gvs&dd board meeting agenda package - september 23, 2011 · friday, september 23, 2011 2nd...

AGENDA

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

(GVS&DD) REGULAR MEETING

Friday, September 23, 2011

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 Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Derek Corrigan. Burnaby Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Charlie Fox, Langley Township Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver 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 Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Lou Sekora, Coquitlam 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, Johnny Carline*

* Non-voting member

This page left blank intentionally.

September 15, 2011

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

9:00 a.m. Friday, September 23, 2011

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

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

1. September 23, 2011 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 23, 2011 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. July 29, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held July 29, 2011 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 REPORTS

1.1 Regional Organics Strategy

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board endorse Model 3: the ‘hybrid model’ for managing organic waste.

Section A 1

SDD - 1

1.2 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 – Staff Appointments

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007, appoint Scott Brown and Sukhjeet (Sonny) Johal as Officers.

1.3 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste

and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw – Staff Appointments Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw 183, 1996, appoint Scott Brown and Sukhjeet (Sonny) Johal as Officers.

1.4 Inclusion of Milk Containers into the BC Deposit System

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board request the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Environment and the Union of BC Municipalities restating Metro Vancouver’s support for a levy on milk containers as part of the recycling program and encourage other jurisdictions to take the same action.

1.5 Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill

Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled “Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill”, dated September 15, 2011 for information.

1.6 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September 2011

Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated September 14, 2011, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September 2011”. F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

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.

SDD - 2

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 September 23, 2011 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (g) 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: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district.”

K. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of September 23, 2011.

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, July 29, 2011 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 9:23 a.m. on Friday, July 29, 2011 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 Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby

(arrived at 9:48 a.m.) Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Charlie Fox, Langley Township Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby

(departed at 9:48 a.m.) Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver

(arrived at 9:32 a.m.)

Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver CityAlternate Director Barinder Rasode,

Surrey for Linda Hepner Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver

(arrived at 9:32 a.m.) Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Lou Sekora, Coquitlam Alternate Director Barbara Steele,

Surrey for Dianne Watts Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner Johnny Carline*

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody

STAFF PRESENT: Janis Olsen, Assistant to Regional

Committees, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department

Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/ Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. July 29, 2011 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for

July 29, 2011 by adding: i. under Section J Resolution To Close Meeting pursuant to

Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter [negotiations and * Non-voting member.

Section B 1

SDD - 7


related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the Board, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public];

ii. after Section B. Adoption of the minutes, on-table correspondence dated July 22, 2011 addressed to Lois E. Jackson, Chair, from Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, regarding Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Plan; and

b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. June 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held June 24, 2011 as circulated.

CARRIED

2. July 15, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its special meeting held July 15, 2011 as circulated.

CARRIED Approval of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan On-table correspondence dated July 22, 2011 addressed to Chair, Lois E. Jackson, from Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, regarding approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan. Members were informed of the conditions of approval of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. 9:32 a.m. Directors Louie and Reimer arrived at the meeting. 9:48 a.m. Director Corrigan arrived at the meeting. Director Jordan departed the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the correspondence dated July 22, 2011 addressed to Lois E. Jackson, Chair, from Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, regarding provincial approval of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

SDD - 8


D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the July 29, 2011 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Board Consent (GVS&DD) Agenda: 1.1 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Zero

Waste Challenge – Accelerating Multi-Family Waste Diversion 1.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Zero

Waste Challenge – Accelerating Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion

1.3 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 5900 Block 272 Street, Township of Langley

1.4 2010 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD CARRIED

The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

1.1 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum:

Zero Waste Challenge – Accelerating Multi-Family Waste Diversion Report dated June 29, 2011 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and Simon Cumming, External and Intergovernmental Relations Division Manager, Corporate Relations Department, providing the Board information on the four regional Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and one post-dialogue forum hosted by Metro Vancouver on the “Zero Waste Challenge – Accelerating Multi-family Waste Diversion”. Recommendation: That the Board: a) Request municipal recycling waste reduction coordinators to consider

recommendations on solutions for multi-family space requirements as outlined in Attachment 1; and

b) Direct staff to form a stakeholder group as identified in the dialogue and post-dialogue series, to consider actions to: 1. Streamline the regulatory process and ensure policies and

regulations at different levels are consistent; and 2. Showcase model multi-family projects and work with stakeholders

(e.g., strata associations and building managers, Condominium Homeowners Association, builders, and local governments) to develop customized education and outreach materials for this sector.

