HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-36-98
, THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
~
X~~~~~~~~X
REPORT
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMmEE
Date:
JUNE 22, 1998
File # [;..J07. LA.
Res. # (r;; P A -<40\ _cy'if'
By-Law #
Meeting:
Report #:
WD-36-98
File #:
WASTE MANAGEMENT - PILOT PROJECT
Subject:
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-36-98 be received;
2. THAT Report WD-36-98 be approved FORTHWITH and forwarded to the Council of the
Region of Durham for consideration at their meeting of June 30, 1998; and
3 . THAT the Council of the Region of Durham be requested to approve, in principle, the concept of
the Municipality of Clarington being allowed to carry out a three-year pilot project for the
handling of Municipal solid waste by the Wet/Dry method. Upon approval in principle, it is
requested that the matter be referred to Regional staff in order that they may take the summer
months to negotiate with the two contractors that presently handle Clarington's Waste Disposal
and Blue Box Program, on behalf of the Region of Durham. Council should further request that
the Council of the Region of Durham deal with this matter in a final forum at its first meeting in
September of 1998 so that the Critical Path, laid out in this report, may be adhered to.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. 1 Report WD-20-98
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On Monday, March 23, 1998, at a regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration
Committee, Committee passed Resolution #GPA-184-98 which states:
"THAT Council endorse the "wet/dry" waste management concept;
RECYClED~PAPIER"
PAPER '+tJ:1 RECYCLE
THIS IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 1 2
"REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 2
THAT Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and appropriate staff to investigate
the opportunities open for Clarington to enter into a wet/dry waste management program;
THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to arrange a tour of the wet/dry facility
for Members of Council; and
THAT paragraph 2 of Report WD-20-98 be tabled until such time as a report on a wet/dry
management system has been presented to Council."
"Paragraph 2" actually refers to Recommendation #2 in Report WD-20-98. Recommendation #2
requested "THAT Council petition the Region of Durham to allow the Municipality of Clarington
to assume the responsibility for waste disposal in Clarington".
2.2 Definition of a Wet/Dry Waste Management System
A Wet/Dry Management System has the goal of recovering as much useable material as possible
from the waste stream. Residents separate their waste products into two different types - wet and
dry. Wet waste is any material that is organic in nature, such as food and yard wastes, as well as
materials such as soiled papers, floor sweepings and ashes. These materials can be converted into
useable products through biological processing such as composting.
The remaining materials are dry wastes, which include traditional recyclables such as paper,
plastics, glass and cans, along with newly recyclable materials such as clothing, milk cartons, and
tetra pak containers. The processing of both streams involves separating out the contaminates
that are neither compostable nor recyclable. These contaminates are the process residual which is
sent to landfill.
There are a few municipalities in Ontario that currently operate Wet/Dry recycling programs.
The City of Guelph conducted several years of pilot testing prior to constructing a full Wet/Dry
system in 1995. Northumberland County has been collecting waste in a Wet/Dry System since
1996, but is currently processing just the dry waste and landfilling the wet stream. The Town of
Tillsonburg and the Town of Aylmer also process their waste through a Wet/Dry Management
System.
1 1 1 3
'REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 3
The two distinct waste streams are placed in blue boxes, coloured bags or carts depending on the
preferred type of collection container chosen by the municipality.
Yard waste may either be a special collection for compo sting or may be included in the Wet
stream. Bulky items would be collected on special collection days and recycled. No changes are
proposed for the disposal of Household Hazardous Waste such as:
- paints
- household cleaners
- aerosol spray cans
- syrmges
- ammunition
- oils
- household chemicals
- bleach
- insecticides
These items would continue to be the residents' responsibility to take to an appropriate drop off
location (presently Ritson Road Transfer Station or Cartwright Transfer Station).
2.3 Objectives of the Wet/Dry Pilot Project
The objective of the pilot project is to determine the feasibility of the Municipality of Clarington
adopting a Wet/Dry Waste Management System. In order to be feasible, a Wet/Dry System
would have to achieve two things for the Municipality:
i) To substantially improve the landfill diversion rate, from the existing 24% to
substantively in excess of 50% within the first year of the pilot project.
ii) To accomplish the conversion to a Wet/Dry System in a cost-effective manner.
It is expected that the adoption of a Wet/Dry System will result in a substantial increase in the
amount of waste diverted from landfill. It is further expected that a cost-effective waste
management system will be attained. In fact, our research shows us that a Wet/Dry System will
not only be cost-effective, it will operate at a reduced cost to the resident.
2.4 RECENT ACTIONS OF STAFF
As directed in Council's approval of Report WD-20-98, Staff organized a tour of the multi-
material recycling facility in the County of Northumberland.
1 4
~ REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 4
Staff also contacted a number of municipalities and private sector companies that are presently
carrying out Wet/Dry Waste Management.
2.4.1 List of Interested Participants
Preliminary discussions and investigations, to date, include the following interested participants:
i) County of Northumberland Material Recovery Facility
ii) Northwood Recycling and Energy Inc.
iii) Guelph Wet/Dry Recycling Centre
iv) T.C.R. Environmental Corporation - Aylmer, Ontario
v) Miller Waste Systems
vi) Canadian Waste Services Inc.
2.4.2 County of Northumberland Multi-Material Recycling Facility
The County of Northumberland has indicated an interest in receiving and processing Dry waste
from the Municipality of Clarington. In this scenario it is proposed that the Dry waste will be
tipped at the Clarington Transfer Facility and transferred to the Northumberland Multi-Material
Recycling Facility at Grafton for processing.
2.4.3 Northwood Recycling and Energy Inc.
Correspondence received from Northwood Recycling constitutes a letter of commitment to the
pilot project. Northwood has a bio-conversion processing facility currently underway in Oshawa
and is prepared to commit to processing the Wet side ofthe Wet/Dry pilot project. The
commitment of Northwood includes the responsibility to handle the Wet even in the event that
the facility is not operational in time to commence the pilot project, and includes disposal of wet
residual.
Whereas most "wet waste" handlers provide an end product that results from composting,
Northwood Recycling use a method that results in the production of pellets that are made up of
fat and protein and are sold to animal food manufacturers.
The Northwood proposal also includes a Dry waste handling facility. The advantage of
Northwood's proposal is that the collection vehicles would transport the two streams directly
from the collection routes to the Wet/Dry waste handling facility, thereby eliminating the
necessity for the vehicles having to tip each load at two locations.
1 1 1 5
'REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 5
2.4.4 Guelph Wet/Dry Recycling Centre
.
The City of Guelph owns and operates a Wet/Dry Waste Management Facility, which is a high
quality, first-generation facility that achieves a diversion rate from landfill in the area of 75 to
80%.
2.4.5 T.C.R. Environmental Corporation - Aylmer, Ontario
The Municipalities of Tillsonburg and Aylmer receive a Wet/Dry Waste Management Service
from T.C.R. Environmental Corporation, a company operating a full service Wet/Dry process that
diverts 80% from landfill. Located in Aylmer, T.C.R. is licensed to receive Wet/Dry waste from
anywhere in Ontario, and are planning to expand to other areas of the province as the demand for
Wet/Dry service expands.
2.4.6 Miller Waste Systems
Miller Waste Systems presently operates the Blue Box Program for the Region of Durham
whereby recyclable items such as glass, plastics, newsprint, cans and cardboard are collected
twice monthly and recycled. The cost to the Region for the collection service is $370,000 in
addition to processing costs.
2.4.7 Canadian Waste Services Inc.
Canadian Waste Services Inc. presently holds the contract for collection for the Municipality of
Clarington, as well as a contract for operating the Clarington Transfer Station. Canadian Waste
has contracted with the Region of Durham for the haulage and disposal of Clarington waste by
way of its landfill site in Napanee. The cost to the Region for haulage and disposal is $66.25 per
tonne.
