Draft for Review GHD | Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Solid Waste Management Plan – Stage 2 | 057580 (18) | ii Figure Index Figure 8.1 Tipping Fee ($/tonne) and Diversion Rate (%) over Study Period under Scenario 2 (Flexible Diversion) and Alternative 1 (raise tipping fees to proposed levels) ................ 30 Figure 8.2 Tipping Fee Changes and Resulting NPV for Breakeven Cost Recovery Under Each Scenario ...................................................................................................... 31 Figure 9.1 Five Year Diversion Implementation Schedule ............................................................... 39 Following text: Figure 1.1 Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Location Map Figure 1.2 Fort Nelson Service Area and Solid Waste Facilities Table Index Table ES.1 Implementation Schedule, Diversion Goals for Recommended Strategy ......................... iii Table 1.1 NRRM Landfill and Stewardship Program Tonnages and Diversion Rates for 2014........ 3 Table 3.1 Product Stewardship Programs and Processors for HHW and Recylables in BC .......... 13 Table 6.1 Solid Waste Management Strategy Scenarios ................................................................ 22 Table 6.2 Current and Proposed Tipping Fee Schedule for the Fort Nelson Landfill ..................... 22 Table 6.3 Cost Estimates and Diversion Initiatives and their Contribution to Overall Diversion ..... 23 Table 6.4 Solid Waste Management Scenarios and Social, Environmental, and Financial Considerations ................................................................................................................. 25 Table 8.2 Waste Composition Data ................................................................................................. 28 Table 8.3 Budget Allocation to Solid Waste Management .............................................................. 28 Table 8.5 NPV and Cost Recovery Results for Scenarios under No Cost Recovery ..................... 29 Table 8.6 Summary of Financial Modelling Results for each Waste Management Scenario and Cost Recovery Alternative ....................................................................................................... 33 Table 8.7 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Proposed Tipping Fee Structure and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 0) ................ 35 Table 8.8 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Landfill Service Hours Reduced by 50% and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 2) 36 Table 9.1 Five Year Diversion Budget ............................................................................................. 38 Table 9.2 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 40 Following text: Table 8.1 Cash Flow Modelling Parameters Table 8.4A Cash Flow Forecast – Scenario 1 (Existing System) Table 8.4B Cash Flow Forecast – Scenario 2 (Flexible Diversion) Table 8.4C Cash Flow Forecast – Scenario 3 (Mandated Diversion) Table 8.4D Cash Flow Forecast – Scenario 4 (Comprehensive Diversion) Table 8.4E Cash Flow Forecast – Scenario 5 (Staged Implementation) Appendices Appendix A Stage 1 Solid Waste Management Plan
Transcript
Draft for Review
GHD | Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Solid Waste Management Plan – Stage 2 | 057580 (18) | ii
Figure Index Figure 8.1 Tipping Fee ($/tonne) and Diversion Rate (%) over Study Period under Scenario 2
(Flexible Diversion) and Alternative 1 (raise tipping fees to proposed levels) ................ 30
Figure 8.2 Tipping Fee Changes and Resulting NPV for Breakeven Cost Recovery Under Each Scenario ...................................................................................................... 31
Figure 9.1 Five Year Diversion Implementation Schedule ............................................................... 39 Following text:
Figure 1.2 Fort Nelson Service Area and Solid Waste Facilities
Table Index Table ES.1 Implementation Schedule, Diversion Goals for Recommended Strategy ......................... iii
Table 1.1 NRRM Landfill and Stewardship Program Tonnages and Diversion Rates for 2014 ........ 3 Table 3.1 Product Stewardship Programs and Processors for HHW and Recylables in BC .......... 13
Table 6.2 Current and Proposed Tipping Fee Schedule for the Fort Nelson Landfill ..................... 22
Table 6.3 Cost Estimates and Diversion Initiatives and their Contribution to Overall Diversion ..... 23
Table 6.4 Solid Waste Management Scenarios and Social, Environmental, and Financial Considerations ................................................................................................................. 25
Table 8.2 Waste Composition Data ................................................................................................. 28
Table 8.3 Budget Allocation to Solid Waste Management .............................................................. 28
Table 8.5 NPV and Cost Recovery Results for Scenarios under No Cost Recovery ..................... 29
Table 8.6 Summary of Financial Modelling Results for each Waste Management Scenario and Cost Recovery Alternative ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 8.7 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Proposed Tipping Fee Structure and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 0) ................ 35
Table 8.8 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Landfill Service Hours Reduced by 50% and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 2) 36
Table 9.1 Five Year Diversion Budget ............................................................................................. 38
Table 9.2 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 40 Following text:
The Northern Rockies Regional Municipality (NRRM) is undertaking an update to the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). SWMP's are required under the Environmental Management Act SBC 2003, c 53 as a plan for managing solid waste in regions across the Province. This Report represents Stage 2 of the SWMP and prescribes the development and implementation of the waste management system in NRRM.
The SWMP is being updated in three stages:
• Stage 1 - Review of the current waste management system
• Stage 2 - Review and evaluate waste management options to address the Region's future solid waste management needs
• Stage 3 - Formalize the SWMP and consult with the Public
This report documents the findings of the Stage 2 process and provides discussion and evaluation of the options reviewed for the updated SWMP.
The planning process and the development of this report have been done in accordance with the BC MOE document entitled "Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid Waste Management Plans by Regional District" (BC MOE, 1994).
In May 2015, the BC MOE initiated a process to update the solid waste management planning process and guidelines, which are expected to be implemented in 2016. The updated guiding principles are as follows (BC MOE, 2015):
1. Promote zero waste approaches.
2. Promote the 3 R’s (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle).
3. Maximize beneficial use of waste materials and manage residuals appropriately.
4. Support polluter and user-pay approaches.
5. Manage tipping fees.
6. Separate organics and recyclables out of garbage wherever practical.
7. Establish and enforce disposal bans.
8. Collaborate with neighbouring regional districts wherever practical.
9. Develop collaborative partnerships with stakeholders to achieve regional targets set in plans.
10. Level playing field within regions for both private and public solid waste management facilities.
1.1 Plan Area and Population
The NRRM (Figure 1.1) encompasses an area of 85,148.89 square kilometres (km2), covering one tenth of the province, and is located in the northwestern corner of the province. This area is a heavily forested area consisting of primarily boreal white and black spruce. Due to its northern location the seasons include long, cold winters and short summers with long hours of sunlight.
The main road through the NRRM is the Alaska Highway, Highway 97 which runs from the southeast to northwest.
According to the 2011 census, the population of NRRM in 2011 was 6,353. From 1990 to 2005 there was a 5.8 percent decrease in disposal rates per capita, despite a 31 percent population increase. Approximately 76 percent of the population of NRRM lies within the townsite of Fort Nelson, with approximately 4,800 residents.
The Fort Nelson First Nation is a community of Dene and Cree people located 7 km south of Fort Nelson. The First Nation has approximately 638 band members living both on and off the reserve.
In addition to Fort Nelson and Fort Nelson First Nation the communities located along Highway 97 within the NRRM are:
• Prophet River
• Steamboat
• Toad River
• Muncho Lake
• Liard River
• Coal River
• Fireside
The remaining NRRM population lives in rural locations, including the communities listed above, within 10 km of Highway 97.
1.2 Service Area
NRRM is responsible for waste management within the NRRM, and does not currently accept waste from out of region. The NRRM's current cart-based collection system extends only to residential areas within the boundaries of the Fort Nelson Townsite which previously had access to the opt-in, bag-and-can collection system operated by the solid waste management contractor Wide Sky Disposal Ltd. (Wide Sky) until July 2014. The Fort Nelson service area and solid waste facilities are shown in Figure 1.2 and are based on current land use zoning in the Townsite.
1.3 Current Waste Management System
GHD (formerly Conestoga-Rovers & Associates) prepared the NRRM Stage 1 Report, which is attached as Appendix A., to evaluate the current waste management system. The overall diversion rate of the system represents a key metric for implementing the recycling and waste reduction initiatives proposed in this report. Based on 2015 data from the Landfill and stewardship organizations, NRRM's current overall diversion rate is estimated as 3.24 percent (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 NRRM Landfill and Stewardship Program Tonnages and Diversion Rates for 2014
Program 2015 Tonnes Diversion Rate
NRRM landfill received 11,519.0 ---
White goods diverted at landfill (1) 33.0 0.28%
Scrap metal diverted at landfill to Wide Sky (1) 206.0 1.77%
Tires diverted at landfill (1,2) 14.8 0.13%
Northern Environment Action Team diverted 21.0 0.18%
MMBC diverted packaging 9.0 0.08%
Encorp diverted beverage containers 91.7 0.79%
LightRecycle 0.5 0.00%
ElectroRecycle 0.7 0.01%
Total (landfilled + diverted) 11,642.0 --- Total (diverted) 376.7 3.24% Notes: (1) Included in total landfill received amount (2) Assumes an average tire mass of 30 lb, and higher ratio of truck to car tires (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/tires/)
2. Solid Waste Management Planning Process
This Stage 2 Report represents the second of a three Stage process for Solid Waste Management Planning for the NRRM, in accordance with the MOE's Environmental Management Act, SBC 2003, c 53. The following subsections outline the Solid Waste Management Planning process, including deliverables and consultation activities.
Stage 1 – Analysis of Existing System
Stage 1 involved a thorough review of the current solid waste management system, including social, environmental, and economic impacts, generation rates and diversion rates. The NRRM's Stage 1 Report is included as Appendix A and contains an assessment of the following:
• Waste composition in the NRRM by material.
• The waste collection, landfilling, and recycling operations in the Region prior to 2014.
• The financial structure of the system prior to 2014.
Stage 2 – Development of Strategies
This Stage 2 Report presents a review and evaluation of the strategies and options available to the NRRM for addressing future solid waste management requirements. Specifically, a number of collection and processing strategies are introduced and discussed (Section 3.0), as well as several other mechanisms/tools aimed at increasing diversion and reducing waste landfilling in the NRRM (Section 4.0). All of these options are comparatively evaluated in terms of social, environmental, and financial considerations (Section 6.0). Other highlights of the Stage 2 Report include:
• Contingency planning for the system and management of emergencies (Section 5.0).
• Service fees available to NRRM to recover system costs and their structure (Section 7.0).
• Financial analysis modelling of the waste management strategies and mechanisms and the recommended strategies for implementation (Section 8.0).
• The implementation schedule for the recommended waste management strategies and mechanisms (Section 9.0).
