The End of Landfills in Ontario? Proposed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Impact on Waste Management

, , ,

Written by Harry Dahme and Jessica Boily, Gowlings WLG

On July 8, 2020, the Ontario government introduced Bill 197 in the Legislative Assembly. Entitled the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, the proposed changes within the Bill amend twenty different Acts, including the Environmental Assessment Act.

While some of the amendments proposed in Bill 197 seek to address challenges encountered during COVID-19 (such as the changes to the Provincial Offences Act, covered in our COVID-19 Update), the Bill primarily includes reforms that were on the government’s agenda prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. These reforms include some of the most significant reforms to Ontario’s environmental assessment regime in many years. The Gowling WLG Environmental Law Group will be publishing a series of articles on these proposed reforms, which are expected to be fast-tracked through the Legislature this week.

From the point of view of waste management in Ontario, one of the most significant changes to be made by the Bill is the addition of a new section to the Environmental Assessment Act that would give municipalities the right to veto new landfills proposed to be located within their own borders or in adjacent municipalities where the proposed new landfill is within 3.5 kilometers of the municipal border. This amendment to the EAA would provide municipalities with the unprecedented ability to stop new landfills for any reason, even where the environmental assessment for that landfill would otherwise be satisfactory to the provincial government.

Demand the right coalition emerges

In 2018, Ingersoll Mayor, Ted Comiskey, started the “Demand the Right” Coalition of Ontario Municipalities, seeking support from other municipalities for legislation that would allow municipalities to say no to projects like windfarms and landfills.

On March 1, 2018, Ernie Hardeman, MPP for Oxford, the riding that includes Ingersoll, introduced a private members bill dealing with the issue. Bill 201Respecting Municipal Authority over Landfilling Sites Act, 2018, would have amended the EAA to prevent the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks from giving approval to an undertaking unless the municipal council had passed a resolution supporting the establishment of the landfilling site. The Bill did not receive Second Reading in the Legislature and died on the Order Paper when the Legislature was dissolved for the last provincial election.

During that election in 2018, Doug Ford stated that he respected “the right for local municipalities to make the decisions best for their communities.”

Following the election in 2018, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) released the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which stated it intended to provide “municipalities and communities they represent with a say in landfill siting approvals “. No firm commitment to a veto was made at that time and there were no consultations on the proposed amendments to the EAA affecting landfills prior to the introduction of Bill 197.

The state of landfill capacity in Ontario

Many Ontarians are not aware of the waste disposal crisis in which Ontario finds itself. The Ontario Waste Management Association reports that unless new landfills are built, Ontario’s landfill capacity will be exhausted by 2032. More than 80% of this capacity is located within a small number of sites (15 public and private landfills). These predictions assume that Ontario will continue to export approximately 30% of its waste to the United States, primarily to landfill sites in Michigan and New York. Should those exports stop, Ontario’s landfill capacity would be exhausted by 2028: only eight years from now. This is significant since it takes years, and sometimes more than a decade, to obtain approval for a new landfilling site.

Even before the introduction of Bill 197, the length and uncertainty of the environmental assessment process for new landfills and expansions to existing landfills meant that this crisis was not improving. While increased waste diversion is a laudable goal, even with significantly improved waste diversion rates, existing landfill capacity will be put under significant pressure in the next ten years.

Bill 197

Given the near future waste disposal crisis in the province, there is a demonstrated need for new landfills to be built and existing landfills to be expanded. While Bill 197 aims to streamline existing environmental assessment processes for some projects, it introduces a municipal veto over new landfills that is expected to almost entirely halt the planning for and building of new landfills in Ontario.

Section 10 of Schedule 6 to Bill 197 proposes to amend the EAA by adding a new section 6.01, which would provide that proponents who wish to establish a landfilling site that is subject to Part II of the EAA obtain “municipal support” for the undertaking. Municipal support must be obtained, not only from the local municipality in which the landfilling site is situated, but from any other municipality located within a 3.5 km distance from the property boundary of the proposed landfilling site. This support, as set out in s. 6.01(5), is demonstrated by providing a copy of a municipal council resolution from each of the municipalities, indicating that the municipality supports the undertaking.

This requirement applies to not only new future landfill proposals but also to landfills currently undergoing the environmental assessment process, even though EAA approval had been previously obtained for the Terms of Reference for that environmental assessment process and even though the environmental assessment process was proceeding in compliance with the approved Terms of Reference.

