Nigel Cose
From: Michielsen, Dan
Gary, I' m going, just me. Where are you guys staying?
Dan Mlchielsen, M.A.Sc. Director, Pollution Prevention Division 729-5782
From: Gary Ryan [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 2016 5:04 PM ••••• jamie [email protected]. Darlene Newman (da Jason King [email protected]) Cc: Duffett, Ian; Mlchlelsen, Dan; Locke, Robert C; Gordon Murphy; Ashley Burke; Ed Evans Subject: RE: September meeting to discuss strategic waste mgt Items
Hello All,
Based on my July correspondence we should have representation from all regions of the island at our meeting next Tuesday. It will be undoubtedly be a very worthwhile meeting.
Allowing for the time between emails I would appreciate if you can send me a note confirming your attendance once again and identify if you have any food allergies.
The GPS coordinates specific to CNWM's administrative office in Norris Arm and link to google maps are below.
Regards,
Gary · MMSB https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Norris+Arni+North+Side.+Nl/@49.1185924.· 55.1759249,2150a.20y.2.22t/data=l3mllle314m5!3m4lls0x4b771af74albde8d:Oxba3241eea8d6eaff!8m2!3d49.11349 714d-55.254178
1 Cc: Ian Duffett ([email protected]); Dan Mlchielsen ([email protected]}; Robert Locke ([email protected]); Gordon Murphy ([email protected]); Ashley Burke ([email protected]}; Ed Evans Subject: RE: September meeting to discuss strategic waste mgt Items
Hello All,
Thank you for responding to my request. I have heard from everybody (less one) and the majority have indicated the week of September 191h to the 23rd works best for them.
1 Our plan is to hold a }'l day session on Tuesday September 20 h at CNWM's administrative office in Norris Arm. The session will be form 8:30am to 12:30, followed by lunch. As I indicated below MMSB will cover travel expenses in a similar way to our regional forums for one person from each region. Feel free to contact Ashley Burke who will be managing all things related to travel, accommodations and meals.
The agenda for this session is as follows:
1) Sitting the stage- brief recap of the provincial waste management strategy relative to geography/regions 2) Qualifying regional inequities specific to geography 3) Sharing MMSB's findings specific to nodes, distances and cost relative to feeding into host sites 4) Exploring solutions as to how best to deal with inequities relative to geography 5) Next steps
Aside from these items I am open to suggestions/additions from all on the agenda.
Please confirm your participation and whether or not a second person will be accompanying you at this session.
Regards,
Gary- MMSB
'Dennis Vincent';
([email protected]); Dan Michielsen ([email protected]); Robert Locke ([email protected]) Subject: September meeting to discuss strategic waste mgt items
Hello All,
At our January regional forum in Corner Brook I committed to exploring the application of a provincial waste transportation subsidy for neutralizing the cost burden of transporting waste from non-host regions to host regions on the island. We have carried out some analysis on this topic and would like to convene a face to face meeting with representatives of each region in central Newfoundland.
At this juncture I would like to firm up a date and request that you check your calendars in terms of availability during 1 the week of September 121h to the 161h or during the week of September 19 h to the 23rd. Where the conversation will undoubtedly touch on areas of the provincial waste management strategy we would like to primarily secure the Chairs
3 of each Region. Others are welcome, however, MMSB is only in the position of covering the cost of one person travelling from each region.
Please advise of your willingness to participate and the dates proposed.
Regards,
Gary- MMSB
"This email and any attached files are intended for the sole use of the primary and copied addressee(s) and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. Any distribution, use or copying by any means of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender."
4 Nigel Cose
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:12 PM To: Gary Ryan; Allan Scott; •••••••• Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Transportation Subsidy Meeting Sept. 20/ 16 & Presentation to Minister in 2012 Attachments: WRWM Present Ministers JAN 2012 Version 3.ppt
Gary, I wish I didn't do that sometimes! Now attached. let me know if you receive. Don ··------Original Message------Subject: RE: Transportation Subsidy Meeting Sept. 20/16 & Presentation to Minister in 2012 From: "Gary Ryan"
Hi Don,
I didn't get the attachment...
gary
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 2016 11:39 AM To: Gary Ryan; Allan Scott; Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Transportation Subsidy Meeting Sept. 20/ 16 & Presentation to Minister In 2012
Gary, Allan,
I have mentioned to you both the presentation Allan and I did with Ministers on January 16, 2012 dealing with the attempts to get government to agree to a Transportation Subsidy. I realize this was done more than four years ago and much has changed; but, much of what we said then still applies. So, here is a copy of the presentation. Do what you wish with it.... .including nothing.
I thought at least you both should look at it.
Jason and I shall be driving out Monday, September 19, to Gander for the Tues., September 20, 8:30am meeting at Norris Arm.
