gvs&dd board meeting agenda package - july 30, … › boards › gvsdd ›...

AGENDA

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

(GVS&DD) REGULAR MEETING

Friday, July 30, 2010

9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Board Members: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North

Vancouver District Director Brent Asmundson, Coquitlam Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director George Chow, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan. Burnaby Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey

Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner, J. Carline*

Please advise Kelly Birks at (604) 432-6250 if you are unable to attend.

* Non-voting member

This page left blank intentionally.

July 22, 2010

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT (GVS&DD)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

9:00 a.m. Friday, July 30, 2010

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. July 30, 2010 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 30, 2010 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. June 25, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held June 25, 2010 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1. WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.1 Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Engagement

and Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Engagement and Consultation Program Results dated July 19, 2010 for information. Note: Attachments to follow at a later date.

Section A 1

SDD-1

1.2 Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee Recommendation: 1) That the Board submit the management plan as amended for solid waste

based on Alternative 1 described in the report titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report, titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management – A Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities, dated July, 2010 (the Plan) to the BC Minister of Environment for approval.

2) That the Plan be circulated to the councils of the GVRD member municipalities for endorsement specific only to the municipal actions identified in the Plan.

Note: Further information to be provided at a later date. F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

1. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Amendment of Plan F

– Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan - Bylaw No. 257, 2010

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”;

c) authorize up to $400,000 for detailed design for the replacement of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and a section of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 to be funded through cash-flow reallocation in the 2010 GVS&DD budget.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

No items presented.

I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item the basis must be included below. Staff Recommendation: That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for July 30, 2010 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (a) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:

SDD-2

(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the regional district or another position appointed by the regional district.”

K. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of July 30, 2010.

SDD-3


SDD-4

MINUTES

SDD-5


SDD-6

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, June 25, 2010 Page 1 of 5

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held at 9:44 a.m. on Friday, June 25, 2010 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Alternate Director Mary-Wade Anderson, White Rock, for Catherine Ferguson Director Brent Asmundson, Coquitlam Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Alternate Director Pietro Calendino, Burnaby for Derek Corrigan Director George Chow, Vancouver Alternate Director Mike Clay, Port Moody for Joe Trasolini Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A

Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby (arrived at 9:45 a.m.) Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver CityDirector Andrea Reimer, Vancouver (arrived at 9:52 a.m.) Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner Johnny Carline*

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department

Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s

Department

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. June 25, 2010 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 25, 2010 by

adding item 3.1 Paradigm Environmental Technologies; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED

* Non-voting member.

Section B 1

SDD-7


B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. May 12, 2010 Special Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its special meeting held May 12, 2010 as circulated.

CARRIED 2. May 21, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held May 21, 2010 as circulated.

CARRIED

9:45 a.m. Director Jordan arrived at the meeting.

C. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Paradigm Environmental Technologies

Gordon D. Skene, President, Paradigm Environmental Technologies, Inc., presented the new proposal for the Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant MicroSludge and Green Biomethane project. The Committee was informed about the following: • Potential capital savings for new North Shore plant and Iona Wastewater

Treatment Plant by using MicroSludge technology • Process of sludge conversion to biomethane • Benefits of Microsludge technology • Senior government grants available for the project • Contribution to the project offered by Paradigm • Metro Vancouver’s maximum contribution • Return on investment and net present value • Alternative uses for biomethane • MicroSludge demonstration sites The presenter requested the Board to support the Waste Management Committee’s recommendation to commence pre-design work in 2010 and complete it by March 2011.

9:52 a.m. Director Reimer arrived at the meeting.

Presentation material titled “Lulu Island Project Overview MicroSludge + Green Biomethane” and executive summary titled “MicroSludge and Green Biomethane at Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant” is retained with the June 25, 2010 GVS&DD Board agenda.

SDD-8


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the presentation on the new proposal for Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant MicroSludge and Green Biomethane project, delivered at its June 25, 2010 meeting by Gordon D. Skene, Paradigm Environmental Technologies.

CARRIED Director Martin absent at the vote.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Directors, the following item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under Section F Items Removed from Consent Agenda: 1.1 Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Consultation

Process Concluding Meeting It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the June 25, 2010 GVS&DD Board Consent Agenda: 1.2 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – District of Maple Ridge 1.3 Biogas Upgrade and Microsludge Biogas Production Enhancement Proposal

CARRIED Director Green absent at the vote.

The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

1.2 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – District of Maple Ridge

Report dated May 25, 2010 from Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department, responding to a request from the District of Maple Ridge for Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary. Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the following areas identified on Plan SA-2376, Sheets 53 – 59:

1. the Albion Urban Area 2. the Silver Valley Urban Area Plan 3. Regional Growth Strategy Amendments 4. Correctional Facilities and Future Industrial Area 5. the footprints of existing buildings in the West and North Areas

previously connected to sewer 6. the footprints of existing buildings in the East Areas previously

connected to sewer 7. the footprints of existing buildings in the South Areas previously

connected to sewer 8. Upper Jackson Farm.

Adopted on Consent

SDD-9


1.3 Biogas Upgrade and Microsludge Biogas Production Enhancement Proposal Report dated June 10, 2010 from the Waste Management Committee, together with report dated May 18, 2010 from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, recommending action on a new proposal from Paradigm Environmental Technologies, Inc. to upgrade biogas at Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant for sale to external party and to install MicroSludge technology. Recommendation: That the Board approve $300,000 funding in the 2011 budget for pre-design of the biogas upgrade and MicroSludge biogas production enhancement project.

Adopted on Consent

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1.1 Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan:

Consultation Process Concluding Meeting Report dated June 10, 2010 from the Waste Management Committee, together with report dated June 4, 2010 from Marie Griggs, Public Involvement Division Manager, Engineering and Construction Department, providing an update on the consultation program activities for the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan completed as of June 4, 2010 and seeking direction on the last meeting to receive public delegations. The Board was provided an update on public meetings held on the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and next steps in approving the plan. Members discussed timing of introducing amendments to the plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board approve: • An additional and final public meeting on the Draft Integrated Solid

Waste Management Plan, following the format of previous public meetings chaired by Chair of the Board and Chair of the Waste Management Committee, and held on July 14, 2010 which is the close of the public comment period;

• Advertising of this meeting making clear that this is the last opportunity to make comments on the Draft Plan and that comments or delegation requests after this date will not be considered; and

• The July 14, 2010 meeting of the Waste Management Committee being re-scheduled for July 21, 2010 to receive the consultation report and the final draft Plan from staff and the report of the Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel and an additional Waste Management Committee meeting being scheduled for July 28, 2010, if required.

CARRIED

SDD-10


G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA No items presented.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

No items presented.

I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for June 25, 2010 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements,

if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”

CARRIED

K. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of June 25, 2010.

CARRIED (Time: 10:14 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

Lois E. Jackson, Chair

4192416 FINAL

SDD-11


SDD-12

CONSENT AGENDA

SDD-13


SDD-14

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2010

To: Waste Management Committee From: Marie Griggs, Public Involvement Division Manager Engineering and Construction Department Date: July 19, 2010 Subject: Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Engagement

and Consultation Program Results

Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Engagement and Consultation Program Results dated July 19, 2010 for information.

1 PURPOSE

This report summarizes the engagement and consultation program and the input received to support the development of the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP – formerly the Solid Waste Management Plan or SWMP). The report summarizes consultation activities between May 21, 2009 and July 14, 2010 that contributed to the development of the Draft Plan.

2 CONTEXT

Consultation on components of the Draft ISWRMP has taken place in several phases. The six phases of consultation on the Draft ISWRMP are illustrated in Attachment 1.

Phase 1 The process began following the Metro Vancouver Board adopting the Zero Waste Challenge in May 2006 (Phase 1 – Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan). A Board approved consultation program resulted in participation from the Waste Management Committee, Metro Vancouver and municipal staff, and the public from November 2006 to June 2007. Further consultation in the spring of 2008 took place to review strategies contained in a discussion document for updating the SWMP. The consultation program results contributed to the development of a document on key policy options for waste diversion targets in the Draft ISWRMP, titled Zero Waste Challenge – Goals, Strategies and Actions.

5.5

SDD-15

KBirks

Text Box

Section E 1.1

Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Engagement and Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee Meeting: July 21, 2010

Page 2 of 11

Phase 2 The Board approved further consultation in 2009 on the options presented in the Zero Waste Challenge to gain feedback on the extent to which an array of initiatives to reduce, reuse and recycle waste should be implemented to successfully divert materials from disposal; and, to establish a consensus around a diversion target (Phase 2 – Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies and Actions). The consultation took place between March and May 2009, and activities and findings for that program were reported to the Board at the May 2009 meeting.

Phase 3 Following completion of the Zero Waste Challenge consultation, a communications strategy was approved by the Board in August 2009 to support the next phase of consultation (Phase 3 - Information Sharing on Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development). The purpose of this phase was to inform the public of Plan components, the technical reports underlying the Plan’s recommendations, and the waste disposal options being considered. An interim report on the communications strategy was presented to the Board in October, 2009. Consultation activities continued and input was received until the Board accepted a Draft Plan for the purpose of consultation. Details of Phase 3 consultation activities (May 21, 2009 to April 8, 2010) are contained in Attachment 2. Issues raised and Metro Vancouver responses are contained in Attachments 4 to 12.

Phase 4 On April 9, 2010 the Board approved the Draft ISWRMP for the purpose of consultation, and the formal comment period was subsequently established as April 9 to July 14, 2010 (Phase 4 – Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan). The engagement and consultation program, approved in March 2010, was therefore implemented.

Phases 5 and 6 Following review of the final ISWRMP by the Waste Management Committee and Board, Metro Vancouver will submit a consultation report and final ISWRMP to the Minister of Environment for approval (Phase 5 – Submission of ISWRMP for Final Ministerial Approval). The revised ISWRMP is contained in a separate report in this meeting agenda for Committee and Board review. The final phase occurs following Ministerial approval of the Plan (Phase 6 – ISWRMP Implementation and Monitoring).

Phases 3 and 4 Documentation of Input and Metro Vancouver Responses Metro Vancouver has summarized the sources and issues raised for each consultation audience is a series of tables attached to this report. These tables have been divided by goals, strategies and actions as they were written in the Draft Plan dated April 28, 2010 approved for consultation by the Board on April 9, 2010. If no comments were received on a particular segment of the plan, it has not been included in the table.

Metro Vancouver responses to the issues in terms of potential amendments to the ISWRMP or other points of clarification are still in draft, pending direction from the Waste Management Committee. Attachments 4 - 12 therefore are still in draft and and have not been provided with this report package, but will be made available prior to the July 30th Board meeting.

An overview of the key issues heard during the consultation process as they apply to proposed plan amendments is provided in report 5.6 on this agenda titled: Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.

SDD-16


Page 3 of 11

The documentation of all hard copy written input for phases three and four (May 21, 2009 – July 14, 2010), entitled Engagement and Consultation on the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Report on Activities and Feedback will be available from the Metro Vancouver Information Centre by calling 604-432-6200. The contents will be available on the Metro Vancouver website. Metro Vancouver will provide this material to the Ministry of Environment as part of the consultation report submission that will accompany the ISWRMP for Ministerial approval.

The following sections provide an overview of the engagement and consultation program for the Draft ISWRMP from April 9 to July 14, 2010.

2.1 Objectives for Phase 4 Consultation: Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (April 9 – July 14, 2010)

The engagement and consultation program for the Draft ISWRMP review was implemented with the following objectives:

• provide information about the issues under review, the components of the Draft ISWRMP, and the links among other plans under the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI)

• meet the engagement and consultation requirements of Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Environment

• inform target audiences about opportunities to comment on the Draft Plan • provide a variety of methods for target audiences to submit input on the Draft Plan • document and summarize all input for consideration in finalizing the Draft ISWRMP • provide a summary of activities and input in a consultation report.

2.2 Program Overview

The engagement and consultation program for Phase 4 included outreach to the public, businesses, Metro Vancouver members, potentially affected First Nations, adjacent regional districts (Fraser Valley Regional District and Squamish-Lillooet Regional District), government agencies and ministries, and the Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel. Thirty-five (35) meetings were held with the target audiences, and a wide variety of communications tools were used to reach audiences as well as to gather input (see Section 2.3.8). The deadline for input was established as July 14, 2010.

The next section of this report provides details regarding individual program components.

2.3 Consultation Program Components

2.3.1 Metro Vancouver Public Consultation

Public input was received via meetings and through correspondence received during the comment period. Nine public meetings and one business workshop – attended by more than 600 participants – were held throughout Metro Vancouver between May 4 and July 14, 2010 to gather input on the Draft ISWRMP. Three public meetings were also held in Hope, Abbotsford and Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley Regional District. These meetings are discussed in Section 2.3.4 - Adjacent Regional District Consultation.

SDD-17


Page 4 of 11

Public Meetings Nine public meetings were held throughout the region to gather public input on the Draft ISWRMP. Approximately 600 participants attended these sessions. Attendees included residents, elected officials, municipal staff, and representatives of community, business, environmental and recreational organizations.

Public Meetings Geographic Areas (and meeting locations)

Date (2010)

Estimated Number of Participants

Speakers

Tri-Cities (Port Moody) May 4 55 12 The Langleys (Langley) May 5 40 10 Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows

(Maple Ridge) May 6 15 6

North Shore (North Vancouver) May 11 25 14 South Surrey/White Rock (White

Rock) May 18 20 8

Vancouver (Vancouver) May 19 130 25 Delta/Richmond/North Surrey (Delta) May 20 80 16 New Westminster/Burnaby

(New Westminster) June 17 85 26

Metro Vancouver Boardroom (Burnaby)

July 14 144 31

TOTAL 594 148 The Board Chair and/or the Chair of the Waste Management Committee chaired or were present at all of the public meetings. The Chair of the Environment and Energy Committee also participated in some of the meetings. The meetings began with an open house including display panels and opportunities to discuss the Draft Plan. The formal meeting began with opening remarks by the Chairs followed by a Metro Vancouver presentation, and public input. A speakers list was developed for each meeting to facilitate the public input, with a limit of five minutes per speaker. Written questions were also accepted and any written submissions were gathered.

Business A separate business workshop was held May 17, 2010 in Vancouver by invitation. Twenty-five (25) people attended, including representatives from chambers of commerce, the solid waste industry as well as retail, construction, and service businesses. The boardroom format, moderated by the Chair of the Waste Management Committee included a presentation by Metro Vancouver and discussion.

In addition, notification of the public meetings and the opportunity to provide input was provided to business representatives via consultation databases, and through other communication activities (see Section 2.3.8). As a result, input was also received from individuals representing trade unions, Boards of Trade, residual management technology and product manufacturing proponents, private businesses, and residents with business and/or technical professional backgrounds.

Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in Attachments 4A, 4B and 4C.

SDD-18


Page 5 of 11

2.3.2 Municipal Consultation

At the initiation of the consultation program, correspondence was sent to Mayors and Councils of Metro Vancouver members to update them on the Draft ISWRMP development process, solicit input on the Draft ISWRMP, inform them of the municipal workshops, public meetings and staff technical forum (an intergovernmental workshop designed to share perspectives on the opportunities and challenges related to managing the region’s solid waste – see Section 2.3.7). Additional correspondence was sent to staff and elected officials of Metro Vancouver members to provide meeting schedule updates and to remind them of the deadline for the receipt of input.

Similar correspondence was also sent separately to members of the Regional Administrators Advisory Committee (RAAC), Regional Financial Administrators Committee (RFAC), Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC), REAC solid waste sub-committee (REAC SWSC) and the Municipal Waste Reduction Coordinators committee (MWRC).

The first event of the engagement and consultation program was the May 1, 2010 Council of Councils meeting hosted by Metro Vancouver in Langley and attended by 170 municipal, Fraser Valley Regional District, First Nation and other representatives. The meeting included remarks by the Board Chair and the Chair of the Waste Management Committee, Chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, a presentation on the Draft Plan, a question-and-answer session moderated by the Board Chair, and information on the engagement and consultation activities ahead.

The municipal consultation program for the Draft ISWRMP included five workshops with elected officials and staff. Approximately sixty (60) municipal representatives participated in the meetings. The Board Chair and/or the Chair of the Waste Management Committee chaired or were present at all of the municipal workshops. Opening remarks by the Chairs were followed by a Metro Vancouver presentation and boardroom-style discussion.

In addition, Metro Vancouver member councils discussed the Draft ISWRMP and by request, Metro Vancouver staff attended some member council meetings to answer questions on the Draft ISWRMP.

Municipal Workshop Meetings Geographic Areas (and meeting locations)

Date (2010)


• Tri-Cities/Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows (Port Coquitlam)

May 4 12

• The Langleys (Langley) May 10 14 • North Shore (North Vancouver) May 11 16 • Vancouver/Burnaby/New Westminster

(Vancouver) May 19 8

• Delta/Richmond/Surrey/White Rock (Delta)

May 20 11

TOTAL 61

Municipal advisory committees provided significant input into the development of the Draft ISWRMP. The majority of their input occurred during Phase 3 prior to the Draft Plan being brought forward for consultation (see Attachment 2). Over the course of Phase 3, each of these committees discussed details of the draft during several meetings. In Phase 4, the committees received an update on the consultation process, changes to the draft, and deadlines for submissions from member municipalities.

SDD-19


Page 6 of 11

Municipal Committee Phase 3 Phase 4 Regional Administrators Advisory Committee (RAAC) 6 2 Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) 16 3 REAC Solid Waste Sub-committee (REAC SWSC) 11 1 Municipal Waste Reduction Coordinators (MWRC) 5 5 Of note is that REAC and REAC SWSC held two joint meetings to discuss the Draft Plan. Details of the source, and specific feedback from member municipalities and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in Attachment 5.

2.3.3 First Nations Engagement

The approach for First Nations engagement on the Draft ISWRMP was approved by the Board in February 2010. Letters were sent to 102 First Nations and tribal councils/associations and follow-up phone calls were made to potentially affected First Nations and tribal councils/associations whose traditional territory lies within, overlaps with, or who have interest in territory within: Metro Vancouver; Fraser Valley Regional District; Squamish-Lillooet Regional District; Thompson-Nicola Regional District (Cache Creek area); and Vancouver Island. Letters sent at the beginning of the engagement program informed these First Nations and tribal councils/associations of the regional First Nations meeting schedule, the staff technical forum and other opportunities for input. Additional correspondence was sent to potentially affected First Nations and tribal councils/associations to provide meeting schedule updates and to remind them of the deadline for the receipt of input.

Metro Vancouver hosted the following six regional meetings for First Nations people to provide the Draft ISWRMP presentation and receive input. The meeting format was similar to that used at public meetings with a speaker’s list used as warranted. Approximately 145 First Nation participants and other observers attended the meetings, as follows:

Geographic Areas (and meeting locations) Date (2010) Estimated Number of Participants

• Metro Vancouver (Burnaby) May 18 1 • Vancouver Island (Campbell River) June 15 51 • FVRD (Chilliwack) June 22 13 • Thompson-Nicola Regional District (TNRD)

(Lytton) June 23 56

• TNRD (Cache Creek) June 24 22 • Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD)

(Pemberton) June 29 3

TOTAL 146 Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in Attachment 6.

SDD-20


Page 7 of 11

2.3.4 Adjacent Regional District Consultation

Letters were sent to the Chair and Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) and the Mayors and Councils of the municipalities within these two regional districts, informing them of the public meetings in Metro Vancouver and the FVRD, and other opportunities for input. The consultation approach within the FVRD had been determined by the Metro Vancouver Board in February 2010.

Prior to that, Metro Vancouver elected officials met with the Executive Committee of the FVRD Board to discuss the public consultation approach within the FVRD and exchanged correspondence. Metro Vancouver was requested to host public meetings in the FVRD on the Draft Plan where the Metro Vancouver presentation included contrary points of view. Metro Vancouver responded that the request would be accommodated in a Board to Board meeting held out in the Fraser Valley. The proposal was received favourably by the FVRD Board in January, 2010. Subsequently the Board to Board meeting was declined via a letter from the FVRD Board Chair to Metro Vancouver.

Upon request, the Chair of the Waste Management Committee and Metro Vancouver staff presented the Draft Plan to a meeting of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board on June 29, 2010.

In addition, staff from both adjacent regional districts were invited to and attended the staff technical forum (see Section 2.3.7). Additional correspondence was sent to adjacent regional districts and their municipalities to provide meeting schedule updates and to remind them of the deadline for the receipt of input.

Metro Vancouver hosted three public meetings in the FVRD to provide the Draft ISWRMP presentation and receive input. Approximately 390 individuals attended the meetings.

Public Meeting Locations (FVRD) Date (2010)


Speakers

Hope May 3 55 15 Abbotsford May 15 125 29 Chilliwack June 16 210 28

TOTAL 390 72 The Board Chair and/or the Chair of the Waste Management Committee chaired or were present at all the public meetings in the FVRD. The Chair of the Environment and Energy Committee also participated in the Abbotsford meeting. The meeting format was the same as that used for the public meetings in Metro Vancouver.

Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in Attachment 7. Feedback received from FVRD public and Metro Vancouver responses is contained in Attachment 4.

2.3.5 Reference Panel

In 2008, a Reference Panel was appointed by the Board to provide additional input during the consultation process for the Solid Waste Management Plan and report directly to the Waste Management Committee. The panel includes up to 13 representatives residing or working in Metro Vancouver, who bring a variety of perspectives to solid waste issues,

SDD-21


Page 8 of 11

including technical experts, solid waste management specialists, business representatives and citizens with an interest in solid waste topics.

The following is a list of the names of Reference Panel members and their professional affiliations:

• Jim Atwater, Department of Civil Engineering, UBC • Carole Christopher, Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC) • Konrad Fichtner, AECOM • Paul Labranche, Building Owners & Managers Association (BOMA BC) • Dr. James Lu, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority • Brock Macdonald, Recycling Council of B.C. • Wendy Rudder, Environmental Engineer • Sandy Sigmund, Encorp Pacific (Canada) • Steve Smoroden, Delta School District • Helen Spiegelman, Zero Waste Vancouver • Nicole Stefenelli, Urban Impact Recycling • Allen Bridge, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority • Sean Mabberley, Urban Waste Recycling

During the course of the process, there were some changes to the panel, and specific individuals were not all able to continue throughout the process. Konrad Fichtner who was the chief author of the waste disposal options report (AECOM), discontinued attending meetings during Phase 4 due to a potential concern about conflict of interest. Sean Mabberley, the President of Urban Waste Recycling, a practical and valuable member of the panel passed away in late 2009. In addition, the medical health representative Allen Bridge left his position and it was therefore necessary for the Board to appoint Dr. James Lu in May 2010 to represent the medical health community on the panel.

The Reference Panel met previously in April 2009 to discuss the Zero Waste Challenge: goals, strategies and actions (goals one and two) and in June/July 2009 to discuss disposal options (goals three and four).

During consultation phase four, three meetings of the Reference Panel took place for members to receive presentations on the Draft Plan, discuss the information in more detail, and provide input and develop recommendations for the Waste Management Committee to consider. Where panel members were not able to attend a meeting, a second meeting was arranged with the same agenda as the first, and the notes from the first meeting were made available. The three meetings were held over the following dates in 2010: June 2, June 21/July 8, July 15/July 16.

The Reference Panel spokesperson is on this agenda to present their recommendations on the Draft ISWRMP to the Waste Management Committee. Their recommendations and Metro Vancouver’s responses are contained in Attachment 9, provided on this agenda.

2.3.6 Government Agencies and Ministries

Discussions regarding the Draft ISWRMP and the consultation program took place at meetings with the Ministry of Environment (Surrey office) during the consultation process on the following dates in 2010: April 22, May 28, and May 3, and during the development of the Draft Plan (see Attachment 2).

Letters were also sent to federal, provincial, and regional departments, ministries and agencies that may have an interest in the Draft Plan, notifying them of the engagement and

SDD-22


Page 9 of 11

consultation program including the public meetings, inviting them to attend the staff technical forum, and asking for input. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development previously provided Metro Vancouver with a list of post-secondary institutions in the region with which to consult and letters were sent to these institutions. Additional letters were sent to ministries, agencies and post-secondary institutions reminding them of the deadline for receipt of input.

Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in the table contained in Attachment 10.

2.3.7 Staff Technical Forum

A staff technical forum was held on June 3, 2010 to share technical perspectives on the opportunities and challenges related to the Draft ISWRMP and provide context around the Plan that participants could take back to their organization. Participants were encouraged to develop recommendations to be documented and considered in finalizing the Draft ISWRMP. The meeting included: an overview of the Draft ISWRMP by Metro Vancouver staff and presentations on technical and advisory committee perspectives on the Draft ISWRMP by committee chairs, followed by small group discussions on key themes related to solid waste management.

Invited participants included Chief Administrative Officers, financial directors, engineering, planning and environmental staff from Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and from municipalities within these regional districts; regional advisory technical committees; government agencies; and affected First Nations.

Approximately 58 participants attended, including 33 representatives from Metro Vancouver member municipalities (including five REAC, two RFAC, 13 REAC SWSC and five MWRC representatives); eight First Nation group representatives; five representatives from adjacent regional districts and municipalities; nine representatives of government ministries and agencies/post secondary institutions; and three Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel members.

Details of the source of specific feedback, comments and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in the table contained in Attachment 11.

2.3.8 Supporting Communication Activities

The public consultation was supported by a range of activities aimed at increasing public awareness of the opportunity to become involved in deciding the future of the region and encouraging public input. The deadline for receipt of input was included in all communication activities supporting the engagement and consultation process. Activities included:

• extensive placement of advertisements in region-wide, local and ethnic newspapers providing public meeting details and updates, other opportunities to provide input, and the deadline for receipt of input.

• distribution of public meeting invitation flyers via e-mail and mail to individuals and organizations on Metro Vancouver’s regional dialogue database, and the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan database (approximately 1,400)

• placement of follow-up phone calls to encourage attendance at meetings, workshops and the technical forum.

SDD-23


Page 10 of 11

• materials posted on the Metro Vancouver website (http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning): public meeting notification, a question-and-answer document, online feedback and comment forms, Metro Vancouver contact information for receipt of feedback, the Draft ISWRMP, presentations, publications representing contrary opinions, links to other relevant material and websites.

• media relations support, including media advisories prior to public meetings and interviews with elected officials and staff.

• Metro Vancouver member, First Nation, government agency and ministry, adjacent regional district notification, as described in Sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.6.

• receipt of correspondence via fax, email, letter or feedback forms.

3 ALTERNATIVES

None provided.

4 CONCLUSION

In March 2010, the Metro Vancouver Board approved the engagement and consultation program for the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). The findings from the earlier engagement and consultation phases in addition to the most recent process has provided significant feedback toward the development of the Draft ISWRMP. Between April 9 and July 14, 2010 Metro Vancouver met with the public including businesses, Metro Vancouver members, affected First Nations, adjacent regional districts (FVRD and SLRD), the Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel, and government agencies and ministries. Correspondence was received from all sources to contribute to the input. This consultation report and its attachments, documents the activities and feedback for the consideration of the Waste Management Committee and Board in the review of the revised ISWRMP.

SDD-24


Page 11 of 11

ATTACHMENTS

1. Diagram of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Engagement and Consultation Phases

2. Phase 3 Consultation: Information Sharing on Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development (May 21, 2009 – April 8, 2010)

3. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Metro Vancouver Municipal Resolutions and Reports to Council (April 9 – July 14, 2010)

4A. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Public Input Goals 1 and 2: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

4B. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Public Input Goal 3: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses.

4C. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Public Input Goal 4: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

5. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Metro Vancouver Member Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

6. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – First Nations Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

7. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Adjacent Regional District Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

8. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – SWMP Reference Panel: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses for Phase 3

9. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – SWMP Reference Panel: Recommendations and Metro Vancouver Responses for Phase 4

10. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Government Ministries and Agencies: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

11. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Staff Technical Forum: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

12. Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan – Other: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses

4275851

SDD-25


SDD-26

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) Consultation

Diagram of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Consultation Phases

4268460 July 19, 2010 Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan

1

ATTACHMENT 1

PHASE 2

Zero Waste Challenge Goals, Strategies and Actions

March – May 2009

PHASE 4 Draft Integrated Solid Waste and

Resource Management Plan

April – July 2010

PHASE 5

Submission of ISWRMP For Final Ministerial Approval

2010

PHASE 6

ISWRMP Implementation and Monitoring 2010 – 2015

PHASE 3

Information Sharing On Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development

May 2009 – April 2010

PHASE 1

Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan

Nov 2006 – June 2007, March – May 2008

SDD-27


SDD-28

4273003

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) Consultation Phase 3 Consultation: Information Sharing on Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development (May 21, 2009 – April 8, 2010)

1.0 Objectives for Phase 3 Consultation Program

The communication strategy during the Draft Plan Development and Information Sharing stage was implemented with the following objectives:

• inform Metro Vancouver residents and key stakeholders of the context around and the information contained in the Draft ISWRMP.

• document and summarize input provided for consideration in finalizing the Draft ISWRMP for consultation purposes.

• provide a summary of activities and input in a consultation report.

2.0 Program Overview

Following completion of the Zero Waste Challenge consultation process (March 13 – May 20, 2009) and report to the Board, Metro Vancouver continued to engage all audiences in order to receive further input to assist in the development of the Draft ISWRMP. The communication strategy for this engagement and consultation phase focused on the integration of discussions of the Draft ISWRMP into existing Metro Vancouver outreach and engagement mechanisms. The next section of this report provides details regarding audiences and individual program components during this phase.

3.0 Consultation Program Components and Input

Input was received from the public including businesses, Metro Vancouver members, affected First Nations, the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel, and government agencies and ministries. Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in the tables contained in Attachments 4 to 12. These tables have been divided by goals, strategies and actions as they were written in the Draft Plan dated April 28, 2010 approved for consultation by the Board on April 9, 2010. If no comments were received on a particular segment of the plan, it has not been included in the table.

3.1 Public

A variety of activities were undertaken during this phase of consultation to reach public audiences and receive feedback on the waste disposal options. Eighty-four (84) pieces of correspondence were also received. Six Regional Forums were held in Metro Vancouver to present information and receive public feedback on solid waste management options for the region. The objective of the forums was to present and discuss the options for managing the waste that remains after all steps to reduce, reuse and recycle have been carried out. The Board Chair opened and closed each dialogue, which featured a panel of experts on various aspects of Solid Waste Management as

ATTACHMENT 2

SDD-29

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) Consultation Phase 3 Consultation: Information Sharing on Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development

(May 21, 2009 – April 8, 2010) Waste Management Committee Meeting, July 21, 2010

Page 2 of 6

4273003

well as the Waste Management Committee Chair and Directors who were members of a solid waste management delegation to Europe.

Regional Dialogue Location Date (2009) Estimated Number of Participants

• Vancouver/Richmond/Delta (Vancouver) Sept. 15 177

• New Westminster/Burnaby (New Westminster) Sept. 16 100

• Tri-Cities (Coquitlam) Nov. 18 57 • South of the Fraser (City of Langley) Nov.19 39 • North Shore (West Vancouver) Nov. 20 58 • Metro Vancouver (Vancouver) Nov. 20 98

TOTAL 529

A Sustainability Community Breakfast (a series of monthly breakfast meetings that support the Sustainable Region Initiative) was held November 4, 2009 titled “Toward Zero Waste”. The focus was on the Zero Waste Challenge, and how regional residents can become more involved in reducing, reusing and recycling. Approximately one hundred and eleven (111) individuals attended the breakfast.

A business luncheon was held in downtown Vancouver on October 26th for business leaders interested in learning more about Metro Vancouver’s plans and the rationale behind them. Approximately twenty-seven (27) individuals participated in the luncheon.

On November 4, 2009 Metro Vancouver hosted a Webinar – an online conversation – on solid waste management options for the region and how Metro Vancouver is determining how to best progress towards Zero Waste.

Feedback received from the public during this phase of consultation was similar to what was heard in Phase 4 on the Draft ISWRMP. Details of the source of specific feedback, issues raised, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in the tables contained in Attachments 4A, 4B and 4C.

3.2 Municipal

Over the timeframe of this phase of consultation, Metro Vancouver received five (5) pieces of correspondence and municipal advisory committees held the following meetings at which development of the draft ISWRMP was discussed:

SDD-30



Page 3 of 6

4273003

Municipal Advisory Committee Meetings

Regional Administrators Advisory Committee (RAAC) – May 27, September 23 and October 28 and November 25, 2009; January 27 and March 24, 2010 Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) – July 17, August 14, (Special Working Session), August 21, September 11, and December 11, 2009; February 5, February 19, (Special Joint Meeting of REAC and REAC Solid Waste Sub-committee), and March 5, 2010 REAC Solid Waste Sub-committee (REAC SWSC) – May 29, June 4, June 16, June 26, July 31, August 7, August 19, September 18, and October 30, 2009; February 5, and February 19, 2010 (Special Joint Meeting of REAC and REAC Solid Waste Sub-committee). Municipal Waste Reduction Coordinators (MWRC) – July 15, September 16, and November 18, 2009; January 27, and March 17, 2010.

RAAC held six meetings over the course of Phase 3. At these meetings staff provided updates on the status, progress and milestones related to the Draft ISWRMP including its development related to the Zero Waste Challenge, and technological options for dealing with residual waste. It was acknowledged in the fall of 2009 that it would be necessary to slow the ISWRMP process down based on requests from some municipalities. In 2010, staff updated RAAC regarding preparing the draft plan for presentation to the Waste management Committee for input on recommended amendments, and the process for moving forward. The aim was to submit the Plan to the Board on April 9th for approval to begin consultation.

REAC has been involved extensively in the development of the ISWRMP. In Phase 3, REAC held eight meetings from July 17, 2009 to March 5, 2010 that included discussions on the ISWRMP: five regular meetings, one special working session and two special joint meetings with the REAC SWSC. Throughout this phase of meetings, staff shared studies that were commissioned to provide REAC with the background on plan development. Discussions included review of the methodology used, as well as the costing options, timelines, targets and environmental performance considered in formulating the plan goals which were based on the technical studies. REAC provided feedback which staff took into consideration in further developing the plan. REAC was kept apprised of ongoing Board considerations related to the draft plan, and at the joint workshop with the REAC SWSC, responses were developed to specific questions posed by the Board. The Draft Plan was reviewed with REAC monthly and their feedback was sought in regards to each of the goals, strategies and actions leading to further revisions to the Draft Plan as recommended by REAC.

In Phase 3, the REAC SWSC held eleven meetings from May 29, 2009 to February 19, 2010, that included discussions on the Draft ISWRMP. Nine were regular meetings and two were joint meetings with REAC, held on February 5 and 19, 2010. Staff and the REAC SWSC reviewed background technical studies on solid waste

SDD-31



Page 4 of 6

4273003

management options that formed the basis for plan development. The REAC SWSC deliberated on the studies and reviewed the Draft Plan, providing detailed feedback on specific actions particularly in relation to goals one and two, as well as implementation and costs. Discussions included review of the AECOM report and Zero Waste Challenge goals, strategies and actions, as well as municipal cost estimates. Staff provided regular updates on the Draft Plan and the suggested schedule for consultation. Metro Vancouver staff worked with the REAC SWSC action by action to clarify and incorporate suggested changes into the draft, as well as to provide REAC with reports and SWSC notes to help in their own deliberations on the Draft ISWRMP.

