Central-Alberta Village Championing Municipal WTE Facility

, ,

As reported in the Red Deer Advocate, the Mayor of the Village of Caroline is championing the concept of a centralized waste-to-energy facility as an alternative to landfilling municipal waste.

Mayor John Rimmer gave a presentation to the Town of Rocky Mountain House council recently that the goal is to seek out private backers to own and operate a plant that would take garbage municipalities now truck to landfills and process it into a product that can be used to create energy.

The Mayor envisions the proposed WTE facility to use similar technology to that promoted by Fogdog Energy Solutions , which is working on a waste-to-fuel project for the Town of Sylvan Lake. The company is still awaiting final provincial approval.

Fogdog Energy is developing a technology that converts waste into refuse-derived fuel that can be used for heating, electricity generation, and other uses. The seven-step process includes crushing, evaporation to remove moisture, superheating, sterilization, and cooling. The entire process takes 30 minutes.

Fogdog Waste to RDF Converter

“They’re in the running,” he said of Fogdog. “But we’ll have several different bids from different companies.”

The Town of Sylvan, with a population of approximately 15,0000, signed an agreement with Fogdog Energy in 2018. Instead of burying waste in a landfill, the company says it can convert solid municipal and medical waste refuse derived fuel. The project still needs approval of the Alberta Environment Ministry.

Once the Fogdog Energy Converter system get government approval, it will take two years to get the system up and running. The Town of Sylvan’s Chief Administration Officer, Wally Ferris, believes there is potential for the town to save about $227,000 each year in waste management costs utilizing the converter vs. landfilling.

Albertans create about 3.4 million tonnes of waste yearly — or about one tonne each. A little under one-third of that is recycled, leaving about 2.5 million to be trucked to the province’s 162 landfills.

Solid Waste Management System Upgrade at The Six Nations Community

, ,

Written by Abimbola Badejo, Staff Reporter

The Government of Canada recently announced it was contributing $8.3 million to the upgrade of the waste management system at The Six Nations of the Grand River. The government contribution will go towards funding the closing of an in-community landfill site and construction of a new transfer station at Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation.

The Six Nations Community of the Grand River First Nation is located 20 kilometers southeast of Brantford, Ontario, along the Grand River. The reserve community encompasses about 71 square miles  in the northern portion of the province of Ontario, Canada; and the residents manage their own municipal solid waste at a landfill site in the same area.

With dwindling land resources at the Six Nations Reserve, there is the need for a better solid management system so that the available land can be preserved for other uses such as agricultural, residential, commercial and community uses.

In a media release, Chief Ava Hill stated: “The new transfer station will allow us to meet our community’s immediate and future waste management needs which is critical to support our growing and progressive community.  Our community has recycled over four million pounds over the last six years with our waste diversion rates increasing year over year.  We are committed to diverting as much waste as possible in order to reduce the global waste burden which is negatively impacting our ecosystem, lands, waters and contributing to climate change.”

Besides the $8.3 million invested in the project to date by the Canadian government, an additional $378,188 from Indigenous Services Canada was used in the preliminary feasibility and design phases of the project.

The waste management plan is to build a new transfer station on the existing site that consists of an old landfill and a recycling facility. The transfer station will operate as a temporary solid waste collection site where various material recovery pre-processing activities such as sorting, separation and compaction of metals, cardboard, paper; composting of organics and sorting of plastics can be carried out. These materials may be treated on site if the conversion equipment is available or they may be transported off the reserve for further processing. 

The improved solid waste diversion system which focuses more on recycling, composting and hazardous waste programs will not only help to preserve land resources, it will also help to protect sources of drinking water, prevent land contamination, reduce dangerous impacts to the environment, protect the habitat and reduce the risks to human health and safety. The project is expected to be completed by fall 2019.

Raining on the parade: A critique of packaging “take back”​ programs (Terracycle,Loop, Nespresso etc.)

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University 

I want to preface this post by saying that I wan’t to be proven wrong – while it may be a peculiar stance to take as a researcher, I want to believe in the environmental benefits of packaging take back programs offered by Terracycle, Recycle Bank etc.

The idea that we are now finding innovative ways to recycle problematic materials and transition towards reusable packaging is a breath of fresh air in an industry that finds itself in a waste crisis.

With that being said, it is important to fully understand what it is we are trying to achieve as we work towards a circular economy. A circular system is our end point, but the path that we ultimately take to get there is where we should focus our attention.

The following is an excerpt from the study (I have attached the full white paper for people to download). Please note that I welcome any and all questions, criticisms and comments – my goal is not to pick on any particular organization, but shed light on the challenges of using a decentralized network for waste collection.

Study Excerpt

In Spring of 2019, York University’s Waste Wiki team was asked to investigate the environmental and economic impact of take back programs involving coffee pods, and other reusable/recyclable items that have de-centralized collection networks (i.e. Terra Cycle programs for shampoo bottles, cigarette butts etc.)

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that consumer packaging goods companies are exploring end of life waste management solutions that exist outside of conventional curbside collection. Increasingly, CPG companies are announcing partnerships with “niche” recyclers (where niche is characterized as a company that specializes in the recovery of problematic/difficult to recover materials), enabling consumers to directly return used packaging to re-processors and have it be diverted from landfill.

However, scant attention has been paid as to whether these types of programs offer legitimate environmental benefits when taking a life cycle approach. While it may seem intuitive that keeping material of a landfill is a good idea, what constitutes recyclability is a much more nuanced question that requires a careful consideration of environmental benefits, costs, accessibility, availability and infrastructural capacity.

In the case of most take back programs offered by companies such as Terracycle, problematic materials are down-cycled into “one off” products. As an example, Terracycle presently has take back programs offered for a range of commonly used household products, including razors and other personal hygiene items, chip bags, multi laminate pouches, sharpies/markers and cigarette waste.