Regards,
Don Downe
1 4/3/2019
1
Newfoundland and Labrador Solid Waste Management Strategy 2002
• 2002 Strategy developed, 2007 adopted/ updated by present government • $200M multiyear Strategy • 15 Regional Waste Management Zones (Regions): 11 Island, 4 Labrador • 3 Host Regions: East (201 0), Central (2011 ), West (2016) • Intent: o dramatically reduce number disposal sites; reduce by 50% waste to land fills by 2015 o full province-wide modern waste management implementation by 2020
2
1 4/3/2019
Cilc------8 ::. §::::.. c ---
3
Three f-1ost Regions with Authorities
• Eastern (operational by 201 0}, Central (by 2011 ), Western (by 2016) • Peninsulas to have own Authorities
o 1ntent that 3 Host Regions have Own waste recovery facilities- i.e., MRFs (materials recovery facilities). composting facilities, engineered landfills & household waste landfill capacity
4
2 4/3/2019
Central Region's Planning
• 100, 000 Population threshold - 2 Areas under Central - 3 Peninsulas coming to Central
• Western coming on our Radar - Changing of our Phasing .. Leachate Treatment Sized to Accommodate
5
Central Region's Concerns
ConsullLJt1on With Commun1t1es- has Jlways referred to 3 Transportation Subs1dy
Consulting/ Eng1neer111g F1rm hLJs developed 2 scenar1os w1th the est1mates in order of rnagn1tude +- ~5%
• Scenar1o 1 Operate 2 facilities - LJI Norr1s Arm N & Birchy R1dge Central F3c11!ty 54.271 ,000 Western Fac1l1ty 54,558,000 NorPen Truck111g 5405,000 TOTAL 59.234.000
• Scen::mo 2. Operate 1 faci11ty at Norr1s Arm N CentrLJI Fac11ity 5li.694,000 Western Truck1ng 51.631,000 NorPen Trucking 5li17,000 TOTAL 58 .942.000
Savmgs of 5292.000 to operJte one fac1llty NOTE If Western facility located 31 P3s3dena. sav1ng is only 548 .000
6
3 4/3/2019
Further
• Consulting/ Engineering Firm when compiling Central's operational costs was instructed to ensure tipping fees were enough to cover our costs • With respect to Long-Term Agreement, there is a %of variance. On $9.23M operation, for example, a 25% variance could equate to a $2.3M loss.
7
Western Regional Waste Management
On March 31, 2011, the WRWM Committee passed the following motion .... "The Western Regional Waste Management Committee agrees to transport waste to Central pending government provide a transportation soluNon acclli=Jta_ble. to the committee." The 'transportation solution' consultants, BAE NewPian Group, provided for WRWM Committee, initially, was $1.6M from government annually Statements regarding this subsidy made repeatedly in public, often with media present & in practically ALL meetings of WRWM Committee since
8
4 4/3/2019
In addition~ the \1\/R\Nf\.~ Cornn1ittee said, in san1 e set of rninutes
" .... the committee is committed to shipping waste to Central provided annual government subsidy approved by government and is acceptable to committee."
Later, our minutes show: "the Committee found it necessary to make this motion to allow the provincial government to begin the process of looking into a possible transportation solution for the option of shipping waste to Central."
Has been said constantly in public; and, public, perhaps skeptically, accepted it
9
Transportation
• Transportation - problematic for WRWM Comm1ttee & Residents since rnovmg waste to Central broached
• Residents- gP.nerally expect s1gn1ficant government assistance w1th waste transpor1ation to Central. 1f only om~ reg1onnl s1te
• Peninsula A uthor~t n~s- adamant, as per MN L Taskforce Provinc:wl Waste Management Report recommendation & current expectation , that transponation should be paid by government - 'the 1 OOkm rule'
• MNL Taskforce, also stated - ''that the provmcial government implement transportation subsid1es to m1111mize the fmanc1al impact on taxpayers and ensure cost equ1ty throughout the system to support the advancement of the Provincial Waste Management Strategy"
• Commercial- generally. expected haul waste & pay by the ton for disposal
• Residents rewct potentially esr.alating waste management costs- hence, municipality costs- because of potent1al for significantly increased waste transportation costs (e g. Humbe r Joint Council position)
10
5 4/3/2019
Mea n vvh il e~ WRWM Corn111 itlee asked BAE Ne\JvP ian ()roup to
• Compile research data/ other information relative to WRWM
• Transfer Stations/ Public Drop-offs now being identified in Western Newfoundland
• Continue focus on possible Western Regional Waste Site, in the event Central abandoned. Consequently, options narrowed to 3 sites: Wild Cove, Pasadena & Birchy Ridge
11
Three Potential Western Waste Sites Corn pared
• Wild Cove- two rare plants discovered, forces abandonment as regional waste site (would still be transfer station]
• Pasadena- waste site in very close proximity to dwellings, road access difficult, etc.; will likely abandon as regional waste site
• Birchy Ridge -most suitable of the three: isolation from dwellings, availability large tract of land for expansion, nearness to centroid , etc. - but, likely most expensive to prepare since this virgin land
12
6 4/3/2019
Issues Favor·in Q Two Regional Sites: a \Nestc-:rn &. a C(~nt ral
• DISTANCE- for Western, ciParly, shorter distance to haul waste to Western reg1onal s1te rather than to Central reg1onal site
• JOBS & ECONOMIC SPIN-OFFS- 1n Western & Centr;JI, w1th MRF, compos:ing fac1l1ty, engineered landfill. transfer stat1ons. etc built
• OWNERSHIP - S75M Faci11ty (2015 dollars) MRF, Co:npost Fac:~ity, e~c. m Western- as well as the same bu1lt m Central dL;nr.g 2011
Issues Favoring One Regional Site: at Central, for Western & Central
• DISTANCE- Western- B1rchy R1dge- only 225km from Central at Norns Arm North • CARBON FOOTPRINT - Slightly smaller w1th one facll1ty, if everything considered -MRF, transportation, etc. • ECONOMIC - Jobs and economic spin-offs also associated with Western transfer stations. public drop-offs, truck drivmg • REDUCTION CAPITAL COSTS- Taxpayers save $75M (possibly as high as$1 OOM) if we go with one facility only at Central • ONE SERVES MORE PEOPLE - 150,000 not 75.000 • AVOIDS DUPLICATION- ONE MRF, ONE Composting Faciltty . ONE Engineered Landfill
14
7 4/3/2019
Western GoinrJ to Central Positives
• Potentially. could remove at least one year from t1me to become operational for Western- 1e , by end of 2014 or early 2015 rather than 2016 • Potentially, could have all Western regional waste sites up and runnmg within two years • Potentially, could have all Western transfer stations/ public drop-offs up and runnmg Within three years • Operating one facility at Central, Consultants say this means a savmg of S292,000 m operat1ons
Therefore, with Western going to Central, could have modern, environmentally conscious waste management program up and runn1ng quickly - w1th proper fundmg, government cooperation & education
15
Possible Solutions
1. ~ha!lg~ Depanmenf_!!Ji!!ca!JrE.'!l~~ork- allow Municipal Affa1rs cover transportation costs movmg waste from Pen1nsula Authorities & Western Reg1on to Central Host Reg1on. Western's Truck1ng costs approx. S2.5M annually (this Includes NorPen)
2 Ir!!?LFUI')Q_Qf1J5M setup - could be used help defray ALL transportation costs from outlying areas associated w1th Central Reg1on Host Site. - could help defray the capital replacement cost for equipment and fac1l1ties common to the reg1ons 1t serves -could be administered by Execut1ve Group of Chairs from the Authorities. Approval for cap1tal works given by Municipal Affa1rs
3 Do f'!Q~hii!!L- Allow Central & Western continue building waste management facilities both regions. But. still does not solve transportation costs for Peninsulas
16
8 Nigel Cose
From: Mike Samson Sent Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:23 PM To: Gary Ryan Subject Re: letter from Eastern Regional Service Board
Thx.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. From: Gary Ryan Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 13:42 To: Mike Samson Cc: Gordon Murphy Subject: Fwd: letter from Eastern Regional Service Board
Hi mike.
