January 15, 2018…

January 15, 2018

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Climate Change and Environmental Policy Division
Resource Recovery Policy Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 8
Toronto, ON
M4V 1M2
Attention: Ian Drew, Senior Policy Advisor
RE: Food and Organic Waste Framework, EBR Registry Number: 013-1814
Walker Environmental Group Inc. (Walker Environmental) is pleased to submit our comments and recommendations regarding the Food and Organic Waste Framework.
Walker Environmental owns and operates a number of material recovery and residual management facilities across Canada, serving both the public and private sectors. A full description of our services and experience can be found in Appendix A- Walker Environmental Experience.
The framework represents a convergence of interests and initiatives to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions, while driving innovation and investment to support a circular economy in Ontario. Walker Environmental maintains a long-term view that balances social, environmental and economic priorities and generally supports the development of policy as a mechanism to stimulate resource recovery and residuals management in the Province.
The implementation of the finalized framework will spur investment in Ontario and bring a net benefit to the economy, allow Ontario to make progress towards the Climate Change Action Plan, and help develop green jobs in Ontario.
Walker Environmental appreciates the opportunity to provide input and share our experiences in relation to these objectives. Further, Walker Environmental looks forward to ongoing consultation and dialogue with the MOECC and other stakeholders in the implementation of the Organics Action Plan.
Regards,
Mike Watt, P.Eng
Executive Vice-President
Walker Environmental Group Inc.
mwatt@walkerInd.com
905-680-3752

Timelines
Prior to developing timelines for when and how an organics ban will be implemented, we ask the MOECC to align the development of organics processing facilities to accommodate the amount of organic material that will be diverted from landfills. We also encourage the MOECC to re-evaluate the approvals process currently in place, to develop new organic processing infrastructure. The existing regulatory process in Ontario makes it challenging to develop an ECA for a new compost site, or to amend an existing ECA to expand or alter a site. We strongly encourage the policy branch to work closely with the approvals branch to ensure that ECAs and ECA amendments can occur within the timelines provided in this document.
As the MOECC develops targets it should consider the following:
•Municipal Timelines (See Targets pg. 40) - The timelines proposed in this document set high precedence for municipalities that were early adopters and already have organics diversion systems in place. We recommend that the MOECC focus on identifying “low hanging fruit”, or municipalities with large, dense populations that do not have green bin collection systems, and require them to come online prior to requiring large municipalities that have been good, early adopters, to increase their diversion rates.
•Phasing ICI organic waste in, over a span of five years (See Requirements for ICI Generators Pg. 48). From an implementation perspective, it may be helpful to consider a phased in approach. This could include prioritizing larger, more densely populated municipalities that do not have green bin programs before moving onto smaller and more rural situations. A phased in approach for the ICI sector, prioritizing large generators, and a similar approach to a disposal ban, may provide an opportunity to get early diversion results from the largest and highest-impact generators. This allows for infrastructure to develop to meet the needs of large generators, and then smaller generators to come online utilizing that infrastructure over time.
•Progress Review (See pg. 56) - The proposed framework suggests that progress review will occur every 5 years. We recommend that the MOECC work with stakeholders to develop an annual reporting mechanism that can be used to monitor and report data, including a baseline of organics that are diverted. This mechanism should consider the total amount of organic waste that is collected less the contaminants that are removed from the process and sent to landfill.
As the organics ban program is implemented, we ask the MOECC to recognize the continued need for safe, reliable disposal facilities to manage residual materials within Ontario.
We commend the MOECC for recognizing that in some instances, especially for rural communities in Northern Ontario, it may not be financially feasible for the municipalities to develop a green bin program, and the greenhouse gas reductions associated with organics diversion may be offset by the greenhouse gas emissions from hauling and processing the material.
Approval Process
Modernization of Approvals
Given the imminent need for increased organic processing capacity, the importance of an expeditious and predictable approvals processes in the implementation of the Proposed Food and Organic Waste Framework cannot be understated. There is a strong linkage between the approvals required to develop organics processing capacity and the ability to divert more food waste from disposal. Without more processing capacity provided in new facilities, attainment of the desired objectives will be a challenge. In order to support resource recovery infrastructure, we ask the MOECC to modernize the approvals process in tandem with the implementation of the framework.
