GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Thursday, February 13, :00 p.m. 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA R E V I S E D A G E N D A February 13, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 13, 2014 as circulated. 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 October 18, 2013 Special Joint Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees Meeting Minutes That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the minutes of its special joint meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committee meeting held October 18, 2013 as circulated. 2.2 November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 7, 2013 as circulated. 2.3 November 21, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held November 21, 2013 as circulated. 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

2 Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda February 13, 2014 Agenda Page 2 of 4 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan Designated Speaker: Andrew Marr, Acting Division Manager, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 15, 2014 titled 2014 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan. 5.2 New Waste-to-Energy Project Update Designated Speaker: Sarah Wellman, Project Manager, New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project That the Board receive the report dated January 22, 2014 titled New Waste-to- Energy Project Update for information. 5.3 Update on new WTE Capacity, Projected Waste Composition and Energy Content Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services That the Board: 1. Receive this update on future waste composition, waste flows, and energy content as information, and 2. Maintain the planned new waste-to-energy (WTE) capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year and direct staff to continue to monitor waste flow and required capacity and report back on recommended new WTE capacity prior to the release of the request for proposals for new WTE capacity. 5.4 New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Number of Facilities Designated Speaker: Sarah Wellman, Project Manager, New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project That the Board approves the number of waste-to-energy facilities be determined through the procurement process with Technology Proponent submissions based on projects capable of processing the full required new waste-to-energy capacity (370,000 tonnes per year) using either one or multiple facilities. 5.5 Update on Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational Certificate Progress Designated Speaker: Chris Allan, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 27, 2014 titled Update on Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational Certificate Progress for information. February 14, 2014

3 Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda February 13, 2014 Agenda Page 3 of Implementation of Packaging and Printed Paper EPR Program Designated Speaker: Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 13, 2014 titled Update on Implementation of Packaging and Printed Paper EPR Program for information Organics Disposal Ban Pre-consultation Outcomes with the ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) Sector Designated Speaker: David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department That the Zero Waste Committee receives for information this report on engagement with the ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) sector in support of the upcoming consultation on the 2015 Organics Disposal Ban. 5.8 Zero Waste Committee Consideration of Attendance at 2014 Events Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer, Corporate Services That the Zero Waste Committee supports Zero Waste Committee members attendance at the following events in 2014: a. BioCycle West Coast Conference b. Recycling Council of British Columbia: Closing the Loop: Preventing Waste Through Sustainable Enterprise c. Solid Waste Association of North America Wastecon Conference. 2. That the Zero Waste Committee Chair recommends attendee(s) for each of these events to the Board Chair. 5.9 Manager s Report Attachments 3 and 4 provided on table Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated January 17, 2014, titled Manager s Report. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Belkorp Environmental Services Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility - Correspondence dated January 21, 2014 from Jay Gilbert, City Clerk, City of Coquitlam addressed to Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services. 6.2 Duke Point as Potential Waste Incineration Site - Correspondence dated January 14, 2014 from David Graham, Chair, Gabriola Island Local Trust Committee addressed to City of Nanaimo Mayor and Council. February 14, 2014

4 Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda February 13, 2014 Agenda Page 4 of New Waste-to-Energy Facility - Correspondence dated January 13, 2014 from Paul Thorkelsson, Chief Administrative Officer, Regional District of Nanaimo addressed to Chair Greg Moore and Members of the Board. 6.4 Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility Planned for Fraser River Floodplain - Press Release dated December 17, Fraser Valley Regional District Solid Waste Management Plan - Correspondence dated December 13, 2013 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board addressed to Sharon Gaetz, Chair, Fraser Valley Regional District. 6.6 Multi-Material BC's Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Plan - Correspondence dated December 11, 2013 from Lois Jackson, Mayor, Corporation of Delta addressed to Wes Shoemaker, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment. 6.7 Fresh Food Tax Credit - Correspondence dated December 4, 2013 from Philippe Ozga, Manager of Government Relations, Food Banks Canada addressed to Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee. 6.8 BC Chamber of Commerce s Endorsement of Metro Vancouver Monopoly Campaign - Correspondence dated October 30, 2013 from Mayor Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee addressed to James Belsheim, Chair, BC Chamber of Commerce. 6.9 Metro Vancouver s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan - Correspondence dated November 18, 2013 from James Belsheim, Chair, BC Chamber of Commerce addressed to Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee. 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented. 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of February 13, Membership: Brodie, Malcolm (C) Richmond Corrigan, Derek (VC) Burnaby Bassam, Roger North Vancouver District Glumac, Rick Port Moody Jackson, Lois Delta Long, Bob Langley Township Martin, Gayle Langley City Nicholson, Neal Coquitlam Rasode, Barinder Surrey Reimer, Andrea Vancouver Smith, Michael West Vancouver Wright, Michael Port Coquitlam Wright, Wayne New Westminster February 14, 2014