The process for review and acceptance of the Stage 2 Report will occur over the fall of 2015 and winter of 2016 and generally consist of the following milestones, with green representing completed steps, yellow representing current status, and blue representing upcoming activities:
Prior to seeking input from the public, the NRRM must develop a Public Review and Consultation Process (PRCP) Plan, a Public Advisory Committee (PAC), and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to lead the consultation process. The PAC is formed by NRRM staff, one or more NRRM councilors, and an industry representative. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the proposed PAC have been developed by the NRRM. The TAC is formed by NRRM staff and a NRRM councilor. The PRCP plan must be approved by the BC MOE Regional Manager. A public consultation process
Fall 2014
•Submission of Stage 1 Report to NRRM •Submission of Draft Stage 2 Report to NRRM Staff (including Stage 1 Report)
Jan Sept.
2015
•Jan: NRRM Staff review of Draft Stage 2 Report •Feb: NRRM Staff comments into revised Draft Stage 2 Report •Sept: Presentation of Draft Stage 2 Report by NRRM staff to NRRM Council
Nov. Dec.
2015
•Nov: NRRM Council comments into revised Draft Stage 2 Report •Nov: Presentation of revised Draft Stage 2 Report to NRRM Council •Nov: NRRM Council comments into revised Draft Stage 2 Report •Dec: Develop Public Review and Consultation Process (PRCP) design •Dec: Submit PRCP design to BC MOE Regional Manager
Fall 2015
•Acceptance of PRCP design by MOE Regional Manager •Establish Public and Technical Advisory Committees (PAC & TAC) to lead public consultation process
Nov. 2015 June 2016
•PAC and TAC review of Draft Stage 2 Report •Public consultation process •Public's comments into Final Stage 2 Report •Submit Draft Stage 2 Report to MOE Regional Manager
July Sept.
2016
•MOE Regional Manager review of Draft Stage 2 Report •MOE Regional Manager comments into Draft Stage 2 Report •Submit approved Final Stage 2 Report to MOE
extended over the winter 2016 will ensure that residents have sufficient time and resources to voice their comments and concerns and have them responded to fully by NRRM staff. Additionally, the timing of this process during the peak season will offer representation to seasonal residents and workers. While the specific components and structure of the public consultation program will be determined by NRRM staff, several or all of the following items are generally included:
• Creation of a distinct brand for the SWMP initiatives and changes, including slogan and logo.
• Website presenting SWMP initiatives and changes to the existing program.
• Social media presence (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) and online advertising to further promote the SWMP and direct traffic to the website.
• Advertising in public facilities (community centre notice boards) and on billboards or other outdoor spaces.
• Mailed flyers and surveys with postage-paid return envelopes.
• Upon implementing one or more of the major 1-5 year initiatives, increased staffing of telephone services to field questions from residents.
Upon conclusion of the public consultation process, this Stage 2 Report will be updated to include NRRM and public comments and will be submitted to the BC MOE Regional Manager for review and approval.
Stage 3 – SWMP Implementation
Following submission of the Final Stage 2 Report to the MOE and its acceptance, the NRRM will implement the proposed SWMP strategies and programs and will support monitoring and evaluation activities. A Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) will be established to coordinate review and monitoring of the SWMP implementation and recommend corrective actions to address issues or concerns encountered during SWMP implementation. The NRRM will develop TOR to guide the PMAC's monitoring and evaluation activities, and the TOR will be reviewed and approved by the MOE Regional Manager, the PAC, and TAC prior to being issued to the PMAC and public.
Public consultations will be held throughout the SWMP implementation process, in accordance with the approved PRCP design, allowing for continuing development of the SWMP, and as needed, changes to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 SWMP Reports. Any changes required will be submitted to the MOE Regional Manager in writing as Plan Amendments, along with justification, for review and approval.
3. Potential Waste Management Strategies
Given that the Stage 1 Report (Appendix A) described the existing solid waste management system and waste characterization, this report is centered on the potential waste management strategies that may be implemented within the NRRM. Careful consideration must be given to all of the available options in terms of collection and processing (diversion and disposal) in order to set achievable goals, and to determine the best mix of strategies and technologies that will be able to meet the NRRM's needs.
Strategies for waste collection activities fall under three categories: curbside collection, central depots or landfills for public drop-off, and backyard composters. This Section details the various alternatives that may be implemented for each category. The categories are considered to be the three ways in which collection can occur, and are thus meant to be complementary to each other and should be implemented concurrently, where appropriate, to accommodate residents and improve diversion.
Curbside Collection
A majority of municipalities in Canada today provide some form of residential curbside collection of municipal solid waste (MSW) and most also collect recyclables and organic waste on the same day. This service may be operated by the municipality or by a contracted private company, and is generally funded through utility fees, paid "bag-and-tag" stickers, or property taxes to the municipality. MSW, recyclables, and organics collected at the curbside are put out by residents in one of three containers – wheeled carts, bags, or boxes – and selecting the container type for the program is an important efficiency and cost consideration. MSW has historically been collected in bags, but many municipalities are transitioning to carts for the reduced labour requirements associated with automated cart collection. In the 2013 Collection System Review conducted for NRRM, GHD reviewed and analyzed a number of available collection systems for MSW (GHD, 2013a). Residents of the Fort Nelson Townsite previously had the option for curbside pickup under a bag-and-can system operated by Wide Sky. In 2013, Wide Sky served notice that they would discontinue the service for financial reasons. This issue was brought to NRRM Council on August 12, 2013. NRRM Council voted to implement a formal Curbside Collection program for the Fort Nelson Townsite at the following council meeting, held September 11, 2013.
The NRRM Collection System Review was conducted to evaluate various methods of curbside collection for MSW and determine the best options for implementing a collection program for the Fort Nelson Townsite only. The review included consideration of:
• Collection systems used in nearby, Northern municipalities.
• Collection systems used by other municipalities in BC and Alberta with similar geography and demographics to the townsite of Fort Nelson.
• Other commercially available collection systems.
In evaluating the above systems, the following parameters were considered:
Automated and manual collection systems were reviewed and evaluated. In addition, key differences and pros and cons between private and in-house delivery of services was also reviewed. Based on the review of commercially available collection systems and of systems used by other municipalities, it was recommended that the NRRM move to implement a system with the following characteristics:
• Automated cart-and-arm system.
• Delivery by private contractor.
• 65 gallon carts, owned by the municipality.
• Waste collection only for the present time.
The following factors were influential in this recommendation:
• In-house system vs. Private contractor:
– Lower capital cost
– Reduced strain on public works department
– No need for in-house experience in waste collection
• Reduced health and safety risk for a cart-and-arm vs. bag-and-can system:
– Reduced heavy lifting requirements
– Reduced contact with waste
– Lower exposure to elements
• Less manpower required to implement vs. bag-and-can.
• Easily scalable in the event of future expansion or addition of recycling.
• Municipal ownership of carts allows easy tracking of service fees and eligibility.
• Meets the NRRM council's intent when deciding to implement a curbside collection system and meets the needs and requirements of Fort Nelson residents.
It was proposed that users of the curbside program meet the following requirements in order to be eligible:
• Be residential buildings with curbside access such as single family, duplex, triplex etc.
• Properties must fall within the proposed service areas.
• No commercial or industrial locations are eligible.
• No Government buildings are eligible.
• No apartment buildings, strata or trailer parks are eligible.
The following materials are not accepted under the curbside collection program:
• Construction and demolition wastes (i.e., asphalt, concrete, etc.)
• Tires
NRRM introduced the cart-based MSW curbside collection system in early July of 2014. Collection of recyclables and organics are not planned for NRRM at this time, but the collection system currently in place may accommodate future recyclable and organics collection. Given that the delivery of the collection services will be via a private contractor, NRRM may amend the contract or release a new RFP to include additional materials collection.
Like MSW, recyclables can be collected in bags, carts or boxes. Organics may be collected in carts or bags. There is also the opportunity for NRRM to participate in the Multi Materials British Columbia (MMBC) paper and packing collection incentive program, which they could "opt-in". In this case, MMBC, an industry stewardship organization, would provide funding for the NRRM or a private company (it should be noted that Wide Sky operates as an MMBC depot already) to provide curbside collection services for residents. This would offset costs for a recycling collection system that would otherwise need to be funded through utility fee, paid "bag-and-tag" sticker, or property tax means. NRRM is currently on the wait list for the MMBC program.
Commercial and Industrial Collection
Commercial and industrial waste is collected by private haulers from work camps around the NRRM, generally to support oil and gas activities and remote camps.
Central Depots and Landfills
Central depots and landfills for public drop-off are most appropriate for rural areas, due to the low population density and the distance between collection points. All waste streams may be accepted, and the costs of implementing this strategy are low and consist only of staffing the relevant sites and transferring materials from them to disposal or processing. With the NRRM implementing curbside collection of MSW only, drop-off at central depots and/or landfills for recyclables and organics is a potential solution for consideration. These items are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.
Wide Sky operates an existing depot that accepts all residential MMBC material.
Backyard Composting
Backyard composters provide a decentralized method for managing organic wastes, but are only suitable for single family residences. The key benefit of backyard composting is the reduction in the amount of food waste (vegetables, fruits) going into the MSW stream and the amount to be processed by the municipality, in the case of source separated organics (SSO) collection. Specific to the NRRM, which currently does not collect SSO, this strategy is an attractive way to reduce the burden of MSW collection and disposal.
Since this strategy is implemented by residents and not NRRM, education on what can go in the composters, how and when to turn the material and other procedures is important. Backyard composting is discussed further in Section 3.2 of this report.
Strategies for waste processing activities are classified based on material type: recyclables, compost, and product stewardship materials (tires, fluorescent light bulbs, packaging and printed paper (PPP)). This Section details the various processing alternatives for each material type.
Waste reduction is generally viewed as the best waste management strategy since it precludes having to manage the waste in the first place. Producing zero waste is the ultimate goal for all municipalities; although attaining this goal is highly unrealistic given the current approach towards waste by society as a whole.
In conjunction with waste reduction, diverting waste through the implementation of reuse, recycling, and composting programs can significantly extend the life of a landfill by directing waste away from disposal. The Green Municipal Fund of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identifies the following four keys to designing a successful waste diversion program (FCM, 2009):
1. Provide convenient options
2. Educate stakeholders & promote the program
3. Introduce supportive policies & legislation
4. Establish partnerships & collaborate
As identified in the four key points above, simply implementing a SWMP is not enough to reduce the volume of waste ending up in a landfill. Successful diversion programs must be coupled with complimentary policies and regulations that enforce diversion practices, and must also include a strong educational component to both teach new habits and promote participation among residents. Section 3 further explores the policies, regulations, educational programs, and enforcement activities that need to be implemented with any successful diversion program.
