|
Air Quality Council Meeting with Al Stanley
NANAIMO, APRIL 19, 2006
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - BEST PRACTICES
Present: B Wyton, J Carlson, B Flynn, R Avis, L Avis, C Mealey
Regional District of Nanaimo pop - 160,000 (Nanaimo City is
75,000)
RDN curbside program services 28,000 households outside of the city
The city's own program services 65,000 households
CURBSIDE VS. DEPOT
Garbage service planning decisions for the RDN came out of a battle in the ’80s
between the ideas of driving users to depots or providing and billing them for
curbside service. In 1991, garbage and recycling was contracted out. The city
already had a system in place, so the RDN took over where there was no service
already. For example, Qualicum had garbage pick up but no recycling and
Parksville had neither. Curbside pickup and blue box recycling was supplied to
every household in the RDN.
In retrospect, a combination of the two would be best. Curbside pick up is
warranted in high density areas but may have been a mistake as supplied to every
household, especially in areas where access is difficult. It was thought that
one truck hauling garbage would be better than 1000s of cars. But the fact is
that most people make at least one or two trips into town, regardless, and could
easily be combining a garbage run with one of those trips.
WEIGHT VS. VOLUME
Classifying garbage by weight for anything from funding to handling efficiencies
can lead to serious misconceptions. For example, the recycling program in
Nanaimo was originally ‘sold’ on the basis of tonnage values. More tonnage was
equated with better performance. When the province established the glass bottle
refund program, the numbers being used to evaluate the program suddenly
plummeted, which was construed by some to mean a diminishing or failing program
- when all it meant was people were taking their own bottles back. Recycling was
just as, if not more, successful.
Remember, no one closed a landfill because it was too heavy. Garbage volume is
not synonymous with weight. Remember, also, that airspace in a landfill is
expensive. Recyclables are always comparatively light and fluffy (especially
when it comes to plastic), with a 20:1 volume comparison to other garbage.
It is not a good idea to fund a recycling program based on landfill fees (from
local or imported garbage). If there is success in reducing garbage, your
recycling funding will be negatively impacted. Contracts that are set up using
tonnage values can lead to big problems. Nanaimo avoids this by establishing a
per house, per month user fee.
PORT ALBERNI - LANDFILL
Speaking of importing garbage - Port Alberni's invitation to outside communities
to dump in our landfill was refused on at least two occasions because our
landfill was not seen as environmentally sound. Two of the main reasons for this
are:
1) there is no gas collection system
2) there is no liner (depending on clay to be impermeable was not acceptable)
ZERO WASTE
In problem solving, one must ask, "Is this an end-of-pipe solution, or a
beginning of pipe solution?" End-of-pipe solutions are reactions to what is
given and are not very effective. A zero waste attitude requires bending the
pipe so the end feeds into the beginning.
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS
Government siting should be avoided for stewardship programs, as such siting
equates to government programming. Although the government mandates stewardship
programs for certain goods, it neither funds nor influences the market for those
goods.
A stewardship program is really a contract between the producer and the
consumer. For example, Encorp is a non-profit corporation that administers the
glass beverage container program. Consumers are charged a bottle fee up front
that they can decide to reclaim in the end. Not all programs are set up like
this. Generally, the government mandates industry to design its own stewardship
program complete with acceptable performance standards. In the electronic realm,
the customer actually pays to return goods. Would the program be more effective
if a refund was offered? Could they afford to? We don't get a refund for
plastics, newspapers, cans etc....do we need one?
The beverage container refund program is an extremely successful diversion with
a 95% return rate. (It would be interesting to know how many returns come in
from 'collectors' fishing bottles out of garbage etc. to make some extra
cash....if there were refunds for other items these same people would enhance
that process as well). Those who argue to organize and capitalize for maximum
convenience may be surprised to know that BC has a much higher return rate with
the inconvenient depot set-up than Ontario, where everyone has curbside pickup.
(Any town there with more than 5000 people must provide curbside recycling).
They are lucky if they get a 30% diversion rate. The convenience argument is a
bit of a red herring.
Industry associations have memberships that are mandatory. If a new drink shows
up on the market, the producer is almost automatically added to the list and
forced to abide by the stewardship program.