MWRC met five times during Phase 3 and Metro Vancouver staff provided updates including information about studies that were commissioned as background to the development of the Draft ISWRMP. The Zero Waste Challenge was acknowledged as a key initiative of the region for solid waste reduction. The MWRC coordinated a food-waste collection pilot project with some municipalities during the fall of 2009. Discussions included the overall diversion target proposed in the Draft Plan and updates on the role of the Cache Creek Landfill. MRWC was updated on the results of current and upcoming milestones for the consultation process.

3.3 First Nations

At the December 11, 2009 Special Meeting of the Board, the Intergovernmental Committee was authorized to meet with potentially affected First Nations. An Intergovernmental Committee Special Meeting with First Nations was held on January 27, 2010 to receive input on an approach to engaging potentially affected First Nations on the Draft ISWRMP. Twenty-two elected officials and staff representing two tribal councils/associations and nine First Nations participated. On February 5, 2010 the Board approved an approach to engaging First Nations and asked staff to send potentially affected First Nations a copy of the proposed approach for comment by March 12, 2010.

First Nations feedback on the proposed approach is included in the March 26, 2010 Board meeting agenda. The Board approved a series of regional meetings with potentially affected First Nations and tribal councils/associations to provide information and receive input on the draft ISWRMP. Locations of the regional meetings included the following regional districts/locations: Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley, Squamish-Lillooet, Thompson-Nicola (Cache Creek area) and Vancouver Island. Meetings with individual band/councils/associations would be considered on request. This approach also included correspondence with all potentially affected First Nations and tribal councils/associations, and the opportunity for First Nations to provide input via mail, e-mail or fax.

3.4 Adjacent Regional Districts

At the December 11, 2009 Special Meeting of the Board, the Intergovernmental Committee was authorized to meet with the FVRD Executive Committee to discuss the revised Draft ISWRMP and receive advice on how the FVRD executive would suggest Metro Vancouver consult with Fraser Valley communities on a future Draft ISWRMP. The Intergovernmental Committee was invited to, and participated in, the

SDD-32



Page 5 of 6

4273003

February 5, 2010 meeting of the FVRD Executive Committee in Chilliwack. Minutes of the meeting are posted on the FVRD website at www.fvrd.bc.ca. Subsequent to that meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee and the Board considered and approved an approach for consultation within the FVRD at their February 2010 meeting.

Two forums were held in the Fraser Valley Regional District in Abbotsford on September 15 (approximately 120 participants) and in Chilliwack on September 16 (approximately 75 participants). The purpose was to present information and receive public feedback on solid waste management options for the region. The Board Chair opened and closed each dialogue. The format was the same as that employed for the Regional Forums in Metro Vancouver.

Feedback from the FVRD Board indicated that the timelines for consultations in the Fraser Valley needed to be agreed upon in order to give time for FVRD Board members and members of the public to understand the information prior to consultation. Further, the FVRD requested a panel of its choosing to provide opposing viewpoints, with ample time before consultation to determine the speakers and their availability.

Feedback received from both the public and the regional Board in the FVRD during this phase of consultation was similar to what was heard in Phase 4 on the Draft ISWRMP. Details of the source of specific feedback, and issues raised from the public and FVRD Board and Metro Vancouver responses are provided Attachments 4 and 7.

3.5 Reference Panel

The Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel met twice during this consultation phase (June 16/24, 2009 and July 22, 2009 – the first meeting was split into two sessions). The purpose of the meetings was to present and discuss the AECOM Report: A Comparative Analysis of Options for Managing Waste After Recycling and the RWDI Report: Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling (CMAQ) of Possible Solid Waste Management Scenarios. The role of the Panel is described in Section 2.3.5 of the main report.

The Reference Panel spokesperson is on this agenda to present their recommendations on the Draft ISWRMP to the Waste Management Committee. Their issues raised and comments during the Phase 3 consultation, and Metro Vancouver’s responses are contained in Attachments 8.

3.6 Government Agencies, Ministries, and Secondary Institutions

Discussions regarding the Draft ISWRMP and the consultation program took place at regular meetings with the Ministry of Environment (Surrey office) during this phase. Meetings occurred on the following dates: July 9, September 21, October 21, and November 24, 2009; and January 13, February 10, and March 19, 2010. Metro Vancouver staff also met with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority. Metro Vancouver also received thirteen (13) pieces of correspondence from government agencies, and ministries. Details of the source and contents of specific feedback, and Metro Vancouver responses are provided in the tables contained in Attachment 10.

SDD-33



Page 6 of 6

4273003

3.7 Other

During this phase of consultation two (2) pieces of correspondence were received from the Village of Gold River. Issues raised, comments received and Metro Vancouver’s responses are contained in Attachment 12.

4.0 Supporting Communications Activities

The Information Sharing on Waste Disposal Options and Draft Plan Development phase was supported by a range of activities aimed at increasing public awareness of the opportunity to become involved in deciding the future of the region and encouraging public input on the components of the Draft ISWRMP. Activities included:

• notification of Regional Forums and Community Breakfast via e-mail to individuals and organizations on Metro Vancouver’s regional dialogue database

• advertisements in region-wide, local and ethnic newspapers providing public meeting details and updates, other opportunities to provide input, and the deadline for receipt of input

• metro Vancouver website online discussion forum (blog) containing presentations on solid waste management in Metro Vancouver and the waste management options available

• metro Vancouver Zero Waste Blog with a focus on the Zero Waste Challenge, and how regional residents can become more involved in reducing, reusing and recycling

• metro Vancouver Facebook Fan Page • materials posted on the Metro Vancouver website, including presentations made at

the Regional Forums • media relations support, including media advisories and earned media • receipt of correspondence via on-line discussion, fax, email, letter or feedback forms.

SDD-34

SDD-35

SDD-36

SDD-37

SDD-38

SDD-39

SDD-40

SDD-41

SDD-42

SDD-43

SDD-44

SDD-45

SDD-46

SDD-47

SDD-48

SDD-49

SDD-50

SDD-51

SDD-52

SDD-53

SDD-54

SDD-55

SDD-56

SDD-57

SDD-58

SDD-59

SDD-60

SDD-61

SDD-62

SDD-63

SDD-64

SDD-65

SDD-66

SDD-67

SDD-68

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

1

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

1 R

epos

ition

Ext

ende

d P

rodu

cer R

espo

nsib

ility

(EP

R) t

o be

fron

t an

d ce

ntre

in th

e P

lan.

Add

a fi

rst b

ulle

t to

Pag

e 7

unde

r key

pr

ovin

cial

pla

ns a

nd p

olic

ies

supp

orte

d by

the

ISW

RM

P:

• R

ecyc

ling

Reg

ulat

ion

and

EPR

Pol

icy

EP

R is

an

envi

ronm

enta

l pol

icy

appr

oach

in w

hich

the

prod

ucer

’s re

spon

sibi

lity

for r

educ

ing

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

an

d m

anag

ing

the

prod

uct i

s ex

tend

ed a

cros

s th

e w

hole

life

cy

cle

of th

e pr

oduc

t, fro

m s

elec

tion

of m

ater

ials

and

des

ign

to it

s en

d-of

-life

. Thi

s su

ppor

ts th

e IS

WR

MP

’s fi

rst g

oal o

f m

inim

izin

g w

aste

gen

erat

ion

as w

ell a

s th

e se

cond

goa

l of

max

imiz

ing

reus

e, re

cycl

ing

and

mat

eria

l rec

over

y..

Agr

eed.

BC

Rec

yclin

g R

egul

atio

n ad

ded

into

this

sec

tion.

H

owev

er, i

tem

s ar

e ar

rang

ed a

lpha

betic

ally

.

2 A

dd A

ctio

n un

der 1

.1: [

Met

ro V

anco

uver

will

] Par

ticip

ate

in th

e E

PR

Tra

nsiti

on T

ask

Forc

e to

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

that

will

as

sist

mun

icip

aliti

es p

lan

for t

he tr

ansi

tion

from

mun

icip

al

resp

onsi

bilit

y to

ext

ende

d pr

oduc

er re

spon

sibi

lity

for f

utur

e pr

oduc

ts le

gisl

ated

und

er th

e R

ecyc

ling

Reg

ulat

ion.

Agr

eed.

New

act

ion

1.1.

11 a

dded

to a

ddre

ss tr

ansi

tion

to

EP

R.

3 A

dd A

ctio

n un

der 1

.1 :

[Met

ro V

anco

uver

will

] Fac

ilita

te E

PR

deve

lopm

ent t

hrou

gh z

onin

g an

d ot

her m

unic

ipal

reg

ulat

ory

auth

oriti

es to

hel

p m

unic

ipal

ities

ada

pt to

EP

R.

(e.g

. dev

elop

ing

tem

plat

e re

cycl

ing

zone

cla

ssifi

catio

ns to

be

cons

ider

ed fo

r inc

lusi

on in

all

mun

icip

al z

onin

g by

law

s.)

Not

requ

ired.

The

Dra

ft P

lan

alre

ady

incl

udes

act

ion

2.3.

3 un

der S

trate

gy 2

.3 –

Fac

ilita

te in

crea

sed

priv

ate

sect

or

recy

clin

g –

to fa

cilit

ate

the

sitin

g of

priv

ate

recy

clin

g ac

tiviti

es

(and

this

wou

ld in

clud

e E

PR

faci

litie

s) in

clud

ing

revi

ew o

f zo

ning

byl

aws

to re

mov

e un

nece

ssar

y im

pedi

men

ts to

and

en

cour

age

recy

clin

g an

d m

ater

ial r

ecov

ery

activ

ities

in

appr

opria

tely

zon

ed a

reas

. 4

Add

Act

ion

unde

r 1.1

: C

onsi

der c

urre

nt a

nd fu

ture

EP

R

prog

ram

s w

hen

carr

ying

out

was

te c

hara

cter

izat

ion

stud

ies

for

plan

ning

pur

pose

s.

(e.g

. det

erm

ine

the

quan

tity

of E

PR

-rel

ated

mat

eria

l in

the

was

te s

tream

in o

rder

to id

entif

y po

tent

ial p

riorit

ies

for n

ew E

PR

pr

ogra

ms)

.

Agr

eed.

New

act

ion

1.1.

8 ad

ded:

was

te p

roje

ctio

ns w

ill

cons

ider

futu

re tr

ends

in p

opul

atio

n, g

ener

atio

n, a

nd

man

agem

ent,

incl

udin

g E

PR

.

ATT

AC

HM

ENT

9

SDD-69

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

2

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

5 R

epla

ce 1

.1.6

with

: Min

istry

of E

nviro

nmen

t to

acce

lera

te E

PR

pr

ogra

m d

evel

opm

ent a

nd im

plem

enta

tion.

A

gree

d. A

ctio

n re

plac

ed in

1.1

.10.

M

etro

Van

couv

er’s

inte

ntio

n to

offe

r sup

porti

ve re

sour

ces

beco

mes

a M

etro

Van

couv

er a

ctio

n in

1.1

.3.

6 A

dd A

ctio

n un

der 1

.3: [

Met

ro V

anco

uver

will

] Wor

k w

ith

com

mun

ity p

artn

ers

to p

rovi

de k

ey in

form

atio

n in

lang

uage

s th

at re

flect

Met

ro V

anco

uver

’s c

ultu

ral d

iver

sity

.

Par

tially

agr

eed.

Cha

nge

mad

e to

stra

tegy

1.3

to u

se fo

rms

of

com

mun

icat

ion

whi

ch a

ddre

ss th

is is

sue

with

out s

peci

fic

com

mitm

ent t

o us

e m

ultip

le la

ngua

ges.

7

Am

end

2.1.

4 to

incl

ude

com

mun

ity g

roup

s: E

nhan

ce

partn

ersh

ips

with

the

Pro

vinc

e, in

dust

ry, a

cade

mia

and

co

mm

unity

gro

ups

to re

sear

ch a

nd d

evel

op s

olut

ions

to

over

com

e ba

rrie

rs to

recy

clin

g an

d ne

w o

ppor

tuni

ties

to re

-en

gine

er re

cycl

ed m

ater

ial.

Agr

eed.

Cha

nge

mad

e to

act

ion

2.1.

4.

8 A

men

d 2.

2.1

b): r

epla

ce A

ctio

n(C

ontin

ue th

e m

onito

ring

and

enfo

rcem

ent o

f dis

posa

l ban

s) w

ith: E

xpan

d th

e m

onito

ring

and

enfo

rcem

ent o

f dis

posa

l ban

s an

d en

hanc

e w

ith e

ffect

ive

com

mun

icat

ions

to ra

ise

awar

enes

s of

the

bans

.

Agr

eed.

Cha

nge

mad

e to

2.2

.1 b

9 R

epla

ce 2

.2.2

a) w

ith: F

acili

tate

the

harm

oniz

atio

n of

loca

l web

-ba

sed

serv

ices

whi

ch a

ct a

s so

urce

s of

info

rmat

ion

on re

cycl

ing

for b

usin

esse

s an

d re

side

nces

.

Par

tially

agr

ee. N

ew a

ctio

n 2.

2.2

d) a

dded

to fa

cilit

ate

harm

oniz

atio

n of

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces.

R

epla

cem

ent o

f 2.2

.2 a

) wou

ld im

ply

aban

doni

ng M

etro

V

anco

uver

’s c

omm

itmen

t to

prov

idin

g in

form

atio

n on

recy

clin

g op

portu

nitie

s. P

lan

incl

udes

bui

ldin

g on

this

com

mitm

ent a

t na

tiona

l lev

el.

10

Add

Act

ion

2.2.

3 c)

: [M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill] E

xplo

re

oppo

rtuni

ties

for r

ewar

ds a

nd d

isin

cent

ives

to e

ncou

rage

hig

h di

vers

ion.

Agr

eed.

New

act

ion

2.2.

3 c)

add

ed: A

naly

se th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of p

ricin

g st

rate

gies

and

oth

er e

cono

mic

inst

rum

ents

to

enco

urag

e ad

ditio

nal r

ecyc

ling.

11

R

epla

ce 2

.2.4

in it

s en

tiret

y w

ith: [

Met

ro V

anco

uver

will

] C

ondu

ct a

nee

ds-a

sses

smen

t stu

dy o

f eco

-cen

tres.

(Rat

iona

le:

eco-

cent

res

as p

ropo

sed:

may

unn

eces

saril

y tie

up

publ

ic fu

nds

and

unde

rmin

e cu

rren

t bus

ines

ses;

do

not c

onsi

der t

he

trans

ition

to E

PR

or m

eet t

he n

eeds

of p

rodu

ct s

tew

ards

.)

Dis

agre

e. T

he n

eed

to im

prov

e co

nven

ienc

e fo

r pub

lic to

re

cycl

e is

crit

ical

to a

chie

ving

div

ersi

on ta

rget

s. S

uppo

rt fo

r ec

o-ce

ntre

s he

ard

in p

ublic

con

sulta

tion.

Is

sue

of fu

ndin

g, re

latio

nshi

p to

exi

stin

g bu

sine

sses

and

EP

R

prog

ram

s ad

dres

sed

in 2

.2.4

(a) w

hich

has

bee

n am

ende

d to

cl

arify

the

inte

ntio

n to

add

ress

this

issu

e.

SDD-70

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

3

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

12

Del

ete

2.3.

2 an

d 2.

3.4.

(Rat

iona

le: r

egio

nal r

ecyc

ling

does

n’t

supp

ort p

rivat

e se

ctor

EP

R b

ased

infra

stru

ctur

e; s

ervi

ce

deliv

ery

mod

els

shou

ldn’

t be

the

purv

iew

of l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent

unde

r EP

R s

yste

m; t

his

is a

lread

y ad

dres

sed

in 2

.2.3

.)

Dis

agre

e. R

efer

ence

Pan

el’s

phi

loso

phy

is to

rely

exc

lusi

vely

up

on E

PR

to e

limin

ate

was

te. S

taff

belie

ve th

is is

unr

ealis

tic

and

to a

chie

ve d

iver

sion

targ

ets

we

need

to u

se a

full

spec

trum

of a

ppro

ache

s. T

he P

lan

appr

oach

als

o re

cogn

izes

M

etro

Van

couv

er’s

lega

l obl

igat

ion

to m

anag

e th

e m

unic

ipal

so

lid w

aste

sys

tem

.

13

Am

end

Act

ion

2.3.

5: d

elet

e “P

rovi

ncia

l and

”: Fe

dera

l G

over

nmen

t to

iden

tify

and

esta

blis

h m

inim

um p

ostc

onsu

mer

re

cycl

ed c

onte

nt re

quire

men

ts fo

r con

sum

er g

oods

. (R

atio

nale

: ac

tion

is n

ot w

ithin

the

purv

iew

of t

he p

rovi

ncia

l gov

ernm

ent.)

Dis

agre

e. T

he p

rovi

ncia

l gov

ernm

ent m

ay h

ave

eith

er

juris

dict

ion

or a

bilit

y to

influ

ence

recy

cled

con

tent

. Pre

fera

ble

to b

e in

clus

ive

if th

ere

is a

ny q

uest

ion

of th

eir p

urvi

ew.

14

Am

end

Act

ion

2.4.

2 b)

: add

“if p

ursu

ed”:

Pro

vide

are

as fo

r se

para

ted

recy

clab

le D

LC m

ater

ials

at E

co-C

entre

s, if

pur

sued

, an

d at

tran

sfer

sta

tions

as

they

are

upg

rade

d. (R

atio

nale

: co

nsis

tent

with

Rec

omm

enda

tion

11.)

Dis

agre

e. S

ee c

omm

ent o

n ite

m 1

1.

15

Rep

ositi

on 2

.4.3

as

the

first

act

ion

unde

r Stra

tegy

2.4

. (R

atio

nale

: to

emph

asiz

e th

e ne

ed fo

r man

dato

ry D

LC re

cycl

ing

at jo

b si

tes.

)

Agr

eed.

Act

ions

reor

dere

d.

16

Add

Act

ion

unde

r 2.5

: [M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill] c

ontin

ue to

su

ppor

t gra

ss ro

ots

prog

ram

s to

redu

ce p

aper

and

pap

erbo

ard

was

te in

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith n

on-p

rofit

org

aniz

atio

ns.

(e.g

. jun

k m

ail R

ed D

ot p

rogr

am; B

uild

ing

Ow

ners

and

M

anag

ers

Ass

ocia

tion’

s co

mpr

ehen

sive

recy

clin

g pr

ogra

m fo

r co

mm

erci

al re

al e

stat

e in

dust

ry)

Agr

eed.

Cha

nge

mad

e to

2.5

.1 to

als

o in

clud

e bu

sine

sses

and

no

n-pr

ofit

orga

niza

tions

, not

just

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith

mun

icip

aliti

es.

17

Add

new

firs

t Act

ion

unde

r 2.6

: Ass

ess

the

qual

ity, c

ompo

sitio

n an

d qu

antit

y of

org

anic

s in

the

was

te s

tream

and

dev

elop

a u

se

hier

arch

y th

at p

riorit

izes

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

use

of t

he

exis

ting

orga

nic

stre

am. (

Rat

iona

le: t

o de

term

ine

high

est a

nd

best

use

of o

rgan

ics.

)

Dis

agre

e. It

is n

ot c

lear

whe

ther

the

nutri

ent v

alue

or e

nerg

y va

lue

embe

dded

in o

rgan

ics

is th

e m

ore

valu

able

, inc

ludi

ng

cons

ider

atio

n of

gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s, o

r whe

ther

suc

h a

prio

ritiz

atio

n w

ould

be

stab

le o

ver t

ime.

The

issu

e of

co

ntam

inat

ion

mak

es th

is q

uest

ion

even

mor

e co

mpl

ex a

nd

unce

rtain

.

SDD-71

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

4

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

18

Add

Act

ion

unde

r 2.6

: [M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill] M

onito

r air

emis

sion

s, in

clud

ing

bioa

eros

ols,

from

larg

e-sc

ale

orga

nics

pr

oces

sing

faci

litie

s.

Agr

eed.

Act

ion

adde

d un

der 2

.6.2

a (i

).

19

Rep

lace

2.7

with

an

Act

ion

unde

r 1.1

: [M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill]

[Mun

icip

aliti

es w

ill] P

hase

out

the

mun

icip

al re

cycl

ing

of p

last

ics

as E

PR

pro

gram

s ph

ase

in th

eir c

olle

ctio

n. (R

atio

nale

: pla

stic

s sh

ould

be

the

sole

resp

onsi

bilit

y of

the

prod

ucer

; con

sist

ent w

ith

the

deve

lopm

ent a

nd d

irect

ion

of E

PR

)

Dis

agre

e. T

here

is n

o EP

R p

rogr

am fo

r pla

stic

s in

pla

ce.

Del

etio

n of

this

stra

tegy

is in

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e go

als

of th

is

plan

dur

ing

the

timef

ram

e w

hen

mun

icip

aliti

es a

re s

till i

nvol

ved

in th

e co

llect

ion

of p

last

ics,

and

for a

ny p

last

ics

whi

ch a

re n

ot

cove

red

unde

r EP

R.

20

Add

Act

ion

unde

r 2.8

targ

etin

g m

ulti-

fam

ily a

nd IC

I sec

tors

to

impr

ove

dive

rsio

n ra

tes:

Met

ro V

anco

uver

] {M

unic

ipal

ities

]will

: S

tudy

how

was

te h

aule

rs c

an s

uppo

rt co

mpl

ianc

e en

forc

emen

t.

Not

requ

ired.

Act

ion

will

be

enco

mpa

ssed

und

er 2

.2.1

(c) -

an

alys

e th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of d

ispo

sal b

ans

and

poss

ible

al

tern

ativ

e en

forc

emen

t mod

els

incl

udin

g en

forc

emen

t at

sour

ce.

21

To a

ddre

ss th

e co

ncer

ns o

f som

e R

efer

ence

Pan

el m

embe

rs

that

Goa

l 3 re

com

men

ds th

e re

cove

ry o

f ene

rgy

over

oth

er

met

hods

for p

re-tr

eatm

ent o

f was

te to

min

imiz

e en

viro

nmen

tal

impa

cts,

incl

udin

g gr

eenh

ouse

gas

(GH

G) e

mis

sion

s, th

e fo

llow

ing

is o

ffere

d as

a re

plac

emen

t to

Goa

l 3. T

his

rew

orki

ng

is in

tend

ed to

bui

ld o

n th

e co

nsid

erab

le w

ork

unde

rtake

n by

the

Boa

rd, t

he W

aste

Man

agem

ent C

omm

ittee

and

sta

ff to

pla

n fo

r th

e fu

ture

of s

olid

was

te m

anag

emen

t in

the

regi

on –

a c

ompl

ex

and

chal

leng

ing

task

. G

oal 3

: Pro

cess

the

Was

te S

trea

m a

fter M

ater

ial R

euse

an

d R

ecyc

ling

and

befo

re D

ispo

sal t

o La

ndfil

l in

orde

r to

Prov

ide

the

Gre

ates

t Ben

efit

for S

ocie

ty

Dis

agre

e.

1.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

is v

ague

as

to p

riorit

y an

d pr

oces

s 2.

B

lank

et b

an o

n di

spos

al o

f unt

reat

ed w

aste

may

requ

ire

expa

nsio

n of

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

litie

s be

yond

the

limits

pr

opos

ed in

the

plan

and

ther

eby

risk

unde

rmin

ing

of

was

te d

iver

sion

obj

ectiv

es

3.

The

avoi

danc

e of

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

expa

nsio

n as

co

ntem

plat

ed in

2, w

ould

like

ly re

quire

larg

e sc

ale

MB

T fa

cilit

ies

whi

ch w

ould

not

be

cost

effe

ctiv

e 4.

R

ewar

d fo

r “ho

me-

mad

e”, “

inno

vativ

e” a

ppro

ache

s ne

eds

to b

e ba

lanc

ed b

y th

e ne

cess

ity o

f sel

ectin

g pr

oven

and

re

liabl

e te

chno

logi

es.

SDD-72

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

5

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

Land

fillin

g w

aste

with

out s

ome

form

of p

re-tr

eatm

ent l

eave

s th

e po

tent

ial f

or o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

stil

l in

the

was

te s

tream

to

degr

ade

in th

e la

ndfil

l and

ther

eby

gene

rate

met

hane

. It a

lso

fore

goes

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

redu

ce th

e vo

lum

e of

was

te

(ext

endi

ng la

ndfil

l life

) and

to g

ener

ate

addi

tiona

l val

ue fr

om

was

te m

ater

ials

thro

ugh

ener

gy re

cove

ry in

som

e fo

rm o

r th

roug

h re

cove

ry o

f rec

ycla

ble

mat

eria

ls s

uch

as m

etal

.

In re

cogn

ition

of t

his,

man

y ju

risdi

ctio

ns, i

nclu

ding

the

Eur

opea

n U

nion

, hav

e ou

tlaw

ed th

e la

ndfil

ling

of u

ntre

ated

was

te

alto

geth

er. B

ritis

h C

olum

bia’

s La

ndfil

l Gas

Reg

ulat

ion

was

in

trodu

ced

with

the

sam

e in

tent

of r

educ

ing

harm

ful G

HG

em

issi

ons.

M

etro

Van

couv

er h

as s

ome

pre-

treat

men

t pro

cess

ing

in p

lace

, bu

t it m

ay b

e ne

cess

ary

to a

ugm

ent t

hese

with

add

ition

al p

re-

treat

men

t. Th

ere

are

a ra

nge

of p

re-tr

eatm

ent t

echn

olog

ies

that

incl

ude,

bu

t are

not

lim

ited

to: t

herm

al tr

eatm

ent (

targ

eted

inci

nera

tion,

ga

sific

atio

n, p

yrol

ysis

, MB

T w

ith re

fuse

der

ived

fuel

) and

MB

T w

ith s

tabi

lized

resi

dual

s go

ing

to la

ndfil

l. It

is re

cogn

ized

that

the

choi

ce o

f how

was

te a

fter r

ecyc

ling

is

proc

esse

d ca

n be

influ

ence

d by

pot

entia

lly c

ompe

ting

cons

ider

atio

ns a

nd th

at p

riorit

ies

mus

t be

set a

mon

g th

em.

Thes

e co

nsid

erat

ions

incl

ude:

•

The

time

requ

ired

to d

evel

op a

par

ticul

ar te

chno

logy

or

faci

lity

to fu

ll op

erat

ion,

rela

tive

to th

e da

y-to

-day

nee

d to

man

age

the

was

te a

fter r

ecyc

ling

that

will

be

gene

rate

d w

ithin

the

next

five

yea

rs;

SDD-73

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

6

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

• Th

e de

sire

to e

xtra

ct lo

cal v

alue

from

the

was

te

mat

eria

ls, s

uch

as th

roug

h el

ectri

city

and

dis

trict

ene

rgy;

an

d •

The

glob

al p

ersp

ectiv

e th

at re

duci

ng g

reen

hous

e ga

s em

issi

ons

shou

ld b

e th

e pr

imar

y dr

iver

for t

echn

olog

y an

d pr

oces

sing

cho

ices

. St

rate

gy 3

.1: M

ake

good

use

of e

xist

ing

regi

onal

was

te

trea

tmen

t ass

ets

Th

e re

gion

alre

ady

has

an e

stab

lishe

d w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

y,

whi

ch h

as b

een

succ

essf

ul a

t gen

erat

ing

stea

m a

nd e

lect

ricity

fo

r loc

al u

se.

This

has

con

tribu

ted

to lo

wer

dem

ands

on

mor

e tra

ditio

nal f

orm

s of

ene

rgy

in th

e re

gion

. Th

e tw

o la

ndfil

ls

serv

ing

the

regi

on a

lso

have

est

ablis

hed

gas-

reco

very

sys

tem

s th

at re

duce

GH

G e

mis

sion

s to

the

atm

osph

ere,

com

plia

nt w

ith

prov

inci

al la

ndfil

l gas

regu

latio

ns.

In s

uppo

rt of

this

stra

tegy

, M

ETR

O V

AN

CO

UV

ER

WIL

L:

3.1.

1 C

ontin

ue u

se o

f exi

stin

g w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

y in

B

urna

by

(a

) U

se th

e fa

cilit

y at

its

optim

al c

apac

ity to

reco

ver

avai

labl

e en

ergy

in th

e w

aste

rem

aini

ng a

fter r

ecyc

ling

for d

istri

ct e

nerg

y an

d el

ectri

city

gen

erat

ion

(b)

Con

tinue

to im

prov

e en

viro

nmen

tal p

erfo

rman

ce o

f the

fa

cilit

y w

ith im

prov

ed te

chno

logi

es

SDD-74

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

7

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

(c)

Mon

itor p

erfo

rman

ce to

ens

ure

com

plia

nce

with

en

viro

nmen

tal r

egul

atio

ns a

nd o

bjec

tives

(d

) Mai

ntai

n op

erat

ing

rela

tions

hips

for t

he b

enef

icia

l use

of

stea

m a

nd e

lect

ricity

gen

erat

ed fr

om th

e B

urna

by

faci

lity,

and

look

for n

ew p

artn

ers

or m

arke

ts a

s ap

prop

riate

. 3.

1.2

[fo

rmer

ly 3

.1.8

] Use

the

Bur

naby

faci

lity

to re

cove

r en

ergy

from

regi

onal

util

ity m

ater

ials

that

can

not b

e re

cycl

ed,

incl

udin

g th

ose

from

liqu

id w

aste

and

wat

er u

tiliti

es.

(a)

Rec

over

ene

rgy

from

drin

king

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

proc

esse

s su

ch a

s or

gani

c fil

ter m

edia

that

can

not

be re

cycl

ed.

(b)

Use

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

to p

roce

ss g

rit a

nd s

cree

ning

s fro

m w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent f

or b

enef

icia

l use

s,

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te.

(c)

Use

recl

aim

ed w

ater

from

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t pl

ants

in w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y st

eam

gen

erat

ion

or

dist

rict h

eatin

g, if

via

ble

Stra

tegy

3.1

.3 C

ontin

ue u

se o

f exi

stin

g la

ndfil

l gas

cap

ture

and

be

nefic

ial u

se te

chno

logi

es a

t reg

iona

l lan

dfill

s

(a

) Mun

icip

aliti

es (C

ity o

f Van

couv

er) a

nd o

ther

land

fill

oper

ator

s w

ill m

aint

ain

land

fill g

as c

aptu

re

syst

ems

in p

lace

and

stri

ve to

max

imiz

e th

e be

nefic

ial u

se o

f the

reco

vere

d ga

s.

SDD-75

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

8

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

Stra

tegy

3.2

Exp

lore

add

ition

al o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

proc

essi

ng w

aste

rem

aini

ng a

fter r

euse

and

recy

clin

g.

ME

TRO

VA

NC

OU

VE

R W

ILL:

3.

2.1

Mon

itor t

rend

s in

was

te fl

ows

and

was

te c

ompo

sitio

n on

an

on-

goin

g ba

sis

to re

asse

ss tr

eatm

ent c

apac

ity

requ

irem

ents

, so

that

any

trea

tmen

t cap

acity

is

deve

lope

d to

mat

ch a

ctua

l nee

ds a

s cl

osel

y as

pos

sibl

e.

This

tren

d an

alys

is w

ill ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt th

e ex

pans

ion

of o

rgan

ics

dive

rsio

n as

wel

l as

the

mor

e ag

gres

sive

de

velo

pmen

t of E

PR

pro

gram

s, a

s su

ppor

ted

by a

ctio

ns

in G

oals

1 a

nd 2

of t

he P

lan.

3.

2.2.

S

ubje

ct to

the

outc

omes

of t

rend

mon

itorin

g in

3.2

.1, i

f it

is c

onfir

med

that

add

ition

al tr

eatm

ent c

apac

ity is

re

quire

d in

the

shor

t- or

med

ium

- ter

m, e

valu

ate

the

pref

erre

d ap

proa

ch to

dev

elop

ing

addi

tiona

l tre

atm

ent

capa

city

in th

e re

gion

, bas

ed, a

t a m

inim

um, o

n th

e fo

llow

ing

crite

ria:

• si

te a

vaila

bilit

y •

suita

bilit

y of

site

to m

axim

ize

bene

ficia

l use

, su

ch a

s m

arke

ting

of e

nerg

y or

deg

ree

of G

HG

re

duct

ion

• po

tent

ial f

or p

ublic

hea

lth c

once

rns

in th

e M

etro

V

anco

uver

regi

on a

nd it

s ne

ighb

ourin

g re

gion

al

dist

ricts

•

the

desi

red

bala

nce

betw

een

glob

al b

enef

its

such

as

gree

nhou

se g

as re

duct

ion

and

loca

l ec

onom

ic im

pact

s su

ch a

s re

venu

e re

cove

ry to

of

fset

cos

ts

SDD-76

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

9

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

• po

tent

ial f

or lo

cal j

ob c

reat

ion,

and

•

oppo

rtuni

ties

for r

esea

rch

and

educ

atio

n.

AC

TIO

NS

RE

QU

ES

TED

OF

OTH

ER

GO

VE

RN

ME

NTS

AN

D

AG

EN

CIE

S:

3.2.

3 P

rovi

ncia

l Gov

ernm

ent t

o ad

opt a

pro

vinc

e-w

ide

ban

on

the

disp

osal

of u

ntre

ated

was

te s

tream

s, in

con

sulta

tion

with

mun

icip

aliti

es a

nd re

gion

al d

istri

cts,

and

link

ed to

ot

her p

olic

y-re

late

d tim

efra

mes

, suc

h as

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

new

EP

R p

rogr

ams

and

orga

nics

di

vers

ion

prog

ram

s.

Stra

tegy

3.3

G

ive

pref

eren

ce to

and

rew

ard

inno

vativ

e so

lutio

ns th

at m

anag

e w

aste

afte

r rec

yclin

g w

ithin

th

e re

gion

.

A

ll th

e m

ater

ials

that

are

gen

erat

ed in

the

was

te s

tream

, w

heth

er fo

r reu

se, r

ecyc

ling

or fo

r tre

atm

ent a

nd

disp

osal

, are

our

col

lect

ive

resp

onsi

bilit

y. M

etro

V

anco

uver

will

giv

e pr

iorit

y to

a “h

ome-

mad

e” a

ppro

ach

to d

ealin

g w

ith th

ese

mat

eria

ls, t

hat m

inim

izes

or

elim

inat

es th

e ne

ed to

mov

e m

ater

ials

out

side

of t

he

regi

on fo

r dis

posa

l. M

ETR

O V

AN

CO

UV

ER

WIL

L:

3.3.

1 E

xplo

re th

e re

lativ

e m

erits

of t

he p

rivat

e se

ctor

ver

sus

the

publ

ic s

ecto

r rol

es in

dev

elop

ing

and

prov

idin

g th

e in

-reg

ion

treat

men

t sol

utio

ns th

at m

ay b

e ne

cess

ary

for

was

te re

mai

ning

afte

r reu

se a

nd re

cycl

ing.