There are many diversion program options - and combinations thereof - available, each with its own rate of success and associated implementation costs, and it is important that NRRM identify and implement the program most appropriate to meet their needs. The waste management and diversion programs available to NRRM when developing its overall SWMP generally include:
• Recycling
– Recycling depot
– Curbside collection
• Diversion of Organics:
– Composting depot
– Backyard composters
– Curbside organic collection
• Product Stewardship Materials
• Household Hazardous Waste (HHW):
– Drop-off depot
• Other Items (e.g., textiles, furniture, bulky items):
Establishing a collection or drop-off program for recyclable materials, either through depot or curbside collection programs, would increase NRRM's diversion rate. Recyclables may consist of glass, metal, paper, and/or plastic. Generally, the two largest costs associated with recycling programs are the collection and processing of the recyclable material.
Due to its small population size and recyclable material tonnages, NRRM has a low economy of scale for handling recyclables and is also a considerable distance from recyclable material processors and markets (namely Prince George). As such, NRRM is best suited to contract this service with a private operator. While in some cases, partnering with neighbouring municipalities in order to pool diversion resources would be advantageous, GHD does not believe that this is a viable option for NRRM.
NRRM may procure the services of a private collector and processor of recyclable materials that may include the following:
• Recyclable containers (food and beverage glass bottles and jars; metal food and beverage cans; aluminum foil, foil plates and foil trays; empty and dry paint, stains and coating cans with the lids removed; #1 (PET) plastics, #2 (HDPE) plastics, #4, #5 (polypropylene), plastics other than #2 or bags; aseptic packaging such as drink boxes; polycoat containers such as milk and juice cartons)
• Recyclable papers (household paper, including junk mail, writing paper, computer paper, non-foil; gift wrap, non-foil greeting cards and envelopes; paper egg cartons; paper rolls; paper bags, other than treated bags, such as flour, sugar, potato and pet food bags; newspaper and inserts; magazine, catalogues and glossies; telephone directories; soft covered books and hard covered books)
• Recyclable cardboard and clean, un-waxed corrugated cardboard and box board
Collection of the recyclables may be on a curbside pickup basis (as in Fort Nelson) or via drop-off depots in rural areas. In order to ensure maximum participation and, in turn, higher diversion rates, it is essential that the recycling program be designed to not only target single-family homes, but also any multi-family buildings as well as industrial, commercial, and institutional sources from the start, rather than trying to engage these stakeholders later on. Generally curbside recycling programs have higher participation than depot programs and result in higher capture rates.
Recycling Depot
A recycling depot may consist of one or more large bins (depending on whether the program intends to collect single-stream or multi-stream recycling), each labelled to indicate the material(s) acceptable to deposit, where members of the public can drop off their recyclable materials. If the recycled material from NRRM will be trucked to a single-stream processing facility, it would be most efficient to implement a single-stream collection program in NRRM (i.e., one bin for all recyclables). If the recycled material will be sold to market, then separating the material (i.e., providing multiple bins for different recyclables) may be more efficient.
The capital costs associated with establishing a recycling depot are minimal, consisting essentially only of the purchase of bins - assuming municipal property (i.e., the landfill) will be used for the depot location - with additional minimal costs for signage and educating/informing residents about the program at the outset.
An ongoing education and promotion campaign will also need to be in place to ensure sustained participation in the program. 2012 figures estimate the costs for operating a recycling depot in the rural north (in Ontario) to be approximately $649 per tonne of recyclable material as compared to approximately $540 per tonne in the rural south (WDO, 2012).
Conversely, if NRRM were to use a private depot, the costs associated with this would be limited to the procurement of a contractor and managing the selected contractor.
Curbside Recycling Program
As previously discussed, NRRM has implemented a curbside collection program in Fort Nelson focused on MSW in the short-term, with the potential to expand to curbside recycling. Curbside recycling involves the regular pick-up of recyclables from each household, either simultaneously with regular garbage pick-up, on alternating weeks, or on a separate day. Beyond the initial capital investment in household recycling bins and public education, the additional costs associated with the implementation of a curbside recycling program will depend on the collection method. If the municipality were to collect recycling on the same day as regular garbage pick-up, investment in a truck that could handle both streams would be required; however, if recycling and garbage pick-up took place on different days, the same truck could be utilized both days.
Operating costs would include weekly/bi-weekly household pick-up (salary for the truck driver) as well as transport to either a transfer station or processing facility. There would also be some additional operating costs for ongoing education and promotion campaigns to ensure sustained stakeholder participation. Participation in curbside recycling programs is generally higher than that for recycling depots, as less effort is required on the part of the residents in order to participate (i.e., more convenient). According to the Statistics Canada report Recycling by Canadian Households, 2007 (Munro, 2010), households without curbside recycling pickup were less likely to recycle (92 percent versus 98 percent) and less likely to recycle all their waste (34 percent versus 55 percent) in 2007.
Capital and Operating costs to NRRM may be limited to procurement of a private contractor and managing the selected contractor.
3.2.2 Organics
Organic waste (including leaf and yard waste) makes up about 40 percent of residential waste (FCM, 2009), therefore, diverting the organic portion (or parts thereof) of the waste stream away from the landfill would result in a significant increase in the diversion rate for NRRM. It should be noted, however, that there is the potential to utilize leaf and yard waste for daily cover at the landfill. This would then not factor in to NRRM's overall diversion rate.
Compost Depot
A compost depot may consist of one or more large bins, each labelled to indicate the material(s) acceptable to deposit, where members of the public can drop off their organic waste. The Capital costs associated with establishing a compost depot are minimal, consisting essentially only of the purchase of bins - assuming municipal property (i.e., landfill) will be used for the depot location - with additional minimal costs for signage and educating/informing residents about the program. The depot may be monitored (necessitating employment of a monitor during operating hours) or unmonitored, and will require regular collection (weekly or bi-weekly) for transfer of
organics to either a transfer station or processing facility. Months of operation and acceptable material would need to be determined, with typical examples operating from May to October and accepting only branches, tree stumps, leaves, grass clippings, and other garden products (i.e., leaf and yard waste only).
Backyard Composters
Material acceptable for backyard composters include "greens", such as fruit and vegetable scraps, coffee grounds, grass clippings, plant trimmings, house plants, cut flowers, tea bags, and egg shells; and "browns", such as dry leaves, wood chips, sawdust, straw, and twigs. Material not acceptable for backyard composters includes fatty foods, butter, oil and salad dressing, diseased or insect - infected plants, stubborn weeds such as crab grass, dog and cat feces, weeds with mature seeds, meat, bones, and fish scraps. The capital investment associated with implementing a backyard composting program would include the purchase of backyard composters – these could also be offered to interested residents at cost, requiring no capital investment from NRRM – and public education programs. There are no operational costs to NRRM associated with backyard composting.
Curbside Organic Collection
Curbside organic collection involves the regular pick-up of organic waste from each household, either simultaneously with regular garbage pick-up or on a separate day. Beyond the initial Capital investment in household organic waste bins and public education, the additional costs associated with the implementation of a curbside organic collection program will depend on the collection method. If the municipality were to collect organic waste on the same day as regular garbage pick-up, investment in a truck that could handle both streams would be required; however, if organic waste and garbage pick-up took place on different days, the same truck could be utilized both days. Operating costs would include weekly household pick-up (salary for the truck driver) as well as transport to either a transfer station or processing facility.
Capital and Operating costs to NRRM may be limited to procurement of a private contractor and managing the selected contractor.
Wood Waste
Wood waste accounts for up to 8 percent of all waste in the NRRM, based on previous composition studies (Appendix A), and represents an easy target for increased diversion. It's seasonal and outdoor nature, as well as its lack of odour, make wood waste easy to collect and stockpile separately from other waste streams. Processing generally consists of stockpiling, and grinding, after which the wood chips may be used by the NRRM for landscaping projects or sold to residents and businesses for similar purposes. Wood waste received at the landfill can be stockpiled on a gravel pad to allow sufficient drainage, and a grinder may be rented and operated intermittently as sufficient quantities are stored.
3.2.3 Product Stewardship Materials and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Product Stewardship programs are another avenue for consideration when developing this SWMP. Stewardship programs for HHW and recyclables are increasing within BC and will continue to do so in the coming years. In accordance with the BC Recycling Regulation, mandatory waste management programs have been established for the numerous categories of products, as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Product Stewardship Programs and Processors for HHW and Recylables in BC
Stewardship Material Processor
Smoke and CO Alarms AlarmRecycle
Antifreeze, lubricating oil, oil filters, oil containers British Columbia Used Oil Management Association
Consumer and industrial lead-acid batteries Canadian Battery Association
Rechargeable batteries, non-rechargeable batteries (alkaline, UPS and lithium) and cell phones
Call2Recycle
Electronic products (major producers and retailers) Electronic Products Recycling Association (not-for-profit operating under the brand Return-It™ Electronics)
Small electronic products, such as microwaves, vacuum cleaners and electric toothbrushes
Lighting products, from lamps to flashlights to light bulbs (includes residential, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors)
LightRecycle
Leftover medicines Post-Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship Association
Electrical outdoor power equipment Outdoor Power Equipment Institute of Canada
Flammable liquids, paint, domestic pesticide and gasoline
Product Care
Old thermostats Switch the 'Stat
Mobile handsets, accessories, and wireline telecommunication equipment
TELUS Return and Recycle Program
Scrap tires Tire Stewardship BC
Printed paper and packaging materials MMBC
Currently in the NRRM, recyclables are accepted at the Wide Sky depot.
The education factor with respect to the product stewardship programs is key to ensuring residents are aware of the programs and utilize them to the greatest extent possible. Establishing and maintaining the stewardship collection depots or drop-off areas is also crucial to ensuring increased participation occurs.
House Hold Hazardous Waste (HHW) Drop-off Depot
A HHW drop-off depot would have the same general concept as a recycling depot in that residents could drop their HHW off at an established depot location during regular operating hours, but, given the potential danger associated with handling and accumulating large volumes of HHW, HHW drop-off depots are not able to operate entirely under the same "self-service" model. Once at the
depot, rather than sorting the HHW themselves, residents would hand it over to the depot attendant who would then sort it into the appropriate bins.
The capital costs associated with establishing a HHW depot are minimal, consisting essentially only of the purchase of bins - assuming municipal property will be used for the depot location - with additional minimal costs for signage and educating/informing residents about the program at the outset.