Adopted on Consent

SDD - 9


1.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Zero Waste Challenge – Accelerating Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Report dated June 29, 2011 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and Simon Cumming, External and Intergovernmental Relations Division Manager, Corporate Relations Department, providing the Board information on the four regional Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and one post-dialogue forum hosted by Metro Vancouver on the “Zero Waste Challenge – Accelerating Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion”. Recommendation: That the Board: a) Request municipal recycling waste reduction coordinators to consider

recommendations on solutions for accelerating construction and demolition waste diversion outlined in Attachment 1; and

b) Direct staff to form a stakeholder group as identified in the dialogue and post-dialogue series to consider actions to: 1. Encourage Market Shifts through the creation of a one-stop online

inventory of materials to help connect buyers to sellers. 2. Develop strategies and actions to enhance and streamline bylaws,

zoning and building codes to better allow for alternative building designs.

3. Expand education and outreach to offer training at the site level and develop public information materials and focused communication strategies that target broad audiences and are consistent and integrated with collection systems.

Adopted on Consent

1.3 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 5900 Block 272 Street, Township of Langley Report dated June 22, 2011 from Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department, responding to a request from the Township of Langley 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 properties described as Sec 8, TWP 14, NWD Parcel 1 RP15620, Suburban Block A (RP5080), Part SW1/4, except Plan 85898 (Road) and Sec 8, TWP 14, NWD Parcel A (RP5080), Part SW1/4, except Plan PCL1-RP 15620, Part in LMP 51701 in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 66 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 5900 block 272 Street, Township of Langley”.

Adopted on Consent

1.4 2010 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD Report dated June 1, 2011 from Theresa Gregonia, Superintendent of

Wastewater Treatment Plant Laboratories, Operations and Maintenance Department, providing the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Board (GVS&DD) with a summary of the 2010 Quality Control Annual Report for the GVS&DD.

SDD - 10


Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “2010 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD”.

Adopted on Consent F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

No items presented.

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 July 29, 2011 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(i) and (k) 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: (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,

including communications necessary for that purpose. (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed

provision of a regional service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the Board, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.”

CARRIED

K. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of July 29, 2011.

CARRIED (Time: 9:52 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

Lois E. Jackson, Chair

5321359 DRAFT

SDD - 11


SDD - 12

CONSENT AGENDA

SDD - 13


SDD - 14

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 To: Waste Management Committee From: Andrew Marr, Senior Engineer

Solid Waste Department Date: September 6, 2011 Subject: Regional Organics Strategy Recommendation: That the Board endorse Model 3: the ‘hybrid model’ for managing organic waste. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to examine different models for managing organic waste and recommend a model and strategic role for Metro Vancouver. 2. CONTEXT Section 2.6.2 of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (Plan) calls for Metro Vancouver to work with municipalities to establish new organics processing capacity and divert an additional 265,000 tonnes per annum (TPA) of organic waste generated by homes and businesses away from disposal by 2015. For the purpose of this report, organic wastes include the food scraps, yard trimmings, and soiled paper commonly found in municipal solid waste (MSW), but do not include organic wastes from agricultural operations, heavy industry, biomedical or other non-MSW sources. Of the organic wastes targeted for future diversion, fully half is generated by businesses in the form of food scraps. A regional organics strategy should define the roles of Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and the private sector in managing organics in the region. A number of objectives were considered in the evaluation of potential strategies, including: diverting organic waste from disposal, securing feedstock to organics processing facilities, securing organics processing capacity and performance, ensuring fair pricing and fair competition, regulatory compliance, guaranteeing end product markets, system stability, geographical and financial equity, community acceptance, possible integration with liquid waste operations, etc. Staff evaluated the merits of potential strategies, and the degree to which Metro Vancouver could and should influence the organics processing industry and private haulers. It became evident that the less risk acceptable in achieving the above objectives, the more public sector control of and involvement in all aspects of the system would be required, and vice

Section E 1.1

SDD - 15

Regional Organics Strategy Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 5 versa: the more risk that could be tolerated the less public sector control and involvement would be required. Three principal options for managing organics in the region were developed: Model 1: Maximum intervention: full Metro Vancouver ownership of new processing facilities, full regulation of the operation of existing processing facilities, and full control and direction of the flows of the organic waste industry; Model 2: Minimum intervention: the private sector organics processing industry would provide processing capacity, and private haulers would transport organic waste with minimal to zero regulation and influence from Metro Vancouver; Model 3: - Metro Vancouver would implement regulations and economic incentives (primarily a steadily increasing ‘price’ for the inclusion of organic waste in the regular MSW waste stream) designed to assist in driving increased organic waste diversion by the private sector. The private sector (processors and haulers) would respond to these price signals, allowing entrepreneurial innovation, subject to broad locational and environmental controls exercised either by the region or local municipality. Metro Vancouver would monitor performance against the major objectives, adjust pricing or introduce other regulations as necessary. Commentary on these three models is fleshed out in the ‘alternatives’ section below. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Board may:

a) Endorse a strategy in which Metro Vancouver establishes publicly-owned processing facilities, fully regulates the operation of existing processing facilities, and directs the flows of the organic waste processing industry – the Government Regulated Model.

