Appendices - City of Ottawa

Transcription

City of Ottawa
IC&I 3Rs Management Strategy
Scoping Document
FINAL – APPENDICES
Submitted to:
City of Ottawa
Department of Public Works and Services
110 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
Attn: Ms. Sally McIntyre
Submitted by:
MacViro Consultants Inc.
500-600 Cochrane Drive
Markham, ON L3R 5K3
Kelleher Environmental
36 Kappele Avenue
Toronto, ON M4N 2Z1
30 January 2007
Jacques-Whitford Ltd.
3430 South Service Road, Unit 16
Burlington, Ontario L7N 3T9
City of Ottawa
IC&I 3Rs Strategy Scoping Document – FINAL
30 January 2007
Table of Contents
Appendix A: City of Ottawa IC&I Waste Management Strategy Study Terms of Reference
A.1
IC&I Strategy Study Terms of Reference............................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Background Documents, Newspaper Notice, List of Stakeholders, Panels for
the Open Houses, Questionnaires......................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Summary of Meetings; Record of Comments from Open Houses and
Emails..........................................................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Background on the IC&I Waste Allocation Model
D.1
IC&I Waste Allocation Model Development ......................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Ottawa’s Employment Data
E.1
Employment Data by NAICS or SIC Code ............................................................................ E-1
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Appendix A: City of Ottawa IC&I Waste Management
Strategy Study Terms of Reference
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
A.1 IC&I Strategy Study Terms of Reference
The following are the Terms of Reference. Annex A provides useful background information.
The preferred team will amend and flesh out details of a work plan in consultation with the City
upon consultant selection.
1-1 Overview
The City of Ottawa, hereinafter referred to as the City, is seeking a team of professionals to draft
an Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Waste Management Strategy. The following
questions must be answered by the study, with recommended policies articulated in the Draft
Strategy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What waste streams, in what quantities are produced by the ICI sector in Ottawa?
How are those waste streams diverted or disposed of currently?
Which waste streams hold the greatest potential for increased recycling or diversion from
landfill?
What role can the City play in influencing options to landfilling or regulating diversion and
recycling of those waste streams?
What tools should the City use, powers should it solicit, or regulatory changes should it
pursue in the short and mid-term to effect change in the management of ICI waste?
What diversion targets and timelines are reasonable?
What resources will be required to achieve the above objectives?
The project is to place a significant emphasis on consulting with key stakeholders, namely: key
generators, haulers, processors, and disposal facilities; business and sector associations; and the
general public.
For the purposes of this project, ICI waste does NOT include hazardous waste, liquid waste,
biosolids or septic waste, or municipal residential waste.
1-2 Scope of Work
Task 1 – Project Notification & Scoping
The objective of this task is make the public and key stakeholders aware of the project, and to
solicit their input to the scoping of the project. Based upon discussions with City staff during
project initiation, the consultant will prepare a Draft Scoping Document that will set out the
proposed purpose, scope, and timeline for the project. The consultant will be expected to work
with the City to identify key stakeholders. The City will take responsibility for the translation
and publication of notices and distribution of the draft document.
The Consultant will review all comments received, prepare a Report on Consultation
summarizing public comment, and finalize the Scoping Document for approval by senior
management. The final document shall be distributed to key Stakeholders, and all respondents.
PAGE A-1
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
The Consultant shall develop and maintain a contact list and update it, as required, during the
course of the project.
Task 1 deliverables
Draft Scoping Document, due October 20, 2006, for staff review
Draft Scoping Document, due October 27, 2006, ready for distribution
Report on Consultation, due November 30, 2006
Final Draft Scoping Document, due December 8, 2006.
Scoping Document, Final, due December 15, 2006, for approval by Senior Management
Contact List
Task 2 – ICI Waste Characterization
Annex B lists and summarizes studies and other documents that characterize ICI and residential
waste streams in Ottawa and that govern their management. The Province of Ontario, the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and Stewardship Ontario have undertaken more
recent studies.
The first step will be to review and assess whether there is sufficient waste characterization data
of acceptable quality for strategic planning purposes and, if not, to determine how data gaps can
be addressed. The consultant team will be expected to make reasonable assumptions about
Ottawa’s ICI waste stream using census data regarding local businesses and employment, an
awareness of industry trends in Ontario, and the results of waste characterization studies
completed for public agencies and other jurisdictions.
Due to project time constraints, it is neither possible nor desirable to undertake a comprehensive
ICI waste characterization study. However, additional characterization work may be approved if
analysis of existing data identifies a need for some verification work.
One-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, sector working groups and other means are to be
used to determine how key ICI waste streams are currently managed. Data has been requested
from the Ministry of the Environment concerning wastes disposed of at local private landfills
(Carp Waste Management Facility and Navan Landfill). Such information may not be made
available to the City during the course of this study, therefore, the team must identify other ways
to adequately assess and characterize existing hauling, processing and disposal activities. The
consultant team will be expected to meet with generators and contacts in the waste hauling,
processing and disposal sectors, as well as draw on knowledge of existing ICI practices.
Upon completion of this task, the consultant team will recommend which ICI waste streams hold
good potential to divert from landfill, which will form the focus of Task 3.
Task 2 deliverables
Assessment of Existing Data, due November 30, 2006
Characterization of ICI Waste in Ottawa: Current Situation, due January 31, 2007
PAGE A-2
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Task 3 – Feasibility Analysis
The fundamental goal of the ICI Waste Management Strategy will be to divert a significant
portion of ICI waste from local landfills. To achieve this goal, the City recognizes that
reasonable, achievable options must be put in place that the public or private sector will be
willing/able to finance. Accordingly, the City intends to focus on the diversion of materials for
which there is a large volume of continually available and marketable materials.
The consultant is to assess the opportunities and constraints to changing waste generation, and
for developing waste diversion systems and markets for specific waste streams. As with Task 2,
the consultant will be expected to consult with sector experts to identify opportunities for
partnering within and amongst various sectors, and constraints to market development. The
consultant is expected to bring to this task an understanding of opportunities for waste reduction
(e.g. re-engineering), materials reuse, recycling markets, alternative recycling business models,
alternative disposal technologies, ICI waste diversion practices both domestic and foreign, local
regulatory and other barriers, and business finance.
The consultant will be expected to give consideration to the scope of the market. Specifically,
consideration should be given to how the business case would be affected if Ottawa were to
partner with other municipalities.
The City recently issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) from firms that offer
processing and disposal technologies for residential waste. Submissions will be analyzed for
their applicability to ICI waste management. The City is also in the midst of procuring
processing and marketing services for residential source separated organics, which is to be
implemented Fall 2008. The Consultant team will be provided with all relevant information
from these two projects for incorporation, as necessary, within their work processes and product.
Task 3 deliverable
Feasibility of Diverting Key ICI Waste Streams, due April 15, 2007. This report should identify
which waste streams hold the greatest potential for increased diversion, and set out the
opportunities and constraints to their implementation.
Task 4 – Define ICI Waste Management Options
City Legal Services is currently exploring the scope and limitations of the City’s powers over
private solid waste management, and identifying opportunities to expand those powers. The
results of their analysis will be available upon project award, and can be used by the consultant
team during earlier tasks to gauge potential feedback to alternative management approaches.
The objective of this task is to facilitate broader discussion and debate concerning the scope and
depth of municipal, provincial, and federal government roles in ICI waste management.
Building upon the results of Task 3, the team shall prepare a Discussion Paper outlining options
available for increasing the City’s influence and role in governing the management of ICI waste.
The Discussion Paper shall include an evaluation of how each option could impact demand for
PAGE A-3
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
landfill capacity in the City. The Discussion Paper will be presented to key City Advisory
Committees (e.g. Environment, Business, Ottawa Partnership), industry associations, and at
public forums.
The consultant team will compile responses and prepare a report that summarizes feedback and
provides further analysis as warranted to address issues raised. As with Task 1, the City will
coordinate translation and publication of all Notices, and book event venues; however, the
consultant will be expected to manage all other aspects of the consultation process.
Task 4 deliverables
Draft Discussion Paper, due April 15, 2007 shall set out in simple clear language the options
available, the opportunities and barriers to their implementation and relative effectiveness.
Discussion Paper, due April 30, 2007 for public distribution/consultation.
Report on Consultation, due June 15, 2007 shall summarize the issues raised and identify
opportunities and constraints to addressing them.
Task 5 – Draft ICI Waste Management Strategy
As stated in the Overview, the ICI Waste Management Strategy must answer several questions.
At minimum, the document shall contain the following key headings:
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Goals
Objectives
Targets & Phasing
Monitoring Plan
It should be succinct, non-technical, and stand as a self-explanatory document to Council,
industry and the public. All technical analyses and the results of consultation shall be appended.
The Draft Strategy will be tabled at Planning & Environment Committee and undergo formal
review and consultation. The consultant team will lead preparations for consultation events and
prepare a Report on Consultation; and, support staff in preparing the report that will accompany
the Strategy to Committee, and in addressing questions received during the commenting period
and at Committee and Council, if needed.
Task 5 deliverables
Draft Strategy, due June 30 (for internal staff review)
Draft Strategy, due July 15 (for senior management review)
Draft Strategy, due July 30 (for release to the public)
Report on Consultation, TBD (will depend upon review process established by Committee &
Council)
Final Strategy, TBD
PAGE A-4
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Additional Sources of Data
Waste Composition Study – Results of Government Sort, June 1992
Waste Composition Study – Summary Results of Four Sorting Periods, December 1992
Waste Composition Study – The Existing Waste Management System, December 1992
Waste Composition Study – Description of the Waste Stream and Program Implications,
December 1992
Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Study, May 1998
PAGE A-5
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Appendix B: Background Documents, Newspaper Notice,
List of Stakeholders, Panels for the Open Houses,
Questionnaires
Developing Ottawa’s
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
Waste Management Strategy
A Community Issue
Whether at work or at home, we all generate waste. The City of Ottawa is responsible for the
collection, diversion, and disposal of waste generated from households and some small
businesses in Ottawa. All other businesses and institutions – such as schools, offices, and
restaurants – are responsible for the management of their own waste and they use private
contractors for waste management. This group is called the industrial, commercial and
institutional (IC&I) sector. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is managed the same way,
and is included in this IC&I study.
Workplace and Residential Waste
As illustrated in Figure 1, Ottawa generates about 60% of its waste at the workplace. The
remaining 40% is residential waste. On average, 33% of the residential waste is being diverted
from landfills in Ontario, as opposed to only about 17-22% of workplace waste. Ottawa currently
diverts 33% of its residential waste through its Blue and Black Box and other diversion
programs. However, since the City does not manage IC&I or C&D wastes, it is unclear how
much of these wastes are being diverted in Ottawa.
Figure 1: Waste Generation by Sector
City of Ottawa, 1998
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 1
Need for Diversion Strategies
Landfills are nearing capacity throughout Ontario, and new or expanded facilities are not only
costly, but increasingly unacceptable to the public and difficult to site. Launched last spring, the
City’s RETHINK GARBAGE campaign is an education and awareness program that asks
residents to ‘rethink’ their attitudes towards garbage, from how much they generate, to their
choices for disposal. By encouraging residents to make better use of existing waste diversion
programs, the City aims to increase residential diversion from 33% to 40%. Then, with the
introduction of a curb side organics program in 2008, the diversion rate is expected to easily
reach the provincial target of 60%.
As Ottawa makes progress towards achieving its residential target, attention is being turned to
IC&I waste stream to answer the questions such as: ‘What is being done within the IC&I sector?’
and ‘Is there a role for the City to play to increase the diversion of waste from landfill?’
Developing an IC&I Waste Management Strategy
The City has recently begun a study of IC&I sector waste as the first step toward developing a
waste management strategy. The study seeks to answer the following questions:
How much, and what types of wastes are being generated?
How much is being diverted from landfill at present, and how?
Can more be diverted, and how?
Is there a role for the City to facilitate increased diversion?
The City is seeking input from the IC&I and C&D sectors, as well as the general public. This
project will include significant consultation with stakeholders, including: key generator groups,
haulers, processing and disposal facilities, business and sector associations, and the general
public. Three rounds of consultation are proposed.
Round 1: Defining the Project Scope
This round of consultation aims to make everyone aware of the project and to solicit
input on the scope of the project, including the questions that should be answered and the
outcomes to be achieved. This consultation will occur in December 2006 and finalized in
early 2007.
Round 2: Identifying and Assessing IC&I Waste Management Options
The objective of this round of consultation will be to present options for improving IC&I
waste diversion, and to obtain input on the costs, the benefits, and the viability of those
options. This consultation will be undertaken in the early spring 2007.
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 2
Round 3: Developing the IC&I Waste Management Strategy
The objectives of this round of consultation will be to publish a draft strategy, to facilitate
open discussion regarding the short-listed actions, and to reflect public feedback and
address those concerns in a final document to be considered by Ottawa City Council.
This round of consultation will occur in late spring 2007 and it is expected that the draft
strategy will be available for consultation in June 2007 and finalized in fall 2007.
What We Know About IC&I Waste Today
Waste management strategies begin by understanding the composition of the waste. The Study
Team comprised of staff from the City of Ottawa and its consulting team (MacViro Consultants
Inc, Kelleher Environmental and Jacques Whitford Ltd.) has commenced work to assess the
composition of Ottawa’s IC&I waste, with estimates to be available in January 2007. Figure 2
presents IC&I waste composition based upon provincial averages. Note that almost one half of
the IC&I waste stream is made up of paper materials. Ottawa’s waste stream will likely be
similar, with some variation due to the local characteristics and mix of businesses, institutions,
and land development.
Figure 2: Characterization of Ontario’s IC&I Waste Stream
Ontario Waste Management Association, 2004
PET #1 (Polyethylene Terephthalate) e.g. soft drink and water bottles, dish detergent bottles
HDPE #2 (High Density Polyethylene) e.g. milk, juice, water, vinegar, margarine and yogurt
containers, shampoo and laundry containers
Non-ferrous e.g. aluminium cans
Ferrous e.g. steel cans
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 3
A detailed study was carried out on Ottawa’s IC&I waste stream in the early 1990’s. At that
time, it was estimated that the Federal Government (primarily offices) was one of the largest
generators in the Ottawa area, followed by retail, other office buildings and restaurants (Figure
3). A few sectors (manufacturing, schools and hospitals) are missing from the chart.
Information from these sectors will be added as the project progresses.
Figure 3: Sources of Ottawa’s IC&I Waste Stream
R.W. Beck, 1992
Existing Regulations of IC&I Waste in Ontario
The Province of Ontario requires large IC&I generators to develop and
implement waste reduction plans. The regulations apply to: Hospitals
Hotels and motels with more than 75 units
Office buildings greater than 10,000m2 of floor space
Restaurants with gross sales of $3 million
Educational institutions with more than 350 persons enrolled
Retail shopping establishments of greater than 10,000m2 of floor space
Retail shopping complexes of at least 10,000m2 of floor space
Large manufacturing establishments with more than 16,000 hours worked per year
Multi-unit residential buildings (City of Ottawa responsibility to implement)
Large construction projects with a total floor area of at least 2,000 m2
Large demolition projects with a total floor space of at least 2,000m2
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 4
What Options are Available?
There are many ways in which the City of Ottawa could help to increase the diversion of IC&I
waste from landfill. Options include setting municipal IC&I waste diversion targets, facilitating
waste exchange, expanding waste diversion services to include IC&I waste, provision of
financial incentives, and municipal regulation amongst others. Below are examples of
initiatives undertaken in other jurisdictions that help to illustrate the range of options available.
The Toronto International Airport
The Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) recently launched a 10 year redevelopment
project. The project included the demolition of the old Terminal One building. During the
project, the GTTA:
• crushed concrete and reused it onsite;
• reused and recycled all other demolition wastes onsite, including asphalt and brick rubble;
and
• separated all metals for individual recycling, including copper from electrical wiring.
Over 95% waste diversion was achieved during the demolition of Terminal One and an
estimated $1,845,000 was saved by recycling concrete onsite.
Chateau Laurier
In November 2006, Ottawa’s Fairmont Chateau Laurier Hotel launched a partnership with a local
Christian mission to donate untouched hotel leftovers to the shelter. The shelter typically spends
about $30,000 on food per month. Donations such as those from the Chateau Laurier enable the
mission to spend more money on health care, education, and legal help for their clients. In turn,
the partnership enables the Chateau Laurier to use fewer composting bins, which saves the hotel
money on waste disposal company charges.
Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. (CFCL)
Cadillac Fairview is a leader in the commercial real estate sector when it comes to reduction,
reuse and recycling. In 2005, the company’s waste diversion rates exceeded 50% in Ontario and
30% in other provinces. Some of the CFCL’s franchise assets were among the leaders for waste
diversion in 2005, including:
• Toronto Dominion Centre (74%)
• Toronto Eaton Centre (65%)
• Markville Shopping Centre (63%)
In addition, the Markville Shopping Centre was awarded the prestigious Gold Award for Waste
Minimization by the Recycling Council of Ontario in 2005.
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 5
Questions to be Answered by this Study
The following questions describe the proposed scope for this study. Are these the right
questions? Are there important questions you believe are being overlooked? What other
questions should be examined, and what outcomes are you looking for from this study?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What waste streams does the IC&I sector generate in Ottawa?
How are those wastes diverted or disposed of currently?
Which waste streams hold the greatest potential for increased recycling or diversion?
Is additional government intervention needed, and if so, at what level?
Should the City develop tools to effect change in the management of IC&I waste? If so,
what tools should be developed and how should they be used?
Should the City pursue or support regulatory changes to influence the diversion and disposal
of IC&I waste within its boundaries?
Should diversion targets be set for IC&I waste generated or disposed within the City
boundaries? If so, what are reasonable targets? What materials should be targeted? What
timelines are feasible to achieve different diversion targets?
What do You Think?
It is important that you provide your feedback at this stage of the process to assist the Study
Team identify community needs and scope the study accordingly. In the space below (and on
reverse) please help us to define the scope of the project by telling us where the Study Team
should focus its efforts. Alternatively, please forward your responses to [email protected] or mail
them to IC&I Study, 951 Clyde Ave., Ottawa ON. K1Z 5A6.
Name:__________________________________
Phone No.: __________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________
E-mail: ___________________________________________________
Do you wish to receive notices regarding future events for this study? Yes ____
Backgrounder
December 2006
No ____
Page 6
Backgrounder
December 2006
Page 7
Élaboration d’une stratégie de gestion des déchets
pour le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel
La gestion des déchets : l’affaire de tous
Au travail comme à la maison, nous produisons tous des déchets. La Ville d’Ottawa est responsable de la
collecte, du réacheminement et de l’élimination des ordures générées par les ménages et certaines petites
entreprises d’Ottawa. Les autres entreprises et établissements (écoles, bureaux, restaurants, etc.) gèrent
eux-mêmes leurs déchets et font appel, à cette fin, à des entrepreneurs privés. Ce groupe a pour nom
secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel (ICI). Les débris de construction et de démolition (CD)
sont gérés de la même façon et sont également visés par la présente étude sur le secteur ICI.
Déchets produits par les milieux de travail et les zones résidentielles
Comme l’illustre la figure 1, environ 60 p. 100 des déchets générés dans la ville d’Ottawa proviennent des
milieux de travail; les 40 p. 100 restants sont des ordures ménagères. En moyenne, 33 p. 100 des ordures
ménagères sont réorientées à partir des sites d’enfouissement de l’Ontario comparativement à seulement
17 à 22 p. 100 des déchets produits par les milieux de travail. À l’heure actuelle, Ottawa réoriente
33 p. 100 des ordures ménagères par l’entremise des boîtes de recyclage noires et bleues et d’autres
programmes de réacheminement. Cependant, comme la Ville ne s’occupe pas des déchets des secteurs ICI
et CD, il est difficile de connaître la proportion exacte de ces déchets qui sont réacheminés à Ottawa.
Figure 1 : Déchets produits selon les secteurs
Secteur industriel, commercial
et institutionnel 38 %
Secteur de la construction et de
la démolition 22 %
Secteur résidentiel 40 %
Ville d’Ottawa, 1998
Des stratégies de réacheminement sont nécessaires
Dans tout l’Ontario, les sites d’enfouissement sont presque complètement remplis et l’aménagement de