Proposed section 6.01 applies only to landfills, as opposed to all types of waste management facilities based on the definition of “landfilling site” which is defined as a waste disposal site where landfilling occurs.

While section 6.01 certainly applies to new landfills within the province, it could also potentially  be read to apply to expansions of existing large landfills as well. Section 6.01(3) states that the section applies “in respect of a proponent who wishes to proceed with an undertaking to establish a waste disposal site that, (a) is a landfilling site; and (b) is subject to this Part.” While the plain meaning of “establish”, which connotes the initial or first approval and construction of a project, is consistent with the meaning used within the Environmental Protection Act in the context of waste disposal sites, “establish” is not defined within the EAA itself. This leads to the possibility that the unique characteristics of any landfill expansion could lead to an interpretation that the expansion involves the establishment of a waste disposal site. If that interpretation is adopted, then that has huge ramifications with respect to the future availability of landfill capacity in Ontario, exacerbating even more the imminent waste disposal crisis in Ontario.


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

Harry Dahme is a partner in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office and past leader of the firm’s Environmental Law Group. He has practised exclusively in the area of environmental law since 1984, and has a solid reputation as one of the foremost environmental lawyers in Canada. Harry is certified by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in environmental law, and is described by Who’s Who Legal: Canada 2014 as “widely regarded as a leading authority in the field,” by Legal 500 Canada 2017 as “absolutely fantastic” and by Acritas Stars 2017 as “an acknowledged expert in environmental law.”
Jessica Boily is an environmental lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office. Her practice focuses on environmental litigation, drawing on her commercial litigation background to achieve successful and cost-effective outcomes. She uses her procedural expertise and technical knowledge to advocate for her clients. Jessica understands that complex disputes require creative scientific and legal approaches. Her clients appreciate her practical advice when managing and resolving multi-party environmental disputes. When litigation is necessary, her clients know her courtroom and tribunal experience will help them achieve the outcome they want.

Australian Government to directly invest $190 million on a Waste & Recycling Plan to Transform the Industry

, , , ,

The Australian Government recently announced that it will commit $190 million to a new Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) that will generate $600 million of recycling investment and drive a billion-dollar transformation of Australia’s waste and recycling capacity.

The government claims that more than 10,000 jobs will be created and over 10 million tonnes of waste diverted from landfill to the making of useful products as Australia turbo charges its recycling capacity.

The RMF will support innovative investment in new infrastructure to sort, process and remanufacture materials such as mixed plastic, paper, tyres and glass, with Commonwealth funding contingent on co-funding from industry, states and territories.

Australia’s waste and recycling transformation is being further strengthened by an additional:

  • $35 million to implement Commonwealth commitments under Australia’s National Waste Policy Action Plan, which sets the direction for waste management and recycling in Australia until 2030.
  • $24.6 million on Commonwealth commitments to improve our national waste data so it can measure recycling outcomes and track progress against our national waste targets.
  • The introduction of new Commonwealth waste legislation to formally enact the Government’s waste export ban and encourage companies to take greater responsibility for the waste they generate, from product design through to recycling, remanufacture or disposal (Product Stewardship).

The moves are part of a national strategy to change the way Australia looks at waste, grow the economy, protect the environment and reach a national resource recovery target of 80% by 2030.

“As we cease shipping our waste overseas, the waste and recycling transformation will reshape our domestic waste industry, driving job creation and putting valuable materials back into the economy,” Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley said in a recent news release.

Susan Ley, Australian Minister of the Environment

“Australians need to have faith that the items they place in their kerbside recycling bins will be re-used in roads, carpet, building materials and a range of other essential items.

“At the same time, we need to stop throwing away tonnes of electronic waste and batteries each year and develop new ways to recycle valuable resources.

“As we pursue National Waste Policy Action Plan targets, we need manufacturers and industry to take a genuine stewardship role that helps create a sustainable circular economy.

“This is a once in a generation opportunity to remodel waste management, reduce pressure on our environment and create economic opportunity.”

Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, said that the unparalleled expansion of Australia’s recycling capacity followed close consultation with industry.

“Our targeted investment will grow Australia’s circular economy, create more jobs and build a stronger onshore recycling industry,” Assistant Minister Evans said.

