MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

EVALUATION

We wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their interviews and information forthe compilation of this report.

Bellefeuille, Rhonda, Administrator, R.M. of Bone Creek No. 108, Shaunavon, Saskatchewan

Donaldson, Richard, Meyers Norris Penny, Humboldt, Saskatchewan

Ganong, Blaine, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management

Haggart, Terry, Mayor, Town of Eastend, Saskatchewan

Halyk, Rod, former Town Foreman, Town of Shaunavon, Saskatchewan

Hallsworth, Gregg, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management

Lukey, Jackie, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management

Nugaard, Tammie, Town of Drumheller, Alberta

Parker, Bill, Flagstaff Regional Waste Management Authority, Flagstaff, Alberta

Paul, Darcy, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management

Rode, Larry D., Partner, Meyers Norris Penny, Humboldt, Saskatchewan

Sheppard, Greg, Big Country Waste Management Commission, Hanna, Alberta

Speirs, Gordon, former Mayor, Town of Shaunavon, Saskatchewan

Swerhone, Dan, C.E.O., Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT), Humboldt, Saskatchewan

Tullock, Dave, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management

Vaughan, Kerry, Canadian Waste Services, Regina, Saskatchewan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.0 Background to MSWMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 The History of Landfills in Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2 The Landfill Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP) . . . . . . . . 61.4 Evolution of MSWMAP Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.0 Frenchman Valley Regional Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2 Existing Waste Management Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.1 Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2.2 Waste Reduction and Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.2.3 Waste Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.3 Proposed Regional System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.3.1 Recommended Regional Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.3.2 Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.2.1 Local Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.3.2.2 Regional Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.3 Waste Reduction and Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.4 Proposed Regional Waste Management Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.1 Capital Development Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4.2 Estimated Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4.3 Potential Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.4.4 Cost Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.5 Final Consultant’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.6 Participant Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.0 Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.2 Existing Waste Management Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.2.1 Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.2.2 Waste Reduction and Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.2.3 Waste Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3 Proposed Regional System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.3.1 Recommended Regional Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303.3.2 Waste Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.2.1 Collection Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3.2.2 Local Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.3.2.3 Regional Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.3.2.4 Recycle Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3.2.5 Organics Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.3.3 User Pay System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4 REACT Financial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.4.1 Initial Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353.4.2 Capital Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363.4.3 Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.4.4 Operating Cost Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.4.5 REACT Cost Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.4.6 Costs Unique to REACT Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.4.7 Contracting Out Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483.4.8 Developing a Post-Pilot Regional System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.4.9 Recycling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.4.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.5 REACT Client Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.5.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.5.2 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.5.3.1 Landfill Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.5.3.2 Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573.5.3.3 Waste Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583.5.3.4 Familiarity with REACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.5.3.5 User Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603.5.3.6 Cost / Willingness to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.5.4 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633.5.5 Conclusions/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.0 MSWMAP - Implications for Regional Waste Management in Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . 654.1 Project Methodology / Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654.2 Financial / Cost Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.3 Service Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674.4 Environmental Benefits / Waste Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674.5 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.6 Educational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.7 Benefits to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.0 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix A Bylaw for REACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix B Exhibit A - Multi Municipality Solid Waste Management Agreement . . . . . . . . 72

Appendix C Schedule A - REACT Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix D Full Cost Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

1

Executive Summary

The Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP) was initiated in 1992in response to the outcome of public consultation in which municipalities and governmentrecommended exploring regional waste management as an option for cost effectively managingwaste. Interested municipalities were asked to submit regional solid waste managementconceptual plans in a Request for Proposal prepared in 1992 under MSWMAP.

The Frenchman Valley Regional Landfill Commission located in the Eastend/Shaunavon area insouth western Saskatchewan and the Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT) located in theHumboldt/Wakaw/Watson area of east central Saskatchewan were selected as the two pilotprojects. It was envisioned that provincial funding assistance to the pilot projects would offsetexpenditures borne by the participating municipalities during the learning process in developingregional waste management systems from which all municipalities could benefit. This evaluationis intended to examine the pilot projects and draw conclusions from both the successes andshortcomings of each project.

Both the Frenchman Valley and the REACT projects proved to be successful from the perspectiveof providing insight into how regional waste management projects can be organized and initiatedas well as some of the potential pitfalls which should be avoided.

The Frenchman pilot project was discontinued prior to becoming operational. Municipalitieswithdrew from the pilot project on November 22, 1996 when the average per capita cost of thedevelopment of the regional system was calculated to be $81.00. Of primary concern was anunpredictable future operating cost for a declining population when the capital project wascomplete. Of note in the Frenchman Valley project was an innovative cost sharing systemdesigned to assist very small communities with large distances required for transfer of waste fordisposal.

The REACT project presents a successful template for regionalization which can, as was hoped inthe original objectives of the program, be used in planning and determining the feasibility of otherregional waste management systems. The project has provided insight into cost savings of whichfuture pilot projects can take advantage, and determined capital project and collections optionswhich may be considered. REACT forms a basis on which municipalities may build pilot projectsunique to their own waste management circumstances.

As part of this evaluation, a random mail out client satisfaction survey was conducted in REACTin January, 1999. This survey was intended to gauge the acceptability of a regional wastemanagement system to the area residents, businesses and institutions. Survey results revealed thata regional waste management system was well accepted with a strong expression of appreciationfor recycling opportunities. Positive comments were received about the user-pay system (Bag-and-Tag), however, any increase in fees would clearly not be popular with people in the REACTarea. Ongoing education and communication were found to be of high importance in bothREACT and Frenchman Valley to keep people informed, in pace with and committed to eachproject.

2

Municipalities can provide affordable solid waste management in a shared regional setting inkeeping with objectives of minimizing waste by converting as much as possible into a reusableresource, disposing of residual material in a manner consistent with good environmentalengineering practices and complying with the legislation of today. There are several clearmessages which can be learned from the MSWMAP pilot projects:

1) Each proposed regional waste management project has unique characteristics whichrequire very careful consideration prior to incorporation.

2) A comprehensive feasibility study is required to determine true costs and identifyreasonable options.

3) Projects can be tailored to provide recycling opportunities which the public favours,however, associated costs must be considered within the context of the whole project.

4) It is SERM’s opinion that savings which can be identified from start-up and capital costsincurred in the regional pilot projects indicate that it is feasible for municipalities toestablish a regional waste management system without the need for financial assistance. Professional accounting firms are available to provide assistance in financial planning forregional systems.

5) Careful planning coupled with an ongoing communication and educational componentdelivered by a strong “champion” or board is necessary for a successful regional wastemanagement project.

6) Each board should set aside funding to evaluate and plan their future solid wastemanagement projects to ensure they continue to be viable or require changes.

3

Scope

The Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP) was launched inJanuary, 1992 in response to requests from urban and rural municipalities for financial assistancein managing municipal solid waste in compliance with the expectations of the public andenvironmental legislation. The goal of MSWMAP was to develop two regional wastemanagement pilot projects based on the principles of waste minimization and responsible solidwaste management at a reasonable cost. The vision of MSWMAP was to provide a templatewhich could be used by future regional waste management projects within Saskatchewan.

Two pilot regional waste management projects were selected from seventeen regional conceptualplans submitted under MSWMAP. The Frenchman Valley Regional Landfill Commission and theRegional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT) projects were announced on March 16, 1993. Each of the pilot projects were expected to break new ground in the development of partnershipagreements between participating municipalities, conduct an engineering and feasibility studybased on their conceptual plan and implement the final project. Under the program, capitalexpenditures of the pilot projects would be 50% cost-shared by the province to offset financialcommitments incurred in developing a new waste management concept which would benefit allmunicipalities.

The scope of this report includes a description of the results of the MSWMAP program, and anevaluation of the cost effectiveness, public opinion, educational components and environmentalimplications of regional waste management in Saskatchewan. This evaluation will highlightbenefits and shortcomings of the two pilot projects under the Municipal Solid Waste ManagementAssistance Program (MSWMAP) in developing and delivering a regional solid waste managementprogram shared by urban and rural municipalities. Recommendations of the evaluation of theprogram are intended to provide future regional waste management projects with the tools todevelop regional waste management plans which will build on the knowledge gained from theMSWMAP.

