Report to: General Committee Report
Date:
SUBJECT: Blue Box Program Plan Review
PREPARED BY: Claudia Marsales, Ext. 3560
RECOMMENDATION:
- That Council endorse the Inter-municipal
- That prior to finalizing the preferred options for the new Blue Box Program Plan, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment be requested to:
(a) more clearly define preferred options/models for advancing
(b) ensure current service level expectations by the public are maintained and ideally enhanced in the future;
- That staff prepare status reports to Council on the new Blue Box Program Plan review process including financial and service level implications;
- That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment,
and
- That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Not applicable
PURPOSE:
The purpose of
this report is to update Council on the Blue Box Program Plan review process
and potential impacts to
BACKGROUND:
The Blue Box Program Plan was approved by the Minister of the
Environment on
The 5 year funding program ends in 2009/10. To begin planning for the
next 5 year program, the Ministry of the Environment issued a discussion paper
called ‘Toward a Zero
ü
100% industry funded program to replace the current
50/50 shared model
ü
increased focus on waste reduction
ü
expanding diversion to the Industrial, Commercial
& Institutional sector
ü
increases to diversion targets
ü
mandatory user pay for garbage
ü
expansion of the list of materials to be recycled.
The Minister directed that the review be completed in a manner that is
transparent and incorporates consultation with all relevant stakeholders,
including members of the public and municipalities. Unfortunately, to date there
has been limited consultation with the public or municipalities and very tight
deadlines for comment on significant changes to a program that remains popular
with
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
In recognition of the importance of this
review process, York Region and the local municipalities (The Inter-municipal
In February 2009, Industry (WDO Industry representatives), issued their draft
recommendations on the future of the blue box program. Their recommendations,
if adopted, could significantly impact blue box recycling in
The Inter-municipal
WDO RECOMMENDATIONS:
The WDO’s draft recommendations propose to transition the blue box
system from municipalities to industry in three phases:
Phase1: Industry will develop a detailed transition plan
Phase2: Industry will assume financial responsibility for the blue
box system at a date to be specified by contracting for collection and
processing services with service providers where municipal collection contracts
have expired. Where long term contracts are in place, by offering to contract
with municipalities on a fee for service basis
.
Phase 3: Industry will assume physical responsibility as existing
municipal service provider contracts expire and would be responsible for
establishing new contracts. Industry will contract with municipalities where
contracts extend beyond the five year transition period on an exemption basis.
Industry has indicated that, under a full EPR system, they would be
entitled to full control the blue box system design and operation. Concerns have
been raised that Industry will seek the lowest cost system design which may not
yield the desired environmental or service level objectives This could
potentially impact current and future collection contracts, collection
frequency, promotion/education and processing systems.
Municipalities that have extensive investments in their processing
infrastructure may have stranded capital and less cost effective residue and
organic collection systems.
It may be necessary for municipalities to continue to deliver curbside collection
services to ensure reasonable service levels for residents.
AMO RECOMMENDATIONS:
AMO has been actively involved in the review process and has circulated
draft recommendations to all
“the transfer of costs and/or physical responsibility of waste
management from local government authorities and the taxpayer to the producer.”
AMO is also recommending a phased transition:
Phase 1: 100% Industry responsibility for an expanded blue box system.
50% of the cost of packaging and paper in the garbage and litter stream, moving
to 100%
Phase 2: MOE to establish strict recovery targets – 90% by 2011
Phase 3: MOE enforcement of targets and directives for foreign importers
Phase 4: Require Industry management of problematic materials via
recovery or deposit return programs
Phase 5: Province wide public communication about transition of blue box
program
AMO has cautioned that full EPR may result in municipalities losing
control and influence over the blue box system should Industry decide to
operate the program. In addition, AMO cautions that full ERP programs in
SHIFT FROM 3R’S TO 4R’S
Since the early
nineties, the MOE has not allowed materials sent to energy from waste (EFW) plant
or incinerator, to count as ‘diversion’. This ‘no incineration’ policy aided
the growth of blue box recycling in
Part of the blue box review opens up for discussion amending this long standing policy to allow for the ‘recovery’ of recyclables using energy from waste technology as diversion. For example if a municipality sent 20% of its material to an EFW plant, that would translate to 20% diversion. Both Industry and AMO recommend placing limits on the amount of material send to EFW for ‘recovery’.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Municipalities are proud of the diversion achieved through their recycling programs and residents like the ease of curbside collection. Staff generally concur that the blue box system could be more effective. Over packaging, unclear rules, and confusion, continue to be challenges. A key concern is that the potential range of recycling models is large and their impact enormous. Moving forward, Staff support using the following fundamental principals:
· Current service level expectations by the public are maintained and ideally enhanced in the future
· The primary environmental objectives of material recycling are supported by enforced regulatory targets; and
· Accountability to the public (i.e. the primary stakeholders) for the effectiveness of the system is maintained.
Staff support the need for a broader consultation process
and public engagement on this matter. Following the Minister’s consideration of
Industry’s submission, it is suggested that the preferred options/models for
advancing
FINANCIAL TEMPLATE:
Program changes may impact the 2010 budget. WDO funding will be received in 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
EPR and Industry management of the recycling system could result in better packaging. . Conversely, by bringing back the forth ‘R’ – Recovery could result in increased incineration.
ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable
ENGAGE 21ST CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
Not
applicable
RECOMMENDED
BY: ________________________ __________________________________
Peter Loukes, P.Eng. Brenda Librecz
Director of Operations Commissioner, Community &
Fire Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” - Letter dated December 2008
Attachment “B” - Letter dated
o:\commission share\operations and asset management\reports\2009\waste\wdo report.doc