Blue Box Program Plan BBPP Review Consultation Workshop

1
Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP)Review Consultation
Workshop

• February 12, 2009

Slide 1
2
BBPP Review Workshop/Webcast

• Welcome
• Approximately 80 attendees on-site
• Approximately 60 attendees on webcast

Slide 2
3
Workshop/Webcast

• Presenter
• Glenda Gies, WDO Executive Director
• Facilitator
• Betty Muise
• When asking questions of clarification
• provide name affiliation
• email for those on webcast
• microphones for those in person

Slide 3
4
Webcast Features

• Click to Enlarge Slide to full screen
• click X to shrink back again
• Type in Questions of clarification
• be sure to submit
• questions go to webcast team
• Speaker advances slides
• Webcast URL active for 6 months
• see Information for Participant notice

Slide 4
5
Purpose of Workshop

• Report back on consultation process
• Review draft recommendations
• provide context rationale
• provide clarification where required
• Help stakeholders understand draft
  recommendations
• before submitting written comments

Slide 5
6
Workshop Format

• Breaks for questions
• periodically during presentation of draft
  recommendations
• Refreshment breaks
• approximately 1030 am for 30 minutes
• lunch approximately 1230 pm for 60 minutes
• Workshop scheduled to close
• approximately 300 pm

Slide 6
7
Presentation Overview

• BBPP review process update
• Ministers October 16, 2008 request
• consultation process to date
• next steps
• terminology definitions
• Consultation process
• contrasting stakeholder perspectives
• key themes
• Draft report
• comments on Extended Producer Responsibility
  (EPR) definition principles
• draft recommendations

Slide 7
8
BBPP Review
Slide 8
9
BBPP Review

• Minister requested that WDO
• conduct a review of 10 BBPP issues
• use EPR principles to form framework
• incorporate consultation with
• members of the public
• municipalities
• businesses
• Blue Box stewards
• environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs)

Slide 9
10
BBPP Review (2)

• WDO to report by March 20, 2009 that
• summarizes BBPP review process including
  stakeholder consultation
• makes recommendations regarding BBPP issues,
  including rationale for recommendations
• indicates how extended producer responsibility
  (EPR) principles shaped review framework
  informed recommendations

Slide 10
11
Consultation Process

• Public opinion survey of Ontario residents
• focus groups to inform survey development
• 1,000 person survey
• Facilitated meetings with stakeholder groups
• AMO/AMRC Waste Management Task Force
• Ontario Waste Management Association Board
• Stewardship Ontario Board
• industry associations
• environmental non-government organizations
• MIPC retreat

Slide 11
12
Consultation Process (2)

• Report on Consultation to Support BBPP Review
• posted on WDO website
• Summarizes consultation process includes
• public opinion survey executive summary
• list of participants in stakeholder meetings
• summary of stakeholder meeting discussions
• written submissions to December 31, 2008
• summary of MIPC retreat discussions

Slide 12
13
Next Steps

• Comments can be submitted
• email BBPPReview_at_WDO.ca
• fax [phone]
• courier, mail or personal delivery to
• 45 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 920
• North York, M2N 5W9
• If received by February 27, 2009
• will be considered when preparing draft final
  report/recommendations

Slide 13
14
Next Steps (2)

• Revisions to draft report by March 8, 2009
• reflecting todays workshop discussions
• written submissions received
• January 1 to February 27, 2009
• Draft final report
• to WDO Board on March 10, 2009
• for consideration at March 18, 2009 meeting

Slide 14
15
Terminology

• Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP)
• program approved under Waste Diversion Act (WDA)
• administered by Stewardship Ontario
• Blue Box (BB) system
• curbside and/or depot collection system
• administered by municipalities

Slide 15
16
Terminology (2)

• Stewards fee
• paid by steward to industry funding organization
  (IFO)
• Fee for service
• payment for services provided
• e.g. 165/tonne for collection under Waste
  Electronic Electrical Program
• Financial incentive
• intended to encourage specific diversion
  activities
• e.g. 0.60/kg for oil filters paid to
  transporters under Municipal Hazardous or
  Special Waste Program

Slide 16
17
Consultation Process

• Stakeholder comments
• highlighting contrasting perspectives
• key themes

Slide 17
18
Contrasting PerspectivesShared Responsibility
Model

• Designed as partnership between Blue Box (BB)
  stewards municipalities
• Based on assumption that
• if both parties are contributing financially
• both parties would be motivated to make decisions
  that contribute to cost-effective system
  operation

Slide 18
19
Contrasting Perspectives (2) Shared
Responsibility Model, contd

• BB stewards think
• best way to keep municipalities consumers
  engaged in waste diversion
• effective partnership
• municipalities deliver services
• stewards contribute to funding services

Slide 19
20
Contrasting Perspectives (3) Shared
Responsibility Model, contd

• Municipalities dissatisfied with partnership
• received lt 50 funding in 3 of 6 years under BBPP
• negotiated net system cost in Year 1
• reasonable cost bands in Years 3 4
• criticized as inefficient operators
• frustrated with lack of steward contribution to
  cost-effective system
• limited/slow plastics market development
• increase in difficult to collect/recycle packages
• dependent on end-of-pipe handling solutions