nouvelles décharges ou l’agrandissement des installations existantes sont non seulement coûteux, mais de
moins en moins bien acceptés par le public. De plus, les emplacements adéquats sont rares. Lancée au
printemps dernier, la campagne de sensibilisation REPENSEZ LES DÉCHETS a pour objectif d’inciter
les résidents à trouver des façons de « repenser » leurs habitudes à l’égard des déchets, notamment en ce
qui touche la quantité qu’ils produisent et les méthodes d’élimination des ordures à leur disposition. En
encourageant la population à tirer davantage profit des programmes de réacheminement des déchets en
place, la Ville espère faire passer le taux de réorientation des ordures ménagères de 33 à 40 p. 100. Et
lorsque le programme de collecte des matières organiques sera introduit en 2008, la Ville devrait pouvoir
facilement atteindre l’objectif provincial de 60 p. 100.
Document d’information
Décembre 2006
Page 1
Tandis qu’Ottawa se rapproche de son objectif de réacheminement des ordures ménagères, l’attention se
porte sur les déchets du secteur ICI : « Quelles mesures sont prises à cet égard dans le secteur ICI? La
Ville a-t-elle un rôle à jouer dans l’augmentation de la réorientation des déchets? »
Élaboration d’une stratégie de gestion des déchets pour le secteur ICI
La Ville a récemment entrepris une étude sur les déchets produits par le secteur industriel, commercial et
institutionnel (ICI) en vue d’élaborer pour celui-ci une stratégie de gestion des déchets. L’étude vise à
répondre aux questions suivantes :
Quelle quantité et quels types de déchets le secteur génère-t-il?
Quelle quantité de déchets les membres du secteur arrivent-il à réacheminer et comment s’y prennent-ils?
Est-il possible d’en réacheminer davantage? Comment?
La Ville a-t-elle un rôle à jouer dans l’accroissement de la réorientation des déchets?
Pour les besoins de l’étude, la Ville veut obtenir l’opinion des membres des secteurs ICI et CD ainsi que
de la collectivité. C’est pourquoi toutes les parties intéressées seront consultées, c’est-à-dire les gros
générateurs de déchets, les entreprises de transport, les installations de traitement et d’élimination des
déchets, d’autres entreprises et des associations de même que le grand public. Trois séries de
consultations ont été proposées.
1re série : Définir la portée du projet
Cette série de consultations vise à renseigner toutes les parties sur le projet et à recueillir leurs
commentaires sur sa portée, notamment les questions auxquelles la Ville devra répondre et les
résultats attendus. Les consultations auront lieu en décembre 2006 et se termineront au début de
l’année 2007.
2e série : Déterminer et évaluer les solutions possibles pour la gestion des déchets du secteur ICI
Cette série de consultations aura pour but de présenter les options envisagées pour accroître le
réacheminement des déchets produits par le secteur ICI et d’obtenir des commentaires sur les
coûts, les avantages et la viabilité des mesures proposées. Les consultations auront lieu au début
du printemps 2007.
3e série : Élaborer la stratégie de gestion des déchets du secteur ICI
Cette série de consultations vise à rendre publique une ébauche de stratégie, à favoriser les
discussions ouvertes sur les options privilégiées, à prendre en considération les observations et les
préoccupations de la communauté et à en tenir compte dans la version finale de la stratégie, qui
sera examinée par le Conseil municipal d’Ottawa. Les consultations sont prévues à la fin du
printemps 2007 et l’ébauche de stratégie devrait être mise à la disposition du public pour obtenir
son avis en juin de la même année. La version finale devrait être prête à l’automne prochain.
Faits sur les déchets produits actuellement par le secteur ICI
Pour élaborer des stratégies de gestion des déchets, il faut d’abord comprendre la composition des
déchets. L’équipe chargée de l’étude, formée de membres du personnel de la Ville d’Ottawa et d’un
groupe d’experts-conseils (MacViro Consultants Inc., Kelleher Environmental et Jacques Whitford Ltd.),
a commencé à examiner la composition des déchets générés par le secteur ICI d’Ottawa, et devrait avoir
des résultats préliminaires dès janvier 2007. La figure 2 montre la composition des déchets du secteur ICI
calculée en fonction des moyennes provinciales. Il importe de noter que près de la moitié des déchets de
ce secteur sont faits de produits de papier. Le flux des déchets d’Ottawa devrait sensiblement être le
même, à quelques variations près qui s’expliquent par les particularités locales et la combinaison des
secteurs commercial et institutionnel ainsi que l’aménagement du territoire.
Décembre 2006
Page 2
Figure 2 : Répartition du flux des déchets du secteur ICI de l’Ontario
Société ontarienne de gestion des déchets, 2004
Carton 15 %
Journaux 4 %
Papiers fins ou mélangés 26 %
Verre 4 %
Matières ferreuses 7 % (boîtes en acier, etc.)
Matières non ferreuses 5 % (boîtes en aluminium, etc.)
Matières de PEHD no 2 2 %
(polyéthylène à haute densité) : contenants de lait, de jus,
d’eau, de vinaigre, de margarine et de yogourt, contenants de
shampooing et de détergent à lessive, etc.
Matières de PETP no 1 0 % (polyéthylène téréphthalate) :
bouteilles d’eau et de boisson gazeuse, bouteilles de détergent
à vaisselle, etc.
Autres matières plastiques 8 %
Déchets de cuisine 11 %
Résidus de jardinage 2 %
Bois 8 %
Autres 8 %
Une étude approfondie du flux des déchets du secteur ICI d’Ottawa a été réalisée au début des années
1990. À l’époque, on estimait que le gouvernement fédéral (principalement ses bureaux) était le plus
grand générateur de déchets de la région d’Ottawa, suivi par les commerces de détail, les autres
immeubles de bureaux et les restaurants (voir la figure 3). Quelques secteurs (industries manufacturières,
écoles et hôpitaux) ne figurent pas dans le graphique. Les données sur ces secteurs seront ajoutées à
mesure que le projet avancera.
Figure 3: Sources du flux des déchets du secteur ICI d’Ottawa
1
1 Gouvernement fédéral
8
2 Autres immeubles de bureaux
3 Gros commerces de détail
4 Petits commerces de détail
5 Secteur institutionnel
6 Restaurants
7 Hôtels
8 Construction et démolition
R.W. Beck, 1992
Décembre 2006
Page 3
Lois et règlements sur les déchets produits par le secteur ICI en vigueur
en Ontario La Province de l’Ontario exige que les gros générateurs de déchets du secteur ICI
élaborent et mettent en œuvre des plans de réduction des déchets. Les lois et règlements à cet égard
s’appliquent :
aux hôpitaux;
aux hôtels et aux motels de plus de 75 unités;
aux immeubles de bureaux dont la surface de plancher est supérieure à 10 000 m2;
aux restaurants dont le chiffre d’affaires brut s’élève à plus de 3 millions de dollars;
aux établissements d’enseignement où sont inscrites plus de 350 personnes;
aux points de vente au détail dont la surface de plancher est d’au moins 10 000 m2;
aux grandes usines de fabrication qui comptent plus de 16 000 heures travaillées par année;
aux immeubles à logements multiples (sous la responsabilité de la Ville d’Ottawa);
aux gros projets de construction dont la surface de plancher totale est d’au moins 2 000 m2;
aux gros projets de démolition dont la surface de plancher totale est d’au moins 2 000 m2.
Quelles sont les options possibles?
Les mesures que la Ville d’Ottawa peut prendre pour accroître le réacheminement des déchets du secteur
industriel, commercial et institutionnel sont nombreuses : fixer des objectifs municipaux de
réacheminement de ces déchets, faciliter la mise en place d’un programme d’échange des déchets, inclure
dans les services de réorientation les déchets produits par le secteur ICI, offrir des incitatifs financiers aux
membres du secteur, adopter des règlements municipaux à ce chapitre, etc. Des exemples d’initiatives
prises par d’autres organisations figurent ci-dessous, pour illustrer la gamme d’options possibles dans ce
domaine.
Aéroport international de Toronto
L’autorité aéroportuaire du Grand Toronto (GTAA) a récemment lancé un projet de réaménagement
s’échelonnant sur 10 ans et prévoyant la démolition du bâtiment de l’ancienne aérogare 1. Au cours de ce
projet, la GTAA :
•
•
a concassé le béton pour le réutiliser sur place;
a réutilisé et recyclé tous les autres décombres de démolition sur place, y compris l’asphalte et les briquaillons;
a séparé tous les métaux, dont le cuivre provenant du câblage électrique, en vue de leur recyclage individuel.
•
Plus de 95 p. 100 des déchets ont été réacheminés pendant la démolition de l’aérogare 1 et un montant
estimé à 1 845 000 $ a été économisé grâce au recyclage du béton sur place.
Château Laurier
En novembre 2006, l’hôtel Fairmont Château Laurier d’Ottawa a formé un partenariat avec un refuge
local, l’Ottawa Mission, pour faire don de ses restes alimentaires non touchés. Ce refuge dépense autour
de 30 000 $ par mois en nourriture. Les dons comme ceux du Château Laurier lui permettent d’orienter
plus de ressources financières vers les soins de santé et l’éducation de sa clientèle ainsi que vers les
besoins de celle-ci en matière d’aide juridique. En retour, cette collaboration donne la possibilité au
Château Laurier d’utiliser moins de composteurs et de réduire ainsi la facture des entreprises
d’élimination des déchets.
Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltée (CFCL)
Cadillac Fairview est un chef de file dans le domaine de l’immobilier commercial en ce qui concerne la
réduction, la réutilisation et le recyclage. En 2005, les taux de réacheminement des déchets de l’entreprise
ont dépassé 50 p. 100 en Ontario et 30 p. 100 dans d’autres provinces. La même année, certains centres
commerciaux de CFCL occupaient les premiers rangs pour le réacheminement des déchets, notamment
les suivants : Centre Toronto Dominion (74 p. 100); Centre Eaton de Toronto (65 p. 100); Centre commercial
Markville (63 p. 100). De plus, en 2005, le Centre commercial Markville s’est vu remettre la prestigieuse
médaille d’or du prix de réduction des déchets (Municipal Waste Minimization Award) par le Conseil du
recyclage de l'Ontario.
Décembre 2006
Page 4
Questions visées par l’étude
Les questions suivantes aident à définir la portée proposée de l’étude. Sont-elles pertinentes? Croyez-vous
que des questions importantes ont été omises? Quelles autres questions devraient être abordées dans
l’étude et à quelles conclusions vous attendez-vous?
• Quel est le flux des déchets générés par le secteur ICI à Ottawa?
• Comment ces déchets sont-ils réacheminés ou éliminés à l’heure actuelle?
• Quels déchets présentent le plus grand potentiel pour l’accroissement du recyclage ou de la
réorientation?
• Le gouvernement doit-il prendre des mesures supplémentaires à cet égard? Dans l’affirmative, à quel
niveau?
• La Ville devrait-elle concevoir des outils visant à changer les méthodes de gestion des déchets du
secteur ICI? Dans l’affirmative, quels sont ces outils et comment devraient-ils être utilisés?
• La Ville devrait-elle apporter ou appuyer des modifications réglementaires qui influeraient sur le
réacheminement et l’élimination des déchets du secteur ICI sur son territoire? Dans l’affirmative,
quels seraient les objectifs raisonnables? Quelles matières devrait-on cibler? Quels délais seraient
réalistes pour s’assurer que les divers objectifs de réacheminement sont réalisés?
Qu’en pensez-vous?
À ce stade-ci du processus, il importe que vous nous fassiez part de vos commentaires pour aider l’équipe
chargée de l’étude à cerner les besoins de la communauté afin d’établir la portée du projet. Dans l’espace
ci-dessous (utilisez le verso au besoin), veuillez nous dire sur quels aspects l’équipe chargée de l’étude
devrait axer ses efforts en vue de définir l’étendue du projet. Vous pouvez aussi envoyer vos
commentaires par courriel à [email protected] ou par la poste à Étude sur les déchets du secteur ICI,
951, avenue Clyde, Ottawa (Ontario) K1Z 5A6.
Nom : ________________________________ No de téléphone : _________________________
Adresse : ______________________________________________________________________
Courriel : ___________________________________________________
Souhaitez-vous recevoir des avis concernant les prochaines activités organisées dans le cadre de l’étude?
Oui ____ Non ____
Utilisez le verso pour commentaires additionnels.
Décembre 2006
Page 5
Public Open House
Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I)
Waste Diversion Strategy
The city is responsible for the collection, diversion, and disposal of waste
generated from households and some small businesses in Ottawa. All other
businesses and institutions - such as schools, offices, and restaurants are responsible for the management of their own waste, which is classified
as industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste.
The City is commencing a study of IC&I sector waste in order to answer
the following questions, and to develop a strategy to increase diversion
of ICI waste from landfill:
• How much and what types of wastes are being generated?
• How much is being diverted from landfill at present, and how?
• Can more be diverted, and how?
• Is there a role for the City to facilitate increased diversion?
You are invited to attend one of four Open Houses that will outline what is
known today, the proposed scope and work plan for the study, and to provide
your comments regarding the matters to be considered during the course
of this project.
Your input will be reflected in a Scoping Document (to be completed
in early 2007) that will clearly define the expectations for this project.
City Staff and the consulting team will be available during the Open House
to discuss the project and your ideas and concerns. If you are unable to
attend one of the events, please feel free to contact us at [email protected]
by December 15, 2006 to ensure that your voice is heard during this initial
stage of the project.
The Open Houses will be held from 4:30 to 8 p.m. at the following locations:
Monday, December 4
Nepean Sportsplex, Rooms C and D
1701 Woodroffe Avenue
Tuesday, December 5
Kanata Recreation Complex, Upper Hall
100 Walter Baker Place
Wednesday, December 6
J.A. Dulude Arena
951 Clyde Avenue
Thursday, December 7
Orléans Recreation Complex, Hall A
1490 Youville Drive
4185
Notice of Proposed Addendum
North-South Corridor
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project
(Rideau Centre to Barrhaven Town Centre)
Extension to the University of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa has submitted an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addendum
Report for the proposed extension of the North-South Corridor Light Rail
Transit (LRT) Project to the University of Ottawa to the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment (MOE) for public and government review. This submission is
being made in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.8 of the approved
North-South Corridor LRT Project (Rideau Centre to Barrhaven Town Centre)
Environmental Assessment Report.
The recommended plan consists of a 300 m extension to a new LRT terminus
station located on the campus of the University of Ottawa, in an area east of
Waller Street, south of Stewart Street, and west of Cumberland Street. The
plan also includes modifications to retain general traffic on the Mackenzie King
Bridge. It also addresses cycling, heritage and community impact issues. The EA
Addendum Report documents the recommended plan, the study process, findings
and public consultation.
You may inspect the EA Addendum Report during normal business hours
at the following locations:
City of Ottawa Client Service Centres
Kanata Client Service Centre
580 Terry Fox Drive
North Gower Client Service Centre
2155 Rogers Stevens Drive
Ben Franklin Place Client Service Centre
580 Terry Fox Drive
Metcalfe Client Service Centre
8243 Victoria Street
Orléans Client Service Centre
255 Centrum Boulevard, Suite 100
Metcalfe Client Service Centre
110 Laurier Avenue West
Kinburn Client Service Centre
5670 Carp Road
Ottawa Public Libraries
Alta Vista Branch
2516 Alta Vista Drive
Nepean Centrepointe Branch
101 Centrepointe Drive
Greenboro District Branch
363 Lorry Greenberg Drive
Rideau Branch
377 Rideau Street
Greely Branch
7008 Parkway Road
Rosemount Branch
18 Rosemount Drive
Manotick Branch
5499 South River Drive
Ruth E. Dickinson Branch
100 Malvern Drive
Main Branch, Ottawa Room
120 Metcalfe Street
Sunnyside Branch
1049 Bank Street
College and University Libraries
University of Ottawa Library
Morisset Hall, 65 University Private
Carleton University Library
1125 Colonel By Drive
Algonquin College Library
1385 Woodroffe Avenue
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment
& Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, ON M4V 1L5
Ottawa District Office
2430 Don Reid Drive
Ottawa, ON M1H 1E1
Your written comments regarding the EA Addendum Report must
be received prior to 24 December 2006. All comments must be submitted to:
Demetra Koros, Special Project Officer
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch
Project Coordination Section
2 St. Clair Avenue West, 14th Floor , Toronto ON M4V 1L5
Tel.: 416-314-7141 Fax: 416-314-8452
E-mail: [email protected]
This notice first appeared on 24 November 2006.
4196
10405909
A copy of all comments will be forwarded to the proponent.
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the
Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission,
any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property
location included in a submission will become part of the public record files
for this matter and can be released, if requested to any person.
Réunions portes ouvertes
Stratégie de réorientation des déchets
industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels
La ville responsable de la collecte, de la réorientation et de l’élimination des déchets produits par les
ménages et par un certain nombre des petites entreprises d’Ottawa. Les autres entreprises et établissements
(écoles, bureaux, restaurants, etc.) sont responsables de la gestion des déchets qu’ils produisent et qui sont
qualifiés de déchets industriels, commerciaux et institutionnels (ICI).
La Ville entreprend une étude des déchets provenant du secteur ICI afin de pouvoir apporter la réponse aux
questions suivantes et élaborer une stratégie visant à accroître la réorientation des déchets ICI pour éviter
qu’ils ne se retrouvent dans les décharges.
Quelle est la quantité et quels sont les types de déchets produits?
Quelle quantité de déchets est réorientée ailleurs que dans les décharges à l’heure
actuelle et de quelle façon s’effectue cette réorientation?
Est-il possible d’accroître le taux de réorientation des déchets et de quelle façon?
La Ville a-t-elle un rôle à jouer afin de faciliter l’accroissement du taux de
réorientation des déchets?
Vous êtes invités à assister à l’une des quatre réunions portes ouvertes au cours desquelles on fera le point
sur les connaissances actuelles et l’on exposera l’envergure et le plan de travail proposés de l’étude en plus
d’entendre les commentaires des participants sur les questions qui seront examinées au cours de ce projet.
Vos commentaires seront pris en compte dans le Document d’orientation (devant être produit au début
de 2007), qui définira clairement les attentes par rapport à ce projet.
Des représentants de la Ville et de l’équipe d’experts-conseils assisteront aux réunions afin de discuter du
projet ainsi que de vos idées et préoccupations. Si vous êtes dans l’impossibilité d’assister aux réunions,
n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec nous, à l’adresse électronique [email protected], d’ici au 15 décembre
2006, afin d’avoir la certitude que votre voix sera entendue au cours de cette première étape du projet.
Les réunions portes ouvertes se dérouleront de 16 h30 à 20 h aux endroits suivants :
Le lundi 4 décembre
Le Sportsplex de Nepean
Salles C et D
1701, avenue Woodroffe
Le mardi 5 décembre
Complexe Kanata
Salle du haut
100, place Walter Baker
Le mercredi 6 décembre
L’aréna J. Alph Dulude
941, avenue Clyde
Le jeudi 7 décembre
Complexe récréatif d'Orléans
Salle A
1490, promenade Youville
4195
457788
Participant Contact Information
Name
Mike Lascelles
Kimberly Mantas
Organization
Environmental Advisory
Committee
Bomanta
Kevin Gallinger
Carleton University
Jonathan Rausseo
University of Ottawa
Bob Blondin
Algonquin College
Jack Corry
Ottawa-Carleton District
School Board
Ottawa-Carleton Catholic
School Board
Conseil des écoles
publiques de l'Est de
l'Ontario
Chris Murphy
Roger Larocque
Dean Ongaro
Clayton Shirley
Civic Hospital/General
Hospital
Montfort Hospital
Kelly Wilson
Royal Ottawa Hospital
Daniel Goyer
Carlingview Manor
Kerry Kelly
Kevin MacCormack
Perley and Rideau
Veteran’s Health Center
Bentall Real Estate
Services
Ottawa Gatineau Hotel
Association
Ottawa-Carleton Home
Builders Association
PCL Constructors
Francis Pomerleau
Pomerleau Construction
Rob Smith and Annette
Gaffney
Minto Homes
Jim Petrie
Friends of Mer Bleu
Edward Bebee
Friends of the Rideau
Fred Colford
Dick Brown
John Herbert
Contact Information
[email protected]
613-831-9887
[email protected]
613-520-4475
[email protected]
613-562-5800 x6613
[email protected]
613-727-4723 x7198
[email protected]
613-596-8741
[email protected]
613-224-2222 x2305
[email protected]
742-8960 poste 2115
[email protected]
613-737-8899 ext. 16345
[email protected]
613-746-4621 ext. 2601
[email protected]
613-722-6521 ext. 6465
[email protected]
613-820-9328 ext. 233
[email protected]
613-526-7170 ext. 2521
[email protected]
613-782-3178
[email protected]
613-231-6932
[email protected]
613-723-2926
[email protected]
613-225-6130 ext. 5340
[email protected]
613-244-4323
613-782-2201 ext. 5273
[email protected]
[email protected]
(613)-824-2597
[email protected]
613-283-5810
[email protected]
Brian Finch
Friends of the Jock
John MacMillan
Ottawa Landfill Watch
Liisa Peer
Greater Ottawa CoC
Peter Stewart
Orleans CoC
Tom MacWilliam
Easter Ottawa CoC
Earl Stanley
Keith MacIntosh
Osgoode Ward Business
Alliance
BFI
Mike Walters
WMI
David Graham
Goulbourn Sanitation
Peter McMahon
Metro Waste
Andre Lafleche
Lafleche Environmental
Dan Meagher
Carls Waste Services
Norm Castonguay
WSI
Dominic Idone
Tomlinson Environmental
613.823.3643
[email protected]
[email protected]
613-236-3631
[email protected]
613-824-9137
[email protected]
613-745-3578
[email protected]
613-821-2751
[email protected]
613-836-6900
[email protected]
613-831-5363
[email protected]
613-836-6069 ext.22
[email protected]
613-742-1222
[email protected]
613-538-2776
[email protected]
613-824-0962
[email protected]
613-824-7289 ext. 226
[email protected]
613-822-1867
Project Timeline
Project Tasks
To be undertaken concurrently
Task 1: Project
Notification and
Scoping
Defining what will be
considered during the
study, and what will be
produced upon its
completion.
Nov.
06
Task 2: IC&I Waste
Characterization
In order to better understand
our options, we will construct
a reasonable IC&I waste
composition profile for the
City of Ottawa.
Dec.
06
Consultation Phase 1: Assistance
with Project Scoping
The objective of this round of
consultation is to raise awareness and
solicit input on the draft scope of the
project.
Jan.
07
Task 3: Feasibility Analysis
We will evaluate the feasibility
of implementing potential
diversion options from the
perspective of potential
markets, existing
technologies, costs, and
convenience.
Feb.
07
Task 4: Define IC&I
Waste Diversion
Options
We will investigate
opportunities for
developing waste
diversion systems and
markets for specific waste
streams.
Mar.
07
Phase 2: Considering IC&I
Waste Diversion Options
The objective of this round of consultation
is to seek input on the options to reduce,
reuse and recycle key IC&I waste streams.
Task 5: Draft IC&I Waste
Management Strategy
The Draft Strategy will address
roles, responsibilities, costs and
timing; and will include a
monitoring plan to ensure the
effectiveness of the strategy.
Apr.
07
May 07
Phase 3: IC&I Waste
Management Strategy
The objective of this round of
consultation is to obtain input
and use it to finalize the Draft
Strategy to be tabled at
Council.
June 07
Council
Fall 2007
Phase 4: Public
Comment Period on
tabled Draft IC&I
Waste Management
Strategy
We Are Here.
Stakeholder Consultation
IC&I Waste Diversion Strategy
Consultation
Phase One
Phase 1:
1: Development
Development of
of the
the
Phase
Scoping Document
Document
Scoping
The objective
objective of
of today’s
today’s consultation
consultation isis
The
to raise
raise awareness
awareness and
and to
to obtain
obtain your
your
to
input on
on the
the scope
scope of
of the
the project.
project.
input
Your handout includes the project scope as it
currently stands and these panels explore the
underlying issues in more detail.
Use your questionnaire to provide input, and
use your sticky notes to post comments,
questions or concerns on the sideboards that
you will find near each panels.
Thank you for attending and providing us with
your input.
IC&I Waste Management Strategy
Waste Generation and Disposal
In 1998, a study was
carried out to see how
much waste was being
generated in Ottawa. The
study revealed that the
IC&I sector generated
212,000 tonnes per year
(34%), the Construction
and Demolition (C&D)
sector generated 123,000
tonnes per year (20%),
and that residences
generated 251,000
tonnes per year (39%).
Other sources accounted
for 46,400 tonnes (7%).
Generation of Waste in Ottawa in 1998
IC&I
34%
Residential
39%
Other
7%
C&D
20%
The same 1998 study
revealed that the IC&I
sector disposed of 40% of
their generated waste
(152,000 tonnes per year);
the C&D sector disposed of
10% of their generated
waste (39,200 tonnes per
year), and that residences
disposed of 48% of their
generated waste (184,000
tonnes per year). Other
sources accounted for
6,600 tonnes of disposed
waste.
Disposed Waste in Ottawa in 1998
Residential
48%
IC&I
40%
Other
2%
C&D
10%
IC&I Waste Diversion
Characterization of Ontario’s IC&I Waste Stream