In one year, the electronics industry needs to come up with a plan. In many
cases, the way electronic devices are built now, makes them difficult to
recycle. Perhaps TVs will have a $25 or $50 recycling fee tacked onto them to
help deal with or change the problem. (Not a big deal for the many who are
buying multi-thousand dollar sets ) Anything would be better than the situation
now. If you take your computer monitor to be recycled, it may be crushed to
retrieve the metal with everything else thrown away again. Most people know this
kind of stuff should not end up in a landfill, which has led some to conjecture
what the volume of the real "above-ground-landfill' is (garages full of old
computers, keyboards, monitors etc.).
Presently, China pays the highest price for this kind of garbage. Al has footage
of an imposing stack of keyboards being burned in China. After 3 days or so,
little kids run in barefoot to extract the copper etc. So much for our
electronic recycling.
Our behaviour and expectation of goods from China has a huge effect on the
people there, where the population and the environment is under siege. There are
280 riots per day in China. Every year, as industry rolls over farm land, there
are 100,000 riots that need to be quelled. Stories abound....a benzene slick
flows down a river leaving 3 million people without drinking water for
weeks......
CUSTOMERS VS. TAXPAYERS
Some people think these two are the same. Not. Customers are individuals with
choices. For those who never drink pop, wouldn't a refund system be a better
idea than getting taxed to subsidise someone else's pop drinking? User pay
rather than subsidizing.
In marketing one always asks, "who is the customer"?
In the world of solid waste, everybody is a customer - a universal audience.
LABELLING
Back to electronics (or food or....). It would be nice to know if the monitor
you want to buy is a good one. Where was it made? Who made it? Was it made with
any notion toward balance or fairness for the environment or for the labourers?
Presently, there is nothing but price to inspire consumer preference (and it may
be better to gamble on the higher price, but who knows?).
If we really want stewardship, labelling is a good start.
PRODUCT CARE
There are product care programs in place for goods such as paint, batteries etc.
You might buy paint thinner on sale at Canadian Tire for $1 and pay an
additional $1.50 eco fee. Welcome to the modern world.
There was a program in place for used oil where every oil seller was mandated to
accept the used product free of charge. This is no longer the case. There are
now specified depots, as with paint, for used oil.
How much paint etc. gets tossed in garbage bags? Who knows, but it doesn't look
like much in the regular waste screenings and audits.
The general rule of thumb for these kinds of products is "Buy what you need. Use
what you buy..
ILLEGAL DUMPING
There is no relationship between tipping fees and illegal dumping on the back
roads. With rising fees the garbage dumping has actually decreased over the
years. If landfill fees are increased there may be a temporary spike of dumping,
but things return to background levels very quickly. Controlling dumping by
keeping landfill fees low is like trying to do surgery with a sledge hammer. In
Nanaimo, there were six attempts to raise the tipping fee but they were rejected
based on fears of increased illegal dumping. That fear was costing taxpayers
$750,000/year . In an experiment, they decided to take some of that money and
try something different. $70,000 was targeted to address the illegal dumping.
Initially, there were huge back road dumps that needed to be cleaned up - to
which $25,000 was dedicated. RDN partnered with MOE, in surveillance and
catching/fining some of the offenders. Why spend almost $1,000,000 of tax payers
money because of the dumping issue when it is really only, maybe 150 people out
of the total population that would engage in such a thing? Public education was
engaged for a time, but that was eventually stopped, as the small percentile of
the population that dumps garbage doesn't respond to public education. In fact,
one offender who was caught, warned and told to take his garbage to the dump was
caught again the next day dumping the same bags in another community. He was
told to take the garbage to the landfill and produce a receipt. In the end he
had two $115 fines, and one garbage fee of $4.
If you raise the profile of this kind of problem (i.e. in the media) it usually
leads to more abuse.
The broken window theory of clean-up is useful here. If all the windows in New
York are broken, more are likely to get broken. If you clean them all up, it
reduces the tendency. Keeping roads and common dump sites clean is actually a
good prevention.