Slide 20
21
Contrasting Perspectives (4) Role of Stewards
Under Full EPR

• Industry thinks
• entitled to control BB system design operation
• Other stakeholders think
• industry will select lowest cost option
• may not be option that drives higher diversion
• provincial regulation /or policy direction
  required if full EPR can be expected to achieve
  environmental objectives

Slide 21
22
Contrasting Perspectives (5)Driving More
Diversion

• Industry thinks
• where cost effective, i.e. next least cost tonne
  
• Municipalities think
• avoid disposal, i.e. reduce garbage/litter
• include all printed papers/packaging in BB system
• would drive stewards to create markets
• Other stakeholders think
• achieve broader environmental objectives
• drive green economy

Slide 22
23
Contrasting Perspectives (6)Need for Flexibility

• Industry thinks
• design cost efficient system
• go after next least cost tonne to deliver higher
  diversion
• Other stakeholders think
• design cost efficient system
• within defined program performance policy
  objectives
• material specific targets
• accessibility
• service levels
• choose next least cost collection method to
  deliver higher diversion

Slide 23
24
Contrasting Perspectives (7) Producer
Responsibility for Garbage/Litter

• Industry thinks
• garbage/litter are behaviour problems
• best addressed through education of residents
• no relation to producers as industry cannot
  affect residents behaviour
• Other stakeholders think
• producers should be responsible for all
  products/packaging put into marketplace
• including items that remain in garbage/litter
• EPR for all end-of-lifeboth diverted disposed

Slide 24
25
Contrasting Perspectives (8) Communicating with
Residential Generators

• Industry thinks
• they have no control over consumers
• education of residential generators should be
  done by municipalities
• Other stakeholders think
• industry effectively markets products/packages to
  consumers
• should also be able to effectively market
  diversion

Slide 25
26
Key Themes Readiness to Engage in Review Varies

• Industry asking for
• more information before addressing Ministers
  questions
• rigorous analysis of shared responsibility model
• cost/benefit analyses of alternative models

Slide 26
27
Key Themes (2)Readiness to Engage in Review
Varies, contd

• Municipalities
• differ in willingness to have industry assume
  control over collection
• noticeable shift during consultation process
• recognition of link between accountability
  control
• where reluctant to relinquish control, typically
  concerned that stewards would
• reduce residents service standards
• not drive more diversion

Slide 27
28
Key Themes (3)Readiness to Engage in Review
Varies, contd

• Other stakeholders
• struggling to visualize full EPR
• alternate role for industryfully responsible for
  collection of BB materials
• alternate role for municipalitiespossible
  service providers to stewards
• Continued references to
• what if municipalities do ?
• under full EPRmunicipalities may not have
  responsibility to do

Slide 28
29
Key Themes (4)Readiness to Engage in Review
Varies, contd

• Some stakeholders expect that
• full EPR will resolve certain issues, i.e.
  industry will move to
• invest in market development to maximize revenue
• track to final destination to avoid media risk to
  industry brands
• high diversion targets with penalties will
  resolve certain issues, i.e. industry will move
  to
• ensure consistency in materials collected
• find cost-effective ways to handle problematic
  wastes
• find cost-effective collection systems to
  increase diversion
• educate residents

Slide 29
30
Key Themes (5)Generally Supported

• Consistency of printed papers packaging
  collected across municipalities
• selected based on established criteria
• recognizing that collection methods may vary by
  location (north/south) type of municipality
  (urban/rural)
• Expanding BBPP to include materials
• beyond printed papers packaging
• selected based on established criteria such as
• where markets exist
• if compatible with collection/processing system

Slide 30
31
Key Themes (6)Generally Supported, contd

• Parallel collection systems for Blue Box wastes
  (BBW)
• where materials are problematic in curbside
  system
• while avoiding reduced efficiency in each system
• Actions to ensure environmentally responsible
  management
• some difference in opinion about which actions
• Need for baseline Industrial, Commercial
  Institutional (ICI) data

Slide 31
32
Key Themes (7)Generally Recognized Need to
Balance

• Financial responsibility physical control
• Accountability control
• Policy direction flexibility
• Cost effective system increased diversion
• Service levels in urban rural, north south,
  etc.
• Free marketplace intervention to achieve policy
  objectives
• Diversion other environmental, social
  economic objectives

Slide 32
33
Draft Report

• Draft Preliminary Report for Consultation - Blue
  Box Program Plan Review
• comments on EPR definition principles
• draft recommendations
• where general agreement among stakeholdersdraft
  recommendations intended to be representative of
  stakeholders comments
• where no agreement among stakeholdersdraft
  recommendations propose approach that responds to
  Ministers questions while considering
  stakeholder concerns

Slide 33
34
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) EPR Definition
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) means an
environmental policy approach in which a
producers responsibility for a product is
extended to the post-consumer stage of a
products life cycle.
Slide 34
35
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) EPR Definition (2)

• Some stakeholders suggested CCME definition is
  too vague to be helpful
• Does not define
• scope of producers responsibility
• financial, i.e. shared model
• financial/physical, i.e. full EPR
• scope of post-consumer stage of products life
  cycle
• if diverted, i.e. reduction, reuse, recycling
• if disposed, i.e. energy recovery, landfill

Slide 35
36
EPR Principles

• CCME principles included as Appendix in
  Backgrounder Draft Report
• Some stakeholders suggested clarifications
• CCME Principle 3
• CCME Principle 13

Slide 36
37
CCME Principle 3
EPR programs encourage producers to incorporate
design for environment to minimize impacts to
environment and human health.