As mentioned, the depot would need to be staffed by an attendant during operating hours. As HHW does not make up a large portion of NRRM's waste stream, the depot would not need to be open more than one or two days per week. To avoid accumulating large volumes of HHW, the depot would require regular collection (i.e., bi-weekly or monthly) for transport of HHW to transfer stations or processing facilities. An ongoing education and promotion campaign will also need to be in place to ensure sustained participation in the program.
Beyond the minimized risk to the environment associated with diverting HHW from landfill, the main benefit of operating an HHW drop-off depot is that residents are able to properly dispose of their HHW as they generate it.
Capital and operating costs to NRRM may be limited to procurement of a private contractor and managing the selected contractor.
3.2.4 Other Items
Beyond those materials that make up the majority of the existing waste stream in NRRM, there are also other, less-frequently disposed of items that could be diverted from the landfill. These include items such as clothing (including shoes) and other textiles, furniture, and bulky objects (such as refrigerators, couches, washing machines, etc.). Keeping these materials out of landfills means prolonging their functional lives through reuse. Reuse can be encouraged through providing clothing donation bins, establishing a reuse centre, and/or coordinating with charities.
Clothing Bins
Clothing bins are self-serve drop-off locations for discarding used, clean and non-damaged garments for use by someone else. As these bins are generally operated by charity organizations, beyond providing space in NRRM for the siting of a clothing donation bin, there would be no operational or maintenance costs incurred by NRRM.
Establish Share Shed at Landfill
Share Sheds may accept any number of household items, either in working condition or repairable, for trading and giveaway to the public. While much of this material may eventually end up in a landfill, by reusing – either directly or following repair/refurbishing – its journey to landfill will take longer and will result in a reduced volume of waste being disposed of annually. The most suitable location for a Free Store would be within the drop-off area past the scale house. Capital costs would consist of constructing the Share Shed building, shed, or shelter and some promotional costs to raise awareness of its launch. As existing landfill operations staff could manage and oversee the Store, there would be no operating costs.
Should a household have a large volume of material to donate for reuse, in certain circumstances it may be most efficient to coordinate directly with a charity organization for pick-up. While this sort of arrangement would not be coordinated through NRRM, information and contact coordinates could be provided in literature and educational material provided by NRRM to facilitate use of these programs.
4. Other Mechanisms
Other mechanisms to manage solid waste build on and compliment the primary collection and processing alternatives identified in Section 3.0. These mechanisms have proven effective in other municipalities, and their suitability for NRRM and level of implementation will be determined through public engagement, trials, and consultations.
4.1 Reduction and Reuse Programs
Reduction and reuse programs act as the first step in waste diversion and are generally considered the most favourable approaches in the solid waste management hierarchy (EPA, 2013). The intent of these programs is to prevent recyclable material from entering the collection and processing systems in the first place, and can amount to considerable cost and energy savings resulting from reduced system loads.
As a management approach, reduction is the absolute first in priority, but is the most difficult to implement, as it rests mostly with residents to act upon. As such, actions from the NRRM for this approach should focus on education and outreach (Section 3.6). With the right message, residents can learn of the benefits to waste reduction in the home and the multitude of ways in which it can be accomplished conveniently and without cost.
Reuse programs for consumer food and beverage products are generally modeled on the deposit system, in which consumers pay a deposit on containers and get a refund when they return them, creating a financial incentive to participate. Returned containers are then cleaned and re-introduced into the manufacturing cycle of the food or beverage product. Reuse programs have been highly effective in the beverage and alcohol container industries across Canada. BC's Return It program, operated by Encorp, accepts plastic metal, and wax paper beverage, milk and alcohol containers at a number of licensed locations across the province. In NRRM, this location is the Wide Sky depot in Fort Nelson.
Other reuse programs that should be considered in waste management planning are informal trades, sales, and giveaways between people, whether through thrift stores, yard sales, classifieds, or among friends and family. These transactions tend to occur for higher value items, otherwise known as durable goods (electronics, furniture, and appliances), as wells as books, music, or other multimedia. Planning for and tracking this informal part of the waste management system is difficult, but broad indicators may be determined through discussions with classifieds publishers and thrift stores. This reuse mechanism is independent from the NRRM's waste management system and is thus functionally cost-free and low-risk for the region to support. NRRM should include it as part of the education and outreach campaigns (Section 4.5) to increase awareness and bolster diversion goals for durable goods.
Landfill bans on recyclable materials and organics can be implemented as a hard line approach to prevent disposal of these materials, but for the bans to work there must be existing alternate processing options. Thus, the implementation of any landfill bans should be done in conjunction with the start-up of recycling and/or organics collection programs and processing capacity in the NRRM. Bans can be set to a range of severity and onset schedules, based on the diversion goals of the NRRM. For example, the amount of recyclable or organic materials allowed for disposal (threshold) may be lowered incrementally over a time period. To prevent processing capacity issues when a ban is first implemented, the ban should allow for a surcharge to be paid for tonnages above the threshold being disposed.
Landfill bans are a contemporary approach to diversion and are quickly gaining traction among North American governments and even in the Lower Mainland. Examples of upcoming landfill bans in BC include the organics bans in Metro Vancouver and Victoria. In NRRM, a cardboard ban may be implemented as a longer term option to ensure that this material is diverted. The implementation of this initiative is discussed in detail in Section 9.0. A less strict approach to diverting recyclables and organics than landfill bans involves increases in tipping fees at disposal facilities. Similar to the surcharges that may be applied in an outright ban, a per tonne fee in excess of standard tipping fees may be charged for these materials, creating a financial incentive to divert them. As with the landfill ban, this requires existing infrastructure to divert and process the material.
4.3 Multi-Family
While apartments only make up 23 percent of all dwellings in Fort Nelson (NRRM, 2014), they must be evaluated separately for waste collection as they tend to have lower participation and diversion rates. The lower success seen in multi-family residences is generally due to the greater separation between household (i.e., apartment unit) and collection container, often requiring residents to bring waste and recyclables down elevators or stairs, and creating an inconvenience barrier. Data from other studies suggests that diversion in multi-family can be up to 40 percent lower than for single-family homes (City of Toronto, 2008; Metro Vancouver, 2011). Effective education on how to, where, and when to recycle, and the benefits of doing so, is key to combating the lower diversion rates associated with multi-family residences. Education and outreach are further discussed in Section 3.6.
In addition to education, the NRRM should ensure that the appropriate collection strategies (Section 2.1) are available to building owners/managers. It is common for municipalities to leave collection services up to the individual building owner/manager to subscribe and pay for, while still requiring that they have some level of collection. NRRM may leave actual collection to private companies such as Wide Sky or Tervita, but it should require that all multi-family buildings have these services.
4.4 Partnerships
Partnerships with other companies, organizations, and communities must be considered and will strengthen the system and support increased diversion. A key part of collaboration with these entities is communication of the overall waste system aspects and objectives, and a clear understanding of how the partnership may support diversion aims. From a community perspective, an important partnership that should be developed is with the Fort Nelson and Prophet River First Nations communities in the NRRM. While these communities operate their own waste collection,
recycling, and disposal services, they may benefit from access to the wider NRRM programs, and specific strategies within the systems may be joined to maximize diversion and reduce costs to each party. Collaboration with First Nations should be a continually evolving effort, with regular communication and participation in meetings and events.
Participation in the MMBC paper and packing collection incentive program, starting in 2018, will provide increased financial support for diverting these materials and will strengthen the incentive to collect and process them. Leading up to 2018, communication with MMBC on the progress of and ongoing challenges in waste management will allow participation in the MMBC program to be focused to the particular areas that require the greatest attention in diversion.
A key part of the waste management system consists of contracting activities out to private companies. Beyond these contracts, partnerships can be created for promotional and outreach purposes during advertising campaigns or public events. The most likely form of a partnership would be with a company sponsoring a public event aimed at promoting reuse, recycling, or composting. This would help residents understand the system and put names to those involved in managing waste, further encouraging participation and endorsement by residents.
4.5 Education and Outreach
Successful education and outreach for solid waste management programs must convince residents that the benefits of recycling and other waste diversion strategies far outweigh any additional costs and inconveniences. Such programs can take on a number of forms, ranging from public events to internet websites, but any that are chosen must share the aim of positively educating residents and changing their habits. NRRM has a small and dispersed population and thus requires unique approaches to informing and engaging residents. The traditional big city solutions, such as billboards, transit advertisements, and flyers, are not suitable for NRRM and can be discounted in planning. While the population is dispersed, the internet has created a means for instant access to information, regardless of location and mobility, and should be the focal point of NRRM's education and outreach efforts. Internet-based solutions that should be considered are:
• A dedicated website for NRRM's diversion programs and goals.
• Participation and accounts with social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
• Online advertising with regional newspapers and the NRRM website.
• FAQ and Question and Answer functionality on NRRM websites.
Other cities in BC have created aesthetically pleasing and informative websites for solid waste management, designed to highlight the benefits of diversion and the programs available to residents, in clear and simple ways. Examples include:
• Metro Vancouver's Organics Disposal Ban and Bylaw 280 websites.
• Capital Regional District's Holiday Recycling campaign.
• The Regional District of Nanaimo and City of Nanaimo's Recycling 2014 program changes.
Numerous barriers will need to be addressed with respect to implementing a diversion program, namely the "4 C's": communication, cost, convenience, and compliance. The best way to overcome these barriers is to keep project messaging simple and to communicate and engage with the
residents in a direct and personal manner. Public education programs should be centered around removing the "4 C's" barriers by demonstrating the "3 E's" – that participation is equitable (as in not too costly), easy (make participation as convenient as possible) and engaging (provide some reward or return for participants). Generally, people make rational, well informed decisions that are in their own best interest. Implementing methods that encourage and fosters participation are an absolute requirement of any diversion program in order to increase participation.
Well in advance of rolling out a program, it will be important for NRRM to distribute literature – via newsletters, announcements in the local paper, on the NRRM website, etc. – informing residents about the principals of re-use, recovery and recycling; the diversion program to be implemented; and what will be expected of them.
As noted above, in addition to informing residents, it is vital that a public education program also consult, involve, and collaborate with residents to obtain feedback, ensure their interests are understood and considered, and get their buy-in as partners in NRRM's diversion program. This could be achieved through hosting interactive workshops to provide hands on
demonstrations to describe specific diversion programs in more detail and allow residents to participate and ask questions and/or setting up educational and promotional booths at community events. Should a curbside collection program be established, the municipality will need to coordinate the distribution of household bins, accompanying which should be simple instructions that can be put on residents' fridges or other prominent place in the home to serve as a constant reminder and source of confirmation for residents as to which materials should be placed into which bins.