Attached is a letter from Ed grant to myself re our transportation subsidy session in Norris arm. All of which he wrote is consistent with what he expressed at our session from an eastern waste perspective. Aside from city of St. John's councillors he cc it to ian and the minister of miga. Sending it to you today as heads up in case it makes it rounds over the weekend.
Gary.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: lynn Tucker
"Bruce Tilley (St. John's)"
1 "Gordon Stone (Trinity Conception North)" "Harold Mullowney (Southern Shore)"
1 "~Jo~n~a~th~a~n=G=a=lg:a:y:(:St=. =Jo:h:n:'s:)'~' <~j~ga~l~ga~y~@~s~t~jo~h~n;s, Lynn Tucker.~ca>
Good Afternoon Gary,
1 Please find attached a letter from Mr. Ed Grant, Chairperson, Eastern Regional Service Board. The original has been sent by regular mail.
All the best, Lynn Tucker Manager Corporate Services Eastern Regional Service Board 255 Majors Path, Suite 3 St. John's NL AlA OLS T. 709-579-7960 F. 709-579-5392 www.easternwaste.ca www. eastern regionalserviceboard.com ,;
· ..# -. ~-- •.~~ I EASTERN REGIONAL -~ .. ,,. SERVICE BOARD SOLID WASTE I WATER I WASTE WATER September 23, 2016
Mr. Gary Ryan, Director Multi Material Stewardship Board P.O. Box 8131, Station A St. John's, NL AlB 3M9
Dear Gary,
Thank you for hosting the forum on "Models for Non Host Regions - Waste Transportation Subsidy" attended by the various regional service boards from across the Province.
We found the information particularly infonnative in helping to quantify the financial scope of the issue. While it is acknowledged that the inputs and costs are somewhat problematic at this stage, it does give each Region a general guideline of its transportation costs.
With that said, we would like to make several points that must be considered as you move forward.
1. Given that this is a "PROVINCIAL Waste Management Strategy" and given the fact certain capital cost inputs are not now required, we feel strongly that the Province should participate in the cost share of the increased transportation subsidy.
2. The Chairperson for the Western Regional Service Board was clear insofar as it was the decision of that Board to not proceed with the development ofthe landfill site. He indicated there would be a significant positive financial impact to the Region even after they dropped the request for the transportation subsidy. It should be noted now that your "Subsidy" spreadsheet shows Western getting further significant financial help to our detriment. The decision to not build a landfill site ultimately brings with it significant increased operating costs that the Western Regional Service Board voted to accept. We had no input but under the "preferred 11 scenario our Board/taxpayers would be asked to pay these costs.
3. Again, we had no input on the Central - organizational structure, facility type or locations. Nor should we. But under the scenario being discussed we would be required to share transport costs.
4. A comment was made that the option of a fee tacked on to the tipping fee to subsidize transportation would be favorable by 6 - 1 (Eastern being the only exception). It needs to be acknowledged that all other Regions would receive a positive cash input at our expense. If you move this suggestion forward to the political level we do ask that you note Eastern does represent two-thirds of the provincial population.I63 municipalities, local service districts and
255 Majors Path 1 Suite 3 I St. John'& I NL I A1AOL5 Tel: 709.579.7960 1Fa x ~ 709.579.5392 1 Email: [email protected] 1ersbnl.ca communities and is represented by 20 Members of the House of Assembly. Obviously we would be advising all concerned of the direct cost impact and one should fully expect serious pushback.
5. To suggest that St. John's and its environs has somehow received an unfair benefit from the location of Robin Hood Bay is, in our opinion, a non-starter. Under the preferred scenario, that area would be taxed in the order of$3,000,000.00 to subsidize transportation of waste in other areas. The City of St. John's would pay approximately one~half this amount annually and be subject to incremental increases.
Going into this forum we knew the transport subsidy tax". this is the end directive is once the gates have been opened to access the "tip fee" structure, where does it end. Will it be adjusted to cover transportation inefficiencies, capital projects in other regions, other initiatives, etc.
We do believe an arrangement directly between "Host" and its "Non Host" users does warrant further discussion. It might be that the Host region can rationalize an agreement whereby it picks up waste at an agreed site in the Non Host area and transports it to the landfill. It does not provide subsidy, controls the costs and should realize a Net Profit after transportation and other costs.
Again, thank you for hosting the forum and we look forward to further discussions.