5 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT FINANCE, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATION, UTILITIES AND ZERO WASTE COMMITIEES Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held at 9:03 a.m. on Friday, October 18, 2013 in the 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, to consider the 2014 Draft Budget - Metro Vancouver Districts and Housing Corporation. FINANCE COMMITIEE PRESENT: Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District (lac) Vice Chair, Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Wayne Baldwin, White Rock (UC) Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond (lac, UC, ZWC) Councillor Rod Clark, North Vancouver City Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge (UC, ZWC) (arrived at 9:10 a.m.) Director Jack Froese, Langley Township (UC) Director Kerry Jang, Vancouver Councillor Michael Lewis, West Vancouver Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Andrew Stone, Bowen Island ABSENT: Director Lois Jackson, Delta (lac, ZWC) Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey (ZWC) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITIEE PRESENT: Chair, Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Vice Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam (departed at 10:20 a.m.) Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond (FC, UC, ZWC) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby(UC, ZWC) Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge (FC, UC) Director Heather Deal, Vancouver (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, North VancouverCity(UC) Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District (FC) Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster (ZWC) ABSENT: Director Lois Jackson, Delta (FC, ZWC) Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 1 of 6 ZWC - 1

6 UTILITIES COMMITIEE PRESENT: Chair, Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City (lac) Vice Chair, Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Wayne Baldwin, White Rock(FC) Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond (FC, lac, ZWC) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (lac, ZWC) Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge (FC, lac) Director Jack Froese, Langley Township (FC) Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey (departed at 10:50 a.m.) Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District (departed at 10:30 a.m.) Councillor Jaimie McEvoy, New Westminster (arrived at 9:38 a.m.) Councillor Trish Panz, West Vancouver ABSENT: Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver ZERO WASTE COMMITIEE PRESENT: Chair, Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond (FC, lac, UC) Vice Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (lac, UC) Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Director Bob Long, Langley Township (arrived at 9:38 a.m.) Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Councillor Neal Nicholson, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver (departed at 10:55 a.m.) Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster(IAC) ABSENT: Councillor Rick Glumac, Port Moody Director Lois Jackson, Delta (FC, lac) Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey (FC) Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver (lac) Also member of Intergovernmental and Administration Committee (UC) Also member of Utilities Committee (ZWC) Also member of Zero Waste Committee (FC) Also member of Finance Committee STAFF: Phil Trotzuk, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Corporate Services Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 2 of 6 ZWC - 2

7 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 October 18, 2013 Special Joint Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committee Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Joint Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees adopt the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for October 18, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES No items presented. 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COIVIMITIEE OR STAFF Budget - Metro Vancouver Districts and Housing Corporation Report dated October 11, 2013 from Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer, presenting the 2014 Budgets for the Metro Vancouver Districts and Housing Corporation for consideration. Members were provided a presentation introducing the 2014 annual budget. 9:08 a.m. Director Deal arrived at the meeting. 9:10 a.m. Director Daykin arrived at the meeting. Members were provided an overview presentation on the 2014 budget highlighting: expenditures; revenue sources; 2014 household impact; capital expenditures; and debt management. Members were provided a presentation on the proposed 2014 Greater Vancouver Water District budget highlighting: expenditures; operations; overview; capital program and household impact. In response to questions, members were informed about: risk management; the Joint Water Use Plan for the Seymour and Capilano watersheds; internal review process; water use; and water conservation. 9:38 a.m. Councillor McEvoy arrived at the meeting. Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 3 of 6 ZWC - 3