A snapshot of the
waste generated
by the industrial,
commercial, and
institutional (IC&I)
sector in Ontario,
reveals that much
of the waste
stream consists of
paper (30%),
cardboard (15%)
and food waste
(11%).
(Source: Ontario Waste Management Association)
The overall waste stream generated by Ottawa’s IC&I sector is comparable to the chart shown
above. However, there are interesting differences between the offices, schools, restaurants, and
other businesses in our IC&I sector.
How does waste diversion benefit our community?
• Waste reduction, reuse and recycling result in less greenhouse gas (GHG) generation –
Diversion of waste can result in significant GHG savings.
For example, the amount of GHGs generated by disposing of a tonne of
paper in landfill is 20 times higher than the amount of GHGs generated by
recycling and remanufacturing the same amount of paper.
• Reuse and recycling creates jobs and generates local economic benefits – A study
undertaken for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) estimates that over 5,900
jobs have been created as a result of 3R activities introduced by the Region.
• Waste reduction reduces the cost of waste management services – Waste reduction is a
great way for businesses to lower waste management costs and it provides our community
with many environmental and social benefits.
City of Ottawa’s Major
IC&I Waste Generators
Sources of Ottawa’s ICI Waste Stream
In the early 1990’s a detailed
study was carried out on
Ottawa’s IC&I waste stream.
At that time, it was estimated
that the largest generators
in Ottawa included the
Federal Government (office
buildings), retail stores and
restaurants. A few sectors
(manufacturing, schools and
hospitals) were not included
but they are also important
generators.
So how does the waste composition differ among these individual generators, you may ask?
Let’s look at the example of office buildings.
Waste Composition from a Typical Office Building
Organics
Glass 9%
Metals
2%
Other
6%
Textiles
1%
3%
Plastic
7%
Paper
56%
Paperboard
16%
Over 80% of the waste stream in an office can be recycled by targeting only three materials: fine
paper (i.e. printer paper, envelopes, writing paper), paperboard (i.e. file folders, boxboard,
cardboard) and organics (i.e. food waste, coffee grounds).
City of Ottawa’s Major
IC&I Waste Generators
Two more examples worth considering are large retail stores and restaurants.
Waste Composition from a Typical Large Retail Store
Metals
3%
Other
8%
Textiles
<1%
Paper
18%
Organics
28%
Glass
2%
Paperboard
34%
Plastic
7%
Over 80% of waste
from a large retail
store consists of
cardboard, kraft
paper, organics,
(primarily food waste)
and other paper.
Metal cans, plastic
PET and HDPE
containers, film
plastics and glass
bottles make up
about 6% of the
waste stream.
Waste Composition from a Typical Restaurant
As you might expect,
food waste represents
almost 50% of the total
waste from
restaurants.
Cardboard,
newspaper, metal
cans, plastic PET and
HDPE containers, film
plastics and glass
bottles make up about
25% of the waste
stream.
Metals
2%
Other
Textiles
4%
1%
Paper
19%
Paperboard
16%
Organics
45%
Glass
5%
Plastic
8%
What are the Challenges to
Diverting IC&I Waste?
“It is more expensive to recycle and compost than it is to
throw it away …”
“We want to
recycle and
compost but
we are a
downtown
restaurant
and we don’t
have
space….”
“It would be
easier to
recycle if
there were
markets for
materials …”
“We would
consider
recycling, but
we can’t find a
service
provider …”
“Recycling and
composting just
aren’t
convenient …”
“There’s no law that says I have to recycle or compost. As
long as this is a free country I will do what I like …”
“The stuff I send to the dump will rot anyway…”
“With the little that I throw away it doesn’t matter …”
Successes Outside of
Ottawa
The Toronto International Airport
The Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA)
recently launched a 10 year redevelopment
project. The project included the demolition of the
old Terminal One building. During the project, the
GTTA:
• crushed concrete and reused it onsite;
• reused and recycled all other demolition wastes
onsite, including asphalt and brick rubble; and
• separated all metals for individual recycling,
including copper from electrical wiring.
Over 95% waste diversion was achieved during
the demolition of Terminal One and an estimated
$1,845,000 was saved by recycling concrete
onsite.
Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd (CFCL)
Cadillac Fairview is a leader in the commercial
real estate sector when it comes to reduction,
reuse and recycling. In 2005, the company’s
waste diversion rates exceeded 50% in Ontario
and 30% in other provinces. Some of the
CFCL’s franchise assets were among the
leaders for waste diversion in 2005, including:
• Toronto Dominion Centre (74%)
• Toronto Eaton Centre (65%)
• Markville Shopping Centre (63%)
In addition, the Markville Shopping Centre was
awarded the prestigious Gold Award for
Waste Minimization by the Recycling Council
of Ontario in 2005.
Focus on Waste: Construction and
Demolition Waste
Construction and demolition (C&D) activities generate large
amounts of waste material - over 4 million tonnes per year
in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2005).
A significant amount of this material contains
recyclable and reusable materials yet only about 15%
of this gets recycled or reused.
C&D waste reduction has become a focus in Ontario. The
Ontario “3Rs” Regulations (102/94 and 103/94) require
construction and demolition projects of greater than
2,000m2 to develop a waste reduction plan and separate
recyclable or reusable materials.
The rise of “green” or high-performance building means
that building owners are demanding environmentallyresponsible practices on their projects. Standards such as
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED®) Green Building Rating System give credits for
exemplary performance in C&D waste diversion.
Diversion rates of 80
to 90% are not
uncommon with
some initial planning
and coordination.
C&D Sector Waste Composition
Other, 31.25%
Glass, 0.00%
Metals, 3.11%
Insulation, 5.81%
Wood,
18.94%
Organics, 6.71%
Rubble and
Aggregates, 9.42%
Drywall, 15.03%
Building materials,
9.72%
A construction waste
management plan or
deconstruction waste
management plan can
divert materials such as
drywall, untreated
wood, scrap metal,
asphalt, concrete,
plumbing, and electrical
fixtures for reuse and
recycling
opportunities.
Focus on Waste: Organics
Food Waste, Great Opportunities
Organics (consisting of mostly food waste) make up a substantial component
of the waste stream of many IC&I generators, including:
• Restaurants ~ 40% of the waste stream is food waste
• Large Retailers ~ 30% of the waste stream is food waste
• Hotels/Motels ~ 30% of the waste stream is food waste
• Supermarkets ~ 40% of the waste stream is food waste
While organics make up the largest single component of some IC&I waste
streams, paper and cardboard are the focus of most diversion programs.
Food Waste, the Challenges
Lack of Available Infrastructure Infrastructure is needed for storage,
transport and processing of food waste.
Additional Costs - Setting up a food waste
diversion program is often more expensive
than traditional disposal. The cost gap is
narrowing though as disposal becomes
more expensive and the organic processing
infrastructure becomes better developed.
The Yuck Factor - Food waste is often
viewed as smelly, unsanitary, and overall,
“yucky” and some employees and
customers find it easier to throw it in the
garbage along with other wastes than
scrape it off a plate or counter into a
designated source separated bin.
Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier …a local
Success Story
In November 2006, Ottawa’s Fairmont Chateau
Laurier Hotel launched a partnership with a local
Christian mission to donate untouched hotel
leftovers to the shelter. The shelter typically
spends about $30,000 on food per month.
Donations such as those from the Chateau
Laurier enable the mission to spend more
money on health care, education, and legal help
for their clients. In turn, the partnership enables
the Chateau Laurier to use fewer composting
bins, which saves the hotel money on waste
disposal company charges.
Focus on Waste: Recyclables
Materials that can be recycled using
existing systems are still sent to
landfill in some cases. Why? There
are a variety of reasons but cost and
convenience are important factors in
increasing recycling.
For example …
Home builders generate about 1
tonne of waste per home yet all
the wood, drywall, cardboard,
shingles and concrete can be
recycled.
Some communities in
Newfoundland have taken a
more direct approach to fine
paper recycling and have
made business participation
mandatory.
How much waste does
an office worker
generate?
On average each worker
disposes of 150 kg of waste
every year and between 70 and
90% of it can be diverted.
Did you know that ...
For every tonne of material
recycled, the energy equivalent
of 750 L of gasoline is
saved...enough to drive your car
for about three months!!
In Ottawa, the Rethink Garbage
campaign is focused on raising
awareness within the community
about the benefits of recycling.
Focus on Waste: Other Stuff
What is the “Other” stuff?
“Other” consists of waste materials that
are considered:
• Odds and ends in the waste stream
• Materials not easily identifiable
• Materials not easily recyclable
Typical “other” materials include:
• Appliances
• Electronic wastes
• Paint products
• Cleaners
• Batteries
• Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics
Waste Reduction Opportunities
Green Procurement Programs – These programs focus on all four stages of a product’s life
cycle:
•
•
•
•
Planning – Do I really need it, can I rent or lease it or do without?
Acquisition – What is the ‘greenest’ option, can I reduce packaging or transportation?
Use – Is it the most energy, fuel or water efficient product, will it create hazardous waste?
Disposal – Is there a manufacturer ‘take back’ program, will it be hard to divert?
e-Waste Programs – Programs such as Computers for Schools (CFS) divert computer
equipment and software from landfill to worthy causes such as Canadian elementary and
secondary schools.
Battery Recycling Programs – In 2004, the “Call2Recycle”
program was launched to recover cell phones and their batteries.
The Call2Recycle program features over 6,100 collection
locations across Canada where used rechargeable batteries and
old cell phones can be dropped off.
Questions to Consider
Now that you have reviewed the panels, we need you to
consider the study scoping questions contained in your
questionnaire. If you have any questions or comments please
feel free to pass them on.
Questions currently included in the study :
• What waste streams does the IC&I sector
generate in Ottawa?
• How are those wastes diverted or disposed
of currently?
• Which waste streams hold the greatest
potential for increased recycling or
diversion?
• Is additional government intervention
needed, and if so, at what level?
• Should the City develop tools to effect
change in the management of IC&I waste?
If so, what tools should be developed and
how should they be used?
• Should the City pursue or support
regulatory changes to influence the
diversion and disposal of IC&I wastes
within its boundaries?
• Should diversion targets be set for IC&I
waste generated or disposed within the City
boundaries? If so, what are reasonable
targets? What materials should be
targeted? What timelines are feasible to
achieve different diversion targets?
Échéancier du projet
Tâches liées au projet
À entreprendre en parallèle
1re tâche :
Notification et
orientation du projet
Définir ce qui sera
envisagé au cours de
l’étude et les produits
à livrer à la fin.
Nov.
2006
2e tâche : Caractéristiques
des déchets ICI
Afin de mieux comprendre
nos options, nous établirons
un profil de composition des
déchets ICI raisonnable pour
la Ville d’Ottawa.
Déc.
2006
1re phase de consultation :
Collaboration dans l’orientation du
projet
Cette série de consultations vise à
mieux vous sensibiliser et à obtenir
votre opinion sur la portée provisoire du
projet.
Nous sommes ici.
Jan.
2007
3e tâche : Analyse de
faisabilité
Nous évaluerons la faisabilité
d’application des diverses
options potentielles de
réorientation en tenant
compte des marchés
potentiels, des technologies
existantes, des coûts et du
caractère pratique.
Fév.
2007
4e tâche : Définir les
options de réorientation
des déchets ICI
Nous étudierons des
possibilités d’élaborer des
systèmes de réorientation
des déchets et de trouver
des marchés pour
certains débits de
déchets.
Mars
2007
2e phase : Tenir compte des options sur
la réorientation des déchets ICI
Cette série de consultations vise à obtenir
des commentaires sur les options pour
réduire, réutiliser et recycler les principaux
débits de déchets ICI.
Avril
2007
5e tâche : Stratégie de gestion
provisoire sur les déchets ICI
La stratégie provisoire portera
sur les rôles, les responsabilités,
les coûts et le moment propice;
elle englobera un plan de
surveillance pour assurer
l’efficacité de la stratégie.
Mai
2007
3e phase : Stratégie de
gestion des déchets ICI
Cette série de consultations
consiste à obtenir des
commentaires et à s’en servir
pour conclure la Stratégie
provisoire à présenter au
Conseil.
Juin
2007
Conseil
Automne
2007
4e phase : Période
de commentaires du
public sur la
stratégie provisoire
de gestion des
déchets ICI à
présenter.
Consultation des
intervenants
Stratégie de gestion des déchets ICI
Première ronde de
consultation
Première étape:
étape: Élaboration
Élaboration du
du
Première
document d’orientation
d’orientation
document
L’objectif de
de la
la consultation
consultation aujourd’hui
aujourd’hui
L’objectif
est de
de mieux
mieux vous
vous sensibiliser
sensibiliser et
et
est
d’obtenir vos
vos commentaires
commentaires sur
sur la
la portée
portée
d’obtenir
du projet.
projet.
du
Le document distribué comprend la portée du
projet actuel et nous examinons les enjeux
sous-jacents plus en détail.
Donnez votre rétroaction à l’aide du
questionnaire, inscrivez vos commentaires,
questions ou préoccupations sur les
autocollants et affichez-les aux tableaux
latéraux près de chaque exposé.
Nous vous remercions de votre présence et
de votre rétroaction.
Accumulation et élimination des
déchets
Une étude a été faite en
1998 pour déterminer
combien de déchets sont
accumulés à Ottawa.
L’étude a révélé que le
secteur ICI accumule
212 000 tonnes (34%), le
secteur de la C-D,
123 000 tonnes (20%) et
les résidences, 251 000
tonnes (39%) par année.
D’autres sources
atteignent 46 400 tonnes
(7%).
Accumulation de déchets à Ottawa en 1998
ICI
34%
Résidentiel
39%
Autres
7%
C-D
20%
Déchets éliminés à Ottawa en 1998
La même étude de 1998
révèle que le secteur ICI
a éliminé 40% de ses
déchets (152 000
tonnes), le secteur de la
C-D, 10% (39 200
tonnes) et les
résidences, 48%
(184 000 tonnes) par
année. D’autres sources
atteignent 6 600 tonnes
de déchets éliminés.
Résidentiel
48%
ICI
40%
Autres
2%
C-D
10%
Réorientation des déchets ICI
Caractéristiques du débit des déchets ICI en Ontario
Un aperçu des
déchets
accumulés dans
le secteur
industriel,
commercial et
institutionnel
(ICI) en Ontario
révèle que la
majorité du débit
des déchets
comprend le
papier (30%), le
carton (15%) et
les résidus de
cuisine (11%).
(Source: Société ontarienne de gestion des déchets)
Les données du graphique ci-dessus sont comparables à celles du débit des déchets dans
l’ensemble accumulés dans le secteur ICI à Ottawa. Il y a cependant des différences intéressantes
entre les bureaux, les écoles, les restaurants et d’autres entreprises dans notre secteur ICI.
Quels sont les avantages de la réorientation des déchets pour notre
collectivité?
• La réduction, la réutilisation et le recyclage des déchets diminuent
les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) – Des économies
importantes de GES peuvent découler de la réorientation des déchets.
Éliminer une tonne de papier dans une décharge publique, par exemple, donne 20 fois plus
de GES que le recyclage et la fabrication de nouveau de la même quantité de papier.
• La réutilisation et le recyclage créent des emplois et ont des retombées économiques
locales – Selon une étude faite dans le district régional du Grand Vancouver (DRGV), plus de
5 900 emplois ont été créés à cause des activités des 3R lancées dans la région.
• La réduction diminue le coût des services de gestion des déchets – La réduction est un
excellent moyen pour les entreprises de diminuer les coûts de gestion des déchets et elle a de
nombreux avantages sociaux et écologiques pour notre collectivité.
Les principaux accumulateurs de
déchets ICI de la ville d’Ottawa
Sources du débit des déchets ICI à Ottawa
Une étude a été faite sur le
débit des déchets ICI à
Ottawa au début de la
décennie 1990. On a alors
estimé que les principaux
accumulateurs à Ottawa
comprenaient le
gouvernement fédéral
(édifices à bureaux), les
détaillants et les
restaurants. Quelques
secteurs (fabrication, écoles
et hôpitaux) ont été exclus,
mais sont aussi d’importants
accumulateurs.
Mais quelle est la différence de la composition des déchets entre ces accumulateurs? Jetons un
coup d’oeil, par exemple, aux édifices à bureau.
Composition des déchets d’un édifice à bureaux typique
Verre
3%
Matières Métaux
organiques
2%
9%
Autre
6%
Textiles
1%
Articles en plastique
7%
Papier
56 %
Carton
16 %
Plus de 80% du débit des déchets d’un bureau peut être recyclé en ciblant trois matières
seulement: le papier fin (c.-à-d. le papier d’imprimante, les enveloppes, le papier à écrire), le
carton (c.-à-d. les dossiers, le carton pour boîtes, le carton mince) et les matières organiques (c.à-d. les résidus de cuisine, le marc de café).
Les principaux accumulateurs de
déchets ICI de la ville d’Ottawa
Les grands détaillants et les restaurants sont deux autres exemples à
considérer.
Composition des déchets d’un grand détaillant typique
Métaux
3%
Autre
Textiles
Papier
8%
<1 %
18 %
Matières
organiques
28 %
Carton
Verre
2%
34 %
Articles en
plastique
7%
Plus de 80% des
déchets des grands
détaillants
comprennent le
carton, le papier kraft,
les matières
organiques (surtout
les résidus de
cuisine) et d’autres
papiers. Les boîtes
en métal, le plastique
PTE et les
conteneurs en PEHD,
la pellicule de
plastique et les
bouteilles en verre
composent
seulement 6%
environ du débit des
déchets.
Composition des déchets d’un restaurant typique
Les résidus de cuisine,
on peut s’en attendre,
atteignent près de
50% du débit total des
restaurants. Le carton,
les journaux, les boîtes
en métal, le plastique
PTE et les contenants
en PEHD, la pellicule
de plastique et les
bouteilles en verre
composent environ
25% du débit des
déchets.
Métaux
2%
Autre
4%
Textiles
1%
Papier
19 %
Carton
16 %
Matières organiques
45 %
Verre
5%
Articles en plastique
8%
Quels sont les défis de la
réorientation des déchets ICI?
« Il est plus dispendieux de recycler et de composter que
de jeter... »
« Il serait plus
« Nous voulons
facile de
recycler et
recycler s’il y
composter,
avait des
mais notre
marchés pour
restaurant est
la matière... »
au centre-ville
et nous n’avons
pas la
superficie… »
« Nous pourrions
considérer le
recyclage, mais
nous ne pouvons
trouver un
prestateur de
services... »
« Recycler et de
composter, ce
n’est pas
pratique… »
« La loi ne m’oblige pas à recycler ou composter. Je fais ce que
je veux tant que c’est un pays libre... »
« Ce que j’envoie à la décharge publique va pourrir de
toute façon... »
« Je jette si peu que ça n’a pas d’importance... »
Succès à l’extérieur d’Ottawa
L’Aéroport international de Toronto
L’Autorité aéroportuaire du Grand Toronto (AAGT) a
récemment lancé un projet de réaménagement de
10 ans. Le projet comprend la démolition de l’ancien
édifice du premier aérogare. Pendant le projet,
l’AAGT :
• a réduit en miettes le béton et l’a réutilisé sur
place,
• a réutilisé et recyclé tous les autres rebuts de
démolition sur place, y compris l’asphalte piqué et
la brique concassée,
• a séparé tous les métaux pour recyclage individuel,
y compris le cuivre des fils électriques.
On a réorienté plus de 95% des déchets pendant la
démolition du premier aérogare et économisé
1 845 000$, estime-t-on, en recyclant le béton sur
place.
La Corporation Cadillac Fairview Limitée (CCFL)
Cadillac Fairview est un leader du secteur de
l’immobilier commercial sur le plan de la réduction,
de la réutilisation et du recyclage. Les taux de
réorientation des déchets de l’entreprise en 2005
dépassent 50% en Ontario et 30% dans d’autres
provinces. Les leaders de la réorientation des
déchets en 2005 comprenaient des
concessionnaires de la CCFL:
• Le Centre Dominion de Toronto (74%)
• Le Centre Eaton de Toronto (65%)
• Le Centre commercial de Markville (63%)
Le Centre commercial de Markville a aussi obtenu la
prestigieuse médaille d’or des prix de réduction
des déchets du Conseil du recyclage de l’Ontario
en 2005.
Cibler les déchets: Rebuts de
construction et de démolition
Les activités de construction et de démolition (C-D) accumulent
de grandes quantités de rebuts, plus de quatre millions de
tonnes par année au Canada (Statistique Canada, 2005). Ces rebuts
comprennent une quantité importante de matière recyclable
et réutilisable, mais seulement 15% de la matière est
recyclée ou réutilisée.
La réduction des rebuts de C-D est maintenant ciblée en
Ontario. Les règlements « 3R » de l’Ontario (102-94 et 103-94)
exigent que les projets de construction et de démolition de plus
de 2 000 m2 comprennent un plan de réduction des rebuts et la
séparation des matières recyclables ou réutilisables.
La vogue des édifices à rendement élevé ou « écologiques »
incite les propriétaires d’édifice à demander dans leurs projets
des pratiques conviviales sur le plan écologique. Des normes,
par exemple le leadership en conception écologique et
énergétique (Energy and Environmental Design – LEED®) du
système d’évaluation des bâtiments écologiques, donnent crédit
pour le rendement exemplaire de la réorientation des déchets de
la C-D.
C&D
Waste
Composition
Composition
des Sector
rebuts du
secteur
de la C-D
Autre, 31,25%
Des taux de réorientation
de 80 à 90% sont
fréquents à l’aide d’une
planification et d’une
coordination relatives au
début.
Verre, 0,00%
Métaux, 3,11%
Matériaux
isolants, 5,81%
Bois, 18,94%
Matières
organiques, 6,71%
Gravois et
granulats, 9,42%
Cloisons sèches, 15,03%
Matériaux de construction,
9,72%
Un plan de gestion des
rebuts de construction
ou de démolition peut
réorienter les rebuts,
par exemple, des
cloisons sèches, du
bois non traité, de la
ferraille, de l’asphalte,
du béton, de la
plomberie et des
dispositifs d’éclairage
pour réutilisation et
recyclage.
Cibler les déchets:
Matières organiques
Les résidus de cuisine, d’excellentes occasions
Les matières organiques (surtout les résidus de cuisine) sont une composante
importante du débit des déchets de nombreux accumulateurs ICI, y compris:
•
•
•
•
restaurants ~ les résidus de cuisine composent 40% du débit des déchets,
grands détaillants ~ les résidus de cuisine composent 30% du débit des déchets,
hôtels/motels ~ les résidus de cuisine composent 30% du débit des déchets,
supermarchés ~ les résidus de cuisine composent 40% du débit des déchets.
Les matières organiques sont la plus importante composante de certains débits des
déchets ICI, mais la majorité des programmes de réorientation ciblent le papier et le
carton.
Résidus de cuisine, les défis
Manque d’infrastructure – L’infrastructure est
nécessaire pour l’entreposage, le transport et la
transformation des résidus de cuisine.
Coûts supplémentaires – Établir un programme de
réorientation des résidus de cuisine coûte souvent
plus cher que l’élimination habituelle. L’écart des
coûts se referme cependant parce que l’élimination
coûte maintenant plus cher et l’infrastructure de la
transformation des matières organiques est mieux
aménagée.
L’élément « dégoûtant » – On considère souvent
que les résidus de cuisine sentent mauvais, ne sont
pas hygiéniques, sont « dégoûtants » dans
l’ensemble, et des employés et consommateurs
décident qu’il est plus facile de les jeter à la poubelle
avec d’autres déchets au lieu de les retirer de
l’assiette ou du comptoir et de les déposer dans un
conteneur distinct désigné.
Le Château Laurier d’Ottawa… une
réussite municipale!
L’Hôtel Fairmont Château Laurier d’Ottawa a
lancé en 2006 un partenariat avec une mission
chrétienne locale pour donner les restes de table
intacts au refuge. Celui-ci dépense habituellement
environ 30 000$ par mois pour les aliments. Les
dons du genre de ceux du Château Laurier
permettent à la mission de réserver davantage de
fonds aux soins de santé, à l’enseignement et à
l’aide juridique pour ses clients. Le partenariat
permet en retour au Château Laurier d’utiliser
moins de conteneurs de compostage et l’hôtel
économise sur les frais des entreprises
d’élimination des déchets.
Articles recyclables
Des articles qui peuvent être recyclés à
l’aide des systèmes actuels sont toujours
envoyés à la décharge publique dans
certains cas. Pourquoi? Il y a diverses
raisons, mais les coûts et le caractère
pratique sont des éléments importants du
recyclage à la hausse.
Par exemple…
Les constructeurs de maisons
accumulent environ une tonne
de rebuts par résidence, mais le
bois, les cloisons sèches, le
carton, les bardeaux et le béton
peuvent être recyclés.
Des collectivités à TerreNeuve ont adopté une
approche plus directe pour
recycler le papier fin et ont
obligé les entreprises à
participer.
Combien de rebuts
accumule un travailleur de
bureau?
Chaque travailleur accumule en
moyenne 150 kg de rebuts chaque
année et entre 70 et 90% de cette
masse peut être réorientée.
Saviez-vous que...
Pour chaque tonne de matière
recyclée, l’équivalent
énergétique de 750 L d’essence
est économisé... c’est suffisant
pour conduire votre automobile
pendant environ trois mois!!
La campagne Repensez les
