A Waste Management Master Plan for the County of Peterborough

Transcription

1 A Waste Management Master Plan for the County of Peterborough

2 Prepared by Cambium Environmental Inc.

3 Waste Management Master Plan Provides overall direction for the waste management system. Addresses diversion and disposal needs for the next 20 years. Identifies opportunities to increase diversion. Identifies opportunities to reduce the amount of waste needing disposal. 3

4 Key WMMP Considerations Diminishing landfill capacity (County/City and Townships); Non-uniform level of service and varying waste management policies (County/City & Townships); Missed efficiencies due to independent Township service areas and policies; Limited influence/partnership with IC&I sector waste; Limited potential for organics processing; Aging Materials Recovery Facility; Seasonal fluctuation in population; and, Difficulty in engaging the seasonal population. 4

5 Strategy for Success... Understand and Assess the Current Waste Management System Establish Goals and Objectives Identify and Assess the Options Propose WMMP Components 5

6 The Current Waste Management System 15 transfer stations active landfills Materials Recovery Facility Composting Facility 34,269 households 23,697 tonnes of waste/yr 39.4 % diversion 6

7 The Current Waste Management System Waste Composition (2010) Total Waste = 23,697 tonnes Waste Disposed = 14,350 tonnes (60.6%) Waste Diverted = 9,347 tonnes (39.4%) 7

8 8 The Current Waste Management System 23,700 tonnes of residential waste generated (2010). 9,347 tonnes or 39.4% of residential waste diverted including blue box, leaf and yard material composting and MHSW (average of 40.7%). Net cost for the blue box program was $253 per tonne (average of $332). The County disposed 14,350 tonnes of residential waste at the PCCWMF, 227 kg per capita (average of 199 kg/cap). Each Township provides varying levels of waste management services. They are responsible for the operation of waste transfer stations and/or landfill sites, and any bag tag/limits/user pay system or policy enforcement.

9 Goals and Objectives Optimize Waste Management Implement Best Practices for Waste Management Expand Outreach for Waste Management 9

10 Goal #1: Optimize Waste Management Maximize life of waste management facilities Decrease the average waste per person Increase long term diversion target from 50% to 60% Review target every 5 years Set new target at 10 years Create a strategy to increase diversion in IC&I sectors Explore changes in industry/technology to further increase diversion rates Encourage partnerships with the City and other neighboring municipalities 10

11 Goal #2: Implement Best Practices for Waste Management Identify where waste is coming from (seasonal, agricultural and IC&I sectors) Establish a means to monitor/measure and report Complete a disposal versus diversion cost comparison Identify an appropriate long term solution for waste disposal (Continue to work with the City) Establish the framework for a County-wide diversion policy and assist with implementation Promote cooperative waste management services Include performance incentives which reflect overall goals and interim targets Maximize potential waste funding opportunities 11

12 Goal #3: Expand Outreach for Waste Management Improve public engagement and education to residents on waste management programs Observe and promote positive changes to legislative policy Shift responsibility from general tax base to consumer and industry Encourage industry to change products to be more sustainable 12

13 Projected Waste Needs and Future Options Development Divertible Waste Opportunity Analysis How much more waste could be diverted from disposal? Waste Material Current Diversion Tonnes % of waste stream Additional Future Diversion Additional Tonnes (at 75% capture) Additional % of waste stream Future Diversion Tonnes % of waste stream Blue Box 4, % 2, % 6, % SSO (food waste) 1, % 2, % 4, % Leaf & Yard Materials % 2, % 2, % Construction and Demolition Debris % % 1, % Scrap Metal and White Goods % 0 0.0% % Tires % % % Residential Deposit Returns % 0 0.0% % WEEE % % % MHSW % % % Residential Reuse % 0 0.0% % Totals 9, % 8, % 17,709 75% 13

14 Projected Waste Needs and Future Options Development Disposed Waste Needs Residential Waste Generation Projection Rates to Population 58,000 59,200 60,405 60,685 60,960 Residential Waste (tonnes) 14,350 14,648 14,945 15,014 15,082 14

15 Projected Waste Needs and Future Options Development Identify Options Diversion Potential (%) Annual Net Cost Per Tonne Annual Net Cost Per Household Implementation Costs Evaluate Options Economic Feasibility Environmental Effects Social Acceptance Sound Technology Ease of Implementation Operation Costs 15