• Implies that EPR programs can directly encourage
  design for environment (DfE)
• Mechanism available to EPR programs to affect DfE
  is levying of fees on stewards
• experience suggests that effect of stewards fees
  on DfE has been limited to date
• Focusing on objective mechanism to achieve it
  may be more appropriate than assuming an outcome

Slide 37
38
CCME Principle 3 (2)

• Additional italicized text may provide clarity
• Fees levied on stewards under EPR programs can be
  designed to encourage producers to incorporate
  design for environment to minimize impacts to
  environment and human health.
• Suggests that
• fees not EPR programs encourage producers
• fees can be designed to encourage producers but
  may not have desired effect

Slide 38
39
CCME Principle 13
Consumers have reasonable access to collection
systems without charge, to maximize recovery
opportunities.

• Misunderstood by some stakeholders
• Replacing the phrase without charge with
  italicized text may provide clarity
• Consumers have reasonable access to collection
  systems with no charge for use of the collection
  system to maximize recovery opportunities.

Slide 39
40
Issues Raised by the Minister that Change the
Scope of the Blue Box Program

• Blue Box Waste (BBW) from ICI Sector
• BBW Collected Outside of BB System
• Additional BBW

Slide 40
41
BBW from ICI Sector

• The industrial, commercial and institutional
  (ICI) sector generates more designated Blue Box
  wastes than the residential sector, but is not
  included in the BBPP.
• Recommend if, and how, the BBPP could be
  extended to include Blue Box wastes generated by
  the ICI sector.

Slide 41
42
BBW from ICI Sector (2)

• Differing views on performance of ICI sector
• some stakeholders reported that certain ICI
  organizations or sectors have implemented
  effective recycling programs
• others cited examples of minimal recycling
  activities in ICI sector
• General agreement
• better data are required on which to base
  decisions regarding activities to increase ICI
  diversion

Slide 42
43
BBW from ICI Sector (3)

• Differing views on effectiveness of existing
  Regulations 102 103
• some suggested enforcement would address problem
• others suggested regulations must be amended to
  be effective
• Suggested amendments include
• utilize reporting requirements to gather ICI
  recycling data
• obligate service providers to provide recycling
  services report quantity collected/recycled
• would reduce of data points from thousands of
  generators to smaller number of service providers
• would provide quantity of materials
  collected/recyclednumerator in recycling
• would not provide quantity of materials available
  for collectiondenominator in recycling

Slide 43
44
BBW from ICI Sector (4)

• Other stakeholders felt
• regulations have not effectively addressed ICI
  diversion since implementation in 1994
• EPR would be more effective than amending and/or
  enforcing Regulations 102 103

Slide 44
45
BBW from ICI Sector (5)Rationale for
Recommendation

• To establish
• a system to compile data on ICI diversion
  activities on which to base decisions regarding
  ICI diversion program model
• a process to resolve possible barriers to
  application of EPR model to ICI sector
• a process to determine whether EPR can be
  utilized to increase collection recycling of
  Blue Box wastes generated by ICI sector

Slide 45
46
BBW from ICI Sector (6)Draft Recommendation 15

• To establish a system to compile data on ICI
  sector diversion activities and determine an ICI
  recycling rate by compiling
• the denominator from
• stewards sales into the marketplace through
  reports to an IFO
• or
• generators quantity of Blue Box materials
  purchased under an amended Regulation 103 or an
  IFOs material tracking system
• the numerator from
• generators quantity recycled under an amended
  Regulation 103 or an IFOs material tracking
  system
• or
• service providers quantity recycled under an
  amended Regulation 103 or an IFOs material
  tracking system.

Slide 46
47
BBW from ICI Sector (7)Draft Recommendation 16

• To assess if, and how, the Blue Box Program Plan
  could be extended to include Blue Box wastes
  generated by the ICI sector under full EPR by
• assessing whether stewards can identify sales
  into the ICI sector for purposes of reporting
  sales to Stewardship Ontario
• assessing, within one year after baseline data
  has been compiled (see Draft Recommendation
  15), whether an incentive model or a
  fee-for-service model could be utilized by
  stewards to increase collection and recycling of
  Blue Box wastes generated by the ICI sector.

Slide 47
48
BBW Collected Outside of BB System

• Blue Box wastes not captured in the Blue Box are
  collected as garbage or litter by municipalities,
  fully at their cost.
• Recommend
• how collection options beyond municipal curbside
  and depot could be used to increase collection of
  Blue Box wastes, and
• how steward responsibility can be used to address
  Blue Box wastes that are collected beyond
  municipal curbside and depot, or disposed as
  waste or litter.