While this initially seems like a good thing, each of the aforementioned items are down-cycled, wherein the end of life secondary product cannot be subsequently recovered, and ultimately is disposed of (i.e. a shampoo bottle is converted into a running shoe, but that running shoe cannot be recycled at its end of life, and will either be landfilled or incinerated).

While Terracycle and their peers should be celebrated for their innovation and commitment to finding new uses for problematic materials, their approach to recycling and reuse creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled/reused.

At present, the processing technology involved in any of the aforementioned take back programs is economically prohibitive, and is really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered. Simply put – municipal waste management infrastructure is not designed to either collect or recycle problematic materials.

As an example, the only cost analog that can readily be found in a municipal waste system is for multi-laminate plastic packaging (chip bags, yogurt squeeze containers etc.). In 2018, for the limited number of municipal programs that accepted multi laminate materials as part of their Blue Bin, the cost of recycling exceeded $2000 a tonne.

While comparing Terracycle’s costs (which are not shared) with a public municipal waste management system isn’t a particularly useful comparison, it is done to highlight just how costly it is to achieve, even with established collection, consolidation and sorting systems in place.

Take back programs offered by packaging companies and their partners must find ways to economically consolidate and transport their material to specific facilities, and ensure that those facilities are readily equipped to process that material at scale. The economic and environmental impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

At this time, neither Terracycle nor their partners were willing to share their cost and diversion data with the university, limiting the ability to model our own costing scenarios.

However, as an intellectual exercise, let’s look at a take back program that we have a better understanding of – The “Nespresso” Aluminum Coffee Pod (also managed by Terracycle). 

Results  (See link below)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfERnYLOIhPsHcPA7JHf-BxPvErSiezB/view

Closing Comments

For those of you who may not be inclined to read through the entire white paper (although it is a relatively light read at a little under 8 pages – with lots of graphs), the closing comments are as follows:

Nespresso should be applauded for finding a recyclable alternative and innovating in a way that moves us away from single use plastic pods. However, the danger of programs such as Nespresso’s mailer program is that it creates the illusion of being a good environmental citizen (from both the perspective of the packaging producer and the consumer). However, as both consumers and decision makers, we have to perform our due diligence when evaluating whether our actions (in this case, recycling) are achieving our intended objectives (preferable environmental outcomes).

What is perhaps most damning is that Nespresso Aluminum pods is one of the only environmentally friendly packaging types managed by Terracycle that can readily be recycled at a low cost. Table 1 below summarizes the known emissions credits and recycling costs for commonly found Blue Box Materials (managed via curbside).

Table 1: Comparison of Emissions Credits and Recycling Costs

No alt text provided for this image

Please note that the costs per tonne DO NOT include collection costs – these are just the costs of sorting and processing materials at a material recycling facility, net of any revenue received from marketed materials. Curbside collection costs for Blue Box materials typically range from $150-$300 a tonne (as different municipalities have different collection infrastructure, housing densities, labor rates etc.).

While Terracycle did not provide a breakdown of their collection costs for any of their take back programs, the purpose of this study is to highlight that voluntary take back programs, particularly involving those using a mailer system, can only work when there is a critical mass of consolidated material, and that material is being collected at designated intervals. A take back program that leaves it to consumer discretion for how and when they will return end of life materials is in all likelihood significantly more costly from a transportation perspective due to the number of unique trips required. The only way for material to be efficiently transported is when there is a critical mass of material to transport.

As a secondary concern, important questions surrounding the accessibility and affordability of take back groups needs to be considered. Many of the programs offered by Terracycle and their partners exist largely in urban areas – the reason for this is fairly obvious, as it is simply not economically feasible to offer recycling programs to everyone, everywhere. As a tangent to this statement, the introduction of reusable packaging such as Loop has placed upwards pressures on the price of packaged goods – once again, a novel and unique design, but one that is not readily affordable or accessible to a significant percentage of Canadians.

A recent study from York University estimated that lower income marginalized households are those most likely affected by increases in packaging prices, as a greater proportion of their purchases are made up of pre-packaged items.

The findings from this study should be interpreted with a degree of caution – in the absence of having Terracycle’s data, we can only make best guess estimates based on the existing cost of managing a municipal waste system in Ontario. We welcome critics of these findings to share their data, such that we can all have a better understanding of what it is we would like to achieve from our waste management systems moving forward.  

Simply “recycling” is not enough, and we need to be both ready and willing to explore packaging alternatives that “think outside the Blue Box”.

Lithium Batteries – Rethink, Recycle

, , ,

Written by Zachary Gray, B.Eng.Biosci., Chemical Engineering & Bioengineering

Electricity is in, and fuel is out — The Dutch Royal Shell’s 50-year plan is in motion. Much to longtime shareholder’s chagrin, the 112-year-old global behemoth is pivoting their business model away from fossil fuels in the decades to come in favor of more sustainable forms of energy, including wind, solar, and hydrogen.

The Dutch Royal Shell transition is not limited to ethereal boardroom speak, placating the dry martini-sipping corporate climate change activists, but aligns with the tenets of the Paris Accord and emerging trends in consumer behavior: more electric vehicles and charging stations, less crude oil. Indeed Canadians with ambivalent, and often geopolitically divergent attitudes towards their energy sector are purchasing electric vehicles (“EVs”) at an accelerating pace: EV sales increased 125% from 2017 to 2018, putting an additional 100,000 on our roadways.

The problem to avoid is exchanging one environmental sin for another. There is a greater understanding among the general road-faring population that the fuel they are pumping into their cars, on the way to doing more important things with their time, combusts, adding to the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, charging one’s EV adds a degree of separation between drivers and their energy source.

Generally, driving an EV in Ontario, where 93% of the province’s energy comes from carbon-free sources, is far better for the environment than the combustion box on wheels sitting in the queue at the Shell station. Not so much in Kentucky, where 92% of the state’s energy comes from low-energy-density coal; or worse: Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, or Texas, where they burn far more to keep the lights on – or, EVs cruising along their streets. An EV’s positive environmental impact is only as good as its energy supply and battery.