16 Development of the Plan Waste diversion options were evaluated and grouped into five broad categories Collection Strategies Policy and Enforcement Approaches Promotion and Education Strategies IC&I Strategies Monitoring and Reporting Strategies 16

17 Development of the Plan Waste disposal options were grouped into five general categories Thermal Technologies (with the potential for energy generation) Landfill (expansion or greenfield) Export (private sector and/or public sector) Alternative Methodology (landfill mining, anaerobic digestion, transformation) 17

18 Programs Start 2013 Waste Diversion Key Recommendations Key Recommendation Enhance Collection of Leaf and Yard Materials 2010 Baseline years years 3.7% 5.5% Increase Diversion of C&D Debris 1.5% 2.2% Promote Backyard Composting 0.6% 0.4% Align By-laws 1.8% 1.2% Increase Enforcement Mandatory Recycling Coordinate P&E Campaigns Investigation of IC&I Waste Measuring Success Expand SSO Collection Curbside Green Bin Service Expand SSO Collection Additional Molok Systems years 8% 2% 0.9% 0.2% Building Permit Waste Reduction Plans 1% 4% years Materials Ban - Organics 3% Total Anticipated Diversion Rate 39.4% 47.0% 66.2% 72.4% 75.4% Anticipated Implementation Costs $0.480 $3.7 $0.135 $0.040 Note: - indicates diversion amount not available Costs presented in millions of dollars County will reach 60% target by

19 Key Recommendations Next 5 Years Leaf & Yard Materials All leaf & yard materials should be collected and formally diverted (i.e. seasonal curbside collection in strategic areas and at all landfills and transfer stations) Converted to a beneficial end use product that can be sold (compost) Securing adequate composting capacity is a requirement for this program An increase in diversion of 3.7% is expected by 2018 at a cost of $150,000 19

20 Key Recommendations Next 5 Years Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris This bulky, durable and non-readily decomposable material rapidly consumes landfill capacity Most C&D debris can be recycled or reused Designated collection areas should be established at all landfills and transfer stations Collection of separated C&D debris from landfills and transfer stations can be completed by private companies An increase in diversion of 1.5% is expected by 2018 at a cost of $25,000 20

21 Key Recommendations Next 5 Years Backyard Composting Surveys found that approximately 50% of residents use backyard composting 100 kg of organic material per composter per year is assumed to be diverted Programs such as Garbage to Garden have numerous synergistic benefits by increasing interaction between County staff and residents An increase in diversion of 0.6% is expected by 2018 at a cost of $5,500 21

22 Key Recommendations Next 5 Years Align by-laws Continue efforts to align all waste services, by supporting common by-laws and policies Will result in increased efficiencies for service delivery, contracting, P&E and enforcement An increase in diversion of 1.8% is expected by 2018 at a cost of $1,225 Promotion and Education (P&E) The success of all programs will be enhanced by an effective, ongoing, targeted P&E program Use a variety of media to reach a broad audience 22

23 Waste Disposal Key Recommendations Investigate Options for Future Landfill Capacity Including existing landfill capacity, landfill expansions and potential greenfield locations to allow the widest selection of suitable options. Undertake a Formal Review of Waste Management Technologies Monitor the progress of facility and options (Durham York EFW, compost processing) Undertake a Full Feasibility Study for Waste Disposal Cost/benefit assessment for future residual waste capacity (within the County and mutually beneficial partnerships municipal/private). Meet the requirements of the EAA and other relevant legislation, should the County decide to proceed with implementation of a specific residual waste disposal option. Initiate an Environmental Assessment 23

24 Strategy for Success... Implementation and Performance Monitored and reported on annually Ensure that the system continues to evolve with waste generation, diversion and disposal conditions Review of the WMMP should be completed every 5 years 24

25 Public Information Centre Lakefield Marshland Centre 65 Hague Blvd Lakefield, Ontario Thursday November 29, pm to 7pm Please take a moment to complete a questionnaire and provide your comments Further information can be obtained at ( County of Peterborough Contact Laurie Westaway lwestaway@county.peterborough.on.ca Cambium Environmental Inc. Contact David Bucholtz david.bucholtz@cambium-env.com 25