This model would see Metro Vancouver exercising full regulation of the flows, facilities, hauling, processors, and prices of the local organics market. Metro Vancouver would own new processing facilities, determine their location and size, and decide whether they would produce compost or biofuels. Metro Vancouver would fully regulate the operation of all private facilities and haulers, broker organics from the waste producers to designated processing facilities, and set prices. This model would provide a high degree of certainty that the region would have timely and sufficient processing capacity to meet the diversion goals in the Plan, and would minimize the financial risk to new publicly-owned facilities from uncertain markets and competition. However, this model would incur significant financial cost to the public sector, would require considerable time and effort in order to develop the necessary regulatory instruments. Existing private sector operators and haulers in the organic waste processing industry would likely resist and would argue it would hamper innovation due to the high degree of regulation.

SDD - 16

Regional Organics Strategy Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 3 of 5

b) Endorse a strategy in which Metro Vancouver exercises minimal regulation and influence over the local organics processing industry – Private Sector Controlled Model. This model is essentially the status quo. Historically, Metro Vancouver has had minimal involvement in the siting, design, or ownership of new organics processing capacity, and has had limited involvement in creating regulations or economic incentives to divert organic wastes away from disposal. It has the lowest direct financial and administrative demands on Metro Vancouver and is the least intrusive in terms of regulating the private sector. This model would provide the least amount of certainty that sufficient processing capacity will be established in the region to achieve the Plan’s diversion goals, and would provide no additional economic and regulatory incentives for businesses and residents to divert organic wastes. Historically, the private sector interest in organics management has had mixed success and would not meet the goals of the recently adopted plan. There has been a recent upsurge of interest, possibly in anticipation of an organics ban, but the current capacity will be inadequate very shortly.

c) Endorse a strategy in which Metro Vancouver implements regulations and economic incentives to drive organic waste diversion by the private sector, monitors local processing capacity, and prepares to enact greater regulation, only if required – Hybrid Model. This model would see Metro Vancouver: · Implement a disposal ban on organics from single-family homes in 2012, as

indicated in the Plan. Sufficient processing capacity already exists for single family organics, and virtually all municipalities will likely have full organics collection for single family residents by the end of 2012.

· Introduce and promote a progressive new surcharge on the garbage tipping fee for waste from businesses and multi-family residences that contains excessive amounts of organics. That surcharge would increase in increments, reaching its full level in 2015, gradually increasing the economic differential between disposal of organics and recycling of organics. This staged process would allow waste producers and facility operators to prepare for and comply with a full ban on commercial organics in 2015. The envisaged schedule is a 10% surcharge on the garbage tipping fee in 2012; 20% in 2013; 30% in 2014; and 50% in 2015, although this could be accelerated or slowed down depending on the balance between diversion rates and processing capacity.

· Implement bylaws (in conjunction with member municipalities) requiring homes and businesses to recycle organics and other materials through authorized facilities.

· Monitor the supply and demand for regional organics processing capacity. At the end of 2012, if Metro Vancouver assesses that the private sector is not supplying sufficient processing capacity to achieve regional diversion goals, Metro Vancouver may implement more extensive regulatory control, including flow control to pre-authorized facilities, licensing of waste haulers, and implementation of a region-wide organics tipping fee.

SDD - 17

Regional Organics Strategy Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 4 of 5

· Monitor the cost differential between organics processing and garbage disposal. There is currently moderate economic incentive to divert organics, as the costs of composting and biofuel production are both below the cost of garbage disposal and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future.

· On request by member municipalities, provide residential organics transfer sites at existing transfer stations (where possible) with costs recovered from the specific facility users.

The private sector would build the new and expanded facilities that would provide the region with new organics processing capacity. In addition, member municipalities that wish to establish their own processing facilities would be encouraged to do so. This model would have a lower overall financial cost to Metro Vancouver and the private sector would retain the majority of the financial risks. The public sector would monitor and retain the option of increasing its involvement in the local organics processing industry, if needed.