SDD-77

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

10

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

(a)

Und

erta

ke c

ost-b

enef

it an

alys

is to

det

erm

ine

pref

erre

d fin

anci

ng a

nd s

ervi

ce d

eliv

ery

mod

els

for t

reat

men

t fa

cilit

y co

nstru

ctio

n, c

omm

issi

onin

g, o

wne

rshi

p an

d op

erat

ion.

(b

) O

nly

com

mit

to s

ubst

antia

l pub

lic s

ecto

r fun

ding

whe

n th

is c

an b

e de

mon

stra

ted

to re

sult

in th

e be

st a

vaila

ble

finan

cial

pos

ition

for t

he re

side

nts

and

busi

ness

es o

f the

re

gion

(c

) .

22

Rep

lace

3.3

.4 (P

rovi

ncia

l Gov

ernm

ent t

o de

velo

p m

ater

ial a

nd

ener

gy re

quire

men

ts fo

r exi

stin

g an

d fu

ture

ste

war

dshi

p pr

ogra

ms

to u

se th

e no

n-re

cycl

able

por

tion

of re

turn

ed m

ater

ial

as fu

el ra

ther

than

land

fillin

g) w

ith a

n A

ctio

n un

der 1

.1: [

Met

ro

Van

couv

er] w

ill lo

bby

the

prov

inci

al g

over

nmen

t to

enac

t tha

t by

2020

all

prod

ucts

cur

rent

ly b

eing

man

aged

in th

e m

unic

ipal

w

aste

stre

am b

e ad

ded

to th

e R

ecyc

ling

Reg

ulat

ion

for

man

agem

ent b

y in

dust

ry th

roug

h E

PR

. (R

atio

nale

: con

sist

ent

with

the

dire

ctio

n of

EP

R; n

o pr

oduc

ts s

houl

d re

mai

n fo

r co

nsid

erat

ion

for u

se a

s fu

el; m

ajor

fisc

al b

enef

it to

loca

l go

vern

men

t.)

Dis

agre

e. U

nder

the

exis

ting

actio

n th

e pr

ovin

ce w

ould

ex

plic

itly

dire

ct a

nd re

quire

the

stew

ards

hip

prog

ram

s to

util

ize

mat

eria

ls th

at a

re n

ot re

cycl

ed b

ut th

at h

ave

ener

gy v

alue

for

ener

gy re

cove

ry, r

athe

r tha

n di

spos

ing

them

dire

ctly

in a

la

ndfil

l. Th

e R

efer

ence

Pan

el s

eem

s to

indi

cate

that

EP

R

elim

inat

es th

e us

e of

retu

rned

mat

eria

ls fo

r fue

l. Th

is is

in

cons

iste

nt w

ith o

bser

ved

expe

rienc

e (fo

r exa

mpl

e: ti

res,

w

ood

and

elec

troni

cs).

23

Add

Stra

tegy

und

er G

oal 4

: Ass

ist i

n th

e up

grad

ing

of o

pera

ting

land

fills

to m

axim

ize

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

and

min

imiz

e th

e fu

gitiv

e em

issi

ons

of la

ndfil

l gas

.

Agr

ee w

ith in

tent

. How

ever

, lan

dfill

s ar

e re

gula

ted

by th

e P

rovi

nce

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith O

pera

tiona

l Cer

tific

ates

issu

ed

unde

r an

appr

oved

Sol

id W

aste

Man

agem

ent P

lan

that

es

tabl

ish

the

requ

irem

ents

to e

nsur

e en

viro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n.

The

prov

ince

has

als

o no

w e

nact

ed th

e La

ndfil

l Gas

M

anag

emen

t Reg

ulat

ion

whi

ch b

ecam

e ef

fect

ive

in 2

009

and

targ

ets

the

redu

ctio

n of

GH

G e

mis

sion

s fro

m la

ndfil

ls. T

his

appe

ars

to a

ddre

ss th

e is

sue

rais

ed b

y th

e R

efer

ence

Pan

el.

SDD-78

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SWM

P R

efer

ence

Pan

el -

Rec

omm

enda

tions

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Rep

onse

s fo

r Pha

se 4

D

ated

Jul

y 19

, 201

0

42

7296

6.

Inte

grat

ed S

olid

Was

te a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent P

lan

SW

MP

Ref

eren

ce P

anel

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

11

# R

ecom

men

datio

n (a

ctio

n re

fere

nces

are

to A

pril

vers

ion)

R

espo

nse

(act

ion

refe

renc

es a

re to

Jul

y ve

rsio

n)

24

Add

Act

ion

unde

r 4.3

: [M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill] d

evel

op a

stra

tegy

fo

r tem

pora

ry s

tora

ge o

f the

resu

lting

deb

ris in

the

even

t of a

m

ajor

dis

aste

r. (R

atio

nale

: to

prev

ent t

he lo

ss o

f lan

dfill

cap

acity

at

Van

couv

er L

andf

ill o

r a fu

ture

site

.)

Dis

agre

e. D

isas

ter d

ebris

man

agem

ent i

s ou

tsid

e th

e sc

ope

of

this

pla

n an

d is

bei

ng a

ddre

ssed

by

the

Inte

grat

ed P

artn

ersh

ip

for R

egio

nal E

mer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t (IP

RE

M) –

a

partn

ersh

ip b

etw

een

the

prov

ince

and

Met

ro V

anco

uver

(in

clud

ing

mem

ber m

unic

ipal

ities

).

25

Rem

ove

4.4

(Use

ada

ptiv

e m

anag

emen

t to

addr

ess

evol

ving

ne

eds)

from

Goa

l 4 a

nd e

ither

cre

ate

a G

oal 5

or c

ombi

ne w

ith

subs

eque

nt P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

res

sect

ion.

(Rat

iona

le: A

ctio

ns

with

in s

peak

to th

e en

tire

Pla

n, n

ot m

erel

y G

oal 4

)

Agr

ee. T

his

is n

ow a

sep

arat

e se

ctio

n an

d no

t par

t of G

oal 4

.

26

On

page

30

(Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

s) u

nder

Goa

l 2, i

nclu

de

• W

aste

dis

posa

l per

cap

ita y

ear-

over

-yea

r A

gree

. Thi

s ha

s be

en a

dded

to th

e P

lan.

27

Intro

duce

inte

nt re

gard

ing

Pla

n m

onito

ring.

A

gree

. The

Pla

n es

tabl

ishe

s th

e re

quire

men

t to

repo

rt pr

ogre

ss in

a b

ienn

ial p

rogr

ess

repo

rt, to

revi

ew P

lan

perfo

rman

ce a

fter f

ive

year

s an

d to

und

erta

ke a

full

Pla

n re

view

in te

n ye

ars.

Thi

s P

lan

(as

wel

l as

the

Liqu

id W

aste

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n) e

stab

lishe

s a

new

ove

rarc

hing

com

mitt

ee,

the

Inte

grat

ed U

tility

Man

agem

ent A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee

(IUM

AC

), to

adv

ise

Met

ro V

anco

uver

on

plan

impl

emen

tatio

n,

parti

cula

rly fr

om th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

f int

egra

ted

plan

ning

and

re

sour

ce re

cove

ry a

cros

s ut

ility

sys

tem

s

SDD-79


SDD-80

GVS&DD Board Meeting: July 30, 2010

To: Board of Directors From: Waste Management Committee Date: July 21, 2010 Subject: Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee Recommendation: 1) That the Board submit the management plan as amended for solid waste based on

Alternative 1 described in the report titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report, titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management – A Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities, dated July, 2010 (the Plan) to the BC Minister of Environment for approval.

2) That the Plan be circulated to the councils of the GVRD member municipalities for endorsement specific only to the municipal actions identified in the Plan.

At its July 21, 2010 meeting, the Waste Management Committee considered the attached report titled “Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan”, dated July 21, 2010. The Committee amended sections 2.2.4 (a) and (d) of the plan by adding after the phrase “terms and conditions” the phrase “including the responsibility for funding and operating such facilities”; the amendment is reflected in the attached Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. The Committee subsequently recommended that the plan be forwarded to the Board as amended with the above recommendations. The Committee also requested staff to provide the July 30th Board meeting with further background information on:

• The nature and history of regional commitments to the Surrey RDO/Eco-centre

• The financial plan: specifically high level financial comparison of the alternatives and information on business processes to be followed in implementing the plan.

Attachment: “Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan”, dated July 21, 2010 4281146

Section E 1.2

SDD-81


SDD-82


To: Waste Management Committee From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Date: July 21, 2010 Subject: Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Recommendation: 1) That the Board submit the management plan for solid waste based on Alternative 1

described in this report, as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report, and titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management – A Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities, dated July, 2010 (the Plan) to the BC Minister of Environment for approval.

2) That the Plan be circulated to the councils of the GVRD member municipalities for

endorsement specific only to the municipal actions identified in the Plan. 1. PURPOSE To present the final Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) to the Board for their consideration. 2. CONTEXT Consultation on the Draft ISWRMP At their meeting on April 9, 2010 the Board adopted the Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) for the purpose of consultation and directed staff to proceed with the consultation program. This consultation, primarily through a series of meetings, considered the input on the Draft Plan from member municipalities, adjoining regional districts, First Nations, the business sector, senior government departments and agencies, stakeholders, and the general public and was carried out between April 9 and July 14, 2010. The final consultation exercise was to receive input from the Solid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel which was completed on July 18, 2010. The total consultation process and input, which also included input by electronic means and correspondence, is documented in a separate report to the Board titled Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan: Consultation Program Results. However, it is worth noting that Metro Vancouver received repeated thanks and praise for the extensive opportunity for input, even from many who went to offer some criticism of the proposed plan. There were some who were opposed to the proposal to include incineration and were critical of the fact the presentation did not include an advocate for their position. Some of these, particularly in the Fraser Valley, accused Metro Vancouver of trying to ‘sell’ their position. Repeated explanation that the process required Metro Vancouver to advance a specific proposal for people to react to, that ‘contrary views’ were documented on the Metro Vancouver website along with an explanation of why Metro Vancouver staff did not endorse those views satisfied some but not all of the critics. To some degree this could be

ATTACHMENT

SDD-83

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 2 of 28 expected. It is not uncommon for a disagreement with a conclusion to lead to a disagreement with the process that reached that conclusion. But this was certainly not the universal view and the Board can be satisfied that the process more than met the obligation to provide the public with the necessary information and ample opportunity to ask questions and communicate their comments on the proposed plan. Staff has been absorbing and analysing the feedback over the past several weeks and as a result of that feedback, numerous amendments have been made to the draft plan. Those of substance are set out in the attached draft plan (‘housekeeping’ amendments have simply been incorporated into the text.) As a result, staff believe the draft is now a richer and more powerful plan. However, there were of course inputs with which staff only partially agreed or with which we disagreed. The purpose of this report is to set out what we believe were the major topics raised in the consultation process and explain the staff response and if and how the plan has been amended as a consequence. To facilitate understanding and discussion of amendments to the plan, these have been organized in the sequence they occur in the plan. . Goals and Targets Reduction Target for Waste Generated There was widespread support for the idea that reducing the waste we generate has to be the first priority. One person noted how much more waste the current generation produces compared to previous generations and asserted that this could not continue – we need a paradigm shift. A number of people expressed support for the amendment proposed by the City of Vancouver that the plan incorporate a per capita waste reduction target. On a per capita basis the waste generated in the region has varied annually between 1.3 and 1.6 tonnes between 1994 and 2008. Waste generation is strongly correlated to economic activity and a steep rise occurred between 2003 and 2007 when economic activity and growth were high. With the recent recession waste generation has been somewhat reduced. There is an expectation by some that waste generation will increase in the coming decade repeating the pattern that has occurred over the past several decades. The European Environment Agency predicts 25% growth in municipal waste between 2005 and 2020 driven by several factors, such as economic activity, demographic changes, technological innovations, lifestyle and patterns of production and consumption. Others anticipate that waste generation in Canada will slow as more Extended Producer Responsibility programs are implemented and more products and packaging are designed with reduction and recycling in mind. Tracking per capita waste generated year-over-year is included as a performance measure in the Plan. The City of Vancouver suggested that a target be established to reduce per capita generation over time with a suggestion to strive for the Canadian average (1.1 tonnes in 2006) by 2020. The first difficulty in setting such a target relates to the fact that the plan, once adopted, becomes binding on the GVS&DD, which is held accountable by the Provincial Minister of Environment for achieving the goals set out in the plan. Metro Vancouver has little control over waste generation and so the target would have to be crafted carefully to be a goal for the community to aspire to rather than one which Metro Vancouver and its member

SDD-84

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 3 of 28 municipalities would be held legally accountable for achieving. Staff believes the former is in fact the intent of those who advocated setting such a target. Secondly, on the specifics of the target, Vancouver is an affluent region in Canada and will likely always be above the Canadian average given the local economic activity. It would therefore be more realistic to benchmark this region against itself, i.e. look to continuous improvement towards some target representing a significant reduction in waste generation in this region. Accordingly the Plan has been amended to include a target to reduce the 2020 per capita waste generation rate in the Metro Vancouver community by 10 percent below 2010 levels based on a 5-year running average. The averaging helps account for annual fluctuation associated with economic activity, which changes year-to-year. Some suggested that Metro Vancouver play a more active role in reducing waste generation by encouraging both residents to reduce waste, and manufacturers to alter their practices so that products could be more easily recycled and remanufactured at the end of their useful lives. However, Metro Vancouver has limited ability to influence national and international governments who set policy in areas related to manufacturing and trade. To address these issues, new actions have been included in the Plan for Metro Vancouver to work with other Canadian municipalities and establish a national, zero waste marketing council, and to work internationally so that cities and regions can effectively advocate for waste reduction at the source. Minimum 70 percent Diversion There was broad support from many participants for establishing a firm waste diversion target in the plan and for making the specific target of 70% diversion by 2015 a minimum target. The desire to move beyond the minimum 70 percent diversion target was expressed by several participants during the consultation. Some believe that moving beyond the 70 percent target can avoid the need for new waste-to-energy or landfill capacity to manage the projected waste tonnage. However, there are several factors to consider here which serve to increase the difficulty of waste diversion as higher levels of waste diversion are achieved:

• The population in Metro Vancouver is projected to reach 3 million by 2030. This growth alone means that at current generation and disposal rates waste tonnage will increase by a factor of 1.4 over the next 20 years.

• Diversion of materials from the waste stream is only possible if a beneficial use or market exists and is sustained. Many things thrown into the mixed waste garbage stream do not lend themselves to reuse or recycling. Composite materials, contaminated materials, difficult to recycle items and items that are uneconomic to recycle all exist in the garbage stream. Even many diverted items are down-cycled or used as a fuel. Tires are an example. In British Columbia they are diverted from the waste stream through a product stewardship program but are not recycled into new tires. They are used as a fuel or chipped and made into a variety of products such as mats, curb ramps and sport surfaces that may eventually end up requiring disposal.

• Recycling operations also have residual waste that ends up being disposed. Facilities that sort recyclables and process recyclables often need to maintain a high quality product that can be readily sold. Significant residual waste can result.

• Difficulty also arises in recovering materials from a mixed waste garbage stream. Although waste audits categorize and identify very specific materials in the garbage stream, such as paper, food waste, wood and metals among others, these materials remain in a mixed state and it is often not economic or practicable to separate them for the purpose of further use or processing. The mechanical-biological-treatment (MBT)

SDD-85

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 4 of 28

facilities required are very expensive to build and operate and result in little revenue or diverted useful product.

• It remains the responsibility of businesses and citizens to consistently and correctly utilize the recycling and disposal bins provided. To maintain a diversion rate of 70 percent requires sustained and very high participation and consistency rates. For example, if for the various reasons cited above, a certain portion of the waste stream is not recyclable but we assume that to be only 10%. And if a certain portion of the population do not recycle but we assume that also to be 10% (implying an ambitious 90% participation rate). And if those who do recycle ‘lapse’ on average just 10% of the time, i.e. recycle a truly recyclable material 90% of the times. The resulting diversion rate is still only 73%. It is for these reasons that some speak of a need for a ‘paradigm shift’ in people’s behaviour while others see the desired outcome can only be achieved by a global shift towards a zero waste design and manufacturing economy.

• Experience in other large cities indicates that moving beyond 70 percent diversion is challenging. More efforts through national and international cooperation are needed so that products and their packaging are re-designed to be more readily reused and recycled rather than requiring disposal. Given the diversity of products that exist in our global market economy and the inability to always use recycled materials rather than virgin materials, the trends in this area are largely unknown. Currently, there is little evidence that senior governments are aggressively addressing or mandating change in product production.

Municipalities and participants in the 2009 consultation on the Zero Waste Challenge initiatives confirmed that 70 percent is a reasonable near-term diversion target. The Plan calls for a limit of up to 500,000 tonnes of new waste-to-energy capacity, specifically to allow for the potential to move beyond the 70 percent target. This is well within the 1.2 million tonnes of waste projected to require disposal annually after the 70 percent target is achieved. About 800,000 tonnes would be managed by in-region waste-to-energy and 400,000 tonnes at the Vancouver Landfill. With population growth, projections indicate that even if we achieve 80 percent diversion by 2030 we will still have about 1 million tonnes of mixed waste to be managed. The flexibility that exists with in-region management of waste utilizing additional waste-to-energy capacity and the use of the Vancouver Landfill allows for moving beyond 70 percent diversion by first reducing use of the Vancouver Landfill if annual disposal tonnages decrease and, if required, sequentially closing, or converting to alternate fuels, each of the three mass burn furnaces at the existing waste-to-energy plant in Burnaby. With this approach there is virtually no risk of overbuilding waste-to-energy capacity in the foreseeable future and within the economic or operating life of any new facility. The net result is that we have responded to the many who pressed for the Solid Waste Management Plan to recognize the need to push on towards zero waste by establishing targets beyond the minimum 70% target in the plan and balanced this legitimate aspiration with the practical limiting factors outlined above, by amending the plan to include an ‘aspirational’ goal of 80% diversion by 2020. Governance, Roles and Responsibilities

SDD-86

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 5 of 28 The plan contains a number of objectives, such as diverting organics, minimizing environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas generation, reducing the waste volumes which flow to the landfill in Delta, and having an orderly and efficient management of the system of facilities as waste volumes are reduced, all of which require appropriate control of waste flows. A recent staff report to the Council of the City of Vancouver advocates that the City seek to maintain its autonomy over its waste management system. The proposed plan contains provisions for good faith discussions to resolve any conflicts between the plan and existing agreements, etc. But the City of Vancouver staff proposal is not only potentially one which could work against achieving the objectives referenced above, but is also inconsistent with the governing legislation, which establishes the primacy of the solid waste management plan. For greater clarity, therefore, the plan has been amended to clearly state that, notwithstanding the provision, which still remains, that conflicts will be subject to good faith attempts at resolution through negotiation; in case of a conflict between the plan and existing agreements and permits, the plan prevails. New Facilities and Flow Control At the suggestion of the Ministry of Environment, the plan has been amended to set out the process by which new facilities would be established and at the request of the Health Authorities, this includes specific reference to ‘Human Health Impact Assessments’. The reverse process, the sequence in which waste disposal facilities would be progressively downsized, is set out in an amendment under the title ’waste flows’, which is one provision which partly addresses some of the concerns raised about ‘feeding the beast’ (the presumed need to generate waste flows to maintain a feedstock for fixed investments). This section also addresses the issue of flows to unauthorized facilities. Goal 1: Minimizing Waste Generation As noted above, there was strong support for ‘waste reduction’, resulting in the waste reduction target already described. Extended Producer Responsibility Programs were strongly supported and the plan has been refined to ensure these programs are clearly understood to be an important part of both the waste reduction and waste diversion strategies. To date in British Columbia the province’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs have focused on hazardous or difficult to manage materials such as lead acid batteries, tires, paint and the like and more recently electronic products. A beverage container take-back program has also been in place for many years. In 2009 the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) published their Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility and A Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging. These documents provide guidance to the provinces on the development and implementation of EPR programs in Canada. The strategy on sustainable packaging identifies all types of packaging including packaging comprising paper, glass, metal or plastics; service packaging such as take-out food containers; industrial and bulk packaging; and printed materials. The Province of British Columbia is expected to implement an EPR program for packaging in the coming years. This program is expected to include all packaging presently collected through the municipal recycling programs as well as the packaging that has no recycling value and is currently disposed as waste. Producers will be responsible for the collection and management of all packaging material, both recyclables and waste material. The specifics of how this will be implemented are not yet clear and will be determined through negotiation with producers. Just

SDD-87

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 6 of 28 how extensive the incentives will be to encourage producers to redesign packaging so that less is generated and more can be recycled is not currently known. However, the province is in a unique position in North America to consider the use of green fees or taxes given that a carbon tax is already in place in BC. For example, this could be used to discourage the use of petroleum-based plastic in packaging. Given the current investment and convenience of curb-side collection programs delivered by municipalities in the region, an orderly transition to a new EPR program is important. Long-term municipal contracts are in place and municipalities have significant investment in the infrastructure and programs. The current programs provide a very high degree of convenience for residents and businesses. The Plan has been further modified to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the existing convenient curb-side collection systems in future expansion of EPR programs and to ensure that the waste recovered under the program will be properly managed in the region and that such materials not be exported without adequate knowledge of and control over its eventual disposition. A further amendment provides for ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs. However, a number of people commented that while EPR programs were supportable, it was still an indirect approach and the use of direct regulatory actions by government to prohibit the manufacture and distribution of materials that are particularly problematic, in terms of difficulty in re-use or recycling, should be considered. Obviously the economic and other consequences of outright bans on certain materials and products would have to be carefully weighed, particularly given the global nature of economic activities. It is likely that any early action of this nature would be directed towards packaging. Nonetheless, the logic of trying to prevent the problem before it begins has some validity and appeal. It is doubtful that Metro Vancouver has any direct authority in this regard, but the plan has been amended to give a prominent advocacy role to Metro Vancouver for this approach. A further amendment builds on Metro Vancouver’s previous “MetroVancouverRecycles” initiative and “3Rs.ca” proposal and proposes the creation of a zero waste marketing council to promote waste reduction on a national scale. Another amendment commits Metro Vancouver to work with municipalities nationally and internationally to promote cradle to cradle design. Goal 2: Maximizing Reuse, Recycling and Material Recovery Again there was broad general support for this goal and the actions that support it. Much of the input received was directed towards how this section could be strengthened even further. This was useful and constructive and some of the suggestions which have been included in further amendments to the proposed plan are:

expansion and greater enforcement of disposal bans increasing consistency of programs in different municipalities use of pricing and similar instruments to promote recycling municipal ‘at source’ disposal bans modification of the Provincial building codes to require recycling facilities in multi-

family and commercial buildings contingency plans for loss of recycling markets

SDD-88

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 7 of 28 Recyclables are collected by several means including curb-side pick-up, drop-off at municipal recycling centres and take-back locations for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs. The plan proposes to supplement and enhance this system through ‘eco-centres and this proposal generated discussion. Regional Eco-Centres The Plan proposes the establishment of regional Eco-Centres that would serve as one-stop-drop locations, not only for items that can be reused or recycled but also for items that require disposal. This action identified in the Plan is in response to comments received during the Zero Waste Challenge consultations that inconvenience associated with needing to drive to multiple drop-off locations is a factor preventing the reuse and recycling of more materials. There was considerable support for the eco-centres proposal. However, different interpretations of what they would be resulted in some questioning the role of the Eco-Centres in relation to the EPR programs and concern expressed about the conflict that may potentially occur between public and private sector responsibilities. Eco-centres are not intended to replace or conflict with EPR program depots but can potentially provide additional EPR depot locations. But the eco-centre proposal does recognize the growing ‘inconvenience’ factor among people who want to recycle but are concerned with the time and inconvenience of a multiplicity of single stream recycling depots necessitating multi-destination recycling trips. The mechanisms and incentives for private industry alone to address this and achieve broad based improvements in convenience and effectiveness in collection of multi-stream recyclables seems problematic at best. As regional transfer stations are expanded or reconstructed separating the commercial and residential drop-off facilities can provide increased operational efficiency. The residential drop-off component can be further expanded to realize the one-stop-drop concept. There was some commentary on scale and number, suggesting that more and smaller may be better than fewer and larger. The right combination of scale and number needs to be explored as the concept is implemented and evolves. The concept has a strong rationale and when implemented will likely address one of the key barriers to increasing diversion rates, inconvenience. In fact without such an initiative even the 70% diversion target looks difficult, even with significant expansion of the EPR programs. Nonetheless, it is recognized in the plan that a number of implementation issues need to be addressed first. The plan therefore calls for the establishment of a work group with representation from all sectors having a potential interest in the establishment of Eco-Centres and determining the model, roles and conditions associated with Eco-Centre development. Eco-Centres would be considered and expanded across the region as municipal business cases determine. Amendments have been made to the plan to address these issues, and clarify and expand the concept of eco-centres in response to the suggestions that have been made. Extending Disposal Bans to Compostable Organics and Wood Waste

SDD-89

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 8 of 28 There are currently several materials that are banned from disposal in Metro Vancouver. Among others, these include all blue box recyclables, gypsum wallboard, cardboard and paper, and the items for which provincial Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs exist, such as pharmaceuticals, lead acid batteries and paint. The Plan targets significant tonnages of compostable organics and wood waste for diversion from disposal to help achieve the minimum 70 percent diversion target. It has been suggested that disposal bans for compostable organics and wood waste be more explicitly identified and defined in the Plan. Compostable Organics A disposal ban on yard waste already exists in the region and this material is being collected and composted. Given the municipal collection programs that already exist for yard waste, many municipalities are planning to collect residential food waste organics by allowing them to be included in a co-mingled yard waste / food waste “green” bin. This includes green waste, kitchen scraps including meats and dairy products and compostable fibre such as pizza boxes. In order to ensure a high quality compost end product, other compostable items such as diapers will not be allowed in green bins. Both composting facilities and anaerobic digestion facilities, which will produce a biofuel, are planned to process the collected compostable organics. The range of compostable items allowed may be extended for anaerobic digestion facilities depending on the final end use of the residual solids that will remain to be managed from that process. This difference between “high grade” green bin allowed organics and other “low grade” organics that are not allowed in green bins complicates the issue and must be taken into consideration. The Draft Plan called for the development and implementation of plans for organics diversion for single family, multi-family and the ICI sector but did not specify a target year for when these programs will be substantially established. Given the above, the Plan has been further revised to include:

• A ban from disposal to landfills and all forms of waste-to-energy, except anaerobic digestion, by 2015 of all compostable organics allowed in residential green bins.

• A specific timeline by which programs for organics diversion will have been implemented

for single family, multi-family and the ICI sector, specifically:

o single family residences by 2012 o multi-family residences by 2015 o the ICI sector by 2015

• In response to a suggestion from the Health Authorities, the plan has been amended to include a provision to monitor emissions from organic processing facilities.

Wood Waste

SDD-90

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 9 of 28 The Draft Plan indicated that Metro Vancouver will ban wood from landfill disposal by 2012. The banning of wood from waste-to-energy is complicated by the fact that much diverted wood, i.e. ‘recycled wood’ is currently being used for energy production and this trend is expected to increase as more wood is diverted from disposal. A priority hierarchy for the beneficial use of wood waste has been established as follows:

• wood for reuse and recycling

• wood for composting or biofuel production

• wood used as a fuel for energy production One way to implement a more comprehensive wood waste ban is to ban wood waste from disposal but then allow diverted wood waste to be beneficially used in accordance with an established beneficial use hierarchy. On that basis the plan has been further amended to include:

• A disposal ban on wood waste by 2015.

• An action for Metro Vancouver to establish a bylaw that reflects the priority hierarchy for the beneficial use of diverted wood waste.

Goals 3 and 4: Recover energy from the Waste Stream After Recycling (3) and Dispose of All Remaining Waste in Landfill, after Material Recycling and Energy Recovery (4) As expected, discussion of these two goals together was the most passionate and, as some people in the process ruefully observed, while Goals I and 2 are the most important components of the plan, the discussion on Goals 3 and 4 took a far greater portion of the time. And so, unfortunately perhaps, it must be with this report. For the Board to make an informed decision, the various perspectives need to be understood. And that, therefore will take more space which reflects the degree of angst not the degree of priority attached to goals 3 and 4. The views expressed on what to do with wastes remaining after all efforts to divert waste were exhausted can be grouped into three camps or perspectives. All three support the Zero Waste Challenge commitment as the first priority and two out of the three recognize the need for ongoing management of post recycling waste in quantities in excess of the capacity of the two in region Metro Vancouver facilities (the Vancouver landfill and the Burnaby Waste to Energy plant). The three different perspectives are as follows:

1. Opposed to any further investment in or expansion of post recycling facilities of any kind; 2. Strong opposition to any kind of combustion based management system, resulting in a

preference for landfills; 3. Strong preference for waste to energy over landfills and support for managing the

region’s waste either within the region or outside the region

The issues associated with each of these positions will be discussed in turn, although there is some overlap. 1. Opposed to any further investment in or expansion of post recycling facilities of any

kind;

SDD-91

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 10 of 28 In some ways this is the most attractive position, philosophically, and the least tenable in practical terms. Few would argue with the principles underlying this position. They are, indeed, the same principles underlying the Board’s Zero Waste Challenge and Goals One and Two of the proposed plan. The modern consumer society is generating waste at rates far in excess of what previous generations did and while this reflects an increase in the material standard of living, the implications in terms of declining resources and increased pressure on the earth’s biosphere, not to mention simple economic waste, strongly points to the need for a less material consumption oriented society. There are a number of theoretical economic challenges involved which the sustainability literature is trying to address but these need not concern us here because for the purposes of this plan, the issues are much more practical. They boil down to essentially two questions:

(a) Would ‘maximum commitment’ to the zero waste management divert sufficient waste to the point that it could be managed within the capacities of the Vancouver landfill and the Burnaby Waste to Energy facility?

(b) Would investment in facilities that provide capacity beyond the current in-region post-recycling capacity undermine the commitment to and ability to achieve progress towards zero waste?

The first question is addressed under “Setting Targets”. It will be extremely challenging to move beyond the minimum 70 percent diversion target given the diversity and condition of the material remaining in the garbage stream. More efforts along the lines of the goals identified in the plan to reach even the 70 percent target will be required and higher participation and consistency rates from businesses and citizens will need to be maintained. Metro Vancouver’s population is expected to reach 3 million by 2030, an increase by a factor of 1.4 over today’s population. Since the 1950s population growth has resulted in a large increase in the waste to be managed. Also over the decades increased affluence and changing production and consumption patterns, which have resulted in today’s diversity of products and their ready availability, has led to an ever increasing per capita generation rate for waste. The plan is based on the assumption that the per capita generation rate will not continue to increase but will stay relatively constant and then begin to decrease once the province initiates an EPR program for packaging. If the waste generation rate does not begin to stabilize, then the waste requiring disposal will be higher than the current planning estimates. The plan calls for all efforts to be made to first reuse and recycle material, even if only marginal markets exist. The Goals 1 and 2 actions target achieving ever higher diversion rates. Other jurisdictions are finding there are practical limits and some are beginning to question what the optimal or cost effective diversion rate should be. This is not the case or the direction that the Plan is taking – it is based on highest diversion on the basis of any sustained markets for the materials diverted given reasonable collection costs. The plan has to be based on a realistic expectation of the outcome of Goal 1 and 2 actions. The projected 2015 waste flows, even assuming 70% diversion rates are achieved, are 1.2 million tonnes, greater than the combined capacity of the Vancouver Landfill and the Burnaby Waste to Energy Facility even assuming the former is used to its full permit capacity – an outcome opposed by the host community of Delta and contrary to the aims of the plan. Any realistic projection of the effects of even the most vigorous zero waste challenge program results in the conclusion that once the current Cache Creek landfill is at capacity, the region will have to find a replacement for it. The position advocated by those who support the first perspective is simply not tenable in practical terms and would result in Metro Vancouver having hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste to dispose of in an unplanned way.

SDD-92

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 11 of 28 The second issue raised by this first perspective is that by providing capacity beyond the current in-region capacity the commitment to and ability to achieve progress towards zero waste will be undermined. This concern is particularly directed against the waste to energy options, where, it is argued, the initial capital investment will require a minimum waste flow to achieve avoid a substantial financial loss. This has been presented as the ‘feed the beast’ argument: that in the foreseeable future there may not be enough waste to fuel new waste-to-energy plants and that there will be a conflict whereby recyclable material will be used as fuel for waste-to-energy. The proposed plan, which does advocate a waste to energy strategy addresses this concern by limiting the capacity of any new Waste to Energy facility to such an extent that the scenario suggested above is virtually impossible to materialize. In anticipation of surpassing the minimum 70 percent diversion target and striving for higher diversion, the new waste to energy capacity limit in the Plan has been set to no more than 500,000 tonnes on an annual basis. This is well within the 1.2 million tonnes of non-recyclable waste that is projected to require disposal. There is virtually no risk of overbuilding waste-to-energy capacity. To further clarify the strategy on how the remaining waste would be managed several additional changes have been made to the Plan including:

• An aspirational target of achieving 80 percent diversion by 2025 assuming there will be sustained markets for all diverted material.

• A waste disposal facility priority ranking based on the following annual tonnages:

o Waste diversion to new waste-to-energy capacity up to 500,000 tonnes;

o Waste diversion to the Waste-to-Energy Facility in Burnaby up to 280,000

tonnes;

o Waste diversion to the Vancouver Landfill for the remaining waste. On this basis, and given the estimate that 1.2 million tonnes will need to be managed, 500,000 tonnes would go to new waste-to-energy, 280,000 tonnes to the Burnaby facility and 420,000 tonnes to the Vancouver Landfill. As the diversion rate increases and waste tonnage decreases the Vancouver Landfill will accept less and less waste. However, it should be noted that even if an 80% diversion rate were achieved by 2015, which in staff’s opinion is completely unrealistic, the amount of waste remaining after diversion would still exceed the combined capacity of a new 500,000 tonne waste to energy plant and the existing plant in Burnaby. Thereafter the balance between efforts to reduce per capita waste generation and divert even more waste from disposal on the one hand, versus the upward pressures of population growth, economic growth and continued participation in international trade on the other hand, would determine the overall waste amounts. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that at some point in the next twenty five years, this ‘balance’ would result in waste flows below 780,000 tonnes, the combined waste to energy capacity contemplated in the proposed plan. In that event, then each of the three furnace lines at the Burnaby plant will be progressively converted to alternate fuels or

SDD-93


shut down. Given the age of the Burnaby plant, as we progress through the next two decades, that is not an unreasonable outcome to contemplate. To make these contingency plans clear, the proposed plan has been amended to:

• Include the sequence of waste disposal shut down if waste flows are below the capacity of existing and planned facilities, as follows:

o Waste flows in excess of 780,000 tonnes per year; the Vancouver Landfill will be operated to absorb flows in excess of 780,000 tonnes;

o Waste flows in excess of 500,000 tonnes per year but less than 780,000

tonnes per year; the Vancouver Landfill be operated only to absorb residuals from the waste to energy plants and as an emergency system in the event that the waste to energy plants cannot absorb waste flows, and the Burnaby plant would have the three furnace lines progressively shut down or converted to alternate fuels as waste flows declined;

o Waste flows below 500,000 tonnes per year; the Vancouver Landfill

would continue to operate to absorb residuals from the waste to energy plants and as an emergency system in the event that the waste to energy plants cannot absorb waste flows, the Burnaby waste to energy would be decommissioned or converted to alternate fuels and the new waste to energy facilities would be progressively downscaled as waste flows decline.