Often, the EV’s greatest sin is its battery. In a study comparing Tesla’s Model S alongside a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle, the former’s manufacturing process generated 15% more greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Despair not, however, the same study acknowledged that a Tesla generally rack up fewer GHGs over its lifespan compared to the latter.

For context, Tesla’s position is far better than the first generation of Toyota’s hybrid vehicle, the 1997 Prius. Between mining nickel for its catalysts in Northern Ontario and the spiderweb of trans-continental shipping bringing together the car’s disparate components across Toyota’s decentralized manufacturing sites, the first Prius’s GHG emissions over the course of lifetime dwarfed those of military-grade Hummers – which, some readers may be surprised to learn, are not known for their fuel economy. Tesla’s cathode and electrolyte are its central issues.

Lithium-based Batteries

There are three components to EV’s lithium-based batteries: the anode, made from graphite; the lithium electrolyte; and cathode, often a mixture of nickel, aluminum, and manganese cobalt. Tesla’s cathodes, a combination of nickel, cobalt, and aluminum, are the main environmental culprit; the lithium is salt on the wound.

Analysts estimate that Argentia, Bolivia, and Chile hold 15% of the world’s lithium reserves. Abundance, however, is not the problem: water usage and isolation are. Clean water is scarce high in the Andes, and mining operations use immense volumes in their salt brine ponds to separate the lithium from magnesium and potassium that are also present. Lithium brine ponds now litter the famous Salar de Uyuni salt flats. While TIME magazine may celebrate the wealth potential, and the relative cleanliness of lithium mining throughout these South American countries, consumers should remain vigilant to ensure extractors are not given carte blanch over the region’s resources – besides, who gets a medal for not placing last?

Lithium Mining Operation

For some perspective, the Guangdong province in China used mining to further its economy, much like the three South American nations are doing, feeding the world’s growing appetite for electronics with its vast supply of heavy metals – perfect for batteries and processors. Now, it costs $29/kg to remediate soil in the region. Nor do few publications outside of Canada’s right-wing press celebrate the economic value that the Oil Sands mines deliver to Albertans.

There is also the social impact to consider outside of the environmental damage brought on the world’s growing appetite for electronics and the batteries that keep them charged.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the largest global producers of cobalt, a critical element in Tesla’s cathodes. There are also an estimated 35,000 child laborers working in the Congo’s cobalt mines. At $83,000 per metric tonne, the high commodity prices for this scarce metal are incentivizing the less than stable Congolese government to turn a blind eye to the increasing rate of child enslavement in their country. Meanwhile, citizens in developed nations enjoy faster charging times for their phones and better performance in their EVs, for which they can thank cobalt’s presence. 

That’s how it is: Fossil fuel reliance diminishes as society increasingly coalesces around electronics and sustainable forms of energy. Metals such as lithium and cobalt, play a critical part in the transition’s material infrastructure. However controversial, mining provides the initial access to these vital materials.  Consumers can take heart knowing that battery components, while not non-renewable, are recyclable – unlike the proceeding technology. The rare earth elements can feed a closed-loop supply chain as they enter circulation while robust recycling technologies ensure their place within it.

The importance of battery recycling

Tesla ensured that recycling as part of its battery’s supply chain. The company recycles 60% of spent cells from its cars, reuses a further 10%, and landfills the rest due to technical difficulties. They use Kinsbursky Brothers in North America and Umicore in Europe. Both of these recyclers use traditional furnace techniques called pyrometallurgy to process the spent batteries.

Four high-level events place during the pyrometallurgical process; they are:

  1. Preparing the furnace load, including the battery components and coke;
  2. Treating the off-gas, filtering the batteries’ vaporized plastic parts, before discharging to the atmosphere;
  3. Removing slag from the kiln, including aluminum, silicon, and iron;
  4. Completing the smelting process.

The resultant product is a copper, lithium, cobalt, and nickel alloy, representing 40% of the batteries contents, while The treated off-gas and slag account for the remaining 60%. For reference, a Model S has 7,100 battery cells, weighing 540 kg, meaning that the heating-based approach recovers ~220 kg of valuable cathodic materials, representing approximately 80-85% of the original amount, for the industry’s growing closed-loop supply chain. 

Altogether, the pyrometallurgical recycling of lithium-ion batteries reduces GHG emissions by 70% over using new resources, further lowering the environmental impact for the next generation of EVs.

Umicore’s process can handle 7,000 metric tonnes per year, equivalent to 35,000 EV batteries. Right now, the company is focusing on better serving smaller-scale electronics and pivoting their technical model towards less-energy intensive forms of battery recycling. Fully embracing hydrometallurgical techniques, the process extracting metal ions from aqueous solutions and forming salts, is the new frontier in lithium battery recycling. One Canadian company stands out in the emerging technical group: Li-Cycle.

Li-Cycle Corporation

The Mississauga-based Li-Cycle Corporation is piloting its two-step, closed-loop recycling technology in Southern Ontario. First, the “Spoke” mechanically reduces the size of the battery’s components, leading to the “Hub,” which leverages hydrometallurgical technologies to yield high-value salts. In addition to emitting few GHGs and expending little solid waste, the company also treats and reuses its water and acid. Encouragingly, the company achieved a >90% recovery rate for critical metals during their pilot-scale operations.

Li-Cycle Technology™ is a closed loop, processing technology that recycles lithium-ion batteries. The technology recovers 80-100% of all materials found in lithium-ion batteries.

Li-Cycle’s technology minimizes energy usage and operational inputs while outperforming competitor’s return. Going forward, the company will separate the two components business units, better serving regional markets: Multiple Spokes, each processing 5,000 tonnes of used batteries per year, will supply a 15-20,000 tonne Hub. A constellation of Li-Cycle’s units would increase the availability of critical metals from other electronics, such as cell phones, for the rapidly expanding EV market.