Given the potential challenges, costs, and degree of regional intervention, and the uncertainties as to whether the recent upsurge of private sector interest will be continued, at this point the Hybrid Model’s approach to managing local organics appears to be the most prudent and pragmatic approach. This approach enables private companies and entrepreneurial municipalities to innovate and develop the full potential of the marketplace. It also allows Metro Vancouver to promote awareness of the 2015 organics ban for all stakeholders and ready itself to implement further regulatory authority if the efforts of private industry are not successful in building a viable and sustainable secondary marketplace for organics. Staff, therefore, recommend alternative (c): the Hybrid Model. 4. CONCLUSION The private sector has, to date, supplied most of the existing organics processing capacity that currently exists in the region. Significant additional capacity will be needed to meet Metro Vancouver’s goals of diverting an additional 265,000 tonnes per year of organic waste from disposal by 2015. There are three principal options for managing organics in the region: 1) Metro Vancouver establishes publicly-owned processing facilities, fully regulates the operation of existing processing facilities, and directs the flows of the organic waste industry; 2) The private sector organics processing industry continues to provide processing capacity with minimal regulation and influence from Metro Vancouver; and 3) A hybrid model in which Metro Vancouver implements regulations and economic incentives to drive increased organic waste diversion by the private sector, while allowing the private sector to innovate and provide processing capacity. Option 3 appears to provide the best overall balance of assured processing capacity, limited financial risk, and regulation. Under the recommended strategy Metro Vancouver’s new regulation would include a ban on single family residential organics in 2012, and the development of new bylaws requiring mandatory separation of organics for recycling by residents and businesses. The new economic incentives would include escalating surcharges on the disposal of garbage

SDD - 18

Regional Organics Strategy Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 5 of 5 containing organic wastes, along the lines of 10% in 2012, 20% in 2013, 30% in 2014 and 50% in 2015. Metro Vancouver would also continue to develop new regulatory tools to exercise greater regulation of the organics processing industry should ongoing monitoring project a shortfall in local organics processing capacity, and would, in the mean time, communicate the bans and surcharges in a timely way that would allow all parties to properly prepare for these regulatory initiatives. 4737149

SDD - 19


SDD - 20

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011

To: Waste Management Committee From: Ray Robb, Regulation & Enforcement Division Manager Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: August 17, 2011 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No.

299, 2007 – Staff Appointments Recommendation: That the Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007, appoint Scott Brown and Sukhjeet (Sonny) Johal as Officers. 1. PURPOSE To update Metro Vancouver staff appointments under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. 2. CONTEXT Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Regulatory Program supports the goals of the Liquid Waste Management Plan through regulation of the discharge of non-domestic wastes to the regions’ sanitary sewer system. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 delegates authority to Board-designated Officers to advance liquid waste management goals. Municipal Sewage Control Officers may enter property, inspect works, and obtain records and other information to promote compliance with GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw and the BC Environmental Management Act. The authority for staff to undertake these compliance promotion activities are derived from their appointment by the Board as Municipal Sewage Control Officers. Recent changes in Metro Vancouver staff have resulted in a need for the Board to update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. In accordance with Section 29 of the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Control Officers must be appointed by the Board. 3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

Section E 1.2

SDD - 21

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 – Staff Appointments Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2

5381610

4. CONCLUSION Recent changes in staff have resulted in a need to appoint new staff under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007.

SDD - 22


To: Waste Management Committee From: Ray Robb, Regulation & Enforcement Division Manager Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: August 17, 2011 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste

and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw – Staff Appointments Recommendation: That the Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw 183, 1996, appoint Scott Brown and Sukhjeet (Sonny) Johal as Officers. 1. PURPOSE To update staff appointments under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw 183, 1996. 2. CONTEXT Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Regulatory Program supports the goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan through regulation of solid waste and recyclable materials management at private facilities. GVS&DD Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaws 181 and 183 impose requirements upon the private sector and delegate authority upon Metro Vancouver staff to advance solid waste management goals. Officers may enter property; inspect works; obtain records and other information to promote compliance with the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District solid waste management bylaws. The authority for staff to undertake these compliance promotion activities are derived from their appointment by the Board as Officers. Recent changes in Metro Vancouver staff have resulted in a need for the Board to appoint new Officers pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and GVS&DD Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw 183, 1996. In accordance with Section 32 of the Environmental Management Act, Officers must be appointed by the Board.

Section E 1.3

SDD - 23

GVS&DD Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw - Staff Appointments Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2

5382002

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented. 4. CONCLUSION Recent changes in staff have resulted in a need to appoint new staff under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw 181, 1996 as amended by Bylaw 183, 1996.

