
programs operated by local government and the private sector. For a description of current
practices in urban and rural municipalities, and in island communities, see Section 2.0.
5.2.1
industry ProductStewardship Programs
The Province of British Columbia has developed a number of Industry Product Stewardship
programs for beverage containers, tires, and products that create HHW. In these programs,
producers and users of various products assume the financial and management
responsibility for the residuals they create. Each program is designed to best fit the
particular needs of the material in question. For example, brand-owners of beverage
containers are required to establish province-wide return collection systems for used
beverage containers under a deposit-refund system.
Some of the regulations implemented or amended over the past six years to support industry
product stewardship include:
Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation replaced the Litter Act effective
October I, 1998. This regulation expands the deposit-refund system to include all readyto-drink beverages (e.g., pop, juice, sports drinks, and water in any type of container),
except milk, milk substitutes, infant formula and meal replacements. An exemption,
5. MATERLAL COLLECTON AND RECYaJNG
until October i, 1999, was granted to polycoated and flexible pouch containers to develop
a viable recycling solution.
Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Solvents, Pesticides and
Gasoline (B.C. Req. 111/97) was passed on March 27, 1997. Producers of
solvents/flammable liquids, domestic pesticides, and gasoline are now required to take
cradle to cradle responsibility for the management of their products that contribute to
the household hazardous waste stream. This regulation was amended on July io, 1998
(B.C. Reg. 244/98) to exclude kerosene sold in containers larger than nine litres and
domestic pesticides that do not bear the poison hazard symbol (skull and cross bones) on
the label.
• Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Req. 11/97) Pharmaceuticals was amended at the request of the pharmaceutical industry to include
pharmaceutical products. All brand owners of pharmaceutical products sold in B.C. must
take cradle to cradle responsibility for the safe management of their products that would
otherwise enter the household hazardous waste Stream.
Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Req. 200/94) was
amended June 26, 1997 to include all paints sold in pressurized containers (aerosols).
This regulation requires the producers of consumer paint products to take cradle to
cradle responsibility for the management of their products that contribute to the
household hazardous waste stream.
At the federal level, the National Packaging Protocol established in 1989 by the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) had industry leaders voluntarily agree to
reduce packaging waste across Canada. Monitoring results for 1996 indicated a 51 percent
reduction by weight of packaging .sent for disposal relative to the 1988 baseline estimates.
This exceeds both the National Packaging Protocol's milestone targets of 35 percent by 1996
and 50 percent by the year 2000. Even though the year 2000 target was achieved four years
ahead of schedule, the National Packaging Task Force recognizes that work implementing
the Protocol is not complete. During the latter part of the 1990'S the protocol task force
worked on a review of stewardship initiatives acrossthe country and pilot testing of its waste
characterization model. In June 2000, the National Packaging Protocol Final Report was
issued, stating that the CCME should not abandon solid waste issues and should consider
coordinating a broader approach to solid waste, not just packaging.
5.2.2
Residential Programs
Staffed Drop-off Depots
The RDC-S contracts the operation of two staffed, drop-off depots with Salish Disposal,
which, in turn, subcontracts this work to Vancouver Island Recycling. The two depots - one
in Cumberland and the other in Campbell River - both accept the same materials as the
MMDDs, with the addition of mixed waste paper. Island Bottle arid Recycling in Campbell
River will pay residents who drop-off non-ferrous metal and batteries.
Opportunities to deliver recyclable materials are also made available at the Pidgeon Lake
and Campbell River Regional Landfills. Each landfill accepts newspaper, cardboard, tin cans,
plastic milk jugs, glass, and auto batteries at no charge. They also accept tires, wood and yard
waste at S45 per tonne and refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners at S15 per appliance
(freon removal).
5. MATRAL CCLLECI1ON AND REC'OJNG
MuIt-MateriaI Drop-off Depots
The RDC-S multi material drop-off depot (MMDD) program started in the Fall of 1997 as a
way to collect recyclable material primarily in the Comox Valley and Campbell River, and in
some of the outlying areas of the District. Newspapers, magazines, mixed paper, glass, metal
food cans, plastic milk jugs, cardboard and boxboard are currently collected at the following
19 depots:
Camp bell
River:
Campbell River Sportsplex, Strathcona Gardens, Discovery Harbour
Centre, Vancouver Island Recycling, Campbell River Regional Landfill
C'omox Valley: Courtenay Country Market, Canex CFB, Comox Mall, Quality Foods,
Thrifty Foods, Driftwood Mall, the Salish-staffed depot, Pidgeon Lake
Regional Landfill
Black Creek:
Oyster River Fire Hall
Gold River:
Payless Gas, Arena and Community Centre, Drop-off Depot
Royston/
Cumberland:
Comox Valley Auto Recycling
Quadra
Island:
Quadra Foods
Roll-off bins are used to collect newspaper, magazines and office paper, glass, and metal,
while milk jugs, cardboard, and boxboard are collected in two-yard bins.
The MMDD materials are collected by Salish Disposal and transported to the Vancouver
Island Recycling drop-off depots in Cumberland and Campbell River, where they are baled
and shipped to the appropriate markets (see Section 6 for added information about material
markets),
The RDC-S shares revenues from recyclable materials with its contractor, using either a set
price (for plastics, metal, and glass) or actual material sale prices (for cardboard, boxboard,
newspaper, magazines, and office paper).
The RDC-S currently pays for the operating and collection costs for this program through
landfill tipping fees. In 2000, the MMDD program resulted in the collection of 2,890 tonnes
of material - 1,791 tonnes of newsprint, 21 tonnes of magazines, 52 tonnes of office paper,
682 tonnes of cardboard, 169 tonnes of glass, 54 tonnes of milk jugs, and 121 tonnes of tin.
When compared to the number of households served by the program, the program results in
diversion of 74 kg/household.
A historical review of annual recyclable material tonnages collected since the programs
inception is shown in Figure 5-1.
5. MATERIAL COLLECTION AND REOYLNG
The operational cost of the program (excluding administration and supervision) was S 40.20
per tonne in 2000. The operational cost of the three MMDD sites at Gold River is $40,000
annually.
Figure 5-i
MuIU Materiai Drop-off Depot Annual Tonnages from 1998-2001 Estimate
2400
DGass
IJugs
0CC
0ffice
Tn
D ONP
Maga:
1600
0
C
0
- 1200
C.,
0
800
400
0
1998
(18 depots)
1999
(20 depots)
2000
(19 depots)
2001 est.
(19 depots)
depots) Year
Other Programs
Other residential recycling collection services are offered in the District, including the City of Courtenays blue bag program and private collection services offered by Go Green and
Evergreen Recycling. These programs are discussed in Section 2.
5.2.3
IC Programs
Journey Program
In partnership with Salish Disposal and the RDC-S, the Journey program provides
businesses, schools and government offices with an office paper collection service for the.
=
5. MATERfAL COLLECTION AND RECYOJNG
Comox Valley. This day program started in 1991 and provides opportunities for mentally
handicapped adults to learn and practise work-related and social skills.
Customers are responsible for sorting their recyclable office paper and ensuring collection
bags are not contaminated with other materials. The tolerance levels for contaminated
materials in collection bags is approximately three percent. Booklets bound with staples are
acceptable, but books bound with glue or plastic are not. The following are not acceptable in
the collection bags:
Carbon paper
Gummed labels and tapes
Glossy, slick and waxed papers
• Photographic and blueprint paper
• Rubber bands, tape, plastic-covered
paper clips
Cardboard and scratch pad bindings
• tJnbleached kraft paper
• Fluorescent coloured paper
• Magazines and newspapers
• Food wrappings, drinking cups, lunch
bags
Collection bags are supplied by the Journey Program and are accepted to a maximum of
20 kilograms per bag. Collection is on an as-needed basis, and the program typically collects
from 265 locations, over a month. A maximum of five bags will be collected at one time, with
one replacement bag being left behind for each bag taken. Customers are invoiced quarterly
at a rate of $5 for each regular collection, $15 is charged for any large, unscheduled
collections. The user fees assist in the payment of Journey Program workers wages, fuel
expenses for support of staff vehicles, and the cost of replacement bags (valued at j cents
each).
During 2000, 86 tones of paper were collected; the total for January through July 2001 was
54 torines. The collected paper is dropped off at the Salish Disposal recycling facility in
Cumberland, where it is bundled and transported to Vancouver to be recycled into paper
products. Program promotion is through word of mouth, as there is no budget for
advertising.
Encorp Pacific (Canada)
The large number of beverage containers students bring to school everyday led Encorp
Pacific (Canada), a not-for-profit stewardship agency based in Burnaby, to develop a school
program to encourage recycling ofthese containers. What started as a three-month pilot
program with the Burnaby School District in early 2000 has flourished and is now the
largest elementary school PET container recycling program in North America. The program
is available at no charge to all British Columbia elementary schools, which receive three
recycling bins for retrieval of PET plastic containers, aluminum cans, and drink box
containers, as well as support material. Participating schools are each raising So to Sioo
per month through the system, which expanded to all elementary schools in British
Columbia at the beginning of the 2000 school year. To date, 237,586 containers have been
retrieved. Schools taking part in the program include Cumberland Elementary, Cumberiand;
Arderi Elementary, Courtenay; Brooklyn Elementary, Comox; Discovery Passage
Elementary, Campbell River, and Cortes Island Elementary/Junior Secondary School.
The RDC-S will support and encourage all elementary schools in the District to join this
program.
5-7
5 MATERAL CDLLECflON AND RECYtJNG
Private Companies
Island Bottle Recycling operates a regular bottle and cardboard pick-up route from 31
restaurants in Campbell River.
Salish Disposal has a cardboard collection route with approximately 600 business customers
in the RDC-S. Salish collects 70 percent of these bins on an as-needed basis, and 30 percent
of customers have scheduled dates. All cardboard that is collected goes to Vancouver Island
Recycling for baling and marketing.
Evergreen Recycling offers collection services to Courtenay businesses for tin, aluminum,
glass, boxboard, cardboard, office paper, mixed paper, newsprint, magazines, #1-#7 plastics
and soft plastics (e.g., clean grocery and produce bags, saran wrap and plastic packaging).
Business collection is on an as-needed basis, and prices vary depending on volume and
material type. All recyclables go to Vancouver Island Recycling, with the exception of the
plastics, which are sent to Syntal in Victoria and made into plastic lumber.
Go Green of Campbell River services businesses for office paper collection either weekly or
biweekly on Wednesday. The company currently collects from 10 large forest companies in
the area, charging S7.50 to Sm/pick-up. Go Green supplies blue boxes (Sio deposit/box) for
internal office paper collection, or the companies can design their own collection system.
The office paper is either left in garbage cans inside the building or placed in garbage bags in
an enclosed 6 cubic yard bin in the back by night cleaners. It is then transported to
Vancouver Island Recycling. Na monies are exchanged between Go Green and Vancouver
Island Recycling for this commodity.
I=[s11IiiiJi[]iL
The RDC-S is considering five possible enhancements to its recycling program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Increasing the number of depots in the MMDD program
Using the Haul-All depot system
Enhancing plastics recycling
Enhancing mixed waste paper recycling
Enhancing office paper recycling
An analysis of each of these options and planned actions follows.
5.3.1
Increasing the Number of MMDO Depots
Analysis conducted in the 1995 Plan Review established a target range of 22 to 28 depots for
maximizing cost-effective recovery in the urban areas of the regional district (i.e., excluding
depots in rural areas and island communities). There are now 19 active depots in the MMDD
program. Negotiations have been favourable for the addition of anMMDD container at th
new Comox Valley Walmart, which is currently under construction. This depot is expected to
be in place by the end of 2001.
To date, the RDC-S has had difficulties trying to site MMDD bins in Campbell River. Some of
the challenges faced include mall owners who are not particularly interested in recycling,
litter concerns, an unwillingness to give up five to six parking stalls far the bins, and the
occasional community concern. The RDC-S believes that the program could recover
additional materials cost-effectively if depots were added in appropriate locations.
5-a
5. MATERIAL CQLLECflON AND RECYCLING
The RDC-S will continue trying to expand the number of MMDDs in place, at least until the
threshold range identified in the 1995 Plan Review is achieved. At a minimum, the RDC-S
would like to place one more bin in the Comox Valley and two more in Campbell River.
Estimated cost: S7,000 per depot.
5.3.2
Converting to the Haffl•A11 Depot System
The MMDD bins currently in use in the RDC-S have resulted in a functional and costeffective program. There are other types of systems that provide additional flexibility and a
better appearance. One such system is made by a company called Haul-All. The most notable
example of that system is in place in the City of Calgary, Alberta. A profile of that system
follows.
The Calgary Haul-All System
The City of Calgary started a drop-off recycling program in April 1992, with seven Haul-All
depot locations cbllecting newspaper, metal cans, and clear and coloured glass in high traffic
areas such as grocery stores. The program has now expanded to 44 depots. The same
materials collected in the RDC-S program are collected at the Haul-All depots - newspaper,
magazines, clear and coloured glass, metal cans, milk jugs, cardboard - along with mixed
paper. Each depot traditionally has six 6y3 containers (two for mixed paper, two for
newspaper, one for glass, and one for metal can), one my 3 milk jug container, and one
garbage can. The installation cost at each depot location is about $35,000, including decals
and fencing.
The City operates the system using 13 Haul-All collection vehicles which were purchased
through the City's Mechanical Services operation and are leased to solid waste services for
approximately S300,000 annually. Vehicle maintenance costs an additional $150,000 per
year. This program is funded through recyclable material revenues and the landfill revenue
reserve fund, which, in turn, comes from commercial tipping fees.
Collection varies with each material. Mixed paper and newspaper are collected at least once
a day, glass is collected every three to four days, metal cans every two to three days, arid milk
jugs twice a week. With the exception of milk jugs, all bins are hydraulically lifted, Milk jugs
are vacuumed, shredded, and compacted in dedicated, specially designed trucks that cost
S200,000. It is estimated that a full container of newspaper weighs 900 kg, mixed paper
weighs 200 kg, glass soc kg, Cans 200 kg, and milk jugs 75 kg.
The tonnage of material collected by the City of Calgary's program since 1995 is shown in
Figure 5-2. Note that milk jug collection started in April 2000, and that the steady increase
in newspaper/magazines arid mixed paper/cardboard tonnages is due to the addition of
depots (32, 34, 34, 37,41 and 43, respectively) to the program. In 2000, 82kg of re.cyclables
were collected from each residential dwelling unit.
5 MATERJL COLErIION AND REcYcLING
Figure 5-2
City of Calgary Recyclables Collected 1995-2000
15000
16000
14000
12000
o NewspaperjM agazines
MetaI
10000
000
8
0
I-
DGIass
MIxed Paper/Cardboard
MiIk Jugs
o
6000
4000
2000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
After electing to use a depot system, the City of Calgary selected the Haul-All system
primarily because of the aesthetics: they wanted a system that did not look like a garbage bin
and that could be enhanced by using bright colours and attractive decals, Although costeffective, this was not the cheapest system on the market; however, it was by far the most
attractive visually. Other advantages of the extremely durable bins include the convenient
chest-level entry and the fact that each bin entry can be designed for specific material,
thereby decreasing the chance of contamination.
Disadvantages of the Haul-All system are common to drop-off programs in general namely. lower participation rates due to lack of accessibility (i.e., residents need to have a
vehicle to get to the depot) and individual desire. The space limitations caused by the size of
the Hyd-A-Way containers may also cause problems with program material expansion. In
addition, the City of Calgary notes that they have had some concerns regarding the excessive
time it takes to collect the mixed paper bins. At this time they have contracted LaBrie to
design a truck that will unload the bin in one to two dumps instead of the usual four to five
with the Haul-All trucks. This new truck is anticipated to be available in the fall of 2001 and
if it proves to be successful, a second truck will be ordered. Both will be dedicated to mixed
paper collection.
From the end of September 2001 through March 2002, the City of Calgary will be pilottesting soft plastics collection at four of the depots. If successful, the program will be rolled
out to other depots later in 2002. The City of Calgary does not foresee further material
expansion at this time; however, they will add depot locations as Calgary's population
increases.
Implementing the Haul-All System in the ROCS
In investigating the potential merits of the haul-all system, a comparison of the RDC-S's
MMDD program and the Calgary Haul-All system is shown in Table 5-1.
5 10
5. MATERIAL COLLECIION ANO RECYCLING
Table 5-1
Comparison Statistics: RDC-S IMIMDD System (Excluding Gold River) and Calgary Haul-All System
RDC-S
Calgary
19
44
Households served a
38,896
282,771
Material collected in 2000 (tonnes)
2,890
23,234
Households served per depot
2,431
6,427
Tonnes per depot
152
628
Kg per household
74
82
$2.97
$7,pg
Collection cost per tonne
$40
$88
Household density (hh/sq km) 0
140
394
Number o€ depots
i
I
I
E
Collection cost per household b '
Municipalities and electoral areas in Comox Valley, Campbell River, and Quadra Island.
° xc udes revenues (or costs) from material sales.
9ncfudes more urbanized areas of program territory — i.e., the Comox, Courtenay, and Campbell River census districts. If all
areas are included, household density is 7 hh/sq km.
a
As shown in Table 5 . 1, the RDC-S system compares quite favourably to the Calgary system.
The RDC-S system serves more depots per household at less than half the cost per
household of the Calgary system. The RDC-S system recovers slightly less material per
household than does the Calgary system. Because the Calgary program includes mixed waste
paper, we would expect that system to have relatively more diversion per household and
somewhat higher costs, since mixed waste paper is relatively light in weight and requires
more collection trips than heavier materials such as newspaper. As expected, the Calgary
system recovers much more material at each depot, since each depot serves more
households than is the case with the RDC-S system, and the system includes mixed waste
paper.
In comparing the costs of the programs, the Calgary system should be more costly, because
of the inclusion of mixed waste paper; however, it also has a couple of advantages that will
tend to lower collection costs compared to collection in the. RDC-S for a comparable
program. First, the Calgary system serves a greater population density than the RDC-S,
which is one reason its depots attract three times more material than the average depot in
the RDC-S. This will tend to result in relatively more material in each collection vehicle, thus
lowering per-tonne collection costs.
Second, the RDC-S service territory is relatively long and narrow, being bounded on the west
and east by Stratheona Park and the Strait of Georgia, respectively, whereas Calgary's
geography is relatively circular or square in comparison. These two factors tend to increase
the miles driven and the hauling costs from and between satellite depots and a central depot.
Based on information from the Calgary program, it is estimated that it would cost the RDC-S
approximately $400,000 to 5450,000 to covert its a6 depots over to bins compatible with
the Haul-All system. The improved appearance of the depots may result in a slight increase
in material recovery. Collection costs would undoubtedly be higher than those experienced
by Calgary- — probably around $400,000 per year, or Sio per household per year. This would
I
I
j
f
5 MATERIAL COLLECTICN AN( RECYOJMG
be an increase of about S285,000 per year or 7 per household per year above the cost of the
MMDD system.