4

1.0 Background to MSWMAP

1.1 The History of Landfills in Saskatchewan

Municipal landfills have existed since the beginning of the built history of Saskatchewan. Thenumber of “municipal” type landfills would have originally coincided with the number ofsettlements located along the waterways, trails and eventually railways and highways as theTerritory developed into a network of established communities and formed the Province ofSaskatchewan.

Landfills were frequently sited out of convenience and cost savings, on unused, non-agricultural,inexpensive land with little knowledge or consideration of environmental impacts. Commonlocations for landfill sites were sloughs, gravel extraction pits, gullies, coulees, or land withalkaline or sandy soils, all of which are generally unsuitable for the intended use. Due to steeptopography, high water tables, moving water, poor drainage and soil types found at landfilllocations and/or the lack of machinery or funds, waste was simply tipped and, if combustible,burned with little or no further maintenance.

Originally, many of the wastes delivered to landfills were ashes from burning barrels or unburnablehousehold items such as metal, glass and pottery. Burnable materials delivered to the landfill siteswere burned on site and waste was rarely buried. Separation of waste was unheard of and liquidwastes such as sewage, oil and solvents were mixed with solid waste at the sites.

Changes occurred in the socio-economic background of the province during the 1940's from aprimarily low-tech agricultural society to a diversified high-tech agricultural society. A shift toadditional manufacturing and service industry activity caused massive changes in the types andvolumes of waste handled at landfills. Packaging waste increased as goods were transported fromaround the world, requiring packaging for transport. Shifts away from the use of bulk itemsincreased the amount of packaging waste to be handled. Today's extensive use of plastics andother synthetically originated packaging materials which can produce a whole range of toxinswhen burned, or have a long life when buried at the landfill, have caused the need for changes inthe management of municipal solid waste and the methods to safely and economically operatemunicipal waste disposal grounds.

As the burning of household waste in burning barrels became an unacceptable practice in mosturban centres, very large volumes of waste began to arrive at landfill sites which were not onlypoorly sited, but much too limited in capacity to handle the waste. Burning of the waste at thelandfills to reduce volumes, control litter and deter pests, became very common. This became notonly an air quality hazard and a nuisance to residents who lived near the landfills, but a major firehazard and a potential threat to surface and groundwater in the vicinities of the landfills. Poorlymanaged landfills, commonly referred to as “nuisance grounds” or “junk yards”, becameharbourage for vermin such as rats. Wind blown paper and light plastics became eyesores, servingas hazards to animals grazing adjacent to landfills and clogging farm machinery.

5

In 1972, Regulation 198/72 was enacted under The Public Health Act (repealed January 1, 1997)to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of municipal waste disposal grounds. This responsibility was transferred to Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management(SERM) in 1984. The Municipal Refuse Management Regulations were enacted in 1986 underThe Environmental Management and Protection Act.

The 1970's and the new regulations brought improved siting of new landfills and some separationof waste materials at landfills. The main materials separated for recycling at IPSCO in Reginawere junked vehicles and other metals through the “Operation Recycle” program. Scrap tiresand rubble were being stockpiled and spoiled grain/grain cleanings and dead animals were treatedseparately at some sites. Through the 1980's and 1990's separation of other materials for storage,treatment or special disposal has increased over the years to include empty pesticide containers,trees/lumber, petroleum contaminated soils, compost, dead animals, biomedical waste, treatedgrain, shingles, waste oil storage and paper/cardboard storage. Waste dangerous goods are onlyaccepted at landfills under special circumstances on a per time basis. The disposal of sewage isnot allowed at waste disposal grounds. Today, large volumes of municipal waste (beverage andmilk containers) are diverted from disposal through SARCAN. Paper and cardboard recyclingopportunities exist in many larger communities. Tire and waste oil stewardship programs areremoving two of the more challenging waste streams from entering landfills.

In 1983 a study was conducted by Dillon Consulting Engineers and Planners paid for jointlybetween SERM and Environment Canada to determine the number of existing and closedmunicipal landfill sites in Saskatchewan. With the use of questionnaires sent to all urban andrural municipalities, the status, locations and suitability of locations relative to questions regardingsoil type, closeness to water, surrounding land uses, and waste types found in the landfill wasdetermined. A total of 802 landfills were found to be “active” and 337 were “inactive” sites for atotal of 1,139 municipal landfills.

1.2 The Landfill Meetings

Following the enactment of The Municipal Refuse Management Regulations in 1986,municipalities were not strongly pressured to change historical management practices unlesscomplaints forced the issue or a new landfill site was requested. This changed after theHagersville, Ontario tire fire occurred in 1990. This event drew a high media profile and publicinterest in the hazards of burning waste and the potential for ground and surface water pollution. Due to the well publicized tire fire, public awareness regarding burning at municipal wastedisposal grounds and unacceptable management practices increased. Complaints aboutindiscriminate burning increased dramatically, resulting in more stringent enforcement of theregulations. Other nuisance complaints such as litter, odour and rats increased as publicawareness about waste management and the environment increased.

The resulting concern from municipal governments prompted the department to conduct eighteen"Landfill Meetings" across the province with approximately 1,300 municipal officials inattendance. The “Landfill Meetings” were conducted to clarify the intent of the regulations, relateacceptable waste management practices to municipal governments and generate a future vision of

6

solid waste management in Saskatchewan. They facilitated improved understanding between thedepartment and municipalities. The outcome was that the solid waste management vision inSaskatchewan would be based on waste minimization, with an effort to improve access to recyclemarkets and sharing of landfill operations and management. Municipalities were given permissionto burn only trees and lumber in a designated area to reduce space needed for landfilling, whilewaste disposal grounds were brought up to standard and recycle markets were created.

In 1990 a document entitled, Refuse Disposal Guidelines for Small Communities was prepared bySERM to complement The Municipal Refuse Management Regulations. This document providedmunicipalities with a greater understanding about the proper management of a waste disposalground. Additionally, waste management articles were published in The Clear Water Reporter, adepartment publication which had wide distribution to municipal clients, and Reusing andRecycling in Saskatchewan, a waste minimization booklet was published annually. Thedepartment sponsored and participated in many waste management and waste reductionworkshops, all of which were widely communicated to municipal clients.

The Solid Waste Compliance Report, 1994/95 was compiled by SERM based on field inspectionsconducted by regional staff. In this report, a total of 674 active municipal waste disposal siteswere identified and inspected. Sixty-four percent of the waste disposal grounds were observed ascontinuing to burn all refuse in this snapshot, however, 54% (365 waste disposal grounds) wereprojected to require replacement or expansion by the year 2004, if current levels of operations andmaintenance work were continued.

1.3 Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP)

The Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP) was announced at theSaskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) Annual Convention in January, 1992 inresponse to the results of the Landfill Meetings. The new five-year program was intended toprovide $1.75 million to cost-share capital expenditures to set up two pilot regional wastemanagement projects and to provide municipalities with information and technical assistance todevelop waste minimization programs and markets for recycled material.

The Solid Waste Working Committee was established to finalize the design of MSWMAP andprepare a “Request for Proposal” and evaluation criteria for proposed pilot projects underMSWMAP. This Committee operated under the direction of the Community EnvironmentalManagement Steering Committee. Representation on the Solid Waste Working Committee wasfrom SUMA, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM), the SaskatchewanWaste Reduction Council (SWRC), Saskatchewan Finance, Saskatchewan EconomicDevelopment and Trade, Saskatchewan Health, Saskatchewan Rural Development, SaskatchewanCommunity Services and SERM. The objective of MSWMAP was to begin the process ofresponsible waste management in Saskatchewan through the development of two regional wastemanagement pilot projects which would serve as models for future waste management projects.

The Request for Proposal was completed for distribution to all urban, rural and northernmunicipalities, Agricultural Diversification and Development (ADD) Boards and Rural

7

Development Corporations in June, 1992. The Request for Proposal set out the background andobjectives of the MSWMAP program and provided a comprehensive guide for groups ofmunicipalities to establish a conceptual plan for a regional waste management project. The guidewas divided into five general sections which would be used in the evaluation process of eachproposal as follows:

1. Objectives:To provide a description of the region’s solid waste management objectives including asummary of issues (i.e. lack of landfill space, distance to recycle markets), a list ofobstacles (i.e. costs) and how they will be overcome.