The ECA process should allow for reduced timeframe service standards and greater certainty. We commend the MOECC for undertaking these efforts (outlined on page 31, point 12) and encourage the MOECC to also grant limited operational flexibility in ECAs to incent efficiencies and development of new and innovative technologies.
We also recommend that the MOECC review and update O.Reg. 101, with predefined setbacks and parameters for an organics processing facility based on the incoming feedstock. We suggest that the MOECC develop feedstock requirements, setbacks, stormwater requirements, etc. and develop a standardized approach to facilities siting. The US Compost Council created a Model Compost Rule Template (https://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/US-Compo…) that could be adopted to meet provincial interest for these purposes. This template has been adopted by numerous states to allow for the development of organics processing facilities.
The adoption of this template will allow for the following to occur:
•Modernization of the process to allow for streamlined approvals;
•Development of small scale, low-risk sites (i.e. community composting); and
•Address innovative pilot projects that would allow new technologies to be developed (see pg. 16).
Municipal Land Use Approvals (see pages 31 and 47)
Municipal land use approvals have been a significant hurdle for siting an Organics Processing Facility in Ontario. Often times, local official plans and zoning by-laws do not account for Organics Processing Facilities and, as such, site developers are required to request land use approvals prior to selecting a site.
The recent changes to the Planning Act, Bill 139, Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, includes the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 as a deemed Policy Statement under the Planning Act. To add certainty and compress the development timelines of facilities we are supportive of the province requiring municipalities to update their official plans and zoning by-laws to reflect policy statements that result from the finalized version of the Food and Organic Waste Framework issued under the Resource Recovery and Circular Act, 2016.
Further to this, we recommend that facility siting is considered and organic waste processing facilities are permitted under any further iterations of provincial land use-planning decisions including expansion of the Greenbelt.
As the approvals process is modernized and the MOECC works with other ministries to ensure organics processing facilities can be properly zoned, we ask the MOECC to recognize that technology continues to develop, and streamline the process to allow for new technologies to obtain environmental approvals and permits to demonstrate their viability. MOECC should also grant limited operational flexibility in ECAs to incentivize efficiencies and the development of new and innovative technologies.
Landfill Approvals (See pg. 52 section 6.8)
Walker Environmental supports that proponents of residual disposal infrastructure (i.e. landfills) should consider food and organic waste resource recovery opportunities.
We support the current language used in this section, which allows for flexibility in how food and organic waste recovery occurs, either at the proposed disposal facility or elsewhere in the waste stream. It is Walker’s experience that, the most cost effective and efficient organics diversion occurs upstream (i.e. source separation) from the disposal facility. The processing and removal of food and organic waste at the landfill is typically cost prohibitive due to the co-mingling with other waste that has occurred (e.g. separation and recovery is cost prohibitive and end-product is low quality).
Feedstocks
It is pertinent that the MOECC allow for feedstocks to be adjusted based on the capability of the technology that is selected for a given project.
Personal Hygiene waste and sanitary products (See pg. 41 section 2.3 i & ii)
We ask that the MOECC give consideration to categorizing feedstocks into 2 categories. Category one would include materials that “Must be Diverted” and the second category would be material that is “Optional to Divert”. The second category would allow generators and processors, particularly in the municipal sector, to have flexibility in the design of their programs to include these types of materials, but not be forced. In either category, the material can be counted towards the diversion targets set forward by the MOECC.
We ask the MOECC to allow personal hygiene and sanitary products as optional in the current definition of organic waste for the following reasons:
•Does not allow for operational flexibility - Including personal hygiene and sanitary products in the organic waste stream is too prescriptive and does not allow flexibility in the type of processing technology that can be utilized to recover the waste.