Anti-littering provisions are under the Environmental Management Act. You have
to prove who dumped it - not where it came from...so the provision is weak (mail
or other source evidence isn't helpful in court). Successful 'catches' were made
by posting sentry at entry points to trail systems that led to the newly cleaned
dump sites, and catching suspects as they left. The evidence was garbage left
behind, where none had been shortly before.
Marginalized members of society are the dumpers. There are venues for caring and
assistance for these members but garbage management is not social work, nor
would it be appropriate for it to have social justice as one of its mandates and
react by, for example, lowing user fees at the landfill. You have to charge what
it costs in user fees or you don't have a workable system. Making exceptions is
a slippery slope. It does happen occasionally, for example, by waiving dumping
fees for a charitable organization that has had a clean-up or some other special
event.
The garbage system has to be run as a business. Fees are $95/ton. Anything under
100kg, (220lb) is only $4. We will get nowhere making that even less. There is
no patience or indulgence of whiners or offenders.
PROFIT VS. NONPROFIT
There is some overlap regarding garbage processing between these two kinds of
organizations. However, Nanaimo Recycling Exchange, for example, will take items
that no one else will. If a private sector company complains about nonprofits,
they are reminded of the extra service(s) that nonprofits provide.
YARD & GARDEN WASTE
All of this waste goes to International Composting Corporation (ICC). The
landfill charge is $45/ton. $13 of that goes to hauling. (some to RDN?). 95% of
ICC's income is from the tipping fee - very little from their compost products.
It took ICC 5 years to establish their facility. The composting cannot be
open-air due to disease vectors (rats/gulls/crows/bugs).
7000 tons/year at the landfill. A dump truck is 3-5 T....that's almost 3000
truck loads. Out of that not 100T/year is dumped on back roads. Oddly enough,
'respectable' citizens have no problem dumping yard waste and, technically, it's
not illegal. To prosecute someone for doing this you must prove that they have
"introduced pollution to the environment". 5kg of grass clippings doesn't cut it
in court.
Nanaimo has no formal relationship with forest companies with which to address
yard waste dumping. Forest companies are restricting access to the land -
unfortunately for everyone else as well as dumpers.
ZERO WASTE LANDSCAPING.
The history of landscape architecture is worth having a look at. (Gertrude
Jeckyl et al). The large green spaces we are so used to as high maintenance,
water-hungry lawns originated as designs for large English holdings. The green
spaces were trimmed by sheep or other grazers. Our version is a "poor mans
castle". As individuals and communities we need to rethink what looks good and
what is good. The pollution from 1 hour of running a mower is equivalent to
driving a car 500 miles. Nanaimo is organizing some model gardens for viewing.
There are a number of landscape firms that help people install more
environmentally sound yards and gardens. People need to learn how to recycle
yard waste within their own yard. Organizing yard waste curbside pickups goes
against that process.
Check out Nanaimo's booklet, "Environmentally Responsible Gardening in the RDN."
SINGLE FAMILY ORGANICS COLLECTION PILOT
Funding ($90,000) has not come through from the FCM. Nanaimo is thinking of
using data from organics collection done in Ladysmith to move things along.
LANDFILL BANS
These are essential for an orderly wind down of resource and landfill waste.
Basically, when there is a better practice or recycling option for a certain
waste, it is no longer accepted at the landfill. This reduces the landfill
burden and at the same time encourages use of the 'new' system. It's the right
thing to do.
A great recent example of this in Nanaimo is the dumping ban on commercial
organics, with the diversion going to ICC. This was put in place on December 1,
2005. Diversion to ICC went from 15 to 400 tons/month. There was a period of one
year where food facilities (restaurants, hospitals, grocery stores etc.) and
truckers had to figure out a service system to divert the organics. The RDN
turned up the heat on haulers - either they provide a service or business access
in the region would be denied.
The "path to acceptance" (anger, denial....) was not without anguish. Public
hearings were 'heated', standing room only events....but the RDN stuck to the
program believing it was the right thing.
(Although hospitals had installed garburators for organics disposal, the load on
the sewer system warrants them recycling this waste as well.
LANDFILL FUTURE
Fifteen years ago 50% of landfill garbage was cardboard and paper. Now, there is
relatively little. If we take all the wet slop out, the next major landfill gain
would be diverting plastic which is 90% by volume and only 17% by weight.