déchets d’Ottawa cible la
sensibilisation aux avantages du
recyclage dans la collectivité.
Autres articles
Que sont les «autres» articles ?
Les «autres» articles sont des rebuts considérés
comme des :
• articles hétéroclites dans le débit des
déchets,
• articles difficiles à identifier,
• articles difficiles à recycler.
La liste des «autres» articles peut
comprendre :
• des appareils,
• des rebuts électroniques,
• des produits de peinture,
• des nettoyants,
• des piles,
• des produits pharmaceutiques
et cosmétiques.
Occasions
de réduction des
déchets
Programmes d’achat écologique – Ces programmes ciblent l’ensemble des quatre étapes du cycle de
vie d’un produit :
• Planification – En ai-je réellement besoin, puis-je louer ou m’en passer?
• Acquisition – Quelle est l’option « la plus écologique », puis-je diminuer l’emballage ou le transport?
• Utilisation – Est-ce le produit le plus efficient sur le plan de l’électricité, du carburant ou de l’eau,
donnera-t-il des rebuts dangereux?
• Élimination – Y a-t-il un programme « rapportez-les » du fabricant, sera-t-il difficile à réorienter?
Programmes des rebuts électroniques – Des programmes comme celui des Ordinateurs pour les
écoles (OPE) réorientent des décharges publiques du matériel informatique et des logiciels pour des
causes valables, par exemple, les écoles élémentaires et secondaires canadiennes.
Programmes de recyclage de piles – Le programme Cell à recycler a
été lancé en 2004 pour récupérer les téléphones cellulaires et leurs
piles. Le programme Cell à recycler comprend plus de 6 100 endroits
de collecte au Canada où vous pouvez déposer les piles rechargeables
utilisées et les téléphones cellulaires.
Questions à considérer
Vous avez maintenant examiné les exposés et nous vous
demandons de considérer les questions sur la portée de l’étude
dans votre questionnaire. Si vous avez des questions ou
commentaires, n’hésitez pas à les communiquer.
Questions maintenant inscrites dans l’étude :
• Quels débits de déchets le secteur ICI accumule-t-il
à Ottawa?
• Comment ces déchets sont-ils réorientés ou
éliminés actuellement?
• Quels débits de déchets ont le plus grand potentiel
de recyclage ou de réorientation à la hausse?
• Une intervention supplémentaire de l’administration
publique est-elle nécessaire et, si oui, à quel
niveau?
• La Ville devrait-elle élaborer des outils pour modifier
la gestion des déchets ICI? Si oui, quels outils
faudrait-il élaborer et comment faudrait-il les utiliser?
• La Ville devrait-elle donner suite à des modifications
réglementaires ou les soutenir pour influencer la
réorientation et l’élimination des déchets ICI dans
les limites de son territoire?
• Faut-il établir des cibles de réorientation pour les
déchets ICI accumulés ou éliminés dans les limites
du territoire de la Ville? Si oui, quelles sont les cibles
raisonnables? Quelles matières faudrait-il cibler?
Quels échéanciers sont réalistes pour atteindre les
différentes cibles de réorientation?
Participant Survey
Ottawa’s IC&I Waste Management Study
1. What was your objective in coming to the open house today?
2. How did the open house help you meet some of your objectives for attending?
3. Are you now more familiar with the IC&I waste management study?
4. Please provide some ideas on what the City should do/not do to enhance waste diversion in the
IC&I sectors.
Please complete other side
5. What did you find useful about the open house?
6. What did you not find useful about the open house?
7. What would you recommend changing about the open house for next time?
Short presentations
More handouts
Discussion sessions
More panels
Longer time
Shorter time
Other (describe)
8. What additional information or support could the City provide to help keep you informed about the
study?
Website
Information in the waste newsletter
Hotline
Other (describe)
9. If you would like to keep informed about the IC&I waste management study, please provide your
email address or your mailing address. An email address will help us save trees!
Thank you!
Sondage auprès des participants
Étude sur la gestion des déchets ICI
1. Quel était votre objectif en venant à la réunion portes ouvertes d’aujourd’hui?
2.
En quoi votre participation à la réunion portes ouvertes vous a-t-elle aidé à atteindre certains de vos objectifs?
3. Diriez-vous que vous êtes maintenant plus familier avec l’étude sur la gestion des déchets ICI?
4. Donnez vos opinions sur ce que la Ville devrait faire ou ne pas faire pour améliorer le réacheminement des
déchets dans les secteurs ICI.
Veuillez compléter l'endos
5. En quoi avez-vous trouvé utile votre participation à la réunion portes ouvertes?
6. En quoi avez-vous trouvé inutile votre participation à la réunion portes ouvertes?
7. Quels changements recommanderiez-vous pour la prochaine réunion portes ouvertes?
Présentations courtes
Davantage de documentation
Séances de discussion
Davantage de panneaux
Plus de temps
Moins de temps
Autre (précisez)
8. Quels autres renseignements ou outils la Ville pourrait-elle proposer pour vous tenir informé sur l’étude?
Site Web
Information dans le bulletin sur les déchets
Aide en ligne
Autre (précisez)
9. Si vous souhaitez être informé sur l’étude sur la gestion des déchets ICI, veuillez indiquer votre
adresse de courriel ou postale. Le courriel aide à sauver des arbres!
Merci !
City of Ottawa IC&I Waste Strategy, 2006
Hauler Interview Prompt Sheet/Consultation Questions
City of Ottawa IC&I Waste Diversion Strategy
Public Consultation Process
Hauler and Waste Management Company Consultation Questionnaire
1.
Interviewer/Venue
2.
Company and Contact Information (Name, Phone Number, Title and email)
3.
Are you aware of the City IC&I Waste Strategy Study?
4. We are trying to identify the barriers to recycling: Can you tell us reasons why companies
of all sizes (small, medium and large) do not recycle or divert waste?
5. Have you any suggestions on that the City could do to increase waste diversion by the
commercial, industrial and institutional sectors?
6. Do you have suggestions on what the City IC&I Waste Strategy study should address?
23rd November, 2006
Page 1
A Few Questions About Your Own Business
7.
How Long Have you been in business in the Ottawa area?
8.
What Materials in the Waste Stream are you having trouble recycling?
9.
What types of business do you typically provide service to?
10.
Do you offer recycling and organics services, or just garbage pick-up?
11.
What material could you easily divert if it was source separated and clean?
12.
Do you have space at your facilities to pull recyclable materials from loads of mixed waste?
13.
Which types of industries in the Ottawa area have you noted divert a lot of material
14.
Have you noticed particular industry types who have a lot of recyclable material in their
garbage bins? (don’t recycle or compost)
15.
Do you know of specific businesses in the Ottawa area that divert a lot of material and would
be good case studies
23rd November, 2006
Page 2
Supplementary (Optional) Questions
More Detailed Information About Hauler Business
Now that we have discussed the study, it would help us to understand your business
a little better, if you would be willing to answer some additional questions
1A. Market Areas
Do you operate in Ottawa only, Eastern Ontario or in a broader market?
2.
How many clients or accounts do you service in the Ottawa area?
Total #
% of your clients in
each category
Small
Medium
Large
3A.
What Services Do you offer to your clients?
Service
Number of Clients
Garbage Pick-Up Only
Recycling
Diversion of Organics
Haul Materials Direct to Another Use
or Market
Disposal
Other (Specify)
23rd November, 2006
Page 3
Tonnes Per Year Handled
4A.
Transfer Stations
If you own, operate or use a transfer station in the Ottawa area:
Where is it
What recycling occurs at the transfer station
5A.
MRFs - We are trying to identify the amount of recycling of IC&I waste occurring in the
Ottawa area.
Can you provide an approximate estimate of the tonnes of IC&I material diverted at your MRFs or other
MRFs you use.
Material
Tonnes per year Diverted at Your Own
MRF
Tonnes per year Diverted at MRFs
owned or operated by others
Cardboard
Paper
Metals
Glass
Wood
Other (Specify)
Other (Specify)
Total
6A.
We are trying to identify the amount of IC&I organics which is diverted in the Ottawa area.
Can you indicate in the table approximately how much organic materials you divert from landfill per
year at different organics facilities?
Technology
Location
Capacity (throughput)
Composting
Digestion
Rendering
Landspreading
Animal Feed
Other (Specify)
Other (Specify)
23rd November, 2006
Page 4
Tonnes per year processed
7A.
If you own or operate landfill sites, can you indicate in the table below the types of diversion
activities which occur at your landfill sites and the approximate amount of material diverted per year?
Material
Diversion Activities at Landfill
Typical amount diverted at the
landfill (tonnes per year)
Cardboard
Paper
Metals
Glass
Wood
Organic Materials (Specify)
Contaminated Soil
Concrete
Asphalt
Other Industrial Materials (Specify)
Other Industrial Materials (Specify)
Total
8A.
If you haul material directly from one industry to another for reuse, can you indicate the
approximate amount per year in the table below?
Material
Amount Hauled Per Year For Reuse
Total
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO FILL IN THIS QUESTIONAIRE
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, Please Contact:
Sally McIntyre, City of Ottawa
23rd November, 2006
[email protected]
Page 5
Use of Hauled Material
(if Known)
City of Ottawa IC Waste Diversion Strategy
Generator Consultation Questionnaire
Interviewer, Venue, Date
1. Company Contact Information (Name, Telephone No., email)
2. How many tonnes per year do you generate?
tonnes reused
Year last measured
tonnes recycled
tonnes composted
tonnes to disposal
tonnes - TOTAL
3. Do you have any problematic wastes that you would like to see addressed?
If yes, please explain.
Yes
No
4. What services do you wish were available to you to divert materials from disposal?
5. What are the key factors that have kept you from increasing diversion from disposal?
Cost
Convenience
Other (specify)
Lack of staff commitment or support
No room
Lack of available markets
6. What role do you think the City should take in enhancing waste diversion in the IC&I sectors?
7. Is there any role the City SHOULD NOT take in enhancing waste diversion in the IC&I sectors?
8. Do you have any waste characterization data available for your business/sector?
If yes, is it available publicly for use in this study (e.g., O.R. 102/94 audit)?
Yes
No
Yes
No
9. How many tonnes per year do you generate and send for management through
each of the following methods (or provide O.R. 102/94 audit information):
Recycling (top 7)
Tonnes Generated
Tonnes Diverted
Composting
Tonnes Generated
Tonnes Diverted
Other Diversion
Tonnes Generated
Tonnes Diverted
10. Do you send any of your IC&I waste materials directly from one industry to another for reuse?
If yes, please indicate the quantities:
Yes
Material
No
Tonnes Managed
End Market
11. Have you completed a Waste Reduction Workplan in keeping with Ontario Regulation 103/94?
Yes
No
What's O.R. 103/94?
12. Is there anything in addition to above, specific to your industry/business/sector that the City
should be aware of in developing their IC&I Waste Management Strategy?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO FILL IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT:
Sally McIntyre, City of Ottawa
[email protected]
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Appendix C: Summary of Meetings; Record of Comments
from Open Houses and Emails
City of Ottawa – Open House
Ottawa IC&I Waste Management Study
Job Number: 1019121
Dec 4 – 7 2006
PARTICIPANT SURVEY - SUMMARY
Question 1: What was your objective in coming to the open house today?
Find out more info on this project
To learn what City is planning to do about IC&I waste
- learn about what is being planned
- verify they are actually planning on doing things rather than just talk about it.
Question 2: How did the open house help you meet some of your objectives for attending?
Hand out explaining what the City wants to do
Provide background & outline of intended studies
- information display
- helpful people
Question 3: Are you now more familiar with the IC&I waste management study?
Yes !
Yes
yes
Question 4: Please provide some ideas on what the City should do/not do to enhance
waste diversion in the IC&I sectors
Help with rezoning of land, tax recycling reduction for company’s think the City need to help
smaller companies that don’t own Landfills and own & operate in the city.
- increase knowledge (database of who wants what) of where / how some components of
“garbage” can be re-used.
Question 5: What did you find useful about the open house?
Diversion Stats
Informative Posters and Informative personnel
Discussions
Question 6: What did you not find useful about the open house?
- some posters misleading – ex. “Waste Generation and Disposal” poster had several confusing
and misleading items.
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Dec 4 – 7 2006
Question 7: What would you recommend changing about the open house for next time?
(multiple choice and comment box)
More Handouts.
Discussion sessions
Question 8: What additional information or support could the City provide to help keep
you informed about the study: (multiple choice and comment box)
Website
Website
Question 9: If you would like to keep informed about the IC&I waste management study,
please provide your email address or your mailing address. An email address will help
us save trees!
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Note: Question 9 email addresses have been recorded in the Sign-in summary sheet.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Consultations\Participant Survey_Summary All dates.doc
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Dec 4 – 7 2006
SIGN-IN SHEET - SUMMARY
Name
Organization
email
December 4, 2006 – Ottawa South
Ryan Kelahear
Councillor Jan Harder’s Office
Rod Muir
Sienna Club of Canada
Mike Heerinla
Resident, Nepean and MOE
Deran Bubra (?)
Nepean this week
Manuel Costa
City EAC
Name not provided
A-Channel News
[email protected]
December 5, 2006 – Ottawa West
Lindsay Valenge
City of Ottawa
Wayne French
Waste Management of Canada
Rob Brown
Retired
Keith McIntosh
BFI Canada
Lynne O’Neil
Gartner Lee Ltd.
Peter van
Boeschoten
Sheila Edwards
Kanata resident
Peter McNichol
Kanata resident
Kimberly Martas
Resident
Vincent Lavoie
Resident
Marianne Wilkinson
Councillor
Shad Qadri
Councillor Ward 6
Bill Shitzen
Resident & Real Estate Agent
Daniel Reid
Kanata Kourier - Standard
Harold Moore
Resident
Shirley Graves
Resident
© 2006
[email protected]
Norm Castanquay
Resident
Peggy Whiltmate
Councillor
Fred Boyd
Kanata Beaverbrook Comm. Assoc.
Job Number: 1019121
Dec 4 – 7 2006
[email protected]
December 6, 2006 – Ottawa Central
Domenic Idone
R.W. Tomlinson Limited
John MacMillan
Ottawalandfillwatch.org
Penny Greenwood
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
John Farat
N/A
[email protected]
2 others who did not
sign up.
December 7, 2006 – Ottawa East
Justin Sadler
Star/Weekly Journal
Claudette Lalonde
Cherrill Boyer
Friends of the Mer Bleue
[email protected]
Dan Meagher
Carl’s Waste Service
[email protected]
Jim Petrie
Marim Petrie
Edwin Morton
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Consultations\Sign In Sheet Summary - All
dates.doc
© 2006
City of Ottawa – Open House and Email Comments
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
COMMENT RECORD
The purpose of this record is to document all comments received at the Public Open Houses and through the email
contact point set up as [email protected].
Name: Dan Meagher
Address: 2877 10th Line Road
613-824-0962
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Address: 151 Granolpre Crt. Contact
Navan, ON KyB 1K3 Info:
613-830-8984
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Address: 24 Jansen Rd.
613-721-0749
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Contact
Info:
Comments: None
Name: Cherrill Boyer
Comments: None
Name: Penny
Greenwood
Contact
Info:
Comments:
*Rental of city facilities should require participants to recycle waste re. soccer tournament (popcans)
*businesses should be mandated by the city to recycle/compost
*limit amount of waste that city will pick up from each business
*construction waste – set limit for each construction site that challenges the company to minize (minimize) waste – separate waste
delivered to final destination.
* Yes I think municipality should mandate waste disposal streams eg. Recycling.
* If this is not possible eg. Limits / negative pressure then what about positive pressure – municipal tax credits for decreasing waste
per year or recycling or alternative energy.
* scope of project: determine the best level to legislate (prov. Municipal) find a balance between mandating (requirements/negative
pross) vs. positive /voluntary approaches.
* plastic bags at supermarkets should not be given our (free) – if a cost is significant enough eg. $1.00 per bag then it would be
deterant
* there must a way to promote a decrease in packaging
* the question would be whether there can be a charge for disposal added to products based on the relative amount of packaging
and the cost of what it would be to dispose of the packaging – can we lobby this at a federal level eg. Environment Canada?
© 2006
Name: Sheila Edwards
Address: 29 Seabrooke Dr., Contact
Info:
Kanata, K2L 2H8
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
613-831-2317
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Comments:
* how can I encourage an office I work in to recycle when have no authority or job security (rely on contract renewals)
* encourage construction sites to allow access to their “garbage”
*Pharmacies – inform people how pharmacies dispose of drugs – assuming this is regulated and done properly
*City Hall conference rooms – Styrofoam plates used – Missing a crucial recycle bin (was clear plastic or tin – can’t remember)
*License “Gypsen Recylers” – ie garbage stealers.
*can a safe set up be used to have food waste to back into the food chain – ie. Pigs or vermiculture
FYI: have not had a good experience with the Rethink Garbage volunteer program.
- hypocrisy – use Styrofoam plates and have to hunt for recycle bins.
- major problem with emails not returnes
- *very* simplistic attitude regarding audience expectations / lecture requirements for the composting presentation (told to read the
text on website and give a 10 min talk)
- training for children’s recycle game very poor – not clearly written down, worse verbal description – a lot of saying the same
confusing words over and over again as quickly as possible
- no emails as to what is going on
- no form to supply ideas, or discuss what is being done.
-so far I’m aware of only 2 programs
1)Composting 2)teach children to recycle
*** nothing yet on rethinking purchases
© 2006
Name: Gina
Address:
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
Gap Architect
[mailto:[email protected]]
Notices:
Comments: (Email Comments)
I was not able to attend then open houses. I wanted to share my experience with the City of Ottawa.
One year ago I purchased a unit called the Canpactor2 from a firm in Ottawa.
Prior to this we were placing our recycling blue box on the curb every week and had it picked up.
The unit is called the Canpacter2. It is designed to offer storage for over 400 empty pop cans. The unit compact's the cans and crushes them
into a small package. The main benefit is that it controls the amount of blue box collection by reducing the pickups to most streets to a monthly
service from weekly) Imagine 12 pickups a year to some routes instead of 52.
This product is effective and very affordable.
We also purchased a backyard composter from the same firm. Between composting and digesting our food waste and recycling our cans using
the Canpactor2 , we have reduced our can recycling to once every 6to7 weeks and garbage by 25%.
Please feel free to contact the firm on both these products. I strongly recommend to all.
This firm also provides great service and is located right here in Ottawa. How can we be so lucky.
They are called Enviro Curb Manufacturing Inc. www.envirocurb.com
© 2006
Name: Rocco Matricardi
Address: 23 Ladybirds Crescent
Stittsville, ON
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
Rocco Matricardi
Notices:
Comments: (Email Comments)I apologize but I could not attend any of the open houses but I have included my comments for your
consideration.
1) The City of Ottawa should take the lead and set its own (60%) IC&I diversion targets. Make these targets mandatory and enforce them. Don't
wait for the province to take the lead because they have shown they don't have the will and don't have the man power to enforce their so called
diversion targets.
2) The city should pick up garbage and recyclables from IC&I as it has in the past. This was a horrible idea to stop this and I have never heard of
any other major city do this. This is one BIG reason IC&I diversion rates are low. Charge businesses a fee so the city does not lose money.
3) As part of any construction project/permit, there must be a mandatory plan and costs to recycle material that are left over from a project. This
will start a culture of recycling and diversion that is sorely missing in the construction business. Materials should not have to be arbitrarily sent to
a landfill.
4) Restaurants (IE. McDonald's, etc ..) should be mandated to recycle. It is so easy to have a bin to recycle paper, plastics ... . Again, a new
culture must be bred in this city to start recycling. Corporations have shown the ability to go "green" and the city should be pushing the agenda. I
don't think this is a big deal to ask people to recycle the packaging after they have had a Big Mac and fries.
5) The city must be able to verify that the recycling is taking place and the recycling companies are not dumping the stuff in the landfill. The city
must make it clear that if the companies that are picking up the recycled materials are not complying the city will be vigilant and penalties will be
enforced.
6) I think that many "recycling" companies will emerge if the city "MANDATES" a very high diversion. Necessity awaits breed innovation. This will
create jobs and possibly new and innovative technologies to recycle.
7) We need to start recycling more to avoid unnecessarily filling landfills and having for them to expand. Living near the Carp Dump, this issue
affects me the most. There is NO NEED to expand the Carp Landfill if we diverted (60-70%) of both residential and IC&I. It is disgusting to see
that mountain grow because we are just lazy and near term thinking.
Finally, please see the two recent articles published in the Ottawa Sun below which illustrates the need for the CITY to take the lead and
implement a high diversion (60-70%) residential and IC&I waste diversion strategy.
© 2006
Name: Vivian Sollows
Address: 116 Stirling Ave
Ottawa, Ont K1Y 1R1
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
613-722-9019
Notices: Yes
1)Hello. I am trying to contact the dept that was holding the open houses on the topic of waste strategy. I was not able to attend due to family
illlness. However the public notice in the citizen mentioned comments could be posted. How does one become involved with this study? I am
interested in how the recycling is done all business but with primarily at schools. There could be alot more done with the kids involvement. I
understand presently a third party removes the garbage and only paper is recycled. Some teachers are bringing the plastics home to recycle. Is
the School Board paying for this instead of the city collecting at the curb. Is this correct? Please send me further information.
2) I have had the opprtunity to read the powerpoint presentation a few times however was not able to open the MSWord fiile on my home
computer so I do not have the specific questionnaire to answer. I am still very interested to become involved in recycling even though I do not
have a position of employment. Please keep me informed of how I may become more involved.
The report was very interesting. It raises many questions. Does not the Federal Government recycle their paper products by shippping them to be
shredded does the shreddings not go to recycle plant? The question of is the school board paying for the garbage disposal with their budget
wasn't answered. If the school boards are and they're not recycling plastics for sure why can not indiviuall schools put out blue boxes like a
residence. Teachers and students at least at the grade school level are very keen in all aspects of recylcling. Perhaps if it not possible for the
larger schools to do recycling due to lack of overseeing the smaller schools are quite capable.
I think the city of Ottawa must portray in all aspects of city planning a greener approach. I can give one example of the Parkdale Park in my area
was redesigned for the worse a few years ago. It use to have grass, flowers and shrubs in the front on Armstrong and now it is paved with only a
few barrels of greenery. Where there used to be grass, sand and a swing set is paved. Watching a video produced in Oregon US. on
Sustainablility there were conversions of paved over gas stations to a bank with two ponds in front to help regenerate the oil contaminated earth.
Could the city of Ottawa do something similiar reintroduces little ponds where the natural swamps for
example along Meadowbrook Rd. prior to the bigGovernment buildings say 15 years ago there was natural ponds, wildflowers and more birds.
Also along the highways there used to be more growth. Perhaps small parcels of lands could be turned into compost areas.
Working with neighbourhood community centres could generate many possible avenues for composting.A thought on construction regulations
