DOCSLIB.ORG

Incorporating Waste Prevention Activities Into Life Cycle Assessments of Residential Solid Waste Management Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Incorporating Waste Prevention Activities Into Life Cycle Assessments of Residential Solid Waste Management Systems Incorporating Waste Prevention Activities into Life Cycle Assessments of Residential Solid Waste Management Systems By Julian Cleary A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Department of Geography, University of Toronto © Julian Cleary 2012 ii Incorporating waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of residential solid waste management systems Doctor of Philosophy, 2012 Julian Cleary Graduate Department of Geography University of Toronto Abstract The four papers of this dissertation explore themes related to waste prevention, the system boundaries, functional units and scale of life cycle assessments (LCAs) of municipal solid waste (MSW) management, as well as the transparency and consistency of the application of LCA methods. The first paper is a comparative analysis of the methodological choices and transparency of 20 LCAs of MSW that were recently published in peer-reviewed journals, and includes a comparison of their midpoint level impact values using statistical indicators. The second paper proposes a conceptual model, designated WasteMAP (Waste Management And Prevention), for evaluating LCAs of MSW which incorporate waste prevention. In WasteMAP, waste prevention through dematerialization is viewed as analogous to waste treatments so long as it does not affect the functional output (product services) of MSW-generating product systems. Papers 3 and 4 comprise the WasteMAP LCA case study. Paper 3 depicts product LCAs of wine and spirit packaging (conventional, lightweight and refillable, each type generating different quantities of waste) at the scale of the individual package and the municipality. At the municipal scale, the LCAs address impacts from the wine and spirit packaging supplied in the City of Toronto, Canada in 2008, and a waste prevention scenario which substitutes lighter weight and reusable containers. The lowest endpoint level impacts out of the five container types studied were associated with refillable containers and aseptic cartons. Paper 4 addresses the Toronto MSW management system and applies the WasteMAP model to allow for the comparison, on a functionally equivalent basis, of the LCA results of a reference scenario, based on 2008 data, with a scenario incorporating six types of waste prevention activities (prevention of unaddressed advertising mail, disposable plastic bags, newspapers, lightweight and refillable wine and spirit packaging, iii and yard waste). The findings highlight the benefits of waste prevention, and the relative significance of the decision to account for recycled content when modelling waste prevention. The endpoint level impact assessment results using the ReCiPe and Impact 2002+ evaluation methods are in keeping with the assumption in the waste hierarchy that waste prevention has a superior environmental performance. iv Acknowledgements I wish to thank a number of people for helping me with the design and completion of my research. I greatly appreciate the encouragement, insightful suggestions and help of Virginia Maclaren, my supervisor, as well as my committee members: Miriam Diamond, Danny Harvey and Rodney White. I am also grateful for the enthusiasm and interest of my colleagues and friends at the Geography Department in my research. I am grateful to the City of Toronto Solid Waste Management Services (John Baldry, Bonnie Ballam, Anne Wheatley, Irene Zeppieri), the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Ian Loadman, and special thanks to Tod Stewart), as well as numerous wineries and distilleries and equipment manufacturers, for participating in my study. I am also appreciative of Dr. Sarah Finklestein’s kind offer of the use of her lab for some of my mass measurements. The Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) provided me with countless opportunities to meet and discuss waste management issues with many people involved in this fascinating field. I wish to thank Usman Valiante of Corporate Policy Group for his valuable suggestions and for introducing me to the RCO. I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Social Science and Humanities (SSHRC) of Canada and for their financial support in the form of a Canada Graduate Scholarship. I would also like to acknowledge the Geography