Banning of Wine and Spirit Containers

from the Blue Box Program and Landfill Sites

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:

 (1)Council reaffirm its decision to remove wine and spirit containers from the Blue Box program effective September 1, 1998;

(2)the by-law appended to the report dated June 15, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management be adopted, subject to deleting the date of "1st day of January, 1999" as the date the by-law shall come into force and inserting in lieu thereof "1st day of September, 1998";

(3)a communications strategy as outlined in the communication dated June 17, 1998, from Councillor Judy Sgro, to encourage consumers to return wine and spirit containers to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), be adopted; and reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998, on the cost and details of such a communications strategy;

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to contact the LCBO for locations on their property where the City can station bulk lift containers for the recycling of wine and spirit bottles;

(5)if the LCBO refuses to co-operate, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Committee on locations near LCBO outlets where recycling containers for wine and spirit bottles may be stationed;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on July 15, 1998, on a plan to implement the bulk lift collection of wine and spirit containers at or near LCBO outlets;

(7)once the foregoing is implemented, the City of Toronto bill the LCBO for the cost of this service effective September 1, 1998; and

(8)Brewers Retail be requested to assist in receiving wine and spirit containers at their outlets.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the next meeting of the Committee on:

(i)removing coloured glass from the Blue Box program, and how such policy could be incorporated into a communications program; and

(ii)methods of improving collection of all materials at curbside.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (June 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To provide information on issues related to the management of beverage containers.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications at this time as a result of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the communications program to encourage Toronto residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until such time as a deposit/return system for wine and spirit containers is operational.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee, as amended, and in doing so directed that all Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) containers be banned from the City's Blue Box program and landfill sites effective September 1, 1998.

City Council also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)(a) develop a communications program to have homeowners return their wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase;

(b)bring forth a by-law to require a deposit/return system in the City of Toronto for all other beverage containers;

(2)submit to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee a draft by-law for a deposit/return system for LCBO containers sold in the City of Toronto, retaining outside counsel, if necessary;

(3)submit a report on:

(a)establishing of a depot system which would allow residents to return wine bottles, soft drink containers, etc., on a voluntary basis for recycling; and

(b)the use of bottle return machines that provide a cash refund and the possibility of having the program sponsored by non-profit volunteer groups; and

(4)submit a report on the costs and benefits of keeping aluminum cans as part of the Blue Box system, such report to include:

(a)employment in the aluminum recycling industry;

(b)environmental implications; and

(c)potential loss of municipal revenue.

Comments and Discussion:

Wine and Spirit Container Ban:

The issue of banning wine and spirit containers from the municipal waste management system is dealt with in a separate report on this agenda from the City Solicitor.

Draft Deposit/Return By-law:

A draft deposit/return by-law for wine and spirit containers, effective January 1, 1999, has been prepared by the City Solicitor and is attached to this report. The by-law simply requires vendors of wine and spirit containers to implement a deposit/return system as a condition of their business licences. The legal issues related to this by-law are discussed in a report from the City Solicitor entitled "Implementation of a Deposit Return System for Wine and Spirit Containers", which was before City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

The drafting of a deposit/return by-law for other beverage containers, which is a more complex undertaking, has been deferred pending the outcome of the wine and spirit container initiative.

Communications Program for Wine and Spirit Containers:

Any proposed communications program would need to advise residents that Council supports the return of used alcoholic beverage containers to the point of purchase, and encourage residents to comply with City Council's policy regarding this matter.

Ontario Regulation 101/94 under the Environmental Protection Act entitled "Recycling and Composting of Municipal Waste" requires all municipalities with a population over 5,000 to operate a Blue Box waste management system which includes aluminum, steel, glass and plastic beverage containers.

Section 7(2)(g) of Regulation 101/94 specifically states that "the Blue Box waste management system must include the provision of information to users and potential users of the Blue Box waste management system (i) describing the performance of the system, and (ii) encouraging effective source separation of Blue Box waste and full use of the Blue Box waste management system."

The City Solicitor advises that implementing a communications campaign to encourage residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase would likely be considered a contravention of Section 7(2)(g) of Regulation 101/94. However, once a deposit/return system is in effect for wine and spirit containers, it might be argued that such a communication campaign was complementary to the operation of the deposit/return system and to the management of waste in general.