So with respect to the first perspective raised in public consultation, staff’s conclusion is that its first premise that waste volumes can be reduced sufficiently to avoid a waste to energy or landfill strategy is not tenable in practical terms, no matter how laudable it is in principle, and the second concern about ‘feed the beast’ has been thoroughly and adequately addressed in the plan. 2. Strong opposition to any kind of combustion based management system, resulting in a preference for landfills This position appears to be entirely based on concerns about waste to energy systems. Virtually no-one advocated for landfilling on its own merits other than those associated with specific facilities. The latter did advance the notion, and some others did pick up on the theme, that a landfill strategy was ‘a bridge to a zero waste future’, on the grounds that landfills are less capital intensive per module than waste to energy facilities and therefore could be more painlessly reduced as waste flows diminish. The concerns about waste to energy systems expressed in this perspective are primarily related to air emissions and their potential impact on the Lower Fraser Valley airshed and the consequent potential impacts on human health. Other concerns raised were related to greenhouse gas emissions and costs. Air Quality and Health Impacts Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District have a combined population of about 2.5 million and both regions continue to grow. This level of population density and its associated activity leads to significant quantities of air emissions related to transportation,

SDD-94

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 13 of 28 heating and numerous commercial activities. The emissions are significant enough to lead to smog formation and its associated health and aesthetic problems, particularly during the summer under certain atmospheric conditions. Smog related emissions include, among others, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM). Metro Vancouver has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan that identifies specific actions and is working in collaboration with other jurisdictions to improve air quality over time, despite the growth that is occurring. Emission inventories and air quality monitoring identifies emission sources and tracks air quality parameters over time. The smog related emissions associated with solid waste management activities have been determined as they relate proportionally to other activities. In all cases, for each criterion, the proportion of emissions associated with solid waste management when compared to the proportion from transportation, heating, open burning and other activities is typically less than one percent. In other words, emissions related to solid waste management make up a very small component of overall airshed emissions. This is true of both emissions from the present waste management system, as well as waste management emissions in the future. In 2009 Metro Vancouver retained RWDI Air Inc. to model the emissions related to the eight scenarios analysed by AECOM Canada Inc. for the management of the waste that remains after recycling. Their report, titled “CMAQ Modelling of Possible Solid Waste Management Scenarios”, presents the results for local air quality, assuming the worst possible airshed conditions, for several locations in the airshed, including Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford in the Fraser Valley Regional District. The modelling indicates that air quality will continue to improve over time as the actions in the Air Quality Management Plan are implemented and that conditions in 2020 will be better than they are today despite growth. The work also indicates that there is no discernible difference between all eight considered waste management scenarios relative to their airshed impact. This is not entirely surprising given that the proportion of emissions from waste management activities is so small. It doesn’t matter how waste is managed – more waste-to-energy within or outside the region, continued reliance on landfills or more emphasis on mechanical-biological-treatment – the effect on the airshed is not discernible. Health issues raised included concerns about:

• The contribution by additional waste-to-energy to smog formation and its associated health risks in the Lower Fraser Valley airshed.

• The emission of toxic substances including dioxins, metals such as mercury and

chemical carcinogens which cause cancer.

• Fine particulate matter including ultra-fine or nanoparticles.

• The formation of unknown toxins from the combination of chemicals present in solid waste.

All of these issues have been investigated by environmental and health agencies for many decades. The literature is vast. The AECOM study included significant reference to this literature. However, before and during the public consultation process the argument was made that Metro Vancouver was presenting only one side of the argument. In fact the AECOM study examined all sides but those who supported different conclusions sought out ‘contrary opinions’ and the

SDD-95

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 14 of 28 impression was created that informed opinion was divided and that Metro Vancouver was presenting only half the story. The studies, opinions and information used by those who oppose waste to energy technology are often the subject of commentary in the technical literature on the subject. In an attempt to present this to the public in a way that would allow them to draw their own conclusions, the Metro Vancouver web site includes the ‘contrary opinions’ we received and information in the form of answers to frequently asked questions, links to key reference documents from the environmental and health agencies, and Metro Vancouver’s responses to the contrary opinions that have been brought forward. As a further attempt to answer the question “whom should we believe”, Metro Vancouver presentations and website attempt to demonstrate that in addition to AECOM, Metro Vancouver has relied upon the professional, unbiased investigations undertaken by the agencies charged with protecting the health and well-being of its citizens. These include Health Canada, provincial health authorities, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European agencies including among others the UK Health Protection Agency and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The UK Health Protection Agency has concluded that “any potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since any possible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public health around modern, well managed municipal solid waste incinerators are not recommended.” Recently the Durham Region in Ontario, following environmental and health assessments, received approval to construct a new waste-to-energy facility to serve their region. Modern waste-to-energy facilities operate at high temperatures and ensure enough residence time to destroy many substances, including dioxins. They are required to have advanced emission control systems to captures contaminants and continuously monitor a range of parameters and substances. Metro Vancouver’s existing facility in Burnaby has been in operation for more than 20 years and operates well within the emission limits which have been established by the province. As noted above, Metro Vancouver commissioned air quality modeling studies which showed that the contribution of Metro Vancouver’s entire waste management system, of which a waste to energy plant is but one component, contributes approximately 0.3% of the fine particulate matter in the Lower Fraser Valley airshed, and similarly small proportions of other pollutants. This modeling showed there was no discernible difference between the air quality impacts of any of the solid waste management scenarios examined. And it showed that outdoor burning, a practice banned or severely curtailed in most parts of Metro Vancouver but still relatively common place in the lower Fraser Valley, had sixty times the impact on ambient particulate matter levels, the major health concern, than the entire Metro Vancouver Waste Management system. One way to intuitively grasp what a sixty fold difference means is to contemplate the difference between being bumped by a car going two miles an hour – about or below normal walking speed – and being struck by the same vehicle going 120 mph. Ironically, perhaps, the main source of concern about the ‘walking speed’ impact of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste management proposals came from the Fraser Valley where the great majority of open burning occurs and is permitted.

SDD-96

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 15 of 28 In terms of air quality impacts and risks to human health, therefore, staff concludes that there is no convincing objective, evidence or science based reason to accept the second perspective, which, by default, advocates landfilling as a preferred strategy. Nonetheless, to give further assurance, the plan has been further amended to clarify that:

• Waste-to-energy operating performance will be transparently reported on a regular and timely basis and will be available on the Metro Vancouver web site.

• New operating contracts may include penalties for emission violations in addition to

sanctions the operators may face from Provincial regulatory authorities.

• If requested by the provincial health authorities, (and the local health authorities have made this request) the work scope for any Environmental Assessment mandated by the province for a new waste-to-energy facility will include an assessment of human health risk.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions The second concern raised by the opponents of the inclusion of waste to energy strategies refers to greenhouse gas emissions. The waste management sector has been identified by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as one of the areas of human activity that are contributing to increases in greenhouse gases (GHG) and the resulting problem of global warming and climate change. In undertaking the development of the ISWRMP, GHG has been identified as one of the criteria used to assess and compare waste management options. Greenhouse gas emissions are not a local or airshed issue or concern. The concern is the cumulative global impact of numerous GHG emissions into the earth’s atmosphere, in particular the rate of use of fossil fuels. Significant GHG emissions from the waste sector are associated with methane emissions from landfills. In British Columbia it is estimated that currently 95 percent of GHG associated with waste management originates from landfills. As a greenhouse gas with the potential to warm the planet, methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The European Union has taken the strategy that unprocessed waste is no longer allowed to be disposed in landfills. All waste must be stabilized by mechanical-biological-treatment (MBT) or other methods so that organic matter is not deposited in landfills. This strategy resulted in avoided GHG emissions, which helped some countries meet their GHG reduction targets while also meeting their Kyoto protocol commitment. In their report comparing Metro Vancouver’s waste management options, AECOM Canada Ltd examined the GHG emissions, on a life-cycle basis, for each of the identified eight management options. The two options with the lowest GHG profile are in-region use of refuse derived fuel in cement kilns to offset the burning of coal; and local landfilling in the Vancouver Landfill of all waste following stabilization by mechanical-biological treatment. When comparing the landfilling and waste-to-energy options, in-region waste-to-energy results in lower net GHG emissions than landfilling. In-region waste-to-energy with district heating or use of heat by industry offsets the production and burning of natural gas or other fossil fuels. Opinions have been expressed regarding the assumptions made in determining the GHG emissions for the various options. Some have argued that dry tomb landfills sequester organics

SDD-97

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 16 of 28 and even sequester petroleum-based plastics and this should be taken into account. Others take issue with not accounting for all carbon dioxide emissions, both those associated with the burning of fossil fuels and those attributed to burning biomass. Metro Vancouver has responded to these specific concerns and provided further information on its web site in the answers to frequently asked questions. On this issue Metro Vancouver has relied on the recommendations and accounting protocols established by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The work of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has also been referenced. The USEPA indicates that even for the most optimistic assumptions with landfill gas being used for energy it results in 2 to 6 times the amount of GHG compared to waste-to-energy. The IPCC states that “there are no plausible scenarios in which landfilling minimizes GHG emissions from waste management”. One variation on the landfill strategy is the pre-treatment of waste to stabilize it and thereby eliminate greenhouse emissions. What citizens and businesses throw into their bins and dumpsters includes a great variety of mixed garbage, including some recyclables. This is confirmed by the waste audits that Metro Vancouver has undertaken. Once mixed in a garbage stream it becomes uneconomical and difficult to retrieve recyclable material. Mechanical-biological-treatment (MBT) plants can be built and this retrieves some recyclables and minimizes the greenhouse gas risk when the remainder is landfilled. The report prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. titled Management of Municipal Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste After Recycling analysed this option in detail and demonstrated that costs far exceed the benefits. As a greenhouse gas strategy, the cost per tonne of emissions avoided is excessively high and if society were prepared to spend that money on greenhouse gas reduction, there are far more cost-effective strategies than employing MBT. The recyclables recovered are not great and the remaining mixed garbage is landfilled, again at a net cost. (The AECOM report estimated the life-cycle cost of a MBT/landfill strategy to be over 3 billion dollars – double that of a conventional landfilling strategy). The principle of the 4th R – Recovery – in the 5R waste management hierarchy suggests its beneficial use to produce energy to generate electricity and provide heat. Or, in other words, the use of waste-to-energy provides benefits that exceed those available through the MBT/ landfilling process. So, on this issue, as with the air quality/health impact issue, Metro Vancouver staff has to conclude that a preference for landfilling over waste to energy strategies on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be supported on evidence or science based grounds. Quite the contrary is the case. As a footnote, one of the last submissions, from a scientist totally opposed to the landfilling option, passionately urged Metro Vancouver to rise above the ‘greenhouse gas accounting’ issue and seek waste to energy technologies that substantially eliminated carbon dioxide emissions regardless of whether they were biogenic or organic in origin. Under this plan, greenhouse gas emissions will be an important evaluative criterion in any procurement process for new facilites, so if such technologies exist and are reasonably proven, they will attract considerable positive attention in that procurement process. Costs/Revenues The remaining issue raised by those who favour a landfill strategy is that of net costs, suggesting that a waste-to-energy strategy is more costly or risky than a landfill strategy.

SDD-98

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 17 of 28 The Financial Implications section of the Plan describes the roles and responsibilities of Metro Vancouver, its member municipalities and the private sector in the management of waste in the region; outlines the cost of waste management, for both recycling and disposal, on a 35-year net cost, annual net cost and per capita cost basis; describes the pricing strategies and the ownership and financing business models that could be applied; and provides the financial details related to implementing the four goals. The table titled “Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan” (Attachment 4) estimates the additional budget and resource implications for both Metro Vancouver and its members for each action in the Plan. For the Goal 3 actions the table is based on in-region, publicly-owned waste-to-energy expansion. In general, options that pursue waste-to-energy using mass-burn technology for all waste remaining after recycling will have the best overall, long-term financial performance. Although capital investment costs are significant, waste-to-energy options also have revenue streams from electricity and heat sales. These can be significant and offset operating costs. A publically owned and funded system with debt retired in 15 years can result in overall net revenue over a 35 year operating life. Landfilling options have lower initial capital cost but do not generate significant revenue streams from energy sales. The current Cache Creek Landfill and the waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby reflect this difference. There is no revenue stream from energy sales associated with the landfill, whereas the Burnaby facility’s revenue stream from electricity and heat sales exceeds $10 million annually. This is expected to increase with the upcoming renegotiation of the electricity sales contract. Options that rely on mechanical-biological-treatment processes have the highest cost. These systems have considerable complexity, often result in large quantities of residual waste that requires disposal and don’t result in revenue streams on the scale associated with mass-burn incineration. Concern has been expressed that a full evaluation of costs and risks for all options has not been made. Questions were raised regarding the assumptions made about key factors such as the uptake of district heating or the sale price for electricity. Metro Vancouver’s consultants were asked to conduct sensitivity analyses to determine the financial consequences of varying the assumptions that went into the analysis. The sensitivity analysis completed by AECOM in their assessment of options indicates that overall the conclusions of which options are best on a financial basis remains unchanged. Metro Vancouver’s long term interests, i.e. Metro Vancouver’s taxpayers’ interests, would be best served by replacing the Cache Creek landfill by pursuing an in-region waste to energy strategy, combined with district heating, under public ownership. A landfilling strategy could only be justified on financial cost/benefit grounds by taking a very short term view – the initial capital costs of landfilling is certainly lower than the comparative capital costs for waste to energy. If one assigns the same value to the financial situation we place the next generation in as we do to the financial situation we place ourselves in, as sustainability principles suggest we should, then the different strategies have to be evaluated on a full life cycle basis. On that basis, it is difficult to find a financial justification for a preference for a landfilling strategy.

SDD-99

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 18 of 28 Staff recognizes that much of the concern raised by people who hold this second perspective, favouring landfilling, is based on an intuitive anxiety about incineration. There are historical examples of incineration technologies that were very polluting – bee hive burners come to mind. There are examples of poorly managed facilities. And the discussion of such topics as dioxins, mercury and nano-particles naturally raise anxieties. This is understandable and staff has attempted to deal with these anxieties in a respectful way. The Board will have to make a political judgment about these anxieties in the context of the weight of scientific evidence and its own benign experience with the Burnaby waste to energy facility. One final note arising from the public consultation process which belongs here is the First Nation perspective. While staff is aware that there are First Nations from the general Cache Creek area on both sides of the interior landfill issue, it was those opposed who were prominent in the public consultation process. Also worthy of note is that the most extended ovations were often following presentations by First Nations expressing their opposition to landfills in their area. Staff’s advice has to be based on the objective, science based, evidence based analysis. And from that basis, looking at the objective analysis of air quality emissions, health impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, costs and revenues, in staff’s view a preference for the landfilling option cannot be justified. 3. Strong preference for waste to energy over landfills and support for managing the region’s waste either within the region or outside the region

Most of the analysis which supports this perspective has been presented in the discussion of the two alternative perspectives above. Two particular issues remain to be discussed: the proposal from the City of Vancouver that a technology limitation be imposed to exclude incineration based technologies and use only other ‘conversion technologies’; and the question of whether there should be a preference for an in region or out of region solution. Conversion technologies Conversion technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis or anaerobic digestion that attempt to utilize a mixed waste garbage stream feedstock have not proven to be successful on a large scale. Much additional up-front processing using mechanical-biological-treatment technologies is required to prepare a suitable feed stock, thereby increasing both cost and the residual waste that remains to be managed. It is unlikely that these technologies can offer a realistic and competitive solution for managing the mixed garbage stream in the near future. Port Moody’s recent assessment of a plasma arc gasification process for mixed garbage resulted in an unfavourable decision for the proponent and a recommendation that included, among others, that at least 18 months of continuous operating data from a commercial facility be available and assessed. The conversion technologies are of considerable interest in managing materials that have been diverted from the waste stream, including wood and organics, both of which are examples of the type of homogenous feed stock that works best with these technologies. There are already examples in the region of the application of gasification of wood waste and Metro Vancouver is planning an anaerobic digestion facility to produce biofuel. Support observed in the public consultation process for the amendment proposed by the City of Vancouver to eliminate mass-burn incineration but accept conversion technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion largely rested on perceived air quality benefits. .

SDD-100

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 19 of 28 Mass-burn involves direct combustion of solid waste as a fuel with its associated direct emissions. Conversion technologies convert waste to gas and have few if any direct emissions. Conversion technologies create a synthetic gas which may be burned for energy at the plant site, distributed to homes or industries to be burned for heating or burned in engines. The essential point which seemed to be often overlooked is that both mass burn and conversion technologies involve combustion at some point. Energy is important for a growing region but whether mass-burn incineration, conversion technologies or natural gas is used as the energy source the emissions that contribute to air quality concerns, including NOx, SOx, and PM, are generally comparable (see Figure 1). In other words, any fuel burned in the airshed contributes the emissions that are related to smog formation. One argument in favour of the mass burn approach is that it is possible, both technically and economically, to impose the strictest control technology on this single-point source, and this can be easily and transparently monitored. Conversion technologies often involve combustion of distributed gas at multiple sites which may make it more difficult technically and financially to achieve the same level of emissions control or to monitor them as easily. This argument would seem to more than offset any argument that conversion technologies reduce the risk of health hazard emissions. This analysis suggests two things. First, in terms of air quality concerns, there is little if any grounds for preferring conversion technologies to mass burn technologies. Secondly, while conversion technologies may be useful for waste sorted into a single source, e.g. wood, it is not generally a proven economic technology for mixed solid waste. It may become so in the future and several interesting submissions were made in the public consultation process. But for mixed municipal solid waste streams, and that is the predominant waste stream that has to be dealt with post recycling, the practical effect of imposing the mass burn technology limitation may well be the same as adopting a strategy with a preference for landfilling. The proposed limitation to a non-incineration conversion technology approach is therefore neither necessary nor prudent, in terms of air quality impacts, technological feasibility or financial impacts.

SDD-101

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 20 of 28 Figure 1: Energy Production Emissions from Combustion Alternatives Combustion of Natural Gas

Combustion of Fuel from Conversion Technology

Combustion of Waste through Mass Burn Incineration

SDD-102

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 21 of 28 This certainly does not mean that non-incineration technologies will not be used or that the choice of technology is necessarily limited to mass burn technology. The latter is simply the most widely used and proven technology for mixed waste streams. It is unlikely that further investigation and assessment of options will prove fruitful or useful at this stage given the range of possibilities that still exist with regards to site and technology selection. It is recommended that further multi-criteria assessment be undertaken through an evaluation of proposals received through an open market call and competitive selection process. To respond to the desire for greater assurance about environmental performance in any waste to energy facility, a number of further amendments have been introduced to the plan. These include:

• A requirement that all waste to energy facilities meet or exceed the European Union standard for minimum energy recovery

• The introduction of possible penalties for violation of performance criteria for both existing and new waste to energy facilities

• The addition of human health risk assessments to the scope of environmental impact assessments for any new waste to energy facility

• A requirement for regular reports on facility performance to be posted on the Metro Vancouver website

To clarify that all waste to energy technologies will be considered, the language in the proposed plan has been amended to read:

• “Waste-to-energy means any process that converts waste material to energy and heat, including the production of fuel which is subsequently combusted for these purposes. All options will be considered fairly and transparently including a public health cost/benefit lens.”

The existing language in the proposed plan specifies that air emission and health impacts, GHG emissions and alignment with sustainability principles are among the evaluation criteria to be used in assessing options. In-Region or Out-of-Region The proposed plan expresses a preference for an in-region solution over an out of region solution. The underlying reasons for this are fourfold:

• A key benefit of waste to energy systems is the ability to use waste heat for district.energy systems; there are likely to be more opportunities for these in the urban region of Metro Vancouver than outside the region; this could also bring economic benefits to the region.

• An in-region solution avoids the costs and risks associated with transporting waste out of the region. Truck traffic generates costs, air emissions and risks of accidents. Barge traffic is likely more cost effective but generates emissions and may be more vulnerable to weather and ocean conditions, as well as risks of accidents.

• An in-region solution keeps facilities under the Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan and may increase the likelihood of being able to secure public control.

• There is a philosophical view, expressed by a number of people in the consultation process that there is an ethical obligation to ‘manage one’s waste at home’ and not export it to another region. This was most evident in some First Nation opposition to

SDD-103


landfilling in the interior, but was also expressed in relation to any export of waste out of the region.

The consultation process raised three potential reasons to prefer an out-of-region solution. These were:

• the idea that the Lower Fraser Valley airshed is so sensitive that even though waste to energy plants may be considered generally benign, it still would be preferable to locate a new plant outside that airshed rather than within it;

• several people suggested that even if the sensitive airshed argument were not valid, the fact that many people believe it to be so, means the political difficulties of getting any facility approved within the region are almost certain to cause delay; given the need to get a facility in place without undue delay, an out-of-region strategy is simply the politically pragmatic solution

• the suggestion that regional districts have a shared approach to waste management, and particularly waste disposal, and the scale of the Metro Vancouver waste management operation make it the appropriate vehicle to achieve such a joint solution; the implication here is that a multi-region facility would be more welcome out of the region than within it and if tied to local economic development opportunities could be more beneficial from a Provincial perspective.

Metro Vancouver staff would argue that the science does not support the first argument and if approval processes follow evidence based processes, there should not be an undue delay as anticipated by the second. However, to the extent that community concerns affect the length and depth of an impact assessment process, and they can, the second point may have some validity. The third point has some interest in the sense it may offer some opportunities for district heating schemes linked to local economic development that might be in the broader Provincial interest and attract Provincial support. However, it still runs contrary to three of the points in favour of an in-region solution (transport costs/risks; Metro Vancouver control; managing waste in one’s home district) and a multi-region approach may also involve delays. On balance, Metro Vancouver staff would still recommend an in-region preference, but as a second choice would suggest an approach that gives no preference to either in-region or out of region solution and allow the procurement process to decide between them. As with the landfill option, staff does not believe there is any valid objective case for an out-of-region only policy. To accommodate a possible multi-region approach, a clarifying statement has been included in the plan that a waste management facility may be developed to manage waste from Metro Vancouver and other British Columbia regional districts, and in that case the waste flow limitation and contingency plans in this plan refer to waste flows from the Metro Vancouver region, and the Minister may vary these provisions to accommodate, and only to accommodate, waste management requirements of approved waste management plans for other regional districts.

SDD-104

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 23 of 28 Other Revisions to the Draft ISWRMP Considering all of the input received, including suggestions made by the Ministry of Environment, the Draft Plan has been revised throughout. All changes recommended to the Draft Plan are indicated in Attachment 1 by revision marks. Versions of a final Plan shown by revision marks and based on Alternatives 2 and 3 (described in the section below) are included in Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. Interim Disposal Need All alternatives presented for the Board’s consideration for a final ISWRMP will require a further interim disposal option once the existing Cache Creek Landfill and Annex reaches capacity, currently projected to be in late 2012. Seeking proposals and completing negotiations for interim capacity can commence immediately following the approval of the ISWRMP by the Minister and based on estimated timelines to implement the projects and facilities identified in the final ISWRMP. 3. ALTERNATIVES In considering the key issues that were raised during the consultation process on the Draft Plan, staff has formulated three alternative final Plans for the Board’s consideration. In general, considerable support has been expressed by participants for the strategies and actions defined in Goals 1 and 2, which target achieving a minimum 70 percent diversion rate by 2015. There has been varied opinion on how the waste remaining after recycling should be managed. Support has been indicated for further waste-to-energy expansion as anticipated by the Plan, for out-of-region waste-to-energy and for waste-to-energy expansion but utilizing only conversion technologies such as gasification and anaerobic digestion. Opposition has been raised to further expansion of waste-to-energy within the region using mass-burn technology as well as any further expansion of waste-to-energy regardless of the technology selected, either within or outside the region. Based on the evidence-based technical assessment of options and the experience of operating the current system that already includes both waste-to-energy and landfilling, staff recommends that a Plan should be submitted to the Minister that anticipates and allows for further expansion of waste-to-energy. The Plan must recognize the complexity that remains to site additional waste-to-energy facilities and select technologies. In that regard, any Plan submitted to the Minister must allow for a contingency out-of-region landfill. How the contingency landfill would be utilized will depend on the success of achieving further waste-to-energy expansion. Such a landfill would, as a minimum, provide a system relief location where waste can be deposited should waste-to-energy plants or the Vancouver Landfill become unavailable for short periods of time. In the other extreme, should, for whatever reason, additional waste-to-energy capacity not be realized then the contingency landfill would accept all waste in excess of that managed by the existing waste-to-energy plant in Burnaby and the Vancouver Landfill. Submitting a Plan that does not allow Metro Vancouver to pursue additional waste-to-energy capacity will mean immediately defaulting to additional out-of-region landfilling. That would forego the benefits that additional waste-to-energy can provide in terms of electricity and heat and the displacement of fossil fuels, as well as its associated revenue, which reduces long-term costs when compared to landfilling.

SDD-105

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Waste Management Committee: July 21, 2010 Page 24 of 28 Therefore, the key decision to be made regarding the submission of a Plan to the Minister for approval involves where and how additional waste-to-energy capacity can be achieved. This is realized by how Goals 3 and 4 are shaped in the Plan. Three alternatives are presented:

• Alternative 1 – Adopting a Plan that follows a hierarchal and progressive process for Goals 3 and 4 whereby waste-to-energy is first considered within the region; if that is not realized then it may be considered outside of the region; if that is also not realized then a contingency landfill with adequate capacity becomes the default.

• Alternative 2 – Adopting a Plan that is similar to Alternative 1 but differs by considering

both in-region and out-of-region waste to energy expansion at the same time, rather than progressively, and if that is not realized defaulting to a contingency landfill.

• Alternative 3 – Adopting a Plan that would allow mass-burn waste-to-energy to be

considered but only outside the region, and if this is not realized the default is a contingency landfill. Projects that are based on conversion technologies can be considered within or outside the region.

Each of these is described below together with their pros and cons.

Alternative 1 – Adopting a Plan that follows a hierarchal and progressive process in considering waste-to-energy opportunities.

Additional publicly-owned waste-to-energy capacity in the region, for the benefit of the region, is the best option to manage the waste remaining after recycling according to the technical, evidence-based analysis that has been undertaken. Up to 500,000 tonnes of additional waste-to-energy capacity and the continued use of the Vancouver Landfill would ensure adequate in-region capacity for the management of remaining waste once the recycling diversion target of 70 percent is reached. Waste disposed in the Vancouver Landfill can continue to be reduced over time as diversion beyond 70 percent proceeds. Eventually, each of the three mass-burn lines at the Waste-to-Energy facility in Burnaby can be sequentially closed or converted to alternate fuels as more and more materials currently deemed as waste are eliminated over time. This progression can continue over the next two to three decades. Waste tonnages will increase due to population growth over the coming decades but can be offset by new programs targeting further extended producer responsibility, waste reduction and waste diversion. Waste-to-energy also results in revenue from electricity and heat sales, both of which are needed for the growing region. Additional waste-to-energy capacity ensures that waste deposited in long-term legacy landfills is reduced as far as practicable. To establish the necessary projects to implement the Plan, a process would be undertaken to identify possible sites which have district heating potential, followed by a procurement process to identify and assess in-region waste-to-energy projects at these locations or at other locations proponents may identify. A decision would be made to proceed or not based on the availability of suitable sites, cost, performance relative to environmental and health impacts, and other local benefits. If the decision is made not to proceed with an in-region project(s) then, under the Plan, a similar process can proceed to identify out-of-region waste-to-energy projects.

SDD-106


The need for and extent of out-of-region contingency landfill capacity would be determined following the conclusion of the in-region or out-of-region project assessments. Attachment 1 indicates the Draft Plan reflecting this approach. Pros Follows a process that considers the benefits of additional waste-to-energy in a progressive order on the basis that the highest benefit accrues to the region if a new facility can be sited within the region. Allows Metro Vancouver to take direct responsibility for its waste by managing its waste locally. Instead of continuing to be dependent on services located outside the region, managing its wastes locally would move the region towards a more complete, self-sustaining community. Additionally, local facilities would be governed under Metro Vancouver’s solid waste management plan as opposed to another regional district’s, providing greater control over facility management. Cons It would likely take longer to implement if in-region waste-to-energy cannot be realized.

If the Board supports Alternative 1, they resolve to submit the plan for solid waste as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report.

Alternative 2 – Adopting a Plan that simultaneously considers in-region and out-of-region waste-to-energy opportunities.

This alternative differs from Alternative 1 only in the way that Goal 3 projects and facilities are identified, evaluated and decided upon. Rather than following the hierarchal and progressive process indicated in Alternative 1, Alternative 2 is based on considering all in-region and out-of-region waste-to-energy opportunities in a single process. The same criteria would be used to evaluate projects and facilities, including availability of a suitable site, cost, performance relative to environmental and health impacts and other local benefits. The need for and extent of out-of-region contingency landfill capacity would be determined following the conclusion of the in-region or out-of-region project assessments. Attachment 2 indicates the revisions to the Draft Plan necessary to accommodate this alternative. Pros

SDD-107


This option may shorten the implementation time given that the in-region and out-of-region options are considered concurrently and give some comfort to those who wish to see an opportunity for out of region proponents to make their case in a competitive process. It may more easily allow other regional districts to participate in out-of-region projects that benefit them while also increasing economies of scale than would be the case for in-region projects. Allows a simultaneous, direct comparison of the costs and benefits of in-region and out-of-region projects.

Cons Because the proposals that will be evaluated may not accurately reflect what will eventually occur, performance measures and reward/penalty systems will need to be included to ensure proposals are as realistic as possible. This aspect introduces some additional uncertainty and complexity to the evaluation process.

If the Board supports Alternative 2, they resolve to submit the plan for solid waste as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report with the following amendments:

• Remove all references to “within the region” under Goal 3 • Delete actions 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.7

Alternative 3 – Adopting a Plan that considers out-of-region opportunities for mass-burn waste-to-energy while allowing in-region opportunities for waste-to-energy based only on alternative conversion technologies.

Alternative 3 is based on the premise that there is a desire not to expand in-region mass-burn waste-to-energy but would accept in-region conversion technologies where emissions are distributed rather than at a single point source. As documented in this report, staff believe this is the least preferred of the options to be considered and is not grounded in scientific, evidence based analysis. The same process would be used to identify and evaluate options using the same criteria used in Alternative 1 and 2 to evaluate projects and facilities, except that no in-region options involving mass-burn waste-to-energy technologies would be considered. The need for and extent of out-of-region contingency landfill capacity would be determined following the conclusion of the in-region or out-of-region project assessments. Pros This may be an acceptable political compromise solution accommodating those that are generally opposed to expansion of waste-to-energy but are even more strongly opposed to in-region expansion of waste-to-energy. Cons This option ignores the evidence-based assessment that:

SDD-108


• an in-region waste-to-energy strategy is benign in terms of impacts on the environment and public health

• that there is no greenhouse gas advantage to be achieved by locating a facility out of the region: and if district heating is not also achieved the greenhouse gas implications could be worse

• the highest and best value is achieved by an in-region waste to energy strategy based on: - local electricity generation in a growing region with high electricity

demand; - district energy opportunities that can provide domestic hot water and

space heating, and offset the burning of natural gas; - realizing the potential to manage waste locally without the need to

transport it out of the region.

It may also be more difficult to maximize Metro Vancouver ownership and control, although this is not an absolutely certain conclusion. With possibly reduced revenue opportunities, increased transportation costs and possibly lower degree of Metro Vancouver control, the financial cost/return picture would likely be worse than option 1.

If the Board supports Alternative 3, they resolve to submit the plan for solid waste as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report with the following amendments:

• Remove all references to “within the region” under Goal 3 • Delete actions 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.7 • Amend action 3.1.2 to read: Waste-to-energy means any process that converts

waste material to energy and heat, including the production of fuel which is subsequently combusted for these purposes. With the exception of mass-burn incineration within the region, all options will be considered and evaluated fairly and transparently including a public health cost/benefit lens. Mass-burn incineration within the region will not be considered under Goal 3.

4. CONCLUSION Consultation on the Draft ISWRMP was undertaken between April 9th and July 14th, 2010. Based on the input received several key issues were considered in preparing a final Plan for the Board’s consideration. Based on the evidence–based analysis that has been undertaken and the benefits associated with further waste-to-energy expansion, staff recommends that a Plan be submitted to the minister that anticipates and allows for waste-to-energy expansion. Submitting a Plan that does not allow additional waste-to-energy to be pursued means defaulting to the expansion of out-of-region landfilling. The key decision to be made regarding the submission of a Plan to the Minister for approval involves where and how additional waste-to-energy capacity can be achieved. This is realized by how Goals 3 and 4 are shaped in the Plan. Three alternatives are presented:

• Alternative 1 – Adopting a Plan that follows a hierarchal and progressive process for Goals 3 and 4 whereby waste-to-energy is first considered within the region, if that is not realized then it may be considered outside of the region, if that is also not realized then a contingency landfill with adequate capacity becomes the default.

SDD-109


• Alternative 2 – Adopting a Plan that is similar to Alternative 1 but differs by considering both in-region and out-of-region waste to energy expansion at the same time, rather than progressively, and if that is not realized defaulting to a contingency landfill.

• Alternative 3 – Adopting a Plan that would allow mass-burn waste-to-energy to be

considered but only outside the region. Projects that are based on conversion technologies can be considered within or outside the region. If insufficient capacity is realized the default is to a contingency landfill.

Staff recommends Alternative 1 – Adopting a Plan that follows a hierarchal and progressive process in considering waste-to-energy opportunities and that the Board: 1) Submit the management plan for solid waste based on Alternative 1 described in this

report, as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report, and titled Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management – A Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities, dated July, 2010 (the Plan) to the BC Minister of Environment for approval.

2) Circulate the Plan to the councils of the GVRD member municipalities for endorsement specific only to the municipal actions identified in the Plan.