Planned Action: Considering the cost of this option, the RDC-S
Will
not make this change
at this time; however, it may elect to do so at a later date.
5.3.3
Enhancing Plastics Recycling
Many local residents and businesses have commented to the RDC-S that they would like
more opportunity to recycle plastics other than the milk jugs that are currently accepted in
the MMDD p'.ogram. The challenges with expanded recycling of plastics include the high
cost of processing and transportation, low market prices, and relative instability of end
markets. At this time, the most likely markets for other plastics are Merlin Plastics in the
Lower Mainland or Syntal in Victoria, which would result in relatively high transportation
costs. These grades of plastic typically do not command much of a market price.
To estimate the potential cost of a plastic container recycling program, it is necessary to
estimate both the quantity of materials that would be recovered and the collection,
processing, transport, and marketing costs of the materiaL For comparison, in 2000 the
MMDD program recycled 54 tonnes of milk jugs. Based on information shown in Table 2-3,
about 15 percent of all PET and HDPE is currently recycled, and 17 percent of glass
containers are recycled. The estimates of disposed other plastics include plastic building
materials and other consumer goods that are not readily recyclable. A reasonable estimate of
the amount of plastic that would be recovered by including them in the depot program is 5 to
io percent of the disposed other plastics, or 119 to 238 tonnes per year.
In 2000, it cost the RDC-S S288 per tonne to collect HDPE containers, plus S3o per torine
for processing, transport, arid sale to market. Assuming that collecting mixed plastics would
cost a similar amount and approximately S50 per tome more for processing, transport, and
sale, adding mixed plastic containers to the MMDD program would cost in the range of
S44,000 to S88,000 per year.
Another option would be to begin accepting mixed plastics at the staffed depots only with
the potential for including it at all MMDD sites at a later date. Assuming 50 tormes per year
were recovered at the staffed depots at a cost of S200 per tome for processing, transport,
and sale, this option would cost approximately $10,000 per year.
Planned Action: The RDC-S will conduct a pilot program for plastics collection at two of
its MMDD depot locations. It will negotiate with its collection contractor to install bins, and
to collect, process, and sell th.e material collected. The pilot program should run for at least
six months and will give valuable information about the quantity of materials likely to be
received and the likely costs of a full-scale program. After evaluating program results, the
RDC-S will either expand plastics collection to all MMDDs or offer mixed plastics drop-off
opportunities at its two staffed depots. Estimated cost: Sio,000 for the pilot ptogrâm.
5.3.4
Enhancing Mixed Waste Paper Recyc'ing
The Regional District also receives numerous requests from residents who would like the
opportunity to recycle mixed waste paper at the MMDD depots. These materials are not
currently accepted at the staffed depots. Mixed waste paper is one of the major untapped
resources that can be recycled in the district. As shown in Table 2-3, it is estimated that
about ii percent of the disposed wastes in the regional district consist of mixed waste paper.
If the capture rate for mixed waste paper was similar to that of fine paper and boxboard at
12
5. MATERIAL COLLECTION AND RECYQJNO
35 percent, this would result in an increase of about 2,740 tonnes of recyclables, which
would add about four percentage points to the amount of waste diverted from disposal in the
regional district.
Based on current collection costs for other materials, it is estimated that it would cost about
$125 per tonne for collection and another SSo per tonne for processing, transport, and sales,
or a total cost of about S6o,000 per year.
PlannedAcHon: Considering the likely high cost of this option, the RDC-S will focus on
implementing other, less costly programs. It will consider conducting a pilot, mixed waste
paper collection program in the future to obtain more information about likely material
recovery quantities and costs.
5.3.5 . Enhancing Office Paper Recycling
A reasonable amount of recyclable paper is now being recovered frOm businesses and
institutions in the Regional District. Most of this material is being collected from larger
businesses and institutions, and there is still an opportunity to recycle much more office
paper. Tapping into this material source will require a focused effort by the RDC-S,
collection firms, and local businesses and institutions.
Planning office paper reduction and recycling programs will take time, creativity, and
flexibility. The first step to establishing programs at individual establishments is to conduct
a waste assessment of the materials being disposed of, then developing a waste reduction
plan. These activitie.s can be undertaken by businesses, but it is best that the RDC-S offer the
service to businesses and institutions interested in reducing the amount of waste sent to
landfill.
The following list briefly describes what is needed to set up a source-separated office paper
recycling program, assuming a building has multiple tenants:
• Approval from the building manager (ideally, the program will be uniform throughout
the building)
• Support from top company management
An onsite program coordinator
• Sufficient marketable waste paper to interest a recycling collector in making regular
pick-ups
• Easy access for pick-ups by a recycling collector
• Storage containers and equipment
• Storage space for sorted recyclable materials
• Notification and training for employees, including custodial and office staff
A waste assessment should be conducted in order to design a practical recycling program, or
even to negotiate a paper collection contract with a recycler. The composition of the waste
stream should be known, including the types and quantity of paper discarded. This
information will determine the need for storage space, the size and type of collection
containers required, and the price (if any) received for the waste paper.
5-13
5. MATERbL COLLECflCN AJD RECJNG
The United States Environmental Protection Agency suggests conducting a waste
assessment in one of the following ways:
Estimate the recyclable waste potential using accepted data an waste generation. For
instance: since the average office employee discards roughly one-half a pound of highgrade paper each day, if you have 50 employees on-premises, the daily waste stream
includes approximately 25 pounds of office paper. Over the course of a year (assuming
240 work days) that adds up to 6,000 pounds or 2.7 tonnes per year.
Sample the waste stream for a one- or two-week period. Sort out the different types of
paper, such as high-grade and corrugated, from mixed trash, and measure it by volume
or weigh it by grade. Estimate the quantity discarded using these volumes or weights.
Conduct a pilot-source separation recycling program. Ask employees to keep designated
grades of paper separate from mixed garbage, and weigh or measure the volume of the
accumulated paper for several weeks.
Either a drop-off or pick-up program can be developed. A drop-off program is designed so
that businesses bring their material to a centrally located container. It works best for many
small businesses with small quantities of recyclables located in a densely populated area.
However, because many participants are involved, it may be harder to identify who is adding
contaminants into the dumpster.
When compared to pick-up programs, drop-off programs:
Are quick to set up - they only require an identified and approved centralized location
and a dumpster to be delivered to it
Require up-front costs of purchasing or renting a dumpster
Require motivated business people to walk with their recyclables to the drop-off location
Are likely to lose participants without frequent oversight and reminders
In a pick-up program, a designated hauler conducts a "miikrun" collection of accumulated
material at participating businesses. This requires a waste collector with transportation
capabilities who is available to conduct pick-ups at multiple sites and has the ability to
supply participating businesses with c011ection containers. In this model, participating
business separate the recyciables in their own offices. The hauler picks up the materials
either from the office itself, or from the building's front door or loading dock. The location of
the bins prior to pick-up should be determined with the designated waste collector.
One option to encourage office paper recycling would be to form a business recyclIng
cooperative, whereby businesses in a single geographic area separate office paper for
collection by a shared hauler. Cooperatives are an excellent opportunity for small businesses,
as it is difficult to find a recycler who is willing to serve them at a reasonable cost. One such
cooperative was started in Waltham, Massachusetts, a suburban community outside of
Boston with a small, thriving downtown full of storefront businesses and a number of office
buildings and office parks located on the outskirts of the community. The number of small
and medium-sized businesses provided an ideal setting for a successful recycling
cooperative. WasteCap, a nonprofit organization, was formed to assist businesses reduce and
recycle solid waste. They partnered with two sponsors, the Rotary Club and Waltham
Suburban Chamber of Commerce. In 19', the Waltham Recycling Partnership recycled
over 75 tons of white and coioured office paper.
5. MATERIAL CCLLECION AND REC'QjNG
PtannedAction: There are a number of ways the RDC-S could proceed to enhance office
paper collection. After considering a few different approaches, the RDC-S plans to proceed
as follows:
Hire a qualified ICI waste reduction coordinator. This individual's duties would initially
be focused on implementing the office paper recycling program. As that program
becomes more established, the coordinator could begin working with the DLC sector. If
the new biosolids compost facility is operational, the coordinator could investigate
implementing a food waste collection pilot program.
2. Budget appropriately for promotion of the program (approximately $20,000 per year) in
order to increase the support for the program in the community.
3. Offer waste assessment and reduction plans to ICI establishments in the district.
Establishments would be prioritized and initial efforts would focus on establishments
with the greatest reduction potential.
4. Coordinate with the Journey program and other collection firms to help ease the
selection of a collection firm for the id establishments.
. Purchase a number of desk-side and centralized collection bins. Bins would be provided
at cost to id establishments that participate in the program. If purchased in bulk,
containers range in cost from Si to 53 each for desk-side containers and S5 to 15 each for
larger, centralized containers.
1,
To prepare for implementation of the recommended alternative, the following activities are
recommended:
• Re-evaluate the list of materials intended for collection at the time of implementation.
This will ensure that material availability, market conditions, and collection/processing
requirements yield a list of materials that are appropriate for program start-up.
• Obtain support for the recommended strategy from elected officials in the relevant
jurisdictions.
• Monitor and record the following key program performance indicators on a monthly
basis, and evaluate on an annual basis, including:
- Program participation
Program costs
- Program diversion levels and individualmaterials tonnages
Public attitudes towards program implementation
- Implementation progress and difficulties
- Enforcement needs
- Changing regulatory requirements
Programs and policies should then be adjusted accordingly.
5-15
6.
Processing, Markets, and Market
Development
6.1
Overview
This section provides a discussion of current and required processing facilities available for
residential and ICI dry recyclables in the RDC-S, the markets far each material, market
development, and future actions.
i.N*iifT]
This part describes the various processing facilities currently in use in the RDC-S and the
facilities that will be required to support future programs. In this section, the term
"processing" refers to methods employed to ready materials for direct shipment to markets,
including manual or mechanical sorting, baling or boxing, or loading onto or into a trailer for
shipping.
6.2.1
Existing Conditfons
The materials currently recycled in the RDC-S are either dropped off at a central public or
private depot, dropped off at public or private containers distributed throughout the District,
or collected at residence or business by a hauler. Materials being prepared for market are
first inspected to ensure there is no contamination, sorted if required, and then baled,
bagged, or boxed before loading Onto or into a trailer for transport to markets. Some
materials are shipped loose or in bulk, such as newspaper. Shipment is normally by contract
with a transportation firm that will transport materials in a semi-trailer and tractor, or a
small (3-ton) truck. Back-hauls and cooperative shipments are arranged by processors when
available.
Since the 1995 Plan, there have been several changes to the recycling facilities operating in
the District, including:
• CR Returns closed in 1997, and Vancouver Island Recycling is now operating a new
facility in Campbell River.
• The Gold River Recycling Plant was closed and replaced with a drop-off recycling facility
lfl 1997,
• Ownership and the location of the recycling depot in the Comox Valley changed from
Glacier Recycling, to West Coast Waste, to Salish Disposal.
The following paragraphs describe the current processing operations in the RDC-S.
Vancouver island Recycling
Vancouver Island Recycling has one facility in Campbell River and one in Cumberland, This
was formerly part of Salish Disposal's recycling division that was purchased by Vancouver
.....................IsiandRecyclingin Octal er 199.9The.. CampbeiiRiver location accepts commercial.........................................
6 PROCESSING, MARKErS AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT
recyclables and has a public drop-off area, while the Cumberland facility receives
commercial recyciables and residential materials from drop-offs, the RDC-S MMDD
program, and materials from Courtenay's blue bag program. Each location has two
employees, a bobcat anda truck scale. The Campbell River facility also has a fork lift and a
baler.
Recyclables are currently delivered to the following locations:
• Newspaper is Sent to Newstech in Port Coquitlam, Oregon City, and Newberg to be
pulped and reprocessed into new newspaper.
• Cardboard and boxboard are delivered primarily to Norampac on the Lower Mainland
and to various mills in Washington and Oregon to be recycled back into cardboard and
boxboard.
• Office paper is sent first to a broker and then to a variety of locations, depending on
market prices. Destinations generally include China, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
o Plastics are sent to Merlin Plastics on the Lower Mainland to be processed into pellets
which are sold on the open market and used in the manufacturing of lumber products.
Glass is sent to the Lower Mainland to be ground into sand for roadbase or concrete mix.
Mixed paper is sent to Norampac and to various mills in Washington and Oregon.
Metal is sent to Budget Metal and ABC Steel in Vancouver.
Vancouver Island Recycling plans to expand into hard and soft plastics and foresees baling
opportunities at the Cumberland location.
Island Bottle and Recycling
Island Bottle and Recycling (IBR) has been operating in the Campbell River area for about
15 years. It operates a regular pick-up route from about 31 restaurants in Campbell River
with a haif-tonne truck. TBR is one of two facilities that provides refunds for bottles and cans
in Campbell River. It also pays customers for dropping off non-ferrous metal and batteries.
IBR's processing facility is located in a 250-square metre building with three balers, a
forklift, and a series of totes for materials collection outside and inside the building. IBR has
a five-tonne truck, a trailer, and a glass crusher, IBR would eventually like to recycle
styrofoam; however, this will probably not occur until a local Lower Mainland recycler is
available. At this point, the closest styrofoam recycler is in Ontario.
CCC Collection Programs
In addition to the RDC-S's MMDD bins, there are well-established 0CC collection programs
offered by private collection firms in both the Comox Valley and Campbell River. Offered to
local businesses and institutions, the service is very popular because it is typically available
at a lower price than the cost of garbage collection.
Other
Other materials are processed for sale to end market by scrap metal dealers on an on-call
basis. Materials handled include automobile hulks, appliances, and other metals, which are
sorted for crushing and shipping at all of the landfills in the RDC-S.
6. PROCESSNG. MAiKETS. ANO MAFKET DEVaCPMENT
Organics composted by private processors are either sold to landscapers and homeowners
for a market price of $10 to $20 per cubic metre or provided free of charge.
Some source-separated materials are also baled and/or other-wise prepared for sale to
markets at the recycling depots in rural and island communities.
62.2
Future Actions
For some years now, processing in the RDC-S has been provided by the private sector under
a contract established with the RDC-S or a municipality, by the private sector on its own, or
by non-governmental organizations. Thus far, this system has worked well, and there is no
immediate need for major changes to this system.
One option that was considered by the RDC-S is to request that processing facility
operators be required to track all material quantities entering and exiting their facility.
Recent legislation adopted by the Province (Bill 17) provides regional districts with the
authority to license processing facilities and require stricter reporting protocols. This
authority could be used to provide more strict controls over private sector processing
facilities. At the present time, the RDC-S does not see the need for such controls. As long
as the processing system functions well, the existing network of relationships should
suffice. If problems arise that could be addressed by stricter controls or licensing, the
RDC-S will consider using the licensing authority provided under Bill i7.
• Where it is cost-effective and environmentally and socially acceptable, well-established
processing methods in the rural areas and island communities should be continued
(e.g., Cortes Island, Deriman Island, Hornby Island, Tahsis, and Zeballos). Materials
from these "satellite" centres may do so upon receiving the prior approval of the RDC-S.
63
Markets
It is always important to remember that collection of recyclable materials is only the first
step to a successful recycling program. Sound markets must exist for the materials that are
collected. If processed materials do not have an end market, cost-effectiveness, motivation,
and program planning will suffer. This section describes the status of markets currently
being used by processors in the RDC-S for the main recycled materials.
6.31
Newspaper
All old newspaper processed in the RDC-S must be shipped outside the RDC-S. The most
commonly used end market is Newstech in Coquitlam, B.C.'s only do-inking mill. Other
markets include mills in the U.S. Northwest and end users in Asia.
The North American newsprint industry is not expected to grow significantly in the years
ahead. Thus, it is anticipated that newsprint capacity growth in North America wIll be fiat,
although recycled newsprint capacity growth at existing mills will replace inefficient virginfibre capacity.
Overall, the supply and demand for newspaper are likely to be in reasonable balance with
stable prices. Any sudden increases or decreases in the demand for newspaper are likely to
be fuelled by off-shore export demands.
6 PROCESSING. MARKETS, AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT
6.3.2
Cardboard
Baled old corrugated cardboard from the RDC-S is shipped to Norampac an the Lower
Mainland and to various processors in Washington and Oregon.
In the past decade, the paperboard sector has achieved the greatest annual growth in the
North American paper recycling industry. Fairly good growth is expected in North American
containerboard production capacity. Some consultants predict that by 2010 containerboard
capacity will have grown by 8.7 million tons per year.
Recently, there has been a strong Asian interest in American cardboard. This results mainly
from the tight supply of cardboard in Europe. Although Asian dealers traditionally import
cardboard from European sources, they have recently begun to use material from US
recyclers.
Recycled containerboard producers are expecting to see rising demand for paperboard
packaging as a result of increased e-commerce use on the Internet. The demand surge comes
from the fact that many goods bought aver the Internet, such as clothing, books and
electronics, need to be repackaged in boxes at shipping warehouses by Internet retailers,
Similar to newspaper, the economic viability of cardboard recycling varies considerably.
Operating margins can change quickly because of a change in short-term cardboard demand,
which is typically driven by changes in the demand for cardboard exports.
6.3.3
Office Paper
Office paper from the RDC-S is sent to brokers, who typically send this material overseas to
Asia. Other markets in B.C. include Weyerhaeuser and Scott Paper in Vancouver.
It is anticipated that the demand for recovered office paper will move up with the price of
virgin pulp paid by tissue and printing/writing paper manufacturers. However, recovered
paper processors will have to respond to changing conditions. New and improved grades of
sorted office paper will continue, to be developed in response to changing quality
requirements for end products.
6.3.4
Old Magazines
Boxes of old magazines and phone books are currently shipped outside the RDC-S to
Newstech's dc-inking miii in Coquitlam and to processors in Washington and Oregon. Old
magazines are used in the production of recycled content newsprint in combination with
newspaper; clay coatings are desirable inputs into the process at flotation de-inking facilities.
Other minor end uses include animal bedding, cellulose insulation, printing and writing
paper, boxboard, tissue, and construction products.
6.3.5
Mixed Paper
Mixed paper refers to a variety of waste paper grades from newsprint to fine papers and is
typically characterized by variable quality, a high level of contaminants, and low commercial
value. The RDC-S's mixed paper is currently sent to Norampac and a variety of processors in
the Northwestern United States.
8.3.6
Clear and Coloured Glass
Most of the glass from the RDC-S is sent to the Lower Mainland to be ground into sand for
..madbas'e'and'concrete"m'ix'. 'Ot'he...giass"markets"incl'ude': dra..i'n'ag'e..me..d.ium.,' deep ..flitfoP had
& PROCESSING, MARKETS AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT
beds, the reuse of wine bottles, reflective paint, sandblasting/industrial cleaning, geotextile
sleeves, building block/foam glass, arid glassphalt, electromagnetic filters.