“Australian companies are turning plastics and household waste into furniture, decking, fencing and clothing, and we are developing new domestic markets for recycled materials by setting national standards for recycled content in roads and making recycled products a focus of procurement for infrastructure, defence estate management and general government purchasing.

“Our targeted investment will grow Australia’s circular economy, create more jobs and build a stronger onshore recycling industry.

“Companies are already moving with The Pact Group announcing a $500 million investment in facilities, research and technology, Coca-Cola Amatil committing to new recycling targets, and Pact, Cleanaway and Asahi Beverages establishing a $30 million recycling facility in Albury.”

Waste export ban to start from January 2021

The unparalleled expansion of Australia’s recycling capacity follows the 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan, Australia’s government ban on exports of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, and this year’s first ever National Plastics Summit.

The waste export ban was due to commence on July 1st, 2020. After consulting with industry and as a result of restrictions related to COVID-19 impacting Parliament’s ability to pass legislation in by July 1st, the ban will now commence on January 1st, 2021. The schedule for implementing the export ban on waste plastic, paper and tyres remains unchanged.

 

 

Waste Technology Company selected as a “Technology Pioneer” by the World Economic Forum

, , , ,

Enevo, a smart waste technology company, was recently selected among hundreds of candidates as one of the World Economic Forum’s “Technology Pioneers”.  Enevo’s unique Internet of Things (IoT) sensor technology, analytics and logistics software monitor and predict waste behavior to create custom, sustainable, and efficient waste services.

The World Economic Forum’s Technology Pioneers are early to growth-stage companies from around the world that are involved in the design, development and deployment of new technologies and innovations, and are poised to have a significant impact on business and society. Technology Pioneers community is an integral part of the larger Global Innovators community of start-ups at the World Economic Forum.

Enevo’s waste technology was recognized for its innovative and practical use in the waste world and the benefits it creates for civilian life. Enevo’s smart waste sensor monitors fill levels and collections while its analytics software employs sensor data to create custom waste services. Resulting collection schedules and routes drive the fewest number of miles while avoiding container overflow, eliminating unnecessary collections and carbon emissions. Enevo’s customers decrease operation costs while increasing efficiency and sustainability.

“We are delighted the World Economic Forum has recognized our journey in changing waste management and how our innovations in waste data and logistics optimization contributes to global resource efficiency,” says Enevo CEO Fredrik Kekalainen. “We believe data is crucial to create meaningful changes. You can’t manage properly if you don’t have enough information. We started Enevo to help innovative technology,communities decrease waste and increase recycling practices through data insight. We are honored to receive this prestigious award and become part of the World Economic Forum Tech Pioneers community.”

This year’s cohort selection marks the 20th anniversary of the Tech Pioneers community. Throughout its 20-year run, many Technology Pioneers have continuously contributed to advancement in their industries while some have even gone on to become household names. Past recipients include Airbnb, Google, Kickstarter, Mozilla, Palantir Technologies, Spotify, TransferWise, Twitter and Wikimedia.

Technology Pioneers have been selected based on the community’s selection criteria, which includes innovation, impact and leadership as well as the company’s relevance with the World Economic Forum’s Platforms.

About Enevo

Enevo is the leading international smart waste technology company. With more than 100 patents, Enevo’s sensor technology and advanced analytics software creates custom waste solutions based on unique waste behavior. Enevo’s 40,000+ active sensors and software suite increase efficiency, reduce collections, decrease carbon emissions, decrease operating costs, and increase sustainability. Enevo has offices in Espoo, Finland, Nottingham, UK, and Boston, USA, and a global reseller network in more than a dozen countries.

About World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum, committed to improving the state of the world, is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. (www.weforum.org).

About the Global Innovators:

The Global Innovators Community is a group of the world’s most promising start-ups and scale-ups that are at the forefront of technological and business model innovation. The World Economic Forum provides the Global Innovators Community with a platform to engage with public- and private-sector leaders and to contribute new solutions to overcome current crises and build future resiliency.

Companies who are invited to become Global Innovators will engage with one or more of the Forum’s Platforms, as relevant, to help define the global agenda on key issues.

