CITY CLERK Clause embodied in Report No. 6 of the, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on May 21, 22 and 23, 2002. 2 Blue Box Residue and Recycling of Coloured Glass (City Council on May 21, 22 and 23, 2002, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following: It is further recommended that Councillor Brad Duguid, new Chair of the Works Committee, be requested to meet with the Chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in order to pursue options for new recycling markets for the City of Toronto s green and mixed broken glass, and, if those markets are not forthcoming, that options be pursued for funding mechanisms available to the City of Toronto for the management of its green and mixed broken glass, including an increase in LCBO funding for 2003 by $1.0 million to cover Toronto s additional costs for disposal of broken glass, due to the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill site. ) The recommends: (1) the adoption of the report dated April 18, 2002, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and (2) that the Province of Ontario be requested to provide clarification of their position on a deposit/return system for Liquor Control Board of Ontario containers. The reports, for the information of Council, having: (1) requested the City Solicitor, in light of the Supreme Court decision on Hudson and other recent court rulings relevant to municipal powers, to submit a report to the Committee on the possibilities of the Municipal Licensing power countenancing a requirement for LCBO facilities in Toronto to have a deposit/return system, such report to address the actions of the former Metropolitan Council in this regard; and (2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the potential savings to the City that could be achieved with a deposit/return system for LCBO containers. The submits the following report (April 18, 2002) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: Purpose: To report on the quantity of residue from the blue box program and how the blue box program can be expanded to secure alternate markets for residue from the blue box program; furthermore,
2 to report to the on the feasibility of eliminating the collection of green glass from multi-family residents being added to the City's recycling program; and on the feasibility of totally eliminating the collection of green glass from the blue box program. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services issue quotation requests for the purchase of the City s blue box residue; (2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services issue quotation requests for the purchase of the City s mixed broken glass and coloured glass; and (3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services continue to collect coloured glass under the blue box program. Background: At its meeting of January 15, 22 and 25, 2002, the requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to actively seek out and report on, among other items, the quantity of residue from the blue box, how the residue can be used in a positive way and whether the blue box program can be expanded without additional capital cost to convert the residue from the blue box into useable resources. Furthermore, on February 5, 2002, the Budget Advisory Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the on: (1) the feasiblity of eliminating the collection of green glass from multi-family residents being added to the City's recycling program; and (2) on the feasibility of totally eliminating the collection of green glass from the blue box program. The City s current blue box recycling program accepts the following container materials: glass bottles and jars, aluminum and steel food and beverage cans, plastic bottles and jugs made of plastic resins #1 (PET) or #2 (HDPE), rigid aluminum foil, and aseptic and polycoat cartons. In addition to the blue box recycling program, the City also operates a grey box recycling program for the recovery of commingled paper products including, but not limited to, newspapers, corrugated cardboard, boxboard, magazines and catalogues, fine paper and junk mail.
3 Blue Box Residue: The MRF processing operation produces about 12 percent residue of the total annual blue box recycling container materials received for processing (residue consists of non-recyclable plastics, metals, paper and other materials). In 2001, the City s two MRF s produced approximately 5,400 tonnes of blue box residue. The blue box residue is currently disposed of as regular garbage, and in 2003, represents an added annual disposal cost of approximately $300,000 (based on the City s transfer and disposal costs in Michigan). This residue material is not included in the City s diversion rate. The City s move to single stream recycling, allowing residents to mix their container materials with their paper products in one container, requiring only one collection vehicle, may result in a further increased residue level. Mixed Broken Glass: In 2001, the City s two MRF s produced approximately 18,000 tonnes of mixed broken glass (clear and coloured glass fragments). Staff have been working for years with other municipalities and industry groups to find a sustainable end market for the post consumer use of mixed broken glass. To date, the costs to ship and process mixed glass to end markets have been prohibitive relative to the cost of the approved use as a road base stabilizer at the Keele Valley Landfill. In 2003, after the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill, based on the 2001 container material processing operation, a total of approximately 18,000 tonnes of material will require disposal. At the City s current transfer and disposal rate in Michigan, the annual cost for disposing of this material will be approximately $1,000,000. Coloured Glass: The City also recovers approximately 4,500 tonnes of coloured glass annually from the container material processing operation. There is currently only one end market that will accept the coloured glass at no cost to the City. That end market has recently notified City staff that it has a substantial inventory of coloured glass and has made no long-term guarantee to continue to accept the volumes the City processes. The quantity of coloured glass the City currently processes far exceeds the current post consumer market demand, and it appears there will be no change in the near future. Furthermore, Ontario Regulation 101/94 under the Environmental Protection Act states that if a municipality collects garbage from a multi-unit residential building, the municipality must also collect recyclable materials from that building. This regulation lists specific materials that a municipality must collect as part of its blue box program, which includes glass bottles and jars for food or beverages and other recyclable materials.