Slide 48
49
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (2)

• Some stakeholders proposed activities to increase
  diversion of Blue Box waste from the garbage
  litter stream including
• education of consumers
• increasing cost of disposal /or restricting
  access to disposal
• implementing alternate collection systems
  including depots, return-to-retail, public space
  recycling systems, reverse vending machines, etc.

Slide 49
50
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (3)

• Stakeholders reported public space recycling
  produces highly contaminated materials
• suggested that these materials should be
  processed at dirty material recovery facilities
  (MRFs)

A dirty MRF is a material recycling facility
that accepts and processes mixed waste and/or
highly contaminated recyclable materials rather
than fully source separated recyclable materials.
Slide 50
51
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (4)

• Stakeholders suggested that dirty MRFs could
  also be utilized to process recyclable rich
  streams
• residues from Blue Box MRFs end markets
• garbage collected through public space waste
  systems
• often contain significant portion of recyclable
  materials
• Processing of these streams at dirty MRFs would
  yield
• Blue Box materials sorted directed to recycling
  markets
• fuel pellets incorporating certain remaining BB
  materials (fibres/plastics)
• Some stakeholders suggested that Blue Box
  materials in waste directed to energy-from-waste
  (EFW) should be included in BBPP

Slide 51
52
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (5)

• Some stakeholders noted
• if stewards were to assume responsibility for
  both diversion disposal, economics would drive
  materials to disposal
• since disposal typically costs less than
  diversion
• Other stakeholders noted
• this could be addressed through collection
  recycling targets supported by penalties

Slide 52
53
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (6) Rationale
for Recommendations

• To increase collection and recycling of Blue Box
  materials under the BBPP and reduce the amount of
  these materials remaining in the garbage and
  litter streams
• To utilize steward responsibility to manage Blue
  Box wastes if directed to dirty MRFs and sorted
  for recycling markets or utilized as fuel
• To ensure that property taxpayers are aware of
  the transition of costs from municipalities to
  industry for management of Blue Box wastes
  directed to dirty MRFs

Slide 53
54
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (7) Draft
Recommendation 17

• To increase collection of Blue Box waste by
• educating the public to reduce the generation of
  printed paper and packaging waste, use collection
  systems (to improve capture rate) and to use
  these systems correctly (to reduce contamination)
  
• encouraging municipalities to utilize the full
  range of available tools to restrict disposal
  (e.g. disposal bans, bag limits, clear bags,
  bi-weekly garbage collection, etc.) and increase
  the cost of disposal (e.g. garbage fees)
• considering other collection options (e.g.
  private depots, return-to-retail, etc.) taking
  into account the effect of parallel systems on
  system inefficiencies and consumers

Slide 54
55
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (8) Draft
Recommendation 18

• To increase recycling of Blue Box waste by
• utilizing dirty MRFs to sort marketable Blue
  Box materials from
• residues from Blue Box MRFs and end markets
• wastes from litter collection programs
• recyclable materials collected through public
  space recycling systems (if too contaminated to
  process in a regular MRF)
• garbage collected through public space waste
  systems (which often contain a significant
  portion of recyclable materials)
• with these materials counting towards recycling
  targets

Slide 55
56
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (9) Draft
Recommendation 19

• To recover energy from residual Blue Box waste
  by
• utilizing dirty MRFs to process residues from
• Blue Box MRFs and end markets
• wastes from litter collection programs
• recyclable materials collected through public
  space recycling systems (if too contaminated to
  process in a regular MRF)
• garbage collected through public space waste
  systems (which often contain a significant
  portion of recyclable materials)
• to produce fuel products
• with the portion of Blue Box material
  contributing to energy counting as recovery

Slide 56
57
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (10) Draft
Recommendation 20

• To address Blue Box wastes that are collected
  beyond municipal curbside and depot or disposed
  as waste or litter through steward responsibility
  by incorporating the following costs in the
  calculation of the BBPP cost and stewards fees
• public education to use Blue Box material
  collection systems correctly
• other collection systems (e.g. private depots,
  return-to-retail, etc.)
• processing Blue Box wastes at dirty MRFs

Slide 57
58
BBW Collected Outside of BB System (11) Draft
Recommendation 21

• To inform municipal property taxpayers of the
  transition of costs from municipalities to Blue
  Box stewards for Blue Box materials directed to
  dirty MRFs if sorted for recycling or energy
  recovery

Slide 58
59
Additional BBW

• Some of the designated Blue Box wastes, such as
  plastic products, are not included in the BBPP.
• Recommend how the BBPP can be expanded to include
  additional wastes already designated by
  regulation within the program.