Canada: Construction Waste Rules Set to Change

, , , , , ,

Written by by Jonathan D. Cocker, Baker McKenzie

The numbers speak for themselves – construction, along with renovation and demolition (CRD) waste has long been one of the largest waste streams in Canada (e.g. wood, asphalt roofing, drywall, etc). Further, unlike waste streams of similar size such as municipal solid waste and organics/food waste, CRD waste has been relatively untouched by regulation in either its generation or its disposal.  This appears about to change.

CAP Required EPR for CRD Wastes by 2017

The Canadian Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, CCME, September 2009, (the CAP) included important cross-country commitments by every province and territory to require Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for CRD wastes within 8 years of the CAP.

CRD waste was to be subject to EPR along with “Phase I” wastes and other “Phase 2” wastes such as furniture, textiles, carpeting and appliances.  While there has been demonstrable success among the provinces and territories with Phase I material EPR programs, the inverse has been true for Phase II, including for CRD waste:

Despite these documented successes, there continues to be major challenges. Firstly and most importantly, the CCME goal for action by 2017 on the Phase 2 product list (construction and demolition materials, furniture, textiles and carpet, appliances and ozone depleting substances) will not be met. Construction and demolition materials are a major component of the solid waste stream both by weight and percentage and despite a few studies, small pilot programs and private initiatives there has been little progress in this area.

Overview of the State of EPR in Canada: What Have We Learned?, EPR Canada, September 2017

From the Shadows to the Spotlight?

Sceptics might ask why CRD waste cannot simply remain in the regulatory no-man’s land between unfettered disposal and comprehensive waste management- namely, the soft industry CRD waste goals.

After all, Ontario has quietly dropped CRD waste from its circular economy commitments.  The former administration’s 2016 Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building a Circular Economy, called for the construction and demolition sectors to dramatically increase resource recovery efforts, including through amendments to the “3 Rs” Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Sectors waste regulations.  Since then, CRD waste has vanished from the province’s EPR regulatory agenda (other than in respect of soils).  But perhaps, EPR alone was never the answer for all CRD materials.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), after a 3-year consultation and policy development process, aims to return CRD waste to the policy forefront with a much broader and more robust set of policy requirements to reduce and resource recovery CRD waste.

CCME Aims to Change CRD Industries

The new CCME Guide for Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Policies for Influencing Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste Management, 2019 contains a nearly exhaustive study of the policy options provinces and territories may adopt in reducing and diverting CRD waste.

Among the options presented:

  • Permitting process to better incorporate CRD waste reduction and diversion;
  • Producer responsibility programs for flooring, drywall, window glass, brick, asphalt roofing and engineering/treated wood;
  • Restrictions upon CRD waste transportation and disposal bans;
  • Levies upon virgin materials and non-divertible CRD wastes;
  • Building code, certifications and standards changes to require CRD waste reduction/diversion; and
  • Public procurement to include CRD waste management.

Clearly, the days of the 3Rs as exhaustive CRD waste regulation are numbered.

Regional Approaches to CRD Regulation

In some of the CCME waste / EPR policies, typically relating to specific products and consumer materials, there is an understandable push for cross-Canada uniformity of approach and related regulatory requirements.

For CRD waste, however, the CCME allows a combination of the best policy options above to be “tailored to [a jurisdiction’s] unique political, economic and market conditions.” How to resolve local and regional needs with industry’s desire for consistent and transparent national standards will be just one of many areas of interest to CRD industries.

___

The CCME has arguably laid out a detailed and instructive regulatory roadmap for CRD wastes. It is now up to the CRD industries and their partners to determine how to make the most out of these challenges and opportunities across Canada.

This article is republished at the permission of the author. It was first published on the Baker McKenzie Environmental Law Insights website.


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads Baker McKenzie’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of the firm’s Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environmental and product compliance matters, including extended producer responsibilities, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, and contaminated lands matters. He assisted in the founding of one of North America’s first Circular Economy Producer Responsibility Organizations and provides advice and representation to a number of domestic and international industry groups in respect of resource recovery obligations. Mr. Cocker was recently appointed the first Sustainability Officer of the International Bar Association Mr. Cocker is a frequent speaker and writer on environmental issues and has authored numerous publications including recent publications in the Environment and Climate Change Law Review, Detritus – the Official Journal of the International Waste Working Group, Chemical Watch, Circular Economy: Global Perspectives published by Springer, and in the upcoming Yale University Journal of Industrial Ecology’s special issue on Material Efficiency for Climate Change Mitigation. Mr. Cocker maintains a blog focused upon international resource recovery issues at environmentlawinsights.com.