again it is not my forte but I think it should be mandatory for all new homes should be built with double sinks allowing water easy water
conservation
The average person really is not aware of the city's Rethink Grabage Campaign. Most people just don't bother with recycling because of the large
inconvenience factor. Composting even less attractive does it even make the same energy savings as paper recycling? If it does definite programs
need to be introduced and people taught on how to compost. I would like more information on composting myself and we do some, mostly our
children care and that it why everyone needs to wake up to recycling. Thank you for taking the time to take my opinions.
© 2006
Name: Bill Lamb, P.Eng.
Address: 246 Wall Road, Ottawa.
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
mailto:[email protected]]
Notices:
Subject: WSI Navan Site
Committee members,
I am a property owner near WSI Navan site and I'm concerned over the present proposal to extend the life and height of the existing site. When I
purchased my property three years ago I understood that that the land fill site was to be closed off and capped in year 2011 therefore, I took a
chance and went ahead and built a new home. Things have changed, and now I'm worried that the proposed 92 ft. high land fill site expansion
will affect my life. I can't understand that Orleans is growing Southwards towards this landfill site and few people seem to care. Twenty years
from now Orleans will surround this site, as we see right now the new Bradley Estate development ( Monarch, Phoenix, Valecraft ) have already
started to the northwest of this site and moving east.
One suggestion I have for you is to try and get all ICI wood waste ( which seems to be a fair amount ) separated and see if the Bowater mill in
Gatineau are willing to shred or "hog" this waste to use as fuel for their large #12 Refuse Boiler. They presently have arrangements with many
local saw mills and other waste sources, like rubber tires, to burn this in their high pressure boiler and generate electricity, COGEN. I use to work
there and I know they have all the necessary environmental licenses and anti-pollution equipment for their boiler operation and are always looking
for a good source of cheap fuel. In fact, after the Ice Storm they took a lot of wood waste from the City of Ottawa to help reduce the storage
piles of wood waste. So, I highly recommend you speak with either Mike Groves or, Mario Courtemanche at Tel. # 819-643-7200 and see if ICI
wood waste could be sent to their Cogen facility?
© 2006
Address:
Name: Daniel Guay
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
Notices: Yes
Subject: Wet organic waste
As my elected representative, I ask you to address our community's growing concerns with regards to waste management. Clearly, Ottawa's
mounting problem of shrinking landfill space must be dealt with proactively, before the situation hits Toronto-like levels of crisis. One of the most
progressive things that can be done is implementing separate collection of wet organic waste, such as has been successfully achieved in Toronto,
Guelph, and other cities. As our nation's capital, we have a particular responsibility to showcase environmentally progressive practices to other
municipalities across the country. I call on you for this leadership today. On another front, the advertisements promoting recycling and general
waste reduction have been impressive.
I look forward to further discussion about this issue.
Name: Chris Papoutsis
Address:
Contact
Info:
Notices:
Subject: Re-think garbage for Ottawa
Good Morning,
I would like to offer my comments on this topic, due to the fact I will not be able to attend one of the Open Houses.
Previously, I use to live in the Glebe and noticed many homeowners trying to limit the amount of garbage they took to the curb by BACKYARD
COMPOSTING. The problem I noticed was they did not have the proper equipment or backyards to perform this task. After moving to Huntclub,
Backyard composting was more feasible because of the larger backyards.
The City of Ottawa should do more to encourage backyard composting. The city environmental managers should provide the option to any
homeowner and develop a plan with a firm that will open the door to this process. Many Municipalities in Ontario are switching to backyard
composting to alleviate the major garbage crisis they face. We began this process last summer and we have reduced our garbage to the curb by
25%. Education starts at home. All it took was a few hours of research on the internet and a firm that has a great product. This firm is located in
Ottawa and can be found at www.envirocurb.com
Thanks for listening.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Consultations\Comment Record - Open Houses and email.doc
© 2006
City of Ottawa – ENGO and EAC Comments
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
COMMENT RECORD
The purpose of this record is to document all comments received ENGO and EAC participants.
ENGOs
Name: Jim Petrie
Organization: Friends of Mer Bleu
Contact
Info:
(613)-824-2597
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Comments:
*We have two basic overriding concerns:
1) There is insufficient true public participation
2) Key components of the direction staff received from Council are omitted from the study, specifically alternative technologies are
not being considered in this study and as a result they not looking at how increased diversion when coupled with alternative
technologies will impart the need for landfill expansion at Navan and Carp.
*The public should have an opportunity to comment on the proposed final “Scoping Document” in advance of presentation to PEC or
Council.
*There are major components of the IC&I study as detailed in your Project Timeline that also warrant public participation.
*It is inappropriate for the IC&I review to ask, the question “Is there a role for the City to play to increase the diversion of waste from
landfill”, as City Council has already decided that there is a role for the City. Council’s decision that there is a larger role that the City
ought to be playing is the reason that the IC&I review was commissioned.
*The Terms of Reference ask the question (at page 2) “Can more [IC&I] waste be diverted”. This question is inappropriate, because
City Council has directed City Staff in the Aug 23rd motion to determine ways to increase current diversion rates as .
*The Terms of Reference do not include all elements that City Council directed City Staff to include in the IC&I review. Specifically
looking at opportunities to increase diversion as mandated by Council in the August 23 motion.
*The TOR includes the following questions: Should diversion targets be set for IC&I waste generated or disposed within the City
boundaries? If so, what are reasonable targets? What materials should be targeted? What timelines are feasible to achieve different
diversion targets?
City Council’s motion, implicitly require that targets for increased diversion be set.
*The link between diversion and reducing the City’s reliance on landfills is not addressed in the TOR.
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
*The TOR does not address how diversion in the IC&I sector can meet the provincial requirement to reach 60% diversion by 2008,
nor do they set the creation of diversion targets and dates for reaching those targets as key deliverables.
*City Council’s motion requested an “EA-like process” with “meaningful” public consultation. At a minimum, the ToR should be made
publicly available and a minimum of 30 days should be provided for public comment before the Terms of Reference are approved.
*Debate at Planning and Environment Committee and before City Council focused on the need to create a Master Plan, recognized
under Ottawa’s Official Plan, for IC&I waste. The Terms of Reference suggest that a discussion paper is the ultimate deliverable.
This was not what City Council intended or requested.
*The Terms of Reference should incorporate a comparative analysis of what other Ontario municipalities have done to divert IC&I
waste. The ToR should also contain best practices in other jurisdictions. U.S. examples, that include institutions but not municipal
systems does not provide an adequate comparative framework.
*The ToR do not indicate how the findings of the review will be tested or verified. An Environmental Assessment-like process
requires that results be both tested and verified. As a result, we recommend that City Staff/City Council appoint an independent
person who will have the ability to: ensure that the options are properly assessed and tested; the public is properly engaged including
participant funding for expert advice.
*The Terms of Reference provide inadequate direction.The Terms of Reference are so vague and open-ended that it is possible that
the IC&I study could result in the recommendation that the City of Ottawa not take any action to increase diversion in the IC&I sector.
It could also result in the landfill expansion proposals going ahead without any municipal constraints. This is not acceptable. Further,
it is imperative that the entire process be open and transparent. The ToR should be amended to:
(1)address opportunities to increase diversion in relation to IC&I waste. Diversion opportunities should not be limited to private sector
activity and should consider if the City of Ottawa should get back into the collection and diversion of IC&I waste (as it was in the
1990s).
(2) explore how alternative technologies could be employed (building on the review that the City of Ottawa will be conducting on
alternative technologies); and
(3) assess the need for expansion of the Carp and Navan Road Landfills
(4) address how Ottawa will reach 60% diversion in the IC&I sector by 2008 (or later if necessary) and set additional targets for
increased diversion beyond the 2008 horizon
(5) include Ontario municipal comparative research as well as other comparisons of municipal systems (rather than institutional
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
examples like a museum or a hospital)
(6) include, as the ultimate deliverable, the creation of a formal Master Plan that will be incorporated into Ottawa’s Official Plan
(7) permit formal public consultation on the Terms of Reference that is similar to the Terms of Reference process under the
Environmental Assessment Act.
(8) appoint an independent person who will have the ability to: ensure that the options are properly assessed and tested; the public is
properly engaged including participant funding and expert advice is appropriately obtained to conduct the review.
(9) In order to create an open and transparent process all city reports and consultant’s reports, including any legal analysis with
respect to the scope and limitations of the City's powers in the IC&I sector should be made publicly available.
Name: Olivia Nixon
Organization: Richardson Corridor Contact
Info:
Community
Association
(613) 831-8933
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Comments:
*The present scope and direction of the Study does not reflect the authority or direction given to staff, primarily stemming from the
August 23, 2006 Council Meeting.
*The Study should include models of how increased diversion within the IC&I sector will result in reduced reliance on landfills and
negate the requirement for unsustainable waste management practices such as the expansion of existing landfills.
*The Study should only be conducted with full and transparent consultation with representatives from the community including those
that are directly affected by IC&I waste and also those individuals and organizations that have demonstrated a high level of
knowledge and commitment to better manage Ottawa's and the Province's waste. John MacMillan of OttawaLandfillWatch and Rod
Muir of Waste Diversion Toronto would be two individuals/organizations that we recommend the group conducting the study include
in their discussions and consultations.
Name: John MacMillan
Organization: Ottawa Landfill
Watch
Contact
Info:
613-721-0749
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Comments:
*The public notice makes no mention of assessing "the need for expansion of the Carp and Navan Road Landfills;"
*The motions below show that the decision has already been made by council to update the IWMMP to include IC&I. Therefore, why
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
ask: "Is there a role for the City to facilitate increased diversion?" This is a given.
* A waste audit project for IC&I was already done in 2006 as directed by the PEC in June 2005 (don't need to do another IC&I waste
study in 2007) - I'm sure the City staff can provide you with the information found in the waste audit this year. There are also several
recent provincial IC&I waste audits done in the past several years. Ottawa's commercial garbage isn't any different.* Yes I think
municipality should mandate waste disposal streams eg. Recycling.
*Essentially, the City of Ottawa Waste Management staff purposefully mis-interpreted the motions passed by council and defined a
useless Terms of Reference for awarding a consulting contract without any public consultation. In fact... the City staff obviously didn't
even consult City council (or even the PEC or EAC) before awarding the contract and defining the terms of reference.
*I have described that meeting to associates as "the most disappointing meeting I have attended" on waste management in the City
of Ottawa. If this EA process continues as was presented it is dooming Ottawa to perpetually low rates of waste diversion and
confirming the need for long-term expansions of the Carp and Navan landfills... I somehow don't think that's what council had
intended by passing the motions to get this study done.
*I will be doing all I can in the upcoming weeks to make sure that the IC&I waste management "EA" process currently underway is
completely re-vamped, the choice of consultants re-assessed, and a REAL goal put in place to achieve REAL progress.
*Start focusing on IC&I and C&D waste diversion IMMEDIATELY. Have the current City staff in the waste management group
continue their focus on residentialwaste only. Our recommendation is that commercial waste diversion activities be managed directly
from the mayor's office (or at the very least a separate department in the waste management group) and that they be funded by the
host municipality fund dedicated tolandfill diversion activities. There should be one person at the City that is the prime contactfor
commercial waste diversion. Part of this person’s compensation should be tied to actual increases in the commercial diversion rate.
*All building and demolition permits issued by the City must include requirements to list where the waste from the activities will be
disposed.
*Investigate commercial organics collection/disposal (i.e. grocery stores, restaurants, institutional cafeterias, etc...).
*Recycling makes the MOST sense when the conversion of recyclables into other consumer goods can be done close to the
collection source. Talk to existing haulers/recyclers/disposalcompanies and ask them where they take their recyclables and how
much volume would be needed to make business sense for converting it in or near Ottawa.
*PROMOTE businesses that are already recycling/diverting on the City website. and through other means, to make businesses want
to be known as diverting waste from landfill.
*Figure out how to ACCURATELY measure the actual IC&I and C&D diversion rates for 2005 and 2006 and establish real 6 month
goals for the next 3-5 years.
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
*Immediately announce support for an alternative waste disposal technology park at the Nepean landfill site (beside the Trail Road
landfill).
*Make a concerted effort to come up with a realistic plan that would involve the closure of both Carp and Navan when their current
certificates of approval expire (Carp in 2-3 years, Navan in 4-5 years).
*We absolutely understand that it is the provincial MOE that ultimately approves landfill expansions, however, the current City plan
includes the long-term use of five landfills and the City is telling the province more landfill space is required.
*As we don’t simply want to export our waste, our plans include using Lafleche for up to 100K tonnes/year TEMPORARY overflow
after Carp and Navan close and before diversion can get to 60% and waste-to-energy comes online in higher volumes.
*It is important to understand that currently Ottawa only diverts 22.5% of 1 million tonnes of waste… or roughly 200K tonnes of
material.
*Proper recycling and disposal infrastructure will provide an efficient, cost-effective method for Ottawa’s commercial sector to divert
60% of their waste.
*Once Carp and Navan close the City should raise the tipping fees to $115-$125/tonne (as is done in Nova Scotia). This will incent
diversion and will generate extra revenue for the City (the City puts the actual cost of landfilling at Trail road at $35/tonne).
Businesses that increase their recycling will not be affected by the increase in tipping fees as their overall disposal costs will remain
neutral. The City should also look to quickly implement bans of recyclables and organics from City owned landfills.
EACs
Name: Mike Lascelles
Organization: Environmental
Advisory
Committee
Contact
Info:
[email protected]
Notices: Yes
Comments:
* Consider Revisiting Scope of TOR and Adding Several Questions:
1)Does the question “Is there a role for the City to play to increasethe diversion of waste from landfill” fully reflect Council’s
recentdecision (August 23, 2006) that there is a larger role that the City ought to play-seemingly being the reason that the IC&I
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
review was commissioned? It seems that Council anticipated/expected a focus on increased diversion.
2) Do the TOR capture all elements that City Council requested City Staff to include in the IC&I review? It appears that there is room
for the TOR to be modified to encompass additional elements such as: to repeat, address opportunities to increase diversion in
relation to IC&I waste (given the large gap between the provincial goal [60%] and the Ottawa experience [17%]) – rather than only
ask if more diversion is possible; explore how alternative technologies could be employed to increase diversion rates (building on the
review that the City of Ottawa will be conducting on alternative technologies); and assess how increased waste diversion in the IC&I
sector will negate the need for expansion of the Carp and Navan Road Landfills and other landfill expansions.
3) The scope of the TOR and the set of questions to be addressed are key for finding much needed solutions and integrating a plan
for IC&I waste stream into the City's total Waste Management plan.
4) What tools and potential diversion streams can the IC&I sector use privately which they may not be using at present?
5) Only by expanding the horizons of the problem definition will the solutions be expanded. A project of limited scope may do more
harm than good; it may re-enforce old stereotypes, old limitations, old no-can-do's. It's not by going down the same paths that we'll
get to new places. The question is: what resources are they willing to put in this? It may be wise to extend the deadlines to afford a
wider scope. It's not only the end result that's important, the process is important as it will generate discussion, awareness, etc.
6) What proportion of Ottawa ICI waste is generated by "small" waste generators that do not have to abide by Ontario's ICI waste
regulations? The answer to that question would help determine how much of an impact the City (as opposed to the Province) has on
ICI waste and gauge what magnitude of resources would be required to reach a goal.
7) Is the final deliverable from this exercise an IC&I Master Plan that will be incorporated into Ottawa’s Official Plan? Debate at
Planning and Environment Committee and before City Council focused on the need to create a Master Plan, recognized under
Ottawa’s Official Plan, for IC&I waste. The TOR suggest that a discussion paper is the ultimate deliverable. It appears that this is
not what City Council requested.
8) As mentioned at the November EAC meeting, it would be desirable for the TOR to incorporate a comparative analysis of what
other Ontario municipalities have done to divert IC&I waste. As would the amendment of the TOR to survey and report on the best
practices in other jurisdictions.
*Consider Enriching Strategic Objectives
1) Reduction of waste produced should be added as an objective; the documents largely accepts the current volume as a given and
discusses ways of handling it. 'Recycling' and 'diversion' are often mentioned but not 'reduction'. The general tone of the document is
20 years behind the times in my view. I would prefer to see some 'Kyoto' thinking: reduction of waste generated by *% in 5, 10, 20
years. Then improve handling.
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
2) How best to link outcomes and targets for the IC&I sector with the clear objectives and timelines for waste management for all of
Ottawa (three sectors: IC&I, City of Ottawa, residential). What is the role and responsibilities of the IC&I sector in order to achieve
the full Waste Management Plan for Ottawa?
* Consider Increasing Public Input
1)There is no formal public comment period for the TOR yet the City Council’s motion requested an “EA-like process” with
“meaningful” public consultation. The normal minimum comment period is 30 days and it may well be desirable to allow for this
period in this exercise.
* Consider Accenting Economic Factors
1) Before the consultation process starts, stakeholders should be given an idea of the current 'total' costs, being borne by all 3 levels
of government and including some idea of health, pollution, etc costs as well as by other private sectors. Without this vision we'll all
have reduced horizons as each participant will only 'see' and 'address' the partial line item that he currently sees. Example: why
should a consumer worry about waste at Wal-Mart since he doesn't directly pay for it? Why should the City worry about the Health
effects of (electronic) waste since Health is not its responsibility?
2) When setting diversion targets for the IC&I sector, what is the simplest, most cost effective system for measuring success, giving
recognition and implementing penalties when necessary?
* ICI Program Elements that May Well Make Sense
1) Public education: a campaign to inform media and public will also be necessary, first by informing the public about the magnitude
and complexity of the task, and secondly to generate the necessary public support
* Liaison, Linkages and Roles
1) In order to succeed, the City has to mobilize first both senior levels of government, particularly the provincial, but also the federal,
on a) packaging legislation, b) on automotive refuse, c) on building materials, d)on tires.....etc. Once the sr. levels of government are
triggered into action with appropriate legislation, then there is a hope for the City of Ottawa to achieve results....all this will require the
active participation of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Ontario Association of Municipalities, others.....
2) The City needs to set up (if it has not already done so) a strong government relations office, adequately staffed to develop a good
lobby at Queen's park, on the Hill, and with appropriate organizations.
© 2006
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
3) The City should demand an increased role in handling/controlling total waste generated within its borders; it's part of the current
discussions of new powers/ taxation for Cities. What kind of power does the City have to tell the Federal Government what to do
inside their offices?
4) Consult with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (particularly someone from the local Ottawa MOE office) about what's
working and what's not with respect to the provincial ICI legislation (particularly Ontario Regulations 102/94, 103/94 and 104/94) and
the provincial approach to this issue. It seems to me that this legislation is pretty good, yet, surprisingly, residential recycling rates are
higher than ICI recycling rates in Ottawa (2005 data from a City presentation).
5) Liaise with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's local, Ottawa office (make sure they're on any mailing/e-mailing list; are
invited to participate in this study; and receive information generated by this study). Perhaps the MOE could be approached to even
be a partner in this study. I imagine that the local MOE office would have good advice, it would be good to confirm that the local office
is fully aware that this topic is a community priority, and it stands to reason the results of this study would be of use to the MOE since
the study is on a topic that complements (and perhaps somewhat overlaps) the MOE's mandate.
© 2006
Name: Manuel Costa
Organization: Environmental
Advisory Committee
Job Number: 1019121
Nov. 15 – Dec. 15 2006
Contact
Info:
[email protected]
Comments:
None
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Comment Record – ENGOs and EAC.doc
© 2006
Notices:
City of Ottawa - Business Advisory Committee
Page 1 of 1
November 14, 2006
Project 1019121
Business Advisory Committee (BAC) of the City of Ottawa
Meeting of November 15, 2006
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Sally MacIntyre and Felice Petti of the City of Ottawa
presented the scoping document to the BAC. At the meeting Felice provided the committee with
an introduction to the project and Don walked the committee through the scoping document and
the timeline.
The following is a summary of questions and comments on the scope of the project.