Graduate Expansion Fund for providing funding for my research. Above all, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my parents for their encouragement, support and insightful contributions that were essential for the successful completion of this dissertation, as well as to Nancy Lo for her forbearance and support. v Acronyms AC Aseptic Carton APS Alternate Product System CSU Conventional Single Use DPFU Downstream Primary Functional Unit IC&I Institutional, Industrial and Commercial ISO International Organization for Standardization LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCBO Liquor Control Board of Ontario LSU Lightweight Single Use MSW Municipal Solid Waste PET Polyethylene Terephthalate RFG Refillable Glass SFU Secondary Functional Unit TPS Targeted Product System vi UPFU Upstream Primary Functional Unit WasteMAP Waste Management and Prevention WPA Waste Prevention Activity vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Acronyms v INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Research objectives 4 1.2 Paper descriptions 5 1.2.1 Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature (Paper 1) 5 1.2.2 The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: Methodological issues (Paper 2) 6 1.2.3 Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: A Toronto, Canada case study (Paper 3) 7 1.2.4 Waste prevention and life cycle assessment of residential waste management in Toronto, Canada (Paper 4) 7 1.3 References 8 PAPER 1 Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Research objectives 12 2.3 Methodology 13 2.3.1 Selection criteria for LCAs of MSW 13 2.3.2 A common basis for the analysis 14 2.4 Results 14 2.4.1 Study area and scale 14 2.4.2 Goals of the reviewed LCAs 16 2.4.2.1 Comparisons of MSW management systems 16 2.4.3 Functional units 17 2.4.4 System boundaries 18 2.4.4.1 The ‘cradle’ and ‘grave’ of waste 19 2.4.4.2 Life cycle environmental emissions from the production of 20 capital / infrastructure 2.4.4.3 Environmental emissions from MSW transportation 20 2.4.4.4 Selection of energy sources 21 2.4.5 Environmental impacts and LCIA 22 2.4.5.1 Impact categories 23 2.4.5.2 Characterization of impacts 23 2.4.5.3 Single score weighted valuations of impacts 24 viii 2.4.6 Types and sources of data 26 2.4.7 Sensitivity analysis 27 2.4.8 Economic costs of MSW treatment 28 2.5 Comparison of results 29 2.5.1 Acidification potential 32 2.5.2 Global warming potential 33 2.5.3 Net energy use 34 2.6 Discussion 36 2.7 Conclusion 37 2.8 References 38 PAPER 2 The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: Methodological issues 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Research objectives 46 3.3 Types of waste prevention activities 46 3.4 Attributional and consequential approaches to waste prevention and LCA 48 3.4.1 The attributional approach 49 3.4.1.1 The traditional product LCA 49 3.4.1.2 The traditional LCA of MSW 50 3.4.2 The consequential LCA 51 3.5 The WasteMAP life cycle assessment 51 3.5.1 System boundary 52 3.5.2 Functional units 54 3.5.2.1 Primary functional unit 55 3.5.2.2 Secondary functional unit 56 3.5.3 Waste flows 57 3.5.4 Environmental emissions 59 3.6 Discussion 61 3.7 Conclusion 63 3.8 References 63 PAPER 3 Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: A Toronto, Canada case study 4.1 Introduction 68 4.2 Research objectives and methodology 70 4.2.1 Functional units 71 4.2.2 Packaging scenarios 72 4.2.2.1 LCA scenarios for wine and spirit packaging at the scale of 72 an individual package 4.2.2.2 LCA scenarios for wine/spirit packaging consumption at 72 the municipal scale ix 4.2.3 System boundary 76 4.2.4 Data sources 78 4.2.4.1 Life cycle assessment software, databases and impact 78 assessment tools 4.2.4.2 Questionnaire to wine and spirit producers 79 4.2.4.3 Field and laboratory research 80 4.3 LCA input profile 81 4.4 LCA unit processes 84 4.4.1 Aseptic carton production 84 4.4.2 Glass bottle production 85 4.4.3 Polyethylene terephthalate bottle production 86 4.4.4 Production of secondary packaging 86 4.4.5 Transportation of materials 86 4.4.3.1 Transportation of containers from manufacturer to packager 87 4.4.3.2 Transportation of containers from packager to Toronto 88 4.4.6 Rinsing and filling of containers 90 4.4.7 Reuse of containers 90 4.4.7.1 Transportation of used bottles between retailer and 91 cleaning/refilling facility 4.4.7.2 Washing of used glass bottles 91 4.4.8 Waste management 91 4.4.8.1 Waste collection, transportation and sorting 92 4.4.8.2 Recycling 93 4.4.8.3 Landfilling 94 4.5 Life cycle impact assessment results 94 4.5.1 Individual package scenarios 95 4.5.2 Municipal scale scenarios 99 4.5.2.1 Climate change 99 4.5.2.2 Endpoint level impacts 100 4.6 Sensitivity analysis 105 4.7 Critical review 107 4.8 Discussion 111 4.9 Conclusion 112 4.10 References 113 PAPER 4 Waste prevention and life cycle assessment of residential waste management in Toronto, Canada 5.1 Introduction 121 5.2 Research objective 122