It is therefore recommended that the communications program encouraging residents to return their wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until a deposit/return system for these containers is operational.

Establishment of a Depot System for the Voluntary Return of Beverage Containers:

The establishment of voluntary container recycling depots without a deposit/return system is likely to result in much lower recovery rates than under a deposit/return system. Unless depots are located conveniently, people may travel additional distances, resulting in additional vehicle emissions and resource use.

In order to evaluate the potential for a return to depot system without deposit/return for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage containers, three options have been reviewed and are discussed below.

(a)Depots Located at All City Transfer Stations:

Depots are currently located at two transfer stations to recover a variety of materials such as tires, polystyrene, scrap metal and Blue Box materials. The seven transfer stations in the City are generally located in industrial areas. The inconvenience of the system would likely result in low participation. Therefore, this depot system is not recommended.

(b)Depots Located at City-Owned Sites:

In the past, collection of recyclable material through recycling domes has resulted in high levels of contamination and the depositing of non-recyclable waste around domes. Collecting containers through domes would also result in significant capital expenditures to purchase the domes and a net operating cost of approximately $300.00 per tonne to service the domes. Due to contamination concerns and the cost, the use of City-owned locations for a depot system is not recommended.

(c)Depots at Retail Outlets:

There are two alternatives to recover containers from residents at retail outlets: un-staffed depots and bottle return machines.

The establishment of un-staffed depots at retail outlets, strip plazas, and shopping centres would minimize environmental impacts and maximize convenience of return material recovery. However, the City Solicitor has advised that the City does not have the authority to require the establishment of depots in existing retail outlets, strip plazas, and shopping centres. Therefore, approval would be required by the retailers to allow depots to be placed on their premises (e.g., parking lots).

Bottle return machines that provide a cash refund, or reverse vending machines, are another option as it may be possible to secure agreements with owners of some retail establishments to locate a limited number of these machines on their premises at no charge. However, similar to un-staffed depots, the retailers may have some concerns, such as spacial limitations, about placing the machines in their stores. Reverse vending machines cost approximately $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 each and are expensive to maintain. It is estimated that capital costs of $20 million and operating costs of approximately $500.00 per tonne would be required to operate a comprehensive reverse vending machine program for Toronto.

In terms of the possibility of having the program operated by non-profit volunteer group, given the service, maintenance, and leasing activities involved in establishing a system of bottle return machines with a cash refund, it is highly unlikely that volunteer associations could be found for the management of this system.

Due to the high costs and complexity of establishing a machine container return system, such a system is not recommended at this time.

Costs and Benefits of Keeping Aluminum Cans as Part of the Blue Box System:

Approximately 2,000 tonnes of aluminum cans are recovered annually under the City's current recycling program and through private collection from the commercial sector. It is estimated that another 4,000 tonnes could be recovered annually through a deposit/return system, assuming a recovery rate of approximately 85 percent. This would result in a total estimated recovery of 6,000 tonnes of aluminum cans annually under a deposit/return system.

(a)Employment in the Aluminum Recycling Industry:

Retaining aluminum cans as part of the Blue Box program, as opposed to having them as part of an overall container deposit/return system, will not have any significant impact on employment in the aluminum recycling industry. Aluminum can sheet recycling mills, which are located in the United States, would receive sorted, baled aluminum cans under either a deposit system or the Blue Box program. There would be the estimated 4,000 tonne increase in quantities of aluminum cans recovered from the Toronto municipal waste stream under a deposit system. This would represent a nominal increase for these large aluminum recycling mills.

(b)Environmental Implications:

Retaining aluminum cans in the Blue Box system would result in the continued disposal of approximately 4,000 tonnes of aluminum cans, which would otherwise be recovered under a deposit/return program. The recovery of this recyclable aluminum would result in reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if the recycled aluminum replaced primary aluminum production.

(c)Potential Loss of Municipal Revenue:

In 1997, aluminum beverage cans generated $2.3 million of the City's total Blue Box material revenue of $12.5 million, including fibre material. Removal of aluminum cans from the Blue Box would therefore result in a loss of revenue of $2.3 million. This would be partially off-set by savings resulting from the redesign of collection and processing systems to reflect the reduced volumes of material under deposit/return.