Slide 59
60
Additional BBW (2)

• Stakeholders raised concerns about
• ability of BB system to incorporate additional
  items while producing marketable materials
• confusing consumers by adding materials beyond
  printed papers packaging
• Most stakeholders agreed
• existing infrastructure should be utilized to
  maximize capture of printed papers package

Slide 60
61
Additional BBW (3)

• Stakeholders suggested
• utilizing criteria to determine if
• materials designated by BBW regulation
• but excluded from BBPP definition of printed
  papers packaging
• should be added to the BBPP
• referring materials deemed inappropriate for BBPP
  to another diversion program

Slide 61
62
Additional BBW (4) Rationale for Recommendations

• To establish a process to select additional
  materials to be added to the BBPP
• To refer unacceptable materials to another
  diversion program

Slide 62
63
Additional BBW (5) Draft Recommendation 22

• To expand the Blue Box Program Plan to include
  additional wastes already designated by the Blue
  Box Waste regulation but excluded from the BBPP
  definition of printed papers and packaging by
  establishing a process to evaluate whether
  specific products and/or packages should be added
  to the Blue Box Plan using criteria including but
  not limited to
• sufficient collection capacity
• compatibility with collection systems
• sufficient processing capacity
• compatibility with processing systems
• available end market capacity
• clarity for the consumer
• ability to track the material from collection to
  final disposition
• ability of IFO to levy a stewards fee that meets
  the nexus test

Slide 63
64
Additional BBW (6) Draft Recommendation 23

• To refer products and packages that may fall
  under the Blue Box Wastes Regulation deemed
  unacceptable for inclusion in the Blue Box
  Program Plan for consideration as a separate
  diversion program plan

Slide 64
65
Questions Blue Box Waste (BBW) from ICI
sectorBBW collected outside of BB
systemAdditional BBW

• Remember name affiliation

Slide 65
66
Refreshment Break

• Returning in 30 minutes

Slide 66
67
Welcome Back

• Continuing with Draft Recommendations

Slide 67
68
Issues Raised by the Minister that Relate to the
Existing BB System

• Consistency Across Municipalities
• Problematic Wastes
• EPR Funding
• Program Performance
• Material Specific Performance
• Environmentally Responsible Management
• Stewardship Fees

Slide 68
69
Consistency Across Municipalities

• The collection of different Blue Box wastes
  across Ontario municipalities creates public
  confusion.
• Recommend how the program can achieve greater
  consistency in the Blue Box wastes that are
  collected across Ontario municipalities to
  minimize public confusion, facilitate province
  wide communication and outreach activities, and
  encourage further increases in waste diversion
  for the next 5 years of the BBPP.

Slide 69
70
Consistency Across Municipalities (2)

• Stakeholders recognized potential benefits of
  standardization in Blue Box materials collected
  across Ontario
• differing views on which materials should be
  included in standardized program
• general consistency in criteria proposed as basis
  for selecting standardized materials
• noting standardized materials may be collected
  using different collection systems in
  northern/rural areas
• Concerns about operational implications
• municipalities concerned about imposing
  standardized materials on municipal programs
  prior to introduction of full EPR

Slide 70
71
Consistency Across Municipalities (3) Rationale
for Recommendation

• To expand the list of materials collected across
  Ontario to support higher collection and
  recycling targets and material specific targets
• To recognize that materials collected and
  collection methods are important aspects of
  service levels to be addressed under full EPR
• To establish a process that will involve
  consultation to develop criteria and select
  materials for standardization
• To establish a process that will involve
  consultation to determine appropriate collection
  approaches for the standardized materials in
  different areas of the province

Slide 71
72
Consistency Across Municipalities (4)Draft
Recommendation 7

• To establish a process to
• select Blue Box materials to be collected in all
  municipalities based on specific criteria such as
  
• percentage of Ontario households already
  receiving collection service for the material
• capacity in the curbside collection container if
  collected at curbside
• compatible with the depot collection system if
  collected at depot
• ability to be managed in processing systems
• will not contaminate other materials during
  processing
• sustainable markets
• determine differential service levels (curbside
  or depot) to address regional variations based on
  specific criteria such as population, population
  density and/or location

Slide 72
73
Problematic Wastes

• Some Blue Box or non-Blue Box wastes create
  operational inefficiencies for municipal
  recycling programs and may increase costs. An
  example of a problematic blue box waste is the 15
  litre non-refillable water bottle.
• Recommend how problematic Blue Box and non-Blue
  Box wastes can be addressed through the BBPP or
  other mechanisms.

Slide 73
74
Problematic Wastes (2)

• Stakeholders suggested
• problematic materials may have been introduced
  with best intentions
• stewards may not fully understand the impact of
  new product or package on BB system
• Stakeholders suggested mechanisms to prevent
  introduction of problem packaging
• advisory service available to stewards
• packaging review process
• regulatory mechanisms to prohibit change in
  collection systems that would result in lower
  diversion

Slide 74
75
Problematic Wastes (3)

• Challenges associated with the packaging review
  process were identified
• proprietary nature of new product packaging
  design
• large number of new products packages
  introduced into marketplace
• Stakeholders noted that IFO, as a collective of
  competing stewards, requires a policy framework
  or direction in order to take action on
  problematic wastes

Slide 75
76
Problematic Wastes (4)Rationale for
Recommendations

• To establish an advisory service for stewards
  inquiring about management of their products or
  packaging in Ontarios Blue Box system to avoid
  the introduction of problematic materials
• To establish a regulatory framework to prevent
  shifting a product or package to an alternative
  collection system if it would result in reduced
  diversion and increased disposal
• To assign responsibility for identifying
  problematic materials and determining an
  appropriate course of action to ensure increased
  collection and recycling of Blue Box materials
  and a sustainable Blue Box system to an
  organization other than the IFO