Glass recycling has been a traditional practice in the glass manufacturing industry for
centuries. Although it is anticipated that the recovery rate of recycled glass (and recycled
content in containers) will grow, it is also expected that glass containers will continue to lose
market share to more light-weight materials such as plastic and composites. With growth in
emerging markets, such as those listed above, glass recycling opportunities are expected to
increase. The beverage container deposit and refund system also helps eliminate a large
percentage of glass containers (beer and soda) from the waste stream.
6.3.7
Metal
Metal from the RDC-S is sent to Budget Steel in Victoria and ABC Steel in Vancouver.
Used steel food and beverage cans are. not recycled into new cans. Recycled tinpiate steel
cans are melted down with other scrap metals and used for various steel applications such as
production of flat-rolled steel and reinforcing steel bars. The end market options for tinpiate
steel consist of steel mills, detinning operations, and iron and steel foundries. Since metals
recycling has been a traditional practice in B.C. for more years than any other material,
markets are well-established. Opportunity for local market development using secondary
tinplate is limited.
Aluminum cans are the most commonly recycled nonferrous metal found in residential
recycling programs. The end use market for these cans is large aluminum producers such as
Alcan, Reynolds. and Alcoa, which use this metal supply in the production of aluminum
sheet, which, in turn, is used to manufacture new beverage cans. Nonferrous metal markets
are demand-driven, responding to consumer demand for various products and the prices for
scrap metals in relation to virgin prices.
The aluminum industry will be looking into developing the recyclabIe" automobile with a
high percentage of recyclable aluminum and plastic parts. The big challenge currently is to
develop recovery programs for other growing aluminum products in the waste stream. The
beverage container deposit and refund system currently eliminates a large percentage of
used aluminum beverage containers (beer and soda) from the waste stream.
Scrap dealers weathered a significant downturn in their business during 1998. Market
conditions began improving in early 1999 and were relatively stable in early 2000. In
general, a decrease in the demand for steel today is affecting scrap markets everywhere.
Prices for steel cans and white goods, along with other grades of scrap metal, are sliding in
most markets, After picking up significantly in 19c, aluminum cans are also losing ground.
6.3.8
Plastics
HDPE plastic containers are baled and shipped to Merlin Plastics in Delta, the largest postconsumer plastics recycler in B.C., while #1 to #7 plastics are Sent to Syntal in Victoria. The
HDPE is processed into pellets, which are then sold to Dow Chemical. Film plastics are
brokered in B.C. and sent to the U.S. and Agra in Alberta. Mixed plastic is generally Sent
overseas, but ECO Superwood B.C. Ltd. in Richmond uses HDPE, PET, and film plastics to
manufacture a plastic lumber for park benches, curbs, and other uses.
There is currently an imbalance between processing capacity and end market demand for
many recycled plastic resins. PET, much of which is collected through the beverage
containerdepositand refrndsystemforbeeran soda onty can be reincorporatedintonew
6-5
5. PROCESSING, MARKETS, AND
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
food and beverage packaging. But unlike PET resin, plastic lumber has not yet found a strong
end market. On the whole, the future of plastics is uncertain. The major challenge for the
development of new" local" markets for recycled plastics in B.C. will be the sizing of the
facility and the coordination of any such plans with similar ventures in the Pacific Northwest
and California. Small scale, alternate uses of single or mixed resins are limited.
Demand for natural and coloured HDPE remains relatively strong in most parts of North
America. A tight supply of material and relatively strong demand has led to increased prices,
thus narrowing the gap between value of scrap and processed material. Some plastic product
manufacturers and other HDPE consumers have increased capacity at their plants, leading
to an increased demand for virgin and scrap HDPE.
Export and domestic demand for PET plastics is healthy and is anticipated to stay strong.
Overseas demand is keeping prices strong on the West Coast. The demand at the moment is
greater than the supply, and recyclers are having to increase their prices to remain
competitive in the market. As is true in fibre markets, market prices can fluctuate
substantially, depending on buying patterns of overseas buyers, particularly in Asia.
This section includes an overview of market development measures and outlines the
responsibilities of the province, the RDC-5, and local municipalities in developing markets
for recyclable materials.
6.41
Overview of Market Development Measures
Market development refers to initiatives that launch, expand, or support industries that use
secondary materials. Market development strategies are linked closely to funding and
legislative frameworks, which, in most cases, determine which market development
measures to employ and the allocation of responsibilities among public and private sector
participants.
As discussed in Section 3, industry product stewardship programs have the effect of shifting
primary responsibilities for market development to users and producers of products and
packages, along with the risks associated with marketing. In this environment, the public
sector's major roles are to:
• Establish and enforce the regulatory framework necessary to ensure that waste diversion
activities, ranging from source separation to market development, occur in a fair,
equitable, and environmentally sound manner.
• Ensure the selection and operation of recycling systems that can recover materials of
adequate quality to meet established, agreed-upon specifications.
For products covered under an industry product stewardship program, the public sector
maintains very little or no involvement in marketing secondary materials and investing in
markets. It also remains relatively insulated from direct marketing risks and responsibilities.
While there are a number of successful industry product stewardship programs in place in
British Columbia, it must be recognized that these programs cannot address all materials in
the solid waste stream. Several material categories cannot be identified directly with a
particular industry or sector. The most significant examples include many of the organics
generated in the residential sector (i.e., food and yard waste) and demol tionJar^d ciearing,._
__.
. PROCES5, MARKETS, AND MARKET DEVaOPMENT
and construction (DLC) materials from public buildings and infrastructure. The public
sector may need to play a more direct and active role in marketing and market development
for these materials. Local government action, targeted at these particular materials, is
necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposed waste management plan. The. markets for
many of these materials are local and can be readily developed and managed at the
Municipal or regional level (e.g., compost from yard waste used in local public works and
construction and development projects).
The RDC-S's market development strategy should include the following:
The province should be encouraged to make market development an integral part of
industry product stewards hip programs.
• Municipal recycling programs should be designed and organized so that public sector
agencies are insulated to the degree possible from commodity market risks and variables
beyond local and regional control.
• Public sector agencies should consider how they can best get involved in marketing and
market development for materials that cannot be included within industry product
stewardship programs. The RDC-S will generally focus on appropriate regulation and Jet
the private sector develop markets.
• Local government should provide economic and regulatory incentives to stimulate,
support, and encourage market development in a manner that supports the
implementation of the proposed waste management plan.
6.4.2
Provincial Government Responsibilities
The primary responsibilities of the provincial government relate to the establishment of the
regulatory framework within which market development will occur. This is particularly
important with respect to industry product stewardship programs. The province has
exhibited leadership in establishing the following industry product stewardship programs:
• Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation
• Financial Incentives to Recycle Scrap Tires (FIRST)
• Lead Acid Battery Collection
• Return of Used Oil Regulation
• Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Solvents, Pesticides and
Gasoline
• Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation
Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Pharmaceuticals
These programs are further described in Section 3 and Appendix A.
Public sector procurement initiatives can stimulate markets for both recyclable materials
and organic wastes. As the largest public sector buyer in the province, the provincial
government can play an important role; thus, the British Columbia Purchasing Commission
implemented an Environmental Purchasing Policy in 1995. This policy ensures that BC
ministries and agencies are "environmentally-friendly" by using goods and services that take
environmental concerns into account.
6. PROCESSNG, MARKETS AND MARKETOEVE.CPMEN1
114! I
6.5.1
(I[s] iI1
Regional District of Comox Strathcona and Local Government
Responsibilities
As the primary level of government responsible far implementing the proposed waste
management plan, the RDC-S is responsible for implementing necessary education
programs and for working with private haulers and local municipalities to ensure materials
are delivered efficiently and meet agreed-upon specifications.
The RDC-S will take the following actions:
Help ensure markets are available for compost products
Adopt procurement policies
Consider funding small-scale initiatives to develop local markets
Compost
The RDC-S conducts windrow composting on land adjacent to the Pidgeon Lake Regional
Landfill that produces large amounts of compost from biosolids, wood chips, and yard
waste. The compost is used as landfill cover.
The RDC-S is now designing a covered plant at the landfill site, which will result in improved
operations and product quality, and reduced environmental impacts. Once the new facility is
operational, the RDC-S will take steps to ensure higher-valued uses for the compost end
product, such as horticulture, landscaping, and soil amendment (public or private).
Whenever possible, the RDC-S will encourage the development of compost products suitable
for use in public plantings and for sale to the general public.
Estimated cost: Included in the cost of the composting plant.
RtDC-S and Municipal Recycling Programs
The RDC-S and local Municipalities will not take an active role in developing markets for
materials collected in local recycling programs. Instead, they will be responsible for ensuring
that their recycling programs deLver the designated materials in an efficient manner that
meets the specifications agreed upon by purchasers.
Procurement PoUcies
Recommended policies and programs for implementation at the RDC-S and local
Municipalities are discussed in Section 3.
7.
Composting
71
Overview
Composting is an important part of the RDC-S's strategy to reduce the amount of waste
going to landfills. This section provides a brief composting technology overview, documents
the existing conditions in the regional district, and provides an analysis of future actions.
7.tl
The Composting Process
Composting is defined as the biological decomposition of organic materials under controlled
conditions. The finished product is a material resembling top soil. The primary
environmental conditions that affect composting operations include aeration, temperature,
moisture content, and the balance of feedstock nutrients.
Feedstocks for composting encompass all organic materials in the solid waste stream. These
materials may include yard and garden debris, food, wood, paper products, and biosolids.
These solid waste feedstocks comprise up to 70 percent of the waste Stream in Canada, the
U.S., and western Europe.
Most modern facilities use aerobic decomposition to break down the organic materials in the
feedstock, In the initial stages of composting, decomposition of the mixed feedstock is
accompanied by a rapid rise in compost temperature. Sustaining decomposition requires
frequent mixing and aeration, as well as careful attention to temperature and moisture
content. Stabilized compost is evidenced by a consistently low pile temperature and CO2
evolution rate when optimum moisture and oxygen are provided. Feedstock volume can be
reduced by as much as 50 percent as a result of composting.
7.1.2
Provincia! Composting Regulations
The Production and Use of Compost Regulation (14) developed by the Ministry of Water
Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) states that com post produced using the windrow method
must be processed to reduce pathogens by heating the material to a temperature of 55°C for
at least i days. Methods to satisfy this requirement are identified in the regulation for each
of the most common composting techniques. When composting aerobically, these
conditions can easily be obtained, assuming an appropriate mix design. The required high
temperature conditions also help to destroy weed seeds that are undesirable in the finished
product.
A draft version of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) was developed in 1999.
This proposed regulation Is a major amendment to the existing Production and Use of
Compost Regulation. The goals of the proposed OMRR regulation regarding the production
and land application of organic matter are:
• To protect human health by ensuring that recycling of organic matter i conducted safely
and with minimal odour
* To protect surface and groundwater by ensuring that recycled organic materials meet
exacting standards
7-i
7 CCMFOStNG
• To ensure that organic matter applied to land is of a high quality, thereby improving soil
quality and plant growth
To increase diversion of organic matter from being a valueless waste to being a valuable
resource
As of May ooi, this regulation had yet to be forwarded to the B.C. Cabinet for approval.
7.2.1
Regional District of Comox-Strathcona Programs
Backyard Composting
The RDC-S has sold residents subsidized Earth Machine backyard cornposters since 1995 for
S35 a unit. By June 2000, the RDC-S estimates that more than 7,000 backyard composters
had been distributed, which represents more than 17 percent of the households in the
District.
Compost Education Program
In 1999, the RDCS started a comprehensive composting education program. They hired a
Compost Educator from April to October to provide the public and school groups with
compost information at the RDC-S's two education sites: Norm's Farm Market in the Comox
Valley and River Community Gardens at the St. Peter's Anglican Church in Campbell River.
These locations include a wide variety of backyard composter and vermicompost bins, along
with aeration tools that are available to the public. The mandate of these education Sites is to
allow residents to follow a self-directed tour. Currently, signage is being developed to achieve
this goal.
The sites are also open weekdays at convenient, predetermined times for school groups, or
the educator may give a presentation at a school. This presentation is primarily targeted at
students in grades one to six and is designed to meet the BC Learning Outcomes curriculum.
One education technique used at the Cornox Valley site is having a visiting class plant bean,
squash, or sunflower seeds, both with and without compost. This generally brings the
children back with their parents to see.how the plants are growing, and the visit provides an
opportunity for the adults to learn about composting, In June 2001, the compost education
sites held their first Build Your Own Comp aster event, which coincided with Father's Day.
The event was extremely successful and is already scheduled for 2002. The RDC-S
anticipates extending the composting education program until 2003. In the near future, it
would also like to expand its education program to include pesticide and herbicide banning.
Composting is promoted through radio advertisements and advertisements in local
newspapers. Information is also distributed in small circulation magazines, flyers, and
newsletters such as the C'omox Valley Calendar of Events, Coffee News and the Rural
Shopper. Cornpostpromotion also takes place almost every weekend from April to October
at a variety of events throughout the Regional District, including Seedy Saturday, Fil berg
Garden Show, Empire Days, Music Fest, Market Days, Filberg Nautical Days, the Salmon
Festival, and the Comox Valley Fall Fair. A summer contractor is typically hired to assist
with these events. By the end of 2001, the RDC-S will have a general compost education flyer
available to the public.
72
7. COMPOSTING
Master Composter Program
In the Fall of 2000, the RDC-S held its first Master Composter course, which followed
several Master Composter manuals from surrounding areas. The course outline included
such topics as the science of composting, the art of composting (e.g., materials to be and not
to be composted, methods, hot co.mposting, and mulching), worm composting (e.g.,
harvesting techniques and troubleshooting), common questions and troubleshooting,
alternative conservation strategies (e.g., humanure, organic gardening principles,
permacuiture, and water-wise gardening), and presentation skills. Five individuals took the
16-hour course, at the end of which they are required to give eight to 10 volunteer hours.
Grasscycling
Grasscycling is actively promoted by the RDC-S and will be included in future education
material. It is now discussed at the cornposting education sites and at local events.
Xerfscaping Techniques
Xeriscaping is promoted by the RDC-S, and they offer the public a document on water-wise
gardening tips. Education panels on natural landscaping and native vegetation are displayed
at local events, and these topics are currently discussed at the composting education sites.
Verrnicomposting
Vermicomposting is actively promoted by the RDC-S through warm bin displays at the
compost education sites and the Adopt-A-Worm program, The latter enables school classes
to visit the education site and to set-up a worm bin that they manage during the school year.
When the school year ends, students are encouraged to return the bins to the compost
education site far regular management over the summer months.
Regional District of Comox-Strathcona Biosolids Compost Facility
The RDC-S composts biosolids from its sewage treatment plant at the Pidgeon Lake
Regional Landfill. Yard waste and other wood waste is currently used as a bulking agent in a
turned, open windrow process.
The operation moved from a local wastewater treatment plant to the landfill site on March i,
1994. Currently, a front-end loader, a windrow turner (1,500 tonnes/hr capacity), and a
biosolids truck are dedicated tO the facility, which has an On-site capacity of about 8,000
tonnes. Approximately i6 tonnes of biosolids are delivered to the site daily and mixed with
bulking material (yard waste, wood chips, and sawdust) that is dropped by contractors and
the public in a designated area. There are two full-time-equivalent staff involved in the
facility, including administration.
This facility serves the sewered areas of the Comox Valley and hopes to produce bulk sales to
parks departments and the public. The compost is likely to meet quality standards for crop
production.
The RDC-S plans to build a composting facility at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill site,
and it recently commissioned a study of compost technology options and development of a
conceptual plan. The study (Associated Engineering, 2001) recommended an aerated static
pile system, with the initial mixing and composting in a covered area with a biofilter to help
control odours. Curing would take place in a covered building using windrows and the
District's compost turner. The estimated capital cost of the facility is 4.5 million, including
.ngineeringand c...ntingencies...................................................................................................................
7
7. COMFOST!NG
While the main purpose of this facility is to manage biosolid residuals from the sewage
treatment plant, it also provides substantial opportunities for composting solid waste. Some
of those opportunities include:
Using ground wood waste for bulking agent
• Using yard waste for bulking agent
® Including commercial food waste in the composting process
Arrangements will need to be worked out between the RDC-S and the sewage commission
that is responsible for facility construction, but the RDC-S hopes to make use of the
opportunities presented by this facility to increase the amount of solid waste composted in
the District.
1.2.2
Praxis Inc. was retained by the RDC-S in 2000 to survey district residents as part of the
overall public consultation process far the 2001 Plan
A discussion of the composting
surve y results follow.
Results stated that 56 percent of the surveyed households reduce waste through composting.
The reasons why residents started composting are primarily "because it is good for the
garden" and "to reduce waste" (Figure 7-1), while the main barriers to composting include
"no space" and "no interest" (Figure 7-2).
Figure 7-1
Why did you start composting (those who compost)
(Praxis Inc., 2001)
6%
3%
pGood
iil
for garden
Reduce Waste
42%
Good for garden and
reduce Waste
Parents did it
Have aEwaye done it
Other
71
7. COMPasT NG
Figure 7-2
Reason for not composting (those who do not compost)
(Praxis Inc., 2001)
5 °I6 3 0
7%
No space
\33%
/
8%
No interest/time
® Not enough waste
p Other
Animals/rodents
10%
® Don't know
® No computer
J No garden
11%
23%
Other reasons cited for not composting included: smell, rental property, live in an
apartment, my wife, lack of information, ground is too wet, hard on grass, distance, and have
garbage disposal.
Other survey highlights include:
• Over half of those who compost use a "homemade composter" ( percent), while 23
percent use a "Regional District Earth Machine," and i$ percent use a "store-bought
model."
a The incidence of composting is highest among adults between 40 and 60 years of age
with two people in their household (58 percent); it is lowest among younger families (x8
to 30 years) with one or two household members. Seniors and families with three or
more household members were both at 56 percent.
• Forty-two percent of respondents are aware of composting education sites; eight percent
have visited these locations.
• Composting is a fairly recent activity in the RDC-S, with almost 40 percent of households
having started within the past five years. Almost 50 percent of these households with
adults under 40 have children.
• The average number of containers of garbage produced weekly by those who compost is
1.47, compared to 1.77 for those who do not compost. Based on these averages, if
everyone took part in composting, the impact would be a reduction of 257, 000
containers of garbage a year.
Respondents who indicated they have no time or interest are also the biggest producers
of garbage, with average outputs of 2.3 containers a week. This is added justification for
___user-pay programs. Those.indicating that they_do not produce enoug.h..waste to get ....... ........
............. .