•Existing ECAs do not allow for acceptance of this material - It should be noted that current ECAs for existing facilities do not allow for diapers as the processing infrastructure is not equipped to handle materials including hygiene products and diapers.
•Increases contamination and lowers product quality - Further to this, although our Ontario soils are in dire need of organic matter, including personal hygiene products in the organics processing stream can increase contamination and lower product quality. The amount of organic material contained in these products is negligible.
Compostable Packaging (See pg. 41 section 2.3 iv, and pg. 50)
There is no one size-fits all solution to compostable packaging. The inclusion of compostable packaging as part of the organic stream is premature due to the small amount of material that is certified and the amount of material that is still controversial. We ask the MOECC not to include compostable packaging in the organic stream until such time that all packaging of a given product is compostable (i.e. compostable coffee pods).
•Product standards are not aligned- There are numerous product standards for compostable packaging available in the marketplace, however these standards cannot account for variations that occur in the available suite of organic waste processing technology. The ability of the material to break down depends on seasonal variances, temperature, moisture content, type of technology used to process the material, composting time etc. Further to this, materials that break down in aerobic composting might not break down in anaerobic digesters due to decreased contact time.
•Consumer awareness- Allowing compostable packaging into the green bin program is a slippery slope. There may be confusion for consumers, who think that if one type of cutlery is compostable that all one-time use cutlery can go into the compost bin. This will create further contamination at organics processing facilities. Additionally, packaging that is not properly designed, such as a plastic compostable cup with a tin foil lid, will need to be pulled apart and separated into different bins. Consumers will not know that the tin foil lid needs to be removed from the compostable cup and put into a separate bin.
We ask the MOECC to reconsider allowing these materials into the compost stream as it increases processing costs and most of these materials will end up being sent for disposal. Ultimately, these materials are either removed during pre-processing or screened out later in the process and sent to landfill. Smaller fractions may also contaminate the quality of the end product.
Definition of Material Streams
•Address FOGs and Biosolids - Upon review of the previous list of organics that were be contemplated for this framework, Walker Environmental requests that the MOECC address fats, oils, greases (FOGs) and biosolids. Fats, oils, greases and other liquid residuals from industrial food processing plants can be efficiently processed into clean energy and should be included in the definition of food and organic waste. While Biosolids are not included in the definition of organic waste it should be recognized that there are beneficial uses for biosolids material that are stabilized through advanced technologies including composting, anaerobic digestion and alkaline stabilization. Biosolids can provide valuable organic matter and nutrients to Ontario soils.
•Redefine Organics that are Recovered at Transfer Stations – When organics pre-processing at transfer stations occurs, transfer stations will send out a slurry or cake for further processing at an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) or composting site. Municipal wastewater treatment plants may also play a role in this area and the MOECC should understand when the organic waste becomes an engineered feedstock (resource) it is no longer considered a waste.
Promote Beneficial Uses/ End Products
We are supportive of ensuring that products created from organic waste processing facilities meet high standards and are utilized beneficially in a manner that is suitable for their use. As outlined in the Soil Health and Conservation Strategy for Ontario, our soils are in need of organic content. Additionally, there is significant opportunity to utilize organic waste as a resource for energy generation. The MOECC can work in tandem with existing efforts to increase the value of end products, thereby making organic waste recovery more feasible.
To further align the goals set forth in the Food and Organic Waste Framework as well as the Climate Change Action Plan we recommend the following:
Recognize the benefits of soil health/ soil carbon by ensuring high quality products reach the market and can be utilized to replace synthetic fertilizers with organic matter.
•Compost Quality (See pg. 27) - The province has developed Compost Quality Standards that ensure high quality end products are produced from composting. The MOECC will need to ensure that this is not lowered as it ensures that efforts are made to improve soil health/soil carbon.