Conclusions:

Based on a review of current Provincial regulations, it is recommended that the communications program to encourage Toronto residents to return wine and spirit containers to the point of purchase be deferred until such time as a deposit/return system for wine and spirit containers is in effect.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Warren, Director of Operations and Sanitation

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-1846; Fax: (416) 392-0396

E-Mail: jwarren2@toronto.city.on.ca".

 --------

Authority:

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend further By-law No. 20-85, a by-law

"Respecting the licensing, regulating and governing

of trades, callings, businesses and occupations

in the Metropolitan Area", being a by-law of the former

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of section 257.2 of the Municipal Act, as amended, a council may licence any business carried on within the municipality, may define any class of business and may separately license, regulate and govern such class;

AND WHEREAS council may impose conditions, including special conditions, as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence and may regulate or govern the place or premises used in the carrying on of the business;

 AND WHEREAS it is in the public interest to licence retail vendors of wines and spirits which are sold for consumption off sales premises and that the conditions of licensing address the matter of waste being generated from the business of such retail vendors and, in particular, the beverage containers which subsequently enter the municipal waste management system;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 1 of By-law No. 20-85, a By-law "Respecting the licensing, regulating and governing of trades, callings, businesses and occupations in the Metropolitan Area" as amended, being a by-law of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, is further amended by adding the following definitions as new subsections 1(1a) and 1(49):

1(1a) "alcoholic beverage" means wine or spirits as those terms are defined in the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended;

1(49)"vendor of alcoholic beverages" means a person who offers alcoholic beverages for sale at retail for consumption off the sale premises.

2.By-law No. 20-85, as amended, is further amended by adding subsection 2(64) as follows:

2(64)a vendor of alcoholic beverages

3.Schedule 1 of By-law No. 20-85, as amended, relating to the annual fees for licences, is further amended by adding the following under the columns indicated:

4.By-law No. 20-85, as amended, is further amended by adding the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE 42 TO BY-LAW NO. 20-85

Relating to Vendors of Alcoholic Beverages

1. In this Schedule,

(1)"alcohol sales location" means premises in the City of Toronto at which a vendor of alcoholic beverages offers alcoholic beverages for sale at retail for consumption off the premises;

(2)"container return system" means a system which:

(a)provides facilities for the return of alcoholic beverage containers at all of a vendor's alcohol sales locations in the urban area; and

(b)complies with the standards set out in section 2 of this Schedule;

(3)"urban area" has the meaning set out in the City of Toronto Act, 1997; and

(4)"vendor" means a vendor of alcoholic beverages.

2.A vendor shall establish and operate a container return system meeting the standards as follows:

STANDARDS

(1)Deposit -A vendor shall charge a minimum container deposit of $0.10 for each alcoholic beverage sold in a container up to and including 500 ml., and a minimum container deposit of $0.40 for each alcoholic beverage sold in a container larger than 500 ml.;

(2)Return -The vendor shall refund the container deposit in full without charge on the return of a container for which the vendor charged a deposit;

(3)The vendor shall not sell any alcoholic beverages in containers without an identification on the container that the container is subject to return for refund; and

(4)The vendor shall not dispose of any containers returned for refund directly or indirectly by arrangements for landfilling or incineration of the containers.

5.This by-law shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1999.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

 (Corporate Seal)

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (June 17, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York - Humber:

Staff recommendation to defer the communications plan for the LCBO take back program until a deposit/return plan is operational will delay pressure on the Provincial Government to implement a deposit/return system for LCBO containers. Notwithstanding the solicitor's cautious interpretation, I believe the public will support an aggressive communications plan to take the environmentally and economically superior approach to managing alcoholic beverage containers in the waste stream. Furthermore, I think the Province would be foolhardy to take the issue before the courts.

Therefore, I would ask that:

(1)the Committee consider implementing the following draft communications plan;

(2)staff be asked to cost out the various components of the plan for the next Council meeting; and

(3)materials be vetted through a communications sub-committee of the Works and Utilities Committee.

Suggested Components of a Communications Plan to Get Empty LCBO Containers Returned to Retail Store:

(1)Production of Information Flyers:

-For inclusion in municipal mailouts, such as hydro, water, tax or other direct communications around critical issues, such as CVA implementation;

-to be left at curbside in blue boxes when LCBO containers are found in the Blue Box;

-to be left at various locations, municipal buildings, community centres, welfare office;

-to be left at retail outlets - possibly including the Beer Stores and the LCBO stores, if permission is granted; and

-to be handed out at Councillors' Environment Days.