8 9:38 a.m. Director Long arrived at the meeting. Members were provided a presentation regarding the proposed 2014 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District budget related to Liquid Waste Services highlighting: expenditures; operations; overview; capital program; and household impact. In response to questions, members were informed about the Mechanic Apprenticeship Program and Inflow and Infiltration during wet weather. 10:12 a.m. Chair Walton left the meeting and Director Moore, Vice-Chair, Intergovernmental and Administration Committee, assumed the Chair. 10:14 a.m. Chair Walton returned to the meeting and reassumed the Chair. Members were further informed about technical training, staffing efficiencies and consulting costs. 10:20 a.m. Director Moore departed the meeting. Members suggested that consideration be given to: Identifying full-time employee needs when reviewing new capital projects How the proposed benchmarking position applies to overall operations Revisiting Cost Development Charges on an annual basis Members were provided a presentation regarding the proposed 2014 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District budget related to Solid Waste Services highlighting: expenditures; operations; overview; capital program; and household impact. 10:30 a.m. Councillor Hicks departed the meeting. In response to questions, members were informed about: increasing costs associated with waste disposal, estimated diversion rates for packaging and printed paper programs and projections as they relate to pending Multi Materials BC contracts. 10:50 a.m. Director Hepner departed the meeting. Members were provided a presentation regarding the proposed 2014 Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation budget highlighting: expenditures; overview; capital program; and revenues. In response to questions, members were informed about: funding allocation; revenue; maintenance; and tenant programs. 10:55 a.m. Director Reimer departed the meeting. Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 4 of 6 ZWC - 4

9 Members were provided a presentation regarding the proposed 2014 Greater Vancouver Regional District budgets highlighting: regional services expenditures and household impact; regional parks capital program; and an overview of air quality, regional parks, regional planning, general government and other GVRD services. In response to questions, members were informed about parks capital expenditures and land acquisitions and funding of emergency services. Members were provided an overview presentation regarding the proposed 2014 Corporate Support budget. Members were provided a presentation summarizing the proposed 2014 Budget process highlighting: the proposed reserve application; budget summary overview; household impact; next steps in the approval process; recommendation and proposed staffing changes. Comments were offered about: Format for the October 30, 2013 Board budget workshop The need for better synchronization of information provided in attachments Opportunities for the Finance Committee to review a more detailed budget The Board exploring the appropriateness of efficiency reviews Request of Staff Staff was requested to report back to the Finance Committee with options for consideration regarding efficiency reviews as part of the annual budget process. Presentation material titled "Proposed 2014 Budget" is retained with the October 18, 2013 Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Joint Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees, endorse the 2014 Metro Vancouver Districts' and Housing Corporation Budgets, as presented at its Special Joint meeting of October 18, 2013, and forward them to the GVRD, GVWD, GVS&DD, and MVHC Boards for consideration. CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented. 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 5 of 6 ZWC - 5

10 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented. 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committee concludes its Special Joint meeting of October 18, CARRIED (Time: 11:42 a.m.) Richard Walton, Chair, Finance Committee FINAL Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Finance, Intergovernmental and Administration, Utilities and Zero Waste Committees held on Friday, October 18, 2013 Page 6 of 6 ZWC - 6

11 2.2 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 7, 2013 in the 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (arrived at 1:16 p.m.) Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Councillor Rick Glumac, Port Moody Director Bob Long, Langley Township Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Councillor Neal Nicholson, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster ABSENT: Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey STAFF: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Corporate Service 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 7, 2013 by adding item 6.7 Correspondence titled Application for Approval Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280, 2013 ; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED ZWC - 7

12 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 September 23, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held September 23, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED 2.2 October 3, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 3, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Annual Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee Report Isabel Gordon, Chair, Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC), presented the annual IUMAC report, highlighting the following: IUMAC composition and its Terms of Reference Committee s recommendations: o Emphasis on the integration between Metro Vancouver and member municipalities o Increased emphasis on the aspiration goal in the Zero Waste Challenge o Expanded efforts in food waste collection o On-going support of the work of the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group and the Environmental Monitoring Committee o Comprehensive quality monitoring of organics o Air quality as a priority in all three plans o Continued expansion of energy initiatives and energy self-sufficiency o Inclusion of future technology options in all new infrastructure initiatives o Incorporation of changing climate and increased weather severity in Metro Vancouver s planning and building Recommended actions: o That the Board endorse continuance of IUMAC o That this report be referred for action to Metro Vancouver s advisory committees and staff Presentation material is retained with the November 7, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. ZWC - 8