Windsor scores a 96% recycling rate in demolition of its Old City Hall

, ,

96.5% waste recycling rate for old city hall demolition saves money, helps environment. Hardly anything except hazardous material went into a landfill from demolition of the old Windsor city hall, a recycling feat being hailed as “truly remarkable.

Most of the old city hall building has been recycled.

When the project began, the city was hoping to achieve an 80 to 85% recycle rate from materials left behind from the demolition of the old building, including crushing the concrete on site and reusing it is as backfill where the old foundation was removed.

This effort was made to save money on both backfill and the cost that would have been involved to transfer material to the landfill, not to mention the environmental benefits.

Budget Environmental Disposal, the contractor tasked with this project, reports that the actual waste diversion achieved was 96.5%.

Of 8,301.13 metric tonnes of waste, only 283 ended up in landfill.

HSBC Canada launches Green Finance products to support Canadian businesses

, , ,

HSBC Bank Canada is supporting Canadian companies to meet their environmental and sustainability goals with the launch of new Green Finance products, the first of their kind in Canada aligned to the Loan Market Association’s Green Loan Principles.

The new range – available for businesses of all sizes from small to medium enterprises (SMEs) through to large corporates – includes term loans, commercial mortgages and leasing products.

Linda Seymour, Head of Commercial Banking at HSBC Bank Canada, said: “As companies look to become more sustainable, they are investing in green projects and activities. We can continue to support their aspirations through our Green Finance products, which support businesses as they pursue sustainable and environmentally-focused activities.”

HSBC’s latest Navigator survey reveals that 95% of Canadian businesses are feeling the pressure to be more sustainable. Their top motivations in implementing sustainability practices are to grow sales (29%), improve their employer brand (24%) or improve transparency and traceability of their products (22%).ii

The Green Finance range includes:

Term Loans
The minimum Green Loan starts at $500,000, enabling a broad range of companies to access finance to support sustainability projects.

Commercial Mortgages
Access loans for purchasing new property, as well as refinancing or making sustainability improvements to existing buildings.

Leasing
Leasing allows companies to use their working capital to keep their business running, instead of financing long-term green assets.

A green loan allows customers to showcase their green credentials to stakeholders by demonstrating that a portion of their funding is ring-fenced for green activities. Green credentials are becoming increasingly important for businesses providing goods or services to large enterprise customers, as these organizations need to demonstrate their supply chain’s sustainability credentials, either to employees or investors.

Targray, a major international provider of innovative materials for photovoltaic manufacturers – and a long-time HSBC Canada customer – is the type of company that might benefit from HSBC’s Green Finance products. CFO Michel Tardif, said: “Targray is focused on supporting the growth and sustainability of novel energy industries through collaboration, innovation and value creation. To do that, we need partners who understand how to financially support companies in their sustainability efforts. We are glad to be working collaboratively with HSBC to create new solutions that fuel the world’s transition towards sustainable energy. Their green loan offering is certainly a step in the right direction.”

Linda Seymour added: “Businesses have asked for products that are aligned to their sustainability goals, and we are confident this suite of Green Finance products will support them.”

HSBC Bank Canada has aligned its Green Finance offering to the Loan Market Association’s Green Loan Principles – a set of market standards and guidelines providing a consistent methodology for use across the wholesale green loan market. This initiative forms part of HSBC’s global commitment to provide $100 billion in sustainable financing and investment by 2025.

Eligible activities include:

  • Renewable energy, including storage and smart grids;
  • Pollution prevention and control, including reduction of air emissions and greenhouse gas control;
  • Clean transportation;
  • Climate change adaptation;
  • Sustainable water and wastewater management;
  • Sustainable management of living and natural resources and land use;
  • Waste prevention, reduction, recycling; waste to energy; products from waste.

HSBC Bank Canada
HSBC Bank Canada, a subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc, is the leading international bank in the country. We help companies and individuals across Canada to do business and manage their finances internationally through three global business lines: Commercial Banking, Global Banking and Markets, and Retail Banking and Wealth Management.