SDD - 24

5448996

GVS&DD Board Meeting: September 23, 2011

To: Board of Directors From: Waste Management Committee Date: September 15, 2011 Subject: Inclusion of Milk Containers into the BC Deposit System Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board request the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Environment and the Union of BC Municipalities restating Metro Vancouver’s support for a levy on milk containers as part of the recycling program and encourage other jurisdictions to take the same action. At its September 14, 2011 meeting, the Waste Management Committee heard a delegate Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle Depot Association. The delegate requested the Committee’s support to submit an emergency resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) at its September 2011 conference to have all milk containers included into the BC deposit system. In ensuing discussion, the Committee was informed that resolutions to this effect were already passed by the UBCM. Concerns were expressed that no action had been taken since the resolution was passed. It was suggested that a communication strategy be developed. It was also suggested that staff research the recent UBCM resolutions related to the matter, that a letter be sent to the Minister as presented above and that the issue be raised at the September 2011 conference.

Section E 1.4

SDD - 25


SDD - 26

5451190

GVS&DD Board Meeting Date: September 23, 2011

To: Board of Directors From: Dennis Ranahan, Division Manager, Solid Waste Department Date: September 15, 2011 Subject: Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft

Landfill Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled “Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill”, dated September 15, 2011 for information. At its September 14, 2011 meeting, the Waste Management Committee considered the attached report titled “Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill”, dated, September 13, 2011 and received for information. Following the meeting staff felt that the board would benefit from an update on the matter. Attachment: Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill”, dated, September 13, 2011

Section E 1.5

SDD - 27


SDD - 28


To: Waste Management Committee From: Dennis Ranahan, Division Manager, Solid Waste Department Date: September 13, 2011 Subject: Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft

Landfill Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee receive the report titled “Provincial ruling on Environmental Assessment application for Ashcroft Landfill”, dated September 13, 2011 for information. 1. PURPOSE To update the Waste Management Committee on the recent decision by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development on the Environmental Assessment (EA) application for the Ashcroft Landfill project. 2. CONTEXT In 2004, Metro Vancouver submitted the Ashcroft Landfill project application to the Environmental Assessment Office to replace the Cache Creek Landfill upon its closure. On June 7, 2005, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management suspended the EA until the substantial completion of Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Plan. Following years of extensive plan development, Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) was approved by the Minister of Environment on July 25, 2011. With substantial completion of the ISWRMP reached, the suspension on the EA approval process was lifted thereby requiring the Minister to make a decision on the EA by September 9, 2011. Subsequently, on September 9, 2011, the Minister of Environment made the decision not to issue an environmental assessment certificate for a landfill on Ashcroft Ranch. The Minister, however, has stated that Metro Vancouver could reapply if they wished to pursue this project. 3. ALTERNATIVES None provided.

SDD - 29

KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

Rejection of Environmental Assessment of Ashcroft Ranch Landfill Application Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2

5442797

4. CONCLUSION The Province has rejected Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Assessment application for the Ashcroft Landfill project. If the Board still wishes to pursue this project, it can reapply for an EA certificate. ATTACHMENT: Information Bulletin from the Province dated September 9, 2011

SDD - 30

INFO RM ATIO N B UL LET I N

2011ENV0050-001144 Sept. 9, 2011

Ministry of Environment

Ashcroft Ranch Landfill Project denied EA certificate

VICTORIA – Metro Vancouver (the proponent) has not been granted an environmental assessment certificate for its proposal to develop a landfill at its Ashcroft Ranch property (the project) located 10 kilometres south of the community of Cache Creek. Environment Minister Terry Lake and Community, Sport and Cultural Development Minister Ida Chong made their decision to refuse to grant an environmental assessment certificate after considering the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Office, as well as a number of other matters relevant to the public interest since Metro Vancouver originally applied for an environmental assessment certificate in 2004. The timing of the environmental assessment decision was contingent on approval of Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Plan. The plan was approved by Lake in July 2011. Lake and Chong made their decision based on several factors, including the fact that the Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Plan does not identify the need for a large new landfill in the B.C. Interior. The ministers also highlighted that in 2008, the Metro Vancouver board resolved to move away from Interior landfills and focus its attention on waste reduction, composting and other waste disposal options. Finally, the ministers noted that Metro Vancouver’s plans for a large new landfill on the Ashcroft Ranch property were based on the assumption that the Cache Creek Landfill, which has operated since the 1989, would close in 2008. The Cache Creek Landfill received an environmental assessment certificate in January 2010, which would enable it to operate for an additional 25 years.

