www.CRAworld.com Draft Report Optimization of Recycling Service Delivery in theDRAFT North-Eastern Ontario Wasteshed Prepared for: Continuous Improvement Fund Conestoga-Rovers & Associates 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B8 February 2015 • 082981 Report 1 Final Report 730: Northeastern ON Optimization: Service Delivery Model Option Development & Evaluation Notice to Readers In 2012, the MIPC commissioned a report entitled, A Study of the Optimization of the Blue Box Material ProcessinG System in Ontario1. Volume 7 of the Study focused on Northern Ontario, and included various recommendations on how to optimize the Blue Box system at a reGional level. This report outlines options for a new service delivery and cost sharinG model that is based on the Study findinGs, and optimizes the recycling services in the Northeastern ON waste shed, while taking into consideration the collection, consolidation, haulaGe and processinG of the recyclable materials Generated. The report remains a ‘draft’ as the participatinG municipalities elected not to complete the final section, ‘Section 6.0: Next Steps’. After much consideration, the participatinG Groups chose to work independent of one another. The CIF worked collaboratively with Kapuskasing and Hearst to investigate and cost out joint proGram delivery opportunities. Ultimately, it was the decision of Hearst’s council to establish a transfer station in their community and transition their depot proGram to a curbside recycling collection initiative independently. Kapuskasing also moved to an independent recyclinG proGram, building a transfer station near their landfill – a location different than the one used in the scenario analysis for this report. FindinGs on Hearst’s transition can be found under CIF project report 978, ‘Hearst Transition from Depot to Curbside Service’. Continuous Improvement Fund CIF Service Delivery Model Table of Contents Page Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Section 2.0 Background .................................................................................................. 2 Section 3.0 Existing Infrastructure .................................................................................. 4 3.1 Collection Vehicles and Depot Bins ................................................ 6 3.1.1 Timmins ..................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Transfer Stations ............................................................................. 7 3.2.1 Temiskaming Shores .................................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Cochrane ................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Timmins ..................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Material Recovery Facilities .......................................................... 10 3.3.1 Temiskaming Shores ................................................................................ 10 3.3.2 Kapuskasing ............................................................................................. 10 3.3.3 Private Facilities....................................................................................... 11 3.4 Other Infrastructure ...................................................................... 11 Section 4.0 Service Delivery Options ............................................................................ 12 4.1 MIPC Study Recommendations .................................................... 12 4.2 Consultation .................................................................................. 13 4.3 Option Development .................................................................... 14 4.3.1 Data Sources ............................................................................................ 14 4.3.2 Limitations ............................................................................................... 17 4.4 Model ............................................................................................ 17 4.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................. 17 4.4.2 Generation .............................................................................................. 18 4.4.3 Collection ................................................................................................. 19 4.4.4 Haul to Primary Node .............................................................................. 20 4.4.5 TransferDRAFT Station Consolidation ................................................................ 21 4.4.6 Haul to Secondary Node .......................................................................... 22 4.4.7 Material Recovery Facility Processing ..................................................... 24 4.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 25 4.5.1 Existing Program Costs ............................................................................ 25 4.5.2 Proposed Program Costs ......................................................................... 26 4.5.3 Other Considerations .............................................................................. 27 4.6 Cost Model Review ....................................................................... 28 082981 (1) February 2015 Continuous Improvement Fund CIF Service Delivery Model Section 5.0 Cost Sharing Model .................................................................................... 28 5.1 Cost per tonne Analysis ................................................................ 30 5.2 Cost Sharing Framework Recommendations ............................. 31 Section 6.0 Next Steps ................................................................................................. 32 List of Figures Figure 1 NEON Municipalities Figure 2 Material Flow Diagram Figure 3 Location of Primary Nodes Figure 4 Location of Secondary Nodes List of Tables Table 1 Participating Municipalities Table 2 Existing Waste Management Facilities Table 3 Summary of Program Costs Table 4 Cost Sharing Framework List of Appendices Appendix A Municipal Correspondence & Interim Presentation Appendix B Model Spreadsheets Appendix C Review of Financial Model & Cost Share Options Appendix D Cost Sharing Allocation Model 082981 (1) February 2015 Continuous Improvement Fund CIF Service Delivery Model Section 1.0 Introduction The Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) is a program developed through a partnership between Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the City of Toronto, and Stewardship Ontario to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Ontario’s municipal Blue Box recycling program. Based on direction from the Municipal Industry Program Committee (MIPC) and the WDO Board, the CIF provides technical support and training services in addition to funding assistance to municipalities to implement best practices and technological solutions to enhance the operation of Ontario’s Blue Box program. In 2012, the MIPC commissioned a report entitled A Study of the Optimization of the Blue Box Material Processing System in Ontario1. Volume 7 of the Study focused on Northern Ontario, and included various recommendations on how to optimize the blue box system at a regional level. The Cochrane Temiskaming Waste Management Board (CTWMB), serving municipalities in the NorthEastern Ontario (NEON) wasteshed, expressed interest in receiving CIF funding to conduct a local analysis and refine the recommendations of the Study in order to establish an appropriate implementation strategy. The CIF approved the funding, and retained ConestogaRovers & Associates (CRA) to develop and evaluate options for the optimized delivery of recycling services for the communities, not only participating as part of the CTWMB, but for all those operating in the NEON wasteshed in and around the stretch of highway between Temagami and Hearst. Further, KPMG was retained to review the proposed service delivery models, as well as provide thoughts and analysis on potential cost sharingDRAFT mechanisms. This report outlines options for a new service delivery and cost sharing model that is based on the Study findings, and optimizes the recycling services in the NEON wasteshed while taking into consideration the collection, consolidation, haulage and processing of the recyclable materials generated. 1 A Study of the Optimization of the Blue Box Material Processing System in Ontario, Resource Recycling Systems and Steward Edge, June 2012. http://cif.wdo.ca/projects/blueboxoptstudy/#report 082981 (1) February 2015 1 Continuous Improvement Fund CIF Service Delivery Model Section 2.0 Background The CTWMB was originally established in 1995 by a consortium of 16 municipalities in the NEON wasteshed in order to consolidate the collection, transfer, haulage and processing of recyclable materials. CTWMB members were divided into two groups, namely, the Northern Node (the Towns of Kapuskasing, Hearst, Cochrane, and Iroquois Falls; and the Townships of MatticeVal Côté, Opasatika, FauquierStrickland, and Moonbeam) and the Southern Node (the Towns of CharltonDack, Englehart, New Liskeard, Haileybury, and Cobalt; and the Townships of Chamberlain, Evanturel, Dymond, and Temagami). The City of Temiskaming Shores was created in 2004 by