City of Montreal awards contract to build, operate, and maintain a SSO Anaerobic Processing Facility

, , ,

The City of Montreal recently signed a contract with SUEZ to design, build, operate and maintain a source separated organics (SSO) waste treatment center. This contract, worth $167 million (Cdn.), provides for a two-year construction period of the plant followed by a five-year operating period. This is the second contract won this year by SUEZ in Montreal, which is currently building a composting facility. The new plant will convert organic material into biomethane, producing enough renewable gas to power around 3,600 households.

SUEZ will build an organic waste biomethanation center that can process 60,000 tons of organic material each year, on the east side of Montreal Island. This plant will recover organic waste produced by nearly 1.5 million inhabitants of the east side and the city center into biomethane. SUEZ will equip the plant with innovative technologies allowing for the anaerobic digestion of organic material to generate biogas, which will then be purified using high-performance membranes to produce biomethane. Expected to be commissioned in 2022, the facility will be operated and maintained by SUEZ for a period of five years.

This plant will contribute to the City of Montreal’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. First, it will significantly reduce the distances traveled in treating this waste, which is currently taken to a facility around 50 kilometers (31 miles) northeast of Montreal. Moreover, the new plant will convert the organic material into biomethane, a renewable energy that offers the same advantages as natural gas. Non-polluting and locally produced, the biomethane will be injected into the local gas network.

This facility is the second organic waste treatment centers planned by the City of Montreal to recover and divert away its organic waste from landfills by 2020. In April 2019, SUEZ was selected by the City of Montreal to design, build and operate the city’s first organic waste treatment center, located in the Saint-Laurent borough.

About SUEZ North America

SUEZ North America operates across all 50 of the United States and throughout Canada. It has 2,825 employees. The company provides drinking water, wastewater and waste collection services; treats water and wastewater ; delivers water treatment and advanced network solutions to industrial and municipal sites; processes waste for recycling; rehabilitates and maintains water assets for municipal and industrial customers; and manages $4.1 billion in total assets. The company posted revenues of $1.1 billion in 2018 and is a subsidiary of Paris-based SUEZ.

Survey suggests some Ontario Municipalities are open to hosting a landfill

, ,

A recent survey of municipal politicians and Chief Administration Officers commissioned by a coalition of over 70 Ontario municipalities has found that four in ten municipalities are open to the idea of acting as a host to a new landfill.

The coalition was formed to lobby the Ontario government into allowing more municipal control on the approval process for landfills in the Province. The coalition calls itself the Demand the Right Coalition of Ontario Municipalities. It commissioned Public Square Research to conduct the survey.

The survey involved a random selection process, with 325 participants. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to a list of over 1,700 Mayors, Reeves, Councillors and chief administrators in Ontario.

Currently in Ontario, a private sector company is required to go through an environmental assessment process and then a technical environmental approval process before being permitted to develop a landfill site. Both of the processes are managed by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MOECP). No municipal approval is required.

The current timeline for approval for a new landfill in Ontario is anywhere from five to ten years. Extensive public consultation is required as part of the process as is discussions with municipal government officials. Many private sector proponents would likely see another level of government approval for landfill development as an added time and cost burden with very limited environmental benefit.

In November 2018, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks published its Made-in-Ontario Environmental Plan. The plan included a proposal to provide municipalities with the right to approve new landfills. Further details of the proposed change were released for public comment in the follow-up Discussion Paper on Reducing Litter and Waste in Our Communities, published in March 2019.

The results of the survey found that the chief concerns of municipal leaders for new landfill approvals are environmental (27%), site location (19%), and financial considerations (15%). Other issues of importance included resident opinion (9%), odour controls (9%), and public safety (8%).

“We can now confirm that municipal approval will improve landfill operations, not eliminate them,” said Ted Comiskey, Mayor of Ingersoll and Chair of the Demand the Right Coalition. “By placing municipal governments on a level playing field with private waste management companies, councils and staff can negotiate for enhanced environmental protections, better site selections, and improved financial considerations on costs such as tipping fees and municipal services.”

Comiskey said, “Municipalities want the right to say yes or no, as we do with casinos, cannabis stores, and nuclear waste sites. This will be good for all concerned, as it means that communities will be given real choices. There will also be a cost impact on waste management. If the cost of landfill goes up, there will be a financial incentive for everyone to reduce their waste. Currently, there is none.”