Sincerely,
Ed Grant Chairperson Eastern Regional Service Board c ERSB Members Hon Eddie Joyce, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ian, Duffett, Department ofMunicipal Affairs Information Note Multi-Materials Stewardship Board (MMSB)
Title: Waste Management Region's discussion about issues associated with interregional waste transportation costs.
Issue: At the behest of regional waste management authorities, MMSB hosted and facilitated a brainstonning session to discuss options for financing interregional waste transportation costs on September, 20th, 2016.
Background and Current Status:
• After the implementation ofthe 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Strategy (strategy) work was done to reduce the number of waste disposal sites in the province. To accomplish this, a regional approach to waste management was adopted, resulting in the establishment of 12 distinct waste management regions; 4 in Labrador and 8 in Newfoundland.
• It is currently anticipated that waste in Labrador will be managed at sites that are located within each of the Labrador regions. This is not the case on the island portion of the province.
• To streamline the movement of waste on the island portion of the province, a network of transfer facilities and waste recovery facilities have been proposed and/or implemented. Using this network, waste in non-host regions will be transported from transfer sites to two host regions to be disposed of in second generation landfills.
o Non-host waste management regions include: Discovery, Burin Peninsula, Coast of Bays, Baie Vert I Green Bay, Western, and NorPen.
o Host Regions and their associated second generation landfills include Eastern (Robin Hood Bay), Central (Norris Ann).
• Although each region exerts a certain degree ofcontrol over waste generation and collection costs, non host regions have no control over the distances to host sites, or the costs associated with disposing their waste at those sites. Transportation distances from transfer facilities of non-host regions to host sites are greater than those within host regions. Consequently, non-host regions could pay more to manage their waste.
• Since 2002, MMSB has hosted regional waste management forums to provide regional waste managers with training and education while discussing greater issues related to the implementation of the strategy with representatives of the Department of Municipal Affairs, Service NL, Environment and Climate Change and MMSB. At many of these forums, transportation costs for non-host regions (interregional transportation costs) have been a topic of infonnal discussion. However, no fonnal discussion had been held; and no fonnal direction had been given.
• At the most recent regional forum held in January of20 16, MMSB was asked by the regional authorities to hold a fonnal discussion on the estimated interregional transportation costs; and to explore options for financing these costs. • In August 20 16, MMSB completed an analysis of the estimated interregional transportation costs (Appendix A).
• On September 20th, 2016, MMSB hosted and facilitated a discussion on the estimated interregional transportation costs; and held a brainstorming session to explore options for financing these costs. At this session a number of ideas were presented by the regions to finance interregional transportation costs. MMSB committed to document all feedback and ideas received at the session in a "What we Heard" report and share this report with the regions at the upcoming Regional Forum in 2017.
Analysis:
• A number of ideas and options were presented to MMSB.
• There was no commitment by MMSB, MIGA, SNL or ENCC to select any ofthe options presented at the session.
Action Being Taken:
• MMSB will document all feedback and ideas received at the session in a "What we Heard" report and share this report with the regions at the upcoming Regional Forum in 2017.
Prepared/Approved by: G.Murphy/G.Ryan/M.Samson
September 25, 2016 Nigel Cose
From: Gary Ryan Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:33 AM To: Lynn Tucker Cc: Mike Samson Subject: RE: Letter from Eastern Regional Service Board Attachments: Letter to Ed re Forum in Norris Arm.pdf
Hi Lynn,
Could you please forward this email (along with attachment) to Ed Grant.
Much appreciated.
Gary Ryan- MMSB
From: Lynn Tucker [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:35PM To: Gary Ryan Cc: [email protected]; Ian Duffett; Ed Grant- Ken Kelly; Art Puddister (StJohn's); Bill Bailey (Ciarenvllle & Isthmus); Bruce Tilley (St. Joh~n's); Dave Aker (Mount Pearl); Dave Lane (St. John's); Dennis O'Keefe (St. John's); Gerard Tilley (Conception Bay South); Gordon Stone (Trinity Conception North); Harold Mullowney (Southern Shore); Jonathan Galgay (St. John's); Joy Dobbie {TBS & Isthmus East); Lynn Tucker; Peggy Roche (Small Metro); Ron Ellsworth ([email protected]); Sam Whalen (Bay Roberts); Sandy Hickman (St. John's); Sterling Willis (Paradise); Tom Hann (2); Tom Hann (St. John's); Wally Collins (St. John's) Subject: Letter from Eastern Regional Service Board
Good Afternoon Gary,
Please find attached a letter from Mr. Ed Grant, Chairperson, Eastern Regional Service Board. The original has been sent by regular mail.
All the best, Lynn Tucker Manager Corporate Services Eastern Regional Service Board 255 Majors Path, Suite 3 St. John's NL AlA OLS T. 709-579-7960 F. 709-579-5392 www.easternwaste.ca www.easternregionalserviceboard.com
1 gutding our province to a greener future
September 26, 2016
Mr. Ed Grant Chairperson Eastern Regional Services Board 255 Majors Path, Suite 3 StJohn's, NL, AlA OLS
Dear Ed,
Thank you for the contribution you made at our forum last Tuesday, September 20, 2016 in Norris Arm and the feedback you provided in your letter of September 23, 2016.
As an exploratory first step the forum was quite useful in achieving the main goal of having an informed conversation about the challenge of transporting waste from non-host to host regions. As MMSB committed to doing at the forum we will now summarize all of the feedback from our brain storming session and once completed, share it with the island regional authorities/committees.
Our conversations at this forum, and the many brainstorming concepts put forward, will be taken into consideration as we continue to work toward our shared objective of a modern and sustainable waste management system in our province.
Again, thank you for participating in our forum and sharing your perspective. We look forward to further discussions.