Load more

Recommended publications
  • As Toronto Finds Distant Holes for Its Waste, the 905 Sees Incineration in a New, Appealing Light July 30, 2007
    Toronto Star As Toronto finds distant holes for its waste, the 905 sees incineration in a new, appealing light July 30, 2007 Phinjo Gombu STAFF REPORTER Despite skepticism and some opposition, Durham Region is deeply committed to building the GTA's first garbage incinerator in 15 years, says the region's works commissioner. "Years ago, there was a fundamental commitment by Durham Region that there would be no new landfills established (here)," says Cliff Curtis. "And council seems to have bought into the concept that we need to look after our own waste." That seems to be a unique position in the GTA, where disposing of trash in one's own backyard tends to stink politically. Sustainable self-sufficiency, with acceptance of some risk, is a goal other regions seem to be avoiding. Toronto and Peel have signed long-term deals to use landfills outside the GTA, though Peel already incinerates half its waste. York plans to turn some of its garbage into pellets to be burned somewhere else. For the time being, Halton has decided to continue to use a Milton landfill. After the province promised Michigan legislators that Ontario would stop shipping garbage to landfills in the state by 2010, councils across the GTA scrambled to find alternatives. Most have taken a step back from incineration, long fraught with concerns about emissions. Halton Region decided to defer considering an energy-from-waste incinerator for five years. Peel signed a long-term deal with a landfill near Sarnia for half of its trash, despite the fact its Algonquin Power plant in Brampton, built in 1992, already burns almost 140,000 tonnes of garbage a year and is undergoing a retrofit so it can dispose of more.
    [Show full text]
  • Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan Amendment – Approved Draft
    WASHTENAW COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLAN AMENDMENT – APPROVED DRAFT APPROVED DRAFT FOR 90-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AS OF APRIL 21, 2017 COMPILED DRAFT PREPARED BY RESOURCE RECYCLING SYSTEMS SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: [email protected] THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK How to Read this Document This draft Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment follows the format that is required by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through enactment of Part 115, Solid Waste Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451). Much of the current solid waste law is focused on ensuring proper and adequate disposal capacity. However, the Washtenaw County Solid Waste Planning Committee embraced the environmental mindset that is prevalent in the community and strived to set goals and objectives to focus on reduction, reuse, and recycling. Required Sections The plan consists of three primary sections with appendices to provide supporting documents and materials, as required by the state. The three sections are: Introduction: describes the goals and objectives of the plan. Database: consists of background information to support the development and implementation of the plan. Selected Solid Waste Management System: describes the comprehensive approach to managing the County’s solid waste and recoverable materials. The appendices provide supporting documents and materials. Appendix A contains additional detail about the evaluation of current systems. Appendix B contains additional evaluation of alternatives not selected by the County. Appendix C contains documentation of public participation. Please note that this section will be completed prior to final submission to the MDEQ, as public participation is actively occurring.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update
    Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update Due to OEPA September 16, 2011 Lucas County Commissioners Pete Gerken, President Tina Skeldon Wozniak Carol Contrada Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6 A. Plan Approval Date, Counties In District and Planning Period ......................................................................... 6 B. Reasons for Plan Submittal ............................................................................................................................... 6 C. Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances ............................................................................... 6 D. District Formation and Certification Statement ............................................................................................... 8 E. Policy Committee Members ............................................................................................................................. 9 F. Board of County Commissioners ...................................................................................................................... 9 G. District Contact Information ............................................................................................................................. 9 H. Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees ............................................................................ 10 Section 2: Executive Summary ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Management Services Staff Recommended 2020 Operating Budget 2020 – 2029 Capital Budget & Plan
    Solid Waste Management Services Staff Recommended 2020 Operating Budget 2020 – 2029 Capital Budget & Plan Budget Briefing to Budget Committee November 15, 2019 While we aim to provide fully accessible content, there is no text alternative available for some of the content within these pages. If you require alternate formats or need assistance understanding our charts, graphs, or any other content, please contact us at 416-392-7896 or [email protected]. Overview Overview and Highlights 2020 Staff Recommended Operating Budget and Plan 2020 – 2029 Staff Recommended Capital Budget and Plan Rate Changes 2 Overview and Highlights 3 Solid Waste Management Services – What We Do Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) is an Integrated System and is responsible for: Integrated Waste Management System City Beautification Collection & Processing & Education & Residual Transfer Transport Enforcement Management SWMS manages 7 Transfer Stations, 2 Organics Processing Facility with one under expansion, 3 Collection Yards and 1 Litter Collection Yard, Green Lane Landfill + 160 Closed Landfills, 1.5 million residential bins and operates approximately 750 vehicles and pieces of equipment with an asset value of $700M . 4 Solid Waste Management Services – What is Seen After Raptors Parade / After SWM Parks and Curbside Collection 5 Solid Waste Management Services – How It’s Done Litter Management Collections Transfer Stations Haulage Open and Closed Landfill Mgmt. Recycling Processing Recycling Marketing Organics Processing in Renewable Natural Gas Special Waste Handling Anaerobic Digesters Development Community Outreach Policy & Research Customer Experience Circular Economy Asset Mgmt. & Capital Delivery Facility Maintenance Technology / Smart City Innovation Education Business Services 6 Solid Waste Management Services - Highlights • Completed an organizational realignment • New Safety Strategy and Program Initiated • Negotiated contracts for D2 collections, Disco Org.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services
    Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services (City Council on June 7, 8 and 9, 2000, amended this Clause by deleting from the recommendation of the Works Committee, after the words “Emergency Services”, the words “a verifiable environmental”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “an environmental”, and adding to such recommendation the words “verifiable to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services”, so that the recommendation of the Works Committee shall now read as follows: “The Works Committee recommends that TIRM Respondents offering disposal services be required to have in place at the time of contract implementation, or an implementation schedule acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, an environmental management system for their disposal, operations and applicable transportation systems, verifiable to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.”) The Works Committee recommends that TIRM Respondents offering disposal services be required to have in place at the time of contract implementation, or an implementation schedule acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a verifiable environmental management system for their disposal, operations and applicable transportation systems. The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received presentations by the following Respondents to the TIRM Request for Proposals for Disposal Services: - Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority, represented by: - Mr. Todd R. Pepper, General Manager, Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority. (A copy of the aforementioned presentation was submitted to the Committee.) - Green Lane Landfill, represented by: - Ms. Anne Hiscock, Green Lane Landfill. (A copy of the aforementioned presentation was submitted to the Committee.) - Onyx North America Corporation (formerly Browning Ferris Industries), represented by: - Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context
    Cov-Public Confidence Canadian 30/09/03 12:45 Page 1 Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 © OECD 2003 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson's Learned
    What’s Up Up North!!! Lesson’s Learned Sustainable Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management in Canada in the 21st Century © 2014 HDR, all rights reserved. Background Key Projects Key Lessons Learned Summary BACKGROUND BY THE NUMBERS Population: ~35 million (1/10 the US) about approximately the size of California Landmass: ~ 9.9 M sq km (slightly larger than the US) 13 Provinces and Territories Approximately 90% of the population is concentrated within 160 km (100 mi) of the US border Generates ~ 25 million tonnes per year ( ~ 27 M tons) WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CANADA KEY CANADIAN PROJECTS KEY PROJECTS City of Toronto Regions of Durham/ York City of Edmonton Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Alliance City of Surrey This image cannot currently be displayed. CITY OF TORONTO Over 4 million inhabitants Generates over 1,000,000 tonnes per year Separate collection of Recyclables and Organics Key City Owned Facilities: o Dufferin Creek AD Plant – 27,500 tons per year o Disco Road AD Plant – 83,000 tons per year o Green Lane Landfill (out-of-City) – capacity to 2040 TORONTO’S WASTE STRATEGY VISION Reduce the amount of waste generated, reuse what they can, and recycle and recover the remaining resources to reinvest back into the economy. Embrace a waste management system that is user friendly with programs and facilities that balance the needs of the community and environment with long term financial sustainability. Ensure a safe, clean, beautiful and healthy City for the future. EVALUATING LONG TERM OPTIONS EVOLUTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DURHAM REGION Durham Region was established in 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Management Services 3
    OPERATING PROGRAM SUMMARY CONTENTS Overview 1: 2017 – 2018 Service Overview and Plan 5 2: 2017 Operating Budget by Service 15 3: Issues for Discussion 31 Appendices: 1. 2016 Performance 36 2. 2017 Operating Budget by Expenditure Category 37 Solid Waste Management Services 3. 2017 Organization Chart 38 2017 OPERATING BUDGET OVERVIEW 4. Summary of 2017 Service Solid Waste Management Services is responsible for collecting, Changes 39 transporting, processing, composting and disposal of municipal and 5. Summary of 2017 New & some private sector waste. This includes garbage, Blue Bin Enhanced Service Priorities 40 recyclables, Green Bin organics, litter, yard waste, oversized and metal items, as well as household hazardous waste and electronic waste. 6. Inflows/Outflows to / from Reserves & Reserve Funds 41 SWMS' goal is to be a leader in providing innovative waste management services within the City of Toronto in a safe, efficient, and 7. 2017 User Fee Rate courteous manner, creating environmental sustainability, promoting Changes 44 waste diversion and maintaining a clean city. 2017 Operating Budget Highlights The total cost to deliver these services to Toronto residents, businesses and visitors is $378.292 million gross with a $19.831 million net reserve contribution as shown below. 2016 2017 (in $000's) Change Budget Budget $ % Gross Expenditures 368,463.2 378,292.4 9,829.2 2.7% Gross Revenues 388,938.4 398,123.7 9,185.3 2.4% Net Contribution (20,475.2) (19,831.3) 643.9 (3.1%) For 2017, $19.7 million in opening budget pressures were identified arising from operating requirements including contract services increases, inflation and provision to support the SWMS Capital program.