Metro Vancouver could submit a new proposal for a future landfill at the property, should they wish to do so. Contact:

Suntanu Dalal Communications Ministry of Environment 250 387-9745

Connect with the Province of B.C. at www.gov.bc.ca/connect

SDD - 31

http://www.gov.bc.ca/connect

JBAIRD

Text Box

ATTACHMENT


SDD - 32

GVS&DD Board Meeting Date: September 23, 2011

To: Board of Directors From: Kelly Birks, Office Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information

Department Date: September 14, 2011 Subject: Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September

2011 Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated September 14, 2011, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September 2011”. Attachment(s): A. BC Bottle Depot Association B. The Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC C. Electronic Stewardship Association of BC (ESABC) D. Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc. 5447482

Section E 1.6

SDD - 33


SDD - 34

1

July, 2011 Dear Metro Vancouver Waste Committee I submit this letter to request your support to submit an emergency resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities at the September 2011 conference to have all milk containers included into the BC deposit system. The resolution must be submitted by noon September 23rd 2011 Representatives of the BC Bottle Depot Association met with Minister of Environment the Honourable Terry Lake and senior Ministry of Environment staff who confirmed that the Ministry of Environment plans to include milk containers under the newly approved Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) product category by Order in Council May 19th 2011 without public consultation. Senior Ministry of Environment staff indicated that milk containers included in the packaging EPR program will be recovered only through blue box programs at the request of manufacturers in the industry. The Ministry of Environment supports and promotes industry lead stewardship programs. However, industry represents ands lobbies for what is best for manufacturers in the industry. This back to blue box stewardship approach to waste management in BC will set precedence for the current and ongoing beverage industry campaign in North America to have all used beverage containers collected solely through blue box programs. This will be the beginning of the end of the used beverage container recycling deposit system as we know it today and bring us back to the days of used beverage containers littering our environment. The milk industry’s argument for not putting a deposit on milk containers is that a deposit on milk containers will hurt families. The reality is that the deposit system rewards individuals who recycle. Only those who do not return their containers for recycling forfeit the deposit. Families and individuals of all income levels currently purchase fruit and vegetable juice, soft drinks and water in deposit bearing containers and additionally pay non refundable container recycling fees, advanced disposal fees or environmental handling fees on other goods under EPR stewardship such as a TV of up to $31.75 Currently in British Columbia Encorp Pacific (Canada) manages a voluntary milk container program for the dairy industry. No financial incentives are in place to entice the consumer to return the containers to depots. The recovery rates posted by Encorp are less than 10%. By contrast containers captured under the deposit system also operated by Encorp reached recovery rates of over 79.5% in 2010. Combined, Canadian deposit systems have a total recovery rate of 83%, while non-deposit systems have a total recovery rate of 41%, The Province of Alberta increased the level of its deposits from 5-cents to 10-cents, and 20-cents to 25-cents on November 1, 2008. After only 11 months, the Province reported an increase in total recovery rate of 5 points, from 76% to 81%. In November 2009, Alberta became the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a deposit on all milk and liquid cream beverage containers. The deposits are 10-cents for containers under 1 litre and 25-cents for containers over one litre.

BC Bottle Depot Association 9850 King George Blvd., Surrey, V3T 4Y3 Phone: 604-930-0003 Fax: 604-930-0060

Email [email protected]

ATTACHMENT A

SDD - 35

2

Since the implementation of deposits on milk, according to Alberta Environment, the rate of recycled cartons grew from 22.5% to 61% and the rate of plastic jugs from 61% to 71%. The Alberta Dairy Council reports that new deposits have not had an impact on sales. Milk containers were included in the Alberta deposit system in 2009 and municipal recyclers saw a significant drop in curb side collection volume but also a sizable drop in recycling costs. What municipalities also received was a significant increase in revenue by returning the containers to a depot. For example: there are approximately 16,000 HDPE milk jugs per baled tonne and if sold on the open commodity market would fetch approximately $400. The municipality then must deduct the cost of collecting the jugs curb side. At 25 cents returned deposit per milk jug, a tonne of milk containers would realise $4,000 revenue for the municipality. The types of plastics and cartons used for milk are identical to many of the beverage containers currently used to hold other beverages and can be recycled in the same manner. As the deposit system is already in place in BC and the faltering voluntary milk program is already operated by Encorp, the collection of milk containers under the current used beverage container deposit system could be implemented within weeks. The deposit system provides thousands of jobs province-wide and much needed financial resources to charities and other public service groups through bottle drives. The deposit system rewards persons of challenged financial means by improving their circumstances through pay for work performed retrieving the containers. The deposit system is a win-win situation for everyone and is the best choice to remove garbage from the waste streams and improve our environment. The most accurate way to determine recovery rates is by comparing return rates against sales rates. This is already being done for all other used beverage containers. The same approach can be used to calculate recovery rates on milk containers. Allowing the milk containers to be collected only curb side will mean inaccurate recovery rates as the materials will be co mingled with other plastics and not reconciled with sales figures. Discussions with the Minister of Environment indicated that the EPR plan for packaging that includes milk containers could be amended if further information can be provided that:

1) Families will not be adversely affected by paying the deposit estimated to be 25 cents for a gallon jug to match Alberta’s deposit rates. The milk industry estimates that 6 jugs per month (24 litres) are sold to each household in BC.