Each public education event should have a specific strategic target, such as teaching residents which materials are accepted by the blue box program (upon initial roll-out of the diversion program); increasing awareness and encouraging participation through in-classroom projects at local schools; promoting specific programs at key points of the year (e.g., promotion of backyard composting in late winter and early spring); or encouraging the adoption of waste reduction behaviours (e.g., choosing to purchase products with less packaging).
Monitoring and evaluation should be components of the public education strategy, to allow NRRM to adjust programming in response to performance, resident feedback, changes in materials collected or common contamination issues.
Key to the success of whatever diversion program NRRM chooses to implement is that the accompanying public education program be designed to meet the specific needs and perception levels of its residents, and that education remain a priority throughout the life of the diversion program.
Fort Nelson is the largest town in the NRRM and acts as the commercial, institutional, and industrial hub of the region, with a population of 4,800. These organizations contract private companies and are not a part of NRRM's waste management system, but should be considered for education and outreach programs as they employ a large portion of the town. Waste diversion strategies at the workplace are equally as important as those at home, and NRRM can partner with organizations to bring harmonized approaches into the workplace (recycling container types, separation guidelines, battery collection containers, etc.), to create a seamless experience for people at home and at work and minimize confusion on program guidelines (accepted items, sorting, etc.). The following subsection lists the major commercial, institutional, and industrial organizations in Fort Nelson that NRRM may collaborate with on waste diversion strategies.
4.6.1 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sectors
Fort Nelson, referred to as the Shale Gas Capital of Canada, has a strong presence of Canadian and international oil and gas companies. Other industries in the area, including construction, transportation, and equipment rentals, generally support the oil and gas sector in the Region. The commercial sector in Fort Nelson is much like that in other small towns and consists of a variety of retail stores, restaurants, and services. Institutions in the Town of Fort Nelson consist of the Fort Nelson Hospital, Northern Lights College, and School District 81 (Fort Nelson), which has five schools in the area.
Addressing these sectors are critical to the success of the overall waste management strategy, namely, cost recovery and establishing mandatory diversion. The following are some potential strategies that may be implemented for the IC&I sector to recover costs as well as increase overall diversion rates:
• Landfill bans on certain materials (i.e., cardboard).
• Increased tipping fees for waste dropped off at the NRRM Landfill that includes recyclable material. This may encourage source separated recyclables and increase diversion of this material from the landfill.
• Mandatory recycling by-law for IC&I buildings, warehouses, etc. that would ensure each IC&I business and/or building would contract recycling services to meet their needs and the requirements of the by-law.
5. Contingency Planning and Emergency Management
Having well planned and administered contingency measures on hand in the case of emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances will ensure that shocks or disruptions to the system are mitigated. The people responsible, in order of hierarchy, for contingency planning and emergency management for solid waste management in the NRRM consist of:
• Sustainability and Solid Waste Reduction Coordinator
Possible emergencies or circumstances that would disrupt collection or processing activities may include: adverse weather conditions, labour disruptions or reduced staff, processing facility shut-downs, or equipment and vehicle malfunctions. The most appropriate measures and response will depend on whether these events impact collection or processing.
Disruptions to collection and processing can be effectively mitigated or resolved through implementing some or all of the following preventative measures and contingency planning:
• Ensure that there is back-up vehicle and labour capacity in the event of shortages of either.
• Have agreement(s) in place with alternate contractors for collection, in the event that the primary contracted company cannot perform the required services.
• Have agreement(s) in place with alternate processing contractors, municipalities, or facilities, in the event that the primary sites become unavailable.
• Establish contract terms with collection and processing companies to ensure that contingency measures and emergency response actions are agreed upon and defined.
In the event that emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances do occur, the following actions may be taken:
• Procure the services of alternate contractors or municipalities for collection and/or processing, as required.
• Direct residents to drop-off waste and recycling at operating sites, if a disruption to collection cannot be resolved through back-up capacity, negotiations, or alternate contractors, in a timely manner.
Contingency Procedures for Scrap Metal Stockpiling
Scrap metal requires complete and long term management and storage, as recycling markets are located long distances from Fort Nelson. Currently, Wide Sky operates a depot for scrap metal drop-off, sorting, and storage prior to off-Site recycling. Any change to this agreement or disruptions to Wide Sky's scrap metal services would require that the NRRM manage scrap metal generated in the Region until restoration of Wide Sky's services. To ensure that scrap metal accepted at the Fort Nelson Landfill would be handled and sorted safely, the following contingency measures can be taken:
• A minimum 5-acre parcel of land on the Fort Nelson Landfill Site may be designated and marked in Site maps, plans, and manuals stored on Site and in NRRM offices.
• One or more 20 cubic yard steel bins should be designated for scrap metal disposal among landfill operations staff. In the event that scrap metals are brought to the Landfill, staff should empty the designated bins and locate them to existing drop-off or staging areas.
• A set of procedures and safety controls, referencing the two measures above, should be developed by the NRRM and stored on-Site.
• Training should be conducted to educate landfill staff on the procedures and safety controls developed.
• Arrangements with alternate contractors should be in place in the event that scrap metal cannot be safely or effectively managed at the landfill.
6. Comparison of Waste Management Strategies
Based on the preceding sections, five waste management strategy Scenarios were developed for comparative evaluation, each consisting of numerous diversion strategies as shown in Table 6.1. The strategies presented focus on individual materials and waste streams, and several may thus be implemented concurrently to address the whole system. The four Scenarios, from left to right in Table 6.1 represent increasing diversion potential for the NRRM. A fifth Scenario, representing staged implementation from Scenarios 2 to 4 in 5 year increments, was also analyzed. Along with increased management complexity of implementing more diversion strategies comes increased capital and operating costs. The following summarizes the aspects of each Scenario envisioned:
• Scenario 1: Continued use of the existing system would not require any new investment by the NRRM, but would do little to increase diversion beyond the current 3.24 percent rate.
• Scenario 2: Flexible diversion would see the implementation of several new programs: installing recycling and cardboard bins at the landfill, wood waste separation and grinding, implementing a Share Shed at the landfill, conducting a HHW round-up day, and implementing a curbside blue box program.
• Scenario 3: Mandated diversion would introduce a mandatory recycling by-law for residents and businesses, a commercial cardboard recycling program in tandem with a landfill cardboard ban, and the installation of a HHW depot at the landfill to support the existing HHW landfill ban. Commercial cardboard would be baled at the landfill and shipped to market in Prince George.
• Scenario 4: Comprehensive diversion would introduce a curbside source separated organics (SSO) collection program and the installation of a compost pad at the landfill.
• Scenario 5: Staged implementation of Scenarios 2 to 4 with the following milestones
– Years 1-5: Flexible diversion initiatives (Scenario 2)
– Years 6-10: Mandated diversion initiatives (Scenario 3)
– Years 11-25: Comprehensive diversion initiatives (Scenario 4)
Recycling bins at landfill and encourage recycling for residents
Separate wood waste from landfill and grind for landfill cover and landscaping Implement a Share Shed at the landfill
HHW round-up day Curbside blue box collection program
Organics composting pad at landfill and organics public drop-off
54%
to L
andf
ill >
Curbside organics collection program Mandatory recycling by-law
Commercial cardboard recycling and baling Ban cardboard from landfill
Implement a HHW depot at the landfill
46%
to
Land
fill >
Ban organics from landfill
<43%
-->
to L
andf
ill
Tipping fees would be updated to the amounts shown in Table 6.2 for all scenarios in 2017. The balance between higher diversion and the associated cost impact to the NRRM has been evaluated in the Financial Analysis model (Section 8.0).
Table 6.2 Current and Proposed Tipping Fee Schedule for the Fort Nelson Landfill
Material Category Current Fee Proposed Baseline Fee
Unit Amount Received (2014)
Mixed waste - small loads (<200 kg)
$5 $10 /load Included in large load tonnage.
Commercial small loads $10 $10 /load Mixed waste - large loads (>200 kg)
$40 $50 /tonne 11,519
Mixed waste – out of region N/A $150 /tonne Clean wood waste (3" diameter and lower)
Note: (1) Proposed Baseline Fee indicates base value, before any increases are made to compensate for increased diversion under the implementation scenarios.
Table 6.3 presents the anticipated diversion rate associated with each diversion initiative, as well as their estimated capital and operating costs, with assumptions and references indicated. The diversion estimates shown were developed through an analysis of potential contribution each initiative would have on the overall diversion rate in the NRRM, based on composition data (Table 8.2) and the relative influence anticipated for each strategy.
The maximum target diversion rate that could be achieved under each category, assuming the implementation of all scenarios, was determined from data under an 81 percent provincial recovery scenario for the province of BC, contained in a report titled "Zero Waste Business Case: Draft for Expert Review" prepared for the BC Environmental Standards Branch (Hood, 2013).
Capital and operating costs were developed from GHD's experiences in BC and other sources, as noted. The diversion rates and costs associated with each initiative were then totaled to generate the diversion estimates and total costs for each Scenario. In cash flow modeling, it was assumed that reaching the target weighted diversion rate for each scenario would occur over a ramp up period of 5 years.
While the targeted diversion rate under the 81 percent provincial recovery rate scenario represents the best case for the initiatives in the NRRM, it is likely that actual diversion would be lower. Utilizing data under a 62 percent recovery from the same report (Hood, 2013); forecasted diversion rates were applied in the modelling as better representative of the actual performance of the initiatives, for conservative purposes.
Table 6.3 Cost Estimates and Diversion Initiatives and their Contribution to Overall Diversion
Initiative Target Diversion Rate
Capital Cost Operation Cost
Cost Note Cost Note
Recycling bins at landfill and encourage recycling for residents.
5% $100,000 Construct 2 additional bin bays.
$3,500 For bin servicing by Wide Sky.
Conduct waste audits at landfill scale house and at Wide Sky.
0% $20,880 Waste audits conducted at start (2017) and end (2021) of five year implementation period.
$0 No operating costs for waste audits.
Separate wood waste from landfill and grind.
2% $10,000 Gravel pad and cover for wood storage.
$50,000 Annual tub grinder rental and operation.
Implement a Share Shed at the landfill.
2% $100,000 Construct Share Shed structure.
$0 None. Within landfill operations.
HHW round-up day. 1% $5,000 Transfer bins and promotional materials.
$30,000 Hazardous waste contractor and 2 NRRM staff, waste removal.
Curbside blue box collection program.
12% $12,000 Blue box supply cost of $10 per box per household, including shipping.
$150,000 Equal to the current costs of MSW collection (total collection costs are doubled).