2.4.8 Region of Durham
Region of Durham staff, through preliminary discussion and press reports, are aware of the
proposed Wet/Dry pilot project. Their co-operation is vital to the success of the program, since
the Region of Durham Act assigns the responsibility for disposal solely to the Region.
In order to implement the project, certain contracts such as those for tipping and collection with
Miller Waste and Canadian Waste, will require revisions and changes. Upon the approval of this
report, staff will enter into discussions with the Region staff in an effort to overcome the inherent
obstacles presented by the existence of the Regional contracts. No talks have taken place at this
1 1 1 6
, REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 6
time other than exploratory discussions, however, it is hoped that such discussions and
negotiations could take place over the summer months in order to have Regional staff report to
Regional Council at its first meeting in September, 1998, which would allow the project to meet
the critical path referred to in Section 3.3 of this Report.
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3.1 Converting to a Wet/Dry Waste Management System involves extensive public education to
ensure that all residents are aware of the changes that are occurring in the waste system and how
the changes will affect the way in which they prepare their garbage. By following the critical
path, referred to in Section 3.3 of this Report, such an education and awareness program could be
carried out. Additional costs should be budgeted for advertising and promotion for the first year
that the program is operating.
This program would be vital to the success of the project and the Municipality would be best
served by contracting this educationallinformational program to a professional team that has
proven success in this field. A key component in assembling the material for distribution is the
waste calendar, which would be included in the advertising and promotional literature for
distribution.
3.2 Term of the Pilot Project
The term of the pilot project is proposed to be 3 years, commencing April 30, 1999. The
Municipality's present collection contract expires December 31, 2001 and the Region's contract
for Blue Box collection expires January 31,2002. The Region's disposal contract with Canadian
Waste for Clarington' s garbage expires December 31, 2000 and the lease on the Clarington
Transfer Station with Canadian Waste expires December 31,2002.
The proposed Pilot Project involves substantial investment on behalf of the various parties
involved. In order to make the project economically viable, a minimum of 3 year's operation is
required.
3.3 Critical Path
In order for the Pilot Project to achieve the desired results, it is imperative that certain dates and
criteria be met. Without the critical path being met, then the Pilot Project becomes less attractive.
1 1 1 7
, REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 7
In particular, delays in timing would result in capital investments being written off at an
accelerated rate, resulting in increased costs to operate the program.
Further to the critical path time constraints, the ideal time to terminate the Pilot Project is the
early spring of the year 2002. The Region of Durham Blue Box collection program terminates at
approximately that time, along with the Region contract for processing the blue box materials.
Clarington's contract for waste collection also expires in that time frame. Critical dates are
proposed as follows:
Report WD-36-98 (FORTHWITH)
Region Approval (In Principle)
Region Authorization
Tender Call
Tender Award
Wet/Dry Implementation
Wet/Dry Pilot Project Termination
June 22, 1998
June 30, 1998
September 9, 1998
September 16, 1998
October 19, 1998
April 30, 1999
April 30, 2002
4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff have investigated and find that the Wet/Dry process is feasible and a Pilot Project of 3 years,
terminating at approximately the same time as the Miller Waste contracts with the Region of
Durham, would be advisable.
Staff have found that the Dry stream can be processed for costs ranging from as low as $50 per
tonne to a high of $78. Processing would take place at various facilities located from as close as
Oshawa to as far away as Aylmer, Ontario.
Staff are of the opinion that, if given approval to proceed, the Wet may be processed in either of
two methods. One being compo sting or secondly pellitizing as done by the Thermo-Tech process
in the Northwood Recycling Facility.
As well, costs for the Wet vary from $50 to $78, however, in some of the scenarios,
transportation costs would be extra.
1 8
, REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
PAGE 8
Staff investigations have found that a marked increase in the landfill diversion rate would be
achieved, increasing from the 24% currently achieved by the blue box and yard waste to as high
as 80%.
The costs of disposal will be much less than the $96 per tonne, which is the approved rate for
1999 to be charged by the Region of Durham.
The anticipated drawback to the Wet/Dry process is the increased costs of collection. The actual
amount of the increase depends on the location of the tipping facility, and is subject to
negotiations after all the various cost factors have been confirmed.
If the Pilot Project is approved by the Region of Durham, staff, upon receiving direction from
Council and being given the authority, will then report back to Council and make specific
recommendations as to how the wet/dry process be put in place in keeping with the critical path
laid out in this Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by
~v~
Stephen A. Vokes, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works
~
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
SA V*DP*ce
1 1 1 9
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALI1Y OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION 'COMMITTEE
File #
Res, #
By-Law #
Date:
MARCH 23, 1998
Report #:
HD 20 ~O File #:
Subject:
WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-20-98 be received;
2. THAT Council petition the Region of Durham to allow the
Municipality of Clarington to assume the responsibility for
waste disposal in Clarington;
Y'
3.
THAT Council endorse the "wet/dry" waste management concept;
and
,
--
4.
THAT Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer ~nd
appropriate staff to investigate the opportunities open for
Clarington to enter into a wet/dry waste management program.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
x
No.1:
"A Study of Waste Management Services and Options
for the Municipality of Clarington" by Russell
Environmental Services
t
...
NO.2:
Proposed Preliminary 1998 Solid Waste Management
Budget Summary
,.,'
MfC.CllD I;I;'\ "."'flll
P""IIlI~.ti;"Cl(
H..s6f'll1O{trDc..R(CrClID".v't~ 1
r) rl
(.,
ATTACHMENT NO.: 1
REPORT NO.: WD-36-98
REPORT NO.: WD-20-98
PAGE 2
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 In February of 1991, the Minister of Environment and Energy
announced a plan aimed at reducing the amount of waste going
to landfill, by at least 50%, by the year 2000 as compared to
the base year of 1987.
2.2 The Region of Durham recently released Joint Report #98-J-3
recommending that the Region reduce the amount of
subsidization for waste management programs in 1998 and
eliminate it completely for 1999. The recommendations
contained in Joint Report #98-J-3 will have a major impact on
the cost of waste disposal to the Municipality of Clarington.
The proposed change in the Waste System Rate from $63 per
tonne to $86 per tonne represents a 36.5% increase in cost.
This cost increase becomes particularly significant when one
considers that the Municipality of Clarington has facilitated
the purchase and construction of our own transfer station
which the Region utilizes at the cost of $66.57 per tonne for
all municipal tonnes entering the station. Owning it's own
transfer station makes Clarington unique among other
municipalities within the Region of Durham.
The $63 per tonne fee is included in the flat rate of $101
charged on the municipality's 1997" tax -bill. The flat rate
charge is made up of a municipal charge of $42 for collection
and $59 for disposal, recycling and composting.
11 2 1
REPORT NO.: WD-20-98
PAGE 3
2.3 Since January of 1998, residential waste is now being accepted
at the Municipality of Clarington's Transfer Station.
Canadian Waste Services is in contract with the Municipality
of Clarington to operate the Transfer Station.
2.4 On Monday, February 16, 1998, at a regular meeting of the
General Purpose and Administration Committee, Committee passed
Resolution #GPA-118-98 which states:
"THAT, in light of proposed changes to the Region of
Durham's Solid Waste Management System, a consultant be
retained, FORTHWITH, by the Municipality to do an
independent audit of the Municipality's present
operations as well as identifying other options that
Clarington may consider regarding the handling and
disposal of all municipal wastei"
,
"'.
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3.1 Russell Environmental Services
Russell Environmental Services was hired by the Municipality
of Clarington to review the current waste management services
that are being offered to the residents of Clarington and to
identify other options the municipality may consider for the
handling and processing of all municipal waste. The study
from Russell Environmental Services, as set out in Attachment
No.1, includes the following:
~--
(
'---
",-.
~.'
-..
~:
Part 1:
Executive Summary and Introduction
ic;
Part 2:
An analysis of the current waste management
services that are being offered in the municipality
and compares the costs of providing those services
I
with the costs being incurred in other similar
municipalities.
t;
...
f
~/
':'
,...