Sincerely,
Gary Ryan Director of Programs Multi-Materials Stewardship Board c Mike Samson, CEO of MMSB 03/04/2019
guiding our prov1nce• to a greener future
MMSB Update: Regional Forum March, 2017 m@)
1
Updates:
• Interregional Transportation Costs
• What options we heard. • Discussion- Pros and Cons. • Next Steps. m@) 1
2
1 03/04/2019
3
4
2 03/04/2019
5
6
3 03/04/2019
7
8
4 03/04/2019
s 03/04/2019
11
12
6 03/04/2019
13
Interregional Transportation Costs
What we heard In September, 2016:
Cost of interregional transportation- $2.4-$2.7 Million
Cost seen as a barrier to the implementation of the strategy
Potential Options of the financing or off-setting of these costs:
1. Finance interregional transport cost through tipping fee revenue 2. Operationally merge non-host regions with host regions 3. Create a single provincial waste management organization 4. Landfill Levy 5. MMSB Deposit Increase 6. Provide Capital Replacement Subsidies 7. Increase waste diversion m@) 14
14
7 03/04/2019
Pros and Cons
Finance cost through tipping fee revenue
15
Pros and Cons
Operationally merge non~host regions with host regions
16
8 03/04/2019
Pros and Cons
Single provincial waste management organization
mt@) J7
17
Pros and Cons
Landfill Levy
m@ L!
18
9 03/04/2019
Pros and Cons
MMSB Deposit Increase
19
Pros and Cons
Provide Capital Replacement Subsidies
20
10 03/04/2019
Pros and Cons
Increase waste diversion
m@ l l
21
Interregional Cost- Next Steps
• Compile what we heard document
• Submit to Steering Committee
• Take advise on next steps
m@ 12
22
11 03/04/2019
Interregional Cost Next Steps
1. Compile what we heard document 2. Submit to Steering Committee 3. Take advise on next steps
23
Thank You
24
12 Nigel Cose
From: hmurphy.murphy Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:35 AM To: Allan Scott; egrant431; [email protected] Cc: Ashley Burke; Dan, Michielsen ([email protected]); darlene.nprsb; ed; Gary Ryan; Gordon Murphy; Ian Duffett ([email protected]); [email protected]; jking; Ken Kelly ([email protected]); Mike Samson; rlocke; ..======~ doug.nprsb@nf. aibn.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; Subject: Re: interregional transportation costs
Hi Gary, Sorry for the delay in Unfortunately Joe wasn't copied on this email. Thank you for your excellent report on the cost of interregional transportation of waste. As you know this has been an area of concern for the BPRSB for some time. We welcome the opportunity to discuss it further. Given that Minister Joyce has committed to a review of the Provincial Waste Management Strategy maybe we should wait until the review has been completed. However if the consensus of the group is that we should go ahead and meet we are available for a meeting. I do feel that a face to face meeting in Central would be the best approach. Thank you, Harold Murphy Chairperson Burin Peninsula Regional Service Board On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:54 PM Allan Scott
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. From: Ed Grant • Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 11:50 AM 1 To: [email protected] Cc: Gary Ryan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ian Duffett ([email protected])i Dan, Mlchlelsen Gordon Murphy; Ashley Burke; Ed Evans; Ken Kelly ([email protected]); Jason, King Subject: Re: Interregional transportation costs Hi All· I agree we need to discuss the issue and get a final resolution. We are available to attend a meeting whenever, either by a personal get together or teleconference. At the MMSB meeting it was suggested a meeting somewhere in Central in May. While that date has pasted we should look at next 30-60 days. Other thoughts??? On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Don Downer Chair WRSB 1 ------Original Message········· Subject: interregional transportation costs From: "Gary Ryan" Cc: "lan Duffett ([email protected])" Dear Waste Management Chairpersons, Attached is a document which captures the conversations we've had on interregional transportation costs. Please advise if you need further assistance in the facilitation of this dialogue. Regards, Gary Ryan - MMSB 2 Nigel Cose From: Gary Ryan Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 2:39 PM To: Burin Peninsula Waste Management Cc: Joe Pittman Subject: RE: Request for Reports Attachments: Interregional Transportation Cost - MMSB.pdf Hi Joe/Peter, Attached is a document which contains both reports from MMSB. I am not in position of the other two reports. Not sure if they are online ... lan Duffet could certainly hook you up if they aren't accessible. Cheers! gary From: Burin Peninsula Waste Management [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 10:29 AM To: Gary Ryan Cc: Joe Pittman Subject: Re: Request for Reports Hi Gary~ Could you please provide us with the following reports as per the Terms of Reference from Appendix Bin the Request for Proposals: Operational and Financial Analysis of Solid Waste Management Strategy ( DOC/2017/02215-01) issued November 01~ 2017. 1. BAE-Newplan Group Ltd. (March, 2013). Western Newfoundland Solid Waste Management Plan. Mount Pearl~ NL 2. Department ofMunicipal Affairs. (2016). Financial Analysis ofTransportingSo/id Wastefi·om the Western Region to the Landfill site at Norris Arm. St. John's, NL 3. Multi Material Stewardship Board. (2016). Waste Transportation Subsidy: Models for Non-Host Regions. Mount Pearl~ NL. 4. Multi Material Stewardship Board. (2017). What We Heard: Interregional Waste Transportation Costs. Mount Pearl~ NL. Thanks, Peter 1 guidmg our prov1nce to a greener future May3t•', 2017 Chairpersons Regional Waste Management Service Boards & Committees Dear Chairperson, At the January of2016 regional forum, MMSB was asked by the regional authorities to hold a formal discussion on the estimated interregional transportation costs; and to explore options for financing these costs. During the summer of 2016 MMSB completed a study estimating interregional transportation costs and on September 20'\ 2016, MMSB hosted and facilitated a discussion on these estimated costs; and held a brainstorming session to explore options for financing these costs. At this session Regional Authorities and Committees presented a number of ideas and options to finance interregional transportation costs. At that time MMSB committed to document all feedback and ideas received at the session and share this information with all regions at the March 9'h-10'h Regional Forum in 2017. At the March 2017 regional forum, MMSB presented this information and three further action items were sanctioned by all Regional Chairs: 1. MMSB will capture the information and options generated by the regional authorities and distribute that information to the regions. 