Table 6.4 provides a summary of the evaluation of each of the Scenarios from social, environmental, and financial considerations.
Table 6.4 Solid Waste Management Scenarios and Social, Environmental, and Financial Considerations
Scenario Social Environmental Financial
Scenario 1 – Existing System
• Limits the engagement and involvement of sectors in responsible solid waste management.
• Minimal diversion achieved.
• Large dependence on landfill (GHG emissions remain the same).
• Minimal capital costs. • Low annual operating cost.
Scenario 2 – Flexible Diversion
• Increases the engagement and involvement of a majority of sectors in responsible solid waste management.
• Moderate diversion achieved.
• Less dependence on landfill reduction (GHG emissions remain the same).
• Slightly increased GHG emissions from trucking.
• Low capital costs. • Low annual operating cost. • Slightly shifts costs from
landfilling to diversion. • Slightly less tipping fees
collected.
Scenario 3 – Mandated Diversion
• Increases the engagement and involvement of a majority of sectors in responsible solid waste management.
• Moderate diversion achieved.
• Minimal dependence on landfill (GHG emissions decrease).
• Increased GHG emissions from trucking.
• Moderate capital costs. • Moderate annual operating
cost. • Shifts costs from landfilling
to diversion. • Less tipping fees collected.
Scenario 4 – Comprehensive Diversion
• Increases the engagement and involvement of the most sectors in responsible solid waste management.
• Support for local economic development.
• Minimal dependence on landfill (significant GHG emission reductions due to increase in organics diversion).
• Significantly increased GHG emissions from trucking.
• Maximum diversion achieved.
• Higher capital costs. • High annual operating cost. • Significantly shifts costs from
landfilling to diversion. • Significantly less tipping fees
collected.
Scenario 5 – Staged Implementation
• Balance of Scenarios 2-4 above over time.
• Balance of Scenarios 2-4 above over time.
• Balance of Scenarios 2-4 above over time.
7. Service Fees and Revenue Structure The NRRM has identified a strategic objective of obtaining full cost recovery in funding the proposed waste management strategies identified in Section 6.0, in which capital and operating costs associated with the programs are offset through revenues generated in service provision. There are three types of revenue available to the NRRM's system for cost recovery, which are presented in order of favourability:
1. Tipping fees levied at the landfill and collection depot(s)
2. Service fees levied at each household for collection
3. Contributions from general tax revenue
Each of these revenue streams are discussed in detail in the following subsections.
Tipping fees at the landfill and collection depot(s) for waste and non-recyclable goods (i.e., large bulky items, asbestos) can be considered the preferred form of revenue for NRRM from a diversion standpoint, as they provide a financial disincentive for landfilling and have a dynamic role in diversion rates. As diversion increases under the implementation of one or more waste management strategies, the amount of waste received for landfilling is expected to decrease, with a corresponding decrease in tipping fee revenues for NRRM. To balance this shortfall, there are two options available: increase tipping fee rates for the waste that is landfilled, or increase the subsidy from general revenues. The dynamic between tipping fees and diversion rates is a key consideration to evaluating the options available, as will be further discussed in Section 7.0.
Table 6.2 presents the NRRM's current tipping fees for material categories, and the proposed ones that would be brought in as baseline values under the implementation of the waste management strategies. Only those material categories with known quantities were included in financial modeling (highlighted blue).
7.2 Curbside Collection Service Fees
Service fees for curbside household waste and recycling collection are more predictable than tipping fees, as they are not inversely related to diversion but are instead dependent on the number of households. Considering the rapid population growth rate of the NRRM and the corresponding increase in the number of occupied households that is anticipated, this means that service fee revenues will see steady, sustained increases over years, as new households are brought into the system. With the current collection service fee at $200 per household and an estimated 1,200 households participating as of 2014 this stream represents a significant portion of total revenues in the system, and will serve to provide consistent revenue under the implementation of any of the waste management strategies identified.
7.3 General Tax Revenue Contribution
The least favourable revenue stream available to fund the waste management system is the general tax revenue pool. Much like curbside collection fees levied on households, property taxes are highly predictable and tied to population and household numbers, not waste. Directing money from the general income pool to waste management system operations will reduce the funding available to another municipal service, and considering this constraint, it could be considered a last resort. However, general income is generated from all property designations, including commercial and industrial sites, and as such, has a far broader reach than tipping or services fees, extending well beyond Fort Nelson into all facility locations in the NRRM.
8. Financial Analysis
8.1 Financial Modeling Overview
Financial modeling was conducted to estimate system costs under each of the Waste Management Scenarios and for a range of cost recovery alternatives, whereby the NRRM can fund system capital and operating costs through levying higher user fees and budgeting from general revenues. Cash flow net present value (NPV) and cost recovery, as well as overall diversion rates and landfill tipping fees, were calculated for a series of waste management scenarios and cost recovery
alternatives, the results of which were comparatively assessed to determine the most cost effective diversion structure available to NRRM. A 25-year implementation period (Study Period) was applied to the model to represent the long-term progression of diversion initiatives.
Sensitivity analysis on key input parameters was performed to model the impact of changes such as costs, diversion rates, and tipping fees.
Separate cash flow analyses were conducted for each of the Waste Management Strategy Scenarios presented in Section 6.
As identified in Section 7, cost recovery is an important budgeting consideration, and there are several options available to NRRM to minimize general revenue contributions to the system while maximizing diversion. To assess these options, a series of cost recovery alternatives were assessed under each Waste Management Strategy Scenario, as follows:
• Alternative 0: tipping fees are raised to the levels proposed (Table 6.2) and service hours are unchanged.
• Alternative 1: tipping fees for large loads of mixed waste (Table 6.2) are raised to match system costs.
• Alternative 2: service hours are reduced to match system revenues, to a minimum of 50 percent of current service hours.
• Alternative 3: service hours are reduced by 25 percent and tipping fees for large loads of mixed waste are raised to match system revenues and costs.
• Alternative 4: service is reduced to 6 days per week (closed Sundays) and tipping fees are raised to match system revenues and costs.
• Alternative 5: tipping fees for large loads of mixed waste are changed such that revenues equal approximately 50 percent of system costs, with the remaining 50 percent covered by general revenue.
8.2 Inputs and Assumptions
Table 8.1 (following the report text) presents a full list of the input parameters and assumptions for the model, based on current system operation and budget estimates. The following key inputs are noted:
• The landfill is currently open and operating 48 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, including holiday closures. An equivalent hourly landfill operation cost of $216 was assumed to apply.
• There are 1,100 households currently receiving curbside collection with an annual user fee of $200 per household.
• The NRRM’s current system diversion rate is 3.24 percent (Table 1.1).
• Inflation was assumed to remain constant at 2 percent annually, and a 5 percent discount rate (nominal) was assumed.
• The analysis was conducted over a 25 year Study Period.
• A population growth rate of 22 percent was observed over a 21 year period (1990-2011), as reported in Statistics Canada's 2011 census by BC Stats, which translates to an annual growth rate of 1 percent. This growth rate was equated to growth in the number of households and waste generation in the NRRM for simplicity.
Table 8.2 below presents the composition data for the NRRM waste stream, based on averaged values for the province, as reported in the Stage 1 Report (GHD, 2013b). For simplicity, non-landfilled (diverted) materials were sorted into the following three categories, representing the broader targets of diversion initiatives: recyclables (containers and fibers), organics, and household hazardous waste (HHW) and durable goods (i.e., electronics, tools). In addition to the reported average values, low and high range estimates were made and analyzed to assess sensitivity of the strategies to composition.
Table 8.2 Waste Composition Data
Material Low Reported High
Organics 35% 40% 45%
Paper 12% 17% 22%
Plastic 8% 13% 18%
Multi-material 3% 8% 13%
Textiles & rubber 1% 6% 11%
Other 0% 5% 10%
Wood 0% 3% 8%
Ferrous 0% 3% 8%
Glass 0% 1% 5%
Renovation 0% 2% 5%
Non-ferrous 0% 1% 5%
Hazardous waste 0% 0% 5%
Note: Blue text indicates materials under the recyclables category Green text indicates materials under the organics category Red text indicates materials under the HHW/durable goods category Paper consists of: 26.1% newsprint, 36.6% mixed paper, 37.3% cardboard (Hood, 2013)
Table 8.3 below presents the NRRM's 2015 budget allocation for landfill and collection system operations. The total system cost represents the baseline cost in the modeling, with additional capital and operating costs incurred under each of the Waste Management Strategy Scenarios, specific to the diversion initiatives applicable to each. The anticipated capital and operating costs associated with each diversion initiative under each Scenario were previously presented in Table 6.4, along with justification for the estimates.
Table 8.3 Budget Allocation to Solid Waste Management
Budget Item Annual Budgeted Amount
Landfill Planning Engineering services $50,000
Landfill Operations Engineering services $13,000
Professional services $35,000
Contract services $540,000
Total $588,000
Landfill Expansion
New 60,000 m3 cells (1) $245,500
Cell construction frequency 2-3 years with current disposal rates.
Table 8.3 Budget Allocation to Solid Waste Management
Budget Item Annual Budgeted Amount
Landfill Closure
Professional services $37,000
Contract services $63,000
Rural Collections (2)
Contract services $170,000
Curbside Waste Collections (2)
Contract services $150,000
Diversion
Contract services $0
Total $1,891,500 Notes:
(1) Cells 1-4 assumed to be constructed prior to 2016, so capital costs for these cells are not included. Based on the cell 4
construction cost of $245,000 and a capacity of 29,000 tonnes of waste per cell.
(2) Curbside bins assumed to have a 10 year life, starting from 2014. Purchase cost of $130,000 for 1,100 carts.
8.3 Model Results and Discussion
Tables 8.4A to 8.4E (following the report text) present the anticipated cash flows for each Waste Management Strategy Scenario (1 through 5, respectively) over the Study Period. Within each table, separate cash flows are presented under each Cost Recovery Alternative, indicating the tipping fee and level of service structures that result in breakeven (zero) NPV values. Table 8.5 below presents the NPVs of the Strategy Scenarios with no cost recovery considered (i.e., general revenue makes up for funding shortfall).
Table 8.5 NPV and Cost Recovery Results for Scenarios under No Cost Recovery
Waste Management Strategy Scenario 25 Year NPV of Costs Cost Recovery (%)
Key findings of the modeling with respect to system costs under each of the Scenarios (Table 8.5) include:
• The contribution from general revenue to fund the system increases as the number of diversion initiatives implemented increases due to reduced tipping fee revenues.
• Diversion initiative costs include additional facilities, staff, and collection operations, as well as by-law changes.