2. Administrative Information:To identify the municipalities interested in the proposed regional pilot project and provideresolutions of participating councils.

3. Background Information:To provide detailed planning information such as defining the boundaries of the proposedregional project, estimating the current and projected populations served, determining thewaste streams and volumes generated, describing the existing solid waste collection,processing and disposal systems in place and describing the existing landfills in the areaand how to close them.

4. Operational, Environmental, Consultation and Financial Information:To provide a conceptual plan of the proposed regional waste management pilot project:

# Operational Information: To conduct an analysis of the alternatives formanaging the region’s waste which would become part of the region’swaste management plan. This would include waste minimizationapproaches to each identified waste stream, waste collection proposals,labour sources and the design of the disposal facilities, including specialmaterial handling (i.e. oil), ownership and costs of the facilities. Time linesof the project were to be provided.

# Environmental Information: To determine the environmental suitability(land use, land use policy and controls, surface/groundwater, lifeexpectancy and end use, and potential environmental, social and economicimpacts of the disposal facility.

# Public Consultation: To determine the design, audiences and budget formethodology to inform and receive feedback from the pilot project areapublic.

# Financial Information: To provide a financial breakdown of proposed totalcapital costs over the project lifetime, labour costs, landfilll closure costsand other anticipated costs. An estimation of costs/revenues and fundingsharing and costs to each municipality were to be provided. A financialplan showing sources of revenues and future sources of capital when

8

provincial funding ended. To provide an estimate of the cost of operatingthe region’s existing landfills up to provincial standards in the absence ofthe regional approach.

5. Other Information: To describe the continuing project evaluation process including cost, profitability, wasteshandled by the system v.s. waste generated, wastes diverted to recycling, etc..

Municipalities, proposed pilot regions or their consultants were invited to attend six informationalmeetings conducted in August, 1992. These meetings were intended to assist municipalities inunderstanding the regional concept and to give instructions and expectations in completing aproposal under the Request for Proposal. A deadline of October 31, 1992 was set for submissionof the proposed conceptual plans. Each legitimate proposal received was eligible for 50%funding up to a limit of $5,000.

The Solid Waste Working Committee prepared evaluation/selection criteria for the proposedregional waste management projects. Each proposal was measured against the following criteria:

1. Model Usefulness:The pilots should serve as useful models for the application of the regional concept byother groups of municipalities throughout the province.

Critical Factors:a) Is the proposed system realistic for the region?b) Could the basic system structure be duplicated in other regions?c) Does the system include unique features that either enhance or reduce its

applicability to other regions?d) Can local people be trained to operate the system?e) Does the proposal appear to have public acceptability?

2. Project Size:Ideally, one of the pilots would be of a smaller scale than the other, since a large-scalepilot would not be a useful model in all cases. For the purposes of evaluation, scale wouldbe assessed in terms of the number of municipalities willing to participate in the regionalproject, the population within the proposed region, and the waste generated in theproposed region. However, the small-scale pilot should involve 10 - 15 municipalitieswhile the large-scale pilot should involve 25 or more municipalities.

Critical Factors:a) Does the proposal fit either one of the preferred sizes?b) Are all of the municipalities within the region committed to the project?c) Are there physical obstacles that would interfere with the operation of the

proposed size of the system?d) Does the proposed region contain unique features that dictate a size different than

the preferred sizes?e) Does the region appear to be either too small or too large to be served effectively

9

by a single system?3. Project Proposal:

The proposal should be complete, well-prepared, and workable. It should demonstrate agood understanding of provincial, regional and local waste management issues and themajor tasks involved in planning and operating a regional waste management project.

Critical Factors:a) What percentage of the requested information is provided? Are the omissions

crucial to evaluating the project?b) Is the proposal presented in a clear, understandable manner?c) Does the proposal show an understanding of the issues and obstacles facing the

waste management plan?d) Do the elements of the plan respond to the issues and obstacles?e) Does the proposal contain an acceptable public participation plan?

4. Financial Sustainability:The participating municipalities should be able to financially sustain the regional wastemanagement project after the pilot period.

Critical Factors:a) Is the project business plan complete, including a time period beyond the pilot

project?b) Does the cost sharing amongst the municipalities involved appear to accurately

reflect their ability to pay in both the short and long term?c) Are the proposed revenue sources traditional (e.g. taxes), innovative (e.g. tipping

fees, establishment as a utility) or a mixture of both?d) Does the proposal rely too heavily on uncertain revenue sources such as the sale of

recyclable material?e) Will the regional system be more economical to operate than if each municipality

operated its own system to appropriate environmental standards?

5. Contribution to Waste Minimization:The proposed pilot project will make an important contribution towards the provincialgoal of 50% reduction in solid waste destined for disposal by the year 2000. (This goalwas established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and has beenadopted by all provinces).

Critical Factors:a) Do the Regional Commission and municipal governments commit themselves to

purchasing reusable, recyclable and recycled products?b) Will there be education/information programs to stimulate the 4R’s in their

accepted order of preference?c) Does the proposal include the collection, processing and marketing of reusable and

recyclable material?d) Does the proposal include the collection, processing and marketing of reusable and

recyclable material?

10

e) Does the proposal include composting programs?Seventeen proposals were received by October 31, 1992. Table 1 gives a listing of the proposalsreceived and the number of municipalities which were willing to participate.

Table 1 Regional Waste Management Pilot Project Proposals Received under theMSWMAP Program, October, 31, 1992.

SMALL REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT PROPOSALS

Proposed Pilot Project Number of Participating MunicipalitiesFrenchman Valley 12Tisdale Area 10Kamsack & Area 4West Central (Kindersley/Kerrobert Area) 8Assiniboia & Area 4Battlefords & Area 17Mervin Area 10Creighton & Area 3Melville & Area 15Manitou District (Watrous Area) 4+Alsask Area 4

LARGE REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT PROPOSALS

Proposed Pilot Project Number of Participating MunicipalitiesREACT 27East Central (Grenfell/Moosomin Area) 32Saskatoon & Area 32District One ADD Board (South Eastern Sask) 31South Parkland Area (Balcarres/Canora to Manitoba) 63Regina (unspecified)

The Solid Waste Working Committee critiqued each proposed pilot regional waste managementproject and made its recommendations for the two pilot projects to the Community EnvironmentalManagement Steering Committee. Recommendations were carried through the minister toCabinet for final approval. On March 16, 1993, the Frenchman Valley Regional Commission andthe Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT) were announced as the two regional pilotprojects under the Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program. From this point,each of the successful pilot projects would give considerable time in preparing formal agreementsbetween the respective municipalities, defining the legal structure and funding of the pilot projectand engaging a professional consulting engineer to flesh out the final design of the pilot projectbased on the conceptual plan submitted to the Solid Waste Working Committee (See Appendices

11

A, B and C for REACT Bylaws and Constitution).1.4 Evolution of MSWMAP Objectives

Objectives were originally set to guide municipalities who prepared and submitted concept plansfor regional waste management projects. These objectives were considered to have the greatestimportance in solid waste management. The original objectives were stated as follows:

# Do the regional commission and municipal governments commit themselves to purchasingreusable, recyclable and recycled products?

# Will there be education/information programs to stimulate the 4R’s in their accepted orderof preference?

# Will financial incentives to reduce waste be established?# Does the proposal include the collection, processing and marketing of reusable and

recyclable material?# Does the proposal include composting programs?

Through the passage of time, the constant change in accepted methods of solid wastemanagement and the realization that each proposal had unique circumstances, thus requiringflexibility, resulted in program objectives evolving to be stated as follows, which is the philosophyof REACT:

“To divert as much waste as possible from disposal in landfill by operating anintegrated waste management system which includes reduction, recycling anddisposal.”

This objective or philosophy is likely to form the cornerstone for the development of futureregional solid waste management systems proposed in the province.