2. Regional Chairs would review the options they had generated and work together to determine and document the advantages and disadvantages of each. 3. Regional Chairs would endeavour to reach consensus at a preferred option to present back to the Interdepartmental Waste Management Technical Committee. The attached 'What We Heard' document has been prepared to meet action item # I and captures the background of the issues surrounding interregional transportation costs and describes the options presented by Regional Authorities and Committees to address those issues. Should you require further information, assistance or advice as you work collectively toward a consensus, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Gary Ryan Director of Programs cc. Mike Samson MMSB, Jamie Chippett MAE, Sean Dutton SNL, Jan Duffett MAE, Dan Michielscn MAE, Robert Locke SNL, Gordon Murphy MMSB What We Heard: Interregional Waste Transportation Costs Drafted by: MMSB Programs Division 1 May 31 ', 2017 What We Heard: Interregional Waste Transportation Costs Background After the implementation of the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Strategy (strategy) work was done to reduce the number of waste disposal sites in the province. To accomplish this, a regional approach to waste management was adopted, resulting in the establishment of 12 distinct waste management regions; 4 in Labrador and 8 in Newfoundland. It is currently anticipated that waste in Labrador will be managed at sites that are located within each of the Labrador regions. This is not the case on the island portion of the province. To streamline the movement of waste on the island portion of the province, a network of transfer facilities and waste recovery facilities have been proposed and/or implemented. Using this network, waste in non-host regions will be transported from transfer sites to two host regions to be disposed of in second generation landfills. • Non-host waste management regions include: Discovery, Burin Peninsula, Coast of Bays, Baie Verte I Green Bay, Western, and NorPen. • Host Regions and their associated second generation landfills include Eastern (Robin Hood Bay), Central (Norris Arm). Although each region exerts a certain degree of control over waste generation and collection costs, non-host regions have no control over the distances to host sites, or the costs associated with disposing their waste at those sites. Transportation distances from transfer facilities of non host regions to host sites are greater than those within host regions. Consequently, non-host regions could pay more to manage their waste. At the January of 2016 regional forum, MMSB was asked by the regional authorities to hold a formal discussion on the estimated interregional transportation costs; and to explore options for financing these costs. During the summer of 2016 MMSB completed a study estimating interregional transportation 1 costs and on September 20 h, 2016, MMSB hosted and facilitated a discussion on these estimated costs; and held a brainstorming session to explore options for financing these costs (sec attached Waste Transportation Study). Outcomes 1 During the discussion at the September 20 h, 2016 session, seven options were put forward by various attendees. No consensus was reached on which option was preferred. Options presented were as follows: Options: 1. Finance interregional transport cost through tipping fee revenue - Should the tipping fee revenue generated by accepting non-host waste exceed the cost of transporting and managing non-host waste, there is an incentive for host regions to increase the volume of non-host waste that it receives thereby maximizing revenue and ensuring that waste management assets are optimally utilized. In this case, it would be in the host regions financial interest to finance interregional transportation costs. 2. Operationally Merge Host and Non-Host Regions - Where practical, non-host regions could merge with large host regions and all costs associated with the operation of the system, including transportation would be spread over a greater number of households. A single, per-household fee would be charged to all households within the consolidated regions. 3. Create a Single, Provincial Waste Management Region- As is the case in PEl, all host and non-host regions would merge and waste management services would be provided by a single organization. Costs associated with the entire system would be spread equally amongst all households, province-wide. Each household would pay the same cost. 4. MMSB Beverage Container Program Deposit Increase - Government could change the existing beverage container recycling program by increasing the deposit fee charged. The additional revenue realized could be re-distributed to non-host regions to off-set the cost of transporting waste to host facilities. 5. Increase Diversion - Make further investments in the infrastructure needed to increase diversion capabilities within the region. In doing so, the amount of material that needs to be transported out of any given region would be reduced along with the associated cost. 6. Landfill Levy - Through provincial legislation, require that a flat fee be charged on every tonne of waste that is placed in a lined engineered landfill. At $10.00/ MT, this additional fee could generate roughly $3MM that could be used to finance interregional transportation costs. 7. Provide Capital Replacement Subsidies - Currently, the acquisition of equipment or infrastructure, as outlined in the Provincial Waste Management Strategy, is financed largely by the provincial government. Once these new waste management regions are built, the cost of maintaining and replacing them is the responsibility of the region. It was suggested that government establish a capital replacement subsidy with regional authorities similar to existing arrangements with municipalities. Under this arrangement, monies that would otherwise have been put aside for landfill and equipment amortization could go toward offsetting interregional transportation costs. Waste Transportation Subsidy Models for Non-Host Regions Produced By: ~Sb guiding our province m ~l~~~ to a greener future \...,~ m~ Regional Transportation Subsidy Model June 2016 Introduction: After the implementation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste Management Strategy in 2002, work was done to reduce the number of waste disposal sites in the province. To accomplish this, a regional approach to waste management was adopted, resulting in the establishment of 12 distinct waste management regions; 4 in Labrador and 8 in Newfoundland. To streamline the movement of waste on the island, a network of transfer facilities and waste recovery facilities have been proposed and/or implemented. Using this network, waste in non-host regions will be transported from transfer sites to two host regions to be disposed of in second generation landfills. Waste management costs for all regions participating in the program are comprised of four key elements: 1. Volume of generated waste; 2. Collection costs; 3. Transportation costs; and 4. Disposal costs. Although each region exerts a certain degree of control over waste generation and collection costs, non host regions have no control over the distances to host sites, or the costs associated with disposing their waste. Transportation distances from transfer facilities of non-host regions to host sites are greater than those within host regions. Consequently, non-host regions end up paying more to manage their waste; highlighting an inequity within the Provincial Waste Management Strategy. This document explores the application of a provincial waste transportation subsidy for neutralizing the burden on non-host regions. mt§ Regional Transportation Subsidy Model June 2016 Methodology: 1. Transfer Sites For the sake of comparison, subsidies for each region were calculated based on costs of transport from geographic centroids, as well as transfer stations. 1.1 Geographic Centroids One centroid in each region was selected to reflect a centralized geographic position where road distances on either side of the site were equivalent. When using geographic centroids, the amount of waste requiring transport was based on the total waste generation of the region. I.2 Transfer Stations Transfer stations were selected to reflect one or more locations in a region where the waste generation, population, and distance from surrounding communities was most evenly distributed. Positioning of these sites was meant to increase cost effectiveness of waste transportation and disposal. For regions with multiple transfer stations, the amount of waste requiring transport was based on the amount of waste delivered to each station as a proportion of the regional total. In regions where just one transfer facility exists, the amount of waste requiring transport was based on the total waste generation of the region. 2. Distance Distances to transport waste from non-host regions were calculated using geographic information system (GIS) software. The calculations were based on round-trip distances between transfer facilities and host sites, as well as geographic centroids and host sites. Data on the location of transfer facilities and host sites were supplied by Dillon Consulting, while the locations of geographic centroids were extracted from existing regional waste management studies. In cases where geographic centroids were undefined, their positions were selected to reflect a centralized location along the regions existing road infrastructure. Road networks for Newfoundland, used for equating transportation distances, were obtained as shapcfilcs from the Department ofNatural Resources. Once all the data was compiled into the GIS program, start positions (transfer facilities or geographic centroid) and end positions (host sites) were selected, and "over-the-road" distances were computed. These values were then doubled to determine the total travel distance required to transport waste from non-host regions to host sites. 3. Transportation 3. I Waste Generation As noted above, transportation costs for each region depend upon the amount of waste that is generated, as well as the distance over which the waste must be transported. Having already determined the distances, information on waste generation needed to be identified. A figure of I .5 kg/person/day was used to reflect waste generation in non-host regions. It was based on regional data supplied by Central NL Waste Management, which were used to produce an interregional estimate. Annual waste generation for non-host regions was calculated as a product of their population size. m@) Regional Transportation Subsidy Model June 2016 3.2 IJ!aste Diversion When determining the amount of waste requiring transportation to host sites, regional and provincial waste diversion programs were also considered. Based on existing data from provincially and municipally run diversion programs, as well as possible increases in diversion resulting from access to additional infrastructure, it was determined that approximately 30% of generated waste would remain in non-host regions. Consequently,just 70% of generated waste would require transportation to host sites. 3.3 Payload To quantify costs associated with transportation of solid waste from non-host regions to host sites, the payload associated with haulers was identified. Maximum payload of a hauler is 29 tonnes; however, when performing calculations, a conservative estimate of 25 tonnes was chosen. This was done based on the understanding that not every truck will reach maximum payload before the waste needs to be transported to a host site. 3.4 Cost The last component considered in the models was the cost for transporting solid waste. The subsidy required to neutralize transportation costs for non-host regions was determined to be S2 per kilometer. This figure was based on the average rate regional authorities currently pay to transport waste from transfer stations to host sites. rt includes the cost of transit using at least one ferry per region, and also assumes fuel rates to be $1.35 - $1.50 per litre. 4. Subsidy Using the payload described above, and calculating the tonnage of waste requiring transport, the number of trips from non-host regions to host sites could be determined. By applying the cost of each kilometer, the net annual subsidy required to neutralize transportation costs was modelled. Origin of Data Population and Number of Households retrieved from regional solid waste management studies Waste Generation is an interregional estimate based on data supplied by Central NL Waste Management Transfer station locations retrieved from regional solid waste management ~tudies Centroids selected to reflect geographic point where road distances on either side of the site are equivalent Proportion of waste at each transfer station based on proportion of the region's population which it serves Maximum payload of haulers is 29 tonnes; conservative estimate of 25 tonnes were used for calculations Waste to be transported was estimated to be 70%; approximately 30% of waste is diverted under existing infrastructure Subsidized cost was estimated to be $2 per km N9rthern Peninsula -- Population 12,240 Number of Households 4,843 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.50 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 6,701 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Waste Generated St. Anthony 0.6 Hawkes Bay 0.4 Centroid St. Barbe Latitude 51.20 Longitude -56.78 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Central Host Site