2) Impact of increased recovery rates to the environment. Metro Vancouver Waste Committee Support for BCBDA’s Initiative On May 18th 2011 the BC Bottle Depot Association received unanimous support from the Metro Vancouver Waste Committee. The Metro Vancouver Waste Committee has sent a letter of support to Minister Lake requesting all milk containers be including under the beverage container stewardship plan and be included in the deposit system. The Ministry of Environment has now approved the Metro Vancouver Waste Plan and it is imperative that the issue of milk containers in to the deposit system be addressed. Yours truly

Corinne Atwood CAE Executive Director BC Bottle Depot Association

SDD - 36

Water Balance Model for British Columbia

1

DATE: September 2, 2011

TO: Metro Vancouver Waste Management Committee

FROM: Kim A Stephens, M.Eng., P.Eng., Executive Director

SUBJECT: INTEGRATED LIQUID WASTE & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Regional Commitments and Minister’s Conditions for ISMPs

Purpose of Presentation: Request a $50,000 cash contribution by Metro Vancouver. This is a one-time request.

This financial support will help fund the next phase of evolution and enhancement of the Water Balance Model. Note: The not-for-profit Partnership is the legal entity for the model.

In turn, this scenario modelling and decision support tool will help Metro Vancouver and members fulfil your ISMP commitments. Note: ISMP is the acronym for Integrated Stormwater Management Plans.

The Region Has Committed to Protecting Watershed Health:

The commitments by Metro Vancouver and member municipalities to develop ISMPs and implement on-site rainwater management are spelled out in Clauses 1.1.12, 1.1.20, 1.1.21, 3.4.7 and 3.5.9 of the region’s Integrated Liquid Waste & Resource Management Plan.

When he approved the Plan in May, the Minister of Environment imposed additional requirements to protect watershed and stream health, for example: the region is required to develop a coordinated program to monitor, assess and report on implementation and effectiveness of ISMPs.

In November, the Partnership is piloting a 2-day course for local government practitioners on how to implement the ‘ISMP Course Correction’ in Metro Vancouver and develop ‘Watershed Blueprints’. Note: The course theme is “Achieve More With Less” because municipalities have many competing priorities and everyone is challenged to do more with less, and get it done.

Water Balance Model Links Built and Natural Environments:

Originally developed to meet the ISMP needs of Metro Vancouver municipalities, use of the Water Balance Model informs decisions about a community’s ‘water footprint’. Launched by an inter-governmental partnership at UBCM in 2003, this web-based tool is unique:

bridges engineering and planning; links development sites to the stream and the watershed; and enables science-based performance targets to be established.

The Water Balance Model helps local governments create a vision of the watershed future. It enables planners and engineers to design communities so that they have no net impact on stream environments.

SDD - 37

KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT B

2

Vision for the Water Balance Model Express: While it has a Metro Vancouver genesis, the Water Balance Model has become “British Columbia’s tool”. Also, use of the Water Balance Model extends beyond the boundaries of British Columbia.

Ongoing evolution and enhancement of the Water Balance Model is driven by the community of users and funded by government. Since 2002, over $1.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions have been invested in development to expand the capabilities of the tool, for example: federal financial support provided via the Regional Adaptation Collaboratives program has made it possible to develop “Version 2.1”.

Release of Version 2.1 on a new platform complete with a rebuilt website in November will provide an operating environment that supports user communities that range from highly experienced experts to enthusiastic newcomers. Three launch buttons will correspond to three common investigation scenarios:

WBM for the Watershed – this is the scale where watershed behaviour and stream erosion prevention is analyzed for achievability of performance targets and protection of stream health.

WBM for the Neighbourhood – this is the scale where the combined performance of on-lot rainfall capture measures and community detention ponds is analyzed for effectiveness.

WBM Express for Homeowners – this is the single family lot scale, and is especially relevant to house replacement scenarios that create opportunities to ‘do it right’ the second time.

The $50,000 that we are requesting from Metro Vancouver will enable the Partnership to bring the vision for the WBM Express to fruition: homeowners will be able to type in their address, access a version of the WBM that has pre-set values (for climate, land use), select and apply from a suite of source controls for rainfall capture, run scenarios, and print a report. This capability will help municipal front counter staff.

The ultimate target actually audience goes well beyond homeowners. The Partnership sees the WBM Express as a vehicle to connect with builders, developers, consultants, real estate agents and students/educators. This will help municipalities fulfil Clauses 1.1.20/21 for on-site rainwater management.