13 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 WasteCon Presentation Councillor Rick Glumac, City of Port Moody, briefed the Committee about the WasteCon Conference, organized by SWANA that he attended from September 17 to 19, 2013 in Long Beach, California. 1:16 p.m. Director Corrigan arrived at the meeting. Councillor Glumac elaborated on the following presentations from the conference: Hedi Sanborn, California Product Stewardship Council, regarding Extended Producer Responsibility David Biderman, EIA/NSWMA, providing a legal perspective on flow control Robert Craggs, Department Manager, Burns & McDonnell, a panel discussion regarding a study comparing disposal options for residual solid waste Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in San Jose, which uses the MRBT high material recovery technology Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide the Committee with information on the MRBT high material recovery disposal technology. 5.2 Zero Waste Challenge: Christmas 2013 and Organics Waste Reduction Campaigns Report dated October 25, 2013 from David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations, informing of two upcoming waste reduction campaigns utilizing advertising and social media that will launch in November 2013 in support of the Zero Waste Challenge. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the report dated October 25, 2013, titled Zero Waste Challenge: Christmas 2013 and Organics Waste Reduction Campaigns. CARRIED 5.3 Union of B.C. Municipalities Recycling Negotiating Committee for Packaging and Printed Paper Report dated October 18, 2013 from Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on recent developments with the UBCM Recycling Negotiating Committee and the Multi-Material B.C. program for Packaging and Printed Paper material, and seeking approval of principles to help guide Metro Vancouver Directors participating in the Negotiating Committee. ZWC - 9

14 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board approve the following principles to help guide Metro Vancouver Directors participating in the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) Recycling Negotiating Committee: Multi-Material B.C. (MMBC) to pay 100% of the costs of collection of Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) materials. Service levels and material collection for single-family, multi-family, depot and streetscape collection should be maintained or improved in all cases. The agreement between MMBC and local governments should be based on a partnership approach, balancing the rights and interests of each party. A key objective of the program should be reducing the creation of waste in the first place. MMBC to be fully transparent in reporting on performance and financial results. Should a municipality not enter into an agreement with MMBC, the timing that the municipality could enter into an agreement with MMBC be determined in a collaborative manner. CARRIED 5.4 Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement Approach: Residential Drop-Off Development Report dated October 30, 2013 from Marian Kim, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, seeking Board approval to develop a residential drop-off (RDO) facility at the Coquitlam Landfill. Committee members commented on the following: Concern about inequities of solid waste and recycling services provided across the region The need to re-think solid waste disposal and recycling facilities/services that will be needed in future The need for additional information on the Coquitlam replacement facility, services to be provided by the facility and costs associated Request of Staff Staff was requested to organize a workshop on eco centres. The Committee suggested that the decision on the Coquitlam Transfer Station replacement approach be delayed until detailed information and detailed costs associated with the Coquitlam Transfer Station replacement are available. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee refer back to staff the requirement for temporary/permanent large vehicle transfer facilities and the compilation of detailed costing information on the RDO facility at the Coquitlam Landfill and direct staff to report back to the Committee. CARRIED ZWC - 10

15 5.5 GVS&DD/Cowichan Valley Regional District Waste Disposal Contingency Agreement Report dated October 30, 2013 from Paul Remillard, Solid Waste Operations Division Manager, Solid Waste Services, seeking Board approval to enter into a contingency disposal agreement with the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) for a further three years to align with the expiry of the Wastech Comprehensive Agreement. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board authorize the Commissioner to on behalf of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to: a) Enter into an agreement with the Cowichan Valley Regional District for waste disposal at the Cache Creek Landfill or alternate disposal facility for three (3) years, for implementation upon interruption of the existing contracts for waste disposal that the Cowichan Valley Regional District currently holds with other parties, subject to the necessary approvals being obtained by the Cowichan Valley Regional District from the Thompson Nicola Regional District and the Village of Cache Creek; and b) Carry out any amendments to other agreements as necessary to effect the above. CARRIED 5.6 Manager s Report Report dated October 25, 2013 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, informing the Committee about the following: Conference on Canadian Stewardship Metro Vancouver Third Annual Zero Conference and launch of the National Zero Waste Council P3 Canada Application for New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Food-soiled Paper Task Group Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 (Bylaw 280) Zero Waste Committee 2013 Work Plan Discussion ensued on: The need for analysis of the waste-to-energy inputs, as related to new initiatives, such as the MMBC s Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Plan, mixed waste material recovery facilities, or waste flow regulations, and in light of BC Hydro current shift in their approach to buying power from independent power producers The need to revisit assumptions and estimates made around the new wasteto-energy capacity, such as energy pricing, interest rates, and senior government programs ZWC - 11