Attachments: 1. ISWRMP based on Alternative 1 with all changes from the Draft Plan noted by revision

marks (#4200936) 2. Table – Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan

(#4963496) 4219206

SDD-110

ATTACHMENT 1

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management A Solid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Member Municipalities July 2010 www.metrovancouver.org 4200936

SDD-111

ISWRMP – Text Version 2 of 51 July, 2010

SDD-112


Table of Contents Vision Statement 4 Goals and Targets 5 A. Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan 7 Guiding Principles 7 Sustainability 7 Integrated Resource Recovery 7 Resource Management Principles: The 5Rs 8 Process and Consultation 8 Aligning With Provincial Initiatives 8 Aligning with Federal Initiatives 10 Coordinating With Other Metro Vancouver Plans 10 Governance, Roles and Responsibilities 13 Geographic Scope 14 Approved Facilities 16 New Facilities 17 Flow Control 18 First Nations Lands 19 B. Goals, Strategies, Actions and Measures 20 Goal 1: Minimize Waste Generation 20 Goal 2: Maximize Reuse, Recycling and Material Recovery 23 Goal 3: Recover Energy from the Waste Stream after Material Recycling 34 Goal 4: Dispose of all Waste in Landfill After Material Recycling and Energy Recovery 39 Performance Measures and Adaptive Management 42 Financial Implications 45 Appendix A Long Term Monitoring Requirements for the Waste-To-Energy Facility in Burnaby 49 Figures Figure 1 Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework 11 Figure 2 Key Connections with other Metro Vancouver Plans 12 Figure 3 Map of Plan Area 15 Figure 4 Map of Approved Facilities 17 Tables Table 1 Regional Waste Management – Net Expenditures 46

SDD-113


Vision Statement Metro Vancouver has a vision to achieve what humanity aspires to on a global basis – the highest quality of life embracing cultural vitality, economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, all nurtured by a beautiful and healthy natural environment. We will achieve this vision by embracing the principles of sustainability, not least of which is an unshakeable commitment to the well-being of current and future generations and the health of our planet, in everything we do. As we share our efforts in achieving this vision, we are confident that the inspiration and mutual learning we gain will become vital ingredients in our hopes for a sustainable common future. Building a Sustainable Livable Region Building a sustainable, livable region is the overarching regional vision Social, environmental and economic sustainability is, therefore, a fundamental objective in all Metro Vancouver activities: from the services we deliver through the management and strategic plans we develop and administer, to the various outreach activities we engage in pursuit of collaborative governance. As we build and facilitate collaborative processes, including those that engage citizens, and enhance understanding of other levels of government, we are confident that the inspiration and mutual learning we gain will become vital ingredients in our hopes for a sustainable common future.

SDD-114


Goals and Targets Goals The overriding principle of Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan is the avoidance of waste through an aggressive waste reduction campaign and through the recovery of materials and energy from the waste that remains. In line with this principle, the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) has four goals: Goal 1: Minimize waste generation Goal 2: Maximize reuse, recycling and material recovery Goal 3: Recover energy from the waste stream after material recycling Goal 4: Dispose of all remaining waste in landfill, after material recycling and energy recovery The key strategies and actions to achieve the goals of the ISWRMP are set out in Part B, Goals, Strategies, Actions and Measures. Targets 1) New language: adds per-capita waste reduction target; input from the City of Vancouver, and

public consultation. Reaching the primary goal of waste avoidance requires a reduction in the generation of waste. Metro Vancouver has few levers to directly control the volume of waste generated. So the target for waste reduction is one for the community as a whole to aspire to, rather than one the GVS&DD can be held wholly responsible for achieving. This plan therefore sets a target for the Metro Vancouver region to reduce the quantity of waste generated per capita within the region, calculated on a rolling 5 year average, to 90% or less of 2010 volumes by 2020. 2) Amended language: adds “minimum of” to the 70% diversion target, and adds 80% diversion

target for 2020, and adds diversion targets by sector. To reach the second goal of waste reuse, recycling and material recovery, as much as possible must be diverted away from the waste disposal stream and into programs aimed at reuse, recycling and material recovery. The second target of the ISWRMP is to increase the regional diversion rate from an average of 55% to a minimum of 70% by 2015 and an aspirational target of achieving 80% by 2020 assuming there will be sustained markets for all diverted material. The overall 70% diversion target implies the following approximate diversion rates by sector:

• Multi-family 30% • Single family 65% • Institutional, commercial and industrial 70% • Demolition, land clearing and construction 80%

SDD-115


The target of the ISWRMP is to increase the regional diversion rate from an average of 55% to 70% by 2015 Conventionally it has been assumed that the 5Rs hierarchy approximates the sequence of processes in waste management and the goal of reducing, reusing or recycling waste to the maximum extent possible has been measured as the rate of ‘diversion’ of waste from reaching the fifth step in the hierarchy – the disposal of residuals. Modern reality is more complex. As a result, using the conventionally defined ‘diversion rate’ includes some source separated material that is used as fuel still being considered ’recycled’ while some material that is recycled after incineration is still considered ‘disposed ’. This plan is driven by the underlying principles of sustainability but, for the sake of historic comparability, continues to use the conventional definition of ‘diversion rate’.

SDD-116


A. Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Guiding Principles The plan follows the sustainability principles set out in Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework, the principles of Integrated Resource Recovery and the 5R hierarchy of resource management. Sustainability Sustainability encompasses a long-term commitment to economic prosperity, community well-being and environmental integrity. It is at the core of Metro Vancouver’s vision for the future, and provides the foundation for the development of the region’s management plans. The Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework identifies three overarching principles which state that decision making must: • Have regard for both local and global consequences, and long-term impacts • Recognize and reflect the interconnectedness and interdependence of systems • Be collaborative These provide the foundation for the three operating principles that guide Metro Vancouver: • Protect and enhance the natural environment (Conserve and develop natural capital) • Provide for ongoing prosperity (Conserve and develop economic capital) • Build community capacity and social cohesion (Conserve and develop social capital) A solid waste management plan which follows these principles will seek to ensure our individual and collective behaviour does not generate avoidable or unnecessary material waste and will seek systems and technologies which recover and recycle materials and recover energy. Where investment or reinvestment in infrastructure is required, that infrastructure will be resilient, be adaptable to climate change, lessen the region’s dependence on non-renewable energy sources, and protect the environment. Integrated Resource Recovery Integrated Resource Recovery is an approach to designing and managing urban systems, particularly utilities, to generate synergies which enable the ‘waste’ from one system to become ‘resources’ for another. These traditional wastes are untapped resources. If accessed and used appropriately, they can help preserve non-renewable resources, stretch the capacity of existing infrastructure, save energy, generate revenue, protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

SDD-117


Resource Management Principles: The 5Rs The principles of the internationally recognized 5R hierarchy also emphasize the value of waste as a resource. The hierarchy sets out the relative value of different methods of waste management: • Reduce waste at source • Reuse where possible • Recycle products at the end of their useful life • Recover energy or materials from the waste stream • Manage Residuals in an environmentally sound manner 3) New language: public health principles added; in response to input from health authorities Public Health Principles • Emphasis on investing in upstream preventative solutions as opposed to downstream problem

management. In the case of managing the waste stream, this principle requires increasing investment towards reducing waste generation.

• Fairness and equity. The costs and benefits of the plan will be distributed fairly among population groups.

• Transparency. Decisions are made through processes that enable meaningful public input throughout the planning and implementation phases, including final decisions on waste management facility, technology and site selections.

• Sustainability. The plan will sustain population health and wellness not only for residents of MV but also for all British Columbians and globally.

Process and Consultation All actions included in this plan will be undertaken in consultation and cooperation with municipalities, senior government, First Nations, health authorities, the business community, and the public. 4) Amended language: adds 5 year review at suggestion of Ministry of Environment As the population grows and circumstances change, the ISWRMP will be reviewed and revised. An ISWRMP progress report will be made every two years and a comprehensive performance review of the plan undertaken every five years, with a full plan review and update every ten years. As the population grows and circumstances change, the ISWRMP will be reviewed and revised. An ISWRMP progress report will be made every two years and a comprehensive review of the plan every ten years. Aligning With Provincial Initiatives This is a provincially mandated plan. The objectives set out in the 1995 Greater Vancouver Regional Solid Waste Management Plan were set by the Provincial Government. These objectives were: • To reduce per capita garbage disposal in the year 1995 by at least 30% from 1990 levels

SDD-118


• To similarly reduce per capita garbage disposal in the year 2000 by at least 50% from 1990 levels • To responsibly manage residuals These objectives have been met. The updated ISWRMP is guided by principles that are aligned with current provincial policies and positions, ensuring that Metro Vancouver’s and senior governments’ environmental and fiscal objectives and actions are mutually supportive and successful. Key provincial plans and policies supported by the ISWRMP include the:

5) New language: adds reference to BC Air Action Plan at suggestion of Technical Forum • BC Air Action Plan. The Air Action Plan seeks to improve air quality across B.C. by promoting clean transportation, clean industry and clean communities. The ISWRMP will contribute to meeting the goals of this program by managing waste locally, imposing the strictest air quality standards on all facilities and reducing emissions in the community through district energy systems. • BC Climate Action Plan. This plan sets a provincial target of 33% less greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and 80% fewer by 2050. The ISWRMP will contribute to meeting these targets by facilitating waste reduction and by treating waste as a resource to be reused, recycled or recovered. • BC Energy Plan - A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership. The Energy Plan sets goals for clean, self-sufficient electricity production including “clean energy leadership” and energy self-sufficiency by 2016. The ISWRMP seeks to expand the generation of electricity and biofuels from municipal solid waste as well as the recovery of heat for use in industrial or district heating systems.

6) New language: adds reference to BC Recycling Regulation; recommendation of Reference Panel

• BC Recycling Regulation. This regulation provides a legal framework for establishing extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs managed by industry to promote product stewardship within the province of British Columbia. The underlying goal of this regulation is for producers to accept full life-cycle cost accounting for their products. This would see the costs of the end-of-life management of products treated similarly to other factors of production and incorporated into product prices. Successful EPR shifts the expenses associated with product end-of-life management from taxpayers to producers and consumers. The ISWRMP supports the principles of EPR and includes numerous actions to accelerate EPR program development and implementation. • A Guide to Green Choices - Ideas and Practical Advice for Land Use Decisions in BC Communities. This guide expressed the need for “sustainable infrastructure”. The long-term sustainable management of existing and future infrastructure investments requires integrated, innovative solutions. The ISWRMP contains actions that support sustainable infrastructure, such as clean energy from district energy systems.

SDD-119


7) Deletion: program has been discontinued

•LiveSmart BC. This program aims to support low-carbon communities through incentives for energy savings and GHG reduction in homes and businesses, on the road, and in the community. The ISWRMP facilitates opportunities for the residential and commercial sectors to reduce their contribution to GHG emissions through waste reduction, reuse, recycle and regional organic waste management. • BC Bioenergy Strategy. The Strategy encourages the production of fuel from biomass. The ISWRMP builds upon existing efforts involving the recovery of methane from landfills It also promotes additional diversion of biomass, such as food residues and treated wood, for use as renewable sources of energy. Opportunities to integrate liquid and solid waste management also support the BC Bioenergy Strategy. • Landfill Gas Management Regulation. This regulation requires landfills to consider designs that optimize methane capture, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Existing and any future Metro Vancouver landfills under the ISWRMP will follow this regulation, contributing to the climate change solution. In partnership with municipalities and the private sector, Metro Vancouver’s initiatives in all of these areas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diversify the region’s sources of energy, increase renewable energy sources, and increase the region’s energy independence.

8) Deletion: Diagram became too complex with references to additional provincial programs FIGURE 1: KEY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PROVINCIAL PLANS AND METRO VANCOUVER’S INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

9) New language: added at suggestion of the Reference Panel

Aligning with Federal Initiatives • CCME Canada Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) have adopted a waste management approach which extends the responsibility of producers for management of products to the end of the product life. Through the Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR, the CCME and the province of British Columbia are working towards the development and implementation of additional EPR programs intended to have producers accept full life-cycle cost accounting for their products. This would see the costs of the end-of-life management of products treated similarly to other factors of production and incorporated into product prices. The draft ISWRMP supports the principles of EPR and includes numerous actions to accelerate EPR program development and implementation. Coordinating With Other Metro Vancouver Plans The Sustainable Region Initiative provides a framework for linking the ISWRMP with the region’s other plans, as shown in Figure 1. It also establishes links across regionally mandated plans and with initiatives that are executed by other partners.

SDD-120


The ISWRMP identifies synergies with Metro Vancouver’s other utilities and plans, to make the best use of society’s resources, and to minimize the region’s impact on the environment. Figure 2 shows the connections between the ISWRMP and other regional plans. The ISWRMP includes coordinated actions with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, chosen to identify opportunities to make best use of the resources generated from the two waste streams. For example, organic municipal solid waste, like waste food, can potentially be co-digested with sewage sludge. The principles guiding the ISWRMP and the connected goals and actions will also help achieve objectives in the Air Quality Management Plan and Metro Vancouver 2040, the region’s Regional Growth Strategy. The ISWRMP will minimize Metro Vancouver’s contribution to climate change by reducing the disposal of untreated waste in landfills, by recovering energy in the form of heat for district heating, and by reducing the use of fossil fuels for space heating. These steps will assist in building compact, complete communities using clean energy for district heating. Figure 1: Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework

SDD-121


Figure 2: Key Connections between Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and Other Metro Vancouver Plans

SDD-122


Governance, Roles and Responsibilities Solid waste management plans are authorized and regulated through the BC Environmental Management Act. Once each updated plan is approved, it becomes a regulatory document for solid waste management. Metro Vancouver and member municipalities work collaboratively to provide waste management services to the region. Metro Vancouver coordinates the long-range planning process for recycling and disposing of solid waste in the region. Metro Vancouver also funds and manages the operating contracts for the transfer stations, waste-to-energy facility and landfill (with the exception of the Vancouver South Transfer Station and the Vancouver Landfill which are owned and operated by the City of Vancouver) that make up the region’s integrated solid waste management system.

10) New language: clarifies legal precedence of Plan over existing agreements In conjunction with regulations and operational certificates that may apply, this plan regulates the operation of these facilities. Where conflicts may exist between agreements related to such facilities and this plan, including the Tri-Partite Agreement between Delta, Vancouver and Metro Vancouver, this plan takes precedence. Municipal solid waste (MSW) includes refuse that originates from residential, commercial, institutional, demolition, land clearing or construction sources as outlined in the Environmental Management Act. For management purposes, waste is generated from three sectors: residential (from both single-family units and multi-family units); industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI); and demolition, land clearing and construction (DLC). Member municipalities operate or co-ordinate the collection of recyclables and garbage and in some cases yard and garden waste from the single-family residential sector and some ICI and multi-family residential sources. Recycling from multi-family residences is also collected by municipalities, but much of the ICI and multi-family residential garbage collection services are provided by the private sector. ICI recycling is collected almost exclusively by private haulers. The third sector, DLC, is primarily self-managed with businesses and non-profit societies providing recycling, transferring and/or disposal services. The management of household hazardous wastes is carried out by the Province primarily through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and the Hazardous Waste Regulation. Provided financial and liability issues are satisfied, Metro Vancouver and member municipalities will cooperate with the Province and industry groups to provide a comprehensive household hazardous waste management program. Recycling processing facilities in the region are primarily privately run businesses, as are the brokers who facilitate the movement of recyclables to end markets inside and outside of the region. The extent and complexity of the solid waste systems require close coordination among the following groups: Federal Government • The Federal Government regulates waste management facilities under federal jurisdiction

SDD-123


Provincial Government • Various ministries have regulatory authority related to waste management First Nations • First nations are an order of government with rights and responsibilities Local Health Authorities • Local health authorities have various interests and responsibilities related to the waste management process Local Government • Metro Vancouver is responsible for developing and ensuring that the ISWRMP is implemented and is required to report on ISWRMP progress • Member municipalities provide local waste management services and implement municipal actions in the ISWRMP Private Sector • Private sector businesses generate waste which requires management under the ISWRMP • Private sector haulers, material brokers, recyclers and others provide services which make the implementation of an integrated waste management system possible Non-profit Sector • Provides voluntary services to segments of the waste generating public Residents • Generate waste either as private individuals or as contributors to institutional, commercial, industrial, demolition, land clearing or construction activities • Responsible for carrying out proper waste reduction, recycling and disposal activities Geographic Scope The ISWRMP applies to the geographic area of Metro Vancouver (see Figure 3). All strategies and actions in the ISWRMP apply to the following members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Village of Anmore Village of Belcarra Bowen Island Municipality City of Burnaby City of Coquitlam Corporation of Delta City of Langley Township of Langley Village of Lions Bay District of Maple Ridge City of New Westminster City of North Vancouver District of North Vancouver City of Pitt Meadows City of Port Coquitlam

SDD-124


City of Port Moody City of Richmond City of Surrey Tsawwassen First Nation City of Vancouver District of West Vancouver City of White Rock Electoral Area A – which includes the west side of Pitt Lake, the northern portion of Indian Arm, a portion of land between the District of West Vancouver and Squamish Lillooet Regional District, Bowyer, Passage and Barnston islands, the University Endowment Lands (including Pacific Spirit Regional Park), and the University of British Columbia In addition, solid waste management services are provided to the City of Abbotsford through contract. Figure 3: Map of Plan Area

SDD-125


Approved Facilities Municipal solid waste in the region can be directed for management to any approved disposal facility identified in the ISWRMP. Approved disposal facilities include the: • Waste-to-Energy facility in Burnaby • Vancouver Landfill • Cache Creek Landfill • Any disposal facility licensed by Metro Vancouver under the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw No. 183, 1996

11) Deletion: moved to New Facilities Section at suggestion of Ministry of Environment

• Any new waste-to-energy facility established through a competitive process and subject to an environmental assessment as required by provincial and federal regulation

12) New language: added at the request of Ministry of Environment Metro Vancouver will work with the Province to map and catalogue private and public landfills operating or closed in the Metro Vancouver region. In addition to the approved disposal facilities, the following publically owned transfer stations are an integral part of the Metro Vancouver integrated waste management system: • North Shore Transfer Station • Vancouver South Transfer Station • Coquitlam Transfer Station • Surrey Transfer Station • Langley Residential Transfer Station • Maple Ridge Residential Transfer Station • Matsqui Transfer Station The locations of the Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver facilities are shown in Figure 4.

SDD-126


Figure 4: Map of Approved Facilities

Landfill Transfer Station Waste-to-Energy (WTE)

VancouverLandfill

Surrey

Cache Creek Landfill(340 km east)

Vancouver

NorthShore

Matsqui

Maple RidgeCoquitlam

WTE

Langley

New Facilities 13) New language: establishes scope and process for inclusion of new facilities in this plan;

included at the suggestion of the Ministry of Environment Municipal solid waste in the region may be directed for management to any new facility contemplated by this plan provided the new facility follows the process for development as outlined herein. New facilities specifically contemplated in this plan include:

• Any new organics processing facility established pursuant to Goal 2 of this plan • Any new waste-to-energy facility located within the region established pursuant to Goal 3

of this plan • Any new waste-to-energy facility located outside the region established pursuant to Goal 3

of this plan • Any additional landfill pursuant to Goal 4 of this plan

Process for development of new facilities shall include but not be limited to:

• Appropriate procurement process • Environmental assessment, including an assessment of human health risk acceptable to

the applicable health authority, as may be required by provincial and federal regulations • Suitable public consultation program as may be required by environmental assessment

process The Ministry of Environment and health authorities will be informed and consulted as appropriate regarding the addition of new waste management facilities.

SDD-127


14) New language: provision added to allow Ministry of Environment to vary waste flows and contingency plans if other regional districts were to be serviced by a new facility contemplated in this plan.

Establishment of new facilities may also be performed with consideration for provincial requirements in addition to Metro Vancouver’s regional needs. If new facilities are established to service Metro Vancouver and any other regional district, references in this plan to waste flows, contingency plans, refer only to quantities of waste from Metro Vancouver. The Ministry of Environment may vary these provisions to accommodate, and only accommodate, waste management requirements of other regional districts. The addition of new disposal facilities not contemplated in this plan will require an amendment to the plan. The addition of new facilities which are not disposal facilities will not necessitate an amendment to this plan. 15) New language: necessary to achieve the objectives of managing waste locally, avoiding

overbuilding waste-to-energy facilities and undermining Goals 1 and 2, and reducing waste flow to the Vancouver Landfill; arising from the public consultation and the Corporation of Delta submission

Flow Control To ensure the sustainability principles embodied within this Plan are fulfilled Metro Vancouver will retain management control of regional disposal facilities. By retaining management control, all waste reduction and diversion goals can be applied uniformly at all regional disposal facilities to ensure equity for all residents and businesses within the region while attaining the goals of this plan. In addition to the requirement for waste to be directed to facilities approved under this plan, Metro Vancouver may choose to act to reduce the flow of waste to unauthorized facilities which may undermine the waste reduction and diversion goals of this plan. These flow control initiatives include but are not limited to:

• Split fee bylaw • Franchising of waste collection services • Licensing of waste collection service providers

If total waste flows are below the capacity of existing and planned facilities, waste disposal facilities will be utilized as follows:

• Total waste flows in excess of 780,000 tonnes per year: the Vancouver Landfill will be operated to absorb flows in excess of 780,000 tonnes;

• Waste flows in excess of 500,000 tonnes per year but less than 780,000 tonnes per year: the Vancouver Landfill be operated only to absorb residuals from the waste to energy plants and as an emergency system in the event that the waste to energy plants cannot absorb waste flows, and the Burnaby facility would have the three furnace lines progressively shut down or converted to alternate fuels as waste flows declined;

SDD-128


• Waste flows below 500,000 tonnes per year: the Vancouver Landfill would continue to operate to absorb residuals from the waste to energy plants and as an emergency system in the event that the waste to energy plants cannot absorb waste flows, the waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby would be decommissioned or converted to alternate fuels and the new waste to energy facilities would be progressively downscaled or converted to alternate fuels as waste flows decline.

First Nations Lands Unknown quantities of waste from Metro Vancouver, primarily from the DLC sector, are disposed in landfills located on First Nations lands both outside and inside the Metro Vancouver geographical area. Metro Vancouver has no jurisdiction for these landfills.

SDD-129


B. Goals, Strategies, Actions and Measures Goal 1: Minimize Waste Generation The following strategies and actions are proposed to achieve this goal: STRATEGY 1.1 Advocate that senior governments transfer additional waste management responsibilities to producers and consumers The costs and responsibilities of waste management have historically been borne by local governments and taxpayers. The responsibility for the costs and risks to manage end-of-life products should progressively transfer to the manufacturers of goods and the consumers that use them to provide the appropriate market mechanism to encourage more sustainable manufacturing and consumer choices. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 16) New language: added strong leadership role for Metro Vancouver in advocacy and tangible

support for measures to achieve waste reduction; reflective of public consultation input and suggestion from Health Authorities.

1.1.1 Advocate that senior governments progressively move towards the prohibition of the manufacture and distribution of non-essential, non-recyclable materials and products. 2011 1.1.2 Advocate that senior governments prohibit the manufacture and distribution of non-recyclable packaging. 2011 1.1.3 Strongly advocate for EPR programs to reduce waste disposal through implementation of design-for-environment principles, and best management practices that focus on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. Offer staffing support for and partnership with Ministry of Environment to help accelerate EPR. 2011 1.1.4 Work with other municipalities and regions across BC, Canada, and internationally, to advocate for more development by senior governments in encouraging and developing incentives, including regulation, that promote design of products with an emphasis on reuse and recycling (cradle-to-cradle design). 2011 1.1.5 Participate on Federal EPR initiatives such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) Extended Producer Responsibility Task Force, to develop national guidelines for sustainable packaging. Ongoing 1.1.6 Participate on industry stewardship advisory committees. Ongoing 1.1.7 Participate on the BC Product Stewardship Council to assist in evaluating existing and developing new EPR programs. Ongoing

SDD-130


17) New language: Waste projections will consider future trends including EPR, recommendation of Reference Panel

1.1.8 Waste projections will consider future trends in population, generation, and management, including EPR. Ongoing MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 1.1.9 Partner with Metro Vancouver in support of actions 1.1.1 through 1.1.7 2011 and Ongoing ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 18) Amended language: Clarifies it is Ministry of Environment’s responsibility to accelerate

EPR, recommendation of Reference Panel 1.1.10 Ministry of Environment to accelerate EPR program development and implementation. Ongoing 1.1.10 Ministry of Environment to create a formal partnership with Metro Vancouver representation, to accelerate EPR program development and implementation. 2010 19) New language: added provisions related to the transition to EPR; at the suggestion of the

Reference Panel 1.1.11 Include Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities in the negotiations with producers regarding future EPR programs to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the existing convenient curb-side collection systems. 2010 1.1.12 Ensure that the waste recovered under EPR programs will be properly managed in the region and that such materials will not be exported without adequate knowledge of and control over its eventual disposition. Ongoing STRATEGY 1.2 Reduce or eliminate materials entering the solid waste system which hinder or limit the opportunities to achieve reuse, recycling, or energy recovery, or that may exacerbate environmental impacts of disposed residuals Some inputs to the solid waste stream may hinder or limit the opportunities to achieve reuse, recycling, or energy recovery, or may exacerbate environmental impacts of disposed residuals. These inputs will be identified and programs developed to reduce or eliminate them. This strategy also applies to Goal 2. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 1.2.1 Work with facility operators, local municipalities and the recycling industry to introduce material bans after alternatives are identified and suitable public information programs. Ongoing

SDD-131


STRATEGY 1.3 Provide information and education on options to reduce waste 20) New language: Use forms of communication that address the barriers created by multiple

languages; recommendation of Reference Panel The amount of waste we produce is directly linked to the amount and type of goods and services we consume. Providing the public and businesses with an awareness of the consequences of unsustainable behaviour and tools and incentives to change will assist in reducing the generation of waste. Information and education will seek forms of communication which address the barriers created by multiple languages. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 1.3.1 Develop and deliver a community based social marketing program to inform and educate citizens on waste reduction opportunities including schools. Ongoing 21) Amended language: added 80% diversion target by 2020; reflective of public input (a) Target a minimum of 70% diversion goal by 2015 over all sectors and an aspirational goal of 80% by 2020 to be featured in communication materials. Ongoing (a) Promote a minimum of 70% diversion goal by 2015 over all sectors - feature in communication materials. Ongoing 1.3.2 Develop and deliver a community based social marketing business education plan, including business guides and other outreach programs to inform and educate businesses on waste reduction opportunities. 2011 22) New language: evolution of Metro Vancouver’s “MetroVancouverRecycles.org” and “3Rs.ca”

initiatives 1.3.3 Develop a national zero waste marketing council so that cities across Canada can pool resources and develop common messaging, with national impact, on the need to reduce waste, resulting in informed and educated citizens on waste reduction opportunities. 2011 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 1.3.4 Partner with and assist Metro Vancouver in the development and delivery of public and business information and education programs. Ongoing

SDD-132


Goal 2: Maximize Reuse, Recycling and Material Recovery Strategies to achieve this goal focus on proactive approaches to reuse, increased recycling effort and implementation of a region-wide food waste composting program. STRATEGY 2.1 Increase the opportunities for reuse Increasing the opportunities for individuals to reuse more materials involves increasing convenience and reducing impediments. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.1.1 Investigate financial and regulatory barriers which prevent or discourage the reuse of Materials. 2011 2.1.2 Investigate the effectiveness and adequacy of existing material exchange networks. 2011 2.1.3 Bring forward appropriate measures which respond to the findings of 2.1.1 and 2.1.2

2011

23) New language: include community groups; recommendation of Reference Panel 2.1.4 Enhance partnerships with the Province, industry, academia and community groups to research and develop solutions to overcome barriers to reuse and recycling and new opportunities to re-engineer recycled material. 2011 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.1.5 Work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to Strategy 2.1 Ongoing STRATEGY 2.2 Increase the effectiveness of existing recycling programs Use the existing infrastructure effectively to achieve higher recycling rates. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.2.1 Implement disposal bans on materials that limit opportunities to achieve reuse, recycling, or energy recovery. Ongoing (a) Work with facility operators, local municipalities, senior governments and the recycling industry to determine the impact and source of components of the waste stream, the consequence and feasibility of banning the disposal of materials with the most negative impacts and the most suitable recycling options for those materials. Ongoing 24) Amended language: expands disposal ban enforcement; recommendation of Reference

Panel (b) Expand the monitoring and enforcement of disposal bans and enhance with effective communications to raise awareness of the bans. 2011

SDD-133


(b) Continue the monitoring and enforcement of the disposal bans. Ongoing (c) Analyse the effectiveness of disposal bans and possible alternative enforcement models including enforcement at source. 2010 (d) After suitable public information programs, expand disposal bans to include materials encompassed by new EPR programs and material for which new recycling markets are developed. Ongoing 2.2.2 Provide ongoing information for businesses and residents of recycling opportunities. Ongoing (a) Continue and upgrade a regional web-based source of information on recycling opportunities for businesses and residents. Ongoing (b) Keep municipalities fully informed as to recycling collection and drop off facilities and changes to policies and facilities. Ongoing (c) Provide outreach services. Ongoing 25) New language: Adds intention to seek harmonization; recommendation of Reference Panel. (d) Work with other information sources to achieve maximum harmonization possible. Ongoing 2.2.3 Increase the efficiency and consistency of recycling collection services across the region. 2012 (a) Work with municipalities to review materials accepted for recycling from residential and ICI sources. 2012 26) New language: Adds the possibility of model policies and bylaws; based on suggestion from

Health Authorities. (b) In collaboration with municipalities, undertake a business case review of the residential and ICI waste and recycling collection services over the region to determine and implement the appropriate level of consistency between municipalities. Where appropriate, Metro Vancouver will develop model policies or bylaws to assist municipalities in achieving consistency. 2012 (b) In collaboration with municipalities, undertake a business case review of the residential and ICI waste and recycling collection services over the region to determine and implement the appropriate level of consistency between municipalities. 2012 27) New language: adds economic instruments to promote recycling; based on public

consultation input and reference panel (c) Analyse the effectiveness of pricing strategies and other economic instruments to encourage additional recycling. 2012 2.2.4 Establish Eco-Centres. Ongoing

SDD-134


28) Amended language: Clarify the need for initial consultation and definition process for Eco-Centres; based on public consultation and municipal input.

29) New language: Clarify that the responsibility for operating and funding Eco-Centres will be

determined by stakeholder work group; direction of Waste Management Committee. (a) Establish a stakeholder and municipal work group to determine the scope, terms and conditions, including the responsibility for funding and operating such facilities, and the relationship to existing and planned EPR programs and municipal recycling depots for participating municipalities and industries. 2010 (a) Establish a work group to determine the terms and conditions for participating municipalities and industries and the means of integrating Eco-Centres into Metro Vancouver’s transfer stations and municipal depot systems. Ongoing 30) Amended language: clarify Eco-Centres are not limited to a few large facilities; response to

input from public (b) Develop the model of Eco-Centres to include numerous, small scale, one-stop-drop centres for recycling and small quantity drop-off disposal. Ongoing (b) Develop the model of Eco-Centres, new one-stop-drop centres for recycling. Ongoing (c) With municipalities, determine the terms and conditions for participating municipalities and industries and develop appropriate business cases. Ongoing 31) Amended language: clarifies commitment to establishing facility in Surrey; municipal input 32) New language: Clarify that the responsibility for operating and funding Eco-Centres will be

determined prior to establishment; direction of Waste Management Committee. (d) After determining terms and conditions including the responsibility for funding and operating such facilities, establish the first Eco-Centre in Surrey to replace commitment for residential drop off facility in the 1995 Plan. 2011 (d) After determining terms and conditions, establish the first Eco-Centre in Surrey. Ongoing (e) Progressively expand the Eco-Centre system across the region as municipal business cases determine. Ongoing 2.2.5 Promote recycling at festivals and events. Ongoing 33) Deleted: pilot studies complete (a) Complete pilot studies on Zero Waste initiatives at festivals and events. Ongoing (a) Develop a Zero Waste toolkit for festivals and events. Ongoing

SDD-135


(b) Continue to work with municipalities, EPR groups and local community groups to implement waste minimization and recycling at community festivals and events, including conferences and tradeshows. Ongoing (c) Provide outreach services. Ongoing 2.2.6 Work with school districts and individual schools to promote waste reduction and recycling. Ongoing (a) Develop instructional programs that encourage waste reduction and recycling both within the schools and at home. Ongoing MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.2.7 Work with Metro Vancouver on actions designed to: 34) Amended language: clarifies municipal commitment; response to public input (a) implement effective disposal bans for collection of municipal waste at source; Ongoing (a) implement disposal bans; Ongoing (b) inform businesses and residents of recycling opportunities; Ongoing (c) increase the efficiency and consistency of recycling collection services across the region; Ongoing (d) establish Eco Centres; Ongoing (e) promote recycling at community events and festivals; Ongoing (f) work with school districts and individual schools to promote waste reduction and recycling Ongoing STRATEGY 2.3 Provide opportunities to increase private sector recycling There is a shortage of recycling processing capacity for many materials within the region. Metro Vancouver and member municipalities can assist in addressing this shortage by using tools at their disposal to change the business environment so that the private sector can increase capacity. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.3.1 Facilitate the siting of private sector recycling activities. 2012 (a) Review the GVS&DD Solid Waste Regulatory Bylaw to facilitate the siting of municipal

SDD-136


solid waste facilities that meet municipal bylaws. 2012 2.3.2 Foster research and market development for recycled materials. Ongoing (a) Evaluate a business case for a regional scale recyclable service delivery model. 2010 (b) Review desirability, feasibility and opportunity for establishing a non-profit organization to facilitate the development of recycling businesses and markets, along the lines of the ‘London Remade’ model in the U.K. 2012 (c) Subject to the results of 2.3.2 (a) and (b), establish a regional role in processing and marketing of recycled materials, a land acquisition strategy for required recycling facilities, and enhanced policy-based initiatives to promote local recycled content in consumer goods. Ongoing MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.3.3 Facilitate the siting of private sector recycling activities. 2012 (a) Review zoning bylaws to remove unnecessary impediments to and encourage recycling and material recovery activities in appropriately zoned areas. 2012 2.3.4 Work with Metro Vancouver on the evaluation of regional scale recycling facilities and development of recycling markets. Ongoing ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 2.3.5 Provincial and Federal Governments to identify and establish minimum post-consumer recycled content requirements for consumer goods. 2012 STRATEGY 2.4 Target demolition, land clearing and construction (DLC) sector for increased reuse and recycling Although the DLC sector has very high recycling rates due to high levels of concrete and asphalt recycling, there are significant opportunities to improve with respect to a variety of other materials such as wood and roofing. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 35) Deletion: Actions transferred to new Strategy 2.7 2.4.1 Encourage reuse of wood. 2010 (a) Examine and, where feasible, implement incentives for reuse and remove barriers to re-use of wood waste. 2010 (b) Develop and implement information and education programs on the reuse and effective recycling of DLC waste. 2010

SDD-137


36) Amended order: Actions reordered to reflect priority; recommendation of Reference Panel 2.4.1 In collaboration with municipalities and industry groups, develop a process to require DLC recycling at construction/demolition sites. 2011 2.4.2 Implement waste diversion strategies directed toward diverting DLC waste from disposal while supporting opportunities for beneficial use. Ongoing (a) Encourage the role of building supply retailers and producers in the collection of DLC material for recycling. Ongoing (b) Provide areas for separated recyclable DLC materials at Eco-Centres and at transfer stations as they are upgraded. Ongoing 2.4.3 Review existing DLC recycling and processing capacity, project future needs and develop a strategy to address any identified gaps. 2012 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.4.4. Work with Metro Vancouver to develop a process to require DLC recycling at construction/demolition sites. Ongoing (a) Review municipal DLC permitting processes with a view to requiring waste management plans as a condition of such permits. Ongoing (b) Review the desirability and feasibility of deposit systems or other financial incentives to increase enforcement of DLC waste management plans. Ongoing 37) Deletion: Action transferred to new Strategy 2.7 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 2 4 6 Provincial Government to expand the inclusion of the reuse of wood in building codes. Ongoing STRATEGY 2.5 Reduce paper and paperboard being disposed 19% of the disposed waste stream is made up of paper and paperboard, much of which should be included in the existing recycling programs. Food contaminated paper which cannot be recycled can be composted along with other organics to produce a reusable and beneficial product. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 38) New language: business and non-profit organizations added; recommendation of

Reference Panel 2.5.1 In collaboration with municipalities, businesses and non-profit organizations, conduct pilot programs to determine the most effective method of reducing unwanted junk mail and other publications and act accordingly on the results. Ongoing

SDD-138


2.5.2 Promote reduced paper use and increase paper recycling opportunities in the community and businesses. Ongoing (a) Carry out a community social marketing campaign to determine and overcome barriers to reducing the use of and increasing the recycling of paper in schools and community facilities. Ongoing (b) Carry out a targeted outreach campaign to business to determine and overcome barriers to reducing the use of and increasing the recycling of paper. Ongoing MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.5.3 Collaborate with Metro Vancouver in junk mail reduction pilot programs and community social marketing programs in community facilities. Ongoing STRATEGY 2.6 Target organics for recycling and energy recovery Food waste comprises 21% of the waste disposed. This, along with yard and garden waste and some paper and paperboard can be composted together in a source separated stream to produce a beneficial and marketable product which includes compost and bio-fuel. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.6.1 Evaluate options for processing of organics with biosolids and other utility residuals. 2011 2.6.2 Divert organics from the waste stream. 2015 (a) Establish additional organics processing facilities. 2011 and ongoing 39) New Language: Adds monitoring for organics processing facilities; suggestion of the

Health Authorities and Reference Panel i) establish a system for monitoring emissions from organics processing facilities including bioaerosols. 2011 and ongoing (b) Determine which paper and paperboard products are suitable for processing at an organics management facility. 2011 (c) In collaboration with municipalities, develop and implement a work plan for the diversion of organic waste, including food waste, from: 40) Amended Language: Adds specific schedule for implementation as outlined in staff report i) single family residences 2012 ii) multi-family residences 2015 iii) the ICI sector 2015 i) single family residences Ongoing

SDD-139


ii) multi-family residences Ongoing iii) the ICI sector Ongoing (d) Develop and implement supporting communication programs for 2.6.2 (c). Ongoing 41) New Language: Adds ban on organics; based on City of Vancouver submission and public

input. (e) Ban all compostable organics allowed in residential green bins from disposal to landfills and all forms of waste-to-energy, except anaerobic digestion. 2015 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.6.3. In collaboration with Metro Vancouver, develop and implement a work plan, including appropriate communication programs for the diversion of organic waste from: i) single family residences 2012 ii) multi-family residences 2015 iii) the ICI sector 2015 (a) Municipalities will divert organics from the waste stream to a Metro Vancouver or alternative licensed organics processing facility. 2015 (b) Municipalities will report the tonnage of diverted organic waste to Metro Vancouver in the event that organics are delivered to licensed non-regional processing facilities. Annually 42) New Language: Expanded initiatives for wood diversion; based on input from the City of

Vancouver and public input. STRATEGY 2.7 Target wood for reuse, recycle, and energy recovery Encouraging the reuse, recycling and energy recovery from wood should follow the waste management hierarchy to ensure highest and best use of wood. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.7.1 Encourage reuse of wood. 2010 (a) Examine and, where feasible, implement incentives for reuse and remove barriers to re-use of wood waste. 2010 (b) Develop and implement information and education programs on the reuse and effective recycling of wood and other DLC waste. 2010 2.7.2 Collect wood for reuse, recycling, and energy recovery at regional transfer stations and eco-centres. Ongoing 2.7.3 Encourage highest and best use for wood following the waste management hierarchy in the following priority: Ongoing

(a) reuse wood for comparable structural and non-structural applications,

SDD-140


(b) recycle wood fibre into other fibre based products, (c) compost wood with other organic materials (d) digest wood to produce biofuels (e) process wood as a fuel for energy production.