Concluding remarks

Tesla recently announced its concern about the impending shortage of metals critical to their batteries’ chemistry. In the future, companies such as Canada’s Li-Cycle and Umicore will be able to mediate discrepancies in the EV supply chain. Used batteries languishing in the dump are harmful to the environment and damage the growing, technical infrastructure around recycling rare earth metals. Mining brings the batteries’ minerals into circulation while recycling keeps them in use.

Recycling will be an integral part of the EVs’ industrial arc as they proliferate in usage, while the energy paradigm continues to shift from fossil fuels to sustainable forms of electricity and new generations of battery technology minimize the use of precious minerals.


About the Author

Zachary Gray graduated from McMaster University with a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering & Bioengineering.  He has worked with several early-stage cleantech and agri-industrial companies since completing his studies, while remaining an active member of his community.  He is enthusiastic about topics that combine innovation, entrepreneurism, and social impact.

Making the Case for a Zero Plastic Waste Economy: Canada Moves to Ban Single-Use Plastics in an Effort to Reduce Plastic Pollution

, , ,

Written by Selina Lee-Andersen, McCarthy Tetrault

There is no doubt that plastics provide unparalleled functionality and durability across a range of products in our everyday lives. The production and use of plastics is growing faster than any other material due to their many practical uses. However, certain characteristics that make plastics so valuable can also create challenges for their end-of-life waste management. In particular, the low costs of producing and disposing of plastics have increased the amount of disposable plastic products and packaging entering the consumer market. According to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), over half of these disposable plastic products and packaging are designed to be used once and thrown away. CCME reports that an estimated 95% of the material value of plastic packaging (or between $100 and $150 billion dollars annually) is lost to the global economy after only a single use.

In recent years, plastic pollution has emerged as a critical environmental issue, one that must be addressed globally. To reduce plastic waste in Canada, the federal government announced in June 2019 that it will ban single-use plastics as early as 2021. The ban is expected to include items such as plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks. The federal government will also work together with the provinces and territories to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which would seek to establish standards and targets for companies that manufacture plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging.

The federal government has indicated that these measures will align with similar actions being taken in the European Union and other countries. In addition, these initiatives complement Canada’s adoption of the Ocean Plastics Charter in June 2018, which lays the groundwork for ensuring that plastics are designed for reuse and recycling. In addition, the federal government’s efforts to reduce plastic pollution includes ongoing work through the CCME to develop an action plan to implement the Canada-wide 2018 Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste.

Policy Initiatives to Reduce Plastic Pollution

The specific policy initiatives announced by the federal government include:

  • Banning harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021 under theCanadian Environmental Protection Act and taking other steps to reduce plastic waste, where supported by scientific evidence and when warranted – and taking other steps to reduce plastic waste. The ban would cover single-use plastic products and packaging (e.g. shopping bags, straws, cutlery, plates, and stir sticks); the specific products and measures included in the ban will be determined once a State of the Science assessment on plastic pollution in the environment has been completed. The assessment will include a peer review, public consultations, and socio-economic considerations. Additional regulatory actions could include requiring products to contain a set amount of recycled content, or be capable of being recycled or repaired.
  • Ensuring that companies that manufacture plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging are responsible for managing the collection and recycling of their plastic waste. EPR programs are recognized as an effective mechanism to support the creation of a circular economy. Under an EPR program, companies making products are responsible for the end-of-life management of their products and packaging. Through the CCME, the federal government will work with provinces and territories to support the development of consistent EPR programs across the country. This will include setting targets for plastics collection, recycling, and recycled content requirements.
  • Working with industry to prevent and retrieve abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear, known as ghost fishing gear – a major contributor to marine plastic debris. The federal government will work with stakeholders through a new Sustainable Fisheries Solutions and Retrieval Support Contribution Program. In particular, the federal government will support fish harvesters to acquire new gear technologies to reduce gear loss, and take actions to support ghost gear retrieval and responsible disposal. In addition, the federal government will seek to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gear in Canadian aquatic ecosystems. It is important to note that a significant amount of plastic in the oceans is comprised of fishing nets. In a study by the Ocean Cleanup Foundation that was published in 2018, scientists found that at least 46% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes from fishing nets, while miscellaneous discarded fishing gear makes up the majority of the rest.
  • Investing in new Canadian technologies. Through the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge, the federal government is helping small businesses across the country find new ways to reduce plastic waste and turn waste into valuable resources supporting a circular economy. Seven challenges have been launched so far, providing over $10 million dollars to 18 Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses are working to reduce plastic waste from food packaging, construction waste, marine vessels, and fishing gear. They are also improving plastic recycling through artificial intelligence and refining technologies for bioplastics.
  • Mobilizing international support to address plastic pollution. At the 2018 G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Canada launched the Ocean Plastics Charter, which outlines actions to eradicate plastic pollution in order to address the impacts of marine litter on the health and sustainability of the oceans, coastal communities, and ecosystems. As of July 2019, the Charter has been endorsed by 21 governments and 63 businesses and organizations. To assist developing countries in reducing marine litter, the federal government is contributing $100 million to help developing countries prevent plastic waste from entering the oceans, address plastic waste on shorelines, and better manage existing plastic resources. This includes $65 million through the World Bank, $6 million to strengthen innovative private-public partnerships through the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership, and $20 million to help implement the G7 Innovation Challenge to Address Marine Plastic Litter.
  • Reducing plastic waste from federal operations. The federal government is strengthening policies, requirements, and guidelines that promote sustainable procurement practices, and has committed to divert at least 75% of plastic waste from federal operations by 2030.
  • Reducing plastic microbeads in freshwater marine ecosystems. To reduce the amount of plastic microbeads entering Canadian freshwater and marine ecosystems, Canada prohibited the manufacture and import of all toiletries that contain plastic microbeads (such as bath and body products) as of July 1, 2018. A complete ban came into force July 1, 2019.
  • Supporting community-led action and citizen-science activities. The federal government has committed $1.5 million in 2019 for organizations to start new plastics projects that mobilize and engage citizens. This funding is designed to support community-led action through education, outreach, and citizen science, and support concrete actions through community cleanups and demonstrations to reduce plastic waste.
  • Launching Canada’s Plastics Science Agenda. The federal government will accelerate research into the life cycle of plastics and on the impacts of plastics pollution on humans, wildlife, and the environment. This agenda is aimed at supporting evidence-based decision-making and innovative approaches to sustainable plastics production, recycling, and recovery. Canada’s Plastics Science Agenda will also identify priority areas for multi-sector research partnerships to help achieve Canada’s zero plastic waste goals.

Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets and Waste

In July 2018, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) commissioned a study to provide insights into the entire plastics value chain in Canada, from raw material production and products manufacturing to use and end-of-life. In June 2019, Deloitte and Cheminfo Services Inc. delivered its report to ECCC – the Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets and Waste (the Report).  Highlights of the Report are set out below.

The scope of the Report encompasses most plastics types used across all key sectors. The Report’s authors found that with total sales of approximately $35 billion, plastic resin and plastic product manufacturing in Canada accounts for more than 5% of sales in the Canadian manufacturing sector. The sector employs approximately 93,000 people across 1,932 establishments. In Canada, plastic products are in demand in most sectors of the economy, with approximately 4,667 kilotonnes (kt) of plastics introduced into the domestic market on an annual basis. The packaging, construction and automotive sectors account for 69% of plastic end-use.

In terms of the life cycle of plastics in Canada, the Report notes that it is mostly linear in nature, with an estimated 9% of plastic waste recycled, 4% incinerated with energy recovery, 86% landfilled, and 1% leaked into the environment in 2016. The main generators of plastic waste in Canada are:

  • packaging (43%);
  • automotive (9%);
  • textiles (7%);
  • electrical and electronic equipment (7%); and
  • construction (5%).

The Report found that plastics materials that were not recovered (i.e. 2,824 kt of resins sent to landfill or leaked into the environment) represented a lost opportunity of $7.8 billion for Canada in 2016, based on the value of virgin resin material. By 2030, the Report estimates that Canada’s lost opportunity in respect of unrecovered plastics could rise to $11.1 billion based on a business-as-usual scenario. Given forecasted trends in waste streams and economic drivers, the Report indicates that the linear profile of the Canadian plastics economy will not improve under a business-as-usual situation. The Report concluded that:

  • Given current market prices, structures, business models and the low cost of disposal, there is limited direct economic incentive for plastics recycling and value recovery in Canada. Primary (i.e. virgin resin production) and secondary (i.e. recycled) plastics compete against each other in the same market, based on price and quality of the resins. This competition is difficult for the recycling industry, which has to deal not only with prices, but also with quality issues as a result of uneven feedstock composition. While secondary plastics producers enjoy lower upfront investment than their counterparts in the primary market, they face greater financial exposure during periods of low oil prices (which bring down the price for virgin resins) because their cost structure is more labour intensive. Key barriers to the recovery of plastics include a combination of factors including low diversion rates (only 25% of all plastics discarded are collected for diversion), process losses in the sorting (e.g. shredded residues containing plastic are sent to landfill) and reprocessing stages, and the near absence of high volume recovery options for hard-to-recycle plastics (such as plastics waste coming from the automotive sector).
  • A zero plastic economy would deliver significant benefits to Canada. The Report’s authors modeled a 2030 scenario to examine the potential costs and benefits of achieving zero plastics waste. This scenario used a 90% landfill diversion rate as a proxy for zero plastic waste and assumed that: (i) plastics production and end use applications increased, but followed the same patterns as in 2016; (ii) mechanical recycling was quadrupled from its business-as-usual level; (iii) chemical recycling was significantly scaled up, taking into account readiness levels and associated learning curves; and (iv) energy from waste was leveraged to deal with the remaining volumes and hard-to-recycle plastics. An analysis by the authors demonstrated that the 2030 scenario would result in benefits including $500 million of annual costs avoided, 42,000 direct and indirect jobs created, and annual greenhouse gas emission savings of 1.8 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent.  
  • The analysis indicates that zero plastic waste cannot be achieved without concurrent, strategic interventions by government, industry stakeholders and the public across each stage of the plastic lifecycle and targeted at sectors. According to the Report, achieving 90% plastic waste recovery will require significant investment to diversify and expand the capacity of current value recovery options including mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling, and waste-to-energy. The Report also notes that significant improvements to current plastic waste diversion rates will be required. In particular, a systematic approach across sectors will be needed because no single public or private sector action can shift the system.
  • The Report identifies the following five sets of interventions (including policies, measures and calls-to-action) to achieve zero plastic waste in Canada:
    1. Creating viable, domestic, secondary end-markets. This includes:
      • Creating stable, predictable demand for recycled plastics that is separate from virgin markets (e.g. requirements for recycled content, taxes/fees on virgin resins).
      • Improving the quality of recovered plastics at both the point of collection and in materials processing.
      • Improving access to domestic supply of recycled content.
      • Supporting innovation in product designs and uses for secondary plastics.
    2. Getting everybody onboard to collect all plastics. This includes:
      • Creating sector-specific requirements for collection (e.g. extended producer responsibility, performance agreements).
      • Restricting disposal (e.g. landfill taxes or bans).
      • Requiring/incentivizing collection (e.g. industry targets, deposit refund).
      • Developing more consistent requirements and rules across Canada (e.g. common curbside recycling).
      • Improving public information on collection and recyclability.
    3. Supporting and expanding all value-recovery options. This includes:
      • Supporting development of innovative value-recovery options, such as advanced mechanical and chemical recycling.
      • Focusing primarily on improving mechanical recycling.
      • Increasing the ease and speed at which new value recovery facilities can be developed by removing policy barriers and investing in innovation.
    4. Increasing efficiency throughout the value chain. This includes:
      • Facilitating collection and value-recovery by creating requirements for the reusability and recyclability of product design (e.g. standards and public procurement).
      • Improving performance by investing in sorting and separation.
      • Educating and engaging actors and consumers throughout the value chain.
    5. Extending plastics lifetime to reduce and delay waste generation. This includes leveraging opportunities to extend the lifetime of durable goods, which account for approximately 51% of total plastics waste, but have a very low recycling rate (2%) compared to that of non-durable goods (15%). In addition, the Report recommends introducing measures that contribute to increased reuse, repair and remanufacturing such as standard requirements for reparability or reusability, and tax exemptions to reduce and delay waste generation from durable goods in Canada.