• Scenario 2 (Flexible Diversion) has the lowest NPV of all increased diversion Scenarios (Scenarios 2-5).
The five cost recovery alternatives modelled present different means for funding the waste management scenarios. The discussion is centered on the results from Scenarios 1-4, as Scenario 5 represents a combination of Scenarios 2-4 and is not directly comparable to the others.
Using general revenue for the entire cost of system changes (otherwise seen as zero cost recovery) is not a realistic expectation for the NRRM, as current tipping fees are low by provincial standards and a balance between increased diversion and fair tipping fees is desired. Aspects of the NRRM's current system and cost recovery rates are highlighted for context:
• The NRRM's current waste management system funding recovers 67 percent of costs through tipping fees at their current rate of $40/tonne for large loads (>200 kg) of mixed waste and curbside fees. Continuation of these fees would require annual general revenue contributions of $400,000.
• To generate 100 percent cost recovery under Scenario 1, the mixed waste large load tipping fee would need to be raised to $72/tonne in 2017, with the other tipping fees raised to the levels proposed in Table 6.2.
• If all tipping fees were raised to the level proposed in Table 6.2 in 2016, then 78 percent cost recovery would be achieved, and the annual general revenue contribution would be approximately $280,000.
As indicated in Section 6.1, there is a direct relationship between diversion rate and tipping fees (only the fee for large loads of mixed waste changes), as increased diversion will cause reduced waste landfilling and will drive increased tipping fees to balance the cash flow. Figure 8.1 below illustrates the estimated tipping fees and diversion rate for the NRRM under Scenario 2 (Flexible Diversion) and Alternative 5 (use 50 percent general revenue and 50 percent tipping fees to match costs). As shown, tipping fees would need to be changed annually to match increasing costs. The higher tipping fees observed every 2-3 years represent the capital costs incurred in these years from constructing new cells to expand the landfill. Continuously revising tipping fees is not a realistic expectation for the NRRM, due to logistical and political factors. Due to the dynamic nature between tipping fees and diversion, maintaining the 50 percent general revenue to 50 percent tipping fee ratio is not considered realistic.
Figure 8.1 Tipping Fee ($/tonne) and Diversion Rate (%) over Study Period under Scenario 2 (Flexible Diversion) and Alternative 1 (raise tipping fees to proposed levels)
The trend of increased costs over time is observed for all Cost Recovery Alternatives under all Scenarios, and represents the financial commitments required to administer the Solid Waste Management Plan. Table 8.6 presents the detailed results of the financial modeling for each Scenario and Alternative, including diversion rate, NPV of the system costs, cost recovery percentage, and maximum tipping fees.
Additional key findings of the modeling with respect to tipping fees and diversion under each of the Scenarios (Table 8.6) include:
• Higher diversion rates would theoretically require higher tipping fees to balance lower tipping fee revenue. This trend is further illustrated in Figure 8.2 below, which shows the tipping fees that result in breakeven (NPV of $0) system costs under Alternative 0. However, raising tipping fees continually to catch up with costs is not a realistic expectation, as further discussed in Section 8.4.
• Where tipping fees are not raised, general revenues would make up the balance.
• Service hours at the landfill may be reduced to lower costs, but only to a certain degree, and under higher diversion scenarios, this is not enough to offset lost tipping fee revenue and additional diversion costs.
• Landfill expansion capital costs for new cell construction will be incurred under all Scenarios, but with higher diversion rates, the construction of new cells can be postponed by 1-2 years.
• Raising curbside collection fees from the current $200 per household was not evaluated.
• While this was not modelled, under higher diversion scenarios, service hours could be reduced modestly, as less waste would need landfilling.
Figure 8.2 Tipping Fee Changes and Resulting NPV for Breakeven Cost Recovery Under Each Scenario
In general, a higher target diversion rate will require higher tipping fees to be levied. This is seen in Cost Recovery Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5, as they all consist of raising tipping fees to fully or partially match system costs (Table 8.6). The high tipping fees, while partly driven up by inflation over the 25 year study period, also represent the significant investments required in the system in the coming years, regardless of what diversion initiatives are presented. Even if no diversion initiatives were implemented (Scenario 1), the current system would still carry an average annual general revenue contribution of approximately $280,000, and funding this with tipping fees alone (Alternative 1) would require tipping fees to be raised above $72 in 2017, and would still need to be raised even if service hours are reduced (Alternatives 3 and 4). Under any of the diversion programs where initiatives are implemented immediately (Scenarios 2-4), tipping fees would be raised above $200 with Cost Recovery Alternatives 3 and 4. With staged implementation (Scenario 5), tipping fees would be raised above $78 in either Alternative 3 or 4, as initiatives are implemented more gradually over time and not all immediately in 2017.
In contrast, the alternatives with little to no raise in tipping fees would require investment from NRRM's general revenues. With current system funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 0), tipping fees would not be raised beyond the proposed levels (Table 6.2) and the system costs would be fully funded through general revenues, hence the high NPV. Under Alternative 2, service hours at the landfill would be reduced to lower costs; however, under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4, costs would already be higher than revenues even with no landfill operating costs. For a realistic analysis, service hours were reduced to 50 percent of their current amount, and the rest of the system costs would have to be covered by general revenues. Under Alternative 5, tipping fees would be raised to cover 50 percent of system costs, with the rest covered from general revenues.
Raising curbside collection fees from the current $200 per household was not evaluated as a cost recovery tool in the model, as doing so would likely be unpopular with residents, considering that they are mandatory. Additionally, as highlighted in Section 6.2, the curbside fee is only levied on residential properties in Fort Nelson, and not commercial or industrial, representing a significant portion not captured; whereas taxes for general revenues are levied on all property types. Although curbside collection fees were left at the current default of $200, they will grow as a revenue stream for the system over the study period from household growth.
8.4 Recommended Waste Management Strategy and Cost Recovery Mechanism
The ultimate objective with respect to solid waste management planning for the NRRM is the selection of a strategy (Scenario) that will maximize diversion combined with a Cost Recovery Alternative that will minimize overall costs, thus representing the best value for the community's taxpayers while making a positive impact in environmental stewardship. Consistent with municipalities across Canada, the NRRM is seeking to actively pursue higher waste diversion goals, and this cannot be done under the existing diversion rate of 3.24 percent. The following summarizes the recommended combination of waste management strategy and cost recovery mechanism:
• Of the diversion strategy Scenarios evaluated, Staged Implementation (Scenario 5), consisting of Flexible Diversion (Scenario 2) in years 1-5, represents the most viable short term option. It has the lowest NPV of all diversion Scenarios (under zero cost recovery), and has a modest goal of reaching 25 percent diversion in the first five years.
• While the target diversion rate represents the best case scenario for waste diversion assuming an 81 percent provincial recovery rate of all wastes (Hood, 2013), it is more likely that lower diversion rates would be achieved, due to public participation, collection efficiencies, and other factors. Assuming a 62 percent provincial recovery rate (Hood, 2013), a more realistic diversion rate of 11 percent in the first five years was estimated.
• Mandated Diversion (Scenario 3) would follow in years 6-10, with the aim of raising the diversion rate to 54 percent.
• Raise tipping fees to the proposed baseline fee schedule presented in Table 6.2 in 2016.
• Funding the system through general revenues (Cost Recovery Alternative 0) buffers against lower tipping fee revenues associated with increased diversion.
Under these conditions, the general revenues contribution to fund the system over 25 years is approximately $16.5 million, with cost recovery at an average 42 percent. This translates to an average annual general revenue contribution of approximately $960,000. While other Alternatives produced 100 percent cost recovery, they would require tipping fees to be raised or service hours to be cut considerably, which may not be popular with residents and businesses that use the landfill. To illustrate the budgetary requirements associated with the diversion initiatives over the first two stages of implementation, Table 8.7 and Table 8.8 present the estimated NRRM budget commitments to the waste management system, including the diversion initiatives, for two of the Cost Recovery Alternatives:
• Table 8.7: The recommended Cost Recovery Alternative 5, in which funding is evenly split between general revenues and tipping fees at the Landfill.
• Table 8.8: An alternate funding option is presented for comparative purposes. While the NRRM has indicated that cuts to service hours are not currently envisioned for the landfill, such a change would represent an opportunity for cost savings that would reduce the burden of funding coming from general revenues. This alternative funding option is represented as Cost Recovery Alternative 2, and under this alternative, service hours would be reduced from the current operation of 48 hours per week to 50 percent of that.
Table 8.7 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Proposed Tipping Fee Structure and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 0)
Notes: (1) Represents capital cost spending year for subsequent 5 year diversion initiative period. (2) Landfill expansion consists of new cell construction every 2-3 years based on current landfill disposal rates. (3) Based on a 2013 purchase cost of $130,000 for 1,100 carts, adjusted for the number in households in 2023. (4) Annual increase tied to household growth. (5) Based on data from Hood (2013), under a 62% recovery scenario. Represents a more conservative estimate of the actual diversion rate achieved. (6) Based on data from Hood (2013), under a 81% recovery scenario. Represents an optimistic estimate of the potential maximum diversion rate achieved.
Table 8.8 10 Year Solid Waste Budget for Staged Implementation (Scenario 5) with Landfill Service Hours Reduced by 50% and General Revenue Funding (Cost Recovery Alternative 2)
Notes: (1) Represents capital cost spending year for subsequent 5 year diversion initiative period. (2) Landfill expansion consists of new cell construction every 2-3 years based on current landfill disposal rates. (3) Based on a 2013 purchase cost of $130,000 for 1,100 carts, adjusted for the number in households in 2023. (4) Annual increase tied to household growth. (5) Based on data from Hood (2013), under a 62% recovery scenario. Represents a more conservative estimate of the actual diversion rate achieved. (6) Based on data from Hood (2013), under a 81% recovery scenario. Represents an optimistic estimate of the potential maximum diversion rate achieved.
As shown in the 10 year budgets (Table 8.7 and Table 8.8), the required general revenue contribution under either Cost Recovery Alternative increases each year, which represents the lower tipping fee revenues being generated due to lower waste volumes entering the landfill. This is attributed to increased diversion under the initiatives implemented. One way to offset the decline in tipping fee revenues over time is to reduce the landfill service hours, which could generate significant annual savings in the form of reduced general revenue contributions. While the model assumes that service hours would be reduced fully in year 0 (2016) and kept at those levels thereafter, a gradual reduction could be performed to lessen the inconvenience and scheduling impact to residents and the community.