16 6. INFORMATION ITEMS It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated October 25, 2013, titled Manager s Report. CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED 6.1 Multi-Material BC (MMBC) - Correspondence dated September 27, 2013 from Director Brodie to Minister Polak 6.2 Meeting with Deputy Minister Wes Schoemaker - Correspondence dated October 11, 2013 from Minister Mary Polak to Chair Greg Moore 6.3 Recycle First Coalition Correspondence dated October 13, 2013 from Nicole Stefenelli, CEO Urban Impact to Minister Mary Polak 6.4 UBCM Resolution and Committee on Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) Correspondence dated October 25, 2013 from Deputy Minister Wes Shoemaker to Gary MacIsaac, Executive Director, UBCM 6.5 Waste to Energy Consultation Correspondence dated October 9, 2013 from Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee to Mayor Sharon Gaetz, Chair Fraser Valley Regional District 6.6 Waste-to-Energy Facility Tour Correspondence dated October 28, 2013 from Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee to MLA s Laurie Throness, John Martin, Simon Gibson, Darryl Plecas 6.7 Application for Approval Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280, 2013 Correspondence dated November 5, 2013 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, to the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment CARRIED 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for November 7, 2013 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) and (g) as follows: 90 (1) A part of a 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 ; and (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district. CARRIED ZWC - 12

17 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its regular meeting of November 7, CARRIED (Time: 2:00 p.m.) Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees Malcolm Brodie, Chair FINAL ZWC - 13

18 2.3 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 9:06 a.m. on Thursday, November 21, 2013 in the 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, providing an opportunity for short listed waste to energy proponents to present to the Zero Waste Committee and to report out on sites secured by the short listed proponents. PRESENT: Chair, Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District (arrived at 9:15 a.m.) Councillor Rick Glumac, Port Moody (departed at 10:25 a.m.) Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Bob Long, Langley Township (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Director Gayle Martin, Langley City (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Councillor Neal Nicholson, Coquitlam Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows (arrived at 9:39 a.m.) Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster ABSENT: Vice Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby STAFF: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Corporate Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 Zero Waste Committee Special Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for November 21, 2013 by adding the following on-table agenda material: i. report titled New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Technology Proponent Sites ; ii. titled NWTE November 21, 2013 (immediately following Special Meeting of the Zero Waste Committee ; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED ZWC - 14

19 2. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 2.1 New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Technology Proponent Sites On-table report dated November 20, 2013, from Sarah Wellman, Acting Project Manager, New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project, providing an update on potential sites for new waste-to-energy (WTE) capacity identified by the technology proponents shortlisted through RFQ1 and on the next steps to develop new WTE capacity. On-table NWTE November 21, 2013 (immediately following Special Meeting of the Zero Waste Committee) is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. 9:08 a.m. Directors Long and Martin arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive the report titled New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Technology Proponent Sites, dated November 20, 2013 for information CARRIED 3. INVITED PRESENTATIONS The Committee was advised that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the Committee of the waste-to-energy technology options that have been presented to Metro Vancouver. Presentations will be made for Committee members general information and understanding only and will not be used in the evaluation or consideration of proposals in subsequent phases of Metro Vancouver s waste to energy procurement process. Any comments made by Committee members will not bind Metro Vancouver or affect subsequent phases of Metro Vancouver s waste to energy procurement process. 3.1 AECOM Canada Philippe Allouche, General Manager, SENA Waste Services, provided an outline of the following: AECOM-SENA team Baumgarte Waste-to-Energy technology Advantages of mass burning The technology, inputs and outputs Technology proposed to be implemented in Metro Vancouver Baumgarte combustion system and reference plants 9:15 a.m. Councillor Bassam arrived at the meeting. Approach to Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy project ZWC - 15

20 Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. In response to a question, clarification was provided on the company s emissions reduction efforts. 3.2 Aquilini Renewable Energy Ltd. Ben Horowitz, Project Manager, Aquilini Renewable Energy Ltd., provided an overview of the following: The project partners The technology The proposed sustainable resource management strategy, complementing the proposal, including greenhouse operations, coho salmon farming, and algae cultivation Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on: The proposed coho salmon farming The capacity of the proposed technology Location of the algae cultivation operations Company s cooperation with UBC Reference facilities Land mass needed for the proposed plant and associated operations 3.3 Covanta Energy Corporation Energy-from-Waste Chris Baker, Vice President, Covanta Energy Corporation, presented the following: An overview of the company The energy-from-waste process 9:39 a.m. Director Walters arrived at the meeting. The mass burn technology Reference facilities Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. 3.4 Covanta Energy Corporation - Gasification Chris Baker, Vice President, Covanta Energy Corporation, also elaborated on the following: Definition and potential benefits and disadvantages of gasification technology Covanta s research and development of municipal solid waste gasification technologies ZWC - 16

21 Key design aspects of gasification The proposed project for Metro Vancouver Demonstration project Discussion ensued on: Whether change of waste composition (due to the increase of recycling to 70% and 80% diversion of recyclable material from municipal solid waste) would affect waste energy value Comparison of ash produced by mass burn versus gasification facilities Gasification emission profile Potential incorporation of a material recovery facility as part of the process Request of Staff Staff was requested to update the Committee in 2014 on energy value and projected waste composition and quantities based on 70% and 80% diversion of recyclable material from municipal solid waste. Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. 3.5 Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited Jasper van de Wetering, and Ken Shuehmer, Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited, provided an overview of the proposed cement kiln co-processing of refuse derived fuel project, highlighting the following: An overview of the company Lehigh Cement Delta plant The difference between cement and concrete Process of manufacturing the portland cement clinker Fuels for cement manufacturing and benefits of replacing fossil fuels with alternative, low carbon and/or waste based fuel Refuse derived fuel definition Reference facility Primary benefits of the proposal Presentation material and additional information pertaining to Lehigh Hanson Materials Limited proposal is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on: Use of ash produced by refuse derived fuel burning Residuals produced during the process (other than ash) Air quality benefits of replacing fossil fuels with municipal solid waste Modifications of the existing facility and additional infrastructure required to accommodate municipal solid waste disposal Impact of the technology on wastewater ZWC - 17

22 Odour control Potential greenhouse gas analysis after fossil fuel (coal) burning in the plant is replaced by municipal solid waste The process for receiving additional information during the RFQ process 3.6 Mustang Renewable Power Ventures- JFE - Metro Vancouver, LLC. John Dewey, CEO, Mustang Renewable Power Ventures, provided an overview of the Mustang s Resource Recovery Project, presenting the following: Project partners Description of the project Description of the materials recycling facility (MRF) component of the project MRF reference facility Description of BEKON Dry Fermentation AD facility Outline of BEKON Energy Technologies Inc. Description of the energy recovery facility (gasification) Energy recovery reference facilities Project benefits Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on: Technologies used in Santa Barbara s facility Water consumption during the mechanical biological treatment Organics waste processing end products 3.7 Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. Alan Linsley, Vice President, Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. and Jesse Klinkhamer, CEO, Klean Industries, elaborated on the following: Central Vancouver s proposed waste disposal site Overview of Klean Industries Los Angeles technology evaluation process leading to selection of MVR Advanced Thermal Recycling System Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. 10:25 a.m. Councillor Glumac departed the meeting. Discussion ensued on: Difference between thermo recycling and mass burn technology City of Vancouver s existing policy that prohibits mass burn incineration of municipal solid waste in the City Temperatures used during the thermal process ZWC - 18

23 3.8 TM.E. S.p.A. Termomeccanica Ecologia Enrico Vignudelli, International Marketing and Sales, Termomeccanica Ecologia, provided an overview of the following: Termomeccanica Ecologia Main contracts under execution by the company Reference facilities MT.E. waste-to-energy technology Air emissions results from an existing facility in San Vittore Proposed facility and technology, benefits of the technology Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda. 3.9 Wheelabrator/Urbaser Mark P. Schwartz, Senior Manager Business Development; Wheelabrator Technologies and David Garcia de Herreros, US and Canada Representative, Urbaser, presented the following: Project team composition Reference facilities The proposed technology Sustainability principles implemented by the company Presentation material is retained with the November 21, 2013 Zero Waste Committee agenda Energy Answers International Inc. This company did not present to the Committee. 4. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee conclude its special meeting of November 21, CARRIED (Time: 10:42 a.m.) Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees Malcolm Brodie, Chair FINAL ZWC - 19