In order to achieve zero plastic waste, radical changes will be required across the life cycle of plastic products. This includes not only changes in consumer behaviour, but also a significant increase in the number of recycling facilities in Canada, investments in recycling technology and the need for innovative government policies such as landfill taxes or product standards. As noted above, there is no single public or private sector action that can shift the system. Taking into consideration international benchmarks from ten European jurisdictions as well as US and Australian case studies, the Report’s authors note that a systemic approach is needed that is supp

This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was originally posted on the McCarthy Tertrault Canadian Environmental Perspectives Blog.


About the Author

Selina Lee-Andersen is a partner in our Vancouver office and a member of the firm’s Environmental, Regulatory and Aboriginal Group, Energy & Mining Group, Retail and Consumer Markets Group, Defence Initiative and Asia Group. Recognized for her in-depth knowledge and range of experience, her practice focuses primarily in the areas of environmental law, corporate/commercial law, regulatory law, compliance, and Aboriginal issues in the energy and natural resource sectors.

Fun with Waste: Trashion Fashion

, ,

Created in 2011, Trashionfashion is a not-for-profit organization that is on a mission to contribute to a global reduction of waste through creative solutions. The organization hopes to foster a generation of conscious consumers, creators and communities who will change the way the world sees waste. The organization achieves this through productions, education, and community engagements.

Designer – Kingsley Chukwuocha⠀
Model – Melissa Amanda Walker⠀
Photographer – Justin O’Brien⠀

Ami Merli, adancer and yoga instructor, founded the organization in 2011. Through Trashion Fashion, Amy has created a network of zero waste designers, sustainable fashion companies, and businesses that are using alternative materials for products.

The organization’s Facebook page provides photos and videos of past trashion fashion shows.

Making Producers Pay – From Stewardship to Innovative EPR Programs in Canada

, , ,

Written by Mark Youden and Maya Stano, Associate Lawyers at Gowling WLG

Product and packaging waste is increasingly drawing public attention across the globe. This stems, in part, from a growing awareness of massive plastic pollution accumulation zones in our oceans, government bans of single use plastics, China’s recent import ban on scrap plastics, and news of the Philippines wanting to return Canadian “recyclables.”  In this era, governments are increasingly turning to innovative waste management and diversion policies and laws.

To date, Canada has focused on two approaches for managing products and their packaging at end-of-life: (1) extended producer responsibility or “EPR”, and (2) product stewardship programs. For the most part, these programs (which cover various categories) fall under provincial jurisdiction.    

To varying degrees, these programs shift the end-of-life waste responsibility away from governments (and tax payers) and on to producers (e.g., brand owners, manufacturers and first importers).  Depending on the program, this responsibility includes reporting and funding (at least in part) the management of the waste created by their products.  

Stewardship versus EPR

Although often used interchangeably, there are key policy differences between product stewardship and EPR programs (as well as significant corresponding financial implications for companies). Generally speaking, EPR programs place responsibility (and costs) on product producers, whereas product stewardship programs generally rely on consumer-paid environmental fees or public funds. Although the emphasis in Canada has historically been on product stewardship programs, there is a growing shift towards transforming those initiatives to full-fledged EPR programs. Such EPR programs place full responsibility for designing, operating and financing diversion programs, and accountability for the program’s environmental performance, on producers.  The concept is intended to incentivize companies to not only bear responsibility for, but actually reduce, their product waste footprint (e.g., through recyclable product and packaging innovation).

Status of EPR Programs

Provincial Level

In 2014, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement an EPR system making producers fully responsible for funding and managing curbside and drop-off recycling programs for packaging and printed paper. Under the province’s Environmental Management Act and Recycling Regulation, producers must recover 75% of the paper and packaging they produce, and face fines if they don’t achieve this target.

Full EPR programs have not yet been implemented in other provinces – some provinces do require producers to pay for part of their recycling, but none outside of BC require producers to manage the actual system. At the local level, municipalities often bear the burden of dealing with urban waste generation, and towns and cities are increasingly expressing support for full EPR implementation to help cover the costs of expensive recycling programs. For example, the City of Calgary recently passed a motion to push the province into looking into EPR programs. 

Similarly, in Ontario producers are required to pay for 50% of the recycling system, but municipalities are actively calling for a full EPR model. In 2016, Ontario passed a groundbreaking bill that instituted an EPR requirement for all product categories. The bill also sought to prevent producers from discharging their liabilities to a third party, thereby making them fully responsible. These efforts culminated in the adoption of several new laws, including the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016 (which includes payments to municipalities to cover their costs associated with the blue box recycling program), and the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (which led to the development of the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy).

Federal Level

At the federal level, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment began taking action in the late 1990’s in regard to its waste reduction target of 50% of the product waste that is placed into the market. Since 2004, the CCME has published several reports, analyses, studies, tools and progress reports in regard to the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, with product packaging recognized as a priority in that plan.

International Level

EPR has a long history in Europe, where it has existed in varying forms since 1990. Sweden and Germany led the way by encouraging industries that made and sold products to be responsible for the waste stage of those products. EPR programs subsequently spread to other EU countries and beyond.