•Digestate Standards - Digestate, (liquid or solids that come out of the AD process) are high in organic matter and nutrient value. The feedstock for ADs and Composting processes consist of organic waste which are both suitable to be land applied after undergoing each respective process. Therefore, developing standards for digestate uses, similar to the Compost Quality Standards that outline quality parameters would encourage sustainable practices for both of these products. Compost and digestate provide valuable nutrients for the agricultural industry. However, stringent environmentally protective standards apply for the production of compost and beneficial uses, whereas, digestate is minimally regulated in comparison. Digestate products that are of consistent quality as it applies to moisture parameters, foreign matter including sharps and the overall process would allow for product certainty in the marketplace. Walker Environmental is a strong proponent of building on industry experience to inform changes that can help the sector grow and ensure that the material applied to Ontario soils protects human health. We ask the MOECC to review the gaps in regulations between compost and digestate so they are consistent and supportive of use in proper end markets.

•Review Remediation Requirements - In alignment with the Walker Industries Holdings Limited (WIHL) comments to the Excess Soil Management Policy Framework dated March 24, 2016, we ask the policy branch to work with the approvals branch to update contaminated soils regulations to allow for the following:
oO.Reg. 153/04 and O. Reg. 347 set forth allowable contamination levels for soils that are installed prior to a site receiving a “Record of Site Condition”. However, many high quality topsoil/ AA compost blends which would have beneficial use for soil remediation exceed the testing parameters set forth in the regulation. We suggest that the policy branch work with the approvals branch to develop permitted uses based upon contamination level for soil-like materials to allow for potential re-use and/or disposal options. Other jurisdictions within Australia, the United States and Canada (i.e., British Columbia) have developed classification categories that could guide this process within Ontario. Excess soil and soil-like material (i.e. top soil/ AA compost blend) with contamination levels that meet updated standards could be permitted for beneficial uses such as site remediation, inert fill, quarry reclamation and landfill cover.
•Streamline Process for Compost Use in Mine Reclamation - While the Compost Quality Guidelines allow for mine reclamation for compost categories including B Compost, the paperwork and record keeping required to use the material is onerous and cost prohibitive. We ask the MOECC to work with industry experts to develop a process that allows for beneficial reuse of the material in a safe and cost effective manner.
•Develop product awareness (See pg. 28) - Europe and California have conducted extensive studies to promote healthy soils. There is a great need to research and produce data that is specific to Ontario soils.
•Encourage Procurement (See pg. 29) - All levels of government should procure the outputs of these systems including Federal, Provincial and Municipal.
Recognize the benefits of avoiding or capturing methane through the development of a Short Lived Climate Pollutant strategy.
Methane, a potent greenhouse gas produced when organics break down in anaerobic conditions, is recognized as a short-lived climate pollutant. Short-lived climate pollutants are more impactful in the near-term. While the global warming potential for methane over a 100-year time span is recognized by the international community as 28, it is estimated that the same tonne of methane is 84 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. Benefits of reducing short lived climate pollutants include crop preservation, slowing the effects of global warming, especially in climate sensitive places including Northern Ontario, preventing pre-mature deaths, and reducing impacts on crops.
Encourage Source Separation of Organics over Mixed Waste Processing. (See pg. 46)
The proposed framework states that source separated organics are preferred over mixed waste processing. We caution the MOECC in this approach, as in the European scenario, the products generated from mixed waste processing are higher in contamination and are not suitable for use as a soil amendment. In many cases, the end product generated at mixed waste processing facilities is utilized as landfill cover, thus creating a “more expensive waste” rather than a value add product that can be sold in the marketplace.
Enforcement and Education
If the overall intent of the proposed framework is to ban food and organic waste from ending up in disposal sites (as addressed in Part A, Section 2 Recover Resources from Food and Organic Waste, 9. MOECC to ban food and organic waste from ending up in disposal sites), there needs to be stronger enforcement mechanisms in place. We ask the MOECC to consider the following:
Education (See pg. 42)
Education efforts need to be informative, interactive and continuous for the lifespan of an organics program. Municipal programs should be required to have continuous and ongoing education for residents, so it is clear which materials can be accepted into the green bin programs, and which materials need to be sorted into other bins. These education programs need to be facility specific, interactive and ongoing to engage residents and ensure they understand which materials belong in the green bin.