Slide 76
77
Problematic Wastes (5)Draft Recommendation 8

• To minimize the introduction of problematic Blue
  Box products or packaging into the Ontario
  marketplace by
• implementing an advisory service to respond to
  steward inquiries about compatibility of new Blue
  Box products or packages with the Blue Box
  collection and processing system

Slide 77
78
Problematic Wastes (6)Draft Recommendation 9

• To address management of problematic Blue Box
  products or packaging once introduced into the
  Ontario marketplace by
• implementing a regulatory mechanism to prevent
  moving a product or package from one collection
  system to another collection system unless the
  diversion rate for that item will be increased
• authorizing WDO to identify problematic
  materials, evaluate options for collecting and
  managing the materials in co-operation with
  Stewardship Ontario and provide direction to
  Stewardship Ontario on the management of
  problematic materials

Slide 78
79
QuestionsConsistency across municipalities
Problematic wastes

• Remember name affiliation

Slide 79
80
EPR Funding

• The BBPP does not reflect full Extended Producer
  Responsibility (EPR) funding since the WDA
  requires Blue Box stewards to fund 50 of
  municipal program costs, with municipalities
  funding the rest. Recommend how to move the BBPP
  towards full EPR funding.
• Since different collection and processing systems
  for Blue Box wastes are the result of decisions
  made by local municipalities, in your review and
  recommendation, please consider the potential
  impact to the management of municipal recycling
  programs as industry moves to full EPR funding.

Slide 80
81
EPR Funding (2)

• Stakeholders viewed shared responsibility model
  differently
• industry stakeholders expressed support
• municipalities indicated shared model was not an
  effective partnership
• Stakeholders expressed concerns regarding
  accountability of industry under full EPR
• especially with respect to achieving
  environmental policy objectives
• Many stakeholders believe stewards
• will choose lowest cost approach to implementing
  BBP
• will not take environmental policy objectives
  into account without clear direction to do so
• must operate within policy framework established
  by government with appropriate oversight

Slide 81
82
EPR Funding (3)

• Many stakeholders offered suggestions for
  transitioning BBPP to full EPR involving a period
  of time to address
• regulatory amendments including Regulation 101,
  Municipal Act, Certificates of Approval
• communication/liaison during/after transition
  period to minimize
• stranded assets, poor investments, contracts
  extending beyond transition period, investment
  freeze
• determining how Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF)
  can be used prior to/during transition to assist
  in transition process
• communicating with municipal councils residents
• ensuring seamless services to residents
  throughout transition period

Slide 82
83
EPR Funding (4)

• Many stakeholders offered suggestions for
  transitioning BBPP to full EPR involving a period
  of time to address (contd)
• devising fee-for-service where full EPR
  implemented before existing contracts expire
• building competency within IFO
• managing
• municipal labour service provider contract
  expiry replacement with steward contracts
• different service levels across the province
• marketplace intervention competition issues
• cross-jurisdictional issues, e.g. integrated
  collection routing processing waste sheds
• determining whether /or how a municipality could
  opt out of full EPR
• integrating green economic development in Ontario
  with full EPR

Slide 83
84
EPR Funding (5) Rationale for Recommendations

• To provide a response to the Ministers request
  for recommendations on how to move the BBPP
  towards full EPR funding
• To ensure a provincial policy framework within
  which stewards can work to achieve the provincial
  objectives
• To propose a process for transitioning the
  municipal delivery of Blue Box services under the
  shared responsibility model to steward delivery
  of Blue Box services under a full EPR model
• To ensure that property taxpayers are aware of
  the transition of Blue Box system costs from
  municipalities to industry

Slide 84
85
EPR Funding (6)Draft Recommendation 12

• To request that the Minister establish a clear
  policy framework, including program performance,
  accessibility and service standard objectives,
  for the Blue Box Program Plan under full EPR
  within which stewards will develop operational
  objectives and establish program metrics

Slide 85
86
EPR Funding (7) Draft Recommendation 13

• To move the municipal delivery of Blue Box
  services under the Blue Box Program Plan towards
  full EPR funding over a five year period in the
  following phases
• Phase 1 Planning
• the IFO will develop a detailed operations plan
  that addresses the transition process

Slide 86
87
EPR Funding (8) Draft Recommendation 13, contd

• Phase 2 Financial EPR
• the IFO will assume full financial responsibility
  for the Blue Box system at a date specified
  during the five year transition period by
  contracting for collection and processing
  services directly with service providers where
  municipal contracts have expired and, where
  municipal contracts continue to operate during
  Phase 2, by offering to contract with
  municipalities on a fee-for-service basis

Slide 87
88
EPR Funding (9) Draft Recommendation 13, contd

• Phase 3 Physical EPR
• the IFO will assume physical responsibility as
  existing municipal service provider contracts
  expire and would be responsible for establishing
  new contracts
• the IFO will continue to contract with
  municipalities on a fee-for-service basis where
  contracts extend beyond the five year transition
  period on an exception basis until the entire
  system has been shifted to the management of
  stewards

Slide 88
89
EPR Funding (10) Draft Recommendation 14

• To inform municipal property taxpayers of the
  transition of Blue Box system costs from
  municipalities to Blue Box stewards

Slide 89
90
QuestionsEPR Funding

• Remember name affiliation

Slide 90
91
Enjoy Lunch

• Returning in 60 minutes

Slide 91
92
Welcome Back

• Continuing with Draft Recommendations

Slide 92
93
Program Performance

• The BBPP has reached its 60 waste diversion
  target. A new target may encourage further
  increases in waste diversion.
• Recommend a new target for the next 5 years of
  the BBPP that goes beyond the 60 target
  originally set for the 2004 - 2008 period.