Challenges with recycling recently led to the EU’s approval of a law banning 10 types of single-use plastics by 2021 as part of its shift towards a circular economy (which aims to keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, and recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life). Canadian federal MP Nathan Cullen has recently introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-429, the Zero Waste Packaging Act, which seeks to follow the EU lead.1 Stay tuned on the progress of those efforts as they evolve here in Canada.

The Spotlight on Product and Packaging Waste

A dispute between the Philippines and Canada has recently drawn attention on Canada’s product and packaging waste system.  In April 2019, the Philippines demanded that Canada take back shipping containers full of waste and recyclable plastics. Canada originally argued that it is not responsible for returning the waste that was shipped. This dispute, spanning over 5 years now, is complicated by obligations under international law (including the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1992).  As threats from the Philippines President escalated in late April 2019, Canada offered to accept and pay for the return of close to 70 shipping containers.Those containers are now on their way back to Canada. 

This international dispute has placed the spotlight on the state of recycling in Canada (as many did not realize Canada ships its waste elsewhere).  This, coupled with the public criticism over the effectiveness of Canada’s recycling regime, could spark local governments to expedite implementation of waste reduction policy and full-EPR programs. 

In summary, EPR and product stewardship programs are here to stay and will increasingly impose significant requirements on product producers.  Our Gowling WLG team has extensive experience in the detailed requirements that must be followed to ensure legal compliance. Should you have any concerns or questions regarding your company’s product stewardship and EPR duties, please contact one of our knowledgeable team members.


1 https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-429/first-reading#enH123


NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

About the Authors

Mark Youden is an associate lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Vancouver office, practising in the firm’s Environmental and Indigenous Law groups. Mark is called to the bar in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and advises a wide range of clients on all aspects of environmental, Indigenous and regulatory law issues.

Prior to studying law, Mark obtained a Master of Science focused on biophysical interactions and the fate of contaminants in terrestrial and aquatic systems. He also worked as an environmental consultant for an international engineering firm.

Mark’s scientific expertise and multidisciplinary approach to the law help him provide clients with practical solutions to complex environmental and Indigenous law matters.

Maya Stano is a Vancouver-based Gowling WLG associate lawyer who practises natural resource, environmental and Indigenous law.

Maya has a wide range of legal experience assisting individuals, companies and Indigenous Nations and other levels of governments on natural resource projects, including mining, forestry, large and small scale hydro projects, oil and gas projects, and nuclear projects. Maya provides timely and effective advice at all stages of project life, from early planning and tenure applications, through construction, operations and final closure, decommissioning and reclamation. Maya’s services cover due diligence matters, permitting (including environmental assessments), land rights (including leases and other land access and tenure agreements), regulatory compliance, and engagement and agreement negotiations between First Nations, the Crown and proponents.

Maya also assists Indigenous Nations in various government-related matters, including drafting laws and bylaws, drafting and implementing trust instruments for sustainable long-term financial management, managing land use and rights on reserve, and working with land codes and other governance matters.

Maya studied law at the University of British Columbia, graduating with a specialization in environmental and natural resource Law. After graduation, Maya clerked at the Federal Court of Canada for the Honourable Mr. Justice John A. O’Keefe. Concurrently, she completed an LLM at the University of Ottawa, focusing on the legal implications associated with lifecycle management of metals.

Maya is also a professional geological engineer and previously worked on mining projects both domestically and abroad, as well as on contaminated sites across British Columbia, and on oil and gas projects in northern Alberta.

New global rules curb unrestricted plastic waste exports

, , ,

Governments at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) of the Basel Convention recently acted to restrict plastic waste exports by requiring countries to obtain prior informed consent before exporting contaminated or mixed plastic waste. A deluge of plastic waste exports from developed countries has polluted developing countries in Southeast Asia after China closed the door to waste imports in 2018.

Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention

“With this amendment, many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” said Dr. Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor. “For far too long developed countries like the US and Canada have been exporting their mixed toxic plastic wastes to developing Asian countries claiming it would be recycled in the receiving country. Instead, much of this contaminated mixed waste cannot be recycled and is instead dumped or burned, or finds its way into the ocean.”

The unanimously adopted actions on plastic wastes include:

  • Removing or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics production and at any subsequent stage of their life cycle.
  • Setting of specific collection targets and obligations for plastics producers to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up.
  • Preventing and minimizing the generation of plastic waste, including through increasing the durability, reusability and recyclability of plastic products.
  • Significant reduction of single-use plastic products.

A group of cured resins and fluorinated polymers was not included in the requirement of prior informed consent, which means they can be freely traded without notification.

The theme of the meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. The meetings, attended by about 1,400 participants, from 180 countries, adopted 73 decisions.

$40 million Waste-to-Energy Research Facility Launched

,

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) recently launched a new Waste-to-Energy Research Facility that turns municipal solid waste from the NTU campus into electricity and resources.

Located in Tuas South, the facility is a $40 million project supported by the National Research Foundation, NEA, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and NTU, for its construction and operation over its projected lifetime.

Slagging Gasification

The first-of-its-kind facility in Singapore is managed by NTU and houses a unique slagging gasification plant, which is able to heat up to 1,600 degrees Celsius, unlike conventional mass burn incinerators which operate at around 850 degrees Celsius.

The high temperature of the plant turns waste into syngas (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that can be used to produce electricity, slag (a glass-like material that can potentially be used as construction material), and metal alloy granulates that can be recycled.

Led by NTU’s Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI), the research facility will facilitate test-bedding of innovative technologies for converting waste into energy and useful materials through unique plug-and-play features. These technologies, if proven successful and implemented, can enable more energy and materials to be recovered from waste, thereby prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

In Singapore’s context, slagging gasification technology has potential to complement the current mass burn technology as it can treat diverse mixed waste streams that cannot be handled by these mass burn incinerators today.