12

2.0 Frenchman Valley Regional Landfill

2.1 Overview

On March 16, 1993, The Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Authority, comprisedof 6 urban and 6 rural municipalities, was announced as one of the successful pilot projectsaccepted under the Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP). Thisauthority was chosen as one of the pilot projects based on the following criteria:

1) Model Usefulness - The proposal was a useful model for low population density areas thatcould be easily duplicated.

2) Project Size - This proposal encompassed large land areas with a small population base whichcould present distance obstacles.

3) Project Proposal - The proposal presented was very comprehensive and ensuredrepresentation by the public on the commission.

4) Financial Stability - The proposal provided a good analysis of alternatives and a realistic pilotproject for the area.

5) Contribution to Waste Minimization - The proposal outlined an excellent public informationpackage with innovative waste reduction options.

The Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Project was cost shared (50/50) on capitalexpenditures by the participating municipalities and Saskatchewan Environment and ResourceManagement through MSWMAP. It was anticipated that this project would provide a model forfuture integrated regional solid waste management systems in other areas of the province. Through the development of the Frenchman Regional Waste Management Project, additionalmunicipalities expressed an interest in participating in the pilot project. The project eventuallyexpanded to include 8 urban and 8 rural municipalities.

Located in the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan, the Frenchman Valley region encompassedapproximately 11,000 square kilometers (4300 square miles) within the following 16 urban andrural municipalities:

Figure 1 Municipalities Participating in Frenchman Valley Pilot Project

Rural Municipalities Urban Municipalities

R.M. of Arlington No. 79 Village of Admiral

R.M. of Bone Creek No. 108 Village of Bracken

13

R.M. of Frontier No. 19 Village of Climax

R.M. of Grassy Creek No. 78 Village of Dollard

R.M. of Lone Tree No. 18 Village of Frontier

R.M. of Val Marie No. 17 Village of Val Marie

R.M. of White Valley No. 49 Town of Eastend

R.M. of Wise Creek No. 77 Town of Shaunavon

According to the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Insurance Program (S.H.I.P) 1994 CoveredPopulation data, the total regional population was expanded from the initial 5,770 to 6,781. There were 3,611 urban residents who accounted for 53.3 percent of the total regionalpopulation; and there were 3,170 rural residents who accounted for 46.7 per cent of the totalpopulation.

Figure 2 illustrates the boundaries of the Frenchman Valley proposed waste management system.

2.2 Existing Waste Management Infrastructure

The existing waste management infrastructure consisted of three components: waste collectionand disposal, waste reduction and diversion infrastructure, and waste generation calculations.

2.2.1 Waste Collection and Disposal

The rural municipalities did not provide collection services due to high transportation costs. Therural population in the Frenchman Valley region was responsible for hauling their own solidwastes to waste disposal grounds when they did not dispose of it on their own property.

The urban municipalities within the region provided a variety of waste collection services. Villages typically contracted operators with half-ton trucks or one ton dump trucks to collect andtransport wastes to the waste disposal grounds. The Village of Frontier and the Towns ofEastend and Shaunavon operated their own collection and transportation system. There werefourteen existing waste disposal sites in the region and seven of the urban municipalities providedwaste collection as noted in Figure 3.

Table 3 summarizes the annual waste management costs of the municipalities prior toparticipation in the regional project. The total collection and landfilling costs were $129,028 peryear in the 1996 fiscal year, or, on average, $24.06 per capita.

16

Table 3Frenchman Valley Region Summary of Collection and Disposal Services and Costs

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION LOCATION ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR/EQUIP COLLECTION FREQUENCY ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTALSERVED OF LANDFILL REMAINING LIFE CAPACITY # PER WEEK COLLECTION & WASTE ANNUAL

HAULING COSTS DISPOSAL COSTSGROUND

OPERATIONCOSTS

RESIDENTIAL ICI

URBAN MUNICIPALITIESAdmiral 25 NW 4-9-15-W3 25 No Collection No Collection $175 $175/yr

Key/Resident Key/Resident

Bracken 70 SE 4-3-16-W3

17

2.2.2 Waste Reduction and Diversion

The Frenchman Valley region’s waste reduction and diversion infrastructure was not welldeveloped. The region investigated various options for waste diversion which may have includededucation /information programs, source reduction , reuse, recycling, composting and recoveryprograms which were often initiated by service clubs or community groups as fund raisinginitiatives.

2.2.3 Waste Generation Rates

The Frenchman Valley regional solid waste management plan estimated that waste generationrates of 2.0 kg/capita/day (0.73 tonnes/capita/year) should be used as compared to 2.33kg/capita/day (0.85 tonnes/capita/year) as suggested in the original request for proposal. Onlyvisual estimates were available for the Frenchman Valley region. The engineering study preparedby UMA Engineering Ltd.1996 for Frenchman Valley assumed slightly lower variable generationrates for the industrial, commercial and institutional waste streams than the original request forproposal.

2.3 Proposed Regional System Options

The Frenchman Valley Regional Authority considered a range of seven options and associatedcosts in the development of the proposed regional system. All the options provided a comparablelevel of service to the Frenchman Valley region. The option selected considered the low capitalcosts, provided an enhanced system for the rural residents, efficient use of equipment, andflexibility in the regional system. This option consisted of sixteen bin-type transfer stations withdirect hauls from Climax, Eastend, Frontier and Shaunavon to one regional sanitary landfilllocated in the Shaunavon area.

2.3.1 Recommended Regional Waste Management System

The recommended Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management system was expected toprovide the region with long term solid waste reduction and an environmentally appropriate solidwaste disposal program at a reasonable cost. The system included a shared system for recyclingopportunities, solid waste collection and disposal, and educational activities. Service to theregion would be provided by a single waste management authority, including a full-time manager,to implement and operate the system. Collection and hauling of solid waste and recyclablematerials was to be contracted to various groups or companies.

The recommended Frenchman Valley Solid Waste Management System was to consist of thefollowing:

C one regional sanitary landfillC a network of seventeen bins at transfer stations for residual wasteC storage compound for potentially recyclable materialsC closure of existing waste disposal facilitiesC manager/coordinator, assistant and landfill operatorC on-going educational/promotional activitiesC recycling system initiatives

18

2.3.2 Waste Collection and Disposal

The recommended system included a new regional sanitary landfill facility. The facility was to belarge enough to incorporate a method of trench disposal for garbage and provide areas for bulkyand potentially recyclable items. The facility would provide a weigh scale and shelter for a fulltime operator.

The new landfill was to be located in the Shaunavon area due to proximity to the relatively largepopulation. As part of the system, a storage compound was to be constructed and operated in theClimax /Frontier area for bulky and potentially recyclable items such as used oil, tires, batteriesand metals. It was expected the storage facility would be located at a closed out existing landfillwithin the region.

2.3.2.1 Local Collection

The authority would contract the waste collection service to local companies for all thetowns except Shaunavon, Eastend, Climax and Frontier who opted to continue providingsolid waste collection services themselves. The waste would be transferred to the regionalsanitary landfill by the authority. The villages of Val Marie, Dollard and Bracken wouldhaul their own garbage to nearby transfer stations.

2.3.2.2 Regional Collection

Regional collection would consist of seventeen 6 cubic metre bins located throughout theregion at sixteen transfer stations to provide flexibility and easy access to the smallervillages and rural residents. The bins were to be located strategically at highways andprimary grid crossroads in the vicinity of Admiral, Bracken, Claydon, Climax, Dollard,Eastend, Frontier, Instow, Ravenscrag, Simmie, and Val Marie (2). The bins were to bepicked up by a dedicated compacting truck and taken to the regional sanitary landfill.

2.3.3 Waste Reduction and Diversion

The waste reduction and diversion proposal included continuous educational/promotionalprograms and funds set aside for future development of a materials recovery system as potentialmarkets developed. Paper fibre, glass and tin cans were initially to be collected in Shaunavon at adrop-off depot with bins.

A centralized method for collection of compostable material was considered by the authority,however, due to the rural nature of the Frenchman Valley region, with small urban communitiesspread out over a large area, it was decided that the most practical method to use was backyardcomposting by individuals. Information concerning municipal and backyard composting would beincorporated into the educational/promotional function of the plan.

