Overview
The Clean Foundation is pleased to provide the following input concerning the proposed
changes to Nova Scotia’s Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations (“SWRMR”).
Established in 1988, we helped the province tackle the challenge of solid waste
reduction, and played an integral role in assisting Nova Scotia to achieve its historic
waste diversion goals. We are now the largest environmental organization in Atlantic
Canada with a broad mandate to collaborate with all sectors of society. We do this
through community engagement, experiential education, and innovative program design
and delivery.
In assembling this response to the proposed regulatory changes, we were guided by several
overarching principles:

The inter-relatedness of environment, economy and society and the need for
solutions that take account of all three of these pillars.

The need to consider the impact of policy and regulatory change on the most
vulnerable members of society.

The importance of behaviour change as a key strategy for cracking complex
environmental problems.

The value of cross-sectoral partnerships and collaboration to address the many
facets of complex environmental challenges.

The need for evidence-based public policy and coherent regulation that
effectively and efficiently addresses the problems at hand.
We were also informed by the work of the OneNS Commission in the Ivany Report, and
particularly its calls for greater coordination and cooperation within the province to foster
transformative change.
Finally, we recognize the ambitious nature of the EGSPA goal of reducing Nova Scotia’s
annual waste disposal rate to no more than 300 kg per capita. The province has made
significant progress toward this goal, achieving a disposal rate that is nearly 50% lower
than the national average. However, considerable challenges remain. Overcoming
these will require innovative thinking, openness to partnering with private and public
sector organizations and communities, and a willingness to pilot new strategies to
achieve waste management objectives.
1
1. Product Stewardship / Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) & Disposal
Bans and Approval Requirements
We will address the proposals relating to enhanced disposal bans and product
stewardship together since they are tightly linked.
The Clean Foundation applauds the Government for significantly broadening the array
of items subject to disposal bans, and we are in agreement with the list of items that are
to be banned subject to several minor suggested additions, detailed below. In addition
to alleviating the burden on the many provincial landfills nearing capacity, this move will
serve to reduce the serious harms caused by the introduction of products containing
toxins, including mercury, into landfills.
We recommend that the province prioritize the implementation proposed item bans
according to the harm they pose to human health and the environment. That is, the
bans for those products which contain toxins and other hazardous chemicals should be
implemented first, and as soon as practical. For instance, mercury containing products
such as CFL bulbs should be prioritized. CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, an
element which is toxic to humans, plants and wildlife. Fluorescent lights are the most
significant product source of mercury to the atmosphere in Canada, and the second
most significant product source of mercury on land. Additionally, municipal waste and
hazardous waste landfills are the largest reservoirs of mercury on land in Canadai. As
many as 350,000 CFLs, and the mercury they contain, could be diverted from the
landfill every year if the province moves ahead with this disposal ban.ii
We strongly support the move to bring an enhanced array of products into an EPR
framework. Our research on the implementation of these structures in other jurisdictions
has identified that best practice approaches place the full costs of administering the
program on producers, whether through individual producer responsibility (IPR) or
collective producer responsibility (CPR) frameworks. (Where brand owners are not the
same entities as producers, they too should share the cost of administering the EPR
framework.) One of the primary objectives of EPR frameworks is to incent producers to
re-design their products to minimize the amount of materials used and optimize their
products’ recycling potential. This can only be done where producers bear the full
economic cost of the stewardship program.
In other Canadian jurisdictions and throughout Europe, EPR frameworks are delivered
through producer responsibility organizations (PROs), which are fully funded by
producers, usually through a fee per unit of product. These PROs are regulated by
government. In order to take advantage of economies of scale and to reduce duplication
and administrative and regulatory complexity, we recommend that the government
consider a model in which a single PRO, such as the Product Care Association, is
responsible for the collection and processing of all stewardship materials.
We strongly recommend that barriers to waste disposal are considered in the design of
the EPR model. We believe that consumers have an important role to play in successful
and cost-effective diversion. Our research indicates that there are several benefits to
2
integrating the collection of EPR products with existing curbside collection, wherever
possible. The more inconvenient and time-consuming diversion is, the less likely it is
that households will engage in recycling and diversion. While behaviour change tactics
have been shown to be successful in increasing compliance with diversion programs,
making these behaviours more convenient and accessible also encourages compliance.
Additionally, it is important to consider what barriers an aging population will face in
requiring that stewardship products are transported to central depots (e.g., inability to
drive safely, or to lift heavier items).
Because the object of EPR is ultimately to incent producers to design their products to
optimize the recycling potential and minimize the end-of-life impacts on the waste