This slagging gasification plant also demonstrates another first with the use of ‘clean’ biomass charcoal as auxiliary fuel – a unique combination not yet proven in the market.

Possible research projects at the new WtE Research Facility

Over the next few years, NTU scientists and engineers from NEWRI will collaborate with industry and academic partners to embark on various research projects aimed at developing and testing technologies in the waste-to-energy domain.

Unique to the research facility is the ability to test-bed new technologies in “plug-and- play” style, which includes the capability to process diverse feeds like municipal solid waste, incineration bottom ash and sludge; provisions for the evaluation of gas separation technologies to supply enriched-oxygen air; syngas upgrading and novel flue gas treatment techniques.

How the gasification plant works

Municipal waste from the NTU campus is transported to the facility, which can treat 11.5 tonnes of waste daily.

The waste is sorted, shredded and transported via a conveyor and a bucket lifted to the top of the furnace tower to be fed along with biomass charcoal that helps maintain the high temperature of the molten slagging layer at the base of the furnace.

The waste is dried and gasified as it moves down the furnace. About 85 per cent of the waste weight will turn into syngas, 12 per cent into slag and metal alloy, and the remaining 3 per cent into fly ash.

The syngas flows from the top of the furnace to the secondary combustion chamber, where it is burned to heat a boiler to generate steam.

The steam then drives a turbine-generator to generate electricity to offset the energy consumption to operate this research facility. In a commercial larger scale plant of this type, the amount of electricity output can be significant enough to self sustain the plant operations with the excess channelled into the electricity grid.

The exhaust flue gas from the boiler is then treated with slaked lime and activated carbon and passed through bag filter, before being discharged as cleaned gas through a stack into the atmosphere.

Moving forward, NTU expects to partner more companies to develop and trial new solutions at this open test-bed facility that aims to contribute to Singapore’s quest to be a more sustainable nation.

Waste Not, Want Not: Recycled vs. Recyclable

, , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

This past weekend, at a gathering with friends, the topic of recycling came up.

“Did you know that they can recycle cigarette butts now?”

Being known as the “garbage man” among my peers, eyes turned to me to confirm this seemingly revolutionary advancement in recycling.

I hesitated, knowing that my answer was about to make me a “Debbie Downer” and open a can of worms about what it really means to recycle something.

“No – cigarette butts cannot be recycled in conventional recycling systems” – I made sure to add the latter as a qualifier.

“But I heard about a program that takes back used cigarettes and turns it into new forms of plastic and compost!”

What my friend was referring to was the breakthrough program offered by Terracycle (read more about it here: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/brigades/cigarette-waste-recycling).

And with a heavy heart, I launched into a lecture about the difference between something that can be recycled, versus something that is recyclable.

By the end, the disappointment in the room was palpable – I was the proverbial wet blanket that ruined the “feel good factor” of trying to do the right thing.

My feelings towards Terracycle and other similar organizations are heavily conflicted. On one hand, they are innovative, transformative and committed to finding new uses for problematic materials. The accolades they receive are well deserved, but I also think it creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled.

Most materials can technically be recycled – be it cigarette butts, laminated coffee cups, chip bags etc. Given the resources, infrastructure, technology and time, we can find ways to re-purpose problematic materials.

It is in this space that organizations such as Terracycle thrive – they have forged literally dozens of partnerships with companies across the globe to successfully “recycle the unrecyclable”.

Win, win situation, right? Wrong.

While it may seem novel to turn ocean plastic into shoes, or chip bags into handbags, the hard truth is that this type of recycling cannot be readily replicated at scale. The processing technology involved is economically prohibitive, and really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered.

The latter point is also why the environmental and economic impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

Going back to our cigarette butt example, there is no recycling facility in Canada (that I am aware of) that can economically recover the material… which is why it is so imperative that we distinguish between something that can be recycled, versus recyclability.

To me, the former is a technical question – does the technology exist to recycle a particular good? The latter however is a much more nuanced question that requires us to consider the economic, environmental and social impact of recycling activity.

As an example, 99.99% of people who work in waste will tell you that glass can be recycled, but I would bet that a significant portion of those people would question whether it should really be recycled (at least in a curbside collection system).

Why this matters is that the average consumer has difficulty differentiating between recycling and recyclability. Much like my well intentioned friends, once people hear that something can be recycled, they assume that to be a universal truth. When Keureg teamed up with Recycle BC to pilot a recycling program, people across the country thought that they could now put K-cups in their Blue Bin (which was never the case).

Perhaps a more insidious example of how this consumer confusion can result in catastrophe, is in the green washing of packaging. My social media feed is full of examples of CPG companies partnering with Terracycle (and others) to pilot new recycling programs. The dangers of this is that companies may be more concerned with the “optics” of recyclability, as opposed to developing products that can be sustainability managed at end of life. The key to a successful pilot is accountability and transparency – I don’t want a headline announcing a partnership, I want to know how much is being diverted, where it is being diverted and at what cost.

I want to impress upon the reader that this post is not about bashing Terracycle or any other company attempting to develop new ways to recycle problematic materials. Their work is critical in promoting consumer awareness, and has successfully married CPG companies and recyclers to work collaboratively.

However, we have to remember that recycling is only one of many tools we have to promote a circular system. Inordinately focusing our attention and resources on recycling may be at the expense of other, more sustainable options. Consumers have an intense appetite and interest in doing the right thing and keeping material out of landfills, but we have to be honest with both them and ourselves regarding the role recycling can play.

About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior. Calvin has worked as both a policy planner for the MOECC and as a consultant on projects for Stewardship Ontario, Multi Material Stewardship Manitoba, and Ontario Electronic Stewardship. Calvin currently sits on the editorial board for Advances in Recycling and Waste Management, and as a reviewer for Waste Management, Resources Conservation and Recycling and Journal of Environmental Management.