(2)Creation of Advertising Posters:

-For prominent locations, bus shelters, municipal buildings, billboards, etc.

(3)Waste Watch Newspaper:

-Prepare an information piece for the upcoming issue.

(4)Use of the Waste Management Advertising Budget:

-Either replace one of the scheduled advertising campaigns, or add an additional one to be inserted in major newspapers and community papers.

(5)Councillors' Newsletters:

-Encourage Councillors to promote the issue in their up-coming newsletters.

(6)General Media:

 -Generate on-air, written or other news stories that draw LCBO and government officials into the discussion, and give the issue prominence.

(7)The City of Toronto Web Site:

-Add an interactive segment on the home page that gives prominence to the bottle return program.

(8)That CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling be asked to provide funding from their communications budget to support this major waste diversion and recycling project.

Your support for these recommendations would be very much appreciated.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (June 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the legal implications of the Council direction as set out in the Council Reference section of this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and forwarded to City Council for its information and further direction on the banning of Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) containers from the Blue Box program given the conclusion of this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee, as amended, and in doing so directed that all LCBO containers be banned from the City's Blue Box program and landfill sites effective September 1, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 101/94 made under the Environmental Protection Act (the "EPA"), a local municipality with a population of at least five thousand must establish, operate and maintain a blue box waste management system. The source separated blue box waste must be source separated from other kinds of waste collected from residential sources and must contain at least the categories of waste set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulation. The categories of waste set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulation include glass bottles and jars for food or beverages. Accordingly, any banning of LCBO containers would be a contravention of the Regulation.

We note that City Council had before it a communication from the firm of Outerbridge Miller indicating that in the opinion of Mr. Robert Power, deposit-return containers (defined presumably by City policy) are not a "waste" and that the municipality could opt out of collecting the material despite provincial regulations. This opinion was based upon a recent case, Philip Enterprises Inc. v. Ontario (Ministry of Environment and Energy).

The Philip case dealt with the issue of whether chop-line residue was a "waste" within the meaning of the EPA and therefore subject to the process of requiring certificates of approval. The issue was dealt with in the context that until 1994 chop-line residue was a recyclable material defined in the EPA but then removed. The Court therefore examined the meaning of "waste" in the absence of any specific regulation addressing the residue. The Court held that the residue was not a waste by applying a dictionary meaning referencing a lack of value to the term.

Notwithstanding the outcome of this case, the Court appeared to recognize that the Ministry could designate certain types of materials, including the subject residue, as waste for the purposes of regulation under the EPA. In fact, the Ministry has moved since the decision to designate such residue as a waste.

In a similar fashion it is clear that the Legislature has allowed for regulation making authority to mandate blue box systems. Clause 176(4)(j) of the EPA allows for a regulation:

(j)for the purpose of furthering the diversion of waste from final disposal, requiring municipalities and such other persons as may be specified in the regulation to establish such waste disposal sites or waste management systems as may be specified in the regulation.

In accordance with this regulation making authority, the Minister has provided for a definition of "blue box waste" and extensive regulations pertaining to the management of such waste, including the mandatory acceptance from residential sources.

Conclusions:

In our opinion and contrary to the opinion expressed by Mr. Power in his communication, dated April 20, 1998, which was before City Council, municipalities cannot ban LCBO containers from the Blue Box program without contravening provincial regulation.

Contact Name:

J. Anderson - 392-8059.

 --------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(1)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. W. Douglas Symington, Director - Public Affairs, Consumers Packaging Inc., advising that Consumers Glass opposes the proposal to remove wine and spirit glass containers from the Blue Box; and requesting that City staff be directed to examine options to drive costs out of the existing recycling system; and

(2)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. Kenneth J. Mulhall, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Loblaw Companies Limited, advising, on behalf of the various Ontario grocery retailers of Loblaw Companies Limited, which include Loblaws, Zehrs, Fortinos, Your Independent Grocer, valu-mart and No Frills, that Loblaw Companies Limited does not support the City's plan to impose an illegal ban on wine and spirit bottles from the Blue Box and landfill.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Joseph P. Hruska, Vice-President, Municipal Development, CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

-Mr. Usman Valiante, General Science Works;

-Ms. Linda Lynch, Environment Watch; and

-Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber.