HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-09-24_Council_Public Agenda PackageMUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:45 a.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Council - Thursday, September 10, 2015
3. MATTERS ARISING
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
4.1 Committee of the Whole - Thursday, September 17, 2015 - Warden Webber
4.2 Citizens Landfill Monitoring Committee - Monday, August 10, 2015 - Councillor Church -Cornelius
4.3 Referral from Recreation and Parks Committee regarding Youth Sponsorship Applications.
4.4 Any other Committee Reports.
S. CORRESPONDENCE:
5.1 Presentation - Proposed Solid Waste Regulation Amendments - Director of Solid Waste
(Appointment at 9:30 a.m.)
a) Municipal Financial Impact Review Analysis
b) Report - Solid Waste Regulation Public Discussion - what we heard - Winter 2015
5.2 Letter from Martin's River Fire Commission dated September 10, 2015 regarding Fire Advisory
Committee.
5.3 Letter of thanks from Lisa Clement, Former FHCS Student regarding the Municipality of the District
of Chester Merit Award.
5.4 Letter from Chester Tennis Club dated September 9, 2015 regarding request to withdrawal funds
from their Designated Community Fund Project account in the amount of $6,500 in order to pay for
the resurfacing of the back court.
5.5 Email from Lyle Goldberg, UNSM dated September 17, 2015 regarding Proposed Revised - Rural
High Speed Internet Resolution.
6. NEW BUSINESS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENT
9:30 a.m. Bruce Forest, Director of Solid Waste regarding Proposed Solid Waste Regulations Amendments.
In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary
Page 1 of 1
L F'
`J
4�
V)
O
LL
V
NO
i
m
O
N
N
E
Q
un
O
U
�U
N
Q
Ln
Ln
a--+
O
E
(A
U
O
U
V
o
(A��
o
• —
0
or- 5
to
Executive Summary x
1. Town of Antigonish (project budgetary requirements covered by DMA).
2. Cape Breton Regional Municipality,
3, Municipality of the District of Chester.
4. Municipality of the County of Colchester.
5. Pictou County Solid Waste Management (December 2014 report findings to be updated as
necessary).
The analysis focused on the potential waste management system cost implications of implementing
actions identified within actions 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Revising Our Path Forward document. With
reference to those actions, the specific materials and associated generation sources to be
incorporated in the analysis are presented in Table ES -1. Additional effort for municipal
enforcement of current provincial littering and open burning regulations will also be included.
TATE ES -1! WASTE STREAM MArE-RPALS TO of ANALYZED
The following key assumptions were used as a basis for the completion of this assignment:
The analysis was to develop estimates on costs currently borne specifically by the public sector
system, including collection, storage, transfer, processing and disposal.
The analysis was to utilize information provided by NSE and the subject municipality/authority to
support the estimate of current/future tonnage data and associated management costs for the
identified waste streams.
For the purposes of the cost estimatelcomparison, a 10 year period (2016-2025) was used for
the assessment, with findings being presented as a 2015 Net Present Value (or Cost).
The level of financial analysis provided by the study was to be appropriate for comparative planning
purposes only. As presented in Table ES -2, in comparison to current procedures and with a focus
Municipdi Frnanciai hnpaci ReY)c- '"•
Final Report
V.v,.20i5_ Y5-T.7l)t1._1 ON
Current
Proposed
t+ Aspnalt Snciyles Res and ICI C&D activities
MunicipalitylAuthority
Municipality/Authority
2) Carpet Res and ICI C&D activities
Municipality/Authority
EPR Program
31 Clean Wood' Res and lCl C&D activities
Municipality/Authority
Municipal ityfAuthority
4) Wallboardz Res and ICI C&D activities
Municipality/Authority
MunicipalitylAuthority
5) Household Hazardous Waste Res only
Municipality/Authority
EPR Program
(HHW)
6) Mattresses and Box Springs Res and ClI
Municipality/Authority
EPR Program
7) Packaging and Printer Paper Res only+
Municipality/Authority
EPR Program
(PPP)
8) Textiles Res and Cl
Municipality/Authority
Private Sector/Association for
Textile Recycling (AFTeR)
9) Tires' Res and ICl
Municipal ity(Authori ty
RRFB Nova Scotia
Nates:
1. Clean wood Is typically defined as milled wood that is free of adhesives, coatings and preservatives. In the future.. it is anticipated that limned
amounts of engineered and coated woad items will be acceptable for incorporation in the overall mass of material that is managed as "clean
wood".
2. Wallboard from new construction and renovation activities as well as dismantling ('gutting'] of the interiors of concrete and brick structures.
3- Depending on municipality can include mufti -residential and condominium units and select
IGI sources.
4. Additional '0 TR" (off the road) lire sires from those currently accepted under the provincial program.
Res = Residential. ICI = industrial, Commercial and lnstdutionaf
The following key assumptions were used as a basis for the completion of this assignment:
The analysis was to develop estimates on costs currently borne specifically by the public sector
system, including collection, storage, transfer, processing and disposal.
The analysis was to utilize information provided by NSE and the subject municipality/authority to
support the estimate of current/future tonnage data and associated management costs for the
identified waste streams.
For the purposes of the cost estimatelcomparison, a 10 year period (2016-2025) was used for
the assessment, with findings being presented as a 2015 Net Present Value (or Cost).
The level of financial analysis provided by the study was to be appropriate for comparative planning
purposes only. As presented in Table ES -2, in comparison to current procedures and with a focus
Municipdi Frnanciai hnpaci ReY)c- '"•
Final Report
V.v,.20i5_ Y5-T.7l)t1._1 ON
Study Area Descriptions
TABLE 33: MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER SERVICE AREA POPULATIONS —By MATERIAL TYPE AND
SERVICE
11111111111111111rw ow Servkre 2011 Papulation 2006 Population Change from Contributing Municipalities
2006(%)
C&D Waste - CollectionlTransporl' 10,599 10,.741 -1.3% MD of Chester
C & D Waste - Processing+Disposal2 10,599 10,741 -1.31/6 MD of Chester
MSW - CollectionlTransport 10,599 10.741 -1.3% MD of Chester
MD of Chester, MD of Lunenburg,
Annapolis County, Kings County,
Town of Annapolis Royal, Town of
MSW - Processing/Disposal 155,$71 155,5015 0-1% Berwick, Town of Bridgetown.
Town of Bridgewater, Town of
Kentville. Town of Lunenburg,
Town of Mahone Bay, Town of
Middleton, Town of Woltville
Recyclables - Collection/Transport 10.599 10,741 -1.3% MD of Chester3
Recyclables - ProcessinglMarketing NIA NIA Service not provided by the
municipality
Notes:
NIA — not applicable
f. Collection provided as pert of seasonal bulky waste events.
Z. C&D waste generators have the option of using other Provincially -approved processing/disposal Facilities.
3. Town of Lunenbwg recyciabies delivered to Kaiser Meadow for transport to HRM MRF.
The most significant employment sectors within the District of Chester are resources (forestry and
fisheries), retail and services. The Canexel (Louisiana Pacific Canada Ltd.) wallboard facility in
East River and the Atlantica Oak Island Inn in Western Shore are noted industriallcommercia'l
operations within the district. Key institutional facilities include Forest Heights Community School,
New Ross Consolidated School, Chester District School and Aspotogan Consolidated Elementary
School. It is acknowledged, however, that the 12 other municipalities that are serviced by the
Kaizer Meadow Environmental Management Centre include a wide range of significant public and
private sector generators,
Further information on the current waste management -related activities of the Municipal District of
Chester is provided in Section 4.1.
3.4 Municipality of the County of Colchester
The Municipality of the County of Colchester provides a range of waste management services to its
residents and businesses and also offers select services to a number of other municipalities. Table
3-4 presents a summary of services provided by the municipality by waste type.
Municipal Financial Impact Review
Final Report �y■■■ �pON�
i4iaS' rill r. .qrT!) 01L.l
r. r)Ng'ta.TING
$dg
of
6
a
o
❑
❑
_
❑
� n
-
P
g
•Ln
a•�
•
•
•
a
•
• •
•
c
•
•
uaj•
•
• •
u
• o
•
•
•
•
Q
•
�
•
• U
•
•n
•
E
42
•
••
•
•
•
•
•> u
Q
rn o
a`
M L
m a
CSS.
c
3 �
V
L
E
E
N
v�
Ao
d
s
3
r �
fi a
ro
> t
o
•'m�
3;
'
a
s W r
q
Q � � �
p � v w
V
� ❑
V �
�
s
� « .i1
�
ry a
C
� � � t
�
pp
a
C
21 03
-31
gr
a
baa
W
�'4rGy
x
row
_
tla
v�
P
a
g
W
a
ppyyo
m9�1..
�
1111
p2
�
6 9
3¢
.iP
J:
93d
83
5�9
SB'k:
A
e
4
gg
�
tl
z
1.
lilt
a�aai
ait
a
o
s
_
�
8
Fu w
a
0
m
E
E.
a
a
a �
'a
t "
e
s _W
_LIP
j
A 3
_
"
5
u
w
n
E
t
91
-
-
2L
9 1w
n
a
a
a �
'a
t "
e
s _W
{
w
Lu
rr
JI -
40
Ar
A 4k
.�
fin...ip,_
_ p Ai 7aw n�!
w CIO C.7
V?
LU
"
c " ICf CL
}
< J9
0.
"
ac
7�
✓ � � m � � w. Tom' �".
w"
,
.
,►
�a a.o,
LU
,." "" w Y g
C) . p r * rY �- -Ds
w C3 ivaY. CC + ». W »„,
} 4OF 4 LLJ
uj
CL_a
xM cn x
��° a •., re uj
• +
�'C-4�A�9D�LV6sGtiTiRV*�PUIF05tienI1��4��i�ufP du�yiaa�a9R+►lyafozd�:�:au�lNli
16
It
r
Waste Generation Forecast 30
5.0 Waste Generation Forecast
The waste stream for a given area can be characterized by defining a percentage breakdown of
specific material types. This definition of composition is essential as It allows (in concert with an
overall waste stream quantity estimate) for the estimation of quantities of specific materials (e.g.,
recyclables, C&D materials, etc.) and the operational requirements for future infrastructure and
related systems. As the nine items described in Table 1-1 in Section 1.2 are the focal point of this
study, the project team was primarily concerned with these materials as part of the overall waste
stream.
5.1 Assumptions
For this study, a generated waste characterization for the year 2012 was developed as a baseline.
The baseline waste characterization was for tonnages managed by the five participating
municipalitieslauthorities only, and did not include the C&D materials managed by private sites. No
single ideal data source was identified to properly characterize the quantities of the nine materials
that are managed by the municipalities/authorities evaluated as part of this assignment. Thus, the
project team used its best judgment to develop an approximate breakdown.
In order to develop approximate quantities of the nine materials, the waste tonnage data submitted
to the NSE Data Call by each of the five participating municipalitieslauthorities for fiscal year (FY)
2013 was used in conjunction with waste audit data from municipalities with similar populations and
geographic conditions. Waste generation data for a few select materials was provided by NSE and
the RRFB Nova Scotia.
The sources of information and assumptions made to create the generated waste quantity baseline
and forecast for the Current Conditions scenario are presented in Section 5.1.1. The assumptions
used to determine quantities managed in the Proposed Conditions scenario are presented in
Section 5.1.2.
5.1.1 Current Conditions
Material 1: Asphalt Shingles
Source of Baseline Generated Waste Tonnage Info: FY2013 Data Call
Assumptions on Material Handling:
Town of Antigonish
- No direct C&D material services are coordinated/provided by the Town
100% of generated materials are landfilled at a C&D site in the region
CBRM
100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the CBRM C&D site
Municipality of the District of Chester
- 75% of incoming asphalt shingles (segregated) are processed as onsite roadlyard
surfacing material
Acknowledges limited acceptance of mixed C&D loads at the Kaizer Meadow facility
Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the Kaizer Meadow C&D site
Municipality of the County of Colchester
-- 100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the Colchester County C&D site
Municipal Financial impact Review �
Final Report
1'4.x4 )F� i.. , !y. DII L.,1.. c7N
W
s
m
d ._ u❑ a- N U a R- N m �.
m U d
m u LL U❑ - ❑ W w
a' N ❑ m E E
c W e U U N T m m m m o ox a m d
a
IL�
9 a m a n v o i w
` m o
W E o W E o m
7E - n'm' �
m u- n✓+ �.;ay 3- .� a 3 a w-
u 3 o u E 3 E E m o
m - o o u
S a ct a_ c u
W E
mm
g oEE�`o E`o �Ed,�Eo m gm Q. Ep:E -2
Ecc N � Eo
N
c c m c a E.= r
., mom.. y
m o`o c.E `o°`oi0.� ° 0
o `m
V .u4 o l E E mo rilv�U o co y moa _ ca` - a
E��
Um
m _
n L m E
d m
° W � ❑ m ❑U
u m ❑ m
❑ U '-' W m �` � U W a
m m U a u o
c H a m U
m Y ❑ a U m m `m m E as xf
U
Y U m m
U a m tl m 'm a U o n tl v� �; r m m 0 t a c U
$
m N a U m m m a N " U O m iy u' ❑ m- d
LL �
E E c
c 3 m A m m m m A c m o m o m a o m
Vn—
'° ® `W m V m V E c E h
o a0 m C
E u 3 0 u E 3 E r-
3 E Ou 9 3 E °1 m m E u°
E E ° 'E U 'E 3 E
CY �u mn m 10 St_a - 3 °- 0a
y
o m W 8 S° c° va $ °o .m o W� c 'o c c c c H E
05 mc'�`orn E = =o 3 m:.ti$,E�� SSgv_°ams
0 0 c 6o 0 oc-
U
v `o
'oma m c c'S oc�oboE oo 'oo m c c Dog =r 0 v m.c-' m'oc
#r o���E�E� �� "' o ° #z��r- 0'v� EmmQK c�na ua
a l m? H V f a l =° m? H
c
m
t
E
. Waste Generation Forecast 31
Pictou County Solid Waste Management
- 100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the PCSWM C&D site
Material 2: Ca_r2et
Source of Baseline Generated Waste Tonnage Info: FY2013 Data Call
Assumptions on Material Handling:
- Town of Antigonish
Town services for carpet limited to fall/spring residential bulky waste collection by
contractor
100% of generated materials are landfilled at a C&D site in the region
- CBRM
- 100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the CBRM C&D site
-
Munickpallty Municipalityof the District of Chester
- 100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the Kaizer Meadow C&D site
- Municipality of the County sof Colchester
100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the Colchester County C&D site
Pictou County Solid Waste Management
100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the PCSWM C&D site
Material 3: Cleary Wood
Source of Baseline Generated Waste Tonnage Info: FY2013 Data Call
Assumptions on Material Handling:
Town of Antigonish
m No direct C&D material services are coordinated/provided by the Town
100% of generated materials are landfilled at a C&D site in the region
CBRM
- 70% of incoming clean wood is processed to produce C&D LF cover (it is noted that CBRM
currently manage wood under one "mixed" category; no clear designation of clean versus
dirty wood)
Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the CBRM C&D site
Municipality of the District of Chester
80% of incoming clean wood is processed and used as fuel at Brooklyn Energy
- 80% of incoming dirty wood is processed to produce landfill cover
- Acknowledges limited acceptance of mixed C&D loads at the Kaizer Meadow facility
Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the Kaizer Meadow C&D site
- Municipality of the County of Colchester
- 50i% of incoming clean wood is processed and removed from the site by a contractor
- Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the Colchester County C&D site
- Pictou County Solid Waste Management
- 100% of incoming materials are landfilled at the PCSWM C&D site
Material 4: Wallboard
Source of Baseline Generated Waste Tonnage Info: FY2013 Data Call
Assumptions on Material Handling:
Waste Generation Forecast 34
Material 3: Clean Wood
Assumptions on Material Handling:
- Municipality of the District of Chester
80% of incoming clean wood is processed and used as fuel at Brooklyn Energy
80% of incoming dirty wood is processed to produce landfill cover
- Acknowledges limited acceptance of mixed C&D loads at the Kaizer Meadow facility
Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the Kaizer Meadow C&D site
CBRM
- 80% of incoming clean wood is processed to produce C&D LF cover
Remainder of incoming materials are landfilled at the CBRM C&D site
All Remaining Municipalities/Authorities
60% of the material generated will be received in segregated loads:
- Segregated clean wood will be processed onsite by the municipality or contractor
(diverted)
- 40% of the materials generated will be received in mixed C&D loads:
- Clean wood in mixed loads will be landfilled at the respective C&D site (landfilled)
Material 4: Wallboard
Assumptions on Material Handling:.
- All Municipal !ties/Authorities
- 60% of the material generated will be received in segregated loads:
- Segregated wallboard will be processed onsite by the municipality or contractor for use
as an amendment at the nearest public -sector composting facility (diverted)
40% of the materials generated will be received in mixed C&D loads:
- Wallboard in mixed loads will be landfilled at the respective C&D site (landfilled)
Material 5: HHW
• Assumptions on Material Handling:
All MunicipalitiesFAuthorities
- 100% of tonnages collected and managed by EPR program
Material 6: Mattresses and Box Sprin s
• Assumptions on Material Handling:
-- All Municipalities/Authorities
- 90% of the material generated is collected and managed by EPR program
10% are not received (including illegal dumping)
Material 7: Packaging and Printer Paper jPPPZ
• Assumptions on Material Handling:
All MunicipalitieslAuthorities including "Option 1" for Municipality of the County of
Colchester
Material collected and managed by EPR program
MunicipalFinancial Impact Review
Final Report y p ON
Mav L^i5] 15.7479 D{L.L
0
0 C
LU
U) 0
LU .-
2
>
0 0
LO U L.
m a)
CL
LL Co
CL ev
m
w
Nati
Ct
CDco
rt C`7
qua
A ry
C\j
CD
nt
iC
CD
D
ti
'I�
Lq CR
Ln (0
CA
C14
cs
12,
NM
N
ILD
0)Ca
M
.9
C
C1
co
N
'7�
M
-i
Lq q
N
cl
C
M 0
r r— CL
0,
0
CXL
El
CL
<
a- CL
Im
00
Ga
4
cl�
!NJ
Cost of Service Forecast 41
6.0 Cast of Service Forecast
This section provides an overview of the methods and assumptions employed to estimate the net
benefit of the Current Conditions and Proposed Conditions scenarios.
6. f Assumptions
The sources of information and assumptions used to create the baseline operating costs, revenue
and net benefit for the nine materials in the Current Conditions scenario are presented in Section
6.1.1. The assumptions used to determine the incremental capital costs, operating costs, revenues
and net benefit of the Proposed Conditions scenario are presented in Section 6.1.2.
Current amortized capital costs were not included in the baseline costing analysis for the Current
Conditions scenario since current capital costs are relevant to both scenarios. The costing analysis
only includes incremental capital costs borne in the Proposed Conditions scenario.
6 T If Current Conditions
The baseline operating costs for 2812 for the nine materials was created based on the operating
costs reported in the FY2013 Data Call. Operating costs were allocated proportionally to the
materials based on the percentage composition of that material in the waste stream. For the C&D
materials, an allowance of $5/tonne for future closure/capping requirements of a municipally -owned
C&D landfill was added to the operating costs, where applicable, if riot previously identified in the
Data Call.
Current tip fees, multiplied by tonnes of material managed, was used to determine the baseline
revenue for each material.
The net benefit per tonne is simply the revenue per tonne minus the operating costs per tonne.
A summary table of the baseline operating costs, revenues and net benefit for the Current
Conditions scenario for each of the five participating municipalities/authorities is presented in
Appendices B1 through B5.
5.1.2 Proposed Conditions
New capital cost items and operating requirements are required for the C&D materials that will be
managed by the respective Municipalities/Authorities under the Proposed Conditions scenario. The
materials include asphalt shingles, clean wood and wallboard. New capital cost items include a
C&D laydown area and a small quantity C&D public drop-off area. New capital and operating costs
are proportionally allocated to shingles, clean wood and wallboard.
Assumptions for operating costs, incremental capital costs, and revenues for each material under
the Proposed Conditions scenario are presented below.
Additional effort for municipal enforcement of current provincial littering and open burning
regulations will be required under the Proposed Conditions scenario. Based on data provided by
NSE, the estimated additional annual enforcement cost for each municipality is presented in
Appendix B7. The costs were included in the overall system NPV analysis presented in Section
6.2.
hlunfcipal Financial Impact Review_��
Fina! Report •�
May 2015 - 15-1474 D1 LLON
Cost of Service Forecast 42
Material 9: Asphalt Shingles
Assumptions on Incremental Operating Costs:
- Town of Antigonish
No direct C&D material services are coordinated/provided by the Town
- CBRM
- Transported and processed offsite by Halifax C&D (Milford) at a rate of $711tonne
- No additional site personnel time over existing
- Municipality of the District of Chester
Transported and processed offsite by Halifax C&D (Milford) at a rate of $511tonne
- No additional site personnel time over existing
-
Municipality of the County of Colchester
Transported and processed offsite by Halifax C&D (Milford) at a rate of $48/tonne
No additional site personnel time over existing
- Pictou County Solid Waste Management
- Transported and processed offsite by Halifax C&D (Milford) at a rate of $491tonne
- Proportional allocation of new full time PCSWM C&D site operator
Assumptions on Incremental Capital Costs:
- Town of Antigonish
- No direct C&D material services are coordinated/provided by the Town
- All Municipalities/Authorities
Proportional allocation of the amortized cost of the new C&D laydown area and small
quantity C&D drop-off
Assumptions on Revenues:
- Town of Antigonish
No direct C&D material services are coordinated/provided by the Town
CBRM
- 80% of the material generated will be received in segregated loads and processed onsite
by the Municipality
- An incentivized tip fee of $40/tonne will be collected by the Municipality
20% of the materials generated will be received in mixed C&D loads and landfilled
- Tip fee of $80/tonne will be collected by the Municipality
- Municipality of the District of Chester
80% of the material generated will be received in segregated loads and processed onsite
by the Municipality
- An incentivized tip fee of $351tonne will be collected by the Municipality
20% of the materials generated will be received in mixed C&D loads and landfilled
Tip fee of $70/tonne will be collected by the Municipality
Municipality of the County of Colchester
- 80% of the material generated will be received in segregated loads and processed onsite
by the Municipality
- An incentivized tip fee of $30/tonne will be collected by the Municipality
- 20% of the materials generated will be received in mixed C&D loads and landfilled
- Tip fee of $95/tonne will be collected by the Municipality
Tip fee of $112/tonne will be collected for C&D materials mixed with garbage
Municival Financial Impact Review
Fina! Report
May 2015 15.1479 D1LJ.0N
, ".-1111
Cast of Service Forecast 52
61.3 Municipality of the District of Chester
A summary of annual net benefit per scenario for the Municipality of the District of Chester is
presented in Table 6.4. Across all waste streams managed, the Proposed Conditions scenario is
more economically desirable with the annual net benefit of -$173,480 relative to -$299,600 for the
Current Conditions scenario. This is not the case for the individual waste streams, with significant
variation in the net benefit between the different types of managed waste.
TABLE 64: SUMMARY OF ANNUAL NET BENEFIT PER SCENARIO
Asphalt Shingles
Current Conditions
$124,000
7,123
$17
$16,000
Proposed Conditions
-$70,000
7,123
-$10
-$9,000
Carpet
Current Conditions
$275,000
10,505
$26
$36,000
Proposed Conditions
$73,000
10,505
$7
$9,000
Clean Wood
Current Conditions
$316,000
19,542
$16
$41,000
Proposed Conditions
$113,040
19,542
S6
$15,000
Wallboard
Current Conditions
$219,000
6,305
$35
$28,000
Proposed Conditions
$18,000
6,305
$3
$2,000
HHW
Current Conditions
-$172,000
417
-$412
-$22,000
Proposed Conditions
-$34,000
417
-$82
-$4,000
PPP
Current Conditions
-$1,896,000
10,033
-$189
•$246,000
Proposed Conditions
-$569,000
10,535
-$54
-$74,000
Mattresses
Current Conditions
•$80,000
3,823
-$21
410,000
Proposed Conditions
$0
3,823
$0
s0
Textiles
Current Conditions
41,097,000
39,671
-$28
-$142,000
Proposed Conditions
-$889,000
32.134
•$28
-$115,000
Tires (new)
Current Conditions
-$5,000
181
-$28
-$600
Proposed Conditions
$0
181
$0
$0
Cost Savings from
LanCling Less
waste'
Additional littering -
open burning
enforcement effort
Total
Proposed Conditions $14,000
Proposed Conditions
Current Conditions
Proposed
Conditions
Municipal! Financial impact Review
Fina! Report
A ri I*
$4,000
42,316,000 97,600
41,340,000 90,564
$520
424 4299,600
•513
4173,480
n�
Di Li ON
(.O Vs4:t.rlNC
Q
}.a
a -j
v
LnO
V
4-J
—
O
(u
LU
C6
U
t
bA
�
O
c
a- j
cn
>
a)
�
o
o
•�
Ln
Vi
}'
c-
O
4-j
cn
=
U
LI)
C-
`��
a)
U
o
buo
.—
Q.o
•�
CL
'U
��V)
�
Eau
p
a�
•-
—
a--+
4-J
U
u
0
�
O
�
V
4-j},
O
—
•�
u
tuo
>
a
—
V
a
=
c�
o
V,
L—
-0o
a)
>
fu��__
cn
U
CL
c
Q�
ai
+-+
Ln
(U
�
(U
4-j
'�
a
'U
a--+
+�.,
Q)
aj
O
cn
O
Ln
O
4-J
W—_
b-0cn
Q
W
uI
_ a
}=
m:
m c
❑
L
r
c>
m a o E
m y
a o.
= a m
`❑
v
` "
o c
n U_ m
.n
-n m
c c m 5
p LL
C a U� u
m
m N�
A �'
> c
a H
ry rn m � $ m ❑ .T LL
A p� d�
5
L t T
..
L d a o y m
.. ❑_ m
y m n
= u
LL L L o a o o -m a
n o o
m L
c w �
o ��
° E A
f°
s m� l-"• 10
o
m
L o ..
A ,�
°
w t
a
a g
E_„ m°
o t°
E b E
y o r� �
y�
a s > >e ' m
E. E c
o L
n
w :Ern m
m b e c y
as w L m
m m Y a c
a m m m
u
i
v' m
c y c
c `m ��� E w
o
,y
ma -
� x n c
L j_
`� m a
m
e a
� m o� c� � m
m
m m m m U �
❑_ c d
n
N m a
- ❑
o m o ✓°,
y
a a
�; b
- o m
ern @ rn `ce U 9 ° c
-m 3
a- a o 3
a m
❑
3 m
mU
? o ma
`o m
-LL m
m a y
mtL
a❑ m a �' n_ a `ay,
oa E
v
` U
tea-
$W
' L_ S,S t
W m
Ew m m a v t o
m m❑ c m -.
E ° a. mL
❑ Y u
�� T
u
.__
rn mv`.; °_ y ®.n
cy yU _
c m
9 U
E Q O y
_
`35 _ n 0
❑..❑ __
o aNt °it a
o
E �U o
N q }
N m
E E m ,° y>
y `m °'
i 10 p o
m m °' m a
a_
r z ❑' ';
o m a
'
m m m
n
a m
o ° `v c n
Em -
°
01 d Q E
°
'b
ro
5 o u"
r
nm u
a v m
ai m C
O p
v/
0
4 ry U ti m n 5 n
r U- O
�- ; n p
D u
4 a
V E E
S ® mO U O
¢ v. 9 E a 5 n m
% .�. am G d
$ m v. E m d o
V Of C
O d s
, Summary of Findings 56
7.0 Summary of Findings
As presented in Section 6, in comparison to current procedures and with a focus on the period of
2016 to 2025, the implementation of the new waste diversion activities under the Proposed
Conditions scenario is forecasted to result in a reduction of costs over current expenditure for all
five municipaRieslauthorities that participated in this study. It is acknowledged that a key
assumption supporting this finding is that costs associated with the full operation of the curbside
blue bag program within the each of the five evaluated municipalitiesfauthorities will be addressed
through a proposed Printed Paper and Packaging (PPP) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
program.
The completion of this assessment, with regards to the Municipality of Colchester, included the
consideration of a variation on the PPP EPR option. Unlike the assumed "default" PPP alternative
(with the EPR stewards assuming responsibility for all aspects of a municipality's curbside bluebag
program), Colchester County requested that a second option be considered that assumed that they
continued to own and operate its Kemptown MRF, serving its existing clientele consistent with
current tip fee and tonnage forecasts.
As illustrated in Tables 6-2 to 6-6, the anticipated establishment of EPR or private sector -led
programs (e.g., HHW, mattresses/box springs, carpet, textiles) for other materials will also
contribute to the positive financial projection. For these programs, it has also been assumed that all
diversion costs will be covered by industry stewards.
Clearly, the details of the finalized EPR agreements, particularly for PPP, will have a significant
impact on the actual financial desirability of the proposed diversion program changes for the five
municipalities/authorities that participated in this study.
As anticipated, based on a noted gap between tipping fees and reported NSE FY2013 Data Call
disposal costs, the existing management of C&D materials serves as a revenue generation source
for the four study participants that offer C&D management services. Even with an allowance added
to reported disposal costs to address future capping/closure requirements for the on-site C&D
material landfill (where required), the acceptance of C&D currently generates (on a NPV basis)
between $14,000 and $148,000 of revenue per year, depending on the municipality. Acknowledging
the additional costs (versus landfilling) to appropriately divert the targeted C&D materials, this
positive revenue stream is forecasted to be significantly reduced under the "Proposed Conditions"
scenario. But, as described above, this C&D stream revenue decline is relatively minor in
comparison to the positive contribution forecasted with the establishment of a PPP EPR program.
With regard to C&D materials, and considering HRM as an example, it is noted that the potential
exists (ultimately) for municipalities to rely entirely on the private sector for the provision of required
diversion and disposal services. It is anticipated that the establishment of the proposed C&D
material disposal bans will necessitate an enhanced level of regulatory oversight, ideally leading to
a "level playing field" for private C&D facility operators. Consistency in facility operational
requirements within the province has the potential to create a more attractive, long term business
opportunity for the private sector.
Additional effort for municipal enforcement of current provincial littering and open burning
regulations will be required under the Proposed Conditions scenario. It is noted that a perceived
barrier for municipalities will be the enforcement of a littering and open burning by-law. Based on
Municipal Financial Impact Review
Final Report
.._i . u
Summary of Findings '�
comments received from municipal representatives, significant effort may be required from the
municipalities' legal department to establish an enforceable by-law under the summary offence act.
With reference to the project assumptions identified in Section 1.2, it is reiterated that the findings
presented in this document are"appropriate for comparative planning purposes only". As noted in
Sections 5 and 6, a significant number of assumptions and approximations (including those
associated with future EPR programs and the sale of existing MRF assets in CBRM and Colchester
County) were required to conduct the comparative analysis between the "Current Conditions" and
"Proposed Conditions" scenarios. A more formalized and robust analysis of both individual material
tonnages and currentlfuture management costs could potentially provide a different NPV outcome
from that presented in this report.
Municipal Financial Impact Review
Final Report
DII.IAN
M,
m
E
O
O
E
U
bA
c
O
.N
a
O-0
_0cn
4-j V)
L
O
U
aj U
aj
4_; 4-J
U }'
O •j
O aj
O
ca O
a
U U
bA
L
Lnc6 aj
U Ln
O cn
O
U
0
O
2
��
U
L-
O
O
c6
u u
bA
O
�
V)
-0
-0
-
•�
—
O
c
O
-I--
ca
O
+�
+-
c
O
+
O
O
bA
+J
�-
a�--+
to
c6
Ln
O
U
O
b0
U
ca
O
x
f�
bn
��.,
bn
Ln
0
.X
U
Q
Q
U
O
bA
.�
E
• Q
aj
bA
a--
—
O
O
•�
•�
U
O
Ov
U
+�
ELn
U
U
W
U
Q�
O
bA
0
0
0
Ln
(�
i 0
1 0
1)
M,
m
E
O
O
E
U
bA
c
O
.N
a
O-0
_0cn
4-j V)
L
O
U
aj U
aj
4_; 4-J
U }'
O •j
O aj
O
ca O
a
U U
bA
L
Lnc6 aj
U Ln
O cn
O
U
0
O
2
07
t�A
0
.=3
10
El
r -I
Q
O �
U O
cn -I--
Ln
Ln
.O
41 �
.� �
4A ai
aj Ln
aj U
� L
4-
(1) N
-0 ai
ai
O 'V)
ca
O O
neo °� .�
ai E
ul O
Ul L
j
-�-j aj-0
�� a
_a2
ru aj o
> N
N
O •V'
�-
cn U O
M a -J
vO to
U Q
(M O
-0 m U
V) U a--�
•U
C: -0 O
ca C: cn
U co �
a--+
O �
L a -J
4-J Co
ro U UO
.� .— -0
. cn
-0 cC
C: a- _0
=3 w
O
.`� a -J
.— U •�
a) aA CU
��
to
+� V) O
to • � a�
L
O
at E
Ln
ai
bUD
U
ro
cn
.IOLO
(1)
L-
0 O
Q)
Z
CL
U
Ow
Solid Waste Regulations, Op-ed I novascotia.ca Page 1 of 1
�IC&IACANADA
(http://novascotia.ca/)
NOVA
News (/news/) > Solid Waste Regulations, Op-ed
News Releases (/news)
Solid Waste Regulations, Op-ed
Environment
September 16, 2015 9:15 AM
NOTE: The following is an op-ed piece from Environment Minister
Andrew Younger.
With many viewpoints being expressed, it's important to
understand the province's position on proposed regulatory changes
for solid waste.
The primary purpose far considering any changes to how solid
waste is managed in our province is to ensure the financial and
environmental sustainability of the province's solid -waste
program. As well, we want to identify opportunities that build on
the environmental and economic benefits that we have achieved to
date.
Recent commentary on proposed changes, which the province opened
for comment, have zeroed in on one element. -- extended producer
responsibility. EPR or polluter pay, as it's known to some, is
something the province already does through recycling
electronics, paint and dairy containers. The department has
consistently stated possible changes could extend this program to
materials like paper and packaging over the next three years.
This has not changed.
As Environment Minister, I have a responsibility to ensure any
new or expanded program offers new and real benefits, and not
just an additional cost. It is a result of the consultations and
feedback received on this issue that I have recognized more
information is needed before any expansion of EPR can continue to
be considered.
The feedback my department has received about expanding Nova
Scotia's EPP, program has been primarily positive. However, there
is lack of agreement and a wide variety of suggestions on what an
expanded EPP, should look like. As well, stakeholders, such as
municipal solid -waste authorities, have not reached consensus on
how an expanded EPR would operate. Residents and businesses need
clarity.
While complete consensus on a way forward is unlikely, we need
some agreement. Getting there will only be possible if
individuals and organizations have a concrete proposal to
consider -- one supported by additional data and analysis. one
presented in the contextof the future of the overall solid -waste
program in our province.
In the coming months we will be working with organizations and
individuals to prepare a more detailed proposal for comment and
input. It is important to me, as I hope it is to all Nova
Scotians, that anything we do to improve our environmental
footprint is more than more window dressing, but has real and
measurable environmental and economic benefits for us all.
-30-
Media Contact: Heather Fairbairn
902-929-7920
Cell: 902-717-2151
Email: heather.fairbairnOnovascatia.ca
http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20150916001 9/18/2015
5.1b)
SOLID WASTE REGULATION
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
whit we
herd
WINTER 2015
NOVA SC TIA
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Table of
Contents
Message from the Minister ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... . 1
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................... 2
Introduction............................. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... 3
HowWe Consulted.....................................................................................................
4
ProductStewardship..................................................................................................
6
Disposal Bans and Approval Requirements...............................................................
11
Used Tire Management Program............................................................................14
Removal of Requirement for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans.....................15
Clarity on the Rules for Energy from Waste.............................................................
17
Improved Enforceability of the Solid Waste Regulations .............................................
19
Beverage Container Deposit -Refund Program..........................................................
20
OtherComments......................................................................................................
21
Next Steps ........... ..... ....... ...... .......... 22
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Message
from the Minister
Since the introduction of our first solid waste strategy in 1995, Nova Scotia has been
recognized as an innovator and world leader in recycling and waste diversion. This distinction
was achieved through the contributions of all Nova Scotians, the municipalities, agencies and
private sector companies.
Building on that success, in 2007 we set a progressive solid waste target of no more than 300
kilograms of disposal per person per year by 2015.
In recent years, we have witnessed diversion rates that are starting to plateau. At the same time,
innovators are finding new ways to turn solid waste resources into valuable products and creating
more opportunities to remove these items from our landfills.
As one of the few provinces without substantial Extended Producer Responsibility regulations
to foster product stewardship by producers and set disposal guidelines for end -of -use products,
Nova Scotia is missing out on opportunities to offset waste management costs and increase
diversion. It became clear that we needed to make some changes and seek out new opportunities
to enhance the environmental and economic sustainability of our waste management regulations.
As we work toward reaching our 300 kg target, we can remain proud that Nova Scotia continues
to maintain the best (lowest) disposal rate in the country, with many otherwise wasted materials
being circulated back into the economy.
I would like to thank all the individuals, organizations, and groups who contributed comments and
suggestions for our solid waste management strategy in Nova Scotia. Through public information
sessions, webinars, and written comments, we have heard what many Nova Scotians have had to
say about solid waste regulations.
We will take the feedback summarized in this report and work diligently to develop new solid
waste regulations for the province. A renewed framework and new regulations will create the
conditions for Nova Scotia to remain a leader in solid waste management, generate additional
jobs in the solid waste sector, and create a more sustainable solid waste resource system.
To all who contributed, your input, time, thoughts, and suggestions are sincerely appreciated.
Thank you for helping us develop a more economically and environmentally sustainable solid
waste resource management system.
Honourable Randy Delorey
Minister of Environment
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Executive
Summary
Nova Scotians have strong views on solid waste resource management. They are proud of
their recycling accomplishments and appreciate the benefits to the environment and the
economy that have resulted. This message was loud and clear in many of the submissions
received as part of the solid waste regulatory review consultations.
Consultation began in May 2014 and took the form of written submission, as well as
information sessions with municipalities, stakeholder groups, and the public. About 260
written submissions were received.
Stakeholder consultation focused on proposed changes in seven key areas:
• Product Stewardship — guiding product stewardship by adding Extended Producer
Responsibility regulations for designated products
• Disposal Bans and Approval Requirements — adding more items to the disposal ban and
strengthening compliance requirements for disposal site operators
• Used Tire Management Program — expanding the current regulations to include off -the -
road tires
• Removal of Requirement for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans — updating
regulations to reflect current goals and recognizing that regions will collectively work
towards achieving provincial goals
• Clarity on Rules for Energy from Waste — revising regulations to ensure materials
banned from disposal are also banned from all forms of thermal treatment used to process
mixed municipal solid waste.
• Improved Enforceability of Solid Waste Regulations — Focusing department
enforcement efforts based on risk. Updating definitions and terms to better reflect
provincial goals and the Environment Act
• Beverage Container Deposit -Refund Program — changing to a deposit/refund with a
separate recycling fee, with no immediate change to the fee amount. Any future changes
to the recycling fee, if necessary, would be made in an open and transparent way
In general, feedback on proposed amendments to Nova Scotia's solid waste regulations was
positive. However, there were also expressions of opposition and concern. Some felt the
need for more information and additional details. The loudest concerns were expressed by
those individuals and groups who potentially would be most affected by proposed changes
2
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
to diversion policies and programs. In other jurisdictions, the use of policy tools, including
exemptions, have been successful in addressing the concerns of stakeholders who may be
disproportionately affected by proposed changes.
Individuals, municipalities, and industry were united in their call for a regulatory framework
and amendments to solid waste regulations that
• are flexible, fair and focused on clear definitions and targets
• are harmonized between jurisdictions
• create cost effective and efficient programs
• provide transparency and accountability
The feedback received through this process will help to guide the development of a new
strategy and regulations for managing solid waste in Nova Scotia.
ntroduction
(The) challenges we now face in Nova Scotia ... demand new vision, innovative
approaches, greater collaboration and a greater willingness to take on the
risks associated with economic change and progress. - Ivany Report
In 1995, Nova Scotia took its first step to becoming a world leader in recycling and
composting. We have made substantial progress in solid waste resource management
since that time; however, the percentage of materials diverted has reached a plateau with
significant quantities of valuable resources—such as organics, paper, plastics, textiles, and
construction/demolition debris—still ending up in landfills. This represents lost opportunities
for resource recovery and has broader environmental and economic impacts.
In 2011 Nova Scotia Environment consulted with stakeholders on how to meet the legislated
waste disposal target of no greater than 300 kilograms per person per year by 2015. The
outcome of this consultation resulted in the publication of Our Path Forward. This document,
in addition to research and ongoing informal discussions with municipalities and the private
sector, led to the development of the proposals outlined in the current solid waste regulatory
review. The objectives of this review are aligned with the Ivany Report and include:
• The creation of green businesses and jobs
• Environmental and economic sustainability; and
• Fairness - Striving for consistent participation amongst stakeholders
Consultation on the proposed changes began in May 2014. With the process complete, this
document captures what we heard.
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
How We Consulted
Approach
Throughout the past summer, the public and other stakeholders were encouraged to review
the public discussion paper and share comments on the proposed changes. Comments on
the proposed amendments were accepted from early May until August 1, 2014, for the public
and industry and until September 30, 2014, for municipalities.
The content of the discussion paper was developed with input by early consultations,
conversations, and meetings with Nova Scotia's 54 municipalities and private sector partners
who manage most of the solid waste resources in the province. Stakeholder groups involved
over the last number of years include academics, NGOs, residents, producers, and generators.
The department invited participants to the Nova Scotia Environment website where a
video featuring Environment Minister Randy Delorey explained the vision and goals of the
consultation. There was an online form available for comment. Submissions were also
accepted by email, by mail, and through discussions with department staff.
Stakeholder Engagement
The department received about 260 written submissions. The majority of responses came
from across Nova Scotia, as well as a few from the United States and Europe. In addition,
staff from the department travelled across the province to meet with industry, municipalities,
and other partners for feedback.
During May and June 2014, municipal and stakeholder sessions were held throughout Nova
Scotia at the following locations:
• Yarmouth ....
May 28, 2014
• Halifax ... ....
May 30, 2014
• Dartmouth....
May 30, 2014
• Sydney ... ....
June 9, 2014
• Truro.. ... ...
June 17, 2014
• Halifax ... .... June 18, 2014 (2 sessions)
• Halifax ... .... June 20, 2014 (2 sessions)
• Webinar .. .. .. June 23, 2014 (for those that could not participate in other sessions/in person)
M
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
The province also hosted a printed paper and packaging summit in the spring of 2014, which
provided a forum for communicating with municipal stakeholders. Additional meetings were
held with stakeholder groups, representing:
• Industry and associations (e.g. Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian
Stewardship Services Alliance, and others)
• CAOs and municipal staff
• Municipal councilors and regional solid waste staff (Regional Chairs)
• Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
• NGOs
Scope
This report summarizes comments into the seven key areas of focus.
• Product Stewardship
• Disposal Bans and Approval Requirements
• Used Tire Management Program
• Removal of Requirement for Regional Solid Waste Management Plans
• Clarity on Rules for Energy from Waste
• Improved Enforceability of the Solid Waste Regulations
• Beverage Container Deposit -Refund Program
While opinions varied, it was evident that Nova Scotians have strong feelings about the solid
waste system and are proud of the progress we have made with recycling and reducing the
amount of materials going into landfills.
The department is committed to continuing its conversations with industry, municipalities,
academics, NGOs, and others as it proposes changes to the solid waste management
regulations. We recognize it will be important to consult with affected stakeholders as we
move forward with the regulatory amendment process.
5
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Product Stewardship
Nova Scotia has almost a 20 -year history with product stewardship. The beverage container
and used fire programs are forms of stewardship. Product stewardship has evolved over time
(and around the world) to what is currently called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
EPR is extending the responsibility of the producers of a package or product to the end -of -life
management of the material. EPR is a form of the polluter pay principle, which helps ensure
that those who produce solid waste are directly involved with the end -of -life management
of that item as a waste or a resource. EPR supports effective and efficient local solid waste
resource programs and creates economic opportunities. The polluter pay principle has been
used for many years by governments around the world to improve the environment and the
economy and is a cornerstone of the Nova Scotia Environment Act.
What we heard...
Many provinces already have product stewardship and Extended Producer
Responsibility Regulations (EPR) for products such as electronics, printed
paper and packaging (PPP), and household hazardous waste (HHW). In
particular, Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia
have moved forward with PPP regulations covering the largest group of
stewarded materials. British Columbia has the most comprehensive list of
products captured under stewardship regulation in Canada.
Nova Scotia is behind the rest of Canada when it comes to Product Stewardship
and EPR.
The Proposal
Lei
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
What we heard...
If Nova Scotia Environment can deliver on incorporating used mattresses and
carpets in its EPR framework ... it will be at the cutting edge of waste diversion
programming in North America.
The Response
Product stewardship received the most feedback through the consultation process with
almost every submission including comments. Overwhelmingly, respondents support some
form of product stewardship and EPR. From municipalities to companies to associations
and the public, there was agreement to require producers, or their representatives, to submit
an individual or collective plan detailing how their product will be diverted from disposal. It
was also very clear that key stakeholders, particularly municipalities and stewards, want to
continue to be engaged as the details of the regulatory and EPR policy tools are developed in
order to ensure that the regulations do not have significant financial impacts or administrative
burden upon implementation. A small minority either objected to EPR or wanted the province
to conduct more study before moving forward. One industry group was very concerned about
the administrative burden and costs they believe EPR could mean for small business.
A specific group of citizens —"It's Not Garbage Coalition"—were notable because of the sheer
number of submissions (about 25 per cent of submissions). They underlined a philosophy that,
despite any current suggestions, we must always be working toward a fully recyclable future.
Themes that Emerged
A large number of submissions referenced existing programs in other provinces and called
for consistency and harmonization with those programs. Many pointed out the lessons to
be learned from the negotiation, and execution, of other provincial EPR programs. There
were calls to use clear and common definitions to aid national companies in complying with
Nova Scotia rules. National and international companies and industry associations said
total compliance must be assured. Specifically, that for the new recycling regime to work all
participants must sign on. According to some, many free riders (obligated producers or brand
owners who are not paying into the system) exist in other jurisdictions that simply do not
know about, or deliberately avoid, their obligations.
What we heard...
there is a pressing need for harmonization among the provincial programs
7
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Submissions frequently called for regulations that were not overly prescriptive but more
outcome -driven, providing a level playing field with appropriate targets set in consultation
with stakeholders.
We also heard repeatedly that Nova Scotia must ensure that regulations and supporting policies
• are flexible, fair and focused on clear definitions and targets
• are harmonized between jurisdictions
• create cost effective and efficient programs
• provide transparency and accountability
The department also heard that recycling programs should remain socially responsible. That
is, programs should both help to stimulate the economy and protect human health and safety,
and not simply have waste sent for disposal overseas without knowing much about the final
destination.
Mitigating Impacts
Many respondents who mentioned printed paper and packaging (PPP) in particular spoke of the
need for exemptions for those they believe are unfairly impacted. They cited a common practice
called "de minimus", a widely utilized policy approach that offers smaller companies a break and
the ability to avoid the costs of PPP stewardship. Large businesses worry about the number of
small businesses exempted, since they feel it offers those exempt an advantage not available
to them. When small businesses are exempted, those costs are picked up by municipalities and
their taxpayers or the stewardship associations of larger businesses. Submissions from smaller
Nova Scotia businesses requested these exemptions.
National companies made the point that "one size does not fit all" and that the regulations and
policies must be different for different materials. A number of industry voices raised the need to
ensure a "robust dispute mechanism" be written into the regulations. A number of submitters noted
that it would be important that stewardship organizations are prevented from becoming monopolies.
Roles and Responsibilities
Potential stewards (producers and brand owners), for the most part, understood the
important role that municipalities have, and continue to play, with respect to waste resource
management. At the same time many stewards noted that "if Nova Scotia plans to implement
an EPR stewardship framework, stewards should have control of the development of the
programs proportionate to their financial responsibility." In other words, and in particular with
respect to printed paper and packaging, "if packaging is to be the financial responsibility of
producers and consumers instead of municipal taxpayers, then municipalities will become
service providers like any other." Submitters stressed the importance of reaching the right
balance between municipally run services and industry funded programs while maintaining
the service delivery model that residents have come to expect.
•
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
What we heard...
It cannot be overstated how important and critical the consumer role is to the
success of recycling programs.
We (industry) recognize that municipalities and the regional waste districts
play a critical role in waste diversion and recycling.
In order to be able to reap the benefits of greater economies of scale and
harmonization that come with EPR, Nova Scotia's 54 municipalities cannot act
independently.
Overall, most submissions recommended that all stakeholder groups should have a role
in the reinvigorated solid waste resource system. This theme was also raised to point
out that stewardship and EPR regulations and policies need to be developed with a
shared responsibility model in mind. Manufacturers, brand owners, producers, regulators,
distributors, retailers, consumers, residents, taxpayers, municipalities, educators,
generators, stewardship agencies, collectors/haulers, receiving sites, processors, and
recyclers all have roles to play depending upon the end -of -life package or product being
targeted for EPR. It is a comprehensive system that varies depending upon the end -of -life
material in question. This was reflected by submission comments recommending that roles
and responsibilities vary accordingly.
A few stewards noted that voluntary stewards who do not reside in the province should be
able to accept responsibility for reporting or remitting. Submitters noted that the supply and
management of industrial, commercial, and institutional sector (IC&I) materials is significantly
more complex than the residential stream. As a result, most felt strongly that any future PPP
EPR regulation should not include IC&I material.
Some submitters noted that stewards should be responsible for incidental materials that are
delivered to non -program drop-off sites or landfills. As an example, when materials such as
paint and electronics, are incorporated into the residential garbage stream the cost burden is
then shouldered by municipalities.
Timeframes
Some felt 12 months was as an optimum timeframe for program implementation. However,
in general, companies and associations suggested a more realistic 2 to 3 year planning
period for EPR programs after the regulation is passed.
I
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Additional Comments
Those involved in existing recycling programs like pharmaceuticals, sharps, and electronics
felt that those programs should be maintained. They believe some materials should not be
targeted if they are already well managed through existing recycling programs.
Generally, many submitters suggested
• including a wider range of electronics and electric devices
• including sugary milk products in the beverage program
• providing consumers with a refund for returning big televisions
• expanding the paint program
• adding fishing ropes and nets, bait boxes, disposable cups, window and windshield glass,
and other materials to the list of items under EPR regulations
With the variety of materials currently being diverted, and potential for more to be added,
one session participant noted that "there are already too many different places to drop off
different materials."
Submissions from newspaper industry members consistently express the following:
• the current system of advertising credits to promote recycling was working
• additional costs (financial burden) to the industry would result in less news in Nova Scotia
• EPR for newsprint was not necessary, since it is one of the most recycled materials already
and would not increase newspaper recycling
• their product was not a package and newsprint as a product could not be redesigned
• most other jurisdictions have exempted newspapers from EPR programs
Several Nova Scotia non-profit associations raised concerns regarding an expected increase
in paperwork and higher costs. They pointed to a recommendation from the Ivany Report to
cut red tape and minimize more government rules. Others felt that more study was needed in
many areas, including a cost/benefit analysis and an overall environmental system benefit/
deficit review.
What we heard...
the province's solid waste future must be viewed through a lens of resource
management, not waste management.
set aside these proposed solid waste regulation amendments until a full
economic and fiscal analysis is completed.
10
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Many Nova Scotia businesses reminded the government to support the private sector in its
efforts to help recycle new materials.
Complexity Moving Forward
It is evident from the responses that the proposals have a lot of support yet face a lot of
challenges in the development of a comprehensive model that works for all Nova Scotians.
However, stakeholders conveyed the conviction that the province is a proud recycling and
composting jurisdiction—we were leaders once, and it is time to be leaders again.
Disposal Bans
and Approval
Requirements
Disposal bans were central to the province's existing solid waste diversion strategy and
contributed much to its success. The bans helped to drive innovation and job creation while
ensuring that recyclers have an adequate supply of input materials. At the same time, the
province recognizes the unique challenges that come with a level playing field for compliance
with the bans.
The Proposal
The new proposals include introducing new bans on stewarded materials, textiles, and
construction and demolition (C&D) debris (which is partially stewarded). Until now,
municipalities (residents) and private sector solid waste generators bore the increased cost
to implement the disposal bans. New bans could have a particular financial impact on the
C&D debris generators and disposal sites. Many haulers, processors, and end-use recyclers
would benefit from increased diversion business or lower input costs.
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Many C&D materials are being diverted from landfills. Research and experimental markets
have demonstrated that new local options exist. For example, gypsum in wallboard is being
combined with waste wood to make animal bedding or added to compost. Asphalt shingles
are being used to improve multi -use trails in a number of areas across the province as well as
gravel roads at landfills. They are also being used in new pavement and as an alternative fuel.
The Response:
This proposal received the second -most feedback after Stewardship, with about 30 per cent
of respondents providing comment. Overall, there was tremendous support for adding bans
from both residents and most industry submissions. Many saw bans as an important tool
that helped the province achieve its disposal goals, protect the environment, and stimulate
creative innovation and economic opportunities for businesses and recycling workers.
What we heard...
Landfills represent lost resources and feedstock into new industries. Getting
the resources back into the economy creates innovation and new business.
Most municipal disposal sites were either opposed to increased bans or wanted an impact
analysis to demonstrate the financial impact to their operations. "We do not support
increasing the number of items on the disposal ban list until there are sustainable and accessible
markets for the items being banned."
Separation challenges remain an issue, and disposal is less costly to the generators and
receiving sites compared to diversion.
It was noted, particularly by municipalities with disposal sites, that "disposal bans have to
be realistic, not just idealistic." A small minority of landfill owners supported the ban with the
proviso that the ban must be implemented in a practical, fair, and transparent manner that
ensures a level playing field for compliance for both private and public disposal sites.
There was a noted lack of submissions from private sector construction and demolition
debris disposal site owners/operators. Conversations with private site operators during the
consultation period indicated that many were ready to innovate if there was level playing field
on ban compliance that was implemented in a fair and transparent manner.
A significant number of submitters commented that compliance with the current bans is
lacking as demonstrated by the quantities of banned materials that continue to be disposed
in landfills. Various policy tools were suggested to deal with non-compliance, including
disposal tax disincentives, standardized waste audits, disposal quantity transparency, and
stewardship programs.
12
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
What we heard...
A disposal tax can be charged based upon the percentage of banned materials
entering the site.
A few submitters noted that glass is a challenge and other diversion options should be
acceptable. This could be achieved by removing glass from the definition of solid waste but
maintaining the disposal ban. This would allow glass to be used for other beneficial uses.
Overall, some of the concerns collected from responses include:
A number of landfill operators (private Many municipal landfill operators
and public) were supportive of the bans if were also concerned about increased
implemented appropriately and in consultation compliance and diversion costs.
with landfill stakeholders.
One participant suggested the province amend Obligation should be at the point of
its C&D Debris Disposal Site Guidelines to generation, not at the receiving or
something more along the lines of a C&D disposal sites
Debris Management Guidelines.
An opt -out clause is necessary for extenuating
General concerns included
circumstances and ban compliance standards
• sustainable/viable markets
need to be developed for clarity and to create
• level playing field
a level playing field amongst competitors.
• compliance
• cost prohibitive
• illegal dumping
Many online citizen submissions suggested Industry producers, manufacturers and
adding many other materials to be banned associations were split on their support
from disposal. for the ban on expanded and extruded
polystyrene products.
Some respondents wanted the
department to stop allowing C&D debris
as daily cover for landfills.
What we heard...
Done well, disposal bans can support a dramatic increase in diversion, create
innovation, and jobs.
13
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Used Tire
Management Program
Off -the -road tires are not part of the current used tire management program. By adding off -
the -road tires for all -terrain and other vehicles including large industrial vehicle tires, more
would be diverted from landfill through the existing used fire management program.
The Proposal
The Response
While less than a quarter of respondents commented on this section of the proposal, the
response was quite favorable. Since an existing fire recycling system is already operating,
this proposal was seen by respondents as fairly simple to implement.
Suggestions:
• all tires be considered for fuel feedstock
• fees should be reviewed every 3 years
• fire fees should be based upon the actual cost to manage specific categories of tires and
cross subsidization must be avoided
What we heard...
Re-evaluate the province's used tire management program to consider
processing used tires.
14
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Concerns:
• how the fee would be determined and the level of fees for larger tires
• one submission disagreed with the proposal, arguing that other alternatives should be
explored first
• current use of processed tires was not working well and should be fixed before adding more
tires to the program
• this proposal further burdens consumers with fees
Removal of
Requirement for
Regional Solid Waste
Management Plans
In 1997 the province established solid waste management regions to support achieving
50 per cent solid waste diversion by the year 2000. Each region was asked to prepare a solid
waste management plan outlining the actions they would take to help achieve this goal. Since
that time, the province has revised the solid waste goals under the Environment Act and the
Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act to achieve a disposal rate of 300 kg
per person per year.
The Proposal
The Response
Less than 15 per cent of respondents spoke on this proposal. Of those that did, the
responses were split in support for and against the proposal.
15
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Municipalities were strongly supportive of updating the geographical regions and removing
the requirement for regional solid waste management plans. However, most of the It's Not
Garbage Coalition submissions were opposed to this proposal. They felt that the exercise of
planning would help ensure that municipalities met their diversion obligations.
What we heard...
We do not support dropping the requirement that municipalities develop
regional plans. The provincial waste target disposal target of 300 kg waste/per
person requires regional coordination and effort by both levels of government,
and simply providing for regional planning to be optional is an inadequate
basis for moving forward in this regard.
Other comments included:
• There needs to be a 2020 goal.
• Planning is essential and the provincial government can't do it alone.
• Require a clear bag program.
16
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Clarity on Rules for
Energy from Waste
Some emerging technologies for the thermal treatment of municipal waste with energy
recovery were not around when the regulations were first drafted in 1997. With effective
environmental protection in place, today's thermal technologies may present an opportunity
when applied to the solid waste stream.
The Proposal
The Response
About 20 per cent of respondents commented on this proposal. A number of respondents
including some of the numerous It's Not Garbage Coalition submissions favoured the clarity
suggested. However, many of the respondents opposed incineration in general.
What we heard...
allowing energy -from -waste would be a paradigm shift
Many expressed their support or opposition to energy -from -waste in general. There
were significant differences in opinion on the issue amongst and between residents,
17
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
municipalities, and NGOs. Most industry comments reflected the need to be open to the
option of energy -from -waste.
Other comments included:
• energy -from -waste destroys resources and should not be acceptable in Nova Scotia
• incineration should only be considered after EPR is introduced
• feedstock for a facility would be limited because of the province's small size
• incineration runs counter to Nova Scotia's recycling pride
• source separated materials should be considered as a fuel alternative
• energy -from -waste should be considered only after determining there is a reasonable cost
for the process and that it is technically sound, argued a national industry association
Many submissions noted that it was necessary to consider waste to energy, or "recovery",
within a waste hierarchy framework. It was understood by many that it takes too much
energy to divert some materials from landfills and that there should be a place for energy
recovery if determined effective and efficient by those responsible for the end -of -life
management of packaging and products.
REDUCE
REUSE
RECYCLE/COMPOST
ENERGY RECOVERY
DISPOSAL
Least favourable
Respondents suggested that energy recovery be considered within a waste hierarchy
framework similar to other jurisdictions.
A number of participants suggested including the energy created from energy -from -waste
facilities as diversion. With approval, some source -separated solid waste (such as wood and
asphalt shingles) are already being diverted and used as an alternative fuel in boilers.
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Improved
Enforceability
of the Solid Waste
Regulations
Nova Scotia Environment is responsible for delivering effective and efficient regulatory
management for the protection of our environment. Some sections of the solid waste
regulations are outdated or inconsistent with other regulations, making them confusing
for stakeholders.
The Proposal
What we heard...
We agree with the proposed updates. This will constitute a better use of limited
resources.
The Response
This proposal received very little attention from submitters with the exception of
municipalities. About 15 per cent of respondents commented on this proposal.
19
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Municipalities were against the changes, viewing them as downloading responsibility. A
number of municipalities suggested more funding would be needed if they were required to
take on more litter, illegal dumping, or illegal burning compliance.
One online submission noted enforcement of litter rules is key and that perhaps there is a
need for bonded, third party inspectors. Some respondents suggested that both levels of
government were not taking sufficient action on the issue of litter.
Beverage Container
Deposit Refund
Program
The Beverage Container Deposit Refund Program is operated by the Resource Recovery Fund
Board Nova Scotia (RRFB) and is regulated within the Nova Scotia Solid Waste Resource
Management Regulations. The program came into effect on April 1, 1996-18 years ago.
Since that time, Nova Scotia has achieved and maintained one of the highest beverage
container return rates in North America at nearly 80 per cent in 2013.
To date, the beverage container deposit refund program has helped divert and recycle more
than three billion beverage containers from landfills and significantly reduce beverage
container litter. Recycling beverage containers has a cost. That cost has continued to rise
over the past 18 years, while the deposit that pays for the program has never increased.
The Proposal
What we heard...
The section of the discussion paper regarding the Beverage Container Deposit
Refund Program is of concern due to the potential for increased costs to
Nova Scotians.
20
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
The Response
Responses to this proposal were also low with only 17 percent of respondents providing
comment. Of those submissions, overall there was support for this proposal.
However, there was some opposition. The industry groups representing most of the beverage
container brand owners were opposed. Industry brand owners were generally in favour
of significant change to, or elimination of, the RRFB beverage container model system.
They seek to increase the program efficiencies and remove what they see as the cross
subsidization of other recycling programs.
Several submissions cited the need for the system to be more accountable, and to have more
fairness and transparency. A number of submitters thought the province should review the
RRFB from an efficiency perspective. Some suggested the RRFB was a duplicate system,
creating competition between EnviroDepots and municipal curbside recycling programs. One
worry included potential negative cost -pressures on household budgets.
Some municipalities suggested adding 1 cent on to the deposit -refund program to help
maintain municipal recycling programs. Other ideas included
• bottles should fall under new printed paper and packaging EPR guidelines and into the
blue bag system
• an appeals mechanism should also be considered
Other Comments
A number of comments did not fit into any one category:
• Education, awareness, and research and development are important in making existing and
future systems more efficient.
• Governments should require tenders to include recycled content.
• Systems must be convenient to reduce the incidents of illegal dumping.
• Municipal financial pressure with the current waste resource management system could be
partially addressed with the addition of fees on disposable packaging.
What we heard...
Seeing materials as a resource and not a waste creates opportunities and
financial incentives.
21
SOLID WASTE REGULATION PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHAT WE HEARD • WINTER 2 0 1 S
Next Steps
The information we received through this process will go toward developing a new solid
waste management strategy and regulations for Nova Scotia. Based on the feedback received
through this process, our next steps will be to.
• Move forward, at a minimum, with printed paper and packaging (PPP), used oil/container/
filter, mercury -containing products, and other end -of -life Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW) EPR.
• Allow for a "de minimus" exemption for Extended Producer Responsibility for PPP to lessen
the administrative and financial burden to smaller companies. This practice is widely
utilized in other jurisdictions.
• Work collaboratively with municipalities and producers to strike the right balance of
responsibility with regard to operating stewardship and/or EPR programs as we draft
the new regulations. (In support of this commitment, the province is participating in the
Municipal -Provincial Solid Waste Priorities Group developed as a subcommittee of Regional
Chairs. )
• Study and report on the financial effects of the seven proposals on four municipalities. This
report is expected to be released by early spring of 2015.
• Where appropriate, implement EPR regulations before disposal bans.
• Work together with the RRFB and other stakeholders to further define the role of the RRFB
in the administration of future EPR programs.
• Work with industry and municipalities to develop standards, targets, and metrics to guide
stewards in the development of their stewardship plans.
Thank you to all those who contributed. We value your feedback and will do our best
to incorporate what we heard into the amendments to Nova Scotia's Solid Waste
Resource Regulations.
22
novascotia.ca
i�Et
NOVA SCOTIA
MARTIN'S RIVER FIRE COMMISSION
7533 Hwy. 0, RR #2
MAHONE RAY, NS
BOJ 2 EO
Tammy Wilson, CACI
Municipality of the District of Chester
PO Box 300, J.S. King St., Chester, NS
BOJ 1KO
Dear Tammy,
Ci
91"2 ,0 .3
September 10, 2015
The Martin's River Fire Commission and the Martin's River Fire Department are In agreement that the FAC in Chester is
not productive for the Fire Service as we would like to see. Many items that we agree to work at do not get completed
In a timely manner or never get finalized.
One of the major problems that we see is the fact that the Commissions are presently not involved, but should be in any
and all discussions with the Fire Chiefs and vice versa,
To this end we feel that we have to withdraw from participation in the FAC In Chester as It is now structured.
We do however feel.very strongly that there should be some kind of coordination between the Commissions, Fire
Departments and Municipality as there will be many changes both In the Fire Services and In the Response that the
Commissions must have to provide the resources for the Fire Services over the next few years.
Having everyone at the table to share Information and ideas in these very tight times we feel is of the utmost
Importance..
Respectfully,
Harold Burton, ha rperson Fire Commission
CC:
Allen Webber, Warden, Chester Municipality
Bruce Blackwood, Fire Services Coordinator, Chester Municipality
Stuart Hirtle, Fire Chief
7k��'ar,-,nk
Z'September 9, 2015
To Whorn it May Concern,
The Chester Tennis Club is requesting a withdrawal from out, DHCP account
in tris amount of $6,500 in order to pay for the resurfacing of the back
co u rt.
The invoice is CUrTE2ritly owing so we request the funds be avallabitc,) us
as soon as possible,
I also write to confirm that we meet the requirements of S(,'x:tIon 65 (au) of
ti ie Municipal Government Act.
Thanks,
Lesek Deniont
President, CTC
Pam Myra
From:
Chad Haughn
Sent:
Friday, September 11, 2015 12:47 PM
To:
Tammy Wilson; Pam Myra
Cc:
Steve Graham
Subject:
FW: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
Attachments:
DHCP Funds Request.docx.pdf
Can we add the Chester Tennis Club (Designated Community Fund Project) to the Sept 24�h Council agenda:' Steve is on
vacation but he keeps track of all the funds for the DCF. When he is back in the office he can confirm that there has
been at least $6500 deposited (the amount they are requesting) to the project so far.
FYI — the tennis club resurfaced one of their courts in August and they want to access the DCF to pay the bill. They plan
to continue to fundralse so they can finish the other two courts next year.
Chad.
Chad Haughn
Recreation & Parks Director
Municipality of Chester Recreation & Parks Department
151 King Street PCS Box 369
Chester NS BOJ 1J0
275-3490 (w)
275-8191 (c)
From: Lesek [mailto:lesek@eastlink.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:07 AM
To: Chad Haughn <chaughn@chester.ca>
Subject: RE: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
Hi Chad,
Here is the letter.
Thanks,
Lesek
From: Chad Haughn [maiJto:chau hn chster.ra]
Sent: September 9, 2015 10:39 AM
To: Lesek <lesel<}eas�lil<ca>
Subject: RE: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
It depends on the timing of when the letter comes in and when the next council meeting is. Typically, Council meetings
are the second and fourth Thursdays of the month. For example, if you had a letter in by September 171" I could put it
on the September 24111 Council meeting agenda. From that point it would take two to three weeks to actually have the
cheque in hand. Chad.
Chad Haughn
Recreation & Parks Director
Municipality of Chester Recreation & Parks Department
151 King Street PO 'Box 369
Chester NS BOJ 1.10
275-3490 (w)
275-8191 (c)
From: Lesek [mailto:lesek eastlink.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Chad Haughn <chau hn q chester.ca>
Subject: RE: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
Hi Chad,
Thanks! Do you know how long the approval process usually takes?
Thanks,
Lesek
From: Chad Haughn [maiIto:chau hn chester.ca]
Sent: September 9, 2015 10:28 AM
To: Lesek <lesek �x easklin�ca>
Subject: RE: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
Hi Lesek,
You can request the Designated Community Funds at any time. It requires that a letter be sent to Council asking for the
funds. Council then approves it and we cut a cheque. The account can stay active and you can continue to collect
donations into next year when you want to do the next phase of the project.
I attached a copy of the policy and on page 3 it has some info on what should be included in the letter such as the
amount requested, what the funds will be used for, etc...
If you have any other questions, let me know. Chad.
Chad Haughn
Recreation & Parks Director
Municipality of Chester Recreation & Parks Department
151 King Street PO Box 369
Chester NS 130.1 1.10
275-3490 (w)
275-8191 (c)
From: Lesek [mailto:lesek eastlinl< ca]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 11:19 AM
To: Chad Haughn <chau hn ciiester.ca>
Subject: Withdrawal from DHCP Account
Hi Chad,
My appologies for asking a question you have likely already answered.
2
What is the process for the tennis club to make a withdrawal from our DHCP account?
Thanks,
Lesek
This e-mail message (including attaclunents, if any) is confidential. Any unauthorized distribution or disclosure
to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Please consider the
environment before printing this email.
Cindy Hannaford
Subject: FW: Rural High Speed Internet Resolution
S s�
From: Lyle Goldberg <LGoldberg@unsm.ca>
Date: September 17, 2015 at 2:15:34 PM ADT
To: "Erin Beaudin (ebeaudin@wolfville.ca)" <ebeaudin@wolfville.ca>, Alex Dumaresq <ADumaresq@modl.ca>, "Richard
MacLellan (rmaclellan@regionofqueens.com)" <rmaclellan@regionofqueens.com>
Cc: "Claire Detheridge " <mcdetheridge @cbrm.ns.ca>
Subject: Rural High Speed Internet Resolution
Alex, Erin and Richard:
All three of your municipalities sent in resolutions on rural high speed internet (or lack thereof).
For simplicity's sake, the UNSM Resolutions Committee wants to combine all three resolutions into one
to take to the membership for a vote at the UNSM Fall Conference in November.
Below is the proposed revised resolution. We used the Region of Queens as a base and then added from
the other resolutions.
Please advise ASAP if you are okay with this.
The UNSM needs to send out the resolutions committee report on September 28 so if you could get
back to me by September 23 it would be appreciated.
Feel free to contact me directly with any questions.
Regards,
Lyle Goldberg, Policy Analyst
Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
ph: 902-423-8673
email: 1 goldberg @ unsm. ca
PROVISION OF INTERNET TO RURAL AREAS OF NOVA SCOTIA
Region of Queens
=> District of Lunenburg
=> District of Chester
WHEREAS Nova Scotia needs to attract and retain entrepreneurs and residents, and
become more productive, innovative and competitive (as referenced in the "One Nova
Scotia" Report of February 2014) especially in its rural areas; and
WHEREAS participation in the global digital economy requires access to robust and
reliable internet services; and
WHEREAS the existing service enabled -under the Broadband for Rural Nova Scotia
(BRNS) initiative does not fulfill the obligation of coverage to all areas of south-western
Nova Scotia, nor does it provide adequate data transfer speed or volume for many
business and residential purposes, especially with the imposition of a data cap; and
WHEREAS the existing provider has indicated it will cap rural broadband internet
packages at 15 GB a month to its customers in Annapolis, Digby, Yarmouth, Queens,
Lunenburg, Shelburne and Kings counties; and
WHEREAS this cap will require customers to pay an additional $2 fee for each GB up
to a maximum of $20 more per month; and
WHEREAS the urban customer cap for the existing provider is unlimited or capped at
250 GB of usage for higher speeds and other parts of Rural Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS in cases where broadband is provided by an alternate company, broadband
is not capped; and
WHEREAS this usage cap creates a significant disparity in critical infrastructure
between urban and rural communities; and
WHEREAS the existing provider for south-western Nova Scotia declined to apply for
funding support to upgrade the service under the Connecting Canadians program;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities urge the
Nova Scotia Government to reaffirm its commitment to rural communities, engage
with all stakeholders, develop alternative solutions, and ensure the provision of an
internet service which provides a reliable high speed connection to all rurally -based
businesses and households; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
recommends setting the acceptable target speed above the current 5 megabits per
second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload, in accordance with the Canadian Radio -
television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) "Review of basic
telecommunications services" (2015).
Background:
The provision of robust and reliable internet access is vital to enable citizens to engage
in today's digital economy and provide access to services, such as health care,
education, government, public safety, and banking services. Further, in rural areas of
Nova Scotia, including parts of Queens County, the ability to attract and retain
residents and entrepreneurial activity is severely hampered by inadequate internet
provision.
In 2007, contracts were awarded under the Broadband for Rural Nova Scotia (BRNS)
initiative with the aim of connecting 100% of Nova Scotia households to `high-speed
internet' by the end of 2009. The contract was awarded to Seaside Wireless
Communications Inc. in the north-eastern counties and Cape Breton, and to Eastlink
in south-western Nova Scotia (Queens, Lunenburg, Hants, Kings, Annapolis, Digby,
Yarmouth, and Shelburne counties).
Since that time, use of the internet has changed considerably. For many people, their
internet access is completely integrated into their work and recreational lives; services
such as Netflix are replacing television and Skype is replacing the telephone. The total
amount of data transferred per month, per user, is much higher in 2015 than it was in
2007. Business expectations on data transfer move upwards along with the
technology improvements, and those expectations are often based on the technology
available in urban centres.
Right from the beginning, users in south-western Nova Scotia who were connected to
the Eastlink Rural Connect service expressed disappointment, both with the difficulty
with getting connected, and subsequently with the quality of the service. Problems
with speed, and consistent connection were common, and have got worse over the
intervening years as more people were connected to the system. Rural businesses in
Queens County are badly affected, as they are competing with residential users for
availability Eastlink does not offer a business service for rural customers.
Investment of up to $305M is being made by 2017 under the federal `Connecting
Canadians' program. Invitation to tender was made to telecom providers and the
successful bidders were announced recently. Eastlink declined to apply for funding to
support to upgrade of their rural service in south-west Nova Scotia under this
program. Seaside Communications Inc. received $6M to make improvements to
around 14,000 households in north-eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
Furthermore, the Council of the Region of Queens Municipality has great concerns in
regards to Eastlink's recent announcement that they would be implementing a `cap' on
data usage. From August 1, 2015, up to 15 gigabyte (GB) per month is included with
the existing contract.
Thereafter, users are charged $2 per CSB, up to $20 per month. For usage over the new
limit Eastlink has said that users will not be `cut off, and that the cap system will be
reviewed in November 2015. The problem for rural business with this logic is that
there is no other alternative available, and no commercial contract option either.
Queens County has home-based businesses which require a much greater data use
than 15GB per month. A video editing business could use that much in a couple of
days.
Council is encouraged by the Premier and Minister of Business's recent focus on this
issue in meeting with various internet providers, municipalities and stakeholders in an
effort to develop alternative solutions. This resolution. seeks to encourage these efforts
and assure the Province of the Region of Queens Municipality's commitment to work
together with the various partners to find an acceptable solution for the affected areas.