7. COMFOSTNG
involved in composting produce 1.3 containers of garbage a week and tend to be
households of one or two.
7.2.3
Municipalities and sIand Communities
All municipalities and island communities support the RDC-S's backyard compostin.g and
education initiatives. Hornby Island and Comox also have their own centralized composting
operations.
Hornby Island has composted waste collected from local businesses, campgrounds, and
residents since the early 1990S.. A ic-foot long, two-chamber composting barrel with
receiving tray is located at the Hornby Recycles facility. The end product is used on the site
garden. I-Iornby Recycles also has a jo-foot by 4-foot vermicomposter bin. Finished compost
from this unit is spread on the garden.
The Comox Public Works Yard accepts yard waste from residents windrow composting, and
the end product is used for town plantings.
See Section 2.0 for additional information on the current composting programs for RDC-S
municipalities and island communities.
7.2.4
Private Composting Facilities
Since the 1995 Plan, Pacific Biowaste Recovery (PacBio) has closed, and the fish offal
composting facility by Burns Road near Courtenay has changed names and owners. Now
owned by Terry Gay, it is called Earthbank Resource Systems.
Renuable Resources Ltd.
Renuable Resources is an organic and wood processing facility that has composted since
1996 and has been involved in the wood waste salvage and recycling business for over 15
years. The company has two employees and is located on a 17-acre site at 4001 Mid Port
Road in Campbell River. Materials accepted for compost include: stumps, unscreened
topsoil, grass, branches, leaves, wood paliets, fish waste, and sawdust. Static piles are turned
every three months, and the composting process takes roughly one year, including
screening. Between 30,000 and 40, coo yd of material is processed a year. The final
product is a Class A compost that is used by residents for landscaping and gardening. This
facility is also permitted to compost biosolids.
Earthbank Resource Systems
This one-man company started composting fish offal and wood waste in 1991. It is located
on Burns Road on leased land. Wood and fish waste in a ratio of between :i and io:i is
placed in six capped blocks for compostirig. The blocks are turned every two to three
months. After six months, the material is placed in windrows for between one and four
months and is turned regularly to manage odours. The whole process takes roughly 12
months before the final product is screened for use. Approximately 3000 to 3500 short
tonnes of material are processed each year. Landscapers and gardeners purchase the Class A
compost for S2o per cubic yard.
Comox Bay Farms
Comox Bay Farms is located adjacent to the RDC-S's composting education centre in
Comox. Since the summer of 2000, residents and small commercial enterprises can drop-off
Ft
7. COMPCSTrNG
leaves, grass, and small yard trimmings at no charge throughout the week. The farm collects
the yardwaste and lays it in the field to assist with soil, replenishment. At this time, there is
no formalized arrangement between the RDC-S and Comox Bay Farms.
The RDC-S will take the following actions to increase the quantity of compostable materials
diverted from Iandfihling.
1. The RDC-S will attempt to formalize an arrangement with Comox Bay Farms to allow
residents and small commercial enterprises to drop off grass, leaves, and small
trimmings. Cost: None.
2. The RDC-S will continue to offer the Master Composter program, either through
Regional District staff or by providing funding to a nonprof9t organization to oversee the
program and volunteer activities. Cost: Included in cost of existing programs.
3. The RDC-S will continue to promote composting education through schools and public
events, and at. the regional districts's two composting education sites. Cost: Part of
educational program.
4. The RDC-S will work with the sewage commission to investigate opportunities for
incorporating appropriate solid wastes (such as grass, leaves, chipped wood, food) into
the biosolids composting operation. If an agreement can be reached, the RDCS will
commission a study and implement a pilot program to investigate the feasibility of
implementing a food waste composting program that targets selected ICI
establishments. Cost: $o,000 for the food waste study and pilot project. Additional
funds may be needed should the RDC-S decide to implement a program.
5. The RDC-S will continue to encourage backyard composting and reduction programs in
the rural areas and island communities. RDC-S will consider other composting proposals
from these areas on a case by case basis. Cost: Included in cost of existing programs.
6. The RDC-S will continue to evaluate private sector composting proposals on a case by
case. basis. Cost: None.
77
: • [.1!E • . iiri:
iL1
Many products used daily by residents and businesses are toxic to varying degrees when
released into the environment. Air and water quality can be harmed when these materials
accumulate in landfills or are discharged to waterways. It tnust also be recognized that the
quantity of materials typically disposed of is often much less than the quantity of material
released to the environment from daily use of these products. Reducing both the use and
disposal of toxic products is an important waste management objective.
This section addresses existing government Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) programs
and the recent waste management public consultation survey, and describes North American
case studies and documents planned actions for the RDC-S.
8.2.1
Provincial Programs
Several HHW industry product stewardship programs have been implemented or amended
since 1995. In these programs, producers and users of HHW products in British Columbia
must now rightfully assume the financial and management responsibility for the residuals
they create. These programs include:
• Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation Solvents, Pesticides, and
Gasoline
• Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation
• Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Pharmaceuticals
Table 8-i identifies the locations of Paint and Product Care Association (PPC), Consumer
Product Stewardship Program (CPSP), and Tree-Marketing Paint Stewardship Association
(TSA) depots in the RDC-S.
a, HOUSEHOW HZARD0uS WASTE
Table 8-1
PPC/CPSP and ISA
Depots
Operator
Address
Telephone/Fax
Hours
Tel: (250) 287-4224
Fax: (250) 287-4224
Mon-Sat
9:OOam-5:OOpm
Materials Accepted
Campbe f P;vr
Campbell River Bottle 1580 - F Whew Street
Depot
Campbell River, BC V9
3M7
Northern Ropes Ltd. 12860 North Island
Paint, paint aerosols,
paint exchange
___________________
Flammable liquids and
solvents - gasoline and
pesticides
Tel: (250) 286-1027
Fax: (250) 286-1024
Mon-Fri
Tree marking paint from
8:00am —4:00pm logging companies
Campbell River, BC V9W
12H5_________________ ___________________
Western Equipment433 - l6th Avenue
Tel: (250) 287-9111
rree marking paint ftôm
Mon-Fri
td.
Campbell River, BC V9'iFax: (250)287-9118
8:00am —5:00pm
ogging companies
2E4__________ ______
_____
( '
ji
cmox Return Centre 678 AnOern Roac
Comox, BC
Tel: (250) 339-0059
Mon- Sat
9:00am-500pm
aint, paint aerosols
aint exchange
Closed on statutory
nciidays
r
cmox-Stahcona
egionaL D.strict
Ccrtes sianc Transfer Te 2E0 334-6000
Station
Fax: (250) 334-4358
Courtenay, BC
Thurs-Suri
G:OOam-1:OOom
Paint, paint exchange
Faint, paint exchange -
Gasoline
V9N 7J3
oid River
hiage of Gold River Public Works Yard on
Hilke Road
Box 610
Gold River, BC
VOP IXO
Tel (250) 934-6344
Fax: (250) 934-6622
Wed-Sun
i0:OOam-2:45pm
hiage of Tahsis
Tel: (250) 934-6344
Fax: (250) 934-66221
MonSun
open 24 hours
Public Works Yard on
1015 North Maquinna
Box 519
Tahsis, BC
v0F IXO
Flammable liquids and
solvents
Paint, paint exchange
P escides
In addition, British Columbia has a provincial Lead-Acid Battery Collection Program and a
Return of Used Oil Regulation.
A description of these programs is included in Appendix A.
8.2
8.HOLSEHcLDHAZARDOUSWAST
822
Regional District and Other Programs
Within the context of the provincial initiatives, the main role of the RDC-S in reducing the
use and disposal of toxic products would be assisting in the promotion of provincial
initiatives and incorporating HHW into its overall education and promotion program. As is
the case with other municipal wastes, the most cost-effective and environmentally sound
strategy for managing toxics is to reduce the use of such products. For many products,
nontoxic atternatives exist that are as effective as the more toxic products, particularly for
household cleaners, solvents, and pesticides.
The RDC-S is preparing a formal request to the Province and the Provincial Stewardship
program to add another depot in the Comox Valley and to request that household cleaners
and other products be added to the program.
This section summarizes activities sponsored by the RDC-S or other municipal or nongovernmental organizations that complement the provincial and industry initiatives to
promote improved management of toxic materials.
Househo'd Hazardous Waste Drop-off Days
The RDC-S in conjunction with Comox Valley Care organized the second Spring Clean-up
household hazardous waste drop-off collection day on April 22, 2001 at Driftwood Mall,
Courtenay. Items collected included batteries, gasoline (maximum 20 L container),
pesticides (maximum io L containers), paint (maximum 23 L or gal containers),
flammable liquids (maximum ito L containers), and old computers and computer products.
This proved to be a far greater success than anticipated - a 53-foot trailer was filled with
HHW goods. Roughly four tonnes of computers were transported by Comox Valley Care to
Genesis Recycling on the Lower Mainland for reuse and recycling opportunities. Five tub
skids of paint, two skids of aerosol paints, two skids of pesticides, and three skids of solvents
were collected and disposed of by the CPSP program. HAZCO Environmental Services Ltd.
volunteered labour and equipment to assist with the Spring Clean-up. They also disposed of
all toxic residuals not part of the CPSP program, charging a fee to the RDC-S for this service.
It is estimated that the 2001 event cost the RDC-S between S,000 and S7,000, with roughly
3,OOo spent on radio, newspaper advertising, and education packages.
Recycling and Reuse Directory
In the past, household hazardous waste recycling was promoted throughout the year in the
RDC-S Recycling and Reuse Directory. In the future, the directory will be maintained on the
RDC-S website.
Canadian Tire accepts antifreeze; Pidgeon Lake and Campbell River Regional Landfills,
Island Bottle Depot, and Canadian Tire accept automotive batteries; ARR-U Recycling
Courtenay accepts gasoline, pesticides and solvents, and Canadian Tire, Mohawk and Cornox
Bay Marina accept used motor oil. Pidgeon Lake and Campbell River Regional Landfills,
Walker Scrap, Superior Propane, Budget Steel, and ABC Recycling all accept propane tanks.
BC Recycling HotUne
The B.C. Recycling Hotline (1-800-667-4321) is the provincial information source with
regards to household hazardous waste. Residents can call for information regarding the
location of their nearest collection depot, hours of operation, and the items accepted.
& HOUSEHOLD HAZARCCUS WASTE
Other Initiatives
In 1998, the Recycling Council of British Columbia produced Toxic Toolkit, a useful media
kit and reference guide to household hazardous waste. This document discusses the "do's
and don'ts" for disposal, safe storage, less toxic alternatives, and what is accepted at
collection depots.
Many consumer products, such as cameras and calculators, use dry cell batteries containing
nickel, cadmium, mercury, or other toxic metals. In the near term, substitutes for these
products are not likely to be available; however, the batteries are recyclable. Canadian Tire,
Radio Shack, Black's Photography, and Courtenay Batteries all currently collect batteries.for
recycling.
This section provides a summary of findings from the recent Praxis waste management
survey, followed by case studies of four other communities.
8.3.1
The Praxis Inc. Waste Management Survey (2000) indicated that over 6o percent of
respondents did not know where they would dispose of household hazardous waste in the
RDC-S. It was also clear that respondents did not equate tires, used oil, paint, and used car
batteries with household hazardous waste.
About 45 percent of households surveyed indicated that they are storing used paint, while i8
percent have liquid chemicals (e.g., pesticides, solvents and flammable liquids) at home.
Of the residents surveyed, between 43 and 50 percent have disposed of paint, car batteries,
oil, and tires, while 13 percent have disposed of liquid chemicals.
For the most part, materials are being returned to the dealer or to recycling depots. Of
particular interest is the fact that only 21 percent of respondents take liquid products to
recycling centres. In fact, the majority of liquid chemicals are being disposed of via
inappropriate means (Figure 8-i).
8. HOUSEHO(.D HAZARDOUS WASTE
Figure 8-1
Where did you dispose of used liquid chemicals? (those that dispose of liquid waste)
(Praxis Inc., 2001)
14%
22%
H
26% (
'N
Garbage
Recycling Cerite
Dump
Driveway
Drain
0Ott,er
jDcn'tRecaIl
6%
7%
Other ncludes toilet, niaU parking lot, golf course, hardware store, marina, and yearly drive,
8.32
Case Stuthes
The following four case studies are presented to provide information about other programs
and ideas for possible household hazardous waste initiatives in the RDC-S.
Calgary, Atberta
The City of Calgary Solid Waste Services Division, in co-operation with the City of Calgary
Fire Department, operates a Household Chemical Collection Program. To assist removal of
these items from the waste stream, a Household Gheinical Cleah-up Day is organized every
September, when the public are encouraged to take their unwanted household chemical
containers, car batteries, propane tanks, used oil, oil filters, fuels, anti-freeze, and aerosols to
local fire stations. The collected materials are sorted and transported to the East Calgary
Landfill for temporary storage arid for further sorting to determine their suitability for
recycling or disposal at the Swan Hills hazardous waste facility.
Household hazardous chemicals are accepted throughout the year at any one of the three
City landfills. There is no charge for this service. Small quantities of household hazardous
chemicals can also be taken year-round to one of four designated fire stations with special
storage depots. The depots are available seven days a week from 8:oo a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Because leftover paint forms the greatest volume of hazardous materials discarded each
year, The Great Paint Exchange was created. Organized by Clean Calgary, a nonprofit
organization, the annual event (June 2-3, 2001) allows residents to deliver unwanted paint
and/or pick up usable paint.
85
8. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Program Facts:
The Household Chemical Collection Program diverts approximately 239 tonnes of
chemicals from City of Calgary landfills each year.
Generally two-thirds of the materials collected are paints, with the remainder being car
batteries, propane tanks, antifreeze, garden chemicals, and miscellaneous household
products.
Edmonton, A'berta
The City of Edmonton has two Eco Stations that are open year-round to accept household
hazardous. wastes at no charge. This facility also offers bulky item solid waste drop-off
stations, paint exchanges (limit of four cans per visit), and recycling depots for residents and
small businesses for a nominal fee (Table 8-2). Eco Stations are open Tuesday to Saturday
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Biomedical waste, explosives, radioactive waste, munitions,
fireworks, pressurized gases, expired medications or hazardous waste from commercial
businesses are not accepted. Since openIng in 1995, the program has resulted in the
exchange of 50,000 litres of paint that may have otherwise gone to local landfills.
Table 8-2
Edmonton Eco Station Rates (All fees must be paid in cash)
Fee
Item
.
Clean Recyclables
Free
.
Scrap Metal
Free
Mattresses (except futons)
Free
Household Hazardous Wastes
Free
Refrigerators, Sofas, Washers, Dryers, Dressers, Large Televisions $7. OOlitem
Kitchen Chairs, Small Televisions, Large Microwaves, Lamps $3.00/item
Tires (5 per load), Small Microwaves, Lamps $1 .00/item
Bagged Refuse (or held in a 110-litre waste container) $1.00/item
Loose Waste or Mixed Loads:
. Yard Waste (brush & tree trimmings, grass, garden waste & similar compostables);
Lumber and wood products (untreated, unpainted dimensional lumber & plywood);
and
'
Construction rubble (concrete pieces, woodMnyl siding & shingles, windows &
fencing, insulation, soils/gravels and other such materials acceptableat the Dry
WasteSite)
Passenger Car
.
Pick-up Truck. Van or Utility Trailer
Cube Van
Maximum Veiic1e Size: I tonne maximum
TrailerLongt/i: 3 metres
8S
.
__________________
.
.
$15.00/load
$20.00/load
$30.00/load
8 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Los Ang&es, Ca!iforna
The City of Los Angeles Bureau ofSanitatiori and the Los Angles County Department of
Public Works co-sponsor a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program. Materials such
as paint products and solvents, motor oil and anti-freeze, aerosol products, household and
garden chemicals, car batteries, and pool cleaners are dropped off by residents. A
"Hazmobile" travels to a total of 24 different geographic locations throughout the City each
year. It will stay at each site for two to three days before moving on to the next location.
Hours for the collection events may vary from location to location, depending upon
participation and budget constraints. A dedicated, toll-free phone number is available to
residents for questions and event information. Residents are alerted of the event by press
releases, postcards, and poster/flyers distributed in neighbourhoods at least two weeks prior
to the event.
Metro PorUand Oregon
Two permanent household hazardous waste facilities are open year-round to Metro-area
residents. These facilities are located at full-service transfer stations with refuse, yard waste,
and recyclable collection and disposal. Facility hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Monday to Saturday. There is a S charge to residents for dropping off up to 35 gallons of
HHW. Residents who bring in HHW with a load of refuse receive a credit of $5.
Metro sponsors household hazardous waste drop-off collection events at two locations in the
Metro area. This takes place over six Saturdays during the summer and fall. All types of
hazardous waste are accepted for safe disposal or recycling at no charge. All waste must be
from residential homes and cannot exceed 35 gallons. Containers larger than five gallons are
not accepted, along with commercial waste, asbestos, explosives, ammunition compressed
gases, or infectious waste other than sharps (e.g., syringes, IV tubing with needles, scalpel
blades).
Program Facts:
• Metro recycles or reuses 65 percent of all latex paint brought to the facility.
It costs Metro $7 to process and dispose of a gallon of oil-based paint.
• It costs Metro $5 to process and dispose of a gallon of an average-sized bottle of
pesticide.
• Metro sends 35 to 40 percent of the waste brought to the program to specially permitted
industrial facilities, where it is used as an alternative fuel.
This section provides a discussion of future actions that will be taken by the RDC-S in the
area of household hazardous wastes.
•
The current combination of provincial programs arid initiatives by the RDC-S and various
partners has resulted in the diversion of substantial quantities of household hazardous waste
through recycling, reuse, and proper disposal methods. Recommended future actions are
intended to build on these programs and provide cost-effective diversion opportunities for
materials not being recycled.
87
2 HOUSEHOW HAZRCCUS WASTE
8.4.1
Annual HHW Cleanup Events
The RDC-S will hold one HHW cleanup event each year in the Comox Valley. At these
events, materials accepted would include those accepted by CPSP plus household batteries.
The RDC-S will look for partners to participate in the events.
Estimated cost: Sio,00o per year, depending on how much help the District receives from
other companies and organizations.
8.4.2
Batteries
There are two areas in which the RDC-S will work toward improving the way batteries are
managed:
1.
The RDC-S will encourage and promote the use of rechargeable batteries and the
collection of spent batteries for recycling. The RDC-S will work with all recyclabies
processing facilities and staffed depots in the region to encourage them to accept
batteries.
2.
As part of its id program, the RDC-S will encourage ICI establishments to store used
dry cell batteries for eventual recycling. For establishments that provide batteries for use
by employees, a simple policy requiring exchange of old batteries prior to receipt of a
replacement can . prove effective in reducing quantities of batteries going to landfill.