Try to start Task 3 earlier.

Add to list of questions: What happens to the recycling? (the suggestion was that it may not
be getting recycled).

A significant issue is markets for recyclables.

It was suggested that we look at trying to influence the national chains present in the
community such as Canadian Tire.

Members mentioned that the LCBO will be taking back wine bottles.

Members mentioned that ‘garbage’ police have been active in Southern Ontario in reference
to increased enforcement of the 3Rs Regulations.

They suggested that the project work address Provincial Regulations.

The committee would like specific reference to the role of Waste Diversion Ontario and their
potential role in creation solutions.

The committee suggested that energy from waste (EFW) options be addressed in the report.
(I believe this was meant to suggest a more general look at EFW such as a primer on types
of technologies, provincial regulations, potential flow rates and ballpark costs).

Make sure that the review of options looks at what is feasible for medium and small
business and also considers rural vs. urban businesses.

They stressed the need to focus on ‘positive’ incentives (rather than punitive incentives like
regulation) which is generally taken to mean positive tax treatment or other benefits
designed to reward behaviour change where participation is voluntary.

Include costs to implement options.

Speak to the Ottawa Construction Association.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_City of Ottawa BAC_2006-1114.doc
City of Ottawa - EAC
Page 1 of 1
November 15, 2006
Project 1019121
Environmental Advisory Committee of the City of Ottawa
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Sally MacIntyre and Felice Petti of the City of Ottawa
presented the scoping document to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). At the
meeting Felice provided the committee with an introduction to the project and Don walked the
committee through the scoping document and the timeline. Several committee members
provided comments and the head of the waste sub-committee agreed to provide further
comments in writing.
The following is a summary of questions that were suggested as inclusions to the scope of the
project.
1) Can we generate less waste?
2) Ask question about cost and more specifically about who shares the cost and how.
3) Include an analysis of the roles that federal and provincial levels of government can play
including a review of packaging legislation, automotive industry, rubber industry, cement
industry
4) Include a critical path for City Council.
5) Include an overarching policy statement.
6) Address incineration.
7) Reference the most recent public education program (Rethink Garbage).
8) Recommend how the City can proceed with this study when we don’t know what is
happening with residential.
9) Examine the option of implementing landfill bans.
10) Provide an opinion on the capacity of our community to absorb IC&I waste. Factor in robust
assumptions about capacity. Go to council with workplan.
11) When looking at best practices consider incentives for private sector partners.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Notes_City of Ottawa EAC_2006-11-15.doc
Fred Colford, Bentall
Page 1 of 2
November 17, 2006
Project 1019121
Summary of Interview with Fred Colford, Bentall Real Estate, 11/17/06, 9-10am
Attendees: Geb Marett, Jacques Whitford

Fred will look for data on tonnages, but they generally do monthly audits that determine their
waste composition and diversion percentages – so this information may not be available.

They have instituted a recycling programs and outreach for tenants with a move-in package
when new tenants move into their properties.

Recycle stations on each floor to source separate paper (all types, including corrugated
cardboard), glass, plastics, metals (aluminum and steel cans).

Deskside – have transitioned to larger recycle bin and small trash bin. Custodial separates
out recyclables.

For regularly generated waste, organics from deskside, and retail operations are largest
source.

Other than these issues, CRD waste is encouraged in their tenant’s package, but because
this cost falls with tenant on their fit-ups jobs, they cannot make the tenant behave a certain
way.

On their own CRD projects (base building) they find with time and space constraints that
source separation does not always happen. Commingling would be an option, or having
bins with dividers that enable separation and collection in a single bin. But when it comes
down to it, time is money, and time is the limiting factor in a situation when you have one
week to demolish before tenant takes over space fit-up, and they need to get three bids on
demo over $5k.

Service market in Ottawa largely does not understand this – he can’t afford to hold their
hands on each and every job. There are gaping holes in understanding.

It is important to realize that organizations need encouragement to “grow” into the process –
they won’t be hitting 90% diversion right from the beginning.

Tenants willing to participate in program if it is clear what they need to do.

Reuse is as issue – Fred hates to see items that are only a few years old go out the door as
waste or to recycle when there is the possibility to reuse.

He was considering a business venture to set up a web-based system or clearinghouse for
reuse, with markets both domestically and in Eastern Europe, where they are looking for
cost effective building materials (especially larger items like chillers).

On-site composting an issue, especially in Class A facility downtown with limited space.
Organics can be source separated and brought off-site by a provider, but limited markets,
and cost issues (this is not something the waste companies are pushing).

City of Ottawa can support this by:
o
Enforcing or creating regulations that indicate they are taking this seriously.
o
Create or support coordination of regional CRD waste exchanges that involves
existing building materials reuse centres, such as Habitat for Humanity, Cohen &
Cohen, etc.
Fred Colford, Bentall
Page 2 of 2
November 17, 2006
Project 1019121
o
Provide small performance-based incentives to property managers who do well –
such as small tax break, etc. Can be very token, just needs to be recognition.
Can even be an awards/recognition program.
o
Providing small incentives can get a lot of mileage on getting people to move, let
them do the rest – they can be creative if the right reasons are in place.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Fred Colford, Bentall_2006-1117.doc
WSI
Page 1 of 1
November 21, 2006
Project 1019121
Waste Services (CA) Inc. (WSI)
Meeting of December 1, 2006
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford met with Norm Castonguay, Sylvio Richard and Ziya Erkan of
WSI. Here are Cam’s notes. I will ask Cam to contribute any other notes that he has.
At the meeting, Don explained the purpose of the study and the timeline, and walked through
the waste service provider questionnaire to solicit feedback on the City’s direction with regards
to developing and IC&I waste management strategy. The following comments were received.

You obviously cannot provide a service for just one client, and if new services are to be
provided there needs to be wide scale demand for that service. The example of composting
paper towels from washrooms was an example.

Anytime you produce a separated waste stream there is a collection cost.

Collection is easy, it is finding markets for source separated materials that poses a
challenge.

There is a big risk with capital costs. Private sector service providers need a reasonable
long term business case before they will make capital investments.

A good example is thermal technologies. No company will build a plat if they are not going to
make money. Then you may need subsidies.

You also have to be careful that you do not drive waste to Quebec or New York State due to
high tipping fees.

They indicated that shopping malls do a good job of source separation because their waste
facilities are protected – the public cannot dump in their bins. For example a shopping mall
will usually have one or two large tenants who manage their own waste and then the mall
itself will manage waste on behalf of the other tenants.