11 22
REPORT NO.: WD-20-98
PAGE 4
Part 3:
Other options that the municipality may wish to
consider for the hand~ing and processing of
municipal waste, and compares those programs on the
basis of waste diversion and the cost to provide
the service.
Part 4:
Study conclusions as well as suggested next steps
which may be considered by the Municipality of
Clarington in developing their waste management
strategy.
3.2 As outlined in the Russell Report, the Region of Durham's
overhead for managing municipal waste is estimated at 11.8% of
the total billable tonnes of waste that are handled by the
Region of Durham. The majority of this Regional overhead
covers a proportionate share of the Region's Finance, Human
Resources, Legal and Information Services departments. This
overhead would not be necessary if the service were provided
at the municipal level by Clarington.
The Region of Durham Act gi yes the authori ty and
responsibility for disposal of waste to the Region of Durham.
The Russell Report points out that savings could be achieved
if the Municipality of Clarington were given the
responsibility for disposal of municipal waste. Being in the
unique position of owning a transfer station, the Municipality
of Clarington is capable of providing all of its own waste
management systems.
3.3 With the Transfer Station in operation, royalty revenues are
being received by the municipality on a monthly basis from the
Transfer Station for waste received over and above
Clarington's own residential waste. Since the property is
owned by the municipality, a monthly rent fee is also
1123
REPORT NO.: WD-20-98 PAGE 5
collected from Canadian Waste Services. The budgeted revenue
in 1998 for these fees is $37,000. ,
3.4 To achieve the goal of reducing the amount of waste going to
landfill by 50% by the year 2000 as compared to the base year
of 1987, the Russell Report identifies that there are more
efficient methods of collecting municipal waste than the
programs currently in operation within the municipality (i.e.
wet/dry waste processing). An explanation of the specifics of
a wet/dry waste management system is given in Section 3.0,
page 13, of the Russell Report.
4.0
4.1
CONCLUSION
~
The Municipality of Clarington's waste diversion rate, through
the Regional diversion programs, is presently holding at 24%.
If Clarington continues with the existing program, it is not
expected that the municipality will meet the proyincial goal
of 50% diversion from landfill by the year 2000.
tt -~
'Y
If the Region of Durham allows Clarington full responsibility
for disposal of municipal waste, an analysis of four different
waste management systems by Russell Environmental Services
indicates that a full wet/dry waste management system lS
preferred both on the basis of cost and waste diversion. It
is concluded that Council should petition the Region of Durham
to give the Municipality of Clarington authority to assume the
responsibility for waste disposal in Clarington.
;i...
~
*-,
r
(
1:,
J"'
Under Option 3, the Municipality of Clarington would fully
assume the responsibility for all waste management programs
and implement a system involving dry waste processing
(collection and disposal) and only disposal of wet waste. It.
is our understanding that the County of Northumberland
Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is operating with
I
...
~.
r-
-
r-1
L "t
REPORT NO.: WD-20-98
PAGE 6
considerable spare capacity that would allow Clarington to
immediately dispose of their dry waste at this location. Wet
waste would continue to be processed through the
Municipality's transfer station. It is recommended that staff
be authorized, based on Option 3, to investigate and pursue
the opportunities open for Clarington to enter into a wet/dry
waste management program.
Region authority for Clarington to assume the responsibility
for waste disposal, when combined with the other above
mentioned recommendations, should greatly increase waste
diversion from landfill, as well as achieve considerable cost
savings for the Municipality.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
~.V~
Step en A. Vokes, P. Eng.
Director of Public Works
/f~
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative Officer
~_.
. ie Marano, H.BSc. ,AMCT.,
Treasurer
GA*SAV*ce
March 18, 1998
Attachments (2)
125
AllA~n~ill~l ~V. 1
REPORT NO. WD-21-98
A STUDY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AND OPTIONS FOR THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
~
1_' ~~
. .,~-~~ '
.. ".'. ... -- .-.
..
~
~~.
~
f
l
{
Iii;
r
--
March 1998
Russell Environmental Services
51 Forest Hill Drive
Cobourg, Ontario K9A 4J9
tel: (905) 372-1424
fax: (905) 372-3757
to
or
t
...
!~h
Executive Summary
Responsibility and authority for providing waste management services
within the Municipality of Clarington is shared between the regional and
municipal levels of government. The Region of Durham administers
programs for wasfe disposal, blue box recycling, household hazardous
waste, and leaf and yard waste composting. Clarington provides services
for the collection of municipal waste, yard waste and Christmas trees.
Clarington also owns and contracts for the operation of a transfer site.
The Region of Durham recently released Report 9B-J--3 which recommends
that the Region reduce the amount of subsidization for waste management
programs in 1998, and eliminate it completely in 1999. This would result
in a $23 per tonne (36.5%) increase in disposal and recycling rates
effective January 1998, and a further $7 per tonne (11%) increase effective
January 1999.
The true cost of each of the waste management programs being
administered by the Region of Durham is as follows:
~ $90 per tonne for waste disposal
~ $75 per tonne for blue box collection and processing
~ $182 per tonne for transfer stations and household hazardous
waste
~ $64 per tonne for yard waste composting
The Region of Durham is proposing that the standard waste management
fee for all of the above programs be $86 per tonne in 1998.
Based on this proposed rate of $86 per tonne, the cost per household for
waste management programs in the Municipality of Clarington will be close
to benchmarked costs that were calculated from data from over 60 similar
municipalities. Clarington would incur a slightly higher than average cost
for waste disposal and waste collection, and a slightly lower than average
cost for recycling and composting.
i";7
I 1.._ ;
-
The fol/owing options for waste management systems were analyzed on
the basis of cost and waste diversion:
1. Continuing with the existing system for waste disposal, blue box
recycling, yard waste composting, transfer stations and collection.
2. Continuing with the Regional diversion programs, but contracting
directly for the disposal of municipal garbage.
3. Providing aI/ waste management services on a municipal level
including "dry" waste processing and disposal of "wer waste.
4.
Providing aI/ waste management services on a municipal level,
including "wer and "dry" waste processing.
The last option, whereby Glarington would contract for a full wet/dry
processing system, was determined to be the lowest cost and to have the
highest potential for waste diversion.
,.--
.
L
?
l'
~~
~-
,
'"
...
r
:
~
l
f
......
}:.
.,
, I L. 0
Executive Summary
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION........ ..................... .......... ......... ............... ............ ....... ....... ............ ..1
2.0 ANAL YSI S OF CURRENT SYSTEM. ........................................... .............................3
2.1 Region of Durham Costs........................ ............................................... ..........4
2.2 Waste Disposal......................... ................. ........ ...... ....................... .......... .......7
2.3 Blue Box Recycling.................. .................. .....................................................9
2.4 Yard Waste Composting..................................................... .......................... 1 0
2.5 Household Hazardous Waste................................ .......................................10
2.6 Waste Collection... ..... ......... .... ................ ............... ............... ........... .............11
3.0 OPTIONS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.............................................13
3.1 Continue with the Existing System........... ............ .... ...................... .......... ... ..14
3.2 Contracting Garbage DisposaL................. ......................................... ......... .16
3.3 Contracting for Dry Waste Processing! Wet Waste Disposal.......................17
3.4 Contracting for Wet and Dry Waste Processing...........................................19
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS................................................... ........... .........23
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
Waste Collection CosUhouseholdlyear........... ........................... ............ ..12
Annual Cost of Existing Waste Management System..............................15
Annual Cost of System with Clarington Contracting
For Garbage DisposaL....:.......................................16
Annual Cost for Dry Waste Processingl Wet Waste Disposal.................19
Annual Cost for Wet and Dry Waste Processing.....................................20
Comparison of Waste Management Systems......................................... .23
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 True Cost for Waste Services....................................................................8
FIGURE 2 Comparison of Waste Management Systems..........................................22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: List of Municipalities Used in Benchmarking Exercise
1')0
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Glaring/on
Russell Environmental Services
-
~~.-"'-~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Clarington is located in the Region of Durham, 80 kilometres
east of the City of Toronto. The Municipality was formed by the amalgamation of
the former communities of Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Courtice and the
Townships of Darlington and Clarke. Clarington is a mix offast-growing urban
areas, and open rural areas. The current population of Clarington is
approximately 60,615 people rePresenting 19,800 households. The land area
covers 576 square kilometres.
There are a variety of waste management services available to the residents of
Clarington including weekly garbage collection, bulky waste pickup, biweekly
blue box collection, yard waste collection, and household hazardous waste
drop~ff depots. Responsibility and authority for providing waste management
services within Clarington is split between the Region of Durham and the
Municipality of Clarington. The Region administers programs for waste disposal,
blue box recycling, household hazardous waste, and leaf and yard waste
composting. C!arington provides services for the collection of municipal waste,
yard waste and Christmas trees. Clarington also owns and contracts for the
operation of a transfer site.
The Region of Durham recently released Report 98-J-3 The Annual Review of
the Solid Waste Management System and the Applicable 1998 Preliminary
Current and Capital Budgets and Related Finandng. Report 98-J-3 indicates
that in 1997, almost 40% of the cost of the waste management programs
administered by the Region was funded from a solid waste management reserve
fund. As of January 1998, the reserve fund has been reduced to $8.2 million. If
the current level of subsidization continues, the fund will be depleted in just over
a year. This would result in a significant increase in waste management costs
with no reserve fund for the development of long term waste facilities. The main
recommendation of Report 98-J-3 is that the Region reduce the amount of
subsidization for waste management programs in 1998, and eliminate it
completely in 1999. This would result in a $23 per tonne (36.5%) increase in
disposal and recycling rates effective January 1998, and a further $7 per tonne
(11 %) increase effective 'January 1999.
1
130
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Claring/on
Russell Environmental Services
----;::;--.._~._-~
Subsequent to the release of Report 98-J-3, the Municipality of Clarington
commissioned this study to review the current waste management services that
are being offered to the residents of Clarington and to identify other options the
municipality may consider for the handling and processing of all municipal
waste.
Part 2 of this report provides an analysis of the current waste management
services that are being offered in the municipality and compares the costs of
providing those services with the costs being incurred in other similar
municipalities. Part 3 outlines other options that the municipality may wish to
consider for the handling and processing of municipal waste, and compares
those programs on the basis of waste diversion and the cost to provide the
service. Study conclusions are reported in Part 4, as well as suggested next
steps which may be considered by the Municipality of Clarington in developing
their waste management strategy.
2
1 1" 1
J
A Study of Waste Management Services Russell Environmental Services
and Options for the Municipality of Glaring/on
~- '~1 IL~
2.0 ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM
The analysis of the current waste management system includes a review of both
the costs incurred for waste management programs at the Regional level, as
well as the fees that the Municipality of Clarington pays for waste management
programs. Section 2.1 reviews the Regional waste management budget to
determine the costs that are included in the standardized waste management
fees and to determine the "true cosf of each of the Regional programs. The
remaining sections compare the costs for waste management programs being
incurred by the Municipality of Clarington with benchmarked costs from similar
municipalities in the Province of Ontario. This comparison is based on the
proposed 1998 waste management fee of $86 per tonne. It has been
recommended that waste management fee be further increased to $93 per tonne
in 1999.
l'
The current waste management system for the Municipality of Clarington has
been analyzed under the broad topics of waste disposal, blue box recycling,
yard waste composting, household hazardous waste, and waste collection. The
costs that will be incurred by the Municipality of Clarington with an $86/tonne
standard waste management fee have been calculated on a per household
basis. These costs were then compared to benchmarked costs that were
developed by R. Cave and Associates and Ernst & Young in 1997, and are
reprinted here with permission from Richard Cave. Data from over 60
municipalities of comparable size and urban/rural mix to that of the Municipality
of Clarington was incorporated into the calculation of these benchmarked costs.
The list of municipalities that were included in the benchmarking exercise are
included in Appendix A
" ,
L
The waste management program in the Municipality of Clarington consists of a
curbside blue box program for recyclables, collection and composting of yard
waste, and disposal of the remaining waste stream. Residents also have access
to transfer stations that accept general waste materials and household
hazardous wastes. In 1997, a total of 17,233 tonnes of waste was handled by
the municipal system, of which 19% was recycled, 5% was composted, and the
remaining 76% was landfilled. The waste that is dropped off by the public at
transfer stations is not included. in the diversion rate calculatio!ls for the purpose
of this report.
r
~
I
~
3
l:: '~,
r
...
1 132
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
--'~."~,'
The Municipality of Clarington is somewhat unique in that it contains a fairly
large rural area, yet is in close proximity to the main urban centre of Ontario. For
this reason the municipality offers a standard of waste service that is not typical
of most rural. municipalities. All of the 19,800 households receive weekly
garbage collection, biweekly blue box collection and frequent yard waste
collections. The high cost of providing curbside collections in rural areas
discourages many rural municipalities from offering these services. This should
be kept in mind when comparing the cost of the Clarington waste management
programs with the bench marked costs for other municipalities.
2.1 REGION OF DURHAM COSTS
The Proposed Preliminary 1998 Solid Waste Management Budget Summary for
the Region of Durham is included in Report 98-J-3. This budget outlines the
anticipated costs for the Region of Durham to handle a total of 171,160 billable
tonnes of material in 1998, which consists of:
~ 119,470 tonnes of municipal solid waste
~ 26,170 tonnes of municipal recyclables
~ 8,520 tonnes of municipal compostables
~ 17,000 tonnes of materials accepted at transfer stations and other
facilities
In the Region of Durham the costs for handling and disposal of the above waste
quantities is charged to each of the municipalities based on a standard waste
management rate for each tonne of waste generated. Even though each of the
programs costs a different amount to implement, the Region standardizes the
cost which results in one tipping fee which is used for all of the programs. The
same fee is charged for the disposal of waste, the collection and processing of
recyclables, and composting of yard waste. This section will determine the "true
cost" of each of these programs without standardization or subsidization. The
various components of the costs for the programs will also be determined.
. I
4'
]33
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
~ ~ -
Disposal
The Region anticipates that the cost of landfilling municipal solid waste in 1998
will be $8,750,000. This works out to $73 per tonne, which is made up of the
following:
· $48 'per tonne for disposal at landfill
· $24 per tonne for hauling to landfill
· $1.60 per tonne for care of closed landfills
Blue Box Program
The net cost for the 1998 blue box program for Durham Region has been
estimated at $1,510,100 or $58 per tonne, which consists of the following:
.
$103 per tonne for collection
$46 per tonne for processing
less $91 per tonne revenue from material sales
.
..
.
::. ~-
Composting
'\::".-.
The total cost budgeted by the Region of Durham for yard waste composting in
1998 is $400,500. This cost is for processing 8520 tonnes of yard waste
expected to be delivered to the composting site, at $47 per tonne. Each
municipality is responsible for the collection of compostable yard waste from
within its municipality.
~ '
Transfer Stations
~
~
To'
r
k.
The Region operates four transfer stations that accept commercial and
residential waste as well as household hazardous waste. The Region also has
an agreement to allow residents to use a privately owned transfer site in
Pickering/Ajax. Although some user fees are charged for the materials accepted
at the transfer stations, most of the material is brought in free to the generator.
I..
Ii
r
The net cost of operating the ~nsfer sites, after deducting user fees and the
sale of materials is $2,802,000 or $165 per tonne of billable waste. This high
.'
L
5
~
r-
r
~
134
A Study of Waste Management Services Russell Environmental Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
- -~-
cost is due to the fact that the sites accept household hazardous waste, which
typically represents a small quantity of waste by volume but is very costly for
proper handling and disposal. Because the cost per tonne for the transfer
station waste is so high, part of this cost is billed to the municipalities at the
standard waste management rate, while $1,340,021 of transfer station cost is
included in the development of the standard waste management fee.
For the sake of developing true costs for waste management services, all of the
transfer station costs are included in this section. The breakdown of the cost for
transfer stations is:
~ $67 per tonne for transfer station operations
~ $142 per tonne for transfer and disposal
~ less $44 per tonne revenue from material sales and user fees
General Overhead Costs
There are additional administrative and general costs that are not outlined in the
above discussion of program costs. These general costs include regional
overhead, facilities management, waste reduction education & promotion, and
capital program costs. The Regional overhead costs amount to 11.8% of the
overall waste management budget
The general overhead costs total $2,995,000 which is being spread across the
171,160 billable tonnes of waste that are handled by the Region of Durham. The
general costs are $17 per tonne of billable waste as follows:
~ $11 per tonne for regional overhead
~ $2 per tonne for facilities management
~ $1 per tonne for waste reduction education & promotion
~ $3 per tonne for capital program
True Cost of Programs
To calculate the true cost of each of the Regional programs, the general costs
are added to the specific program costs. The resultant true cost of each of the
programs being administered by the Region is as follows:
6
1 i 35
J'"
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
~~:...:~~::~
~ $90 per tonne for disposal
~ $75 per tonne for blue box collection and processing
~ $182 per tonne for transfer stations and household hazardous waste
~ $64 per tonne for yard waste composting
The cost for collection i~ built in to true cost of blue box recycling, whereas the
cost of collection is over and above the costs listed for garbage disposal and
yard waste composting.
On a per tonne basis the operation of transfer stations, which includes the
household hazardous waste program, is the highest cost program. Although
hazardous waste collection programs typically are high cost and low yield, it is
important to offer an alternative to disposing of toxic materials in with the regular
garbage or sewage systems.
~
The costs for recycling and composting in the ,Region of Durham are significantly
less than the cost for disposal. Overall waste management costs can therefore
be decreased by increasing the material going to diversion programs. Incentives
such as public education and promotion that help to increase the amount of
recycling and composting should be supported as they will also help to reduce
overall waste management costs.
r.
The true costs of the waste management programs are shown in Figure 1.
2.2 WASTE DISPOSAL
'- ,
I
Waste disposal involves either depositing waste directly in an approved landfill
site, or taking waste to a transfer station to be unloaded, then compacted into a
transport vehicle to haul the waste to an approved site. There is just one
operating landfill in the Region of Durham, and it accepts waste only from the
Township of Brock. The remaining waste from the Region is delivered to various
transfer stations. and is then hauled either to the Keele Valley Landfill. or to the
Canadian Waste Site in Napanee.
~
(
tr
~- j
The Municipality of Clarington owns and contracts the operation of a transfer
station that is located near the intersection of Hwy 115 and Hwy 401 in the
Municipality of Clarington. Canadian Waste Systems (CWS) operates the site
7
~~j
..-
.'
r:
,
,
..,
i '; /
1.)0
1
--I 0>
c:
+-'
(/)
1 0
a.
E
(/) I 0
Q) u
~
en 0>
c - 01
Q) It::
'3 "0
0 as c ~
"- .c ~ EI
2:
0
-II (/)
Q) c
en 0
~
ca
-
Q) (/)
E L-
+-' ~ (J)
en -
(J)
CO CO I c:
S .c I CO
as L-
.....
... c: ~
::s 0 ]1
1- 0) .....
~ C CO
C .....
.. (/) ]1
'I- (/) L- 0>
......, 0 Q)
en 0 Q. 't; c:
0 E c: ~I <3
c 0 as >.
() (.) L- (.)
..... ~ Q)
0 .91 L-
a> -- 1111 x
C) "- 0
:J ~I .0
1- Q) Q)
J- ~ :J
]1 ..0
c:
0 0
~ .. ~I
as
L-
Q) ..... ~
(/) &l.
1- c: (J)
.....
:J "E (I)
0
0> "0 0 CO
0- ~ 0> (I)
u.. 0
m c a.
L- (.) (f)
Q)
c: >. :0
Q) (.)
Q)
0> L-
... II I
...
... I I
I I
0 0 0 0 ,
0
0 1.0 0 1.0
N ....... .......
($) aUUOl Jad lS08
37
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
~-~~
and charges a rate of $66.25 per tonne to the Region of Durham for waste that is
brought in from the Municipality of Clarington. The Region then charges
I
Clarington the standard waste management rate for municipal waste.
Report #98-J-3 recommends that the standard waste management rate be $86
per tonne effective January 1, 1998 with a further increase to $93 per tonne in
1999. It is expected that the Municipality of Clarington will generate 13,490
tonnes of municipal waste in 1998 to be sent to landfill. Based on a disposal fee
of $86 per tonne, this will represent a cost of $58.59 per household. The
bench marked cost for waste disposal developed by Cave & Associates is $49.15
per household. The benchmark figure was developed based on data from 50
Ontario municipalities that are similar to Clarington.
~
The reason that a municipality would have a high cost per household for waste
disposal is either that it generates a lot of waste per household, or the cost to
dispose of the waste is higher than average. The Municipality of Clarington
generated 217 kg of waste per resident in 1997. This was the lowest waste
generation rate per capita of any of the municipalities within the Region of
Durham, and is 20% lower than the regional average. It is expected that the
main reason that the disposal cost per household in Clarington is higher than the
calculated benchmarked cost is because there are no local landfill sites that can
be used by Clarington which results in extra costs for transferring and hauling of
the waste.
,...
!
L
2.3 BLUE BOX RECYCLING
i..,-.
~
The Region of Durham provides a source separated recycling program to the
residents of the Municipality of Clarington. Certain materials are separated from
regular waste by the residents and picked up in a blue box in front of their home
every other week. The items included in the Durham recycling program are
newspapers, magazines, mixed papers, boxboard, glass bottles and jars, PET
plastic bottles, metal food and beverage containers, aluminum pie plates, and
cardboard. In 1997, the cost charged to the municipalities for collection and
processing of recyclables was $63 per tonne. The Region has recommended
that this charge be increased to $86 per tonne in 1998 and $93 per tonne in
I 1999.
....
y
,
:.
l._
I
~
t.~
9
~
~
~
".'
1 ' -, 8
. I j
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Claring/on
Russell Environmental Services
~ .-
Based on a recycling fee of $86 per tonne, and an expected recycling tonnage of
3,360, the annual cost for the 1998 curbside recycling program in Clarington
would be $288,960 or $14.59 per household. This cost compares favourably to
the 1996 benchmarked cost for collection and processing of recyc/ab/es of
$20.04 per household. One of the likely reasons for the low cost of the Durham
program is the fact that the program provides a bi-weekly collection as opposed
to weekly collection which is common in most municipalities. Also, the Durham
program has not expanded to include a number of the newly recyclable items
such as plastic film, mixed plastics, and waxed cartons that currently have a low
market value, therefore the program can obtain a higher overall market value for
materials processed.
2.4 YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
The Region of Durham has a contract to process yard waste that is delivered to
the regional yard waste composting site. The Region then charges the ~rea
municipality the standard waste management rate for the yard waste that they
bring in. Report #98-J-3 recommends that the tipping fee for municipal yard
waste be $86 per tonne effective January 1998, and $93 per tonne in 1999. The
municipalities are responsible for the administration and the cost for the
collection of the yard waste.
It is expected that the Municipality of Clarington will collect 800 tonnes of yard
waste for composting in 1998. Based on the proposed composting fee of $86 per
tonne, this would cost a total of $68,800 or $3.47 per household. This cost
again compares favourab/y to the benchmarked cost from 9 similar municipalities
for yard waste composting, which is $5.11 per household.
2.5 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
Residents of the Municipality of Clarington can take small quantities (less than
100 kilograms) of waste materials to the Regional transfer sites free of charge.
These sites accept household hazardous wastes along with other materials such
as wood, brush, drywall and tires. Each municipality is assessed a portion of the
cost of operating the transfer st~tions. The Municipality of C/arington is
assessed 5.62% of the billable transfer station cost, which will amount to
10
1 139
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarif1fton
Russell Environmental Services
~:
$97,480 in 1998 or $4.92 per household. It is difficult to separate out how much
of this cost is for disposal of non-hazardous items and how much is for dealing
with hazardous waste products.