Enforcement (See pg. 18 & 19)
The Policy Framework does not clarify how the proposed changes would be enforced. Walker Environmental encourages the MOECC to carefully consider the goals of the provisions in the enforcement and compliance context in future proposals, including:
•How will the requirements be enforced and on which party is the obligation? (i.e. ICI generators and municipalities or on waste management system operators or both?)
•How will the MOECC fund increased enforcement efforts during early stages to avoid placing costs on industry?
•Will a “ban” place an obligation on the generator (i.e. responsibility for food and organic waste in perpetuity if not properly diverted)?
•How will the MOECC address provisions for emergency relief? The Vancouver mattress issue is an example of the need for a ban. In more remote/underserved areas, there needs to be a provision to allow for emergency relief from a “ban” if a food/organic waste processing facility is unable to deal with it.
•How will the MOECC address leakage to Michigan and NY?
Walker Environmental believes that greater clarity is required on how municipalities and ICI generators would be impacted if the targets/timelines outlined in the policy framework were not met.
Resource Recovery Facility Requirements
Exemptions for Resource Recovery Facilities that receive contaminated streams
Page 49 section 4.17 states “To maximize recovery of food and organic waste, owners and operators of resource recovery systems shall: i. Manage source separated waste streams in a manner that limits contamination. ii. Not direct or send source separated food and organic waste for disposal.”
Exemptions should be given for the following scenarios:
•Odour prevention, if a pile of compost goes anaerobic it will cause odours and nuisances’ to neighbors;
•General nuisance control, not just odour (i.e. dust, odours, vectors, litter or other nuisances generated at the site to which complaints are received) and other emergency situations;
•In the compost quality standards, compost that does not meet standards for maturity, moisture, or sharps, they are required to send material to landfill; and
•If ECA allows it under certain circumstances.
Organic processing facility operator training (See pg. 23)
Organic processing facility operators are required to attend operator training courses every three years. Once organics processing operators are certified and working regularly in the field, they should no longer be required to take a beginner’s training course. It is burdensome on the company to send operators with this expertise to the training courses and results in time away from operations. Compost and Anaerobic Digester training should focus on professional development and continuous learning throughout an operator’s career.
Allowing operators to take continuing education courses will allow for skill set improvement, and increase the value and learnings of the compost manufacturing industry. As organic waste processing technology continues to evolve and diversify this will allow for operators to learn new, value-added skills rather than repeating the same introductory course every three years. Walker Environmental recommends allowing equivalency training courses for operators once they have taken a basic, introductory course.
A continuing education equivalency model could be adopted similar to other professional certifications (such as water/wastewater operators) where credits are given for attending courses, seminars, etc. that have been pre-approved or meet certain guidelines.
Requirements for resource recovery facilities (See pg. 55, part 7.1 III) - Resource Recovery facilities “Make compost accessible to residents, community groups, etc.”
Organics processing facilities are often large operations that utilize heavy equipment, and as such there are health and safety risks associated with providing residents and community groups with safe access to compost.
There are costs associated with transporting end products. If the MOECC is going to require organics processing facilities to give compost to certain groups, we ask that they cover the associated costs. Facilities should not be required to supply residents or community groups with compost, if the compost is already being sold to the market in bulk or bagged form.
Making low-cost or free compost available to the public should be left to municipalities and not the processors. This can be dealt with through processing contracts in cases where private processors manage municipal organics.
Further to this, compost and digestate are entirely different products. While community centers and residents may benefit from the use of Category AA compost, the use of digestate or other grades of compost may not be appropriate for the public or community groups.
Funding
To date the Province of Ontario has generated over $1.8 billion in revenues from Cap and Trade auctions. Further to this, the Climate Change Action Plan allocates $20-30 million towards implementation of Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy Strategy. The Province should engage with industry on the types of funding that would allow for development of organics processing facilities to ensure long-term success of these diversion objectives. Funding should be technology neutral and maximize greenhouse gas reductions per dollar spent on the project.

[Original Comment ID: 212001]