It was suggested that we interview shopping malls.

Markets for wood waste are worth exploring.

There is a cost to bins of between $1,000 and $5,000.

Residents often illegally dump and even when a dumpster is locked they leave the garbage
beside the dumpster.

When asked about data they indicated that they have provided data to Anne Marie Fowler
so the project team should follow up on this.
When asked what roles the City of Ottawa should/should not play, the following comments were
offered:

DO explore new technology, do education, licence service providers, increase enforcement
through building sites, e.g. construction sites, put in bylaws that apply to restaurants.

DON’T do collection.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Goulbourn Sanitation_2006-1207.doc
Health Care
Page 1 of 2
November 23, 2006
Project 1019121
Health Care Sector
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Cam Neale of the City of Ottawa met with members of the
local health care sector. This included:

Kelly Wilson, Carillion Services (Royal Ottawa Hospital);
Kerry Kelly, Perley Rideau
Dean Ongaro, Civic Hospital, General Hospital
Clayton Shirley, Montfort Hospital
Daniel Goyer, Carlingview Manor
At the meeting Don walked the committee through the scoping document and the timeline. The
following comments were received.

For the Civic Hospital the #1 issue is confidential documentation shredding.

Many found that it is hard to get people to recycle beverage containers and Dean
questioned why Ontario doesn’t just have deposits for all beverage containers as they do in
British Columbia. Others agreed that a container deposit would be an advantage.

Cost drives the yellow hazardous bag disposal process (the process for disposal at
hospitals).

Convenience is a major barrier – the more sorting, the less likely that it will be done properly.

Many of the participants use Regional Hospital Services to secure a single contract and
achieve the best price for specific services. We may want to investigate this as a tool.

Food waste concerns include space and pest control. Some looked at having a waste hauler
come but it was more expensive than waste disposal.

Being able to store the waste is an issue – biomedical is an example.

Phone books are a major issue. They now have to pay to have them hauled away and
recycled.

Now there is a cost to recycling and it is now more expensive that waste.

They don’t have space to store waste.

They have issues with plastic packaging and the expanding use of disposable items –
examples are bed pans, face shields, gloves, and many other single use devices.

Some facilities have looked at polystyrene and the Perley banned plastic cups in their
cafeteria and are using glass only.

Diapers are a major issue. One facility has two pick ups of an 8 yard bin per week. They
used to be recycled and they would welcome disposal options in this area.

Electronic waste is also a problem for the hospitals.

The Perley recycles batteries but it is hard to get rid of them. They asked about a battery
deposit fee.

The Perley also diverts light bulbs and sends out 2 skids per year.

Contamination of clean recyclables is also a problem.

Old wheel chair parts is a concern. They could be reused instead of being recycled as scrap
metal but there are regulatory issues regarding reuse.
Health Care
Page 2 of 2
November 23, 2006
Project 1019121

This group also indicated that they have problems with members of the public dumping stuff
in their dumpsters.

Fryer oil is recycled at ROH

Some participants have adopted ‘Go Green’ approach for housekeeping products and they
use concentrated products.

There was also an emphasis on using purchasing tools as a way of managing waste.

Liner bags (plastic) are recycled in bales

Singe use items – plastic – any kind of technology to convert plastics to energy would be
welcome.
Other Notes
List of 190 award winning health care facilities from Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
http://www.h2e-online.org/awards/index.htm
Many other notes and ideas are on the above noted site.
List of steps to take to reduce waste in health care facilities Health Care Without Harm
http://www.noharm.org/us/medicalwaste/wasteminimization
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Health Care_2006-11-23.doc
+City of Ottawa IC&I Study
Page 1 of 2
November 27, 2006
Project 1019121
Summary of Interview – Peter McMahon, Metro Waste Recycling
Interviewer: Geb Marett, JW, November 23, 2006 8am at Metro Offices, 2811 Sheffield Rd.
• Metro Waste Recycling is a North American company with a presence in IC&I and
residential sectors in Toronto, Ottawa, Western Canada, and northern New York State.
• While their main focus in on fibre and containers recycling, they offer turnkey services and
sub-contract hazardous waste and other hazardous waste services.
•
They recycle various grades of material, including:
Fibre
•
Newspaper
•
Corrugated cardboard (largest item from IC&I sector)
•
Mixed paper (kraft, boxboard, mixed office paper)
• Problematic: waxed and plastic-lined cardboard, though these less common now,
grocery chains moving away from this
Containers
•
Glass, aluminum, metals, plastic (PETs, etc.)
Other
• Shrink plastic wrap, plastic bags, wooden palettes (remanufactured or those in poor
condition wood is chipped into mulch, other products).
•
Contamination on shrink wrap in residential curbside is an issue.
Problematic Wastes
•
Only about 1-1.5% of what they receive ends up as residual.
• Higher # plastics (3-7) are more difficult to recycle to due market pricing fluctuations and
difficulty maintaining quality of material.
Ideas on what to do:
• Plenty of materials still in waste stream that are easily divertible (fibres, organics especially)
– go after these first.
• Change of mentality/attitude to recycle in workplace as you do at home and vice-versa,
consistency.
• Increase landfill tip fees (recognizing limits City may have on privately held landfills – work
with Province to institute this – work into Certificate of Approval process, or other means to
influence the landfill operators). Regulatory approved minimum rate or levy.
+City of Ottawa IC&I Study
Page 2 of 2
November 27, 2006
•
Project 1019121
Pay-as-you-throw at curbside is another option.
• Encourage/enforce existing programs that encourage recycling and waste minimization,
such as Ontario Regulations 102 and 103/94, BOMA Go Green Plus.
• Metro provides some data and waste audits to clients who are compliance with 102 and
103/94, which they feel helps motivate them. Others do not care.
• Education/outreach at school level and in businesses – Manitoba and Alberta have
launched successful media educational campaigns.
• City of Ottawa can work with Province on improving costs structures (i.e., landfill tip fees)
and enforcement of regulations.
• They sub-contract organics to a company that uses a compost facility in Quebec. Lafleche
Environmental provides services in this area as well.
•
Reasons not to do it – cost in some cases and lack of incentives.
• In commercial office settings, backend contracts with cleaners and front-end lease
agreements with tenants can include recycling clauses. Property managers may also be able
to provide incentives, such as rebates (small as they may be). Triple net leases are sometimes
problematic this way, but can be worked around.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Metro Waste_2006-11-23.doc
Education Sector
Page 1 of 2
November 23, 2006
Project 1019121
Education Sector
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Sally McIntyre of the City of Ottawa met with members of
the local health care sector. This included:

Roger Larocque, Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (CEPEO)
Johathan Rausseo, University of Ottawa (U of O)
Miguel Soria, Saint Paul University
Jack Corry, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB)
Kevin Gallinger, Carleton University (CU)
Chris Murphy, Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board (OCCSB)

Most participants can get waste data figures by pick ups but they don’t have it. JW to follow
up with participants and send survey electronically.

Educating students could always be better. In post-secondary settings students need to be
made aware of how to manage waste. At St. Paul’s the average age is older and they tend
to be willing to participate in programs. Lots of education from K to 12.

Old furniture is a problem waste. Some used to disassemble separating wood and metals
and sending metals to recycled.

Cohen and Cohen is overloaded with used furniture and often will not take what schools no
longer need.

They noted that it is a shame to send furniture to scrap metal.

The goal is to avoid landfill.

Some boards manage surplus furniture by offering it to schools, complete with a photo.

Garage Sale was suggested and this was done St. Paul’s 3 or 4 times as a Yard Sale

OCDSB has 8’000 sq ft. of storage where it holds furniture so old it cannot be sold. They
have arranged for Goulbourn-Stittsville Sanitation to pick it up as waste. They don’t do
source separation because it is too hard.
ACTION : JW to follow up with Chris Murphy to get him to share a tender document with other
participants.

At the U of O they have source separation but there is confusion between systems (home
and on campus) and they have education issues.

Furniture also an issue – Charities are accepting less, and U of O is considering garage
sales.

U of O participates in take-it-back programs for things like batteries, paints, solvents, cell
phones, pagers and personal digital assistance.

U of O finds that e-waste is a big problem

U of O composts 1000 kg/yr of kitchen waste using a vermicomposting system but they
estimate that they have at least 4,000 kg of organics, likely much higher
Education Sector
Page 2 of 2
November 23, 2006
Project 1019121

At U of O plastics – beyond 1 & 2 is an issue but they are looking at focusing on C&D waste
and will start at LEED silver. It was mentioned that they tend to look at cost positive LEED
credits rather than waste credits in order to generate longer term cost savings.

19 bins on May 1st at U of O at the residence. Last year they had a clothing only bin.

At CU they co-mingle recyclables and they divert hazardous materials such as batteries.

At CU they just did a waste audit and will share it. JW to follow up with Kevin.

They also have issues with e-waste / furniture.

Space is an issue at CU for garage sales.

At CU compost from residence is picked up by Goulbourn-Stittsville Sanitation. They
compost leaves and yard waste on site.

Idea: one day amnesty for computers and other e-waste to be dropped off at a central
location, loaded into transport trailers and shipped to a recycler. Target hospitals, schools
and other institutions, perhaps make it available to the public and businesses at a fee.

Idea: provide a green procurement program with a focus on packaging, boxes.

It was noted that for large scale compost rodents are a problem

When we talked to the school boards they noted that they need local champions for
programs in schools. Once the teacher or other champion leaves the program falls apart.

OCDSB is putting in an incentive program money back to school

Goulbourn-Stittsville Sanitation gives presentation to schools

ASK: JW to ask for a copy of the presentation from Chris Murphy.

IDEA: City sponsored challenge for schools on recycling. Could model the Spelling with
Spezza program (http://www2.ottawasenators.com/eng/kids/spellingwithspezza.cfm)

For the OCDSB, education on energy conservation saved them $1.6 mil / yr

At the CEPEO they have gone to T8s, and flushometers to save money.

At CEPEO they are moving to 90% high efficiency gas boilers.

Lots of water conservation at U of O including waterless urinals.

Coordination and leadership are roles for City of Ottawa that are accepted.

Raise by U of O – Reducing consumption is a five year idea and focus that should be
undertaken.

Education – let the schools deliver the materials but have the City of Ottawa create the
educational program. Work to create a program targeted at each age group or year.

Open up City facilities to education. The tours of facilities were previously cut from the City
budget.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Notes\Notes_School Boards, Colleges and Universities_200611-23.doc
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builder’s Association (OCHBA)
Page 1 of 2
November 27, 2006
Project 1019121
Summary of Interview with John Herbert, Executive Director, Ottawa-Carleton Home Builder’s
Association (OCHBA), November 27, 2006, OCHBA Offices, 1:30-2:30pm
Attendees: Cameron Neale, City of Ottawa, Geb Marett, Jacques Whitford

John does not think his members would have any data on waste generation volumes from
jobs, but will call a few members and ask.

Essentially, the game for homebuilders is put them up as quickly as possible – they have
bins, but do not source separate by and large. They view waste management as a cost of
doing business that they build in, not as something that really needs to be actively managed.

John Herbert would like to see the City develop a larger scale plasma gasification plant to
handle all of the city’s waste, both residential and commercial. He believes it is more costeffective and can recover useful by-products (slag) and energy – the ‘silver bullet’ of waste
solutions.

Believes the City could actually recover costs and make money on energy generation.

Where plasma is popular, in Japan and parts of Europe, space is at a premium and
pricing/cost structures for waste are vastly different, creating a more favourable business
case.

Note: John is active in a group that is developing plasma gasification, so he has a personal
and business interest in plasma technology.

Believes the City should develop the processing capacity, but not the transportation, as
there exists already the capability to do this with private haulers.

The housing starts have been down by net 15% or so over the last two years, so absolute
amount of waste generated by OCHBA members has likely gone down.

Largest materials entering waste stream from these sources by his estimates include:

o
Wood
o
Metals
o
Paper/cardboard
o
Drywall
o
Shingles
o
Other composite
Believes the City would be misallocating resources by putting $15-30 million into organic
composting operation.
(Cameron Neale, City of Ottawa Comments)
Other than the message that all waste should "plasmafied" message that John Herbert was
pounding, this is what I collected from the interview.

He doesn't feel that the 3Rs Regs. apply to home builders

Recycling is not a consideration for them, all waste goes into one bin and no thought is
given to where it goes.
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builder’s Association (OCHBA)
Page 2 of 2
November 27, 2006
Project 1019121

Waste generated annually is directly related to housing starts (useful for estimating
quantities generated).

Guess at waste generated was: 60% wood, 10% fibre, 10% drywall, 5% metal, 15% other
(shingles, brick, siding etc.).
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_OCHBA_2006-11-27.doc
Lafléche Environmental
Page 1 of 3
November 28, 2006
Project 1019121
Summary of Interview – Lafléche Environmental Inc. with André Lafléche, Marin Zimmer,
Lafléche Environmental, Moose Creek, Ontario, November 28, 2006, 9:30-11am
Attendees: Matt Hamilton, City of Ottawa, Geb Marett, Jacques Whitford

Lafléche have constructed and are planning many environmental innovations at their
facilities in Moose Creek, Ontario.

They view waste as a resource that should be put to reuse or recycling if possible to use
products prior to “waste to energy” or landfill as absolute last option.

They view their landfills as an option of last resort, and want to have it operational
indefinitely into the future, because most of the waste on site they are diverting.

They are aiming for an ambitious 80% diversion in the next few years using options such as:
o
Their newly permitted and almost operational 150,000 tonne/yr contaminated soil
reclamation facility – intended to process and clean hydrocarbon contaminated
soils initially, to be followed by heavy metals and other contaminants. This
operation will begin operation in December 2006 to accept soils from Eastern
Ontario and Western Quebec that can be cleaned and reused.
o
Scrap tires being used as road bed in construction of roads in new eco-industrial
park and at landfill. Pilot project results being studied in collaboration with two
universities and a larger scale pilot being finalized for road construction in
surrounding counties – displaced use of other mined natural aggregates, and
provides some thermal buffer against heaving in freeze/thaw cycles. Glass also
being used.
o
They are in the design and permitting stage for a leachate treatment system
(designed by Seprotech) which they also plan to use to manage hauled septage
from the surrounding area.
o
They will be constructing two new composting facilities in the near future. One
will be located on top of the landfill (approval by spring 2007) and will process
materials (such as biosolids, shredded fine paper, etc.) to be used for final cover.
The other facility will be located on a nearby property and will be used to process
higher grade materials to produce compost and soil products. They already have
a peat extraction operation, which they will run in conjunction with their compost
facilities to create higher value products.
o
They intend to build a gypsum plant to grind waste gypsum into powder for use
as an agricultural amendment – soils in their area have low pH and represent a
good market in their view.
o
They are developing a market for tire shreds (e.g. paved areas in eco-park used
tire shreds as part of subbase, replacing aggregate).
o
Examining the possibility of building a biodigester in the next few years to
manage organic wastes (such as agricultural and animal wastes) and will
produce biogas for energy production. The system will also include a thermal
hydrolysis unit (a.k.a alkaline hydrolysis) that can be used to treat waste
generated by slaughterhouses, including Specified Risk Material (SRM) (i.e.
Page 2 of 3
November 28, 2006
Project 1019121
tissue removed after slaughtering to reduce the potential for prion infected meat
to enter the food chain),
o
Also examining the possibility of building a plastics processor and pelletizer in
their eco-park. Goal would be to process non-recyclable plastics into high value
fuel pellets and sell to industries such as cement kilns.
o
Haulers have expressed an interest to Lafleche to get into C&D recycling –
Lafleche is looking into it

Flow control levies (such as Rockland) have cost end users and may end up creating
monopolies.

Should be about creating best markets for end materials, and working processing around
that.

Currently, not enough volume on recyclable to run their small MRF, but working with Metro
Waste and others to see if they can sort and send recyclables collected at Lafléche back to
Ottawa where recyclables processing and end markets are closer, instead of sending trucks
back empty, as would be the case otherwise.

There should be flexibility and redundancy in dealing with materials where you have 1 or 2
higher value reuse or recycling options before the final disposal option is exercised.

They feel that the recycling rate for IC&I in Ottawa is higher than what might be expected
given Ontario numbers.
Recommendations:

They view organics and C&D as the two biggest opportunities.

There can be a collaborative approach and more flexibility created by cooperation between
the City, MOE and waste service providers.

They have had issues with MOE taking too long to review and approve new works, , which,
in their opinion, has created more environmental impacts.

Flexibility and “merit-based” permitting needs to be looked at where it makes sense.

With City of Ottawa, there should be a system of cooperation between private companies
and the City. The City and industry should approach and lobby the Provincial government
with a shared voice – the public and private sectors should present a united front.

It should not be about flow control, but about creating the best markets and gaining practical
knowledge – move from talk to action by conducting pilots to determine whether some of
these technologies will work.

City as an information broker – service providers want to help, but need to be informed. In
many cases, they have vast knowledge and resources that can be brought to bear on the
problem
Page 3 of 3
November 28, 2006
Project 1019121

Needs to be about creating markets for products first. One big role the City could play
would be to serve as a market (e.g. requiring recycled shingles as part of the asphalt mix for
municipal roads, using tire shreds in road subbase, etc.).

Other large scale waste generators can be brought into this discussion too (e.g., Minto)

The City in this regard should act as an information broker, seeking to bring the players
together to help solve the issues that ultimately we all have a stake in.

Should be collaborative, which this study is intended to do, rather than the City devising
strategies in isolation from those that will be stuck dealing with those strategies. Province,
MOE needs to be partner, to get their buy in.

They had to go to ECB in Germany for their biodigester. Canada should be creating and
implementing best in class technologies/methods that can be exported elsewhere.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Lafleche Environmental_200611-28.doc
Minto
Page 1 of 1
December 1, 2006
Project 1019121
Minto
Cam Neale of the City of Ottawa met with Rob Smith of Minto and had a follow up call with
Annette Gaffney of Minto. Here are Cam’s notes. I will ask Cam to contribute any other notes
that he has.
This morning I chatted with Annette Gaffney from Minto's Toronto office regarding Ottawa's IC&I
waste management strategy project. Annette has been provided with a copy of the survey and
will it fill out with the cooperation of Minto's waste service provider in Ottawa. As you know Minto
is a diverse company which operates multi-residential buildings, commercial buildings including
a hotel downtown, and has residential housing developments as well. Annette has echoed the
message of Minto's environmental commitment and willingness to participate in this project that
I heard in the original interview with Rob Smith. She also identified some of the barriers Minto
has encountered in trying to divert various waste streams from their sites in Ottawa. Some
examples include:

Just one local company collects organics and the cost is prohibitive.

Organic material is sent to a bio-reactor which is not local, which increases costs (lack of
local facilities).

Multi -residential recycling is not effective, to few materials are accepted due to lack of local
markets.

Calls were made to landfills regarding recycling of construction and demolition material, and
it was determined that these services are not available locally.

Recycling opportunities must be cost effective to be successful.
Annette can be reached at [email protected], and should be available for consultation
throughout this project.
Chambers of Commerce
Page 1 of 2
December 6, 2006
Project 1019121
Local Chambers of Commerce
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Matt Hamilton of the City of Ottawa met with members from
a number of local chambers of commerce. This included:

Peter Stewart, Orleans CoC – approximately 200 members
Liisa Peer, Ottawa CoC – over 750 members
Tom MacWilliam, Eastern Ottawa CoC – approximately 150 members
Earl Stanley, Osgoode Ward Business Alliance (Earl is also vice chair of the City of
Ottawa Business Advisory Committee)

Issues: Make cardboard easier to recycle.

They seemed to be comfortable with the idea of taking a shared voice to the Province to
discuss opportunities and actions on waste management. The concept of the shared voice
came out of a meeting with a waste hauler who suggested that if the City, generators and
waste haulers can speak with a shared voice, the Province may be more likely to act.

Osgoode’s landfill (Springhill Landfill site on Springhill Road) is filling more slowly than other
landfills in Ottawa.