2.4 Proposed Regional Waste Management Costs

The Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management project estimated both capital andoperational costs to develop and operate a regional system. A cost recovery formula wasproposed to equitably distribute the costs between the participating municipalities.

19

2.4.1 Capital Development Costs

The total estimated capital development costs to develop the Frenchman Valley system were asfollows:

CAPITAL ITEM TOTAL

Regional Sanitary Landfill $261,500

Storage Compound $20,000

Transfer Station / Bin Network $55,400

Recycling Program Development $20,000

Education / Promotion Development $10,000

Decommissioning of Existing Facilities $170,000

Total Estimated Costs $536,900

The proposal compared the capital costs of a regional system with the capital costs of closure anddevelopment of new individual waste disposal sites. The evaluation of the regional systemestimated a savings of approximately $173,000 over the estimated cost of developing individualwaste disposal sites.

2.4.2 Estimated Operating Costs

The total estimated annual operational costs of the proposed Frenchman Valley system were asfollows:

ITEM Regional Waste Management System

Administration (manager, support staff, office, expenses) $65,000

Regional Sanitary Landfill Operation (no administration) $66,500

Storage Compound (includes maintenance & oil removal) $5,000

Transfer Stn / Bin Network (includes waste haulage) $84,000

Municipal Waste Collection (includes urban and hauling) $72,000

Recycling Program Operation (expected to balance with $ 0revenue)

Education / Promotion (includes pamphlets and recycling $10,000fund)

Annual Capital Payback (8% over 20 years on 50% of $27,396$536,900)

Total Estimated Annual Operating Costs $329,896

20

The accepted proposal estimated that the annual operational costs were approximately $12,438higher than the proposed establishment of new individual waste disposal grounds in theFrenchman Valley region. The proposal was accepted even with expected higher annualoperating costs, because of the increased opportunities for waste reduction and diversion.

2.4.3 Potential Revenue Sources

A number of methods to obtain revenue to develop and operate the Frenchman Valley RegionalSystem were investigated. The Frenchman Valley Regional system would require, on an annualbasis, at least $40.00/year/resident and $520.00/year/business. These numbers were establishedfrom expected residential and business taxes, tipping fees and special fees for specific wasteproducts. The total annual operating costs, including the expected $27,396 capital payback, wasestimated to be $329,896.

2.4.4 Cost Sharing

The Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Authority required capital and operatingcosts from all participating municipalities. The Authority discussed options which would be fairand equitable for all participating parties in the regional system. It was decided to investigate aproposed cost-sharing formula based on a factor that represented an estimated per capita usage ofthe regional waste management system. The larger towns and villages would have better accessto the system and would utilize the system more than the rural residents who would have morelimited access to the proposed waste management opportunities due to increased travel costs todivert and dispose of the wastes.

Frenchman Valley Regional Authority decided that each participating municipality’s populationwould be multiplied by a factor to provide an Anticipated Use Level (AUL). The AUL’s for ruralmunicipalities were adjusted to reflect the wide range in population density and ranged between0.25 for those municipalities with a low population density to 0.35 for those municipalities with ahigh population density. Urban municipalities AUL’s ranged from 0.5 to 1.0.

The formula developed by the Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Authorityprovided a unique way of equitable distribution of both capital and operational costs to operatethe regional waste management system. The municipality’s contribution was calculated using thefollowing formula:

Individual Municipality’s AUL Factor x Populationx Capital Cost = Municipality’s Contribution

Sum of all Municipal AUL Populations

Table 4 provides the estimated capital and operational costs for each municipality based on theanticipated use level (AUL) percentage assigned to each municipality (not includingSaskatchewan Environment & Resource Managements 50% capital funding). The total urbanmunicipalities share of the costs were 77% while the rural municipalities share was 23%. Shaunavon’s share of the costs was established as 48.6% of the total costs.

21

Table 4 Estimated Capital and Annual Operating Cost Per Municipality

Urban Municipalities AUL Factor Population Population AUL% Contribution Capital)

Operating1994 AUL Municipality Capital Costs (w/o

Town of Shaunavon 1 2003 2003 0.486 $130,467 $147,015Town of Eastend 0.9 627 564 0.137 $36,778 $41,442Village of Climax 0.75 225 169 0.041 $11,006 $12,402Village of Frontier 0.75 353 265 0.064 $17,181 $19,360Village of Val Marie 0.75 164 123 0.03 $8,054 $9,075Village of Admiral 0.5 30 15 0.004 $1,074 $1,210Village of Bracken 0.5 44 22 0.005 $1,342 $1,512Village of Dollard 0.5 28 14 0.003 $805 $908Subtotal 3175 0.077 $206,707 $232,924

Rural MunicipalitiesR.M. of Bone Creek No. 108 0.35 486 170 0.041 $11,006 $12,402R.M. of Grassy Creek No. 78 0.35 378 132 0.032 $8,590 $9,680R.M. of Arlington No. 79 0.3 313 94 0.023 $6,174 $6,958R.M. of Wise Creek No. 77 0.3 289 87 0.021 $5,637 $6,352R.M. of White Valley No. 49 0.3 599 180 0.044 $11,812 $13,310R.M. of Lone Tree No. 18 0.3 220 66 0.016 $4,295 $4,840R.M. of Frontier No. 19 0.25 332 83 0.02 $5,369 $6,050R.M. of Val Marie No. 17 0.25 553 138 0.033 $8,859 $9,982Subtotal 950 0.023 $61,742 $69,574Grand Total 8.05 6781 4125 $268,450 $302,498

2.5 Final Consultant’s Report

The final consultant’s report (UMA, 1996)for the first phase of the Frenchman Valley RegionalWaste Management project was completed on March 31, 1996. The first phase was to study anddevelop a regional waste management plan for the authority. The report provided all thenecessary information and a clear perspective for the participating municipalities to consider whendeciding if they would commit to continue involvement in the pilot project.

Discussions continued with all participating members of the Frenchman Valley Regional WasteManagement Authority. At this point some municipalities formally withdrew from the project.The funding formula was modified through discussions with those municipalities willing tocontinue participating. The Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Authority SteeringCommittee reported for those municipalities wishing to continue with the project that on astraight per capita basis the total capital costs would convert to $81.00 half of which would becontributed by Saskatchewan Environment & Resource Management. The modified fundingformula ranged from $32.00 per capita for some rural municipalities up to $133.00 per capita forthe Town of Shaunavon.

The municipalities were then asked to commit to the project based on the capital funding formula. At that point more municipalities withdrew from the Frenchman Valley Regional WasteManagement project. The remaining municipalities advised Saskatchewan Environment andResource Management on November 22, 1996 that they intended to terminate furtherparticipation in the regional waste management project. Many member councils expressedcontinuing interest in potentially establishing an inter-municipal waste management facility.

22

2.6 Participant Feedback

Telephone interviews with participating members of the Frenchman Valley Regional WasteManagement Authority were conducted to find out their views on the regional pilot project.Committee members interviewed indicated that the following components, if included, couldmake regional waste management viable.

C The participating residents should be kept informed of the goals and progress ofthe initiative

C Size and demographics of the regional area should be examined and determined tobe reasonable prior to formally establishing

C Capital and operational costs should be worked out and proven C A champion or group of champions are essential to spear head the projectC Regionalization should take place during more positive economic timesC A regionalization project should be created within a time frame suitable to all

participating municipalities

Participants provided the following comments on some contributing factors in the withdrawl ofFrenchman Valley project from the MSWMAP.

Landfill ClosureLandfill closure was an issue raised by committee members interviewed as one of the contributingfactors in the withdrawal from the regional pilot project. Residents feared the unknown costsassociated with the closure of their landfill and were concerned that Saskatchewan Environmentand Resource Management may require more money to be spent than initially estimated. Someresidents were also concerned that if their landfill closed other institutions like the school or thepost office could be next. Some felt that the project was too large and that “bigger is notnecessarily better”. Other committee members interviewed indicated that closure of the smalllandfills was beneficial to the smaller municipalities because they could not continue to managetheir own landfills properly by themselves, however there were too many “what if’s” with theproposal.