Estimated Cost: Included in other programs.
8.4.3
Other Initiatives
Other actions that will be taken by the RDC-S include:
• Considering a ban or differential tipping fee on select materials if additional industry
programs are implemented
Providing further education, since only
chemicals at recycling centres
21
percent of residents dispose of liquid
Encouraging the involvement of volunteers and existing non-government organizations
to promote management alternatives at the grass roots level in the community (The
RDC-S would also help promote waste exchanges or swap days developed by local
community groups.)
• Encouraging rv[WLAP to increase the type and number of HHW products accepted and
open more Sites in the Regional District
Estimated cost: Included in other programs.
8-8
P14111.] mE.] i!EJiI.ii [*111 i1TI[I
[I.!.] iI 41 I.Nt[IiriI'1Yf*i';
Most demolition, land clearing, and construction (DLC) waste generated in the RDC-S is
disposed of at the two privately operated facilities. These facilities accept primarily land
clearing debris and some material from construction and demolition projects.
Historically, most DLC waste in the RDC-S has been generated from new construction.
Many areas are growing rapidly and are riot yet highly urbanized, and most new construction
is lowrise, with heavy use of wood. Accordingly, efforts to reduce the disposal of DLC wastes
in the RDC-S will focus on methods of reducing wood waste and separating wood from other
materials at construction sites.
This section includes a discussion of DLC legislation and regulations, stakeholder
committees, impediments to the expansion of 3Rs activities, material markets, landfills, and
future actions.
92
DLC Legislation and Regulations
Regulatory requirements for managing DLC materials in British Columbia are outlined in
the updated Waste IvlanagementAmendmentAct (i') and the Landfill Criteria for
iVlunicip cii Solid Waste (1993).
9.2.1
Waste Management Act
The Waste ManagementAct defines municipal solid waste to include DLC waste, a
definition that has made it possible for Regional Districts to regulate private sites handling
DLC materials.
Two features that could result in significant changes in current DLC management methods
include the following:
• Once a Regional District has a waste management plan approved by the Minister, it may
"issue an operational certificate to a municipality or to any person who is the owner of a
site or' facility covered by the waste management plan, and attach conditions to the
operational certificate" (S i8 (,) (a) (b)) that gives Regional Districts the authority to
regulate any waste! recycling site or facility covered by an approved waste stream
management plan.
• The Regional District "may, by bylaw, exercise one or more of the following powers in
relations to the collection and disposal of municipal solid waste generated within its area
or within a municipality that has contracted with the regional district for the disposal of
municipal solId waste from the municipality:" (S 19.1 (2) (a) (b)).
9. DEMCLITION. LAND QEARING AND CONSTRUCTrCN WASTE
"setting fees payable by generators of municipal solid waste or by other persons who
use the services of a waste hauler."
"Setting levels of fees based on the quantity, volume, type or composition of
municipal solid waste generated; the fees charged by the applicable waste hauler for
its services; or any other basis prescribed by regulation."
BC Environment's Landfill Criteria for VIunicipal Solid Waste is the most recent and
comprehensive document on landfill regulations in British Columbia. In the document,
landfills are classified according to three types:
Sanitary landfills
• Modified sanitary landfills
• Selected waste landfills
Separate criteria for modified sanitary and selected waste landfills have not been
established; instead, exemptions from Sanitary Landfill Criteria may be approved (approval
is specified in the Waste ManagementAct). Exemptions are based on sitespeciflc
environmental, public health, and economic considerations.
DLC landfills are classified as selected waste landfills, as they receive only a few types of
waste and do not accept putrescibles. Properly designed and operated DLC landfills should
have a lower potential for damaging the environment, Therefore, DLC landfills may be
exempted from some of the criteria for design, operation, and closure, depending on waste
type, potential for leachate generation, location, environmental considerations, and
economic constraints.
'it*t•nii.
Stakeholder committees formed recently in British Columbia and Alberta have investigated
means to improve the reduction and recycling of CRD waste. A brief summary of the
activities undertaken by those committees follows.
9.3.1
Provincial Demofition Materials Diversion Strategy (British Columbia)
B.C. Environment's Pollution Prevention branch is developing a provincial strategy to
increase the diversion of demolition materials from disposal. The strategy is being developed
with the cooperation of numerous stakeholders that formed the Demolition/Deconstruction
Planning Committee (D2PC) in 1998: the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), the
Capital Regional District (Victoria), the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Workers'
Compensation Board, the Architectural Institute of B.C., the Association of Professionals
Engineers & Geoscientists, the Recycling Council of B.C., and private sector representatives,
such as Litchfleld & Co. Ltd., PHH Environmental, Quantum Environmental, and Pacific
Blasting & Demolition.
Deconstruction was identified as the preferred approach for managing solid waste and
hazardous waste materials from demolition projects. Symposiums were held in 1998 and
1999 on this issue, followed by a discussion paper endorsing the development of a strategy to
make deconstruction the norm and conventional demolition the exception. This document
outlines the benefits of deconstruction, identifies the barriers that must be overcome, and
suggests solutions to facilitate the development of the provincial Demolition Material
Diversion Strategy.
9-2
9. DEMCLITICN. LAND a.EAR!NG AND CCNSTRUCflON WASTE
9.3.2
Con struction, Renovation and Demolition Waste Reduction Advisory
Committee (Alberta)
A Construction, Renovation and Demolition (CRD) Waste Reduction Advisory Committee
was formed by Alberta Environment in September iggg to implement strategies for
reducing the amount of CRD waste currently being landfihled in Alberta. The Committee is
made up of representatives from the construction industry, trade associations, specifications
writers, private recyclers, the University of Calgary, waste management facility operators,
and municipalities. The Committee's strategic plan acknowledges clear objectives toward
removing barriers, improving awareness, and supporting market development.
•
•
Several reports were completed in 2000: a CRD waste characterization study, a market
profile report on key CRD waste materials, a report on the status of specifications, policies
and guidelines affecting CRD waste reduction, and a report on providing a database of
educational and communications materials already prepared by other jurisdictions. A study
updating information on specifications and applications for recycled asphalt and concrete to
increase its use in the province and a communication strategy were both completed in 2001.
To promote waste reduction in the public sector, the CRD Committee has obtained the
support of the Capital Regional Waste Minimization Committee and is working with Alberta
Infrastructure,
One of the biggest challenges confronting the Committee is the abundance of Class III (inert)
landfills that charge low tipping fees. Economics is often an over-riding consideration in the
management of waste, and the Committee hopes to demonstrate that recycling CRD
materials is a viable alternative to disposal.
When identifying and evaluating 3Rs options, it is important to recognize existing barriers
that must be overcome to expand opportunities for DLC waste reduction, reuse, and
recycling in the RDC-S. Examining the extent of such barriers provides insight into possible
policy actions that can ensure success in the face of those obstacles. 8arriers that are likely
to present in the RDC-S include the following:
• Little or no economic incentive or regulatory mechanism to reduce wastes or source
separate recyclable materials by waste generators
Controlled burning of land clearing debris is less costly than 3Rs alternatives
• Lack of knowledge about recovery systems available and availability of used materials
Reluctance of building designers to specify or permit reuse of used construction
materials in new structures
• Little opportunity to recycle materials and high capital costs to start up recycling
facilities
Government agencies provide relatively little support to recycling through procurement
policies or through financial assistance
• Lack of established markets
• Lack of reuse and salvage opportunities
aDEMOLJTrON, LAND CtEANG AND CONSTRUCflON WAS1
Transport considerations (e.g., a small margin between product value and recovery cost
exists; hauling distance and maximizing payload are important factors)
• The need to develop new, reliable end products and adopt these products in building
codes
• The challenge of education and behaviour modification due to the segmented nature of
the industry, the large number of small companies, and the number of companies based
outside the cities
• Public opposition to the development of DLC recycling facilities; concerns about noise,
dust, and truck traffic
• The difficulty of obtaining required permits for DLC recycling facilities; requirements
that can include detailed engineering plans, signed incomingwaste contracts, and
performance/closure bonds
9.5
DLC Material Markets
This section provides a discussion of existing and emerging markets for the main materials
generated during demolition, land clearing, and construction projects - i.e., wood, concrete,
asphalt, and gypsum.
9.51
Wood
Wood is a major waste material that results from demolition, land clearing, and construction
wastes. Wood wastes from demolition projects are often of relatively poor quality due to the
demolition processes that tend to result in a mixture of relatively low value, difficult-toseparate materials. Construction waste consists of materials that are often higher value, such
as dimensional lumber, flooring, and end-cuts. Land clearing waste consists of stumps and
brush.
Wood waste is used in a variety of ways in North America Among the most common of
these are
• Hogfuel
• Landscape mulch, compost and buiking agent for biosolids composting
Animal bedding
• Particle board and shingle manufacturing
Fireplace logs
Fuel for wood-fired generators
Most uses require that the wood be reduced to a wood chip, shaving, or sawdust form.
Variables that affect the market are the type and quality of wood waste and its intended end
use.
Post-consumer wood is typically a rather low value commodity. In the Lower Mainland,
chipped wood waste used as hog fuel sells for So to S5 per tonne. Competition from forestry
operations in the RDC-S tends to keep local market prices for hog fuel low.
Mixing wood chips with sewage biosolids for composting occurs not only in the RDC-S; it is
also gaining in popularity throughout North America. Examples include the city of Port
Townsend, Washington, the Cities of Gloucester and Windsor in Ontario, and the City of
9. OEMCLITION, LAND Q,EARfNG AND CONSTRUCTION WASTE
•
Lockport, New York. The GVRD Sewerage and Drainage Department also expressed interest
in pursuing this potential end use. Wood chips are used in the composting process to
maintain structural stability and porosity in the windrow, as well as to provide a needed
source of carbon for microbial process.
9.5.2
Concrete and Asphalt
Concrete is a combination of cement and aggregate, which is typically crushed stone or a
mixture of stone, sand, and grit. Concrete waste is generated through many activities,
including building demolitions and the building and repairing of foundations, structural
supports, bridges, and sidewalks. The primary use for crushed concrete is as gravel for
roadbase, while the primary use of aggregate is asphalt. Aggregate can be used in and around
septic tanks, drainage fields, pipe bedding, driveways, and in asphalt paving.
If sufficient quantities are available, the processing costs to crush materials to an
appropriate size and remove contaminants are relatively inexpensive.
Asphalt is a tar-based material used in paving materials, roofing shingles, protective sealants
for foundations, and some types of floor tiles. Most asphalt is used for paving (or repaving)
of roads and parking lots, and resurfacing of these areas is the source of the majority of
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). The primary use for waste asphalt is production of new
asphalt. When asphalt is removed from the road surface, old asphalt can be mixed with new
asphalt and applied to the road surface. In this "hot mix", so to 15 percent of the paving
material can be recycled asphalt. The Los Angeles Bureau of Street Maintenance has
successfully used loo percent RAP to resurface its streets. Over the past five years, that city
has reduced the amount of virgin materials used by more than 727,000 tonnes, saving
approximately $8 million US in materials and disposal costs.
A second use for waste asphalt is in roadbase or roadbed. This "cold mix" is a combination of
crushed asphalt, aggregate, and stone. The recycling of asphalt shingles is a new end-use.
They have been successfully used in applications where they will not suffer excessive wear
from traffic (e.g., driveways) and are now undergoing trials. Other initiatives for concrete
and asphalt recycling include a new machine that recycles pavement in situ, developed by
Pyrotech Asphalt Equipment Mfg. Co. Ltd. of North Vancouver. The advantage . of this
process is that transportation time and costs to and from the paving site are eliminated.
Concrete blocks can be built from concrete waste that is created when too much is ordered
or when a load fails specifications. United Lock-Block Ltd. supplies concrete mixing
companies with forms to mould concrete blocks for use in gravity retaining walls.
The amount of material generated and available for end uses depends upon:
• The extent of growth and economic development (construction, infrastructure building,
repair and demolition)
• Periodic special projects (e.g., bridge building)
i Regulations concerning separation, reuse and recycling
• The availability and cost of hauling, disposal options and end markets
The cost of "virgin" aggregate can often compete directly with the cost of recycled aggregate.
Transportation costs to a processing facility and economies of scale typically determine the
feasibility of recycling concrete and asphalt. These factors often make it uneconomic to
recycle concrete and asphalt in areas without substantial population bases. In the Lower
G.0
9. DEMOLfflCN, LAND OEARLNG AND CONSTRUCTION WASTE
Mainland of B.C., a number of firms are involved in recycling concrete and asphalt where
recycled concrete sells for $6 to $13 per tonrie. Relatively small amounts of concrete and
asphalt are currently being recycled in the RDC-S by private landfill operators.
The RDC-S accepts both concrete and asphalt at its regional landfills for a fee.
9.5.3
Gypsum
There are four primary sources of waste gypsum wallboard: construction sites, wallboard
manufacturers, renovation sites, and demolition sites. Gypsum recycling began in the Lower
Mainland after the substance was banned from the region's landfills in 1984, at which time
waste ocean dumping was the only alternative disposal method available. New West Gypsum
and Recycling Inc. of New Westminster, B.C., invented and patented a process to allow the
gypsum core that makes up drywall to be remanufactured into new sheets of drywall. Over
one million tonnes of wallboard have been recycled since the process was first used in 1986;
over 133,000 tonnes were recycled in 2000. The company handles about 90 percent of the
scrap drywall that is produced in Greater Vancouver, most of it from new construction.
Two products formed during the processing of gypsum wallboard are sold back to the
manufacturers - gypsum dust and wallboard paper liner. The pulp that is created from this
process is sold to Crown Packaging Ltd. in Burnaby, which manufactures it into new drywall
paper covering that is supplied, in turn , to wallboard manufacturers. Another New
Westminster firm, BPB Westroc, is one of the wallboard manufacturers that uses the
recycled paper. Up to 25 percent of recycled gypsum is typically used in new board. GeorgiaPacific Corp. and BPB Westroc purchase the gypsum dust for a nominal fee per tonne. The
limited number of buyers, the narrow scope of intended uses, recycled content limitations in
new manufactured wallboard, and the cyclic nature of construction and renovation industry
all affect the market for gypsum dust and paper liner.
New West Gypsum Recycling Inc. recycles approximately 99.5 percent of the waste material
that enters its plant. In 2001, New West is selling gypsum dust for Si per tonne and the
paper liner material for S14 per tonne. The cost of virgin material is presently $9 to 327 per
tonne.
New West Gypsum Recycling Inc. currently charges the same tipping fee as it did jfl 1995,
$75 per tonne for material delivered to the New Westminster facility. The Nanaimo Regional
District and Victoria have transfér.stations that accept gypsum that is transported by
Bluestar Transportation to New West's facility for a fee of $140 per tonne. It is estimated
that roughly 6,000 tonnes a year of Vancouver Island gypsum wallboard is recycled.
There are currently two private landfills in the RDC-S that accept DLC materials for
disposal. A brief profile of those facilities follows,
9.6.1
Surgenor Sand and Gravel Ltd.
Operation: Land clearing and demolition waste.
Location: 5542 Island Highway in Courtenay.
• Permitted Annual C'apacity: increased to approximately 15,000 cubic metres.
•........Life Exp. ctawy....seven to. 10 ......
9-6
9. DEMOL]TON, LAND D.EARING AND CDNSTRUCflON WASTE
Typical Customers: municipalities in the Comox Valley and commercial excavating
contractors.
• Equipment: 941, 951 and 977 track loaders, a dump truck, an excavator, a rubber tire
end loader, and a grater.
• Employees: one.
Tipping Fee: S3o per load for a single-axle truck, $60 per load for a tandem truck, STh
per load for a low-bed, and $100 per load for a end-dump trailer.
• Tonnages: 24,563 uncompressed cubic yards (approximately one metric tonne) in 1999.
• Environmental Controls: monitors three local water wells to determine the
environmental impacts of its operation.
• Restrictions Placed on Facility: include limits on operating hours and a prohibition of
the disposal of drywall.
9.6.2
Upland Excavating Ltd.
• Operation: Demolition, land clearing, and construction.
• Location: Five miles west of Campbell River on the Gold River Highway.
Permitted Annual Capacity: Permit increased for
io,00o cubic yards per year.
• L ife Expectancy: landfill life is unknown (clearing debris).
Typical Customers: log sort operators, private land clearing companies, and internal
contracting. Waste materials are sorted and burned; log sort debris are stockpiled for
reclamation.
• Equipment: includes 980/966 loaders, a D8 Cat dozer, and a track excavator for sorting
prior to burning.
• Employees: one operator is employed on an as-required basis.
Tipping Fee: The facility is primarily for Upland Excavating's own use, but will accept
some loads of land clearing debris and clean demolition materials from other contractors
and haulers at $24/tonne for sort debris, S9/tonne concrete, and $6/tonne asphalt.
• Tonnages: In 1999, it is estimated that 4,000 cubic metres of log sort and clearing debris
was disposed of at this site. Roughly 200 tonnes of concrete and asphalt, and no log sort
and clearing debris was disposed of at this site in 2000.
Existing Permit: Maximum of 10,000 cubic yards per year. Refuse disposed of is defined
as "inert municipal" which is "stumps, trees, land clearing waste, selected building
demolition debris, and residue of combustion from the open burning of wood waste."
• The permit also authorizes emissions from the open burning of the inert material that is
restricted to an area on the site that is satisfactory to the Regional Waste Manager. The
landfill operating requirements include: covering every 40 days and at least once every
two months, site preparation (fencing, restricted site access, water diversionary works,
and site restoration), and the discharge of putrescible wastes.
9, DEMOIJT1ON, LAND aEARNG AND CONSTRUCTION WASTE
• Environmental Controls: Does not employ environmental controls, but no complaints
have been reported regarding operation of the facility.
• No materials are recycled at this facility. Some of the barriers to recycling or operating
the business include the glut of wood waste on the market, poor definition of upcoming
legislation and the MWLAP's interpretation of such legislation, and the "fear" of open
burning on the part of some of the MWLAP's departments.
The 1995 Plan Update included a discussion of a number of possible DLC management
options for consideration, including education and training, procurement policies,
differential tipping fees and disposal bans, mandatory source separation requirements, and
waste audits and reduction plans. In the years ahead,.the RDC-S will continue to promote
the reduction, reuse, and recycling of DLC materials. Specific actions it will take include the
following:
i. The RDCS will include construction and demolition contractors in its Id education
program. Estimated cost: None.
2. The RDC-S will include wood, concrete, asphalt and other residual materials from DLC
project when developing procurement policies as discussed in Section 3 . Estimated cost:
None.
3. At this time, the RDC-S plans to allow private sector facilities to operate in accordance
with their permits, but reserves the right to consider requiring operational certificates
and implementation of differential tipping fees at those facilities in the future. Landfill
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste. Estimated cost: None at this time.