It was reported that there is often a line up to buy rubble from Tomlinson (operator of the
Springhill site) to be used as fill. Referred to the site as a model facility that is very well run.

It was suggested that City involvement slows the process, but that the City can facilitate –
this is a positive role.

It was also suggested that there is room to increase recycling but that there are cost
barriers.

Most companies need to go with a private company to recycle paper.

Comments came back to education – does behaviour learned at home spill into behaviour at
work?

Orleans CoC includes many small businesses and home businesses.

Ottawa – home based business all the way to large business. Very diverse cross section of
members.

Gloucester – retail, services, home based businesses and industrial parks.

Farmers need to be able to divert twine and plastic.

Barriers to recycling include cost and the space limitations. They suggested that it would
generally be easier for businesses to dispose of their waste and recyclables as commingled
waste, and have the recyclables separated at a processing facility.

It was suggested that we have taken some steps backwards in Ottawa.

Issues regarding how the city taxes businesses and more specifically that small businesses
are over-taxed.

Packaging is an issue. If we want to divert waste we need to address over packaging like
hard plastic cases that cannot be recycled.
Chambers of Commerce
Page 2 of 2
December 6, 2006
Project 1019121

It was suggested that the City of Ottawa yellow bag recycling program has not been
marketed well.

It was suggested that there needs to be a focus on education.

The City need to demonstrate that they are serious about the concerns of small business.

Some expressed concern that the City is telling people what to do where it doesn’t provide
services. [Note that we didn’t argue this point but the City also does this every time it issues
a building permit.]

Very concerned that the final approach the City takes will end up costing businesses more
money.

The best approach would be to create economic incentives to encourage waste diversion.

Add: Study economic incentives and other incentives

Add: Include consideration of the cross border issues – specifically the movement of waste
to Quebec.

Idea: Set up Web-based survey to collect feedback from members of the various CoCs. The
participants indicated that they are willing to forward the survey to all of their members with
an encouragement that they should complete the survey.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes-Chambers of Commerce_200612-06.doc
Page 1 of 2
December 7, 2006
Project 1019121
Geb Marett of Jacques Whitford and Cam Neale of the City of Ottawa met Goulbourn Sanitation
President Dave Graham at their Carp facility.
At the meeting, Geb and Cam explained the purpose of the study and the timeline, and walked
through the waste service provider questionnaire to solicit Dave’s feedback on the City’s
direction with regards to developing and IC&I waste management strategy. The following
comments were received.

Dave was aware of the City’s IC&I strategy study, as has been involved (for better or worse),
with the City and MOE on planning and permitting issues over the years.

40 year old company that was launched by his Dad, did bluebox program in Kanata to get
started, and have grown over the years.

In 96-97, when the residential curbside went from 10 zones to 3 with amalgamation, he
could not longer compete with the “big guys”, and focused on the IC&I accounts, to whom
he provides recycling and waste disposal services (does some residential in surrounding
counties).

He also does some C&D, which he transfers to Lafléche.

He would like to open a larger scale MRF and C&D waste processing facility on adjacent
properties that he has considered buying, but has had issues with the City and MOE on his
proposals.

Why companies do not divert more: cost structures that favour disposal, apathy (in some
cases), and problems with options on organics, some plastics, lack of enforcement of 3Rs
regulations. He used example of large food/hot beverage retailer that, until recently, was
not recycling at all, and had large volumes of divertible materials in its waste. Important to
get cost structures right – some dictated by larger markets beyond region, but some dictated
by regional policies and tax structures.

Problems with higher plastics #3-7 – sometime markets there, sometimes not, and can
contaminate other plastics – a good candidate for waste-to-energy streams.

He has about 4% residuals, does about 30,000t a year, 20,000t ICI and 11,000t C&D.

They transfer organics, fibre of all kinds, and mixed containers – C&D as mentioned goes to
Lafléche. Paper goes to pulper (Bowater or Fraser in Québec). Has market for shingles now
too. Drywall to Lafléche as soil amendment. Best markets are local – avoid transportation
costs and impacts.

He has had an issue on permitting with “putrescible” waste – or waste with organic
components as a limiting conditions on getting some of his projects (mixed container line
and C&D transfer facility) permitted – he argues that all waste will have some “putrescible”
component and that the City and MOE are being too inflexible in looking at these issues.

He has had very frustrating experiences with delays and lack of responsiveness from MOE
and City on zoning and permitting for some planned purchases and developments he has
had in the works on property surrounding his existing facilities. – on 3rd planner in less than
1 year. He contends he merely handles and transfers – that nothing would be disposed,
etc.., so doesn’t understand hold up. Roadblocks and red tape that have come at the
expense of the environment (from those purporting to protect the environment).
Page 2 of 2
December 7, 2006
Project 1019121

Needs to be better communication – City can facilitate this and be more open to “partnering”
with companies rather than being confrontational or at odds.

For example, Goulbourn has had a good experience with the Ministry of
Labour/Transportation. There is more of an open dialogue and they are give a chance to
comment, have input, and respond to issues or to correct problems before a more
adversarial approach is taken.

Departments within City – policy, Legal/Regulatory, and Enforcement not always on the
same page.

He does not like to do this, but presented a scenario where for a minor variation of a
certificate of approval where the MOE decides to shut a recycling operation, he would use
the media for reinforcement that this is not in the benefit of the environment, which is what
we are all after.

This has been said by all service providers – there is a dire need for better communication
between the generators, services providers, the City (various departments, both internally
and with other stakeholders), and Province (MOE).

Noise restrictions are another issue – Goulbourn frustrated with “down time” at night when
could be using trucks, as they do in NYC and other places (Toronto) due to traffic issues –
makes environmental sense (less traffic and GHG emissions/idling in traffic), as long as
community/noise issues are addressed.
Waste Management
Page 1 of 3
December 11, 2006
Project 1019121
Waste Management
Geb Marett and Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Sally McIntyre of the City of Ottawa met
with Michael Walters, Senior District Manager, Landfills, Waste Management (WM) at their Carp
facility.
At the meeting, Geb, Don and Sally explained the purpose of the study and the timeline, and
walked through the waste service provider questionnaire to solicit Michael’s feedback on the
City’s direction with regards to developing and IC&I waste management strategy. The following

WM provided us with a newsletter indicating that in 2002 they received just over 600,000
tonnes and they diverted over 300,000 tonnes which is a combination of recycled products
and special waste used as cover.

WM wants to show leadership on electronics waste. They have a drop off (and pick up if
customers request it) e-cycling program. They used to distribute materials for processing to
Toronto area, but now have a local processor in Outaouais who employs at-risk or
recovering individuals to process e-waste. Ministry of Environment in Kingston are
disposing of loads of e-waste with them, having heard of the program.

They did an e-cycle and other waste 1-day drop off (and do these periodically), where it is a
drive thru. They collected 20 t. e-waste, City had one and collected 14t. They have ~50t on
site now. The WM service was free, and the City charged. Michael sees need to coordinate
these with the City.

They have about 7,500 ICI customer in their service region from Eastern Ontario to NFLD.
They recycle electronics, metals, commingled containers, fibres of all kinds.

They also had waste auditors helping customers after 1994 3Rs, but this has tapered off
due to lack of enforcement by MOE.

They give customers variable rates based on what is picked up (source separated materials
with some value get lower rates than commingled waste).

He has on-site engineers looking at “alternative uses” for materials (generally within landfill
site, but sometimes technologies to process and reuse materials off-site).

WM had implemented a biosolids program in 91/92, to develop soil amendment for use on
landfill (this is a firm restriction on its use) – 230,000 t capacity. They use wood waste as an
amendment to get the “ingredients” right. Used quite a bit on the landfill to start, was a low
odour good alternative for some of the sites engineered features. A landfill in Arnprior took
some but in the early 2000s they lost markets and discontinued the process.

If clients can bring him source separated materials of interest, they are normally given a
discounted tip fee of as much as $15/tonne.

Michael calls his system “last chance harvest”, where he looks to pull and constructively use
materials destined for landfill. Metals are pulled, biosolids program at one point. They do
some C&D waste, but not a lot. They also have a metal drop that takes tagged white goods,
metals, etc.

“impacted” (typically hydrocarbon) soils he considers to be a major material that should be
focused on. Gave estimate of how much may be generated in region (~300,000t). They
have plans to accept and treat impacted soils on a biopad process, where it is injected with
Waste Management
Page 2 of 3
December 11, 2006
Project 1019121
air and the right kind of bacteria that “eat” and breakdown the hydrocarbons – created
“clean” fill that is a useful product that can leave the site. He has quarries lined up that can
use it.

Also, he has used low temperature thermal desorption on impacted soils in previous job–
City of Toronto willing to pay for clean fill.

There needs to be a business case for each market.

Barriers: delays from City of Ottawa permitting/planning, adversarial stance. He is open and
considers them “partners” until he received some freedom of information requests that he
spent countless hours and resources preparing. Found out it was the City requesting these
– and he would have given them without having to go through FOIA, saving hours. He is
frustrated by this approach, and it has happened again. He is now frustrated by lack of
partnering. He sees delays of good diversion ideas as penalty on environment – and lost
opportunity, due to red tape.

The City is its own worst enemy – own internal departments don’t always coordinate, and
they do not treat service providers as partners. Asking to post initiatives for public comment
3-4 times not necessary.

Some other initiatives he was trying to get permitted did not go as well due to negative
backlash from the landfill expansion proposals.

Gas to energy got a better reception. 77 wells, 2 enclosed flares, planning a 6.4 Mw plant.
Have air permit, looking at study on grid connection. City was great and more responsive
on this project so far. Trail road has similar pilot (4 Mw), so maybe familiarity breeds a level
of comfort? Wants to have this up and running by Q3 next year, can power over 9,000
homes.

Flow control not solution – he knows cost point at which businesses will cut and run – must
know price “touch points” and what effects will be. Do not want to displace waste and
problems, but create economic structures that encourage local processing markets.

We are all par to problem and solution.

He would be happy to receive incomplete portion of survey and with customer service, get
this completed and back to us.
Questions
Are you aware of the City IC&I Waste Strategy Study?

Yes.
We are trying to identify the barriers to recycling: Can you tell us reasons why
companies of all sizes (small, medium and large) do not recycle or divert waste?

Many do, but lack of pressure (enforcement), lack of knowledge of opportunities, perceived
cost
Have you any suggestions on that the City could do to increase waste diversion by the
commercial, industrial and institutional sectors?
•
Review permitting process, communications between MOE, City of service providers to
streamline permitting and open opportunities for waste synergy and mutual opportunities

Do you have suggestions on what the City IC&I Waste Strategy study should address?
Waste Management
Page 3 of 3
December 11, 2006
•
Project 1019121
Impacted soils
What Materials in the Waste Stream are you having trouble recycling?
•
Biosolids has been discontinued (use on landfills only, insufficient markets now)
What types of business do you typically provide service to?
•
All ICI sector
Do you offer recycling and organics services, or just garbage pick-up?
•
Paper fibre, OCC, mixed containers, waste, e-cycling.
What material could you easily divert if it was source separated and clean?
•
Wood, organics, fibre, containers (#3-7 plastics harder).
Do you have space at your facilities to pull recyclable materials from loads of mixed
waste?
•
No MRF now, but possibly in future.
Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs)
Page 1 of 2
December 13, 2006
Project 1019121
Don Grant of Jacques Whitford and Sally McIntyre of the City of Ottawa met with Edwin Morton
and Jim Petrie from Friends of the Mer Bleue and Brian Finch from Friends of the Jock River.
Ed Beebee from Friends of the Rideau joined us one hour into the meeting.
At the meeting Don and Sally explained the purpose of the study and the timeline, and
responded to a number of questions about the IC&I waste management strategy. The following

There was concern expressed by the Mer Bleue participants that the consultants at the Dec.
7 Public Open House seemed to suggest that ‘all the answers were known’ and they
expressed concern about an acceptance of the status quo by the City and the consulting
team. They were assured by both parties that this is not the case.

The role of the Mer Bleue is one of concern about the community

Don and Sally were asked to confirm the objectives of the meeting
1) What do we hope to achieve
2) How will this affect the Scoping Phase (meetings)

Sally confirmed that the study originated in the Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP)
and indicated that it just got go ahead earlier this year.

Sally indicated that there is a parallel study being undertaken using the working title
“Residual Management Study” that will focus managing residuals and processing mixed
waste streams. In this study consideration will be given to alternative technologies and how
their use might influence diversion rates.

Sally also indicated that a request for proposals on Source Separated Organics will be
issued by the City any day now.

The process began with a request for qualifications (RFQ) that was posted on MERX and six
firms were short listed and they will bid on the RFP.
Action: Sally to provide the list of short listed firms to meeting participants.

Mer Bleue indicated that they felt that the IC&I study should be the umbrella study.

Mer Bleue raised the issue of the motion of August 23, 2006 and it was discussed in detail.
Mer Bleue provided the motion and their concerns to us in both paper and electronic format.

Mer Bleue authored the motion and indicated that it was very specific. Their issue is that the
current scope of the IC&I study does not fully address the motion.
Action: Project team to review the submission and consider how to change the scope of the
project.

Sally indicated that the parallel residual study covers the areas not addressed by the IC&I
study and expressed a willingness to ensure that the two processes are integrated and that
the linkages between the two be clarified in the scoping document.

Mer Bleue also asked about the public consultation on the residual study.

Friends of Mer Bleu were the authors of this motion – instead of a fractured plan they want a
holistic vision.
Page 2 of 2
December 13, 2006
Project 1019121
Action: It was requested that Task 2 be referred to as Characterization and Validation

Mer Bleue expressed concerns about timing – need more time to review the scoping
document in January to allow stakeholders to raise issues and finalize the scope before
going to planning and environment committee (PEC).

Jim Petrie has discussed above w/ Ken Brothers.

Sally agreed that City staff would also welcome an extension to the time frame.

Sally indicated that the City would be willing to meet with Friends of the Mer Bleue before
the PEC and discuss the scoping document.
Action: Sally to communicate with Jim directly on timing.

Sally confirmed that City legal department has been looking at the City’s rights to adopt
legislation and she indicated that the City is pursuing the Province to push enforcement.

For Mer Bleue the two big questions/concerns are:
1. How are the various studies going to be integrated?
2. We need to clarify how public consultations will be undertaken – on scope on this project
as well as what consultation will be taken on the other component studies.

All present agreed that we are to refer to them as ENGOs

Mer Bleue indicated that they have engaged in town hall meetings within the community.

They also suggested the use of a Public Liaison committee to work more closely with those
managing the study.

Jim and Edwin have both read the City of Ottawa’s ‘settlement agreement’ with the haulers.

City has a difficulty getting #s and monitoring compliance.

Mer Bleue claims that recycling at WSI is less than 1.5%.
Action: Send the slides to all participants and share information.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_Environmental Non-Government
Organizations (ENGOs)_2006-12-13.doc
Federal Government Sector - PWGSC
Page 1 of 2
December 15, 2006
Project 1019121
Federal Government Sector
Meeting – December 15, 2006
Don Grant and Sheila Brown of Jacques Whitford met Ruston Gordon, Solid Waste Specialist
with Public Works Government Services Canada (PWGSC).

PWGSC would be interested in learning more about opportunities to partner with others to
enhance diversion e.g. organics.

The experience of PWGSC is that it is very expensive to try and get individuals to recycle.
As a result the departmental role on solid waste has evolved from a responsible party to an
enabling party. Simply put they will provide recycling services to tenants but it is the
responsibility of the tenants to implement recycling.

He estimated that the vast majority of tenants are not measuring waste flows at present.

Composting has not been supported locally because the services don’t exist. It was felt that
it is very difficult to influence composting especially since there are very few large
generators of organics within the National Capital area.

Nevertheless there are some clients who want composting for organics and for paper towels
from washrooms.

When we asked for waste data he indicated that there is no single source of waste data –
we would need to go to individual departments to see if they have waste data. In addition
such a request would likely need a formal request from the City Manager to a Deputy
Minister.

Convenience, lack of markets

We also mentioned landfill bans and the feeling is that it likely wouldn’t be that successful at
a City level but would be potentially effective at a Provincial level.
Responses to Survey Question #3

The only problem waste that could be diverted is organics but in a limited capacity. They
need to target facilities with a high flow and it needs to be easy to divert the material. In
addition they need access to a service at reasonable rates.

A major issue – there is considerable concern about ensuring that e-waste doesn’t end up in
third world countries

Issue is certification of recycling / dismantling.

Supplier responsibility for disassembly is missing.

That being said PWGSC would be willing to consider a leadership role within the community
on this file.

The processes being forced upon us are a barrier. The service providers require federal
tenants to source separate all of their materials individually. PWGSC would like to explore
co-mingling, single pick up and off-site sorting of recyclables only (no waste).
Federal Government Sector - PWGSC
Page 2 of 2
December 15, 2006
Project 1019121

Lack of market certainty (revenue and acceptance) for diverted materials is a barrier and the
best example is e.g. polystyrene.

Another barrier is inconsistency in products and a lack of readily available information that
can be provided back to employees.

The cost of continuous education and awareness programs for employees is also a
significant barrier to ensuring that diversion rates are high.
Responses to Survey Questions #6 and 7

No comment. It is not appropriate for the federal government to comment on City of Ottawa
policies, roles or responsibilities.
P:\2006\70000 Learning Services\1019121 - ICI Study City of Ottawa\Interview Summaries\Notes_PWGSC_2006-12-15.doc
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
Appendix D: Background on the IC&I Waste Allocation
Model
City of Ottawa
30 January 2007
D.1 IC&I Waste Allocation Model Development
The model was first developed in 1989 to estimate the composition of IC&I waste generated in
the Province of Ontario as input to an econometric model, which estimated the impacts of the
50% diversion objective on Ontario business. The first version of the model had 25 business
categories and 10 waste stream categories.
The input to the model has been constantly updated with most recently available IC&I waste
composition data from waste audits and waste composition studies carried out by jurisdictions
throughout North America since 1989.
The GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District) used an updated version of the model in 1991
for planning the 50% diversion strategy for year 2000. The IC&I model identified the
composition of IC&I waste generated in the Region. A separate study estimated the amount of
IC&I waste diverted, therefore the combination of the two approaches estimated the composition
of the IC&I waste disposed. The GVRD version of the model was expanded to estimate the
amount of IC&I waste generated by material and business sector in 21 different area
municipalities, which formed the GVRD.
The model was updated again in 1993 and 1994 to estimate the amount and composition of the
waste generated by IC&I businesses in the Greater Toronto Area. The model identified the
materials and business sectors, which should be targeted for aggressive diversion efforts. It was
subsequently used in waste planning studies for the City of Toronto and the Province of
Manitoba, and most recently has been used in a study of private sector waste in the Province of
Ontario for the Ontario Waste Management Association (December, 2004).
The IC&I model uses the following inputs:
•
•
•
Available waste composition studies by IC&I sector (constantly updated);
Employment data by IC&I sector or NAICS code for the jurisdiction being studied
(discussed for City of Ottawa in next section)
Known amount of IC&I waste disposed to re-calibrate the waste allocation. This amount
will be identified for Ottawa as discussed earlier.
The model uses local employment data and per capita waste generation rates to yield estimates of
waste generation quantities by IC&I sector. Waste composition data for each IC&I sector are
then applied to estimate the composition of IC&I waste generated by different ICI groups. The
model currently summarizes the data as follows:
•
•
•
Waste generation (tonnes per year) for each major NAICS category.
Waste composition by IC&I sector. Composition data area provided for 13 material
categories; these can be collapsed or expanded into the categories requested by the client;
Overall IC&I waste generation by material type.
PAGE D-1
City of Ottawa
Appendix E: Ottawa’s Employment Data
30 January 2007
City of Ottawa
E.1
30 January 2007
Employment Data by NAICS or SIC Code
Table E-1: Employment in City of Ottawa By NAICS or SIC Code (Various Sources)
Unless otherwise noted, numbers represent the NAICS sectors and subsectors.
Numbers in blue highlight are SIC codes numbers i.e., before NAIC system.
PAGE E-1
City of Ottawa
PAGE E-2
30 January 2007