Flexible Diversion represents a low risk strategy for the NRRM to pursue in a relatively short time frame. It can significantly raise diversion and gradually introduce residents to the new environmental programs, without imposing drastic, complex, or imposing changes on them. During the first 5 years of the Flexible Diversion program, a reevaluation of the system is recommended. At this time, the transitioning towards Mandated Diversion for years 6 to 10 is recommended, as per the Staged Implementation strategy. Many of the costs for Mandated Diversion implementation would already have been covered in the first 5 years under the Flexible system, and the transition would be a natural progression to a higher diversion target of 30 percent. For years 11 to 25, it is recommended that the NRRM consider implementing the remaining diversion initiatives under the Comprehensive Diversion system, which would raise the diversion target to 56 percent.
While all proposed diversion initiatives would increase waste diversion from landfill, completely implementing all diversion programs at once would significantly raise operational costs and would create operational challenges. A staged approach represents the best value for the NRRM, and will generate the same degree of environmental stewardship, on a progressive basis. In general, residents are more likely to adopt programs if they are brought in slowly, are clear, and are convenient.
8.5 Servicing of Rural Communities
The cost of additional servicing for rural communities such as Toad River, beyond what is currently offered, was not assessed at this time as further outreach to residents is required before developing cost estimates. Currently, bins for waste are located in the community and are emptied as required. To promote diversion, additional recycling bins could be provided for a certain number of designated days on a bi-annual basis. An education program would be required to inform residents of the change. Prior to implementation, it is recommended that NRRM conduct a pilot project in Toad River with segregated bins for waste and recycling. This could be conducted within the short term (1-5 year) timeframe, and the estimated costs for the pilot are estimated to be as follows (Wide Sky, 2014):
• Education campaign (flyer and outreach event): $5,000
• Bin rental and four servicing events per year: $11,500
8.6 Implementation of Short Term (1-5 Year) Initiatives
Staged Implementation (Scenario 5), consisting of Flexible Diversion (Scenario 2) in years 1-5, represents short-term options that could be implemented in the next 1-5 years and have the greatest potential to quickly increase diversion without requiring major investment, as previously shown in Table 6.3. These include the following:
• Recycling bins at the landfill and encourage recycling for residents.
• Conduct waste audits at the landfill scale house and Wide Sky during the first (2017) and fifth (2021) years of program implementation.
• Separate wood waste from landfill and grind.
• Implement a Share Shed at the landfill.
• HHW round-up day.
• Curbside blue box recycling collection program.
• Install organics compost pad at the landfill.
9. Five Year Implementation Plan
9.1 Budget
The 5 year diversion initiatives represent the Flexible Diversion phase within the overall Staged Implementation Plan for the NRRM’s solid waste management system. Table 9.1 summarizes the five year budget costs for these initiatives, which will form a portion of the overall projected solid waste management budget (Table 8.7).
Table 9.1 Five Year Diversion Budget
Diversion Initiative 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Capital Costs Raise tipping fees (Table 6.2) at Fort Nelson Landfill
Recycling bins at landfill and encourage recycling for residents.
$100,000
Conduct waste audits at the landfill scale house and Wide Sky
$20,880 $20,880
Separate wood waste from landfill and grind.
$10,000
Implement a Share Shed at the landfill.
$100,000
HHW round-up day. $5,000 Curbside blue box collection program.
$11,000
Install an organics compost pad at the landfill and organics public drop-off
$1,019,000
Total Diversion Capital Costs $0 $125,880 $110,000 $0 $1,030,000 $20,880 Annual Costs Raise tipping fees (Table 6.2) at Fort Nelson Landfill
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Recycling bins at landfill and $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500
Following public consultation and MOE approval of the SWMP, the NRRM can begin the process of raising tipping fees at the Fort Nelson Landfill to the levels prescribed in Table 6.2. The proposed scheduled for implementation of the five year initiatives is shown in Figure 9.1 below.
Figure 9.1 Five Year Diversion Implementation Schedule
The NRRM personnel identified in Table 9.2 will ensure that each of the diversion initiatives are developed and implemented according to the proposed schedule:
Table 9.2 Roles and Responsibilities
Person or Group Role Responsibility
Scott Barry NRRM Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Public Works
Overall management of the system; reporting to NRRM Council and the PAC/TAC.
Lou-Ann Watson NRRM Public Works Operations Administrative Manager
Oversight of the system and implementation progress; reporting to NRRM Council and the PAC/TAC.
Development and implementation lead for diversion initiatives; oversight and progress tracking; reporting to NRRM Council and the PAC/TAC.
Kris Haugen NRRM Landfill Operations Development, implementation and oversight of landfill-related diversion initiatives.
10. References
BC Ministry of Environment (MOE). 2015. Solid Waste Management Planning Guideline: Information Update – Intentions Paper. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/garbage/garbage/swmp-intentions-paper-final.pdf (accessed November 18, 2015).
BC Statistics (BC Stats). 2014. Population Estimates for Fort Nelson Local Health Area-1990-2013. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx (accessed August 29, 2014).
City of Toronto. 2008. City of Toronto Waste Audits, Presented to Residual Waste Working Group. Presentation by Irene Ford, February 11, 2008.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). 2009. Green Municipal Fund, Getting to 50 percent and Beyond: Waste Diversion Success Stories from Canadian Municipalities. http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/tools/GMF/Getting_to_50_percent_en.pdf (accessed November 18, 2015).
GHD (formerly Conestoga-Rovers & Associates). 2013a. Collection Systems Review Report.
Hood, Innes. 2013. Zero Waste Business Case: Draft for Expert Review. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/zero-waste/zero-waste/zero_waste_business_case_draft.pdf (accessed November 17, 2015).
Metro Vancouver. 2011. "Zero Waste Challenge: Accelerating Multi-Family Waste Diversion". http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/dialogues/Reports percent20and percent20Issue percent20Summary percent20Notes/Multi-FamilyWaste-CNE-Summary20110329.pdf (accessed May 20, 2014).
Munro, A. 2010. Environment Accounts and Statistics Analytical and Technical Paper Series, Recycling by Canadian Households, 2007. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-001-m/16-001-m2010013-eng.pdf (accessed November 18, 2015).
Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Fort Nelson, British Columbia
Page 1 of 1
GHD 057580 (18)
Item Value Note / Assumption
Landfill OperationOperating hours per week 48 hours/week; open dailyOperating weeks per year 52 weeks/year; closed on 11 holidays in the yearLandfill operating cost per hour $216 per hour
Residential CollectionNumber of households 1,100 currently served by collection servicesUser fee per household $200 per household per year
Commercial Cardboard CollectionCardboard fraction in waste stream 4.25%Amount of cardboard 489.6 tonnes/yearNumber of small businesses 600 Based on 2011 censusAnnual rental cost per bin $1,740 /bin/year ($145 per month)Baling and shipping cost per tonne $507 /tonne
Waste Quantities Received at Landfill (2014)Mixed waste - large loads 11,519 tonnes/yearAsbestos disposal 5 events/year; no change from diversionMattresses and couches 500 number/year; no change from diversionCumulative waste in landfill (2003-2014) 143,720 tonnes
Diversion Rate (2014)System diversion rate 3.24%
Baseline Tipping Fees (2015)Mixed waste - small loads $10 $/loadMixed waste - large loads $50 $/tonneAsbestos disposal $500 $/eventMattresses and couches $20 $/number
Cash Flow ParametersAnnual population growth rate 1% Based on a 31% increase in residents from 1990
to 2005, as reported by BC Stats.
Inflation rate 2% Bank of Canada target rateNominal discount rate 5% Common public sector discount rateReal discount rate 3% Inflation adjusted discount rate
NPV - 25 year: N/A -$8,082,757.40Notes: Average Cost Recovery: 62%
(1) Increase in number of households assumed to correspond linearly to population growth rate(2) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered. Assumed to remain constant throughout the study period.(3) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered.(4) Assumes that diversion rate rises gradually from current to proposed over a period of 5 years.(5) For subsequent years, 2015 contract cost is multiplied by ratio of increased households to 2015 households.
NPV - 25 year: N/A -$12,279,552.00Notes: Average Cost Recovery: 59%
(1) Increase in number of households assumed to correspond linearly to population growth rate(2) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered. Assumed to remain constant throughout the study period.(3) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered.(4) Assumes that diversion rate rises gradually from current to proposed over a period of 5 years.(5) For subsequent years, 2015 contract cost is multiplied by ratio of increased households to 2015 households.
Waste + divertible (tonnes)
Asbestos (loads) (2)
Bulky items (units) (3)
Curbside Collections (contract)(5)
Diversion (contract)
Diversion Systems
Implementation
Number of Households (1)
Waste + divertible (tonnes)
Asbestos (loads) (2)
Bulky items (units) (3)
Cost Recovery
Inflated Net Cash Flow
Inflated Waste Tipping Fee
Landifll operating cost
per year (admin)Curbside Cart Replacement
Mixed Waste (tonnes)
COST RECOVERY - ALTERNATIVE 5
YearNumber of
Households (1)
Total amount of waste
Diversion Rate (4)
Bulky items (units)
Waste Tipping Fees
Bulky items (units)
Waste Tipping Fees
Misc. Tipping Fees ($25k allowance)
Fees from Curbside
Fees from Curbside
Mixed Waste (tonnes)
Asbestos (loads)
Asbestos (loads)
Diverted (tonnes)
COST RECOVERY - ALTERNATIVE 4Total amount of waste
NPV - 25 year: N/A -$12,450,850.45Notes: Average Cost Recovery: 59%
(1) Increase in number of households assumed to correspond linearly to population growth rate(2) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered. Assumed to remain constant throughout the study period.(3) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered.(4) Assumes that diversion rate rises gradually from current to proposed over a period of 5 years.(5) For subsequent years, 2015 contract cost is multiplied by ratio of increased households to 2015 households.
NPV - 25 year: N/A -$12,342,189.65Notes: Average Cost Recovery: 59%
(1) Increase in number of households assumed to correspond linearly to population growth rate(2) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered. Assumed to remain constant throughout the study period.(3) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered.(4) Assumes that diversion rate rises gradually from current to proposed over a period of 5 years.(5) For subsequent years, 2015 contract cost is multiplied by ratio of increased households to 2015 households.
NPV - 25 year: N/A -$11,573,053.70Notes: Average Cost Recovery: 59%
(1) Increase in number of households assumed to correspond linearly to population growth rate(2) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered. Assumed to remain constant throughout the study period.(3) Assumed to be non-divertible under any alternatives considered.(4) Assumes that diversion rate rises gradually from current to proposed over a period of 5 years.(5) For subsequent years, 2015 contract cost is multiplied by ratio of increased households to 2015 households.