The WBM Express will open the door to an array of educational opportunities. It will be a resource for developers and others to help the public understand the effect of their choices and decisions on the natural environment. It could be incorporated into the curricula for high school and post-secondary institutions. This will help municipalities fulfil Clause 3.4.7 for ISMPs and Clause 3.5.9 for reporting out.

The total budget for the next phase of work in 2012 is $315,000. About the Partnership: Incorporated as a not-for-profit society, the Partnership had its genesis in a Metro Vancouver technical committee (i.e. SILG). It is the legal entity for the Water Balance Model and the Water Bucket website.

The Partnership is the hub for a provincial ‘convening for action’ network in the local government setting. The majority of Metro Vancouver municipalities are charter members.

The Partnership was responsible for Beyond the Guidebook 2010: Implementing a New Culture for Urban Watershed Protection and Restoration in British Columbia. This guidance document tells the stories of the champions in local government who are leading change and implementing green infrastructure.

Links to Online Resources:

www.waterbucket.ca and www.waterbalance.ca and http://watersustainabilitybc.blogspot.com/

Peer-Based Learning Will Help Local Governments Implement ‘Watershed Blueprints’ in BC http://www.waterbucket.ca/cfa/sites/wbccfa/documents/media/526.pdf

SDD - 38

The following is a summary of the presentation to be made by the Electronics Stewardship Association of BC at the following meeting:

Committee: Waste Management Committee When: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. Where: 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Topics to be covered:

• Overview of the Association o Background

§ Membership o Purpose

§ Diversion of End of Life Electronics from Landfill § Environmentally responsible Practices

o Program Expansions o Collection network

§ Depots § Collection events

• Audit of the Recycling Stream o Purpose o Audit Standards o Audit Process

• Program Accomplishment o Measurements o Phase II launch

• Next steps o Phase IV expansion o Harmonization

§ Local with other Stewards § Nationally with other Provincial Programs

ATTACHMENT C

SDD - 39


SDD - 40

Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc. #1, 24330 Fraser Highway Langley BC V2Z 1N2 September 13, 2011

Agenda Item: 5.4 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24330 Fraser Highway,

Langley Contact information: Paul Rasmussen, Community Manager BC Properties Phone: 604-857-1611 Fax: 604-857-1683 Email: [email protected] Subject: To speak in support of expanding the Fraser Sewerage Area to include Langley Grove Estates, located at 24330 Fraser Highway, Langley and request the committee approve the application. Summation:

1. Langley Grove Estates is a manufactured home community, owned and operated by Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities, providing affordable homes for 223 Metro Vancouver residents.

2. Currently operating under waste management permit issued by the BC Ministry of Environment.

3. Waste Management Staff recommendations: a. We were disappointed to find that WM Staff does not support the application. b. We acknowledge newer and more efficient treatment plants exist, but this does

not solve the problem of disposal of the treated waste water. c. The Langley Township’s Manager of Water Resources and Environment, Kevin

Larson, M.Sc., P.Eng. , report clearly acknowledges the current problems with the drainage beds and the need for an alternative solution.

4. Green Zone: a. The discussion around the Green Zone should be irrelevant as it no longer exists

and its replacement (Regional Growth Strategy) does provide for extension of the sewer system to outside the catchment area.

SDD - 41

KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT D

b. We realize we were located within the green zone, but submit that this community was established many years prior to the inception of the Green Zone.

5. The urgent need to address a sewage treatment plant and drainage fields coming to the end of its service life.

6. Treatment plant: a. Coming to the end of its service life b. We acknowledge it can be replaced with newer, more efficient system, but if you

cannot dispose of the water, the problem continues to exist.

7. Drainage fields: a. Currently have 3 separate drainage fields. b. All fields are coming to the end of their service life. c. High water table creates a challenging, near insurmountable problem with treated

water disposal. i. Water table is approximately 12 inches below surface.

ii. This raises environmental concerns as supported by Kevin Larsen of Township of Langley and Sisto Bosa of the BC Ministry of Environment.

8. Costs: We have accepted the fact that we would be paying all costs to connect to the existing sewer lines, as well as future sewage disposal costs.

9. Future expansions: We acknowledge and have accepted that the Township of Langley supports our application, with the following provisions:

a. There will be no future expansions of the community and b. The connection will be based on the current number of homes and not what is

permitted by the zoning.

Conclusion: Due to the high water table and the drainage fields coming to the end of their service life, not arriving at a solution may jeopardize the future of this community, which would have a devastating impact on our residents. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Rasmussen Community Manager, BC Properties

SDD - 42

gvs&dd board meeting agenda package - september 23, 2011 · friday, september 23, 2011 2nd...

Documents