stream, the costs of EPR framework should not be externalized to municipalities and
landfill operators, as this diminishes the strength of the incentive on producers. To this
end, any costs incurred by municipalities (such as those for collection and processing of
EPR products) should be fully recoverable from the PRO. Further, the PRO should
consider existing infrastructure and networks across the province (such as
municipalities and waste educators/coordinators) as an asset to the successful launch
and delivery of EPR in Nova Scotia and should be legislatively required to contribute
funds towards these objectives.
2. Used Tire Management Program
The Clean Foundation supports the proposed amendment to expand the definition in
the SWRMR to include off-road tires, with several suggested revisions. First, given the
importance of growing the number of local farms in the province, and in recognition of
the significant challenges facing new farmers, we recommend that the province
consider waiving or rebating the environmental fee on tires for farm machinery
purchased by participants in the THINKFARM Program and other similar agriculture
support initiatives. Second, we recommend the addition of racing tires to the expanded
definition. Finally, we understand that some stakeholders may recommend that the
definition also be expanded to include bicycle tires. While they should be banned from
landfill, we feel that placing an environmental fee on bicycle tires is counter to the
province's commitment to increased active and sustainable transportation, including
bicycling. Additionally, bicycling is the sole means of transportation for a number of
lower income Nova Scotians, including students. Given their small size and volume
relative to tires for motorized vehicles, we feel that bicycle tires can be accommodated
into the used tire management program without instituting a separate fee on them.
3. Regional Solid Waste Management Plans – Regional Requirements
The Clean Foundation supports the proposed move toward a more coordinated
approach to solid waste management. Pursuit of the 300 kg per capita goal in particular
will require continued province-wide focus and coordination. At the same time, it is
important to recognize and make allowances for the considerable variation that exists
between solid waste management regions. Halifax, for example, has a disposal rate of
393 kg per capita, greater than the provincial average of 376 kg per capita as of
3
February 2013. A significant portion of this waste is industrial, commercial and
institutional (ICI) waste. Nova Scotia has not seen the same increase in the number of
private sector processing facilities for ICI wastes as it has private sector facilities
dedicated to processing organic and recyclable waste streams. Innovations in this field
and other product processing is likely to be prompted through new inclusions to the
disposal bans. To support the creation of these processes to be made in and for Nova
Scotia, the province should consider strategies to promote the development of these
industries within the province, such as through the strategies proposed in the draft
Greener Economy Strategy.
4. Regulatory Clarity on Energy from Waste
The Clean Foundation supports changes to increase the regulatory clarity around
energy generation from waste via new and emerging technologies. Nova Scotia needs
to be open to the adoption of innovative approaches to waste management. Energyfrom-waste plants hold the potential to transform previously worthless waste streams
into valuable inputs while simultaneously producing clean energy for the province. Other
jurisdictions with strong environmental track records have incorporated this technology,
such as France, Switzerland and Austria.
As an added benefit, expansion of this technology could open the door for new business
investment and start-ups as well as the development of exportable technology and
expertise, both of which are key pieces of the Ivany Report’s recommendations for
transformative change. To this end, the Ivany Report also cites the need for clear and
coherent regulation to provide certainty for new business.
However, before such approaches can be implemented, they must undergo careful
scrutiny to ensure that they pose no short or long-term threats to population and
ecological health and safety, are cost-effective, and will not result in negative
unintended outcomes. For example, energy-from-waste plants generally require
guaranteed baseline fuel inputs to ensure long-term viability. Nova Scotia’s current
approach to solid waste management requires that all waste must first be channeled for
recycling, composting or other reprocessing, with only the residue potentially available
for energy generation. There is a potential conflict between the objective of reducing
Nova Scotia’s waste disposal rate and the need to maintain consistent inputs for wasteto-energy generation, a concept described as “feeding the beast”. There is also concern
that that new recycling streams are less likely to developed if waste-to-energy options
are prioritized. It is imperative that future policy does not serve to subvert the waste
reduction objective in favour of ensuring sufficient fuel inputs. We recommend that the
province continue to prioritize the waste hierarchy and any other policies that will put
recycling, reprocessing and reduction methods ahead of waste-to-energy.
5. Improvements to the Enforcement of the Solid Waste Regulations
While the Clean Foundation supports increased regulatory clarity around enforcement, it
is difficult to comment on the merits of the proposed changes to the enforcement
4
regulations given the absence of details concerning the particular proposed
amendments. Still, as we understand it, the government is proposing to shift its
enforcement focus and resources to activities considered to be higher risk than litter and
open burning. Although serious illegal dumping issues would remain a focus for
provincial enforcement efforts, enforcement of litter and open burning issues would
devolve to other organizations, such as municipalities and not-for-profits.