The 1996 benchmarked cost for household hazardous waste programs in rural
areas that was developed by R. Cave is $0.61 per household. This cost is
significantly less than the cost per household that is being incurred for the
operation of transfer stations in the Municipality of Clarington. A further review of
the costs that are being charged for transfer stations would be necessary to
determine the reason for the cost of this program being so high.
2.6 WASTE COLLECTION
The Municipality of Clarington is fully responsible for the collection of municipal
waste and yard waste within its boundaries. Clarington has a very high level of
collection service compared to other similar municipalities.
The Municipality provides weekly curbside collection of residential garbage to
approximately 19,800 stops. Multi-residential units up to 6 apartments are also
included in the municipal collection. There is a maximum number of bags per
set-out of 4, and the maximum bag weight is 50 pounds. Appliances and bulky
waste may also be set out for collection. As part of the collection contract,
Canadian Waste Services prepares and distributes a high quality calendar that
outlines special collection days and provides other waste management
promotion and education to the residents.
A total of 23 yard waste collections are held during the year for the residents of
Clarington. There are weekly collections of yard waste during the spring and fall,
bi-monthly collections in the summer, and a special collection during the winter
for Christmas trees. There is no limit to the number of bags of yard waste
collected, however grass clippings are not to be included in the pickup.
Clarington contracts to Canadian Waste Services (CWS) for the collection of
municipal waste and yard waste. The cost for this service is as follows:
~ $2.97 per stop per month for garbage collei.:tion
~ $.245 per stop for yard waste collection
11
-
; : 40
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
--- ~~)~
~ $4000 lump sum for christmas tree pick up
The cost for garbage collection in the Municipality of Clarington is $35.64 per
household. Cave & Associates determined that the 1996 bench marked cost for
waste collection from 32 urban programs was $28.90 per household, and the
cost for collection from 13 rural municipalities was $33.38 per household. The
cost for coll~ction in the Municipality of Clarington is indicative of the high level
of waste collection service being offered to the residents.
Table 1 outlines the cost Per household for the Municipality of Clarington
compared to other surrounding municipalities.
Table1: Waste Collection Costslhouseholdlyear
Municipality Cost per
household
Clarington $35.64
-. '.-.
Pickering $26.99
Ajax $31.09
Whitby $39.11
Oshawa $46.31
Scugog $40.65
Uxbridge $46.95
Brock $21.68*
Benchmark (urban) $28.90
Benchmark (ruraQ $33.38
*delivered to Brock Landfill
Although Clarington provides waste collection to all of the urban and rural
residents of the municipality, several of the surrounding municipalities such as
Oshawa and Scugog do not provide waste collection to the more rural residents.
These residents take their waste themselves to one of the Regional transfer
stations. LikewisE3 several of the rural municipalities surveyed for the
benchmarking exercise do not provide collection services to all municipal
residents.
12
1 1 4 1
! I I
A Study of Waste Management Services Russell Environmental Services
and Options for the Municipal;(y of Clarington
""""""" ~:=--
3.0 OPTIQNSEQR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
This section will review a number of options that the Municipality of Clarington
may wish to consider for providing waste management services. Each of these
options will be analyzed on the basis of waste diversion and the cost to provide
the service. The options that will be considered are:
,
:
~ .
1.
Continuing with the existing system for waste disposal, blue box
recycling, yard waste composting, transfer stations and collection.
2. Continuing with the Regional diversion programs, but contracting directly
for the disposal of municipal garbage.
3. Providing all waste management services on a municipal level, including
"dry" waste processing and disposal of "wer waste.
i
4.
Providing all waste management services on a municipal level, including
"wer and "dry" waste processing. 0"
r'
{
.....
Options 3 and 4 involve implementing a wet/dry waste management system.
,
What is a wet/dry waste management system?
~ -/
A wet/dry waste management system is simple and has the goal of recovering
as much useable material as possible from the waste stream. Residents
separate their waste products into two different types - wet and dry. Wet waste
is any material that is organic in nature, such as food and yard wastes, as well
as materials such as soiled papers, floor sweepings and ashes. These materials
can be converted into useable products through biological processing such as
composting. The remaining materials are dry wastes, which includes traditional
recyclables such as paper, plastics, glass and cans, along with newly recyclable
materials such as clothing, milk cartons, and tetra pak containers. The
processing of both streams involves separating out the contaminates that are
neither compostable or recyclable. These contaminates are the process residual
which is then sent to landfill.
1$;"
i
..
There are a few municipalities in Ontario that currently operate weUdry recycling
13
142
A Study of Waste Management SeNices Russell Environmental Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
~=~::::..: ..~
programs. The City of Guelph conducted several years of pilot testing prior to
constructing a full weUdry facility in 1995. Northumberland County has been
collecting waste in a wet/dry system since 1996, but is currently processing just
the dry waste and landfilling the wet stream. The City of Sl Thomas and the
Town of Alymer also operate variations of wet/dry waste management systems.
The two distinct waste streams are placed in blue boxes, coloured bags or carts
depending on the preferred type of collection container chosen by the
municipality.
Municipalities that utilize a weUdry waste management system otten collect both
the wet and dry materials on one truck that is separated into two compartments.
This system of collection is called co-collectian and helps to alleviate the high
cost of sending out two or more separate collection vehicles. Specially
fabricated co-collection vehicles can be utilized, or regular garbage collection
vehicles can be converted into two-compartment vehicles by the addition of a
separation plate.
Converting to a wet/dry waste management system involves extensive public
education to ensure that all residents are aware of the changes that are
occurring in the waste system and how me changes will affect the way in which
they prepare their garbage. Additional costs in the range of $60,000 should be
budgeted for advertising and promotion for the first year that the program is
operating. These costs are not included in this analysis as they are not ongoing
annual costs.
The information that has been used in analyzing Options 3 and 4 has been
derived mainly from data obtained from the City of Guelph and the County of
Northumberland.
The results of the analysis of the various waste management systems is
illustrated in Figure 2, which can be found at the end of this section.
3.1 Continue with the Existing System
The waste management system that is operating in the Region of Durham is
fairly typical of most Ontario mU!1icipalities. The program sCems to be accepted
by the residents of the municipality, and there are few restrictions on types or
14
1 1 4.)
...
A study of Waste Management SeNices
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental SeNices
~ -.;;;:: ~
quantities of waste set out for collection.
In 1997, the Municipality of Clarington achieved a waste diversion rate of 24%,
which is considerably better than the overall provincial recycling rate of 15% of
the residential waste stream (as per the Ministry of the Environment). However,
if Claringt~n continues with the existing program, it is not expected that the
municipality will meet the provincial goal of 50% diversion from landfill or
incineration by the year 2000.
As shown in Part 2 of this report, the costs for the existing program are close to
benchmarked costs from other municipalities, with a higher than average cost for
waste disposal, and a lower than average cost for recycling and composting.
The total system cost for 1998, based on a $86 per tonne waste management
fee, is expected to be $2,422,072. It is important to note that these costs are
expected to increase in 1999 as a result of the proposed waste management fee
increase to $93 per tonne.
~-'
,
L
These costs do not include incidental expenses such as clean up of illegal
dumping, waste receptacles, and advertising which would be equivalent for each
option.
T bl 2
IC
f~. t' '^'
M
t S t
~<
a e : Annua ost 0 IS Ing aste anaQemen ivsem
Program Annual Cost! Annual Cost
Tonnes tonne
Waste Disposal 13,490 $86 $ 1;160,140
Blue Box Recycling 3,360 $86 $ 288,960
Yard Waste Composting 800 $86 $ 68,800
Transfer Stations 1,133 $86 $ 97,480
Yard Waste Collection 800 $126 $ 101,020
Waste Collection 13,490 $52 $ 705,672
Total $ 2,422,072
~>.;
F
~:
...