RecyclingRecycling was identified as another issue which contributed to the withdrawal from the regionalpilot project. Some municipalities considered recycling to be too expensive due to the lack ofsecure recycling markets and the long haul distances proposed to transport the recyclables, andfelt that each municipality was too fragmented (everyone doing their own thing). Costsassociated with the collection and processing of recyclables were considered to be prohibitive. Other committee members expressed that every one of the participating municipalities wererecycling to some extent on a smaller scale. Paper and cardboard were the most popular itemsrecycled which generated interest from a senior’s group known as the “Home Town Club” topurchase a bailer for paper and cardboard processing. One committee member estimated 55% ofthe available paper was being recycled within the larger municipalities. The material was thenshipped to Urban Forest Recyclers in Swift Current. As interest in recycling grew in themunicipalities, so did the rural participation.

23

Operational CostsOperational costs were considered to be one of the main contributing factors, by most of thoseinterviewed, to the withdrawl of participating municipalities from the pilot project. A clearpicture was never presented to the municipalities as to what the future operational costs would be. The rural municipalities realized that their population base was declining and would continue todecline, however the operational costs were likely to increase over time. Most participatingmunicipalities were satisfied with the capital cost formulas. Some committee members thoughtthe project was just too large and not cost effective due to the small population base and largeland area. Municipalities felt that 20 miles was too far to travel for services. Too much emphasiswas placed on the population without considering the geography of the area, what may have beengood for those who were on the south side of the river may not be as good as the north side, forinstance.

A Champion / Strong LeadershipA champion / strong leadership is required for any project to be totally successful. This wasstated by all committee members interviewed. Ongoing advertising through newsletters to theresidents within the pilot region may have created more awareness about the project and fostereda group of champions who were destined to ensure the project was successful.

Size and DistanceSize and distance were stated by all those interviewed as determining factors in the project notproceeding. Participants indicated that it had been difficult to coordinate activities within theproposed system and that distances were too long to haul waste or recyclable materials. TheFrenchman river also provided a natural barrier which could act as the division between tworegional systems.

2.7 Summary

Everyone who participated in the Frenchman Valley Regional Waste Management Project is to becongratulated for their efforts in establishing a regional waste management system. Even thoughthe pilot has not progressed to the same level as the REACT system, the experiences learned byeveryone involved will assist in future decisions or considerations for municipalities in developingany type of regional system. As illustrated in the participant feedback a municipality or group ofmunicipalities must consider many things when proposing to set up a regional system in a specificarea and ensuring that a regional system is the right way to go for the time.

24

3.0 Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT)

3.1 Overview

On March 16, 1993, The Regional Authority of Carlton Trail (REACT), comprised of 7 towns,10 villages and 10 rural municipalities was announced as one of the pilot projects accepted underthe Municipal Solid Waste Management Assistance Program (MSWMAP). This proposal waschosen as one of the pilot projects based on the following criteria:

1) Model Usefulness - The model was built on existing systems with a simple system structure. It could be easily duplicated in other parts of Saskatchewan.

2) Project Size - This project has a good urban/rural mix with a strong commitment forparticipation from its stakeholders. The system could be easily expanded.

3) Project Proposal - The proposal exemplified strong regional co-operation in preparing a verycomprehensive, accurate, well researched presentation. The concept plan demonstrated a goodresponse to obstacles and issues and had a strong public participation/educational component.

4) Financial Stability - Financial plans were adequate with most income from the tax base. Costestimates for capital and operating budgets were not substantial.

5) Contribution to Waste Minimization - Reuse, recycling and composting were included in theproposal. Purchasing policies and educational/information programs were planned in the conceptplan. There were few financial incentives included for waste reduction.

REACT was cost shared (50/50) on capital expenditures by the participating municipalities underthe MSWMAP and Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management. It was anticipatedthat this project would provide a model for future integrated regional solid waste managementsystems in other areas of the province. Municipal membership in REACT has changed from theoriginal participants in the conceptual plan and it continues to grow significantly today. For thepurposes of this evaluation, the area covered by REACT includes membership during the 1996 to1998 time frame when membership involved 16 urban municipalities and 10 rural municipalities.

Located in East-Central Saskatchewan, REACT covers an area of approximately 9,400 squarekilometres with an estimated population of approximately 20,000 people. The REACT area,encompassing the Towns of Wakaw, Humboldt, and Watson, has a diverse agricultural base withrelated industry. The area provides a strong tourism base.

Following is a list of urban and rural municipalities participating in REACT:

Rural Municipalities Villages Towns

Lakeside # 338 Anaheim BrunoLeRoy # 339 Englefeld CudworthWolverine # 340 Lake Lenore HumboldtSpalding # 368 Muenster LeRoySt. Peter # 369 Pleasantdale NaicamHumboldt # 370 Quill Lake Wakaw

25

Bayne # 371 Spalding WatsonPleasantdale # 398 St. BrieuxLake Lenore # 399 St. GregorHoodoo # 401

Population trends in the REACT area indicate that the rural and small urban municipalities areslowly declining. Larger urban centres have shown a modest increase in population. Overall, thepopulation of the REACT area is slowly in decline. In 1994, the urban population accounted for63.5% of the total population and the rural population accounted for 36.5% of the totalpopulation of 21,621 people. The overall population is expected to decline at a rate of 0% to 1%per year. Population figures for REACT vary in consultants’ reports, depending on theparticipating municipalities in the project at the time of writing. The population figure used in thisevaluation given existing membership in 1996 to 1998 is 18,865. This figure was used throughoutthe Financial Evaluation of the project.

Figure 4 illustrates the boundaries of the REACT proposed waste management system.

3.2 Existing Waste Management Infrastructure

The waste management infrastructure prior to REACT consisted of three components: wastecollection, waste disposal and waste reduction and diversion infrastructure. Waste generationcalculations prior to REACT are included.

3.2.1 Waste Collection and Disposal

Most rural municipalities in the REACT region did not provide waste collection services with theexception of the R.M. of Pleasantdale which provided collection in the Village of Pleasantdaleand the Hamlets of Lac Vert and Silver Park. The R.M. of Hoodoo provided collection servicesto the Wakaw Lake Resort area.

All urban areas participating in the REACT region provided collection and disposal services. Communities under 400 in population collected waste once weekly in half ton or one ton truckswhile larger communities of 400 to 1000 people collected waste once weekly for residential andbi-weekly for commercial in 9 cubic metre to 15 cubic metre rear or side loading garbage trucks. The Town of Humboldt used rear loading 12 cubic metre and 15 cubic metre trucks to collectwaste on a weekly basis from residences and a daily basis from businesses.

The REACT region supported a total of 26 landfill sites with estimated years of service remainingfrom 0 years to 100 years at the new Hoodoo Landfill Site. A variety of trench and mound typelandfills were in operation with maintenance schedules depicting the number of years of liferemaining in them. Municipalities were shown, in “Regional Integrated Waste ManagementStudy - REACT Area, Saskatchewan” by Clifton Associates Ltd., June 12, 1995, to spend anaverage of $18.00 per capita for waste management.