Unfortunately, there is no cost effective means for recycling allot or our
plastics because they are such a chemical and process mix. (Did you realise PVC
is 70% chlorine and not compatible with other plastics such as HDPE?).
So how do you get the elements back out of that mix? The present answer is
tending toward 'waste to energy' - back to burning but in a more controlled way.
METHANE
Currently, landfill gas is being flared off in Nanaimo. In transforming methane
to energy more than 50% of the methane may be released. There is a plan to use
sterling engines to produce energy than will enter the grid. A bioreactor in the
landfill is the most efficient, but still releases 25%-50% of the methane into
the air. It's best to avoid putting methane producing materials in the landfill
in the first place. Composting them is better.
(After 25 years, a decommissioned landfill stops producing gas).
PORT ALBERNI - RECYCLING
In Port Alberni, 60% of our solid waste budget comes from the city. Within the
city, garbage pick up is carried out by city works. According to Charles,
residences are allowed to set out 2 cans per week. It is advised that this
should be reduced to one as can limits are directly linked to successful garbage
diversion and recycling. If there are no can limits, no one recycles. The can
limit should be instituted along with a diversion strategy, which is best
engaged through a contracted, mandatory recycling program that is secured
through a RFP. Amongst the responders will be the standard, larger,
sophisticated companies that know the business inside and out. They will figure
out how to deal with newspaper/cardboard, milk jugs, etc. and will use the
marketplace to establish a best price. (Glass is currently a very poor commodity
and crushed glass in co-mingled garbage ruins recyclable paper products.
International Paper Industries (Ed Walsh) provides competitive pricing) .
Proposals may also include garbage bins along rural collector arteries for the
different Regional Districts (or at, for example, mall parking lots).
Don't take on too much when starting a recycling system. Streamline a simple
recycling program, then add categories and programs (tin, rigid plastic, etc.)
as you go along.
Service fees for Regional District users could be user billed or dispersed as a
line item utility billing. Tender bids, user bills, processing and/or collection
contracts, administrative overheads etc. are wrapped into one budget.
Create a method for evaluating responses and put the proposal out to tender.
Your tax requisition for this can be 0. In Nanaimo, recycling is $35/year ($50
for other garbage), which is a line item on the utility or water bill. Many
people easily drop this kind of cash easily on, for example, cigarettes, a few
magazines or trips to Starbucks. It's best for planners to think of costs as
these small user fees vs. a 10 or 17 thousand dollar budget barrier. Again,
price aside, there is argument enough to recycle because it is the right thing
to do. (3.5 mil tax break example?)
RECYCLING CONTRACTS
Established garbage handling firms are very sophisticated. Successful bidders
direct the recycling pathway for various items. Once the stuff is picked up, the
service company owns and controls its destination. In bidding to supply a
service the contractor must weigh values and trends in producing the critical
RFP response to "give us a price". Commodity values (paper, glass, plastic...),
processing floor price, uncertainty of markets and business risk are assessed.
Fee structures are related to commodity values and are produced in a way that
insulates returns from bottoming out. On the other hand, should commodity prices
go up there is a formula where values over a certain level are split between the
hauler and the RDN.
CONVENIENCE
Bending over backwards to make garbage collection or drop off as convenient as
possible is another red herring. We think nothing of going all over town(s) to
collect all of our stuff. Why should we expect that all the discards from that
stuff should be dealt with at a one-stop shop? People who complain bitterly that
recycling requires too much sorting should not be indulged. Why should our
garbage be a category we refuse to sort? We're sorting things constantly. We
sort things as we move down the grocery store aisle, we sort them again into
many categories as they go into cupboards, fridge shelves, and freezers. We sort
our clothes, our laundry…
RECYCLING AND ENERGY
Another significant recycling benefit has to do with the energy saved when we
recycle. A plastic chair, for example represents a tremendous amount of expended
energy. When we recycle it, we conserve a lot of that energy. The numbers are
enormous. In total, it might take 5 tons of CO2 to produce the pen in your
hands. One kg of garbage waste indicates 1000kg of material upstream.
AQC Meeting with AL Stanley, Nanaimo, April 19, 2006
|