    [Show full text]
  • GGR 381 H1F: Field Course in Environmental Geography COURSE SCHEDULE and READINGS | FALL 2016
    GGR 381 H1F: Field Course in Environmental Geography COURSE SCHEDULE AND READINGS | FALL 2016 Course Schedule Overview Tues. Sept. 6 In-class Session Introductory Session and Field Trip and trip to High Park (9:30 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at Sid Smith, Room 5017A at 9:30 a.m. Following class, meet at the north gates of High Park at 1:30 p.m. The gates are at the intersection of Colborne Lodge Drive and Bloor St. West, near the High Park TTC Station. Wed. Sept. 7 Field Trip The Port Lands (8:45 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Plant (9 Leslie St., south of Lakeshore Blvd. East) at 8:45 a.m. In the afternoon we will be visiting the Portlands Energy Centre (470 Unwin Ave.) Thu. Sept. 8 Field Trip Food in the City (8:15 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at the Ontario Food Terminal (165 The Queensway, east of Park Lawn Rd.) at 8:15 a.m. In the afternoon we will be visiting Black Creek Community Farm (4929 Jane St.) Fri. Sept. 9 Field Trip Mines and Airports (7:15 a.m. – 4:30 Meet at the Huron St. entrance to Sid Smith Hall, p.m.) 100 St George St. at 7:15 a.m. We will be traveling by bus and leaving at 7:30 a.m. sharp. We will be visiting the Aberfoyle Sand and Gravel Pits in the morning and Pearson International Airport in the afternoon. Fri. Sept. 16 In-class Session Sid Smith, Room 2101 (12 – 2 p.m.) Fri.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act
    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us. Contenu archivé L'information archivée sur le Web est disponible à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de dossiers seulement. Elle n’a été ni modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date d’archivage. Les pages archivées sur le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez obtenir cette information dans un format de rechange en communiquant avec nous. UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER Ii OF TIlE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor v GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (“Canada”) Party STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES CLAIMANT! INVESTOR: Vito G. GallooAc) ENTERPRISE: 1532382 Ontario Inc. 225 Duncan Mill Road Suite 101 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3K9 Canada PARTY: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Canada 1. The Investor alleges that the Government of Canada has breached, and continues to breach, its obligations under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, including, but not limited to: (i) Article 1105, The Minimum Standard of Treatment (ii) Article 111 0, Expropriation and Compensation 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan for 1996
    REPORT OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLED IN MICHIGAN October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020 Prepared By: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Materials Management Division Solid Waste Section P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741 517-388-0293 February 11, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................... 2 TABLE 1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS .................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS BY PERCENTAGE ................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................ 5 FIGURE 2 MICHIGAN AND OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................................................... 5 TABLE 3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ....................... 6 TABLE 3A INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY……. ..... 7 WASTE IMPORTS ..................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 4 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 8 FIGURE 3 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 9 TABLE 5 IMPORTED WASTE BY COUNTY AND PLACE OF ORIGIN ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitration Under Chapter Eleven of the Nafta and the Uncitral Arbitration Rules
    ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NAFTA AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN VITO G. GALLO Claimant AND GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 [Amended] 10 February 2009 ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL Professor Juan Fernández-Armesto (President) Professor Jean-Gabriel Castel J. Christopher Thomas, Q.C. CONSIDERING 1. The documentary requests filed by each party on 15 October 2008, numbered GAL 13 and CAN 11, and the objections to the counterparty’s documentary requests of 12 January 2009, numbered GAL 15 and CAN 12. 2. That further to these communications, the parties submitted GAL 17 and CAN 16 as short rebuttals, and Canada presented CAN 17 dealing with the additional production of document pertaining to requests nos. 73, 77, 78, 60(n) and 80. 3. That, according to Procedural Order no. 1, the Arbitral Tribunal may, in its discretion, order one disputing party to communicate to the other documents or limited categories of documents. In the exercise of its discretion, the Arbitral Tribunal will have regard to the specificity of the request, the relevance of the requested documents, the fact that they are in the possession, power or control of the disputing party, any applicable privileges, and all surrounding circumstances. The Arbitral Tribunal issues this PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 This Procedural Order rules on the documentary requests (I) clarifying preliminary issues raised by the parties and (II) deciding on each of the disputed documentary requests. I. Preliminary Issues 1. Each party has claimed that (a) the documents so far produced by the other party are, to a large extent, unorganised; (b) privilege has been asserted over an unspecified number of documents; (c) some of the requested documents are not in its possession, but rather in the possession of third parties; and (d) there is a possibility of late production.
    [Show full text]