2.7.4 Pass by-laws as required to support highest and best use of wood as outlined in 2.7.3 Ongoing (as required) 2.7.5 Ban all wood from disposal. 2015 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 2.7.6 Provincial Government to expand the inclusion of the reuse of wood in building codes. Ongoing STRATEGY 2.8 Target plastics for increased recycling Many plastics can be used to create new products. Recycling plastics reduces the amount of waste that must be transported, treated, and landfilled and conserves a non-renewable resource. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.8.1 Expand the recycling of plastics in the residential and commercial sectors. 2011 (a) Establish a standard for municipal programs for collection of plastics based on market strength. 2011 (b) In cooperation with retail partners and municipalities, undertake social marketing pilot programs to reduce the use of disposable take-out food and beverage packaging including plastic and other disposable bags. 2011 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.8.2 Work with Metro Vancouver on programs to reduce the use of disposable take-out food and beverage packaging including plastic and other disposable bags. 2011 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 2.8.3 The Provincial Government to develop EPR programs for all plastics that provide incentives for alternatives to non-recyclable plastics. Ongoing 2.8.4 The Provincial and Federal Governments to require all plastic material sold in BC to have a material code identifying its composition. Ongoing

SDD-141


STRATEGY 2.9 Target multi-family and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors to improve diversion rates Multi-family residences and the commercial sector have relatively low diversion rates, in part because many premises do not have adequate facilities to accommodate recycling. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.9.1 Develop bylaws to require recycling in all multi-family and commercial buildings and Complexes. 2011 (a) Develop a model bylaw and enforcement model to require recycling in multi-family and commercial buildings. 2011 (b) Create an advisory service for recycling programs for multi-family and commercial buildings. 2011 MUNICIPALITIES WILL: 2.9.2 Work with Metro Vancouver to implement recycling in multi-family and commercial Buildings. 2011 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 43) New Language: To facilitate recycling in multi-family and commercial buildings; public

input 2.9.3 The Provincial Government modify the BC Building Code to require that space be provided for recycling collection, sorting and pick-up in multi-family residential and commercial buildings 44) New Language: Addressing the economic uncertainty of recyclable commodities;

municipal and public input. STRATEGY 2.10 Develop contingency plans for the loss of recycling markets

Changes in the local and global economies occasionally affect the demand for recovered and recycled materials. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.10.1 Manage diverted materials in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Management Act and regulations in that materials will not be disposed unless all feasible opportunities for higher uses of the materials have been taken. 2011 MUNICIPALITIES WILL:

2.10.2 Manage diverted materials in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Management Act and regulations in that materials will not be disposed unless all feasible opportunities for higher uses of the materials have been taken. 2011

SDD-142


45) New Language: Establishment of a new advisory body; Board direction and consistent

with LWMP STRATEGY 2.11 Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee An interagency committee would advise Metro Vancouver on the integration of utility systems. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 2.11.1 Establish a new overarching committee, the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC), to advise Metro Vancouver on plan implementation, particularly from the perspectives of integrated planning and resource recovery across utility systems. 2011

SDD-143


Goal 3: Recover Energy from the Waste Stream After Material Recycling

The following strategies will increase processing of the waste remaining after recycling in order to provide the highest beneficial use to society. STRATEGY 3.1 Use Waste-to-energy to provide electricity and district heating Waste-to-Energy facilities most effectively and efficiently extract energy from the waste stream remaining after recycling and when combined with district heating can reduce the environmental impacts of energy use within the region. The planned capacity of such facilities should be compatible with waste diversion targets and initiatives and projected waste flows which remain after such diversion. 46) New Language: To establish standards to ensure the beneficial use of both power and

heat; response to suggestions by the Ministry of Environment All waste-to-energy facilities must meet or exceed the minimum energy efficiency required to be classified under the 4th R - Recovery as outlined in European Union standard (PE-CONS 3646/08) and accepted by the Province of BC. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 3.1.1 Continue use of existing waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby. 47) New Language: Allows for progressive shut down of Burnaby facility as waste flows

decline; response to public input concerning not undermining waste diversion targets and the submission of the Health Authorities.

(a) Subject to the limitations established in the section titled “Flow Control”, use the facility at its current usage and capacity of 280,000 tonnes per year to recover available energy in the waste remaining after recycling for district energy and electricity generation. Ongoing 48) New Language: To confirm commitment to the highest emissions and monitoring

standards; in response to suggestion from the Ministry of Environment (b) Continue to meet the monitoring and emission requirements in Appendix A. Ongoing (c) Continue to improve environmental performance of the facility with improved technologies and monitor performance to ensure compliance with applicable legislation and regulations. Ongoing 49) New Language: Greater transparency; requested by the Ministry of Environment (d) Operating performance will continue to be reported on a regular and timely basis and will also be available on the Metro Vancouver web site. Ongoing

SDD-144


50) New Language: Strengthens the commitment to achieving the highest environmental performance standards; responding to comments from the Ministry of Environment and the public.

(e) The waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby will comply with applicable legislation and operating contracts may include penalties for any violations of performance criteria. 3.1.2 Expand the use of waste-to-energy within the region. 2015 51) New Language: To clarify meaning of waste-to-energy and commitment to transparent

evaluation, including public health, of all options; response to submission from Health Authorities.

Waste-to-energy means any process that converts waste material to energy and heat, including the production of fuel which is subsequently combusted for these purposes. All options will be considered and evaluated fairly and transparently including a public health cost/benefit lens. For the purpose of assessment, waste-to-energy may include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• targeted incineration • industrial use of refuse derived fuel • gasification/pyrolysis • anaerobic digestion • a combination of technologies

(a) Establish up to 500,000 tonnes per year of new waste-to-energy capacity within the region in one or more facilities. (b) Ensure implementation of new waste-to-energy capacity maximizes energy recovery for use in district heating, production of alternative fuels, industrial applications and electricity generation. (c) Monitor trends in waste reduction, recycling and waste flows and implement additional waste-to-energy capacity if, and only if, justified on the basis of these trends. (d) Scale any additional waste-to-energy capacity so that total waste-to-energy capacity in the region does not exceed the most probable minimum waste flow projected over the economic life of those facilities. 52) New Language: Strengthens the commitment to achieving the highest environmental

performance standards; responding to comments from the Ministry of Environment and the public.

(e) Operating performance will be reported on a regular and timely basis and will also be available on the Metro Vancouver web site. Any new waste-to-energy facility will comply with applicable legislation and operating contracts may include penalties for any violations of performance criteria. (e) Monitor the waste-to-energy facility(ies) to ensure compliance.

SDD-145


3.1.3 Locate new waste-to-energy capacity within the Region on the basis of: site availability; suitability of site for providing district heating from recovered energy; potential for site to optimize network of transfer stations; results of local screening level impact assessment and triple bottom line analysis; and results of community consultation process for each potential site. 3.1.4 Ensure that new waste-to-energy facilities within the region are designed to maximize the environmental, financial and social benefits of facilities. (a) Evaluate cost/benefits of proposed new facilities over their lifetime, including construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance, future retrofits and decommissioning impacts, and ownership structure. 53) Amended Language: Includes a commitment to human health risk assessment; response

to submission by Health Authorities. (b) Conduct an environmental impact assessment of a waste-to-energy facility(ies), based on applicable provincial and federal government requirements, including an assessment of human health risk acceptable to the applicable health authority. (b) Conduct an environmental impact assessment of a waste-to-energy facility(ies), based on applicable provincial and federal government requirements. (c) Evaluation criteria will include: cost; use of best available commercial technology; air emission and health impacts; GHG emissions; alignment with sustainability principles; electricity, district heating and alternative fuel production; beneficial use of ash; metals recovery; potential local job creation; and opportunities for research and education. 3.1.5 If expanded use of waste-to-energy within the region is not possible then establish waste-to-energy capacity outside the region. (a) Establish up to 500,000 tonnes per year of new waste-to-energy capacity outside the Region. (b) Ensure implementation of new waste-to-energy capacity maximizes energy recovery for use in district heating, production of alternative fuels, industrial applications and electricity generation. (c) Monitor trends in waste reduction, recycling and waste flows and implement additional waste-to-energy capacity if, and only if, justified on the basis of these trends. (d) Scale any additional waste-to-energy capacity so that total waste-to-energy capacity does not exceed the most probable minimum waste flow projected over the economic life of those facilities. (e) Monitor the waste-to-energy facility(ies) to ensure compliance. 3.1.6 Locate new waste-to-energy capacity outside the Region on the basis of: site availability; suitability of site for maximum energy recovery; results of local screening level impact assessment and triple bottom line analysis; and the results of community consultation for

SDD-146


each potential site. 3.1.7 Ensure that new waste-to-energy facilities outside the region are designed to maximize the environmental, financial and social benefits of facilities. (a) Evaluate cost/benefits of proposed new facilities over their lifetime, including construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance, future retrofits and decommissioning impacts. 54) Amended Language: Includes a commitment to human health risk assessment; response

to submission by Health Authorities. (b) Conduct an environmental impact assessment of a waste-to-energy facility(ies), based on applicable provincial and federal government requirements, including an assessment of human health risk acceptable to the applicable health authority. (b) Conduct an environmental impact assessment of the waste-to-energy facility(ies), based on applicable provincial and federal government requirements. (c) Evaluation criteria will include: use of best available commercial technology; emissions outperform applicable environmental standards; alignment with sustainability principles; electricity, district heating and alternative fuel production; beneficial use of ash; metals recovery; potential local job creation; and opportunities for research and education. 3.1.8 Recover metals, ash or other residues from new and existing waste-to-energy facilities for beneficial use Ongoing . (a) Work with regulatory agencies to identify and remove barriers to beneficial use of ash. (b) Maximize metal recovery from the waste stream after recycling.. (c) Process bottom and fly ash to generate products for beneficial use. (d) Use processed bottom and fly ash beneficially for highest value applications available. (e) If beneficial use of a residue is not reasonably available, dispose of the residue in accordance with applicable legislation. 3.1.9 Recover energy from regional utility materials that cannot be recycled, including liquid waste and water utilities. Ongoing (a) Recover energy from drinking water treatment processes, such organic filter media that cannot be recycled. (b) Use waste-to-energy to process grit and screenings from wastewater treatment for beneficial uses, where appropriate. (c) Use reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants in waste-to-energy steam generation or district heating, if viable.

SDD-147


STRATEGY 3.2 Recover energy from other solid waste management facilities Valuable methane in landfill gas will be captured and used to generate clean electricity or heat. MUNICIPALITIES (CITY OF VANCOUVER) WILL: 3.2.1 Recover landfill gas from Vancouver Landfill and strive to maximize the beneficial use of the recovered gas. Ongoing STRATEGY 3.3 Utilize non-recyclable material as fuel Some materials cannot be recycled. However, such materials can provide a valuable source of fuel, replacing virgin fossil fuels. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 3.3.1 Direct recoverable loads of combustible material received at transfer stations to public or private energy recovery facilities. 2012 55) Deletion: Action moved to Strategy 2.7 3.3.2 Ban wood from landfill disposal. 2012 MUNICIPALITIES (CITY OF VANCOUVER) WILL: 3.3.2 Collaborate with Metro Vancouver in ensuring action 3.3.1 is carried out at solid waste management facilities operated by the City of Vancouver. 2012 ACTIONS REQUESTED OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES: 3.3.3 Provincial Government to develop material and energy requirements for existing and future stewardship programs to use the non-recyclable portion of returned material as fuel rather than landfilling. 2012

SDD-148


Goal 4: Dispose of All Remaining Waste in Landfill, after Material Recycling and Energy Recovery STRATEGY 4.1 Utilize the Vancouver Landfill as a disposal site Waste will remain after recycling and energy recovery. Additionally, as a result of ensuring that waste-to-energy facilities are sized to be compatible with waste reduction and diversion objectives, there will be residual (post recycling) waste flows which exceed the aggregate capacity of the region’s waste-to-energy facilities. Such waste must be disposed of in an environmentally sound and economically efficient manner. The Vancouver Landfill provides a local solution for remaining waste. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 56) Deletion: Change recognizes requirement of the Environmental Management Act that the

Plan has precedence over other instruments. 4.1.1 Use the Vancouver Landfill to dispose of any remaining waste not directed to waste-to-energy facilities. Ongoing 4.1.1 Use the Vancouver Landfill to dispose of any remaining waste not directed to waste-to-energy facilities, subject to any fixed limits identified in the Operational Certificate of the landfill, related contracts, agreements between Vancouver, Delta, and Metro Vancouver and regulations. 57) New language: future flow reductions to the Vancouver Landfill; input from Corporation of

Delta. (a) Metro Vancouver will work with the City of Vancouver and Corporation of Delta to reduce the quantity of waste going to the Vancouver Landfill to a maximum of 100,000 tonnes annually, exclusive of waste-to-energy residuals, by 2020. Should these reductions not be achieved because overall waste flows exceed the combined capacity of disposal options, Metro Vancouver will evaluate cost effective alternatives and if appropriate seek an amendment to this plan to expand waste-to-energy capacity to further reduce waste flows to the Vancouver Landfill. (b) Monitor the Vancouver Landfill to ensure compliance. 4.1.2 Report annually on the remaining capacity of the waste management system and prior to the closure of Vancouver Landfill, reassess the region’s waste-to-energy and disposal options. Ongoing MUNICIPALITIES (CITY OF VANCOUVER AND THE CORPORATION OF DELTA) WILL: 58) Deletion: Change recognizes requirement of the Environmental Management Act that the

Plan has precedence over other instruments.

SDD-149


4.1.3 Work with Metro Vancouver to accommodate residual waste flows at the Vancouver Landfill. 4.1.3. Work with Metro Vancouver to accommodate residual waste flows at the Vancouver Landfill subject to any fixed limits identified in the Operational Certificate of the landfill, related contracts, agreements and regulations Ongoing 4.1.4 Where limits in the Operational Certificate, contracts, agreements and regulations appear to conflict with the Plan, review the particular provisions in good faith with the Province, Metro Vancouver and any other involved party to determine if there is a solution acceptable to all affected parties. Ongoing STRATEGY 4.2 Ensure a disposal site is available for DLC waste Notwithstanding efforts to increase recycling, local public and private disposal sites for DLC waste are expected to reach their capacity in the near future. Collaboration with local and out-of-region stakeholders is necessary to anticipate DLC waste flows and identify future disposal sites. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 4.2.1 Assess long-term disposal of demolition, landclearing, and construction (DLC) waste remaining after recycling in collaboration with the private sector, neighbouring regional districts and First Nations communities. Ongoing 4.2.2 Identify disposal sites for DLC waste remaining after recycling that will be available when existing disposal facilities reach their capacity. Ongoing STRATEGY 4.3 Establish contingency disposal sites During the implementation of, or, following the implementation of Goal 3, if waste-to-energy capacity and/or local landfill capacity do not provide adequate disposal capacity, Metro Vancouver will need to use out-of-region landfill(s) for disposing of non-recyclable waste. METRO VANCOUVER WILL: 4.3.1 Ensure adequate landfill capacity for: (a) non-combustible and non-recyclable material; and (b) municipal solid waste in excess of waste-to-energy and in-region landfill capacity (including allowances for variability in waste flows and short term operational disruption), and non-recyclable ash. Ongoing as required 4.3.2. If sufficient waste-to-energy or in-region landfill capacity is not available, this plan explicitly permits Metro Vancouver to seek through an appropriate procurement process the best available out-of-region landfill(s) for the disposal of remaining waste, subject to that facility having appropriate permits, from the local permitting jurisdiction in which it is located, to accept such waste. Ongoing as required

SDD-150


(a) Categories of evaluation for a contingency landfill will include, but not necessarily be limited to cost, air emissions, GHG emissions, energy benefit and, where appropriate, completion of a satisfactory human health impact assessment. (b) Monitor contingency disposal site(s) for performance and compliance. Ongoing

SDD-151


Performance Measures and Adaptive Management Performance Measures Metro Vancouver will develop a waste accounting system for the entire solid waste management system, identifying the quantities generated, recycled, composted, used for energy recovery, and disposed in landfill. Comparison of per capita disposal values will provide the most accurate assessment of progress of the plan. The following performance measures will monitor progress in achieving the specific goals. Performance should be considered in the context of 2008 waste management data. Performance Measures for each goal are: Goal 1: Minimize Waste Generation

• Waste generation per capita tracked year-over-year and on a rolling five year basis.

59) Amended Wording: Introduced tracking by sector; in response to municipal input • Waste generation quantities for all sectors tracked year-over-year and on a rolling five year

basis. • Waste generation per capita for residential and commercial waste tracked year-over-year

and on a rolling five year basis

• Increase of product stewardship initiatives by senior governments to more than two initiatives every three years.

• Monitor performance of EPR programs to ensure shift in responsibility from public to private sector achieves a reduction in total waste generated.

Goal 2: Maximize Reuse, Recycling and Material Recovery

• Overall diversion rate tracked year-over-year

• Diversion rate per-capita tracked year-over-year 60) New language: waste disposal per-capita added; recommendation of Reference Panel

• Waste disposed per-capita tracked year-over-year

• Tracking of material recycling tonnage • Monitor performance of EPR programs to ensure shift in responsibility from public to

private sector achieves an increase in materials reused, recycled, and recovered

SDD-152


Goal 3: Recover Energy from the Waste Stream After Material Recycling

• Energy outputs from solid waste and its beneficial use tracked year-over-year

• Energy outputs recovered from materials that cannot be recycled through recycling efforts and stewardship programs

• Greenhouse gas production tracked year-over-year Goal 4: Dispose of all Remaining Waste in Landfill, after Material Recycling and energy Recovery

• Quantity of treated and untreated waste per capita going to landfill is tracked year-over-year

In addition, Metro Vancouver will carry out periodic waste composition audits. 61) Section relocated: Adaptive Management section relocated from Goal 4 as it applies to all

goals; recommendation of Reference Panel Adaptive Management A key feature of the plan is adaptive management – monitoring progress, identifying challenges, and finding solutions to overcome challenges. Through monitoring, assessment, and collaboration, Metro Vancouver and its members will continue to adapt and evolve their solid waste management operations and infrastructure and create more resilient and adaptable systems. Adaptive management will include the following initiatives:

• In the event of circumstances such as an operational disruption or closure at a facility identified in the Plan, the region will be prepared to send surplus waste to an out-of– region landfill until sufficient processing or disposal capacity becomes available in the region Permitted landfill(s) will be selected based on: (a) ability to provide service on a short term or interim basis (b) sustainability principles

• Continue to assess the success of initiatives outlined in the Plan against the overall trends in waste generation and the performance of waste-to-energy facilities to determine the need for an emphasis of future resource allocations to the various strategies and actions.

• Continue to receive advice from the Waste Management Committee.

• In collaboration with municipalities, biennially produce a progress report on plan implementation for distribution to the Ministry of Environment that: (a) summarizes progress from the previous two years on regional and municipal plan implementation, the status of performance measures, and relevant education and outreach programs.

SDD-153


(b) includes summaries and budget estimates for proposed Metro Vancouver and municipal ISWRMP implementation programs for the subsequent two calendar years.

• Will obtain public feedback on the report by making the report available through Metro Vancouver’s website and by holding a special meeting of the Metro Vancouver Waste Management Committee to receive public comments and input on the report.

• In collaboration with members and the Ministry of Environment, produce an ISWRMP progress report every two years, a comprehensive performance review every five years, and a full plan review and update every ten years.

• Municipalities will work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to the adaptive management initiatives.

SDD-154


Financial Implications Roles and Responsibilities Solid waste management services are provided for the region collaboratively by Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and the private sector While the roles of each party may overlap, primary roles for recycling include: Metro Vancouver establishes policy for waste diversion initiatives, member municipalities implement recycling programs including collection within their municipalities, and the private sector provides collection services, manages material brokerage and physical recycling of materials including provision of infrastructure for recycling facilities. Responsibilities for disposal of the remaining solid waste includes: Metro Vancouver establishes policy for waste disposal, and manages infrastructure and operations of transfer and disposal facilities; member municipalities manage solid waste collection services; and the private sector may provide services for collection, and operation of transfer and disposal facilities The main exception to these roles is the ownership and operation of the Vancouver Transfer Station and Landfill by the City of Vancouver. Cost of Solid Waste Management Funding for material recycling is provided by residents and businesses through one of two Mechanisms. Materials with no associated industry stewardship program, such as paper, are funded from businesses and residents to recycling collectors (municipalities, or private sector contractors) either through municipal taxes or through direct contracts with collectors. Materials covered by Extended Producer Responsibility programs, such as beverage containers, are typically funded through deposits paid by consumers to the industry association which then carries responsibility for collection and recycling of the materials. As outlined in Table 1, within Metro Vancouver, net expenditures associated with recycling activities is currently estimated to be $190 million annually. This reflects the cost paid to contractors for collection, transportation, and processing of recyclable materials. Following implementation of actions within this Plan, regional recycling net expenditures are projected to increase by 42% to $270 million annually – an increase of $80 million each year. The increase in economic activity will result in a corresponding increase in the diversion rate from 55% to 70% - a 27% increase. The cost increase of 42% producing a 27% increase in recycling reflects diminishing returns with respect to recycling materials with lower value, or more expensive processes and infrastructure. This trend of diminishing returns is anticipated to continue as the 70% diversion target is approached since the remaining materials become more challenging and costly to recycle.

SDD-155


TABLE 1 REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT – NET EXPENDITURES 35 Year Net Cost

($ billion)

Annual Net Cost ($ million)

Per Capita Cost ($)

Total Current SWMP $20 $550 $247 Total Proposed ISWRMP $18 $490 $220 Difference ($2) ($60) ($27) Current Recycling (55%) $7 $190 $85 Proposed Recycling (70%) $10 $270 $121 Difference $3 $80 $36 Current Disposal $13 $360 $162 Proposed Disposal $8 $220 $99 Difference ($5) ($140) ($63) Funding for management of the materials remaining after recycling is provided by residents and businesses to solid waste collectors (municipalities or private sector contractors) either through municipal taxes or through direct contracts with the private sector collectors. Within Metro Vancouver, net expenditures associated with solid waste disposal are currently estimated to be $360 million annually. This reflects the cost for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste remaining after recycling Following implementation of actions within this Plan, regional solid waste disposal net expenditures are projected to decrease by 39% to $220 million annually – a decrease of $140 million each year. This decrease is due to the reduction in waste quantities, and increased revenues from energy recovery through actions outlined in Goal 3 of the Plan. The system costs for both recycling and disposal are also expressed in Table 1 on a per-capita basis The per-capita cost for recycling will be higher than disposal, reflecting the greater quantities of recyclable materials. However, pricing will be established to ensure a financial incentive to encourage recycling and waste diversion. The costs identified in Table 1 reflect expenditures based upon the actions identified in the Plan which includes additional waste-to-energy capacity provided within the region. Alternately, if waste-to-energy capacity is provided out-of-region, net costs are anticipated to increase by $1 5 billion dollars over 35 years, or, $43 million annually. Similarly, if out-of-region landfill capacity is pursued, net costs are anticipated to increase by $1 5 billion over the same time frame, or $43 million annually compared to the proposed plan It is expected that the cost to export waste to the U.S. would be similar to those presented for out-of-region landfill. While Table 1 identifies the net regional expenditures on waste management, it does not account for the regional economy associated with recycling and disposal. There is considerable economic activity that takes place in the process of recycling the collected materials into new goods as an alternative to virgin feedstocks. Although difficult to estimate, the economy associated with remanufacturing recycled materials into new products exceeds the costs for collection, transportation and processing. Net expenditures associated with disposal more closely reflect the entire disposal economy since there is little economic activity that occurs following disposal. While

SDD-156


this Plan places much greater emphasis on waste reduction and recycling, and shifts regional net expenditures in alignment with this emphasis, there is an even greater shift in the overall regional economy from disposal to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, the regional economy for waste reduction and recycling far exceeds that for waste disposal and therefore is reflective of the priority placed upon waste reduction, reuse and recycling as outlined in this plan. Pricing Strategies The costs of operating the integrated solid waste and resource recovery system, including initiatives to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling, will be funded from revenues from users of the system (principally the tipping fee) and from revenues from recovered resources (recycled materials and recovered energy). Residents and businesses will have an economic incentive to invest in waste diversion initiatives, arising primarily from the difference between the cost of recycling and the tipping fee for waste disposal at public facilities. The regional tipping fee will continue to be set at a rate to recover Metro Vancouver’s cost to manage the solid waste system. The tipping fee for many recyclable materials will be reduced or waived at regional facilities to encourage participation. By utilizing this economic incentive of reducing or waiving the tipping fee for recyclable materials, positive behaviour will be encouraged thereby driving an increase in the material diverted from the disposal stream and helping to achieve the 70 percent diversion target. Pricing will be established so that the most expensive choice for residents and businesses will be to place materials in garbage cans and dumpsters for disposal. Ownership and Financing There are options to be considered for facility ownership and the related business model for all new facilities contemplated in this Plan. Currently, the existing waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby is owned by Metro Vancouver and operated by a contractor under a long-term operating agreement. The benefits of facility ownership include the accrual to Metro Vancouver of debt reduction once debt has been fully serviced, full control of all upgrades associated with the facility, no need for put-or-pay contracts, the ability to fully maximize revenues to offset costs, the control of all indirect costs including royalty payments, the control and negotiation of all operating certificates and the ability to further minimize cost by not requiring a profit margin. The consideration of the benefits of ownership was paramount when the decision was made in 2000 by the Board to purchase the Ashcroft Ranch and pursue the development of a Metro Vancouver owned landfill. In selecting the ownership and business model for new facilities Metro Vancouver will choose the option that results in the best available financial position for the residents and businesses of the region. Where capital needs to be raised and debt financed, the least expensive alternative is Metro Vancouver ownership with financing provided through the Municipal Finance Authority. In addition to this financing structure, Metro Vancouver will explore other structures including Public Private Partnerships (3P) on a facility specific basis, where capital financing may be provided by the private sector partner. As the outcomes of this plan contribute to the achievement of provincial and federal environmental and energy goals, and as regional and municipal financial resources are limited, and as public investment in the actions set out in this plan will assist in achieving the goals of this plan and are in the public interest, financial support from provincial and federal sources will be sought to implement waste diversion programs and develop facilities identified in the Plan.

SDD-157


Financial Details Direct expenditures by Metro Vancouver and member municipalities for Goals 1 and 2 of the draft Plan are estimated to cost $170 million in one-time capital costs, and $40 million in annual operating costs. Significant initiatives provided through these expenditures (action number provided for reference) include: establish and progressively expand a network of eco-centres (2.2. 4.); divert organics from the waste stream through separated collection from residential and industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, and establishing one or more organics processing facilities (2.6.2., 2.6.3.); provide information and education including social marketing programs (1.2.1., 1.3.1., 1.3.2., 1.3.3., 2.2.2., 2.2.5., 2.2.6., 2.2.7., 2.5.2., 2.5.3., 2.6.2., 2.6.3., 2.7.1.); regionally mandate DLC recycling at jobsites (2.4.4.); and regionally mandate recycling in all multifamily and commercial buildings (2.9.1., 2.9.2.). Expenditures for actions identified in Goals 1 and 2 will be funded through tipping fees received for waste disposal and from revenues associated with actions. For example, expenditures for eco-centres will be partially offset by compensation from industry stewards for EPR material collection at the eco-centres and from private sector partners operating at eco-centres Revenue from compost or energy sales at organics processing facilities will offset the costs associated with operating these proposed facilities. Direct expenditures by Metro Vancouver and member municipalities for Goals 3 and 4 of the draft Plan are dependent upon the financing and ownership structure for new facilities If new disposal facilities are provided by and owned by Metro Vancouver, costs for Goals 3 and 4 are estimated to be $440 million in one-time capital costs. Annual operating costs are projected to be approximately $15 million lower than current costs under this financing and ownership structure, tipping fees for waste disposal will increase initially during the 15 year amortization period. Following debt retirement, net expenditures will decrease considerably reflecting the revenue from new waste-to-energy capacity and no debt repayment costs. Over a 30 year operating period, total revenues for new waste-to-energy facilities are projected to exceed the total expenditures resulting in a net revenue. Profit will continue to increase each subsequent year as revenues are accrued in the absence of any capital repayment costs. This is favourable over a 30 year operating period when compared to a $3.1 billion expenditure for an option emphasizing mechanical biological- treatment processing or a $1.5 billion expenditure for an option emphasizing landfilling. Provision of waste-to-energy capacity is estimated on the basis of a single new facility providing 500,000 tonnes capacity annually. Distributed systems of waste-to-energy using several smaller facilities will provide social and environmental benefits in the form of additional facilities and the corresponding increased convenience to customers, and reduced emissions and congestion from transportation of waste from regional transfer stations. Financially, a distributed system would reduce the need for transfer stations and associated costs, but would also reduce economies of scale provided by a larger capacity facility and result in higher costs. If new waste-to-energy facilities are owned and financed by the private sector, costs for Goals 3 and 4 may be recovered over a longer time frame and the regional tipping fees could increase gradually over time due to inflated contract costs. Over a 30 year operating period, privately owned facilities could cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than public ownership if increasing energy revenues accrue to the private sector owner. Accordingly, Metro Vancouver will pursue the ownership and financing model that is in the best interest of member municipalities, residents, and businesses within the region.