Norris Arm . ·-·· Scenario #1 - Transfer Stations ·I Scenario #2 - Centroid St. Anthony Hawke's Bay St. Barbe Waste Generation (kg/person/year) 4,021 2,681 Waste Generation (kg/person/year) 6,701 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 2,815 1,876 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 4,691 Trips to Host Site {#) 113 75 Trips to Host Site (#) 1881 Distance to Host Site (km) 667 467 Distance to Host Site (km) 552 Round Trip (km) 1,335 935 Round Trip (km) 1,103; Total distance each year (km) 150,276 70,147 Total distance each year (km) 207,0041 Cost per Transfer Station $300,553 $140,294 Total Subsidy $414,007 Total Subsidy $440,847 -. "'",.._ . - -. Western - .. Population 74,978 Number of Households 34,500 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.5 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 41,050 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Waste Generated Rocky Harbour 0.03 Hampden 0.01 Wild Cove 0.65 St. George's 0.21 Port aux Basques 0.07 Burgeo 0.02 Between St. Judes Centroid and Pynn's Brook latitude 49.12 longitude -57.50 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Central Host Site Norris Arm ------·- . ------Scenario #1- Transfer Stations Rocky Harbour Hampden Wild Cove St. George's Port aux Basques Burg eo Waste Generation (kg/person/year) 1,232 411 26,683 8,621 2,874 821 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 862 287 18,678 6,034 2,011 575: Trips to Host Site (#) 34 11 747 241 80 23 Distance to Host Site (km) 324 260 309 395 438 508 Round Trip (km) 648 519 617 790 875 1016 Total distance each year (km) 22,358 5,968 461,271 190,688 70,434 23,356 Cost per Transfer Station $44,717 $11,936 $922,542 $381,375 $140,867 $46,712 Total Subsidy $1,548,149 ···- - Scenario #2 - Centroid eO} Between St. Judes and Pynn's Brook Waste Generation (kg/person/year) 41,050 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 28,735 Trips to Host Site (#) 1,149 Distance to Host Site (km) 267 Round Trip (km) 533 Total distance each year (km) 612,867 Total Subsidy $1,225,734 . - - - Baie Verte - Green Bay Population 13,901 Number of Households 5,681 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.5 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 7,611 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Waste Generated Bale Verte 0.4 South brook 0.6 11.5 km N of Centroid Sheppardville Latitude 49.56 longitude -56.43 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Central Host Site Norris Arm - - Scenario Ill - Transfer Stations Scenario #2 - Centroid Bale Verte Southbrook Sheppardville Waste Generation {per year) 3,044 4,566 Waste Generation {per year) 7,611 Total Waste to be Transported Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes} 2,131 3,197 (tonnes) 5,328 Trips to Host Site (#) 85 128 Trips to Host Site (#) 213 Distance to Host Site (km} 223 127 Distance to Host Site (km) 179 Round Trip (km) 446 253 Round Trip (km) 358 Total distance each year (km) 37,983 32,349 Total distance each year (km) 76,333 Cost per Transfer Station $75,967 $64,698 Total Subsidy $152,667 Total Subsidy $140,665 Coast of Bays {Connaigre Peninsula) Population 7,927 Number of Households 2,886 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.5 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 4,340 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Waste Milltown Head • 1 Generated Bay D'Espoir 9 km NE of route Centroid 362 and route 360 intersection latitude 47.76 Longitude -55.66 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Central Host Site Norris Arm Scenario 1#1- Transfer Stations I Scenario 1#2 - Centroid 9 km NE of route 362 Milltown Head - and route 360 Bay D'Espolr intersection Waste Generation (per year) 4,340 Waste Generation (per year) 4,340 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 3,038 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 3,038 Trips to Host Site (I#) 122 Trips to Host Site (II) 122 Distance to Host Site (km) 1751 Distance to Host Site (km) 178 1 Round Trip (km) 349I Round Trip (km) 357 Total distance each year (km) 42,459 Total distance each year (km) 43,334 Cost per Transfer Station $84,919 Total Subsidy $86,669 Total Subsidy $84,919 - Burin P_enlnsula ... - . ~ Population 21,233 Number of Households 9,600 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.5 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 11,625 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Frenchman's Cove 1 Waste Generated 3.5 km NE of Centroid Marystown latitude 47.17 Longitude ~55.16 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Eastern Host Site Robin Hood Bay - - Scenario #1-Transfer Stations Scenario #Z ~ Centroid Frenchman's Cove 3.5 km NE of Marystown Waste Generation (per year) 11,625 Waste Generation (per year) 11,625 Total Waste to be Transported Total Waste to be Transported 8,138 8,138 (tonnes) (tonnes) Trips to Host Site (#) 326 Trips to Host Site (#) 326 Distance to Host Site (km) 332 Distance to Host Site (km) 305 Round Trip (km) 664. Round Trip (km) 610 Total distance each year (km) 216,003 Total distance each year (km) 198,686 Cost per Transfer Station $432,006l Total Subsidy $397,373 Total Subsidy $432,0061 Discovery (Bonavista Peninsula) Population 10,950 Number of Households 6,900 Waste Generation (kg/person/day) 1.5 Annual Waste Generation (tonnes) 5,995 Transfer Stations & Proportion of Waste ERSB Transfer Site 1 Generated Centroid Plate Cove West latitude 48.42 longitude -53.59 Max load (tonnes) 25 Cost (per km) $2 Host Region Avalon Host Site Robin Hood Bay Scenario #1-Transfer Stations Scenario #2 - Centroid ERSB Transfer Site Plate Cove West Waste Generation (per year) 5,995: Waste Generation (per year) 5,995 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 4,197 Total Waste to be Transported (tonnes) 4,197 Trips to Host Site (If) 168 Trips to Host Site(#) 168' Distance to Host Site (km) 185 Distance to Host Site (km) 240; Round Trip (km) 370 Round Trip (km) 480I Total distance each year (km) 62,143 Total distance each year (km) 80,5541 Cost per Transfer Station $124,286 Total Subsidy $161,109 Total Subsidy $124,286 - -- ' ... -...+-';a.--~ - -- Provincial Summary of Jranspprtation Subsidy - Cost From Number of Cost From Transfer Cost Per Cost Per Region Popu 1at 1 on H h ld Geographic ouse o s Facilities Household Household Centroid Northern Peninsula 12,240 4,843 $440,847.00 $91.03 $414,007.00 $85.49 Western 74,978 34,500 $1,548,149.13 $44.87 $1,225,733.75 $35.53 Coast of Bays 7,927 2,886 $84,918.81 $29.42 $86,668.71 $30.03 Burin 21,233 9,600 $432,006.11 $45.00 $397,372.71 $41.39 BaieVerte 13,901 5,681 $140,664.59 $24.76 $152,666.51 $26.87 Discovery 10,950 6,900 $124,286.00 $18.01 $161,109.00 $23.35 Provincial Su~~~Y. $2,770,871.64 $2,437,557.68