4. Considering the need for the RDC-S to purchase wood chips for use as a bulking agent
with its biosolids composting program, a ready local market is available for wood from
DLC projects. The RDC-S will investigate the feasibility of increasing the amount of wood
from demolition and construction projects that is chipped and used in the biosolids
composting project. Estimated Cost: None, if the RDC-S focuses only on the most costeffective diversion opportunities.
5. Considering the high cost of gypsum recycling, the RDC-S will include promotion of
reduction and reuse of gypsum in its education program. If gypsum recycling
opportunities are made available on Vancouver Island, the RDC-S will consider
initiatives to promote gypsum recycling. Estimated Cost: None.
9-8
•
• Ifi I 111 •
This section reports on the transfer stations and landfills in the RDC-S, including a
regulatory overview, landfill quantities and capacities, and recent history and planned
actions at individual facilities.
liii.
"-s
r
Guidelines for Establishing Transfer Stations for 14lunicipaI Solid Waste were implemented
in February 1996. These guidelines describe current methodologies used in British Columbia
and provide recommended siting, design, and operational considerations.
Environmental lvlonitoring at iVlunicipal Solid Waste Landfills guidelines were completed
in January 1996. These guidelines are intended to assist landfill owners and operators in the
design and implementation of an environmental monitoring program as required by section
7.15 of the Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste (2993). Effective monitoring
programs will enable landfill operators to show that they meet the performance criteria
outlined in the Landfill Criteria. Most importantly, a monitoring program will help prevent
unacceptable environmental impacts throughout the lifespan of the landfill.
The British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria): 1998 Edition (BCWQG), A
Compendium of Working Water Qualify Guidelines for British Columbia (CWWQG), and
the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (CDWG) provide the criteria used to evaluate
ground water quality.
The BCWQG 1998 aquatic life criteria are used mainly to evaluate groundwater quality
around landfills, because of the proximity of aquatic habitat that could potentially be
affected by leachate migrations. The CWWQG 1998 document includes aquatic life criteria
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and is therefore used to identify potential VOC
criteria exceedances. The CDWG are used to evaluate groundwater quality in domestic wells.
The RDC-S will operate all landfills in accordance with the BC Landfill Criteria (Criteria);
however, it may request exemptions to the Criteria when justified by technical, economic,
and social considerations.
10.2
Landfill Quantities and Capacities
Table io.1 provides historic and forecast disposal quantities for each area of the RDC-S. The
forecast was prepared on the basis of two key assumptions:
i. On a per-capita basis, waste will be generated at the 2000 rate
2. Disposal as a percent of generation will remain constant
?0-f
ID. TRANSFER AND LANDFILL OPTIONS
Table 10-1
Forecast Disposal By Area (In Tonnes)
1994
2000
2421
$choci Jflstricf 71
Denman Isand
185
183
248
Homby Island
158
239
323
29,953
22,883
30,917
29,396
23,305
31,488
125
270
331
Quadra Island
558
809
993
Sayward
285
285
331
21,670
20,027
24,950
22,638
21,375
26,245
Gold River
585
655
586
Tah s i s
542
468
418
99
91
82
1,226
1,214
1,086
2,452
2,428
2,172
54,486
47,109
59,905
Other Comox Valley
Subtotal SD 71
SchooI D strict ?2
Cortes Island
Other/Campbell River
Subtotal SD 72
v
School D istrict's 4
Zeballos
Other
Subtotal SD 84
RDCS Total
This provides a reasonable forecast for the purpose of investigating disposal capacity.
Because the local economy has been relatively weak in recent years, the first assumption
could lead to overstating landfill capacity. Should an economic boom take place during the
forecast period, per-capita waste generation is likely to increase, both from increased
business activity and from waste associated with new home and business construction. On
the other hand, the second assumption provides a buffer against that possibility, because we
expect that new initiatives will continue to increase the amount of waste reduced, reused,
and recycled in the future. Annual projections are provided in Appendix A.
Based on these disposal quantities and the most recent estimates of remaining capacity, the
current service area and projected year of closure for each landfill in the RDC-S is provided
in Table 10-2.
10. TRANSFER AND LANDFILL OPTIONS
Table 10-2
Service Area and Year of Closure for Existing Landfills
•
Landfill
Servce Area
Yearof
Closure
Campbell River
Campbell River, Cortes Is,, Gold River, Sayward, Quadra Is., Areas D and H, Kyuquot and some Area G.
2014
Pidgeon Lake
Comox Valley, Denman Is., Hornby Is., Areas A, B, C
2032
Gold River
Waste currently going to Campbell River: Landfill not yet closed. 2002
Tahsis
Tahsis
2025
Zebalics
ZebaUos, Oclucje and Ehatisaht Reserves, some Area 0 past 2050
10.3 Transfer & Landfill by Community
10.3.1
Campbell River Regional Landfill
Recent History
The Campbell River Regional Landfill accepts solid waste from Campbell River and the
surrounding area, and from other areas of the District (See Table 10-2). Year 2001 tipping
fees at the landfill are S45 per tonne for residential and commercial waste, with a differential
tip fee of S1o5 per tonne for waste containing materials that are readily recyclable at various
locations in the area, including cardboard, newspaper, magazines, scrap metal, clean wood
waste, tires, or brush. Current tipping fees for the Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake
Regional Landfills are shown in Table 10-3.
There have been a number of changes at the Campbell River Regional Landfill since the '995
Solid Waste Management Plan, inc1uding
The RDC-S replaced the District Municipalityof Campbell River as the operator of the
facility. Landfill operational practices, tipping fees, and management practices are now
consIstent with those at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill.
a A scale and recycling facilities were installed, a litter control program initiated, and the
septage pit was closed.
• A closure plan was prepared (Gartner Lee, 1996).
The groundwater monitoring well network, installed in 1993, has been expanded. Sixteen
wells at and surrounding the landfill are now monitored on a quarterly basis.
10. 1ANSFERANC LANDFILL OFTIONS
Table 10-3
Tipping Fees for Waste Disposal at the Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfills
(Effective August 1, 2001)
Materials Accepted For Disposal
Mixed Commercial and Residential Waste Generated Inside
the RDC-S
Boundaries
j
Generated Outside
the RDC-S
Boundaries
$4500
$13500
$300
$9 00
$105.00
$250.00
$10.00
$25.00
Hydrocarbon-contaminated sod which meets all of the Special Waste Regulation and is deposited for
treatment and short-term storage at the Landfill Site
$10.00
$10.00
Refrigerators Freezers and Air Conditioners (per item) $15.00
$15.00
$105.00
per tcnne for the
entire load
$260.00
per tonne for the
entire load
Minimum
$10 00
Minimum
$25 00
Free of charge
$3.00
$3.00
Yard Waste
•
ConstrLcticn and Demolition Waste (excluding
asbestos)
o
Tires with or without rims, limit of four per load per day (max size 16.5')
•
Minimum charge
MINiMUM CHARGE - 0 to 80 kilograms
•
Carcasses Offal •
Corrugated Cardboard
•
Waste originating outside the boundaries of the RDC-S MINIMUM CHARGE —0 TO 80 kilograms
MIXED SOLID WASTE CONTAINING RECYCLABLE
MATERIAL
All loads of mixed solid waste containing the following recyclable materials: Cardboard, Newspaper, Magazines,
Scrap Metal, Tires, Clean Wood Waste, and Brush Customers have the option of separating out the recyclable
materials for appropriate disposal at the landfill facilities or at various private sector locations in the Comox Valley area. They can then pay the regular tipping fee, or have the entire
load landfilled at the premium rate.
• CLEAN FILL - material requiring no remediation or
other processing, and suitable for immediate use as
landfill cover.
0-1000 kilograms
Over 1000 kilograms
• Engineering evaluations have been conducted and improvements made to the drainage
system surrounding the landfill to provide for more effective management of
stormwater.
O. 1RANsFE AFiC LMDFILL OPTicis
• The RDC-S has worked with a business adjacent to the landfill (Island Ready Mix Ltd.) to
address the impacts to the company's operations caused by birds that are attracted to the
landfill.
The Campbell River facility is part of the HAZCO contract for soil remediation (see the
discussion for the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill). The contract allows for use of the
Campbell River Regional Landfill as a temporary facility if it is closer to the construction
site than the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill.
Groundwater Monitoring Results
Groundwater monitoring data has been collected quarterly since the last plan was adopted.
In addition, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed in June 1999 downgradient of
the landfill to further delineate the extent and chemical characteristics of the groundwater.
In 2000, these wells (and the other monitoring wells) were sampled on the landfill's regular
quarterly sampling schedule, plus an additional sample in September.
The 2000 study reports the following conclusIons with respect to groundwater quality and
monitoring at the Campbell River Regional Landfill site:
• A northeasterly groundwater flow direction has been inferred from the groundwater
elevations, consistent with previous reports for the landfill.
Landfill-derived impacts appear to be migrating down gradient to the northeast of the
landfill. At wells outsIde the landfill boundary, groundwater quality meets Provincial
guidelines for all parameters except for elevated PH in one well and coliforins and fecal
coliforms at multiple wells. Impacted groundwater with concentrations exceeding
appropriate standards may exist beyond monitored areas.
• No monitoring well currently exists to monitor background groundwater quality
upgradierit of the landfill. WIthout additional background groundwater quality data, it is
uncertain if the landfill is the source of the total and fecal coliforms identified in
groundwater monitoring wells.
• A local property owner has a well down gradient of the landfill. Additional information
regarding geologic cross sections and monitoring data from that well would be necessary
to evaluate if there is a direct pathway between the landfill and that well.
Surface water quality of the Cold Creek System (Quinsam Hatchery sampling locations)
indicates that the landfill has a detectable but slight impact on the Cold Creek watershed.
Based on those findings, the report's primary recommendations regarding future actions are
as follows:
The RDC-S should continue its current groundwater-monitoring program in the year
2001, with some modifications.
• The surface water monitoring program should be continued, in conjunction with
Quinsam Hatchery monitoring program.
• Additional information should be gathered in order to develop a more thorough and
considered opinion regarding the presence or absence of a direct groundwater pathway
between the landfill and the down gradient residential well closest to the landfill. Until
such information is available, the study recommends that theRDC-S .on . .Ut wit h a..local.......................
IC TRANSFER AND LANDFILL OPTIONS
medical health officer regarding the possibility that water from the well is unfit for
human consumption.
The RDC-S should install two background groundwater monitoring wells between the
landfill and Mclvor Lake to assist in determining the source of total and fecal coliforms
identified in groundwater monitoring wells.
Planned Actions
The RDC-S plans to continue operating the Campbell River Regional Landfill as long as it is
cost-effective and environmentally sound to do so. The RDC-S will take a number of actions
at the landfill in the coming years.
i. Act on the recommendations noted above in the 2000 groundwater monitoring report in
order to further define the extent of the landfill's impacts on groundwater and surface
waters. Actions will include installing two new monitoring wells, analysing groundwater
monitoring results, and evaluating groundwater levels and flow direction. Estimated
Cost: S6o,000 for new wells and analysis, plus an additional Sio,000 per year in
monitoring costs associated with the new wells and analysis of the revised list of
parameters.
2. Take appropriate actions based on the results of the groundwater monitoring results.
Estimated Cost: Unknown at this time.
3. Prepare an operating plan, revise the landfill closure plan, and prepare an operational
certificate for the site. Estimated Cost: Sioo,000
4. Install a bear fence around the site perimeter to keep bears away from the landfill,
addressing concerns recently expressed by the MWLAP that bears are becoming a
nuisance at the landfill. Estimated Cost: $ioo,000
5. Address capital and operating improvements identified during the preparation of the
plans noted above. The plans will likely identify a number of capital and operating
improvements that will improve current management practices for storm water, odour,
and leachate. Estimated cost: 8250,000 over the next five years
6. Conduct more detailed evaluations of a 19-hectare parcel of land immediately north of
the landfill, called Block J, which may be suitablefar a new landfill site. These
evaluations will be conducted no later than seven years prior to the planned closure of
the existing landfill. A new landfill site at that location would need to be an engineered
landfill, which would be more costly to build and operate than the current landfill. When
Ian dfiiling at the Campbell River Landfill ceases, post-closure care of the facility would
need to continue for many years to come.
Should Block J be found to be an unsuitable location for a iandfill,the RDC-S will
investigate building a transfer station in the Campbell RIver area and transporting waste
to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill and/or sending waste to an out-of-region landfill.
Transporting waste to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill would be the less costly of the
two options, but it would have the effect of using up the capacity of that facility more
quickly. This would shorten the amount of time until there would be a significant
increase in the cost of landfiiling resulting from the need to replace the Pidgeon Lake
Landfill with an engineered landfill or send waste to an out-of-region location.
Out-of-region landfllling would probably consist of transporting waste by truck and
barge to a facility on the mainland. In cooperation with the Greater Vancouver Regional
District, the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN) currently sends waste by barge to the
Cache Creek Landfill. It is likely that a similar arrangement would be implemented if
waste were sent outside the boundaries of the RDC-S. It is unlikely that a landfill on the
island would be available to accept waste from the RDC-S. The RDN pays about $86 per
torine to transfer, transport, and dispose of waste at a distant landfill.
Estimated Cost: Estimates prepared for the i9ç Plan Update (escalated for inflation)
indicate that an engineered landfill at this location would cost about $75 per tonne
compared to the current cost of about $35 per tonne (estimates include operations,
amortized cost of landfill development, and closure).
10.3.2.
Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill
Recent History
The Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill accepts solid waste from the Comox Va1léy and Denman
and Hornby Islands. Year 2001 tipping fees at the landfill are shown in Table 10-3.
There have been a number of changes at the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill since the 1995
Solid Waste Management Plan, including:
• An operational plan and a closure plan were prepared for the landfill (CH2M HILL,
1996).
• A number of operational improvements have been made based on the recommendations
of the operational plan.
The RDC-S purchased 30 hectares of land adjacent to and northeast of the existing
landfill. This will provide a buffer against future development and could serve as a future
landfill site after the existing landfill reaches capacity. A conceptual development plan
was prepared for the site (CH2M Gore and Storrie, 1998).
The RDC-S initiated a five-year contract in July 1999 with HAZCO Environmental
(Hazea) for a bioremediation facility at the landfill. The RDC-S receives $10 per tonne for
hydrocarbon-contaminated soils treated at the facility. The process takes place in two
lined, dedicated cells. After the soil is successfully remediated, it is used for landfill cover.
Review of Hazco Operation and Groundwater Monitoring Results
in 2001, the RDC-S commissioned a study of the Hazco operation and a review of
hydrogeologic conditions and the groundwater monitoring program (CH2M HILL, 2001).
Key conclusions and recommendations of that review and the 2000 Annual Groundwater
Monitoring Report (AMEC, 2001) include:
• The Hazco facility appears suitable for the bioremediation of gasoline- and oilcontaminated soils at levels covered by their existing Approval. No further changes in the
operation of the facility or the materials accepted at that facility should occur until issues
related to the hydrogeology at the landfill site are resolved. Various changes should be
made to the operation to improve system performance.
I C7
IC. TRANSFER AND LANDFILL CPTICNs
• Information on the groundwater flow is limited to the shallow groundwater and thus
difficult to fully understand. Additional monitoring wells should be installed to provide
further definition of the groundwater regime.
Groundwater down gradient of the landfill has been impacted by leachate from the
landfill. During 2000, groundwater criteria were exceeded for pH, dissolved iron,
dissolved manganese, ammonia nitrogen, specific conductance, sulphate, total dissolved
solids, dissolved zinc, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, and chlorobenzene in one or more
downgradient wells. At one upgradient well, pH, dissolved iron, and dissolved
manganese were exceeded. It is believed that the elevated levels of these parameters may
be related to the historic landfilling of coal mining waste in the vicinity of the landfill.
According to the groundwater flow, contaminants from the landfill will migrate northnortheast. Elevated total dissolved solids and electrical conductivity in monitoring wells
at and beyond the northern/northeastern edge of the property (MW-5 and MW-7)
suggest leachate migration from the refuse deposit area. It is recommended that the
RDC-S install additional monitoring wells down gradient from the landfill and one well
upgradient from the landfill to provide additional information about off-site conditions.
• The RDC-S should conduct a domestic water well survey in the immediate area of the
landfill to identify the location and details of the water supply wells in the area. While
wells are not expected to exist in the area surrounding the landfill, the survey would
confirm that expectation.
• Because volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been identified in the groundwater
down gradient of the landfill, the RDC-S may want to increase groundwater monitoring
for VOCs.
Planned Actions
To improve operations, the RDC-S will conduct a number of actions at the Pidgeon Lake
Regional Landfill in the years ahead.
i. Take action based on the results of a consultant study, now underway, that is
investigating the recommendations of the recent Hazco operation review and the landfill
groundwater monitoring program. Estimated cost: Siio,000 for the study and possible
added costs in response to the findings of the study.
a. Install a bear fence around the site perimeter to keep bears away from the landfill,
addressing concerns recently expressed by the MWLAP that bears are becoming a
nuisance at the landfill. Estimated cost: $170,000
S. Address the area's future landfill needs, as the same long-term issues discussed above for
Campbell River apply to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill. The new disposal site is
expected to have a capacity of 1.79 million tonnes, which is over So years of capacity at
current disposal rates. The cost of landfilhng at the new, engineered landfill will be
considerably greater than current costs.
The other long-term disposal option is out-of-region disposal. As discussed for the
Campbell River Landfill, this option would require building a transfer station and
transporting waste in containers to a landfill site on the Lower Mainland. It is likely that
this option would cost considerably more than developing the site adjacent to the
Pidgeon Lake Landfill. At such a time that the Pidgeon Lake Landfill is nearing closure, a
10. TRANSFER AND LANDFILL ©P7fONS
detailed comparison should be conducted of the cost of developing a new landfill versus
transporting waste to an out of region landfill.
Estimated cost: Based on estimates prepared in the 1995 Plan and the New Disposal Site
Conceptual Development Plan, disposal at the new, engineered landfill will probably cost
S6o to $70 per tonne, compared to the current cost of approximately $35 per tonne.
•
-..
4. Update its operational and closure plans and prepare an operational certificate for the
Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill. Estimated cost: $6a,000.
•
10.3.3
Sayward Landfill
The Sayward Landfill was closed in 1996. Since that time, waste from Sayward and Area H
has been collected by a private hauler and delivered to the Campbell River Regional Landfill.
In addition, the RDC-S organizes three bulky waste drop-off events each year (mid-April,
July/August, mid-October) at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways facility.
This system appears to meet the needs of the local community. No changes to the disposal
system are foreseen.
10.3.4
Cortes Island Landfill and Transfer Station
In 1995, the Cortes Island Landfill was closed and replaced by a transfer station, a three-bay
facility at which waste is unloaded into 40-yard containers, The RDC-S contracts with a
private firm, which transports the containers, two at a time, to the Campbell River Regional
Landfill.