SDD-158


APPENDIX A

LONG TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY IN BURNABY

This Appendix outlines the long term monitoring requirement for Metro Vancouver’s Waste-to-Energy Facility in Burnaby as originally outlined in Metro Vancouver’s (formerly Greater Vancouver Regional District) 1995 Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). 1.0 Air Discharge Limits and Monitoring Methods Where applicable, all contaminant concentrations are stated at standard conditions of 293 K, 101.3 kilopascals (1 atmosphere), corrected to 11 % oxygen and dry basis unless otherwise noted. Discharge specifications apply to each incinerator unit separately. A continuous time-shared analyzing system is used for monitoring emissions from all three incineration units. 1.1 Opacity Opacity shall not exceed 5% based on 1-hour averaging of continuous monitoring. 1.2 Particulate Matter Particulate matter from each incinerator stack shall not exceed 20 mg/m3 based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager. 1.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide emissions shall not exceed 55 mg/m3 for steady state incinerator operation based on a 4-hour rolling average of continuous monitoring. 1.4 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Sulphur dioxide emissions shall not exceed 200 mg/m3 based on a 24-hour average of continuous monitoring. This shall be verified by manual stack testing. 1.5 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) The GVRD will implement a NOx reduction strategy by July 1996 as required by the BC Ministry of Environment to meet or exceed the BC MSW Criteria limit of 350 mg/m3, expressed as NO2 on a 24-hour average of continuous monitoring. 1.6 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Hydrogen chloride emissions shall not exceed 55 mg/m3 (wet basis), based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager. Continuous monitoring of SO2 shall be used as a surrogate for emission monitoring of acid gases, such as HCl and HF. Continuous monitoring of HCl (using a 24 hour average) shall be conducted for reporting purposes until the end of the useful life of the HCl analyzer. 1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Hydrogen fluoride emissions shall not exceed 3 mg/m3 based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager. 1.8 Total Hydrocarbons (THC)

SDD-159


Total hydrocarbon emissions (measured as methane, CH4) shall not exceed 40 mg/m3 based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager. Continuous monitoring of carbon monoxide emissions shall be used as a surrogate indicator to monitor combustion efficiencies and the discharge of combustibles, such as total hydrocarbons. 1.9 Trace Metals Trace metal emissions shall not exceed the following limits based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager: METALS LIMIT Total of Cadmium, Mercury, and Thallium 200 μg/m3 Total of Arsenic, Cobalt, Nickel, Selenium, and Tellurium 1000 μg/m3 Total of Antimony, Lead, Chromium, Copper, Manganese, Vanadium and Zinc 5000 μg/m3 Mercury 200 μg/m3 Cadmium 100 μg/m3 Lead 50 μg/m3 Continuous monitoring of opacity shall be used as a surrogate indicator for trace metal discharges. 1.10 Trace Organics Trace organic emissions shall not exceed 0.5 ng/m3 for the sum of PCDD and PCDF as toxicity equivalents, and 5 μg/m3 for polyaromatic hydrocarbons based on manual stack testing methods approved by the Regional Waste Manager. Frequency of manual stack testing shall be as required by the Regional Waste Manager. 1.11 Frequency of Manual Stack Testing Manual stack testing for trace organics shall be performed as required by the Regional Waste Manager. HF and THC testing shall be conducted annually. SO2, HCl, particulates and trace metals shall be conducted three times in both 1995 and 1996. If the results of these tests are satisfactory, frequency will be reduced to annual testing. 2.0 Additional Monitoring and Reporting 2.1 Furnace Temperature Furnace reference temperature for each incinerator unit shall be monitored and reported with a minimum of 800oC based on a 1-hour averaging time during normal operating conditions. 2.2 Emission Control Device Temperature Emission control device temperature shall not exceed a temperature of 190oC based on a 1-hour averaging time. 2.3 Monitoring of Oxygen Oxygen shall be continuously monitored and reported as a percentage of stack gas on a 1-hour averaging basis. 2.4 Flowrate and Operating Period The flue gas flow rate for each incinerator unit shall not exceed 1200 m3/minute for a continuous operating period.

SDD-160


2.5 Availability The monthly availability of the SO2 continuous monitor shall be at least 90%. Opacity, oxygen, carbon monoxide, reference furnace temperature, and emission control device outlet temperature shall have a monthly availability of at least 95%. The Regional Waste Manager shall be notified of any continuous monitor failure for a period which may result in non-attainment of the recommended availability. If immediate corrective action was taken to return the monitor to service, compliance shall be granted providing the District can supply evidence (operating and emission data) indicating that the facility was in normal continuous operation. 2.7 Monthly Reporting Monthly reports shall include compliance summaries for all parameters with specified limits. Tabulated hourly averaged data and data based on required averaging periods of all continuously monitored parameters, including availability and data capture information, shall be available for inspection but not included in the monthly report. Raw data shall be maintained and available for inspection at the incinerator site for a minimum period of two years. 2.8 Annual Reporting An annual report shall be provided within 90 days following the end of the calendar year. The report shall consolidate and summarize the monthly data as well as briefly summarize the topics itemized in Section 6.3 of the BC MSW Criteria. 2.9 Start-up, Shutdown and Upset Conditions During start-up, shutdown, equipment malfunction and operating upsets requiring shutdown (i.e. ash discharge or feed chute plugging), emission data recorded by the CEMS shall be excluded from the regulatory emission averaging calculations. When required, the time, duration, and reason for an occurrence during transient conditions shall be reported to the Ministry. The corrective action taken by the operator in attempting to return the operation to steady-state conditions shall be included in the report. 4200936

SDD-161


SDD-162

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Goa

l 1

Min

imiz

e W

aste

Gen

erat

ion

Task

By

Tim

elin

eIm

plic

atio

ns

(add

ition

al c

ost a

nd re

sour

ces

to c

urre

nt le

vel)

Stra

tegy

1.1

A

dvoc

ate

that

sen

ior g

over

nmen

ts tr

ansf

er a

dditi

onal

was

te m

anag

emen

t re

spon

sibi

litie

s to

pro

duce

rs a

nd c

onsu

mer

s

1.1.

1

Adv

ocat

e th

at s

enio

r gov

ernm

ents

pro

gres

sive

ly m

ove

tow

ards

the

proh

ibiti

on o

f the

man

ufac

ture

and

di

strib

utio

n of

non

-ess

entia

l, no

n-re

cycl

able

mat

eria

ls a

nd p

rodu

cts.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

1.1.

2

Adv

ocat

e th

at s

enio

r gov

ernm

ents

pro

hibi

t the

man

ufac

ture

and

dis

tribu

tion

of n

on-r

ecyc

labl

e pa

ckag

ing.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

1.1.

3

Stro

ngly

adv

ocat

e fo

r EP

R p

rogr

ams

to re

duce

was

te d

ispo

sal t

hrou

gh im

plem

enta

tion

of d

esig

n-fo

r-en

viro

nmen

t prin

cipl

es, a

nd b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es th

at fo

cus

on w

aste

redu

ctio

n, re

use,

and

recy

clin

g. O

ffer

staf

fing

supp

ort f

or a

nd p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith M

inis

try o

f Env

ironm

ent t

o he

lp a

ccel

erat

e E

PR

.M

etro

Van

couv

er

2011

1.1.

4

Wor

k w

ith o

ther

mun

icip

aliti

es a

nd re

gion

s ac

ross

BC

, Can

ada,

and

inte

rnat

iona

lly, t

o ad

voca

te fo

r mor

e de

velo

pmen

t by

seni

or g

over

nmen

ts in

enc

oura

ging

and

dev

elop

ing

ince

ntiv

es, i

nclu

ding

regu

latio

n, th

at p

rom

ote

desi

g nof

pro

duct

s w

ith a

n em

phas

is o

n re

use

and

recy

clin

g (c

radl

e-to

-cra

dle

desi

gn).

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

1.1.

5

Par

ticip

ate

on F

eder

al E

PR

initi

ativ

es s

uch

as th

e C

anad

ian

Cou

ncil

of M

inis

ters

of E

nviro

nmen

t (C

CM

E)

Ext

ende

d P

rodu

cer R

espo

nsib

ility

Tas

k Fo

rce,

to d

evel

op n

atio

nal g

uide

lines

for s

usta

inab

le p

acka

ging

.M

etro

Van

covu

erO

n-go

ing

1.1.

6

Par

ticip

ate

on in

dust

ry s

tew

ards

hip

advi

sory

com

mitt

ees.

Met

ro V

anco

vuer

On-

goin

g

1.1.

7

Par

ticip

ate

on th

e B

C P

rodu

ct S

tew

ards

hip

Cou

ncil

to a

ssis

t in

eval

uatin

g ex

istin

g an

d de

velo

ping

new

EP

R

prog

ram

sM

etro

Van

covu

erO

n-go

ing

1.1.

8

Was

te p

roje

ctio

ns w

ill c

onsi

der f

utur

e tre

nds

in p

opul

atio

n, g

ener

atio

n, a

nd m

anag

emen

t, in

clud

ing

EP

R.

Met

ro V

anco

vuer

On-

goin

g

1.1.

9

Par

tner

with

Met

ro V

anco

uver

in s

uppo

rt of

act

ions

1.1

.1 th

roug

h 1.

1.7

Mun

icip

aliti

es20

11 a

nd

ongo

ing

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

50,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$20,

000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

1.1.

10

Min

istry

of E

nviro

nmen

t to

acce

lera

te E

PR

pro

gram

dev

elop

men

t and

impl

emen

tatio

nO

ther

Gov

ernm

ents

an

d A

genc

ies

2010

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

1.0

FTE

1.1.

11

Inc

lude

Met

ro V

anco

uver

and

its

mem

ber m

unic

ipal

ities

in th

e ne

gotia

tions

with

pro

duce

rs re

gard

ing

futu

re

EP

R p

rogr

ams

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ppro

pria

te c

onsi

dera

tion

is g

iven

to th

e ex

istin

g co

nven

ient

cur

b-si

de c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

sO

ther

Gov

ernm

ents

an

d A

genc

ies

2010

1.1.

12

Ens

ure

that

the

was

te re

cove

red

unde

r EP

R p

rogr

ams

will

be

prop

erly

man

aged

in th

e re

gion

and

that

suc

h m

ater

ials

will

not

be

expo

rted

with

out a

dequ

ate

know

ledg

e of

and

con

trol o

ver i

ts e

vent

ual d

ispo

sitio

nO

ther

Gov

ernm

ents

an

d A

genc

ies

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

1 of

15

SDD-163

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Stra

tegy

1.2

R

educ

e or

elim

inat

e m

ater

ials

ent

erin

g th

e so

lid w

aste

sys

tem

whi

ch h

inde

r or

limit

the

oppo

rtun

ities

to a

chie

ve re

use,

recy

clin

g, o

r ene

rgy

reco

very

, or t

hat m

ay e

xace

rbat

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

cts

of d

ispo

sed

resi

dual

s

1.2.

1

Wor

k w

ith fa

cilit

y op

erat

ors,

loca

l mun

icip

aliti

es a

nd th

e re

cycl

ing

indu

stry

to in

trodu

ce m

ater

ial b

ans

afte

r al

tern

ativ

es a

re id

entif

ied

and

suita

ble

publ

ic in

form

atio

n pr

ogra

ms.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

$

30,0

00

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

20,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$10,

000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

Stra

tegy

1.3

P

rovi

de in

form

atio

n an

d ed

ucat

ion

on o

ptio

ns to

redu

ce w

aste

1.3.

1

Dev

elop

and

del

iver

a c

omm

unity

soc

ial m

arke

ting

base

d pr

ogra

m to

info

rm a

nd e

duca

te c

itize

ns o

n w

aste

re

duct

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties.

(a) T

arge

t a m

inim

um o

f 70%

div

ersi

on g

oal b

y 20

15 o

ver a

ll se

ctor

s an

d an

asp

iratio

nal g

oal o

f 80%

by

2025

. –

feat

ure

in c

omm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

1.3.

2

Dev

elop

and

del

iver

a c

omm

unity

bas

ed s

ocia

l mar

ketin

g bu

sine

ss e

duca

tion

plan

, inc

ludi

ng b

usin

ess

guid

es

and

othe

r out

reac

h pr

ogra

ms

to in

form

and

edu

cate

bus

ines

ses

on w

aste

redu

ctio

n op

portu

nitie

s.

M

etro

Van

couv

er20

11

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$25

,000

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

$150

,000

& 0

.5 F

TE

1.3.

3

Dev

elop

a n

atio

nal z

ero

was

te m

arke

ting

coun

cil s

o th

at c

ities

acr

oss

Can

ada

can

pool

reso

urce

s an

d de

velo

p co

mm

on m

essa

ging

, with

nat

iona

l im

pact

, on

the

need

to re

duce

was

te, r

esul

ting

in in

form

ed a

nd e

duca

ted

citiz

ens

acro

ss C

anad

a on

was

te re

duct

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

1.3.

4

Par

tner

with

and

ass

ist M

etro

Van

couv

er in

the

deve

lopm

ent a

nd d

eliv

ery

of p

ublic

and

bus

ines

s in

form

atio

n an

d ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

s.M

unic

ipal

ities

On-

goin

g

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

30,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$240

,00

& 0

FTE

- 1.

0 FT

E

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$22

5,00

0M

etro

Van

couv

er /

year

:

$4

00,0

00 &

1.0

FTE

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

2 of

15

SDD-164

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Goa

l 2

Max

imiz

e R

euse

, Rec

yclin

g an

d M

ater

ial R

ecov

ery

Task

By

Tim

elin

eIm

plic

atio

ns

(add

ition

al c

ost a

nd re

sour

ces

to c

urre

nt le

vel)

Stra

tegy

2.1

I

ncre

ase

the

oppo

rtun

ities

for r

euse

2.1.

1

Inv

estig

ate

finan

cial

and

regu

lato

ry b

arrie

rs w

hich

pre

vent

or d

isco

urag

e th

e re

use

of m

ater

ials

.M

etro

Van

couv

er20

11

2.1.

2

Inve

stig

ate

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s an

d ad

equa

cy o

f exi

stin

g m

ater

ial e

xcha

nge

netw

orks

.M

etro

Van

couv

er20

11

2.1.

3

Brin

g fo

rwar

d ap

prop

riate

mea

sure

s w

hich

resp

ond

to th

e fin

ding

s of

2.1

.1 a

nd 2

.1.2

. M

etro

Van

couv

er20

10

2.1.

4

Enh

ance

par

tner

ship

s w

ith th

e P

rovi

nce,

indu

stry

, aca

dem

ia a

nd c

omm

unity

gro

ups

to re

sear

ch a

nd d

evel

op

solu

tions

to o

verc

ome

barr

iers

to re

use

and

recy

clin

g an

d ne

w o

ppor

tuni

ties

to re

-eng

inee

r rec

ycle

d m

ater

ial

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2010

2.1.

5 W

ork

with

Met

ro V

anco

uver

to g

ive

effe

ct to

Stra

tegy

2.1

Mun

icip

aliti

esO

n-go

ing

Stra

tegy

2.2

I

ncre

ase

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

exi

stin

g re

cycl

ing

prog

ram

s

2.2.

1

Im

plem

ent d

ispo

sal b

ans

on m

ater

ials

that

lim

it op

portu

nitie

s to

ach

ieve

reus

e, re

cycl

ing,

or e

nerg

y re

cove

ry.

On-

goin

g

(a) W

ork

with

faci

lity

oper

ator

s, lo

cal m

unic

ipal

ities

, sen

ior g

over

nmen

ts a

nd th

e re

cycl

ing

indu

stry

to d

eter

min

e th

e im

pact

and

sou

rce

of c

ompo

nent

s of

the

was

te s

tream

, the

con

sequ

ence

and

feas

ibili

ty o

f ban

ning

mat

eria

ls

with

the

mos

t neg

ativ

e im

pact

s an

d th

e m

ost s

uita

ble

recy

clin

g op

tions

for t

hose

mat

eria

lsM

etro

Van

couv

erO

n-go

ing

(b)

Exp

and

the

mon

itorin

g an

d en

forc

emen

t of d

ispo

sal b

ans

and

enha

nce

with

effe

ctiv

e co

mm

unic

atio

ns to

ra

ise

awar

enes

s of

the

bans

.M

etro

Van

couv

er20

11

(c) A

naly

se th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of d

ispo

sal b

ans

and

poss

ible

alte

rnat

ive

enfo

rcem

ent m

odel

s in

clud

ing

enfo

rcem

ent a

t sou

rce.

M

etro

Van

couv

er20

10

(d) A

fter s

uita

ble

publ

ic in

form

atio

n pr

ogra

ms,

exp

and

disp

osal

ban

s to

incl

ude

mat

eria

ls e

ncom

pass

ed b

y ne

w

EP

R p

rogr

ams

and

mat

eria

l for

whi

ch n

ew re

cycl

ing

mar

kets

are

dev

elop

ed.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

2.2.

2

Pro

vide

ong

oing

info

rmat

ion

for b

usin

esse

s an

d re

side

nts

of re

cycl

ing

oppo

rtuni

ties.

(a) C

ontin

ue a

nd u

pgra

de a

regi

onal

web

-bas

ed s

ourc

e of

info

rmat

ion

on re

cycl

ing

oppo

rtuni

ties

for b

usin

esse

s an

d re

side

nts.

(b) K

eep

mun

icip

aliti

es fu

lly in

form

ed a

s to

recy

clin

g co

llect

ion

and

drop

faci

litie

s an

d ch

ange

s to

pol

icie

s an

d fa

cilit

ies.

(c) P

rovi

de o

utre

ach

serv

ices

.

(d) W

ork

with

oth

er in

form

atio

n so

urce

s to

ach

ieve

max

imum

har

mon

izat

ion

poss

ible

.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$50

,000

& 0

.5 F

TTM

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$3,0

00 &

0 F

TE -

0.5

FTE

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

0

.5 F

TE

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$40

,000

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

3 of

15

SDD-165

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

2.2.

3

Inc

reas

e th

e ef

ficie

ncy

and

cons

iste

ncy

of re

cycl

ing

colle

ctio

n se

rvic

es a

cros

s th

e re

gion

.

(a) W

ork

with

mun

icip

aliti

es to

revi

ew m

ater

ials

acc

epte

d fo

r rec

yclin

g fro

m re

side

ntia

l and

ICI s

ourc

es.

(b) I

n co

llabo

ratio

n w

ith m

unic

ipal

ities

, und

erta

ke a

bus

ines

s ca

se re

view

of t

he re

side

ntia

l and

ICI w

aste

and

re

cycl

ing

colle

ctio

n se

rvic

es o

ver t

he re

gion

to d

eter

min

e an

d im

plem

ent t

he a

ppro

pria

te le

vel o

f con

sist

ency

be

twee

n m

unic

ipal

ities

. W

here

app

ropr

iate

, Met

ro V

anco

uver

will

dev

elop

mod

el p

olic

ies

or b

ylaw

s to

ass

ist

mun

icip

aliti

es in

ach

ievi

ng c

onsi

sten

cy.

(c) A

naly

se th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of p

ricin

g st

rate

gies

and

oth

er e

cono

mic

inst

rum

ents

to e

ncou

rage

add

ition

al

recy

clin

g

2.2.

4

Est

ablis

h E

co-C

entre

s.

(a)

Est

ablis

h a

stak

ehol

der a

nd m

unic

ipal

wor

k gr

oup

to d

eter

min

e th

e sc

ope,

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons

and

the

rela

tions

hip

to e

xist

ing

and

plan

ned

EP

R p

rogr

ams

and

mun

icip

al re

cycl

ing

depo

ts fo

r par

ticip

atin

g m

unic

ipal

ities

and

indu

strie

s.

(b)

Dev

elop

the

mod

el o

f Eco

-Cen

tres

to in

clud

e nu

mer

ous,

sm

all s

cale

, one

-sto

p-dr

op c

entre

s fo

r rec

yclin

g an

d sm

all q

uant

ity d

rop-

off d

ispo

sal.

(c) W

ith m

unic

ipal

ities

, det

erm

ine

the

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons

for p

artic

ipat

ing

mun

icip

aliti

es a

nd in

dust

ries

and

deve

lop

appr

opria

te b

usin

ess

case

s.

(d) A

fter d

eter

min

ing

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons,

est

ablis

h th

e fir

st E

co-C

entre

in S

urre

y to

repl

ace

com

mitm

ent f

or

resi

dent

ial d

rop

off f

acili

ty in

the

1995

Pla

n.20

11

(e) P

rogr

essi

vely

exp

and

the

Eco

-Cen

tre s

yste

m a

cros

s th

e re

gion

as

mun

icip

al b

usin

ess

case

s de

term

ine.

On-

goin

g

2.2.

5

Pro

mot

e re

cycl

ing

at fe

stiv

als

and

even

ts

(a) D

evel

op a

Zer

o W

aste

tool

kit f

or fe

stiv

als

and

even

ts

(b) C

ontin

ue to

wor

k w

ith m

unic

ipal

ities

, EP

R g

roup

s an

d lo

cal c

omm

unity

gro

ups

to im

plem

ent w

aste

m

inim

izat

ion

and

recy

clin

g at

com

mun

ity fe

stiv

als

and

even

ts, i

nclu

ding

con

fere

nces

and

trad

esho

ws

(c) P

rovi

de o

utre

ach

serv

ices

.

2.2.

6

Wor

k w

ith s

choo

l dis

trict

s an

d in

divi

dual

sch

ools

to p

rom

ote

was

te re

duct

ion

and

recy

clin

g.

(a) D

evel

op in

stru

ctio

nal p

rogr

ams

that

enc

oura

ge w

aste

redu

ctio

n an

d re

cycl

ing

both

with

in th

e sc

hool

s an

d at

ho

me

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$35

,000

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

0

.5 F

TE

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$8,

000,

000

- $14

,000

,000

per

site

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

$

200,

000

- $50

0,00

0 &

10.

5 FT

E -

14.5

FTE

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

gM

etro

Van

couv

er/y

ear:

$

50,0

00

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2012

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

4 of

15

SDD-166

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

2.2.

7

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er o

n ac

tions

des

igne

d to

:

(a) i

mpl

emen

t effe

ctiv

e di

spos

al b

ans

for c

olle

ctio

n of

mun

icip

al w

aste

at s

ourc

e;

(b) i

nfor

m b

usin

esse

s an

d re

side

nts

of re

cycl

ing

oppo

rtuni

ties;

(c) i

ncre

ase

the

effic

ienc

y an

d co

nsis

tenc

y of

recy

clin

g co

llect

ion

serv

ices

ove

r the

regi

on;

(d) e

stab

lish

Eco

-Cen

tres;

(e) p

rom

ote

recy

clin

g at

com

mun

ity e

vent

s an

d fe

stiv

als;

(f) w

ork

with

sch

ool d

istri

cts

and

indi

vidu

al s

choo

ls to

pro

mot

e w

aste

redu

ctio

n an

d re

cycl

ing.

Stra

tegy

2.3

P

rovi

de o

ppor

tuni

ties

to in

crea

se p

rivat

e se

ctor

recy

clin

g

2.3.

1

Fac

ilita

te th

e si

ting

of p

rivat

e se

ctor

recy

clin

g ac

tiviti

es.

(a) R

evie

w th

e G

VS

&D

D S

olid

Was

te R

egul

ator

y B

ylaw

to fa

cilit

ate

the

sitin

g of

mun

icip

al s

olid

was

te fa

cilit

ies

that

mee

t mun

icip

al b

ylaw

s.

2.3.

2

Fos

ter m

arke

t dev

elop

men

t for

recy

cled

mat

eria

ls:

(a) E

valu

ate

a bu

sine

ss c

ase

for a

regi

onal

sca

le re

cycl

ing

serv

ice

deliv

ery

mod

el.

2010

(b) R

evie

w d

esira

bilit

y, fe

asib

ility

and

opp

ortu

nity

for e

stab

lishi

ng a

non

-pro

fit o

rgan

izat

ion

to fa

cilit

ate

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f rec

yclin

g bu

sine

sses

and

mar

kets

, alo

ng th

e lin

es o

f the

‘Lon

don

Rem

ade’

mod

el in

the

U.K

.20

12

(c) S

ubje

ct to

the

resu

lts o

f 2.3

.2 (a

) and

(b),

esta

blis

h a

regi

onal

role

in p

roce

ssin

g an

d m

arke

ting

of re

cycl

ed

mat

eria

ls, a

land

acq

uisi

tion

stra

tegy

for r

equi

red

recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies,

and

enh

ance

d po

licy-

base

d in

itiat

ives

to

prom

ote

loca

l rec

ycle

d co

nten

t in

cons

umer

goo

dsO

ngoi

ng

2.3.

3

Fac

ilita

te th

e si

ting

of p

rivat

e se

ctor

recy

clin

g ac

tiviti

es:

(a) R

evie

w z

onin

g by

law

s to

rem

ove

unne

cess

ary

impe

dim

ents

to a

nd e

ncou

rage

recy

clin

g an

d m

ater

ial

reco

very

act

iviti

es in

app

ropr

iate

ly z

oned

are

as.

2.3.

4

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er o

n th

e ev

alua

tion

of re

gion

al s

cale

recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

and

deve

lopm

ent o

f rec

yclin

g m

arke

ts.

Mun

icip

aliti

esO

n-go

ing

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

20,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$20,

000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

2.3.

5.

P

rovi

ncia

l and

Fed

eral

Gov

ernm

ents

to id

entif

y an

d es

tabl

ish

min

imum

pos

t-con

sum

er re

cycl

ed c

onte

nt

requ

irem

ents

for c

onsu

mer

goo

ds.

Oth

er G

over

nmen

ts

and

Age

ncie

s20

12

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$60

,000

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

0

.5 F

TE

Mun

icip

aliti

es20

12

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

25,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$15,

000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$25

,000

On-

goin

g

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

10,0

00,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$2,0

00,0

00 &

0 F

TE -

1.0

FTE

2012

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Mun

icip

aliti

es

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

5 of

15

SDD-167

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Stra

tegy

2.4

T

arge

t dem

oliti

on, l

and

clea

ring

and

cons

truc

tion

(DLC

) sec

tor f

or in

crea

sed

reus

e an

d re

cycl

ing

2.4.

1

In c

olla

bora

tion

with

mun

icip

aliti

es a

nd in

dust

ry g

roup

s, d

evel

op a

pro

cess

to re

quire

DLC

recy

clin

g at

co

nstru

ctio

n/de

mol

ition

site

s.

2011

2.4.

2

Im

plem

ent w

aste

redu

ctio

n st

rate

gies

dire

cted

tow

ard

dive

rting

DLC

was

te fr

om d

ispo

sal w

hile

sup

porti

ng

oppo

rtuni

ties

for b

enef

icia

l use

.

(a) E

ncou

rage

the

role

of b

uild

ing

supp

ly re

taile

rs a

nd p

rodu

cers

in th

e co

llect

ion

of D

LC m

ater

ial f

or re

cycl

ing.

(b) P

rovi

de a

reas

for s

epar

ated

recy

clab

le D

LC m

ater

ials

at E

co-C

entre

s an

d at

tran

sfer

sta

tions

as

they

are

up

grad

ed.

2.4.

3

Rev

iew

exi

stin

g D

LC re

cycl

ing

and

proc

essi

ng c

apac

ity, p

roje

ct fu

ture

nee

ds a

nd d

evel

op a

stra

tegy

to a

ddre

ssan

y id

entif

ied

gaps

.M

etro

Van

couv

er20

12M

etro

Van

couv

er

$50

,000

2.4.

4

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er to

dev

elop

a p

roce

ss to

requ

ire D

LC re

cycl

ing

at c

onst

ruct

ion/

dem

oliti

on s

ites.

(a) R

evie

w m

unic

ipal

DLC

per

mitt

ing

proc

esse

s w

ith a

vie

w to

requ

iring

was

te m

anag

emen

t pl

ans

as a

con

ditio

n of

suc

h pe

rmits

.

(b) R

evie

w th

e de

sira

bilit

y an

d fe

asib

ility

of d

epos

it sy

stem

s or

oth

er fi

nanc

ial i

ncen

tives

to in

crea

se

enfo

rcem

ent o

f DLC

was

te m

anag

emen

t pla

ns.

Stra

tegy

2.5

R

educ

e pa

per a

nd p

aper

boar

d be

ing

disp

osed

2.5.

1

In

colla

bora

tion

with

mun

icip

aliti

es, b

usin

esse

s an

d no

n-pr

ofit

orga

niza

tions

, con

duct

pilo

t pro

gram

s to

de

term

ine

the

mos

t effe

ctiv

e m

etho

d of

redu

cing

unw

ante

d ju

nk m

ail a

nd o

ther

pub

licat

ions

and

act

acc

ordi

ngly

on

the

resu

ltsM

etro

Van

couv

erO

n-go

ing

M

etro

Van

couv

er /

year

:

0.5

FTE

2.5.

2

Pro

mot

e re

duce

d pa

per u

se a

nd in

crea

se p

aper

recy

clin

g op

portu

nitie

s in

the

com

mun

ity a

nd b

usin

esse

s

(a) C

arry

out

a c

omm

unity

soc

ial m

arke

ting

cam

paig

n to

det

erm

ine

and

over

com

e ba

rrie

rs to

redu

cing

the

use

o fan

d in

crea

sing

the

recy

clin

g of

pap

er in

sch

ools

and

com

mun

ity fa

cilit

ies.

(b) C

arry

out

a ta

rget

ed o

utre

ach

cam

paig

n to

bus

ines

s to

det

erm

ine

and

over

com

e ba

rrie

rs to

redu

cing

the

use

of a

nd in

crea

sing

the

recy

clin

g of

pap

er.

2.5.

3

Col

labo

rate

with

Met

ro V

anco

uver

in ju

nk m

ail r

educ

tion

pilo

t pro

gram

s an

d co

mm

unity

soc

ial m

arke

ting

prog

ram

s in

com

mun

ity fa

cilit

ies.

Mun

icip

aliti

esO

n-go

ing

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

45,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$145

,000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$35

,000

Met

ro V

anco

uver

/ ye

ar:

0

.5 F

TE

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

75,0

00M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$225

,000

& 0

FTE

- 1.

5 FT

E

On-

goin

g

Mun

icip

aliti

esO

n-go

ing

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

6 of

15

SDD-168

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Stra

tegy

2.6

T

arge

t org

anic

s fo

r rec

yclin

g an

d en

ergy

reco

very

2.6.

1

Eva

luat

e op

tions

for p

roce

ssin

g an

d ut

iliza

tion

of o

rgan

ics

with

bio

solid

s an

d ot

her u

tility

resi

dual

s.

(a) C

ompl

ete

trial

s on

com

min

glin

g fo

od w

aste

with

was

tew

ater

sol

ids

to p

rodu

ce b

io-fu

els.

(b) D

eter

min

e co

sts

and

bene

fits

of c

omm

ingl

ing

bios

olid

s w

ith o

ther

util

ity re

sidu

als

such

as

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

slud

ges.

(c) B

ring

forw

ard

appr

opria

te a

ctio

ns b

ased

on

resu

lts o

f 2.6

.1 (a

) and

2.6

.1 (b

).

2.6.

2

Div

ert o

rgan

ics

from

the

was

te s

tream

.20

15

(a)

Est

ablis

h ad

ditio

nal o

rgan

ics

proc

essi

ng fa

cilit

ies.

2011

and

on-

goin

g

i) e

stab

lish

a sy

stem

for m

onito

ring

emis

sion

s fro

m o

rgan

ics

proc

essi

ng fa

cilit

ies

incl

udin

g bi

oaer

osol

s20

12 a

nd o

n-go

ing

(b) D

eter

min

e w

hich

pap

er a

nd p

aper

boar

d pr

oduc

ts a

re s

uita

ble

for p

roce

ssin

g at

an

orga

nics

man

agem

ent

faci

lity.

2011

(c) I

n co

llabo

ratio

n w

ith m

unic

ipal

ities

, dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t a w

ork

plan

for t

he d

iver

sion

of o

rgan

ic w

aste

, in

clud

ing

food

was

te fr

om:

i) s

ingl

e fa

mily

resi

denc

es20

12

ii) m

ulti-

fam

ily re

side

nces

2015

iii)

ICI s

ecto

r20

15

(d) D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent s

uppo

rting

com

mun

icat

ion

prog

ram

s fo

r 2.6

.2 (c

).O

n-go

ing

(e) B

an a

ll co

mpo

stab

le o

rgan

ics

allo

wed

in re

side

ntia

l gre

en b

ins

from

dis

posa

l to

land

fills

and

all

form

s of

w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y, e

xcep

t ana

erob

ic d

iges

tion.

2015

2.6.

3

In

colla

bora

tion

with

Met

ro V

anco

uver

, dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t a w

ork

plan

, inc

ludi

ng a

ppro

pria

te

com

mun

icat

ion

prog

ram

s fo

r the

div

ersi

on o

f org

anic

was

te fr

omO

n-go

ing

i) s

ingl

e fa

mily

resi

denc

es,

2012

ii) m

ulti-

fam

ily re

side

nces

,20

15

iii)

the

ICI s

ecto

r20

15

(a) M

unic

ipal

ities

will

div

ert o

rgan

ics

from

the

was

te s

tream

to a

Met

ro V

anco

uver

or a

ltern

ativ

e lic

ense

d or

gani

cs p

roce

ssin

g fa

cilit

y.20

15

(b) M

unic

ipal

ities

will

repo

rt th

e to

nnag

e of

div

erte

d or

gani

c w

aste

to M

etro

Van

couv

er in

the

even

t tha

t org

anic

s ar

e de

liver

ed to

lice

nsed

non

-reg

iona

l pro

cess

ing

faci

litie

s.A

nnua

lly

Met

ro V

anco

uver

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$4

0,00

0,00

0

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$60

0,00

0 &

1 F

TTM

etro

Van

couv

er /

year

:

To

be d

eter

min

ed

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2010

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

5,87

0,00

0M

unic

ipal

/ ye

ar:

$0 -

$2,2

75,0

00 &

0 F

TE -

1.0

FTE

Mun

icip

aliti

es

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

7 of

15

SDD-169

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Stra

tegy

2.7

:

Tar

get w

ood

for r

euse

, rec

ycle

, and

ene

rgy

reco

very

2.7.

1

E

ncou

rage

Re-

use

of w

ood

(a) E

xam

ine

and,

whe

re fe

asib

le, i

mpl

emen

t inc

entiv

es fo

r reu

se a

nd re

mov

e ba

rrie

rs to

re-u

se o

f woo

d w

aste

.

(b) D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

and

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

on th

e re

use

and

effe

ctiv

e re

cycl

ing

of w

ood

and

othe

r DLC

was

te.

2.7.

2

C

olle

ct w

ood

for r

euse

, rec

yclin

g, a

nd e

nerg

y re

cove

ry a

t reg

iona

l tra

nsfe

r sta

tions

and

eco

-cen

tres.

On-

goin

g

2.7.

3

E

ncou

rage

hig

hest

and

bes

t use

for w

ood

follo

win

g w

aste

man

agem

ent h

iera

rchy

in th

e fo

llow

ing

prio

rity:

(a) r

euse

woo

d fo

r com

para

ble

stru

ctur

al a

nd n

on-s

truct

ural

app

licat

ions

,

(b) r

ecyc

le w

ood

fibre

into

oth

er fi

bre

base

d pr

oduc

ts,

(c) c

ompo

st w

ood

with

oth

er o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

(d) d

iges

t woo

d to

pro

duce

bio

fuel

s

(e) p

roce

ss w

ood

as a

fuel

for e

nerg

y pr

oduc

tion.

2.7.

4

Pas

s by

-law

s as

requ

ired

to s

uppo

rt hi

ghes

t and

bes

t use

of w

ood

as o

utlin

ed in

2.7

.3O

n-go

ing

(as

requ

ired)

2.7.

5

Ban

all

woo

d fro

m la

ndfil

l dis

posa

l.20

15

2.7.

6

Pro

vinc

ial G

over

nmen

t to

expa

nd th

e in

clus

ion

of th

e re

use

of w

ood

in b

uild

ing

code

s.

Oth

er G

over

nmen

ts

and

Age

ncie

sO

n-go

ing

Stra

tegy

2.8

T

arge

t pla

stic

s fo

r inc

reas

ed re

cycl

ing

2.8.

1

Exp

and

the

recy

clin

g of

pla

stic

s in

the

resi

dent

ial a

nd c

omm

erci

al s

ecto

rs.