70 Ontario municipalities are members of the Demand the Right Coalition

 

B.C. Municipality considering N.S. waste technology

, ,

Nova Scotia-based Sustane Technologies is being considered as the waste management solution provider for The Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) in British Columbia.

As reported in the Cowichan Valley Citizen, The CVRD has decided to participate in an initiative to monitor and study how the new and innovative Sustane Technologies Waste Management facility, located in Chester, Nova Scotia, deals with its waste.

The CVRD has a population of 83,739 residents that reside in four unique municipalities It covers a land area of 3,473.12 km2 on the east coast of Vancouver Island and includes several Gulf Islands, including Thetis, Kuper, and Valdes.

The CVRD is governed by a 15 member board comprised of appointed directors from four municipalities, the Town of Lake Cowichan, the Town of Ladysmith, the City of Duncan and the Municipality of North Cowichan (North Cowichan has three appointees based upon population) and an elected director from each of the nine electoral areas.

Sustane Technologies claims to have developed a set of disruptive separation technologies to transform municipal solid wastes (MSW) to high value fuels and recyclable materials at lower cost than landfilling.

Sustane’s first-ever North American facility in Nova Scotia, which has a capacity of 70,000 tonnes per year of solid waste, is undergoing its final tests and operations are anticipated to begin this year.

Sustane Technologies Facility, Chester, Nova Scotia

The CVRD will join the Regional District of Nanaimo and the Comox Valley Regional District in the performance monitoring program at the facility, at a cost to the district of $4,100.

“Like the CVRD, other regional districts on the island are interested in viable technologies to transform residual waste to marketable reusable products,” said Tauseef Waraich, the CVRD’s manager of recycling and waste management, in a report to the board.

“Since this is the first ever facility of its kind in North America, it is important to monitor the performance to determine its viability for local regional districts on the island.”

Since the closure in the late 1990s of the three incinerators and the regional landfill in the CVRD, the district has been in search of viable disposal solutions for its solid waste.

Waraich said the three incinerators were considered state-of-the-art facilities when they were constructed, but by the late 1990s, studies indicated they were adversely impacting the local air quality and their licences to operate were pulled by the province.

As for the landfill, Waraich said the old one was filled to capacity and no location within the CVRD could be identified for a new one.

Currently, the region does not have a disposal option for its solid waste other than export it to the Rabanco Landfill in Roosevelt, U.S. The CVRD relies on a central waste transfer station at Bings Creek as well as two satellite facilities at Peerless Road and Meade Creek for regional waste collection and transfer to the Rabanco Landfill.

The CVRD currently produces approximately 94,000 tonnes of waste per year, with about 64 per cent recycled or composted.

The district’s solid waste, with approximately 20,000 tonnes originating from CVRD-owned facilities and about 14,000 tonnes from other sources, is sent to landfills for disposal.

CVRD’s solid waste management plan, which was updated in 2018, has the following guiding principles:

Promote zero waste approaches and support a circular economy.

Promote the first 3Rs.

Maximize the beneficial use of waste materials and manage residuals appropriately.

Support polluter and user-pay approaches and manage incentives to maximize behaviour outcomes.

Prevent organics and recyclables from going to the garbage whenever practical.

Collaborate with other regional districts wherever possible.

Motor Oil Recycling: Barriers and Breakthroughs

, , , ,

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

Motor oil changes are a sacrament in our car-obsessed modern life, while the mechanics working in the auto shops are their enforcers and evangelizers.  Every 5,000 to 8,000 kilometres, car owners begrudgingly schedule an oil change between busy work days and weekend errands.  

Primer of Motor Oil

During the 20-minute oil-change procedure, mechanics bleed the blackened, viscous motor oil from the bowels of the engine and replace it with pristine liquids from bright plastic packaging – eye-catching to some, but a far cry from the painted metal containers that furnish collector’s shelves.

Vintage Motor Oil Can, $31 (USD) on ebay

While the myriad of car oil brands available might suggest a wide variance in products, they differ only in the precise mixing of additives.  Motor lubricant is essentially 70-80% base oil with the remaining 20-30% consisting of supplements such as antioxidants, detergents, and viscosity enhancers, as well as rust inhibitors.