The transfer station appears to meet the needs of the local community. The RDC-S will
evaluate the feasibility of, and prepare a conceptual design for, adding a roof to the transfer
facility. Estimated cost: $io,000.
10.3.5
Hornby Island Landfill and Transfer Station
In 1997, the Hornby Island Landfill was closed and replaced with a transfer station, a twobay station with a paved, locked drop-off area set up for tipping. Waste from this site is
transported to the Pidgeon Lake Regional Landfill.
This station also appears to work well. The RDC-S will evaluate the feasibility of, and prepare
a conceptual design for, adding a roof to the transfer facility. Estimated cost: Included in
Cortes Island cost.
10.3.6
Cold River Landfill and Transfer Station
Recent History
The Gold River mill closed in 1998, which resulted in a population decrease. At about that
time, bears began to become increasingly viewed as a nuisance. In response, the RDC-S
established a pilot project to develop a temporary transfer station inside the old recycling
plant, and to cease disposing of waste at the landfill. The pilot project worked well and has
been continued. The new system is less costly, and bears are no longer much of a problem.
.....
.....
Groundwater monitoring and sampling at the landfill is completed on a semi-annual basis,
......... in Aprii..and..Septembe.r. Based on the analysis of the 2000 monitoring data the primary
C9
10. TRANSFER AND LANDFtL OPTIONS
conclusions and recommendations made with respect to groundwater quality and
monitoring at the Gold River Landfill site include:
• The Gold River Landfill is not significantly impacting groundwater quality.
• Low pH was noted in all three wells, which may be the result of naturally acidic
groundwater in the area.
Concentrations and values for the remaining parameters were below the applicable
groundwater criteria.
• Groundwater quality data do not currently suggest any sustained trends toward criteria
thresholds in any of the water quality parameters monitored.
• No monitoring wells are currently situated along the landfill's southeast perimeter, a part
of the landfill where there is the potential for the presence of undetected leachate.
Consideration should be given to installing a fourth well on the eastern boundary.
Planned Actions
1. The RDC-S plans the following actions for the Village of Gold River Landfill.
2. The RDC-S and the Village of Gold River will develop a permanent transfer station in
Gold River. Estimated cost: S6o,000.
3. Install a fourth well on the eastern boundary of the site, based on the groundwater
monitoring program's findings and a request by MWLAP. Estimated cost: $25,000, plus
an additional S5,000 per year in monitoring costs.
In November '999, the RDC-S commissioned a study of the potential offsite impacts of the
landfill and a recommended closure method (CH2M Gore and Storrie, 1999). The study
concluded the following:
There are no substantial off-site impacts of the landfill
• The landfill has a minimal, but detectable impact on surrounding groundwater quality,
and it is likely that the impacts to groundwater have been diminishing now that the
landfill has been closed temporarily.
4. Again request. an exemption from the B.C. Landfill Criteria to close the landfill using a
cover of compact granular fill, assuming subsequent analysis of monitoring results
continue to indicate that the landfill is not causing significant impacts to groundwater
quality. This cover system would be significantly less costly than installing an
impermeable cover system. The 1996 closure cost estimate for an impermeable cover
system, escalated by 3 percent per year for inflation, iS $379,000, The exemption from
the Criteria is justified on the technical merits (no significant impacts to groundwater
quality). There are also economic and social justifications for the request for an
exemption: the Village is u'der economic stress because of the recent closure of the mlii,
and it is in a relatively remote area that is distant from any concentration of residences
or businesses. The proposed cover system is a prudent response to these considerations.
Estimated cost: $133,000.
5. Continue its current groundwater monitoring program. After closure of the landfill, the
RDC-S will monitor quarterly for at least one year to obtain more indepth information
ahou.t.ho..w. the..cl.osure..is.affecting..gro.undwater.quality...After. itisclearthatieachate....
10-ic
40. T ?/ NSFEE? AND LANDFILL OPTIONS
indicators are declining, monitoring will be conducted on an semi-annual or annual
basis. Estimated cost: An additional $x5,000 per year for two more sampling events each
year when sampling is conducted quarterly instead of semi-annually.
6. Recommend that surface water samples collected by the Village and submitted for
analysis be forwarded to the RDC-S and its consultants for review and inclusion in
subsequent annual reports. The RDC-S will also conduct a survey of down gradient water
wells within 2 km of the landfill and sample any such wells. The Pacific Logging
Operations well will be included in the sampling program, and the water well at
Vancouver Island Helicopter will be sampled once. Estimated cost: $10,000 in 2002, and
55,000 annually thereafter.
10.3.7
Tahsis Landfill
Recent History
The Village of Tahsis has recently begun filling a new section of the landfill property. No
other substantial changes have occurred in recent years.
Groundwater monitoring and water quality investigations at the landfill are completed on a
semi-annual basis, during the months of April and October.
Based on the 2000 monitoring data the following conclusions based on groundwater quality
and monitoring are noted:
a No exceedances of either BCWQG 1998, or CWWQG 1998 aquatic life criteria for VOCs
were detected in 2000. In general, concentrations and values for all parameters tested
were below accepted maximum values and ranges of criteria.
« Groundwater quality data indicate that the Tahsis landfill continues to have a minor
impact on groundwater quality where sampled.
• Groundwater quality data do not currently suggest any sustained trends toward criteria
thresholds in any of the water quality parameters monitored.
• There are presently no monitoring wells situated down-gradient of the disposal areas for
tires, metals and excavation wastes. The potential exists for the.presence of undetected
leachate in this part of the Iandfill. The RDC-S should consider installing two additional
monitoring wells; one to monitor background water quality and one immediately
downgradient of the active filling area in the northeast end of the landfill.
Planned Actions
1. The RDC-S plans the following actions for the Tahsis Landfill.
2. Continue its current groundwater monitoring program maintaining the same schedule of
semi-annual sampling/analyses and reporting.
S. Consider installing an additional well for monitoring ground water flows and potential
leachate emanating from the tire dump, metal waste, and excavation waste areas.
4. Encourage the Village to forward surface water sampling results to its consultant for
review and inclusion in subsequent annual reports,
'G_11
10. TRANS0S AND LANDFFLL OPTONS
5. Prepare an operations plan and update the site closure plan. Once complete, the RDC..S
will prepare an operational certificate for the site. The RDC-S will encourage the Village
of Tahsis to conduct various operational improvements at the landfill, including
installing a gate to control site access, restricting hours of operation, and removing the
bear pit and covering waste when it is disposed of. Estimated cost: $30,000 for plan
updates and operational certificate. Some cost is likely in the future far improved
operations.
10.3.8
Zeballos Landfill
Recent History
Zeballos is estimated to have at least 50 years of remaining capacity. The landfill serves the
Village of Zeballos and waste from the nearby First Nations band, Fair Harbour, and other
persons who live outside the village. The Village has several concerns regarding the Zeballos
landfill. Bears at the landfill site have become extremely aggressive recently, and they often
wander into the pitfreely. Another concern is that individuals who do not live in the Village
are dropping off waste without paying for the service. Both of these issues centre on the fact
that the landfill is not fenced or staffed. In addition, the Village would like assistance from
the RDC-S in purchasing a new garbage truck.
Pfanned Actions
1. The Village and the RDC-S will consider entering into a contract with a wood-processing
company (All Brawn Industries) that would conduct operations at the landfill site. The
firm would make use of compostable materials delivered to the site as part of its
operations, recover and market other recyclables, direct waste and recyclables to the
appropriate locations, and keep the landfill in an orderly manner with daily supervisions.
As part of the agreement, the Village would install both a gate at the landfill and signs
posting hours of operation. The Village would continue to be responsible for covering
waste that is unloaded into the landfill's trenches. It is hoped that this arrangement
might address some of the Villages concerns about the landfill operations. Estimated
cost: None.
2. The RDC-S will consider other options for waste disposal for Zeballas and the
neighbouring areas if problems continue in the future. Those options could include:
Building a transfer station and transporting waste to the 7-MIle Landfill and Recycling
Facility in Mt. Waddington Regional District, which has expressed a willingness to
discuss such an option.
• Contract with a private collection firm to collect waste from residents and businesses in
Zeballos and transport waste tothe 7-Mile landfill. To manage bulky wastes, periodic
cleanup eventS would need to be held or a transfer station established.
3. The RDC-S will prepare an operations plan and update the Site closure plan. Once
complete, the RDC-S will prepare an operational certificate for the site. Estimated cost:
S3ooO0 for the operations plan, closure plan update, and operational certificate.
1C•12
10. TRANSFER AND LANDFILL CPflCNs
10.3.9
Kyuquot and Area G
Recent History
Waste is currently disposed of at the Kyuquot dock and collected by the ?vlV Uchuck. The
Uchuck also collects waste from fishing camps, logging camps, and small settlements. It
delivers containers to the dock at Gold River, where they are taken by Village employees to
the Gold River Transfer Station. The containers are owned by the Village of Gold River and
teased to customers.
Planned Actions
Considering the remote nature of this area, the current system works reasonably well. The
Village of Gold River has expressed reservations about continuing to lease containers to
customers in the remote areas. The containers used are not compatible with most types of
front-end load trucks.
A second option would be for the RDC-S to change to a system compatible with front-end
load trucks operated by private collection firms and contract the service out to such a firm.
Because the MV Uchuck only delivers one or two 3yd 3 bins per week, this would be an
extremely expensive service to contract out. In order to make it cost-effective, the system
should be coupled with collecting commercial and/or residential garbage in the Village of
Gold River, a service currently conducted by the Village. The RDC-S recommends that the
Village Continue serving the remote areas with collection bins. If the Village ultimately
decides to cease that operation, the RDC-S will request that the Village allow a private
collection firm to provide this service in conjunction with commercial collection in the
village. Estimated cost: No additional costs at this time.
i.iI
iii1[
[I.:Ij:.[*jI.Itflij
The RDC-S is committed to ensuring that its landfills are managed in a fiscally responsible
manner, which includes ensuring that there are adequate funds available to pay for landfill
closure prior to embarking on a closure project. After closure, the RDC-S will ensure that
post-closure activities are conducted as required, including groundwater monitoring and
various operational actions.
The RDC-S has established a closure fund to pay for closure at the five remaining operating
(or temporarily closed) landfills. Projected closure costs (in 2001S) and the projected year of
closure for each landfill are shown in Table 10-4.
As of the end of 2001, the RDC-S will have a total of $4,046,000 in its closure fund.
Assuming the closure costs and closure dates shown above and a 5 percent interest rate on
invested funds, the RDC-S will need to contribute approximately $211,000 in 2002 to its
closure fund to ensure that enough money is available for closure of each landfill. Thereafter,
it is assumed that the closure fund contribution will increase at an annual rate of 3 percent.
Post-closure care will be funded from current operations. Thisis fiscally prudent, because
the major post-closure cost (groundwater monitoring) is currently being incurred at each
landfill and will remain unchanged after closure.
Table 10-4
RDC-S LandfiLl CLosure Costs
1C.3
Landfill
Closure Cost ($2001)
Year of Closure
Campbell River Regional Landfill a
$2793000
2014
Pidgeon Lake Regional LandfUl a $4069000
2032
Gold River Landfill b
$133,000
2002
Tahsis LandliU b $100,000
2025
Zeballos Landfill
C
n.a.
a Estimate from 1996 closure plan escalated at 3% per year.
b Estimate based on 2001 analyss by CH2M HILL.
As discussed in 1996 closure plan, closure will be conducted annually as part of regular operations.
iO-4
Past 2050
This section describes the administration and funding that will be necessary to implement the
plan.
11.1
Administration
This section includes a discussion of existing roles and responsibilities, relevant legislation,
recommended roles and responsibilities, and recommended staffing levels.
11.1.1
Overview
Existing Roles and Responsibilities
Currently, solid waste collection within Municipalities is conducted by the individual
Municipality or by a private operator under contract to that Municipality. The Regional District
contracts with private operators for collection service on Cartes Island, and in the Sayward
Valley. Residents and IC&I establishments in other areas generally have the option to
subscribe to service from a local hauler or self-haul their waste to a landfill or transfer station.
The RDC-S operates facilities or provides for the disposal of waste originating in the Comox
Valley, Campbell River, Gold River, Sayward, and Electoral Areas D, H and L The Villages of
Tahsis, and Zeballos are responsible for the disposal of wastes generated within their
community.
The mechanisms for the provision of recycling services are varied. The RDC-S's MMDD
program provides drop-off recycling opportunities in the Comox Valley, Campbell River, Gold
River, and Quadra Island. In Comox, Courtenay, Tahsis and Zeballos recycling services are
either provided by or supported through the Municipality. On Cartes, Denman, and Hornby
Islands, the RDC-S provides some funding and/or local community groups have established
systems of user charges to collect funds for waste collection and recycling efforts.
Legislative Framework
Solid waste management in B.C. is regulated under the province's Waste IYlanagementAet
(1 982). The Waste ManagementAmendmentAct, Bill 29 (1992) introduced a number of
fundamental changes and additions to the existing legislation. The act, as amended, establishes
a broad range of powers that may be exercised by the MOELP to regulate the entire waste
stream. This amendment changed the definitions of "waste management plan" and "municipal
solid waste" so that solid waste management plans must provide for the collection,
transportation, handling, storage and treatment of recyclable material and municipal solid
waste including demolition, land clearing and construction waste. Regional districts were also
given authority to exercise control over all sites or facilities involved with municipal solid waste
and recyclable material, subject to approval by the MOELP.
The Waste ManagernentAmendmentAct, Bill 17 (1998) expanded the authority available to
the regional districts for implementing approved Solid Waste Management Plans by bylaws.
The provisions of the bill are enabling for regional districts, but nevertheless are a significant
expansion of bylaw auth .o .rity ._To address concerns expressed hythe private sector and some
11.ADM1NISTRATION AND FUNDING
municipalities, the Ministry included several safeguards in the legislation. In addition to the
normal condition that the Minister review and approve the plan amendments that would be
required, the minister must also review and approve all bylaws that are based on Bill 17
authority.
A current draft ministry policy and procedure in support of Section 24.3(1) of the Waste
Management Act would require Provincial approval of bylaws that flow from Ministerapproved solid waste management plans. To implement a bylaw tinder an approved plan,
regional districts would be required to engage in a consultation process with stakeholder and
achieve consensus among stakeholders on the bylaw. If consensus could not be reached, the
regional district would need to seek approval of the bylaw by ministry staff. This proposed
policy would increase the time and cost required to implement programs, and would severely
restrict the ability of the regional district to make effective solid waste policy. It is hoped that
this policy and procedure will not be implemented.
11.1.2
Recommended Roles and Responsibflities
During the past five years, the solid waste system in the regional district has functioned well
with good communication between the RDC-S, it's member municipalities, and relevant
stakeholders. No changes are planned to those roles and responsibilities during this Plan
Update.
11.1.3
Staffing
Current staffing dedicated to solid waste management at the RDC-S includes the following:
Waste Reduction Coordinator - August 1997 (responsible for the MMDD program, master
composter program, education and promotion, and all other activities related to the RDC-S
3Rs programs)
Operations staff at the Pidgeon Lake Landfill
Also the General Manager of Operational Services and the Operations Manager of Operational
Services dedicate part of their time to solid waste matters in addition to other duties at the
regional district. The RDC-S provides adminIstrative support staff to assist with solid waste
management along with other Regional District functions. The RDC-S also hires contract
employees at times to assist with waste reduction and recycling programs.
Additional staff will be necessary to implement the solid waste management plan. The RDC-S
can hire new employees or contract with the private sector to develop and deliver new
programs. There is also a tradeoff between hiring new staff and using consultants for projects
that may require more specialized expertise.
Evaluations of staffing levels needs for plan implementation were made on the following
assumptions:
* New staff will be hired only when absolutely necessary; contract employees will be used to
the extent possible
The RDC-S will use consultants at a level that is typical forjurisdictions the size of the
RDC-S
In order to implement the plan, one additional staff member will be required. This person
would be responsible for implementing the waste reduction, reuse, and recycling programs in
11-2
II. AOMINISTRATiON AND FUNIaiNG
the ICI sector. This additional staff position was recommended in the 199 Plan but has never
been filled.
11.2
Funding
11.2.1
Funding Methods
Since the 1995 Plan, the RDC-S has made great progress in implementing a rational system of
payments and charges that support the diverse set of programs included in the plan. Some
changes that have occurred since that time include:
® Most waste in the RDC-S is disposed of at the Campbell River and Pidgeon Lake Landfills
which have a common schedule of tipping fees.
• Some portion of programs that benefit all property owners in the regional district are paid
for through property taxes.
+ Most all municipalities have some form of user-pay system in place for garbage collection.
+ The RDC-S has established a closure fund and makes annual contributions to that fund in
order to ensure that sufficient revenues are available to pay for projected closure costs for
all landfills at the time of closure. The funds are placed in a dedicated closure fund that
would not be used for anything other than landfill closure.
Solid waste activities are funded by a combination of tipping fees, property tax requisitions,
and other miscellaneous fees. and charges.
11.2.2
Funding Requirements
Two funding options for the plan are shown in Table 11- 1. In Option x, there would be no
change to the current level of tax-based funding of Plan expenses. In Option 2, activities that
benefit all property owners, such as closure costs, program administration, and education and
promotion, would be paid for through property taxes. Option 2 was the funding method
recommended in the 1996 Plan.
As shown, the two options provide a range of different methods for funding the plan. In Option
1, tipping fees would increase from the $45 per tonne level in 2001, to a range of S6o to $68
per tonne (in 2001 dollars) over the five-year plan horizon. Property taxes would pay for a very
small part of total expenses.
Table 11-1
Plan Funding Options (in 2001$)
2001
2002
20133
j004
2005
2006
'Option 1: No increase in Property Tax
Revenues from Tipping Fees
Revenues from Tax
Tip Fee
Tax per thousand
Tax per $150,000 home
^ $2 250,750 $3,042,107
$78,371
$78,371
$3,105,107 $2,902,107
$78,371
$78,371
$2,962,107 $2,842,107
$78,371
$78,371
$67
$68
$63
$53
$50
$0.09
$0,09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$12.93
$12.93
$12.93
$12.93
$12.93
$12.93
$2;250,750
$2,306;012
$2,319,191
$2,098,496
$45
I
Opt'son 2: 1995 Plan Property Tax
evenues rom IppEng Fees
11-3
11A0MINiSTRA10N MD FUN0NG
[_Revenues from Tax
Tip Fee
F
$78,371
I
$539720 J $539720
tax per thousand
$0.59
$0.59
Tax per$150,000 home
$59.06
$89.06
L
[
$539720
$539,720
$539,720
$059
$0.59
$059
$0.59
$89.06
$89.06
$89.06
$89.06
In Option 2, property taxes would increase from $0.09 per thousand dollars of assessed value
($13.50 per year on a $150,000 home), to $0.59 per thousand dollars of assessed value (SSg
per year on a $150,000 home), and tipping fees would range from $44 to $53 per tonne.