Slide 93
94
Program Performance (2)

• Some stakeholders suggested targets should not be
  set
• in advance of MOE establishing environmental
  economic goals
• without assessment of barriers to increased
  diversion under BBPP
• without assessment of cost implications of
  collecting processing additional BB materials
• Other stakeholders suggested
• higher global target for BBPP would drive efforts
  to increase diversion
• noting municipalities currently manage BB
  materials remaining in garbage stream without
  assistance from producers

Slide 94
95
Program Performance (3)

• End markets suggested program performance should
  consider end market residues
• currently recycling rate measured based on
  materials marketed by municipalities
• Some stakeholders noted
• stewards determine reduction reuse
• IFOs responsible for recycling rather than
  diversion
• program performance should be presented in terms
  of collection recycling targets

Slide 95
96
Program Performance (4)

• Some stakeholders pointed out BBPP
• focuses only on residential BB materials managed
  by municipalities
• excludes residential BB materials managed by
  other collection systems
• therefore treats some residential generators
  inequitably
• Suggested that both municipal non-municipal
  collection systems for residential BB materials
• be incorporated into BBPP
• be counted towards programs performance targets

Slide 96
97
Program Performance (5)

• Some stakeholders suggested targets
• should be limited to residential BB materials
• should not incorporate activities that would
  expand BBPP scope
• Proposed 5 year performance targets
• based on residential BB materials
• do not consider possible expanded scope of BBPP

Slide 97
98
Program Performance (6)

• Stakeholders suggested utilizing dirty MRFs to
  
• increase diversion by sorting marketable
  materials
• processing residues from BB MRFs end markets
• public space recycling systems
• if materials are too contaminated to process in
  regular MRF
• public space waste systems
• stream often contains significant portion of
  recyclable materials
• possibly litter
• As dirty MRFs also produce fuel pellets
• suggested that energy recovery be incorporated
  into BBPP to reflect portion of BB materials that
  would be incorporated into fuel pellets

Slide 98
99
Program Performance (7)

• Recycling targets proposed by stakeholders ranged
  from
• low of 70
• proposed by industry representatives
• to
• 90 or higher
• proposed by municipal ENGO representatives

Slide 99
100
Program Performance (8)Rationale for
Recommendations

• To provide a response to the Ministers request
  for a new target for the next five years of the
  BBPP
• To include residential Blue Box materials
  collected through non-municipal collection
  systems in the BBPP and to count these materials
  towards the programs performance targets
• To set targets that fall within the range
  suggested by stakeholders with the recycling
  target slightly above the bottom of the range and
  the collection target slightly below the top of
  the range

Slide 100
101
Program Performance (9)Rationale for
Recommendations

• To reflect the recommendation to extend
  producers responsibility for Blue Box materials
  remaining in MRF and end market residue, public
  space collection systems and litter collection
  systems if these materials are directed to dirty
  MRFs by recognizing recovery
• To improve the calculation of collection and
  recycling program targets
• To improve reporting of program performance by
  also reporting on residue from processing of Blue
  Box materials

Slide 101
102
Program Performance (10)Draft Recommendation 1

• To set the following 5 year Blue Box Program Plan
  performance targets
• a collection target of 85
• a recycling target of a minimum of 75 calculated
  based on materials marketed
• energy recovery to a maximum of 10 comprised of
  materials for which 3Rs options are not available
  or technically feasible

Slide 102
103
Program Performance (11)

• Increase of 10 in last 4 years under BBPP
• Proposed increase of 12 in 5 years

Slide 103
104
Program Performance (12) Draft Recommendation 2

• To improve the methodology to calculate the
  quantity collected by incorporating the following
  collection systems for residential Blue Box
  materials in the Blue Box Program Plan and by
  counting the residential Blue Box tonnes
  collected towards the collection target
• collected from residential generators by
  municipalities reported via the Municipal
  Datacall
• collected from residential generators by stewards
  reported via steward reports to Stewardship
  Ontario
• collected from residential generators by
  retailers (e.g. grocery store carry out bags)
• collected from multi-unit buildings directly by
  private contractors
• collected from residential generators by
  charities and other organizations (e.g. aluminum
  can collections)

Slide 104
105
Program Performance (13) Draft Recommendation 3

• To modify the methodology to calculate the
  quantity of Blue Box materials recycled
• from measuring recycling on the basis of Blue Box
  materials marketed by municipalities as a portion
  of these materials is disposed as residue through
  subsequent processing
• to, instead, measure recycling as materials
  utilized in new products which would be net of
  all processing residues

Slide 105
106
Program Performance (14) Draft Recommendation 4

• To report the quantity of residue resulting from
  each stage of Blue Box material processing,
  including MRFs and end markets, to increase the
  transparency of program operation

Slide 106
107
Material Specific Performance

• Certain Blue Box wastes are not achieving high
  diversion rates (e.g., plastics), and may benefit
  from material-specific diversion targets.
• Recommend material-specific diversion targets for
  Blue Box wastes to encourage further increases in
  waste diversion for the next 5 years of the BBPP.