The quality of the motor oil degrades over time in a motor vehicle.  The build-up of debris blackens the oil, while the additive properties deteriorate over the driving cycle, dissipating heat and lubricating contact points between metal parts with less efficiency as time marches onward.  Water entrainment and oxidation of the base oil are also contributing factors.  

Changing one’s motor oil frequently, as the chorus drones on, ensures the longevity of the engine. One question remains as the mechanics dispense with the last of the used oil: what happens to it afterward?   Nothing much is often the answer. 

Motor Oil Re-refining

There are over 300 million registered vehicles in Canada and the United States alone, contributing to the nearly 2.5 billion gallons of motor oil disposed of annually throughout North America.  Of the almost 60% recovered, a mere 8% is recycled. The remainder feeds the 12 billion of gallons of lubricant reduced to toxic waste yearly.

Catastrophizing about the volumes quoted and their impact is not productive in and of itself.  Exploring ways to improve oil recycling figures is a better use of time.

In 2009, when the revered Scientific American explored whether motor oil could be recycled, the editors profiled Universal Lubricants (“UL”).  The Wichita-based company uses conventional refining techniques from upgrading crude oil when recovering the spent lubricant.  They essentially re-refine the used motor oil

UL processes over 45.4 million litres of used motor oil, or 28,600 barrels, per day.  In the re-refining process, used oil passes through a vacuum distillation unit which removes water from the base oil, accounting for 5-7% of the incoming volume. Next, contaminants are removed using an evaporation press.  In the final step, UL hydrotreats the decontaminated oil. 

Hydrotreating consists of applying high temperature and pressure (700 deg-F and 1,100 PSI) and enriching the carbon-backbone of the oil with hydrogen molecules in the presence of catalysts that aid in the chemical reactions. 

The final product resembles base oil, ready for lubricant merchants to add their additive concoctions and branding power.

Photo Credit: UL

Re-refining efforts, much like those by UL, accounts for only 10 percent of used oil management market.  The majority of used motor oil is either burned or dumped, depending on the jurisdiction and level of enforcement.  The emergence of re-refining technologies has done little in altering the outcome for spent motor oil — but why?

Barriers to Recycling

There are two main barriers to a broader adaptation of re-refining used motor oil.  The first is the capital expense in building and operating a facility on UL’s scale.  Investors should expect a final bill of tens of millions of dollars in replicating UL’s plant in Canada.  Recovering their investment is another issue: refineries derive their profits either from large volumes, amplifying small gains per unit of measurement, or upgrading cheaper base stocks.  With respect to the latter point, one could argue that the used motor oil would be a commodity instead of merely a waste product with broader market adaptation.  Such a classification diminishes the facility’s economic viability.

The second barrier to re-refining is the plant’s environmental impact.  A re-refiner has a similar environmental impact as an oil refinery.  To understand how difficult it is to get environmental approval for an oil refinery, one need to realize that the newest oil refinery in Canada is over 30 years old.

Canadian Innovation

Besides re-refining, there are innovative and arguably more feasible solutions for recycling motor oil in development.  The Ottawa-based MemPore Environmental Technologies Inc. (“MemPore”) is one such example, scaling their locally-minded, membrane-based process.

MemPore’s solution is this: the used motor oil is kept in 5,000-gallon settling tanks and periodically shipped to their regionally-based operation.  The central locations reduce the amount of pollution from transporting oil over longer distances and eases logistical challenges.  After removing contaminants during the pretreatment process, consisting of a filter, centrifuge, and flash evaporators, the oil is sent to the membrane unit.  Once polished to a quality consistent with a regular base oil, lubricant mixers take the final product and infuse it with their additives.

Cement kilns take the waste sludge separated by the membrane. The 15 metric tonnes, or 148 barrels, per day system operates at low temperatures and pressures, thus reducing its running costs and environmental impact.

Mempore Used Oil Recycling System

Alastair Samson, MemPore’s CEO, eloquently summarizes the company’s position and value proposition:

“The MemPore System can, for the first time, recover and recycle this base oil with 71% reduction in pollution, from localized systems, using low energy, and at low capital and operating cost. This is an important contribution to the clean technology movement and the preservation of earth’s natural resources.”

MemPore’s community-centric and scalable solution, with the potential for handsome profit margins, offers a tangible solution to the endemic squandering of used motor oil.  They also provide the mechanics a new hymn during drivers’ reluctant excursion to the auto body shop.