15
~,
r
*"
1 1 4 4
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
--==::".:.:'~~..~
3.2 Contracting Garbage Disposal
Clarington has the advantage of owning and operating its own transfer station.
This allows the municipality added flexibility in providing different options for
disposal of municipal waste. Clarington currently has a contract with Canadian
Waste Systems (CWS) to operate the tr~nsfer station, and Clarington is
responsible'for the administration of the site. CWS accepts municipal waste from
the municipality for a tipping fee of $66.25 (plus GST) which covers transfer,
hauling and disposal of the waste at the CWS landfill site in Napanee. The
Region currently pays the tipping fee to CWS and then charges Clarington the
standard waste management fee for waste disposal.
If the Region of Durham allowed Clarington full responsibility for disposal of
municipal waste, the municipality would be able to contract for transfer station
operations directly, and pay the actual cost for this service. The Region would
continue to charge Clarington for any waste that passes through any of the
Regional recycling, composting or other waste management facilities.
Table 3: Annual Cost of System with Clarington Contracting for Garbage
D. I
Isposa
Program Annual Cost! Annual Cost
Tonnes tonne
Waste Disposal 13,490 $68* $ 917,320
Blue Box Recycling 3,360 $86 $ 288,960
Yard Waste Composting 800 $86 $ 68,800
Transfer Stations 1,133 $86 $ 97,438
Yard Waste Collection 800 $126 $ 101,020
Waste Collection 13,490 $52 $ 705,672
Total $ 2,179,210
'---
I *includes GST net rebate
16
1 1 45
-
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipalffy of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
.-----
~~
The annual costs to Clarington would be decreased by 10% to $2,179,210 as a
result of the lower waste disposal cost.
The waste diversion rate for this option would be the same as with the existing
system, and it would be unlikely that Clarington would achieve 50% diversion
from landfill by the year 2000.
3.3 Contracting for Dry Waste ProcessinglWet Waste Disposal
Clarington may wish to investigate the option of implementing a weUdry waste
management system in order to increase the amount of waste being diverted
from landfill. Under this option the Municipality of Clarington would fully assume
the responsibility for all waste management programs and implement a system
involving dry waste processing and disposal of wet waste.
'""'-
The County of Northumberland owns and operates a dry waste processing plant
just east of Cobourg which is licenced to accept waste from the Region of
Durham. This section discusses the option of taking all of Clarington's dry waste
to the Northumberland MRF but continuing to dispose of the wet waste with
Canadian Waste Services. Clarington could administer programs directly for
household hazardous waste and yard waste composting.
r
.....
~: ~
The total quantity of municipal waste (excluding yard waste. which would
continue to be taken to the composting site) has been divided as 43% wet and
57% dry. This is based on the actual measured waste streams being collected in
the City of Guelph, which is the most established weUdry program in the
provInce.
f
~;j
't" "
The cost for dry waste processing has been calculated to be $51 per tonne
based on:
· the tipping fee at the Northumberland MRF of $40 per tonne
· transfer and hauling costs of $11 per tonne
~"
~....
The cost of wet waste disposal would remain at the current rate being paid to
Canadian Waste Systems. Yard waste would continue to be taken to the
privately owned composting site in Oshawa, however Clarington would pay the
site directly for this service.
~"
E
M""'
~
~
17
i
...
1 1 46
A Study of Waste Management Services Russell Environmental Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
-_.:::::::-~ -
This option anticipates that the Municipality of Clarington would accept small
quantities (less than 100 kilograms) of household hazardous waste and other
large waste items brought in by the public to the Clarington transfer station for
no charge. The costs for operating this service have been calculated to be
$96,844, based on the following assumptions:
· a cost of $1.00 per household for the proper handling and disposal of
household hazardous waste (slightly higher than the benchmarked cost of
$0.61 per household established by Cave)
· a disposal cost of $68 per tonne to handle 1,133 tonnes of non-hazardous
waste brought to the site (as per the Regional- estimate)
I
Since the Municipality of Clarington provides such an extensive collection
service to all of the municipal residents, it is unlikely that there 'M:>uld be 1,133
tonnes of 'Naste delivered to the transfer station by residents of Clarington. The
Municipality may consider allowing public drop off of household hazardous
waste only, vkIich 'M:>uld reduce the transfer station costs to $19,800 per year.
For the sake of this comparison it is assumed the transfer station 'M:>uld also
accept 1,133 tonnes of other bulky wastes, such as tires and drywall.
The cost shown for 'Net/dry collection is based on the average contract collection
cost in Northumberland County which is $55 per tonne. This is slightly higher
than the cost currently being incurred for waste collection in Clarington ($52 per
tonne) because there is a higher cost to collect t'M:> different waste streams on
one collection vehicle. The quantity of waste collected by the municipal system
has increased because the material that was previously collected in the blue box
recycling system (at a cost of $102.75 per tonne) is included in the 'Net/dry
collection.
The annual cost for this option is expected to be $2,143,929 per year which is
an 11 % decrease from the annual cost of continuing with the existing system.
18
/7
-f .
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
-~.~
T bl 4 A
IC tf D W
p
al
.. ,
a e nnua os or Irv aste rocesslnQI Wet Waste Dispos
Program Annual Cost Annual Cost
Tonnes per
tonne
Wet .Waste Disposal 7,245 $68* $ 492,660
Dry Waste Processing 9,605 $51 $ 489,855
Yard Waste Composting . 800 $46* $ 36,800
Transfer Stations 1,133 $ 96,844
Yard Waste Collection 800 $126 $ 101,020
WeUDry Collection 16,850 $55 $ 926,750
T atal $ 2,143,929
· includes GST net rebate
" --
>
,
The Material Recovery Facility in Northumberland County is currently achieving
a 75% recovery rate of the dry waste brought to the site. The overall waste
diversion rate which would initially be expected with this weUdry system is 45%,
which consists of the following:
· 7204 tonnes of dry waste diverted (75% of 9605 tonnes of dry waste)
· 800 tonnes of yard waste diverted
:.
,.
With increased participation in the yard waste composting program, and other
waste diversion initiatives, it is likely that the Municipality of Clarington could
reach 50% waste diversion by the year 2000.
f
~,
3.4 Contracting for Wet and Dry Waste Processing
II
I;,
This also section outlines a system whereby the Municipality of Clarington would
provide a full 'NeUdry waste management services to the residents. All waste
management services would be administered by Clarington either by providing
the service directly at the municipal transfer station or by contracting with an
outside service provider.
!.::.;
19
r
~.
...
11 48
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
,...
~.~~-:~ ,~
Dry waste would be taken to the Clarington transfer station, then hauled to the
Northumberland MRF as described in the previous section.
Wet waste could be taken to the Guelph wet waste processing facility. The cost
for wet waste processing has been calculated at $61 per tonne, based on:
· the Guelph wet waste tipping fee of $40 per tonne
· transfer and hauling costs of $21 per tonne
An organic waste bioconversion facility is planned for construction in Oshawa in
1998. Clarington may wish to consider hauling municipal wet waste directly to
this facility once it is constructed. This would decrease the cost of hauling the
wet waste and would likely eliminate the need for transferring it from the original
collection vehicle.
Either the Guelph Composting plant or the Oshawa Bioconversion facility could
accept yard waste as part of the wet waste stream. This would eliminate the
need for having a separate yard waste collection. The quantity of yard waste
previously handled at the Regional composting site is therefore included with the
municipal wet waste stream in the cost analysis.
The total cost of this option is calculated to be $2,048,194, which is a reduction
of 15% from the 1998 cost of continuing with the current waste management
system.
T bl 5 A
IC f, W
dO W
p
a e nnua ost or etan )ry aste rocesslng
Program Annual Cost per ' Annual
Tonnes tonne Cost
Wet Waste Processing 8045 $61 $ 490,745
Dry Waste Processing 9605 $51 $ 489,855
Transfer Stations 1,133 $ 96,844
Wet/Dry Collection 17,650 $55 $ 970,750
. Total $ 2,048,194
20
1 1 40
I
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipalffy of Glaring/on
Russell Environmental Services
,..