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

LEROY

BAYNE

HOODOO

LAK ESIDE

SPALDINGST. PETERHUMBOLDT

WOLVE RINE

LAK E LENORE PLE ASANTDALE

338

401

370

339340

398

368371 369

399

ABERDEE N

ALL AN

ALV ENA

ANNA HE IM

BEATTY

BIRCH HILLS

BLA INE L AKE

BR ADW ELL

BR UN O

CL AVE TCOL ONSAY

CUD W ORTH

DA FO E

DA LM ENY

DOMR EMY

DR AK E

DUCK L AKE

DUND URN

ELS TO W

EN GLE FE LD

GUE RNS EY

HA GU EHE PBUR N

HUM BOL DT

JAN SEN

KINISTINO

LAIRD

LAK E LEN ORE

AM

LANIGA N

LEA SK

LEROY

MAN ITOU B EACH

MARCEL IN

MARTENSV ILLE

MEA CHA M

MIDD LE LA KE

MU EN STER

NA IC AM

OSLE R

PILG ER

PLE ASANTDAL E

PLU NKETT

PRUD'HO MM E

QUILL LA KE

RIDGE DAL

ROS THE RN

SPAL D IN G

ST.BE NE DICT

ST.BRIE UX

ST.GREGO R

ST.LO UI S

STAR CITYTIVAL PARAIS

OY

VISCOU NT

VONDA

W AKAWW ALDH EIM

W AR MAN

W ATSON

W ELDON

W YNY AR

YELLOW C REEK

YOUNG

ZE LMA

MEL FOR T

SASK ATOON

REACT Solid W aste Management Region

REACT

Lakes

#Y TownsCitiesR.M.'sHighways

Figure 4 REACT Solid Waste Management Region

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

LERO Y

BAYN E

HOO DO O

LAKESIDE

SPALD INGST. PETERHUMB OLDT

W OL VE RINE

LAK E L EN ORE PL EASAN TDAL E

338

401

370

339340

398

368371 369

399

ALLAN

ALVE N A

AN NAH EI M

BR UN O

CO LONSAY

CUD W ORTH

DO MR EM Y

ELST O W

EN GLEFELD

GU ERN SEY

HUM BOLD T

LAKE LEN O RE

LAN IGAN

LER OY

MEACHAM

MID DLE LAKE

MUEN ST ER

NA IC AMPILGE R

PLEAS ANT DALE

PLU NKE TT

PR UD 'H O MME

QU ILL LAKE

SP ALD ING

ST .BEN ED IC T

ST .BR IEUX

ST .G R EGOR

VISCO U NT

ON DA

WAKAW

WAT SO N

YELLOW C REEK

ZELMA

Existing Landfills Prior to REACT

REACT

Lakes

#Y Landfills

R.M.'sHighways

#Y Towns

Figure 5 Existing Landfills Prior to React

28

3.2.2 Waste Reduction and Diversion

Five SARCAN depots were operated in the REACT region located in Humboldt, Cudworth,Naicam and Watson. The depot in Cudworth operated a two days per month depot in Bruno.

Recycling firms which operated in the REACT region at the time of the study were FuturisticIndustries which handled newspaper, cardboard, plastic, glass, tin cans and other paper products. Approximately 30 tonnes per month were recycled at Futuristic Industries with estimates of 10%to 20% originating outside of Humboldt. Columbian Industries of Cudworth processed mainlySARCAN materials at collection depots which they operated. Waste oil collection facilitiesexisted in Humboldt and at the R.M. of Hoodoo landfills. Tri Waste Ltd. of Naicam collectedempty farm pesticide containers.

Twelve municipalities indicated that waste reduction efforts were ongoing with an estimated 5%reduction rate.

3.2.3 Waste Generation Rates

There were no measured waste generation rates available for any of the participants in theREACT region. Waste generation rates were approximated using estimates from municipalitiesand from studies conducted in Alberta. Atypical rates in some communities such as St. Brieuxdue to larger industrial operations located in the village were accounted for and types of wasteproduced by the industries were noted. Waste generation rates in the REACT region wereestimated at 0.8 tonnes per capita per year for urban municipalities and 0.3 tonnes per capita peryear for rural municipalities (not including construction/demolition waste). An average estimatedgeneration rate was 0.6 tonnes per capita per year for the REACT region.

Similarly, waste characterization, needed to determine future waste minimization opportunities,was estimated by Clifton from questionnaires sent to municipalities to be as follows:

Table 5 Waste Characterization

Composition Rural Urban Paper and Wood 55% 47%Organics 3% 27%Glass, Plastics 15% 10%Metals 15% 7%Rubber 5% 4%

Alberta waste stream composition data provided by regional waste management systems locatedin the province gave a more comprehensive waste characterization for an area similar to REACTwith a typical urban/rural mix in a prairie setting. These figures were suitable for use in designinga waste management system for the REACT region.

29

Table 6 Summary of Alberta Waste Stream Composition Data

Population 5,000* Small Urban (Pop 300)**Material Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Rural Only***

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Food Wastes 22.6 28.9 32.3 33.4 27.7

Yard Wastes 16.9 1.6 3.5 1.0 0.0

Mixed Paper 21.5 21.9 23.7 19.5 19.1

Cardboard 3.3 18.6 1.2 22.3 3.7

Newsprint 6.8 5.5 10.7 2.7 8.1

Plastic 11.4 9.8 9.8 6.8 8.7

Metal 4.5 4.5 6.1 2.3 6.6

Glass 2.9 1.8 3.0 0.9 9.3

Textile/Rubber/ Leather 2.1 l.3 3.1 5.9 1.9

Wood 0.7 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.2

Ceramics/Ashes/ Fines 2.1 2.0 4.0 0.3 2.2

Other 5.2 3.0 2.5 3.9 11.5

TOTALS 100 100 100 100 100

Notes:*Taken from Stettler, Alberta.** Taken from Big Valley, Alberta.***Taken from the Red Willow are in the County of Stettler, Alberta.

3.3 Proposed Regional System Options

In order to determine recommendations for a new regional system for REACT, Clifton Associatesconducted a comprehensive study of the existing land forms in the REACT region, soils, surfaceand subsurface drainage, and detailed analysis of each existing collection and disposal operation inthe area.

Clifton Associates described the REACT region in terms of the land and water base throughmapping of topography and geomorphology, surface drainage, soils/surface geology, regionalgeology and hydrogeology. This information would be used to determine the backgroundsufficient to analyze existing landfills, to determine what measures may be needed to safely closeor maintain existing landfills and to provide background information for future possible landfill ortransfer station locations.

30

Each existing landfill in the REACT region was visited by Clifton Associates and the owners wereinterviewed. The resulting analysis of each landfill provided a general description of the site, solidwaste stream data on contents of the site, existing waste collection and disposal facilities, siteoperations and maintenance, soils and drainage and groundwater information, records ofcomplaints and landfill life expectancy. Waste management costs were discussed with eachowner. Upgrading works required were listed and presented along with a capital and operatingcost analysis for compliance with current Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management(SERM) guidelines. Decommissioning requirements for the site including suggestedenvironmental monitoring were presented.

Waste management options were provided to each owner in detail. These options includedmaintaining waste management services at the landfill in compliance with current and futureenvironmental regulations, closing the existing site and/or using it as a transfer station, haulingwaste to the REACT Waste Disposal Site; and, becoming part of the REACT regional system.

Estimated costs of completing the work at the existing landfill and operating it were presented tothe owners of the 26 landfills.

3.3.1 Recommended Regional Waste Management System

There were several major design objectives considered by Clifton Associates for the REACTRegional Integrated Waste Management System:

< Minimize volume to pit disposal for environmental Sustainability and to reduce wastemanagement costs;

< Maintain centralized, high quality, environmentally approved waste disposal facilities thatensure the surface and groundwater resources are adequately protected fromcontaminants;

< Maintain near current levels of service for disposal of common household and businesswastes;

< Maintain urban residential and commercial waste collection services in most towns andvillages where currently offered;

< Haul only recycled and putrescible materials;< Minimize transfer station infrastructure costs in rural areas where greatest decline in

population are occurring;< Establish a minimum number of collection points located for technical and economic

criteria;< Staff collection and waste disposal facilities to achieve high quality materials separation,

clean and controlled sites, and to facilitate collection of waste handling fees;< Provide several facilities within the region for storage of farm pesticide containers;< Decommission existing waste disposal sites, utilize as transfer stations, or close;< Provide waste reduction/diversion education and implementation services to the region;< Follow a phased implementation plan that fits the capital generation capabilities of the

region and serves users with greatest need first; and,< Use financial incentives to promote waste reduction.

31

3.3.2 Waste Collection and Disposal

Clifton Associates determined that two existing landfills would serve the needs of REACT forseveral years. The R.M. of Hoodoo Landfill, developed in 1993 and located in the northwest partof the region near Cudworth, would serve as a regional landfill with only minor changes in thecovering operation, pesticide container collection site and future inclusion of a weigh scale. Siteinvestigation in a landfill confirmation study conducted by Clifton Associates would ensure thatthe site is environmentally suitable for use as a regional site. REACT agreed to pay $200,000 tothe R.M. of Hoodoo for the landfill site over a period of 4 years with 8% interest on the unpaidbalance each year. The sale of the site was contingent on the environmental suitability of thelandfill after the formal creation of REACT.