Slide 107
108
Material Specific Performance (2)

• Stakeholders differed in support for material
  specific targets
• Industry
• some industry representatives opposed material
  specific targets on the basis that they would
  reduce operational flexibility
• other industry representatives proposed a maximum
  of two categories
• printed papers with a target of 80 to 85
• packaging with a target of 50 to 55

Slide 108
109
Material Specific Performance (3)

• Municipalities ENGOs
• proposed material specific targets for each of gt
  20 BB material categories used as basis for
  reporting 2007 BBP recycling rates
• suggested approaches included
• applying the principle of continuous improvement
  year over year
• requiring a specified increase (e.g. 10 or 25)
  each year
• setting uniformly high target for each material
  but extending period of compliance for those
  materials starting at lower recycling rates

Slide 109
110
Material Specific Performance (4)

• Some stakeholders expressed concern that stewards
  will not strive for higher diversion without
  economic incentive
• Noted that other environmental regulations
  include
• established performance objectives
• e.g. air emission limits
• defined penalties for non-performance
• e.g. fines
• So that industry
• clearly understands consequences of failure
• can take consequences into account when assessing
  options available to achieve established
  objectives

Slide 110
111
Material Specific Performance (5) Rationale for
Recommendations

• To provide a response to Ministers request for
  material specific targets for the next five years
  of the BBPP
• To establish the first material specific targets
  for the BBPP based on six material categories
  rather than by more than 20 sub-categories
• To incorporate the principle of continuous
  improvement while recognizing that material
  groups currently have varying recycling rates and
  different challenges to achieve higher material
  specific targets

Slide 111
112
Material Specific Performance (6) Rationale for
Recommendations, contd

• To set material specific targets that are
  proportionately above existing recycling rates
  recognizing that
• incorporating Blue Box materials from
  non-municipal collection systems may benefit
  certain materials more than others (e.g.
  aluminum)
• sorting materials for recycling during
  pre-processing at dirty MRFs may benefit
  certain materials more than others (e.g. steel)
• materials achieving recycling rates in the 80
  range have less remaining material on which to
  draw to increase their recycling rates

Slide 112
113
Material Specific Performance (7) Rationale for
Recommendations, contd

• To set material specific targets that would be
  expected to yield the 75 program recycling
  target
• To establish penalties for missing material
  specific targets in order to create an economic
  incentive to achieve the program performance
  targets, to utilize the steward fee structure to
  increase waste diversion by incorporating these
  penalties into the fee setting methodology and to
  direct these penalties, should they become due,
  to support waste diversion

Slide 113
114
Material Specific Performance (8)

• BBPP recycling rates 2004 2007
• Projected at same rate of growth over 5 years

Slide 114
115
Material Specific Performance (9) Draft
Recommendation 5

• To set the following 5 year Blue Box Program Plan
  material specific recycling targets

Slide 115
116
Material Specific Performance (10)

• Comparison of 5 Year Recycling Targets with 5
  Year Projections

Slide 116
117
Material Specific Performance (11)
Slide 117
118
Material Specific Performance (12)

• Possible new sources of BB materials
• proposed in Draft Recommendation 2
• steward/retailer collection systems
• plastic grocery bags
• private collections from multi-unit buildings
• all materials
• charities other organizations
• newspaper, aluminum, steel packaging
• sorted at dirty MRFs
• some paper fibres steel, aluminum, plastic
  packaging

Slide 118
119
Material Specific Performance (13)

• Cost of achieving targets depends on approaches
  selected by stewards from variety of options e.g.
  
• negotiate with municipalities to implement user
  pay systems
• negotiate with retailers to set up
  return-to-retail collection systems
• implement high profile, regular, province-wide
  media campaign
• etc.
• If Minister wishes to proceed with any
  recommendations
• would direct revisions to BBPP including required
  consultation
• would provide stewards with opportunity to
  consider cost options

Slide 119
120
Material Specific Performance (14) Draft
Recommendation 6

• To support the material specific recycling
  targets with a financial penalty that is set at a
  value that is higher than the cost of achieving
  the increased target with the penalty to be
  utilized to support waste diversion

Slide 120
121
Questions Program Performance Material
Specific Performance

• Remember name affiliation

Slide 121
122
Environmentally Responsible Management

• There are concerns that some Blue Box wastes may
  not be managed in an environmentally responsible
  manner, including waste marketed in Ontario or
  sent offshore.
• Recommend mechanisms that can be added to the
  BBPP to assure that Blue Box wastes are managed
  in an environmentally responsible manner from
  collection to final market.

Slide 122
123
Environmentally Responsible Management (2)

• Stakeholders
• generally agreed that actions to assure
  environmentally responsible management are
  required
• held different views on appropriate actions