(a) E

stab

lish

a st

anda

rd fo

r mun

icip

al p

rogr

ams

for c

olle

ctio

n of

pla

stic

s ba

sed

on m

arke

t stre

ngth

.

(b) I

n co

oper

atio

n w

ith re

tail

partn

ers

and

mun

icip

aliti

es, u

nder

take

soc

ial m

arke

ting

pilo

t pro

gram

s to

redu

ce th

eus

e of

dis

posa

ble

take

-out

food

and

bev

erag

e pa

ckag

ing

incl

udin

g pl

astic

and

oth

er d

ispo

sabl

e ba

gs.

2.8.

2

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er o

n pr

ogra

ms

to re

duce

the

use

of d

ispo

sabl

e ta

ke-o

ut fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

pack

agin

g in

clud

ing

plas

tic a

nd o

ther

dis

posa

ble

bags

. M

unic

ipal

ities

2011

Mun

icip

al /

year

:

$0

- $3

,000

& 0

FTE

- 0.

5 FT

E

Met

ro V

anco

uver

M

etro

Van

couv

er:

$

25,0

0020

11

2010

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

8 of

15

SDD-170

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

2.8.

3

The

Pro

vinc

ial G

over

nmen

t to

deve

lop

EP

R p

rogr

ams

for a

ll pl

astic

s th

at p

rovi

de in

cent

ives

for a

ltern

ativ

es to

no

n-re

cycl

able

pla

stic

s.O

ther

Gov

ernm

ents

an

d A

genc

ies

On-

goin

g

2.8.

4

The

Pro

vinc

ial a

nd F

eder

al G

over

nmen

ts to

requ

ire a

ll pl

astic

mat

eria

l sol

d in

BC

to h

ave

a m

ater

ial c

ode

iden

tifyi

ng it

s co

mpo

sitio

n.O

ther

Gov

ernm

ents

an

d A

genc

ies

On-

goin

g

Stra

tegy

2.9

T

arge

t mul

ti-fa

mily

and

indu

stria

l, co

mm

erci

al a

nd in

stitu

tiona

l (IC

I) se

ctor

s to

im

prov

e di

vers

ion

rate

s

2.9.

1

Dev

elop

byl

aws

to re

quire

recy

clin

g in

all

mul

ti-fa

mily

and

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

gs a

nd c

ompl

exes

.

(a) D

evel

op a

mod

el b

ylaw

and

enf

orce

men

t mod

el to

requ

ire re

cycl

ing

in m

ulti-

fam

ily a

nd c

omm

erci

al b

uild

ings

.

(b) C

reat

e an

adv

isor

y se

rvic

e fo

r rec

yclin

g pr

ogra

ms

for m

ultif

amily

and

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

gs.

2.9.

2

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er to

impl

emen

t rec

yclin

g in

mul

ti-fa

mily

and

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

gs.

Mun

icip

aliti

es20

11

Mun

icip

al:

$

0 - $

110,

000

M

unic

ipal

/yr:

$

0 - $

320,

000

& 0

FTE

- 3.

0 FT

E

2.9.

3

The

Pro

vinc

ial G

over

nmen

t mod

ify th

e B

uild

ing

Cod

e to

requ

ire th

at s

pace

be

prov

ided

for r

ecyc

ling

colle

ctio

n,

sorti

ng a

nd p

ick-

up in

mul

ti-fa

mily

resi

dent

ial a

nd c

omm

erci

al b

uild

ings

Oth

er G

over

nmen

ts

and

Age

ncie

sO

n-go

ing

Stra

tegy

2.1

0:

Dev

elop

con

tinge

ncy

plan

s fo

r the

loss

of r

ecyc

ling

mar

kets

2.10

.1

M

anag

e di

verte

d m

ater

ials

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f the

Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent A

ct a

nd

regu

latio

ns in

that

mat

eria

ls w

ill n

ot b

e di

spos

ed u

nles

s al

l fea

sibl

e op

portu

nitie

s fo

r hig

her u

ses

of th

e m

ater

ials

hav

e be

en ta

ken.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

2.10

.2

M

anag

e di

verte

d m

ater

ials

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f the

Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent A

ct a

nd

regu

latio

ns in

that

mat

eria

ls w

ill n

ot b

e di

spos

ed u

nles

s al

l fea

sibl

e op

portu

nitie

s fo

r hig

her u

ses

of th

e m

ater

ials

hav

e be

en ta

ken.

Mun

icip

aliti

es20

11

Stra

tegy

2.1

1:

Inte

grat

ed U

tility

Man

agem

ent

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

2.11

.1

E

stab

lish

a ne

w o

vera

rchi

ng c

omm

ittee

, the

Inte

grat

ed U

tility

Man

agem

ent A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (I

UM

AC

), to

ad

vise

Met

ro V

anco

uver

on

plan

impl

emen

tatio

n, p

artic

ular

ly fr

om th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

f int

egra

ted

plan

ning

and

reso

urce

re

cove

ry a

cros

s ut

ility

sys

tem

s.M

etro

Van

couv

er20

10

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2011

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$12

0,00

0 &

2.0

FTT

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

9 of

15

SDD-171

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Goa

l 3

Rec

over

Ene

rgy

from

the

Was

te S

trea

m A

fter

M

ater

ial R

ecyc

ling

Task

By

Tim

elin

eIm

plic

atio

ns

(add

ition

al c

ost a

nd re

sour

ces

to c

urre

nt le

vel)

Stra

tegy

3.1

U

se W

aste

-to-E

nerg

y to

pro

vide

ele

ctric

ity a

nd d

istr

ict h

eatin

g

3.1.

1

Con

tinue

use

of t

he e

xist

ing

was

te to

ene

rgy

faci

lity

in B

urna

by.

(a) S

ubje

ct to

the

limita

tions

est

ablis

hed

in th

e se

ctio

n tit

led

“Flo

w C

ontro

l”, u

se th

e fa

cilit

y at

its

curr

ent u

sage

an

d ca

paci

ty o

f 280

,000

tonn

es p

er y

ear t

o re

cove

r ava

ilabl

e en

ergy

in th

e w

aste

rem

aini

ng a

fter r

ecyc

ling

for

dist

rict e

nerg

y an

d el

ectri

city

gen

erat

ion.

(b) C

ontin

ue to

mee

t the

mon

itorin

g an

d em

issi

on re

quire

men

ts in

App

endi

x A

(c) C

ontin

ue to

impr

ove

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

of t

he fa

cilit

y w

ith im

prov

ed te

chno

logi

es a

nd m

onito

r pe

rform

ance

to e

nsur

e co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith a

pplic

able

legi

slat

ion

and

regu

latio

ns.

(d) O

pera

ting

perfo

rman

ce w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

repo

rted

on a

regu

lar a

nd ti

mel

y ba

sis

and

will

als

o be

ava

ilabl

e on

the

Met

ro V

anco

uver

web

site

(e) T

he B

urna

by w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

y w

ill c

ompl

y w

ith a

pplic

able

legi

slat

ion

and

oper

atin

g co

ntra

cts

may

in

clud

e pe

nalti

es fo

r any

vio

latio

ns o

f per

form

ance

crit

eria

.

3.1.

2

Exp

and

the

use

of w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y w

ithin

the

regi

on

(a) E

stab

lish

up to

500

,000

tonn

es p

er y

ear o

f new

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

capa

city

with

in th

e re

gion

in o

ne o

r mor

e fa

cilit

ies.

(b) E

nsur

e im

plem

enta

tion

of n

ew w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty m

axim

izes

ene

rgy

reco

very

for u

se in

dis

trict

he

atin

g, p

rodu

ctio

n of

alte

rnat

ive

fuel

s, in

dust

rial a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd e

lect

ricity

gen

erat

ion

(c) M

onito

r tre

nds

in w

aste

redu

ctio

n, re

cycl

ing

and

was

te fl

ows

and

impl

emen

t add

ition

al w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty if

, and

onl

y if,

just

ified

on

the

basi

s of

thes

e tre

nds.

(d) S

cale

any

add

ition

al w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty s

o th

at to

tal w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty in

the

regi

on d

oes

not

exce

ed th

e m

ost p

roba

ble

min

imum

was

te fl

ow p

roje

cted

ove

r the

eco

nom

ic li

fe o

f tho

se fa

cilit

ies.

(e) O

pera

ting

perfo

rman

ce w

ill b

e re

porte

d on

a re

gula

r and

tim

ely

basi

s an

d w

ill a

lso

be a

vaila

ble

on th

e M

etro

V

anco

uver

web

site

. A

ny n

ew w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

y w

ill c

ompl

y w

ith a

pplic

able

legi

slat

ion

and

oper

atin

g co

ntra

cts

may

incl

ude

pena

lties

for a

ny v

iola

tions

of p

erfo

rman

ce c

riter

ia.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

:

$44

0,00

0,00

0 (E

stim

ated

cap

tial c

ost

for 5

00,0

00 to

nnes

ann

ual c

apac

ity

WTE

F)

On-

goin

gM

etro

Van

couv

er

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2015

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

10 o

f 15

SDD-172

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

3.1.

3

Loc

ate

new

was

te to

ene

rgy

capa

city

with

in th

e R

egio

n on

the

basi

s of

:

si

te a

vaila

bilit

y;

su

itabi

lity

of s

ite fo

r pro

vidi

ng d

istri

ct h

eatin

g fro

m re

cove

red

ener

gy;

po

tent

ial f

or s

ite to

opt

imiz

e ne

twor

k of

tran

sfer

sta

tions

;

re

sults

of l

ocal

scr

eeni

ng le

vel i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t and

trip

le b

otto

m li

ne a

naly

sis;

and

re

sults

of c

omm

unity

con

sulta

tion

proc

ess

for e

ach

pote

ntia

l site

.

3.1.

4

Ens

ure

that

new

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

litie

s w

ithin

the

regi

on a

re d

esig

ned

to m

axim

ize

the

envi

ronm

enta

l, fin

anci

al a

nd s

ocia

l ben

efits

of f

acili

ties.

(a) E

valu

ate

cost

/ben

efits

of p

ropo

sed

new

faci

litie

s ov

er th

eir l

ifetim

e, in

clud

ing

cons

truct

ion,

com

mis

sion

ing,

op

erat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

, fut

ure

retro

fits

and

deco

mm

issi

onin

g im

pact

s, a

nd o

wne

rshi

p st

ruct

ure

(b)

Con

duct

an

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

ass

essm

ent o

f a w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

y(ie

s), b

ased

on

appl

icab

le

prov

inci

al a

nd fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent r

equi

rem

ents

, inc

ludi

ng a

n as

sess

men

t of h

uman

hea

lth ri

sk a

ccep

tabl

e to

th

e ap

plic

able

hea

lth a

utho

rity.

(c) E

valu

atio

n cr

iteria

will

incl

ude:

co

st;

us

e of

bes

t ava

ilabl

e co

mm

erci

al te

chno

logy

;

ai

r em

issi

ons;

G

HG

em

issi

ons;

al

ignm

ent w

ith s

usta

inab

ility

prin

cipl

es;

el

ectri

city

and

dis

trict

hea

ting

prod

uctio

n;

be

nefic

ial u

se o

f ash

;

m

etal

s re

cove

ry;

po

tent

ial l

ocal

job

crea

tion;

and

op

portu

nitie

s fo

r res

earc

h an

d ed

ucat

ion.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2015

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2015

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

11 o

f 15

SDD-173

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

3.1.

5

If e

xpan

ded

use

of w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y w

ithin

the

regi

on is

not

pos

sibl

e th

en e

stab

lish

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

capa

city

ou

tsid

e th

e re

gion

.

(a) E

stab

lish

a lim

it of

500

,000

tonn

es p

er y

ear o

f new

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

capa

city

out

side

the

Reg

ion

(b) E

nsur

e im

plem

enta

tion

of n

ew w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty m

axim

izes

ene

rgy

reco

very

for u

se in

dis

trict

he

atin

g, in

dust

rial a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd e

lect

ricity

gen

erat

ion.

(c) M

onito

r tre

nds

in w

aste

redu

ctio

n, re

cycl

ing

and

was

te fl

ows

and

impl

emen

t add

ition

al w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty if

, and

onl

y if,

just

ified

on

the

basi

s of

thes

e tre

nds.

(d) S

cale

any

add

ition

al w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty s

o th

at to

tal w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty d

oes

not e

xcee

d th

e m

ost p

roba

ble

min

imum

was

te fl

ow p

roje

cted

ove

r the

eco

nom

ic li

fe o

f tho

se fa

cilit

ies.

(e) M

onito

r the

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

lity(

ies)

to e

nsur

e co

mpl

ianc

e

3.1.

6

Loca

te n

ew w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty o

utsi

de th

e R

egio

n on

the

basi

s of

si

te a

vaila

bilit

y;

su

itabi

lity

of s

ite fo

r max

imum

ene

rgy

reco

very

;

re

sults

of l

ocal

scr

eeni

ng le

vel i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t and

trip

le b

otto

m li

ne a

naly

sis;

and

th

e re

sults

of c

omm

unity

con

sulta

tion

for e

ach

pote

ntia

l site

.

3.1.

7

Ens

ure

that

new

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

litie

s ou

tsid

e th

e re

gion

are

des

igne

d to

max

imiz

e th

e en

viro

nmen

tal,

finan

cial

and

soc

ial b

enef

its o

f fac

ilitie

s

(a) E

valu

ate

cost

/ben

efits

of p

ropo

sed

new

faci

litie

s ov

er th

eir l

ifetim

e, in

clud

ing

cons

truct

ion,

com

mis

sion

ing,

op

erat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

, fut

ure

retro

fits

and

deco

mm

issi

onin

g im

pact

s.

(b) C

ondu

ct a

n en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t of a

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

lity(

ies)

, bas

ed o

n ap

plic

able

pr

ovin

cial

and

fede

ral g

over

nmen

t req

uire

men

ts, i

nclu

ding

an

asse

ssm

ent o

f hum

an h

ealth

risk

acc

epta

ble

to

the

appl

icab

le h

ealth

aut

horit

y.

(c) E

valu

atio

n cr

iteria

will

incl

ude

us

e of

bes

t ava

ilabl

e co

mm

erci

al te

chno

logy

;

em

issi

ons

outp

erfo

rm a

pplic

able

env

ironm

enta

l sta

ndar

ds;

al

ignm

ent w

ith s

usta

inab

ility

prin

cipl

es;

el

ectri

city

, dis

trict

hea

ting

and

alte

rnat

ive

fuel

pro

duct

ion;

be

nefic

ial u

se o

f ash

;

m

etal

s re

cove

ry;

po

tent

ial l

ocal

job

crea

tion;

and

op

portu

nitie

s fo

r res

earc

h an

d ed

ucat

ion.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2015

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2015

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

12 o

f 15

SDD-174

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

3.1.

8

Rec

over

met

als,

ash

or o

ther

resi

dues

from

new

and

exi

stin

g w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y fa

cilit

ies

for b

enef

icia

l use

(a)

Wor

k w

ith re

gula

tory

age

ncie

s to

iden

tify

and

rem

ove

barr

iers

to b

enef

icia

l use

of a

sh.

(b) M

axim

ize

met

al re

cove

ry fr

om th

e w

aste

stre

am a

fter r

ecyc

ling.

.

(c) P

roce

ss b

otto

m a

nd fl

y as

h to

gen

erat

e pr

oduc

ts fo

r ben

efic

ial u

se.

(d) u

se p

roce

ssed

bot

tom

and

fly

ash

bene

ficia

lly fo

r hig

hest

val

ue a

pplic

atio

ns a

vaila

ble.

(e) I

f ben

efic

ial u

se o

f a re

sidu

e is

not

reas

onab

ley

avai

labl

e, d

ispo

se o

f the

resi

due

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

appl

icab

le le

gisl

atio

n.

3.1.

9

Rec

over

ene

rgy

from

regi

onal

util

ity m

ater

ials

that

can

not b

e re

cycl

ed, i

nclu

ding

liqu

id w

aste

and

wat

er u

tiliti

es.

(a) R

ecov

er e

nerg

y fro

m d

rinki

ng w

ater

trea

tmen

t pro

cess

es, s

uch

as s

pent

act

ivat

ed c

arbo

n th

at c

anno

t be

recy

cled

.

(b) U

se w

aste

to e

nerg

y to

pro

cess

grit

and

scr

eeni

ngs

from

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t for

ben

efic

ial u

ses,

whe

re

appr

opria

te.

(c) U

se re

clai

med

wat

er fr

om w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent p

lant

s in

was

te to

ene

rgy

stea

m g

ener

atio

n or

dis

trict

he

atin

g, if

via

ble.

Stra

tegy

3.2

R

ecov

er e

nerg

y fr

om o

ther

sol

id w

aste

man

agem

ent f

acili

ties

3.2.

1

Rec

over

land

fill g

as fr

om V

anco

uver

Lan

dfill

and

stri

ve to

max

imiz

e th

e be

nefic

ial u

se o

f the

reco

vere

d ga

s.C

ity o

f Van

couv

erO

n-go

ing

Stra

tegy

3.3

U

tiliz

e no

n-re

cycl

able

mat

eria

l as

fuel

3.3.

1

Dire

ct re

cove

rabl

e lo

ads

of c

ombu

stib

le m

ater

ial r

ecei

ved

at tr

ansf

er s

tatio

ns to

pub

lic o

r priv

ate

ener

gy

reco

very

faci

litie

s..

Met

ro V

anco

uver

2012

3.3.

2

Col

labo

rate

with

Met

ro V

anco

uver

in e

nsur

ing

actio

n 3.

3.1

is c

arrie

d ou

t at s

olid

was

te m

anag

emen

t fac

ilitie

s op

erat

ed b

y th

e C

ity o

f Van

couv

er.

City

of V

anco

uver

2012

3.3.

3

Pro

vinc

ial G

over

nmen

t to

deve

lop

mat

eria

l and

ene

rgy

requ

irem

ents

for e

xist

ing

and

futu

re s

tew

ards

hip

prog

ram

s to

use

the

non-

recy

clab

le p

ortio

n of

retu

rned

mat

eria

l as

fuel

rath

er th

an la

ndfil

ling.

Pro

vinc

ial

Gov

ernm

ent

2012

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

gM

etro

Van

couv

er:

$20

0,00

0

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

13 o

f 15

SDD-175

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Goa

l 4

Dis

pose

of A

ll R

emai

ning

Was

te in

Lan

dfill

, afte

r

Mat

eria

l Rec

yclin

g an

d En

ergy

Rec

over

yTa

sk B

yTi

mel

ine

Impl

icat

ions

(a

dditi

onal

cos

t and

reso

urce

s to

cur

rent

leve

l)

Stra

tegy

4.1

U

tiliz

e th

e Va

ncou

ver L

andf

ill a

s a

disp

osal

site

4.1.

1

Use

the

Van

couv

er L

andf

ill to

dis

pose

of a

ny re

mai

ning

was

te n

ot d

irect

ed to

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

faci

litie

s.

(a) M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill w

ork

with

the

City

of V

anco

uver

and

Cor

pora

tion

of D

elta

to re

duce

vol

umes

goi

ng to

th

e V

anco

uver

Lan

dfill

to 1

00,0

00 to

nnes

ann

ually

by

2020

. Sho

uld

thes

e re

duct

ions

not

be

achi

eved

bec

ause

ov

eral

l was

te fl

ows

exce

eds

com

bine

d th

e in

-reg

ion

capa

city

of d

ispo

sal o

ptio

ns, M

etro

Van

couv

er w

ill e

valu

ate

cost

effe

ctiv

e al

tern

ativ

es a

nd if

app

ropr

iate

see

k an

am

endm

ent t

o th

is p

lan

to e

xpan

d w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y ca

paci

ty to

furth

er re

duce

was

te fl

ows

to th

e V

anco

uver

Lan

dfill

.

(a) M

onito

r the

Van

couv

er L

andf

ill to

ens

ure

com

plia

nce.

4.1.

2

Rep

ort a

nnua

lly o

n th

e re

mai

ning

cap

acity

of t

he w

aste

man

agem

ent s

yste

m a

nd p

rior t

o th

e cl

osur

e of

V

anco

uver

Lan

dfill

, rea

sses

s th

e re

gion

’s w

aste

-to-e

nerg

y an

d di

spos

al o

ptio

ns.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

4.1.

3

Wor

k w

ith M

etro

Van

couv

er to

acc

omm

odat

e re

sidu

al w

aste

flow

s at

the

Van

couv

er L

andf

ill.

City

of V

anco

uver

an

d C

orpo

ratio

n of

D

elta

On-

goin

g

4.1.

4

Whe

re li

mits

in th

e O

pera

tiona

l Cer

tific

ate,

con

tract

s, a

gree

men

ts a

nd re

gula

tions

app

ear t

o co

nflic

t with

the

Pla

n, re

view

the

parti

cula

r pro

visi

ons

in g

ood

faith

with

the

Pro

vinc

e, M

etro

Van

couv

er a

nd a

ny o

ther

invo

lved

par

ty to

de

term

ine

if th

ere

is a

sol

utio

n ac

cept

able

to a

ll af

fect

ed p

artie

s

City

of V

anco

uver

an

d C

orpo

ratio

n of

D

elta

On-

goin

g

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

14 o

f 15

SDD-176

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the S

oli

d W

ast

e M

an

ag

em

en

t P

lan

A

ttach

men

t 2

Stra

tegy

4.2

E

nsur

e a

disp

osal

site

is a

vaila

ble

for D

LC w

aste

4.2.

1

Ass

ess

long

-term

dis

posa

l of d

emol

ition

, lan

dcle

arin

g, a

nd c

onst

ruct

ion

(DLC

) was

te re

mai

ning

afte

r rec

yclin

g in

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

, nei

ghbo

urin

g re

gion

al d

istri

cts

and

Firs

t Nat

ions

com

mun

ities

.M

etro

Van

couv

erO

n-go

ing

4.2.

2

Iden

tify

disp

osal

site

s fo

r DLC

was

te re

mai

ning

afte

r rec

yclin

g th

at w

ill b

e av

aila

ble

whe

n ex

istin

g di

spos

al

faci

litie

s re

ach

thei

r cap

acity

. M

etro

Van

couv

erO

n-go

ing

Stra

tegy

4.3

E

stab

lish

cont

inge

ncy

disp

osal

site

s

4.3.

1

Ens

ure

adeq

uate

land

fill c

apac

ity fo

r:

no

n-co

mbu

stib

le a

nd n

on-r

ecyc

labl

e m

ater

ial;

and

m

unic

ipal

sol

id w

aste

in e

xces

s of

was

te-to

-ene

rgy

and

in-r

egio

n la

ndfil

l cap

acity

(inc

ludi

ng a

llow

ance

s fo

r va

riabi

lity

in w

aste

flow

s an

d sh

ort t

erm

ope

ratio

nal d

isru

ptio

n), a

nd n

on-r

ecyc

labl

e as

h.

4.3.

2

If

suffi

cien

t was

te-to

-ene

rgy

or la

ndfil

l cap

acity

is n

ot a

vaila

ble

in th

e R

egio

n, th

is p

lan

expl

icitl

y pe

rmits

Met

ro

Van

couv

er to

see

k th

roug

h an

app

ropr

iate

pro

cure

men

t pro

cess

the

best

ava

ilabl

e ou

t-of-r

egio

n la

ndfil

l(s) f

or th

e di

spos

al o

f rem

aini

ng w

aste

, sub

ject

to th

at fa

cilit

y ha

ving

app

ropr

iate

per

mits

, fro

m th

e lo

cal p

erm

ittin

g ju

risdi

ctio

n in

w

hich

it is

loca

ted,

to a

ccep

t suc

h w

aste

.

(a) C

ateg

orie

s of

eva

luat

ion

for a

con

tinge

ncy

land

fill w

ill in

clud

e, b

ut n

ot n

eces

saril

y be

lim

ited

to c

ost,

air

emis

sion

s, G

HG

em

issi

ons,

ene

rgy

bene

fit a

nd, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, com

plet

ion

of a

sat

isfa

ctor

y hu

man

hea

lth

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t.

(b) M

onito

r con

tinge

ncy

disp

osal

site

(s) f

or p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd c

ompl

ianc

e.

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g (a

s re

quire

d)

Met

ro V

anco

uver

On-

goin

g (a

s re

quire

d)C

ost d

epen

dent

on

disp

osal

qua

ntiti

es a

nd

land

fill l

ocat

ion.

FTE

= fu

ll tim

e eq

uiva

lent

FTT

= fu

ll tim

e te

mpo

rary

4963

496

V 2

010-

July

-19

15 o

f 15

SDD-177


SDD-178

REPORTS NOT INCLUDED ON CONSENT AGENDA

SDD-179


SDD-180


To: Waste Management Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Division Manager, Regional Utility Planning Date: June 16, 2010 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Amendment of Plan F

– Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan - Bylaw No. 257, 2010

Recommendation: That the Board:

a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”.


1. PURPOSE a) To revise the sewer servicing plan for the Langley area with Bylaw No. 257, 2010

which authorizes Amendment No. 21 to Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area. This amendment implements an improved and more cost effective Langley servicing scheme than identified in the original plan by diverting wastewater from a City sewer catchment currently connected to Metro Vancouver’s Langley Connection Sewer to Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer; and

b) to obtain authorization to reallocate approved 2010 capital funds for design of the needed replacement of both Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and a section of the Langley Sewerage Connector No.1.

c) to inform the Committee and Board of an opportunity for cost savings by combining the required replacement with upgrades that will be required for future growth in the Township of Langley.

Section G 1

SDD-181

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan - Bylaw No. 257, 2010 Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2010 Page 2 of 4 2. CONTEXT The existing sewer servicing plan for the City of Langley is defined by Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area (Amendment No. 10) which was originally adopted, through bylaw, by the Board in 1970. Amendment No. 15 (1987) added facilities to the GVS&DD sewer system which were recommended in the “Langley District Sewerage Study” and Amendment No. 20 (2008) provided technically favourable and more cost effective sewer alignments to serve the City and Township of Langley. In a letter to Metro Vancouver and supported by a council resolution (Attachment 1), the City of Langley (City) proposes diverting waste water from a small City sewer catchment currently connected to Metro Vancouver’s Langley Connection Sewer to Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer (Attachment 2). Under this proposal, the City would benefit primarily by avoiding costly construction of a new sewer in an existing residential neighbourhood with high potential for local disruption. Metro Vancouver benefits by transferring ownership of a portion of the Langley Connection Sewer to the City of Langley, which would become a local sewer, and by early replacement of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and the southern portion of Langley Sewerage connector No. 1 which would alleviate significant maintenance concerns and allow co-ordination with City of Langley repaving projects (Attachment 2). The City’s proposal is summarized as follows: • Proposed Diversion of the City Sewer to Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary

Trunk Sewer The City sewer servicing the neighbourhood in the vicinity of 200th Street between 53rd Avenue and 56th Avenue crosses 200th Street and Metro’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer near Michaud Crescent and connects to Metro’s Langley Connection Sewer. This City sewer is undersized and its replacement is complicated by close proximity to existing homes and its route through a number of private residential properties. The City has indicated a preference for rerouting the catchment from Metro Vancouver’s Langley Connection to Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer via a proposed new connection at Michaud Crescent and 200th Street. (Attachment 3) By making this change the Langley Connection would become a local sewer. The City will assume ownership and responsibility for the Langley Connection along the north edge of Brydon Lagoon from approximately 196 Street to 198 Street, subject to diverting the sewer catchment to the Metro Vancouver Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer (Attachment 2). This change in ownership represents a change in the servicing plan and is the subject of Bylaw 257 (Attachment 4) and Drawing SF-2342, Sheet 3 (Attachment 5).

• Replacement of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer & Langley Connector No. 1

Metro Vancouver’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and Langley Sewerage Connector Number 1 (gravity section) were recently video inspected and sections of both sewers were found to be in poor condition due to corrosion. The sewer partially collapsed under 200th Street in 2008 requiring an emergency repair. Preparations are underway for temporary repairs to other sections of the pipe. It would be prudent to accelerate the replacement of the remainder of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and the southern portion of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 for immediate maintenance and future growth reasons.

SDD-182

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan - Bylaw No. 257, 2010

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2010 Page 3 of 4

The City has identified 200th Street for repaving in 2010/11, where the majority of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer is located. Replacement of the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and the southern portion of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 prior to repaving is recommended.

The estimated cost for design to replace the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer and the gravity section of the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 is estimated to be $400,000. The design cost for this unplanned project can be accommodated by utilizing capital funds identified in the 2010 GVS&DD budget for the North Surrey Interceptor – Port Mann Section Replacement project in the Fraser Sewerage Area. This project needs to be implemented in conjunction with the South Fraser Perimeter Road project under the Gateway Program. Construction of the North Surrey Interceptor replacement is not expected to start until sometime in 2011. The construction funding for the replacement of Carvolth Sanitary Trunk and the Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 will be included in the 2011 GVS&DD budget and Long Range Plan. This proposed work would meet the needs of both the City and Metro Vancouver as outlined above.

• Option to Upgrade the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer & Langley Connector No. 1 to Meet Future Growth Requirements The Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer is expected to require upsizing before 2026 and the gravity section of Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 before 2051 in order to accommodate growth in the Township of Langley (Township). The construction cost of upsizing the new sewer to meet growth requirements is the responsibility of the Township as set out in the servicing agreement. Considerable savings could be realized if the upsizing was carried out in conjunction with the replacement work required in 2011 as the Township would only be required to pay the incremental cost of installing a larger pipe. Discussions are underway with the Township regarding the upsizing option.

3. ALTERNATIVES The Board can: 1)

a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”.


The proposed amendments to Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area are consistent with the objectives of the original servicing plan. The sewer alignment included in the proposed amendment provides operational and financial benefits to both Metro Vancouver and the City of Langley.

SDD-183

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan - Bylaw No. 257, 2010 Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: July 21, 2010 Page 4 of 4 2) Direct staff to not accept the proposed change and advise the City of Langley to seek

other options. The City of Langley would proceed with their original plan to replace the neighbourhood sewer running through back yards. The Carvolth Sanitary Trunk and Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 would be repaired as required. There are no reasons to refuse the request. Staff recommends Alternative 1. 4. CONCLUSION The City of Langley has written to propose diverting a sewer catchment from Metro Vancouver’s Langley Connection Sewer to Metro’s Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer. This diversion will avoid the cost and disruption associated with replacing an aging and undersized municipal sewer running through local backyards. Connecting the Langley sewer to the Carvolth Sanitary Trunk Sewer provides Metro Vancouver with the opportunity to replace sections of the Carvolth Sanitary and Langley Sewerage Connector No. 1 which are in need of immediate repair or replacement. Attachments: 1) City of Langley Council resolution dated June 21, 2010 2) City of Langley Sewer Rerouting Proposal – Overview (4179876) 3) City of Langley Sewer Rerouting Proposal – Detail (4177958) 4) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser

Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010 (4178170) 5) Amendment to Plan-F-Fraser Sewerage Area - Rawn Report Amendment No. 21

(4178080) 4178265

SDD-184

SDD-185

SDD-186

SDD-187

SDD-188

SDD-189

SDD-190

SDD-191

SDD-192

SDD-193


SDD-194

CITYOF

LANGLEY

CITYOF

SURREY

ATTACHMENT 2

SDD-195


SDD-196

CITY OF LANGLEY

ATTACHMENT 3

SDD-197


SDD-198

ATTACHMENT 4

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010 Page 1 of 2

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT AMENDMENT OF PLAN F – FRASER SEWERAGE AREA

TO MODIFY THE LANGLEY SERVICING PLAN BYLAW NO. 257, 2010

WHEREAS: A. Pursuant to section 6(1) of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act (the “Act”), the objects of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (the “GVS&DD”) include the construction, maintenance, operation and administration of the major sewerage and drainage facilities of the GVS&DD in substantial accordance with the report of a board of engineers that was submitted September 16, 1953, and that is known as the “Rawn Report”;

B. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that the GVS&DD has the right to perform work requisite to its function but not included in the Rawn Report and to amend or vary any of the projects recommended in the Rawn Report in a manner which is not inconsistent with the objects of the Rawn Report, but only with the sanction of a bylaw of the GVS&DD Board passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast; C. The Rawn Report has been amended by bylaw as follows:

(i) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District By-law No. 83 dated January 29, 1970 to add to the list of proposed GVS&DD facilities shown on the plan and tables entitled “Rawn Report Amendment No. 10 – Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area” which for purposes of identification was signed by the Engineer of the GVS&DD and numbered SK-164;

(ii) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District By-law No. 123 dated

May 25, 1977 to add to the list of proposed GVS&DD facilities and tables shown on the plan and tables entitled “Amendment No. 13 – Amendment to Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area” which for purposes of identification was signed by the Engineer of the GVS&DD and numbered SF-1579;

(iii) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District By-law No. 151 dated

January 28, 1987 to add to the list of proposed GVS&DD facilities and tables shown on the plan and tables entitled “Rawn Report Amendment No. 15 – Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area” which for purposes of identification was signed by the Engineer of the GVS&DD and numbered SF-1794;

(iv) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District By-law No. 245 dated

October 31, 2008 to modify the list of proposed GVS&DD facilities and tables shown on the plan and tables entitled “Amendment to Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area -Rawn Report Amendment No. 20” which for purposes of identification was signed by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of the GVS&DD and the Manager, Policy & Planning and numbered SF-2342, Sheet 1

(together, the “Plan F Bylaw Amendments”);

SDD-199

ATTACHMENT 4

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010 Page 2 of 2

D. The GVS&DD wishes to amend and vary certain projects recommended in the Rawn Report, in a manner which is not inconsistent with the objects of the Rawn Report; NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: 1. The projects known as and recommended in the Rawn Report as “Plan F – Fraser

Sewerage Area,” as amended and varied by the Plan F Bylaw Amendments, are further amended and varied as follows:

(a) by deleting a portion of the facility generally known as the “Langley

Connection” from the list of proposed GVS&DD facilities and tables in the Rawn Report;

as shown on the plan entitled “Amendment to Plan F Fraser Sewerage Area Rawn Report Amendment No. 21” and numbered SF- 2342, Sheet 3., which is attached to and forms part of this Bylaw

2. The official citation for this Bylaw is the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amendment of Plan F – Fraser Sewerage Area to Modify the Langley Servicing Plan Bylaw No. 257, 2010”

3. This Bylaw may be cited as the “Rawn Report Amendment No. 21 Bylaw”.

4. This Bylaw comes into force and takes effect on the date of final adoption.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this ____ day of ________________, 2010.

RECONSIDERED, PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this ____ day of

________________, 2010.

_______________________________________________

Lois Jackson, Chairperson

_______________________________________________ Paulette A. Vetleson, Secretary

SDD-200

CITY

OF

SU

RR

EY

FR

AS

ER

SE

WE

RA

GE

AR

EA

CITY

OF

LAN

GLE

Y

ATT

AC

HM

EN

T 5

SDD-201


SDD-202

gvs&dd board meeting agenda package - july 30, … › boards › gvsdd ›...

Documents