4 Discontinuing the collection of coloured glass from the blue box program or not offering coloured glass collection for apartments being added to the City's recycling program would be in violation of Ontario Regulation 101/94. At the City s current transfer and disposal rate in Michigan, the annual cost for disposing of this material will be approximately $250,000. In 2001, the City received $773,000 in funding from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to cover a portion of the costs associated with collecting glass through the City s blue box program. Eliminating coloured glass from the City s recycling program may preclude the City from further blue box funding from the LCBO and/or the Waste Diversion Organization (WDO). Given the increased financial pressures in the Solid Waste Management Services Division due to the closure of Keele Valley Landfill in December 2002 and the requirement of Ontario Regulation 101/94, City staff are exploring alternative uses for the residue, mixed broken glass and coloured glass. Staff are requesting Council approval to begin the tender process for pricing from interested companies for receipt of residue, mixed broken glass and coloured glass for possible inclusion into post consumer products or for other innovative diversion from landfill uses. Comments: Blue Box Residue Markets: There have been a number of companies that have contacted the City and have shown interest in the blue box residue materials. In particular, there continues to be interest from a number of plastic goods manufacturers that claim to have sustainable end markets for the blue box residue material. Although there is some interest for this material, the cost to divert it is unknown. However, any total system cost for an end market to utilize blue box residue material which is less than the cost per tonne to transfer and dispose of these materials in Michigan would be savings to the City. The impact of diverting the residue material from landfill also contributes to the City s diversion goal of 60 percent by 2006. Mixed Broken Glass and Coloured Glass Markets: Under Ontario Regulation 101/94, the City of Toronto must continue to collect coloured glass in its blue box program. Discontinuing the collection of coloured glass through the blue box program would jeopardize LCBO/WDO funding in the future and would make it more difficult for the City to meet its waste diversion targets. Toronto is not alone with the problem of having substantial amounts of glass recovered through the blue box program with no viable end use or market.
5 Various municipal and industry groups have been working on Other Beneficial Uses of Glass in Ontario. Some of the other beneficial uses being suggested for recycled glass include the following: (1) using recycled glass as an aggregate substitute; (2) using recycled glass as a sand substitute; (3) using recycled glass as an abrasive material; (4) using glass as a filter material; and (5) using glass as a raw material in the fiberglass industry. Municipal jurisdictions across Canada have been successful in adopting some of the above-noted beneficial uses. Much like the blue box residue, at the City s current disposal rate for transfer and disposal in Michigan, the annual cost for disposing of this material will be approximately $1,250,000. However, any total system cost for an end market to utilize mixed broken and coloured glass less than the cost per tonne to transfer and dispose in Michigan would be a savings to the City. Conclusions: The closure of Keele Valley Landfill in December 2002 has heightened the awareness and urgency to find alternative uses for blue box residue material and mixed broken and coloured glass. The net additional financial cost of transfer and disposal in Michigan for blue box residue, mixed broken glass and colour sorted glass is approximately $750,000 annually (taking into account the LCBO funding at the 2001 level). It is essential that staff begin the tender process for pricing from interested companies for receipt of residue, mixed broken glass and coloured glass for possible inclusion into post consumer products or for other innovative and approved uses. Staff will continue to explore alternative uses for the residue, mixed broken glass and coloured glass. The tendering process for alternative uses is expected to yield less costly options than landfilling these materials and will also increase the City s diversion rate. Contact: Steve Whitter Craig Bartlett Director, Manager, Processing Operations Transfer, Processing and Disposal Operations Transfer, Processing and Disposal Telephone: (416) 392-4687 Telephone: (416) 392-4226 E-mail: swhitter@city.toronto.on.ca E-mail: bartlet@city.toronto.on.ca Fax: (416) 397-1348 Fax: (416) 397-1348
6 The following persons appeared before the in connection with the foregoing matter: - Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance; and - Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, and submitted a communication with respect thereto.