Litter abatement has been a core focus of the Clean Foundation’s work for over two
decades, and it remains an important environmental concern in the province. Local
marine and land-based litter studies warn that without decisive action, litter will only
continue to increase in our province. Land-based studies completed in Nova Scotia saw
an increase in litter by 20% between 2004 and 2008.iii A report by Fisheries and Oceans
concluded that marine debris around Nova Scotia is rising.iv This is further supported by
a very recent study which used sea birds as an indicator species to establish plastic
pollution levels along Nova Scotian coastlines. The study found 72% of sea birds from
Sable Island contained plastic in their stomachs, indicating that Nova Scotia’s marine
and coastal areas are far from what scientists consider a healthy standard (a healthy
ratio aims for no more than 10% of the sea bird population containing plastic).v
With litter increases on the rise, there is also mounting evidence that plastic debris
poses health risks to humans and the environment. Entanglement and ingestion of
plastic has been documented widely in more than 180 species.vi Further, studies have
demonstrated that plastic can become a vector for toxins such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), bisphenol-A (BPA) and titanium dioxide.vii This becomes all the
more concerning when plastic content is unknowingly ingested by humans through food
consumption. Scientists have found that small plastic particles can easily be taken up by
cell membranes, which could have comprising effects on critical cell functions.viii
While we feel that litter remains a key environmental issue, we recognize that in an era
of tight budgets the government must make principled choices as to how it allocates its
resources, and we agree that a risk-based approach is a sound strategy. In this vein, we
acknowledge that there are activities regulated by Nova Scotia Environment that pose
greater risks than litter, and that these merit greater proportion of resources in
enforcement.
Moreover, unlike the regulation of point-source pollutants or contaminated sites, litter is
by its nature geographically diffuse and difficult if not impossible to trace back to its
source. These characteristics make it difficult to effectively regulate it through an
enforcement-based approach. Instead, litter is better addressed through behaviour
change initiatives that seek to increase education and awareness about the harms of
litter and to reduce littering activities.
To this end, the Clean Foundation believes that there is an opportunity to research and
develop innovative litter abatement programs that identify the barriers and challenges
resulting in littering behaviour which incorporate evidence-based best practices in place
in other jurisdictions. This could help fill the need to continue a provincially focused litter
5
abatement program within the province. We therefore recommend that Clean, or
another capable organization, be outsourced with the specific focus on litter abatement.
6. Beverage Container Deposit Refund Program Efficiency
Nova Scotia's beverage container deposit program has been highly successful in
encouraging diversion of beverage containers from landfill, and has provided a critical
funding source to support the diversion of many other types of solid waste. However, as
outlined in the 2011 organizational review of the Resource Recovery Fund Board
(RRFB) by William Hogg (Hogg Report), this model now faces serious challenges to its
future viability. As such, while the proposed changes may provide some hedge against
near-term threats, we feel that the there is a great deal of benefit in exploring alternative
frameworks that could provide longer term stability.
7. Other Points
We also see opportunity to incorporate litter abatement measures within the EPR
structure to address common litter items. Our Great Nova Scotia Pick Me Up
participants find coffee cups are the number one litter item year after year. Furthermore,
nearly 600,000 bait boxes, a common packaging item used in the fisheries, is discarded
at sea during fishing operations.ix The province should consider an approach whereby
an EPR fee is applied to common litter items such as coffee cups and bait boxes. The
income generated from the fees would support litter abatement and removal
engagement projects.
Hargreen, L., B. Lourie, 2004. Canadian mercury inventories: the missing pieces. Environmental
Research. 95: 272-281.
ii Crowell, M., 2014. CFL Recycling Report: Recommendations for the Collection and Recycling of Spent
Residential
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs in Nova Scotia. RRFB funded student research report.
iii Oakley, K., MacLeod, J., Brown, K., and Higgins, V. 2008. A characterization of Nova Scotian litter: 2008
litter survey. Presented by: Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps and Nova Scotia environment.
iv Grieve, K. 2012. State of the Scotian Shelf Report: Marine Waste and Debris. Oceans and Coastal
Management Division Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Bedford Institute of Oceanography. PO Box 1006.
Dartmouth NS, B2Y 4A2. ISBN: 978-0-9869437-4-4.[online]. Available from
http://coinatlantic.ca/index.php/state-of-the-scotian-shelf/222-marine-quality.
v Bond, A., Provencher, J., Daoust, P., Lucas, Z. 2014. Plastic ingestion by fulmars and shearwaters at
Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Available online.
vi Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Bj€orn, A., Rowland, S.J.,
Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., et al., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from
plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 364, 2027–2045.
vii Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kaminum, T., 2001. Plastic resin pellets as a
transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2), 318–324
viii Rossi, G., Barnoud, J., Monticelli, L. 2014. Polystyrene Nanoparticles Perturb Lipid Membranes.
Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 5(1), 241-246.
ix Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Bait Box Survey, 2006.
i
6