The second regional landfill would be located at the existing Town of Humboldt Landfill locatedjust south of the Town of Humboldt adjacent to Highway 20. The Humboldt Landfill wasdetermined to be an excellent site for a landfill following drilling and a groundwater monitoringprogram conducted at the site. Clifton Associates has indicated that the site should have a life ofapproximately 25 to 30 years with proper diversion activities and the use of land for expansionnorthwest of the site. Mounding over top of the filled cells would assist in providing theestimated site life span. Site upgrades could include improved fencing, a weigh scale and apesticide container collection site. Increased covering with possible new equipment wasrecommended. Financial arrangements with the Town of Humboldt were that REACT wouldpurchase the landfill for one dollar and pay the Town an annual fee of $17,500 for the life of thelandfill. The annual fee would remain in effect until REACT discontinues use of the site andconstructs a new site. If REACT discontinued operation, the landfill site will revert ownershipback to the Town of Humboldt.

Preliminary estimates by Clifton Associates indicated that a new regional landfill to replace theHumboldt Landfill would be located in the Humboldt area within 5 km to the east, depending onmunicipalities participating in REACT. Future population demographics, industrial uses andsimplified haul distances were used to determine the approximate location of a new facility. Alandfill location confirmation study and adherence to legislation of the time would be required.

3.3.2.1 Collection Systems

REACT uses three systems to collect waste within its boundaries: a local collectionsystem, a regional collection system and a recycle collection system. Urban municipalitiesare responsible for organics management. Each of these systems dovetail to form acomprehensive waste and recycle collection system for a large area.

3.3.2.2 Local Collection System

The REACT system provides door to door urban residential, commercial and some farmcollection. Transfer stations located at former landfills no further than 20 minutes fromeach residence provide drop-off sites for bulky items and garbage by residents. Wastecollected in the urban centres and at transfer stations is eventually transported to the tworegional landfills or is stored for recycling or treated at the transfer stations. Residentialwaste is collected using a burro truck which consists of a Hino chasis with a 16,500 GVWthat carries a 4.5 cubic metre or 6 cubic metre tipster bin. The filled tipster bins are left at

32

specified locations by the burro truck for pick-up and transfer to the landfill by theregional front-end packer truck. Tipster bins are available for rent from REACT forcommercial use.

3.3.2.3 Regional Collection System

The regional collection system consists of a network of transfer stations and the tworegional landfills. The regional front-end packer truck is used to collect waste from tipsterbins filled by the burro truck, bins used by businesses, transfer station tipster bins andsome recycle centre product. Waste is compacted in the regional front-end packer truckfor efficient haul to the landfill sites. It is noted that haul distances to the regional landfillsshould not exceed 80 kilometres to 100 kilometres to retain the best efficiency inoperations.

Transfer stations are located at former landfill locations located within REACT at QuillLake, LeRoy, Watson, Naicam, St. Brieux, Bruno and Wakaw. Transfer stations whichoperate one-half time each are located at Lake Lenore and Anaheim. The transfer stationsand the landfills offer an opportunity to haul and tip bulky waste at a reduced rate. Transfer stations supply bins for bagged garbage and separate designated disposal areasfor metals, tree trimmings, used oil and tires (until the Provincial program completesremoval). Special rates are charged based on the volume and type of materials beingtipped at the transfer stations. Transfer stations can vary in design and can use thephysical features of the closed-out landfill as part of the design. Former mound-typelandfills lend themselves to creating ramps with drop-off tipster bins placed below aretaining wall for ease of tipping waste and collection by the front-end packer truck. Transfer stations can be designed to provide any number of services that the formerlandfill may have provided, dependant on the population served and type of wastes to behandled, with the exception that no disposal pit is provided at the transfer stations.

Figure 6 is a conceptual layout of a typical transfer station which provides a high level ofservices.

33

Figure 6 Typical Layout of a Full Service Transfer Station

Regional Integrated Waste Management Study,REACT Area, SaskatchewanClifton Associated Ltd, 12 June 1995

3.3.2.4 Recycle Collection System

REACT operates 19 drop off recycle centres in the area. There are three recycle centreslocated in the Town of Humboldt and the remainder are situated at central locations ineach town and village. Each recycle centre is clearly signed and allows for the drop-off ofhousehold plastics, tin, glass, newsprint, magazines (glossy paper), office paper and boxboard/cardboard. The recycle centres are serviced once a week by a truck with a deckpulling a trailer with a bobcat capable of moving the 2 cubic yard recycle containers. Recycled materials are transported to the processing centre where they are bailed andprepared for market.

Markets are available for all recycle commodities excepting glass which is being stockpiledin designated areas at the landfills. This material will be used as aggregate.

Larger scale recycling is available at the transfer stations and at the regional landfills. These sites collect metals for recycling at IPSCO, tires, used oil, empty pesticidecontainers and trees/lumber.

The types of materials collected at the recycle drop-off centres, transfer stations andlandfills may change as provincial programs and markets dictate. An example is that tireswill no longer require a storage area when the Saskatchewan Scrap Tires Corporation usesall tires generated in its provincial recycling program.

34

Users of the recycling drop-off centres in the communities do not have to pay at the sitesto drop off their recyclables.

3.3.2.5 Organics Management

Each municipality in the REACT District is responsible for organics management. Yardwaste is collected in most municipalities for composting. Back yard composting isencouraged by the communities and training is available through the Saskatchewan WasteReduction Council Master Composter Program.

3.3.3 User Pay System

A modified user-pay system is operated in the REACT District. This system incorporates a percapita levy paid from municipal taxes into the system with a user-pay tag system for garbage atthe transfer stations. Tags can be purchased from most grocery, convenience, drug or hardwarestores in the district at a price of $1.00 per tag or $90 per 100 tags. Each standard 77 litregarbage bag to be collected by REACT requires a tag or the top bag in each conventional garbagecan not exceeding 20 kilograms must be tagged for collection. If a user transports a bag to atransfer station or landfill, one-half of a tag is required for disposal.

Businesses can rent 6 cubic yard lockable bins with lids and locks and are charged in accordancewith the service they receive. Businesses can save substantial amounts by moving theircardboard through the recycle system.

Description of the REACT Tag System

The REACT user-pay system creates a utility out of the garbage collection and disposalcomponent of the operation. Those who create the most waste pay the most. Those who arewilling to recycle can dramatically reduce their waste management costs while, at the same time,retrieve valuable recyclable materials and organics from the solid waste stream.

Note that this total refers to money provided to REACT only. The remainder of the $1,500,000 1

MSWMAP budget was dispersed to the Frenchman Valley Project and to other candidate pilot projects to assist inpreparing their submissions to the program.

35

3.4 REACT Financial Analysis

The following section is intended to review REACT’s finances from inception to the end of the1998 calendar year. First, the municipal levies and government grants which REACT usedinitially to set up its operation are outlined and REACT’s capital expenditures for the five yearssince its inception are detailed. Then, its operating costs for the 1997 and 1998 calendar years arepresented and compared to: the waste management costs of the REACT communities before theyjoined REACT; to the operating costs of other communities in Saskatchewan; and to threeregional waste management systems in Alberta. REACT’s income and expenses are thenpresented and projected for the next five years. These numbers are used to estimate the requiredper capita municipal levies for REACT to continue as it is once the government funding runs out. Then, the capital and operating levies which would be required for a project similar to REACT tobe initiated without the benefit of government funding but with the benefit of what was learnedfrom the pilot project are approximated. Estimates cover the case in which the wastemanagement authority provides its own collection service, as well as the case in which thecollection services are contracted out. Finally, REACT’s recycling costs and volumes for the1998 calendar year are presented and discussed.

This analysis is intended to provide information that would be of interest to other municipalitieswho may be considering participation in regional systems.

3.4.1 Initial Financing

REACT began operation in 1996. Initial major revenue sources for the program were as follows:

# $ 4.50 - per capita levy for the feasibility study (one