The funding options are based on a number of assumptions, including:
The planned actions are carried out over the 5-year planning horizon at indicated funding
levels
Program implementation is phased to keep funding levels reasonably stable over the five
year period (see Section ii for details)
Revenues equal expenses each year
A more detailed accounting of revenues and expenses for each option is shown in Tables 11-2
and 11-3,
As shown, regardless of how the Plan is funded, implementing the Plan will require collecting
substantial additional revenues above current levels (current tipping fees are $ per tonne).
Part of the reason for the increase in funding requirements is that forecast disposal is growing
much more slowly than anticipated during the last plan. The two main reasons for the
reduction in disposal include:
A slowdown in the local economy
• The RDC-S has also had outstanding success in its programs to reduce waste from
disposal: the percentage of waste requiring disposal has increased from ii percent in 1994
to 34 percent in 2000.
i4
Table 112
RDC-S Solid Waste Revenues and Expenses (2001$): Option I - Current Property Tax Levels
_____________________________________ Forecast Disposal
flpp ng Fee ($/tonne)
2001
45,303
2002
45,246
2003
45,768
2004
46,404
2005
47,065
2006
47,764
$45
$67
$68
$63
$63
$60
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Revenues
Beginning Balance
Tipping Fees
$2,250,750 $3,042,107 $3,105,107 $2,902,107 $2,962,107 $2,842,107
Hazco Bioremediation Revenues
Grants
$200,000
$1,500
Requisition from Municipalities and Electoral
Areas
$78,371
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$1,500 _____$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
$78,371
Revenues from Scrap and other recydabes $15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
Prior Year Surplus
$303,358
$0
$0
$0 ________ $0
$0
Total Revenue
________ $2,849,600 $3,337,600 $3,400,600 $3,197,600 $3,257,600 $3,137,600
Ending Balance
0
$0
$0 _________$0
$0
$0
Expenses____________ ____________ _____________ _____________ ________
_____________
Existing Programs as of 2001
$2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600
Landfill Closure
2001_Contribution
_________ _____
Estimated2002 Contribuhon
-
Added expense
_______
_________
______________ __________
$177,448 __________ __________ __________ _______
$211,447 _________ _________ __________ __________
$34,000
New P rog rams
_______ ___________
Chapter 4: Public Education and Promotior ________
$45,000
Chapter 5: Material Collection and
$94,000
Recycling________ ___________
Chapter 7: Composting _______________ ______ $0
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$0
$0
$94,000
$0
$94,000
___________
$0
$94,000
_________
$94,000
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
Chapter 8: Household Hazardous Waste __________
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Chapter 10: Transfer and Landfill
_________
$305,000
$413,000
$210,000
$270,000
$100,000
- Total New Programs __________________
$0
$454,000
$517,000
$314,000
$374,000
$254,000
Total Solid Waste Management Plan
$2,849,600 $3,337,600 $3,400,600 $3,197,600 $3,257,600 $3,137,800
-
115
11 A[)MIU.STRA1iON !\UD FUNDING
Table 113
RDC-S Solid Waste Revenues and Expenses (2OO1$: option 2 - Property Taxes as Recommended in 1995 Plan
_____________
_____________________ Forecast EJisposal
Tipping Fee ($Itonne)
_________________
2001
2002
45303
2003
45246 _____ 45,768
2004
2005
2006
46404
47,065
47,764
$48
$49
$44
______________
$45
$51
$53
___________
$0
$0
$0
$78,371
$539,720
$539,720
$539,720
$539,720
$539,720
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$15,622
$1622
Revenues
- Beginning Balance
- Tipping Fees
Hazco Bioremediation Revenues
- Grants
- Requisition from Municipalities and Elector Areas
Revenues from Scrap and other recyclables - PriorYearSurplus
$0 -
$0 ______ $0
$2,250,750 $2,306,012 $2,413,486 $2209855 $2,319,191 $2,098,496
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200000
$200,000
$200,000
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1500
____________
$303,358
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,849,600 $3337600 $3,400,600 $3,197,600 $3,257,600 $3,1 37,600
Ending Balance
$0
$0 _______ $0 $0 ______ $0
$0
Expenses___________ ___________
-
Total Revenue
______________
- Existing Programs as of 2001
-
-
-
Landfill Closure
2001 Contribution
Estimated 2002 Contribution
Added expense
$2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600 $2,849,600
___________
________
$177,448 ______
______ __________ __________
$211,447 __________ __________ __________ _________
___________
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
-
Chapter 4: Public Education and Promotici ___________ $45,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$94,000
$94,000
$94,000
________ _________ ___________ _______
_________
$0
$0
$0
$94,000
$94,000
-
Chapter 5: Material Collection and
Recycling_________________
Chapter7 Composng
-
Chapter 8: Household Hazardous Waste -________ -
__________
________ $0
NewPrograms _________________________
Chapter 10: Transfer and Landfill
- Total New Programs
Total Solid Waste Management Plan
U6
$10,000
$10,000
$305,000
$413,000
$454,000
$517,000
$10,000
$0
$50,000
$10,000
$10,000
$210,000
$270,000
$100,000
$314,000
$374,000
$254,000
$2,849,600 $3,337,600 $3,400,600 $3,197,600 $3,257,600 $3,137,600
I
4'i'k1 iifl 1i.
j.I1iIi
[] i1 1:111' I i.i'i I iTlifli (.1111 [iJ
Federal Initiatives
National Packaging Protocol
In 1989, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), called for the
development of a National Packaging Protocol CNAAP) which would set voluntary targets
and schedules for the minimization of packaging waste. In March 1990, a broad, multistakeholder consultation comprisedof federal, provincial and municipal governments,
industry and environmental and consumer interest groups formed the National Task Force
on Packaging. The same year NAPP endorsed a voluntary agreement with industry to reduce
packaging waste across Canada which included six national packaging policies along with
three target reduction goals. The latter based on 1988 levels, were 20% by 1992; 35% by
1996, and; o% by the year 2000.
By the end of 1996, a 51% reduction in the weight of packaging waste sent for disposal was
achieved, resulting in the year 2000 milestone being met four years ahead of schedule. The
National Packaging Task Force recognized that while the year 2000 target has been achieved
ahead of schedule, the work on implementing the Protocol is not complete. During the latter
part of the 1990'S the Task Force worked on a review of stewardship initiatives across the
country and pilot testing of its waste characterization model.
In June 2000 the National Packaging Protocol Final Report was issued stating that the
CCME should not abandon solid waste issues and should consider coordinating a broader
approach to solid waste (not just packaging). This initiative should be spearheaded by an
advisory multi-stakeholder forum. The forum should address stewardship initiatives,
government procurement and educational information but in wider perspective, in order to
help in the development of consistent waste management practices by provinces, and more
effectively address the impact of waste generation and disposal have on climate change and
the environment in general.
Provincial Initiatives
Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation
On December 15, 1997, Cabinet approved the Beverage Container Stewardship Program
Regulation to replace the Litter Act. This Regulation came into effect October 1, igçS, it
expands the deposit-refund system to include all ready-to-drink beverages (e.g., pop, juice,
sports drinks, and water in any type of container), except milk, milk substitutes, infant
formula and meal replacements. An exemption, until October i, 1999, was granted to
polycoated and flexible pouch containers to develop a viable recycling solution. These items
were being recycled by overseas processors until the completion of modifications to the
Crown Packaging recycling facility in Burnaby, BC, in October 2000.
APPENXA VER
Al
This Regulation ensures that all producers of beverages in BC take stewardship
responsibility for their empty containers. The regulation states that all beverage containers
must be refillable or recyclable and none of the containers recovered by the system can be
landfilled or incinerated. Encorp Pacific (Canada), Liquor Distribution Branch and Brewers
Distributor Ltd. Fable i) are stewardship agencies established by the beverage industry to
meet responsibilities under this regulation.
Tab'e I
BeverageIndustry Stewardship Agencies
Stewardship Agency
Beverage
Category
____________________ ___________________ __________
Proportion of BC
.
Recovery
Reporting Period
Beverage Industry
Rate
Non-alcoholic
beverages
50%
October 1, 1998 to
December31, 1999
75%
Liquor Distribution Branch
Wne, spirits, non-
refillable beer, cider
and coolers, except
those produced by
Molson and Labatts
7%
April 1 1999 to
March 31, 2000
85%
Brewers Distri&jtcr Ltd.
Domestic beer in
refillable glass and
aluminum cans
43%
Apl 1, 1999 to
March31, 2000
95%
Beverage deposits (So.o5-$o.2a) are paid at time of purchase and are refunded upon
container return at local bottle depots, retail outlets and liquor/wine/beer stores. Program
funding is generated through unredeemed deposits, revenue from sales of recyclable
materials and brand-owner service fees.
This regulation sets an 85% recovery rate goal for within 2 years. To date there has been over
an 84% return rate. Table 2 summarizes the end markets for containers collected in British
Columbia.
AFPENOXAVER I
A-2
Table 2
BeverageContainer Recycling End Markets Stewardship Agency
Material Type
__________________________________________________
Products
Aluminum
New aluminum cans
PET plastic
Carpet fibre, insulation for the winter clothing, new
containers
HOPE plastic
Non-food containers such as oil, detergent and spray
bathes, plastic film
PVC plastic
PVC piping
Bag-in-box
Cardboard box-paper products
Foil bladder— new plastic for nonfood containers
Glass
Fibreglass home insulation, new bottles, construction
aggregate, sand blasting
Bi-metal
Metal products
Gable-top
Paper products including finish paper coat for gypsum
wallboard
Aseptic drink box Paper products including finish paper coat for gypsum
wallboard
Liquor Distribution Branch
PET plastic
Resin for use in new containers and other plastic products
Bagin-box
Cardboard box: paper products
Foil Bladder: partly recycled; partly disposed to landfill
Brewers Distributor Ltd.
Glass
Fibreglass insulation, glass manufacturing, construction
aggregate
Glass
Bottles refilled on average 15 times per container.
End-of-life glass is recycled into drainage in construction
materials, road aggregate and fibreglass production
Aluminum
New aluminum cans and other fabricated aluminum
products
Financial Incentives to Recyc'e Scrap Tires ("FIRST")
This the first Canadian program of its kind and was introduced in June 1991 with the goal of
diverting over 90% of used tires from the waste stream by establishing a viable tire recycling
industry. The FIRST program can be considered an example of a first generation industry
stewardship program that is funded by consumers and administered by government. There
is no involvement of the tire industry, other than retailers who collect the levy on behalf of
the government and voluntarily take back scrap tires form consumers.
Over 2.5 million scrap tires are reclaimed annually from all parts of the province. As of
March 2001, over 27 million passenger tire equivalents (PTE's) have been diverted from
landfills and other forms of disposal at a total cost of over $46 million. The program
currently captures about 285,000 PTE's per month. Figure 1 displays PTE annually collected
from 1991-2000.
These tires are being manufactured into recycled products such as tire crumb which is sold
for making animal mats, roofing products, asphalt sealants, running tracks, crumb rubber
APPENDIX A . VER I
A3
asphalt, and play surfaces. In addition it is used as an auxiliary fuel replacing fossil fuels in
Tilbury's cement kilns.
A $3.00 environmental ley on the sale of all new tires generates on the average an
estimated $11,500,000 in revenues annually. This money is directed to the Sustainable
Environment Fund (SEE), which provides funding for environmental protection programs,
including the tire program.
The FIRST Program provides two types of financial assistance:
a transportation credit to ensure that tires can be profitably hauled to processors from
anywhere in the province
. an end use credit to support the production of tire products and tire-derived fuel.
Figure 1
Tires (PIE) Collected Annually in British Columbia Since Program Implementation
(*only 9 months recorded in 1991)
40
C
__ 30
o25
wo
00
,l_.
2
I-c,
0
C).C
a,
Ca
5
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 199 2000
Year
LeadAcd Battery Collection
The B.C. lead-acid battery collection program was implemented, with a goal of increasing the
recovery rate of used vehicle batteries to g8%. Since the program began in June of 1991, the
number of batteries has consistently exceeded i00% per year, indicating that batteries are
being pulled from storage. This high recovery rate has been achieved because the program
provides transportation incentives which stabilize the collection system and ensure that
batteries generated anywhere in the province can beprofitably hauled to a processor,
regardless of fluctuations in the international price of lead.
APFEID1X A VER I
A4
Used lead-acid batteries are broken down into three main components for recycling:
1. plastic case - chipped into recyclable plastic pellets
2. acid - used or sold for industrial processes
3. lead - smelted into ingots, often new batteries
This program is funded through a $5. 00 environmental levy on the sale of all new lead-acid
batteries, generating an estimated yearly revenue of 54,000,000. This money is directed to
the Sustainable Environment Fund (SEF), which provides funding for environmental
protection programs, including the battery program. Figure 2 summarizes batteries collected
annually from 199 1-2000.
Figure 2
Lead Acid Batteries Collected Annually in British Columbia Since Program Implementation
ronly 10 months recorded in 1991)
100
m
80
°o
v c 60
m °
m
^+ m
40
U E
20
.^
a
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Return of Used Oil Regulation
In 1992, the Return of Used Lubricating Oil Regulation created the first regulated industry
funded and operated product stewardship program in North America. The used oil program
was implemented to provide customers with the opportunity to return used oil to
retail/depot facilities for recycling. Figure 3 summarizes waste oil re-refined in British
Columbia since program implementation. In 1998, 56% of the estimated 5 0 million litres of
lubricating oil available for recovery from domestic and industrial users was recycled.
APPEND E X A • VER 1
A.5
Figure 3
Waste OU Re-refined in British Columbia Since Program Implementation
;; 50
a^
Q 40
ca
0
a
0
30
20
O
e 10
0
w 0
1992 1993 1994 1995
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Post•Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Solvents, Pesticides
and Gasoline
The Post Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Reg.111/97) was passed
on March 27, 1997. This regulation requires the producers of solvents/flammable liquids,
domestic pesticides and gasoline to take cradle to cradle responsibility for management of
their products that contribute to the household hazardous waste stream. Since January
1 998, residuals of these products have been collected from householders at a province-wide
depot network.
In response to this regulation, brand-owners of these products formed two non-profit
industry associations, Paint and Product Care Association (PPC) and the Consumer Product
Stewardship Program (CPSP). This private sector CPSP establishes and operates the
provincial network of collection depots and manages the collected residuals. There are 35
permanent collection depots, or alternate service, currently operating throughout the
province; at least one in every Regional District, except Central Coast.
As this Regulation does not permit brand-owners to charge consumers for the return of
regulated product residuals, they recover program stewardship program costs through an
"eco-fee" at the retailer point of sale. These fees range from So.io to $2.40 depending on
type of residual and container size. Since January 1998, over 300,000 equivalent litre
containers of household hazardous waste have been collected with out relying on tax dollars.
In 1999, PCP and CPSP members repo rt the recovery of 51,483,000 from "eco-fees" assessed
to consumers at the point of sale.
In 1998 this regulation was amended to address consumer concerns. The amendment now
exempts kerosene sold in containers over nine litres and by narrows the pesticides collected
to those displaying a poison hazard symbol on the label.
...................................:......
AFPE HDix A . VER 1
A•6
Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation
The Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation (B.C. Reg. 200/94) came into
effect September i, 1 994. This regulation requires the producers of consumer paint products
to take cradle to cradle responsibility for the management of their products that contribute
to the household hazardous waste stream. Since September i, 1 994, leftover paint has been
collected from B.C. householders through a province-wide depot network.
In response to the regulation, brand-owners of consumer paint formed a non-profit industry
association, Paint and Product Care Association (PPC). This private sector association has
established, and now operates, a provincial network of paint collection depots and manages
the leftover paint in an environmentally responsible manner.
This Regulation was amended in on June 26,1997, to include all paints sold in pressurized
containers (aerosols). As a result, a second non-profit association was established, the TreeMarketing Paint Stewardship Association (TSA). The TSA established a closed loop, returnto-distributor collection system for tree marking and road marking paint.
Since this Regulation does not permit brand-owners to charge consumers for the return of
paint products, consumers pay an "eco-fee" ($o.Yo to $i.00 depending on the size of the
paint can) at the retail point of sale to assist with stewardship program costs. There are over
ioo permanent PPC paint collection depots and 26 distributors of industrial aerosols under
the TSA program that are available to the public. Figure 4 displays paint products collected
annually from 1 994-2000. Since the program inception the paint industry has developed
advanced recycling and reuse technologies to manage over 14 million equivalent litres of
paint returned by consumers.
Figure 4
Paint Products Collected in British Columbia Since Program Implementation
(elcs-equivalent litre containers)
45
40
U) —
35
i 30
00
-C
15
5
0
N)
CD
(0
CCD
(0
F^
cn
o)
CCD
CD
CD
C
a)
(0
L?
Year
APPENG;X A _ VER t
A.7
PostConsu mer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation - Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceutical industry voluntarily established the pharmaceuticals stewardship
program in November 1996. Brand owners requested that the province expand the scope of
the Post-Consumer Residuals Stewardship Program Regulation (BC Reg. 111/97) to include
pharmaceutical products.
The Medications Return Program requires that all brand-owners of pharmaceutical products
sold in B.C. take cradle to cradle responsibility for the safe management of their products
which would otherwise enter the household hazardous waste stream. This stewardship
program ensures that leftover and potentially hazardous unwanted prescription drugs, nonprescription medications and mineral supplements can be returned by consumers to
pharmacies for safe disposal. Currently the Post-Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship
Association (PCPSA) coordinates the program and Residuals Management Group Ltd. of
New Westminster, B.C. has been contracted by the Association to manage the programs day
to day operations.
The regulation does not permit brand-owners to charge consumers a fee to return regulated
product residuals in order to ensure consumers are not discouraged from properly disposing
their waste medicines. The pharmaceuticals industry has chosen to internalize the program
cost and does not assess additional fees to the public at the point of sale. As of December
2000, 32,777 kg of unwanted expired medications have been collected for safe dIsposal.
There are nearly 650 retail pharmacy outlets accepting unwanted pharmaceutical products
from households province-wide.
APPENDrX A VER I
A-8

11t1Ai`ernent Plan Update - Comox Strathcona Waste Management

Transcription

Similar documents

Chrysalis Inn - Sustainable Connections

metabolon - QUESTOR Centre

Bayfair Shopping Centre

PIIKANI NATION

Fauquier County Environmental Services

Landfill Tours - Waste Management

Recycling Bloopers

For more than 30 years, the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling

Introducing Envirosealed Windows from Vytex the industry`s most

Solid Waste Services