::-:tM!!:'=~:..5I._---
, .
The Guelph composting plant is currently achieving a diversion rate of 81 % The
expected overall waste diversion rate for this system is therefore calculated to
be 78%, based on the following:
.
7204 tonnes of dry waste diverted (75% of 9605 tonnes of dry waste)
6516 tonnes of wet waste diverted (81% of 8045 tonnes of wet waste)
.
This diversion rate exceeds the provincial goal of 50% diversion from landfill,
and would be among the highest waste diversion rates of any municipality in
Ontario.
......
Y'
i
......
r
"
,
...
.}.,..
i.:..
r-'
/i:'
~
;,,;
21
..
11 50
-
C/)
o
()
as
:J
c:
c:
<(
C/)
E
Q)
-
C/)
>.
CJ)
-
c:
Q)
E
Q)
0>
CO
c:
CO
2
Q)
-
C/)
co
~
-
o
.......................
......................
.......................
.m.....................
......................8
......................
.......................
.......................
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8
8 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 II) 0 II)
N .... ....
($) lso81enuuV ,
-
C
.- G)
E
Q)
0)
CO
C
CO
~
.$
C/)
CO
~
C/)
E
G)
<;;
~
(/)
'-
.E
C/)
Q)
-
CO
~
C
o
--
en
"-
eD
>
o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co ,.... CD l!) 'V (") N T""
uO!SJa^!o Iua:uad
1 .1 5 1
_ Ol
co c
C/l -
o C/l
a. C/l
C/l 4)
_ 0
o E
IDa.
C) II)
aJ -
-e ;
aJ ~
~ ~
20
1) '0
g i
c -
8~
III
III
Cfl
o
a.
.!!!
o
Q)
...-
Cfl
III
~
....
Q)
~
Ol
C
I/J
I/J
II)
E 0
Q) e
lii Cl.
>. II)
(fJ ...
Ol I/J
C aJ
... ~
~ ~
W 0
(Ill
en
S
<L>
~
en
~
00.
~
=
<L>
8
<L>
Ol)
~
a
~
<L>
~
en
~
~
~ .
0 N
N
.
~
0
en
.~
a
P.c
s
0
U
N
(1)
~
61
.~
~
-.
f
" -
A Study of Waste Management Services
and Options for the Municipality of Clarington
Russell Environmental Services
,.. .
~.
=-X-L.~_-
4.0 Conclusions and Next Steps
An analysis of four different waste management systems indicates that a full
weUdry waste management system is preferred both on the basis of cost and
waste diversion.
T bl 6 Co f W
r ,
a e mpanson 0 aste ManaQement S~ stems
Estimated Estimated waste
System Annual Cost diversion from
landfill
Continue with existing system of blue box $2,422,072 24%
recycling, yard waste composting, transfer
stations and collection
Continue with Regional diversion programs, $2,179,210 24%
but contract directly for the disposal of
municipal garbage
Provide all was'te management services at $2,143,929 45%
the municipal level, including "dry" waste
processing and "wet" waste disposal
Provide all waste management services at a $2,048,194 exceeds 50%
municipal/evel, including "dry- and "wet"
waste processing
.. .
....
"
~
".
If Clarington wishes to implement a weUdry waste management system it is
suggested that the following steps be undertaken:
1.
Conduct a public education program on weUdry waste management
systems.
Perform testing to detennine the appropriate compaction rate to be
utilized at the municipal transfer station for the dry waste stream.
Commence discussions with Northumberland County regarding use of the
Northumberland Material Recovery Facility.
Commence discussions with Canadian Waste Systems regarding weUdry
collection
2.
~.'
, .
~~-
....
3.
4.
23
~
r
..
1 1 5?
APPENDIX A
List of Municipalities Used in Benchmarking Exercise
1 1 r;"\
-.
i _
i..
...-
10.
7
<
......
r
1:.
f
f"
i
.'
List of Municipalities Benchmarked
City of Brantford East Wawanosh
Town of Orangeville Grey & McKillop
City of St Thomas Hay
City of Windsor Howick
City of Kingston Hullett
Township of Kingston Morris
City of Belleville Stanley
City of Trenton Stephen
City of Sarnia Tuckersmith
S. Town of Smith Falls Tumbeny
Town of Perth Usbome
S. Town of Gananoque West Wawanosh
City of B rockvi lIe Beckwith Township
City of Woodstock Darling Township
City of Stratford Lanark Township
To'Nll ofHawkesbwy Montague Township
Town of Rockland Town of Almonte"
Town of Renfrew Town of Carleton Place
Town of Arnprior Village of Lan ark
City of Orillia Twp. of Drummond
City of Barrie Twp. of North Elmsley
City of Cornwall Twp. of Ramsay
Town of Lindsay Twp. of Cavan
City of North Bay Town of Lindsay
I
City of Sault Ste. Marie Village ofBobcaygeon
~ R. CAVE
and
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING LTD.
€!1 ERNsr & YOUi\IG
1 1 54
- .
Clinton Village of Fenelon Falls
Exeter Village of Omemee
Goderich Village ofWoodville
Seaforth Twp.ofBexley
Wingham Twp. of Carden
Bayfield Twp. of Dalton
Blyth Twp.ofEIdon
Brussels Twp. of Emily
HensalI Twp.ofFenelon
Goderich Twp. Twp. ofManvers
Zurich Twp. of Somerville
Ashfield Twp~ of Verulam
Colbome
~ R. CAVE
and
ASSOClA res
ENGINEERING LTD.
EJ ERNsr & YOUNG
..
11 55
"""'
.
PROPOSED PREUM1NARY
1998 'O~D WA~TE MANAGEMENT BUDGET SUMMARY
1997 I 1998
BUDGET"! PRO FORMA
.
,,--
..
EXPENDITURES $ $
General
Regional Overhead 1',868;10Q 1,947,100
Facilities Management 2(7.600 277.600
Sub-total 2,145,700 2,225.000
Landfill Waste
Haulage 2,749,000 2,846,000
Disposal 5i542,OOO 5,713,000
Perpetual Care of Former landfill Sites 153,300 152,300
Brocl<Township landfill Site . ~ ~
Sub-total 8.481.000 8,750,000
Blue Bo~
Regional Processing 579,400 532,100
Collection 2.499.800 2.689.000
Sub-total 3.079.200 3.221.10Q
Contracted Processing n 672.000
Sut>total Blue Box . . 3.079.200 3,893,100
Wa~e Manaoement FaClTrtles
0perations 1.099,900 1,131,500
Transfer & Disposal . 2.071.900 2.420.500
Sub-totaf 3.171,800 3,552,000
Waste Reduction Education & Promotion 245,000 200,000
C~pital Program 556,000 570,000
TOTAL GROSS EXPENOrruRES 18,060;400 19,590,600
lESS: DIRECT RECOVERABlES AND REVENUES
Sales of Recydable Materials:
Waste Management Facilities 143,000 197,100
Durham Recyding Centre 1,286,000 2,383,000
User Fees: Waste Management Facilities 524.000 552.900
TOTAL DIRECT RECOVERABLES & REVENUES 1,953,000 3,133,000
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES 16,107,400 16,451,600
FINANCING
-
Contribution From:
Waste Development Charges Reserve Fund 0 50,000
Solid Waste Reserve/Surplus ~ 6,057,010 1,687,861
Regional Portion of the locaJTax Levy . 10.050.390 14.719.739
. . ..
TOTAL FINANCING . 16,107,400 16,457,600
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM R:A.TE
(PER TONNE) $63.00 S86.00
Note: Approximately a $180,000 change in revenue or expenditure causes a $1.00
change in the vrc;ste system rate.
~
f;
~~.+
'<
r
~
~
E
r.
L
?
k
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
REPORT NO. WD-21-98
r
f
....
"
11 56