24 5.1 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Andrew Marr, Acting Division Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 15, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: 2014 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 15, 2014 titled 2014 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to identify the Zero Waste Committee priorities and work plan for the year BACKGROUND At its October 3, 2013 meeting, the Zero Waste Committee endorsed the 2014 Business Plan and Budget for the Solid Waste Services Department which served as the basis for the 2014 Budget approved by the Board on November 15, The Business Plan was used to develop the priorities in the Zero Waste Committee s work plan presented in this report. DISCUSSION The work plan presented in this report is consistent with the Zero Waste Committee s terms of reference provided in Attachment Work Plan Priorities areas for the 2014 work plan include: New disposal ban (organics and wood) implementation consultation New WTE capacity RFQ2 (the third phase in the development of new WTE capacity process) Site specific new WTE consultation Eco-Centre strategy Commission the NOx emission reduction upgrade at the WTEF Enhance Disposal Bans and Prohibitions efficacy at Regional Facilities Increase the number of materials that are accepted for recycling at Regional Facilities Continue development of Surrey Residential Drop-Off, Coquitlam Transfer Station replacement strategy, and North Shore Transfer Station upgrades Implement the Waste Flow Management strategy/bylaw 280 Work with External Relations on waste reduction and recycling initiatives (e.g. communications programs, National Zero Waste Council) with residents and businesses. Work with Extended Producer Responsibility stewards to enhance recycling of electronic wastes and other significant sources of heavy metals ZWC - 20

25 The 2014 work plan for the Zero Waste Committee is provided in Attachment 2. The Committee will be updated on the status of the actions and projects in this work plan on a monthly or quarterly basis per the Committee s schedule. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 15, 2014 titled 2014 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan. 2. That the Zero Waste Committee provide alternative direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The priorities in the 2014 work plan of the Zero Waste Committee are consistent with the key actions included in the Business Plan and Budget approved by the Board on November 15, SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The work plan presented in this report conveys the priorities for the Zero Waste Committee in 2014 and is consistent with its terms of reference and the 2014 Budget approved by the Board. Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be adopted. Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Zero Waste Committee Terms of Reference Attachment 2: Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan ZWC - 21

26 ATTACHMENT 1 Zero Waste Committee Terms of Reference The Zero Waste Committee is a standing committee which provides advice and recommendations to the Metro Vancouver Board on solid waste management programs. The Zero Waste Committee s scope of work comprises solid waste reduction, recycling, recovery and disposal issues and how regional policies, projects and programs on these matters can contribute to the liveability and sustainability of the region. Metro Vancouver has primary responsibility for ensuring implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Metro Vancouver is also responsible for the regional systems for transfer and disposal of solid waste. These activities will be the primary focus for the committee. The Zero Waste Committee is the forum to which staff report on solid waste management programs, projects and policies. The committee s responsibilities are: To review and monitor the annual work program for programs assigned to the committee and make recommendations to the Board, as necessary, on any changes in program scope and priorities; To consider staff reports on policies, projects and programs and make recommendations to the Board on the appropriate actions; To hear and consider public delegations on matters within the scope of the committee s purview and, where appropriate, make recommendations to the Board arising out of such delegations; To pursue matters referred to the committee by the Board and report back to the Board expeditiously, as required. In carrying out these responsibilities, the committee may provide advice, guidance or direction to staff as to the scope and priority of work to be carried out, including new tasks to be undertaken. However, where such direction represents a sufficiently significant change in the previously approved work program, or a significant expenditure of funds, or runs contrary to the advice of professional staff, the committee shall refer the matter to the Board, with appropriate recommendations, for decision by the Board. The Committee Chair, or in the absence of the Committee Chair, the Committee Vice-Chair will usually be the chief spokesperson on matters of public interest within the Committee s purview. Some issues may be of such public profile that it will be appropriate for the Board Chair or Vice Chair to be the chief spokesperson; on technical matters or where the status is still at the staff proposal level, the Commissioner or senior staff may be the appropriate chief spokesperson. ZWC - 22

27 The Commissioner will assign a departmental manager to be committee manager to the Committee. The committee manager will be responsible for coordinating agendas and be the principal point of contact for committee members. Committee Meetings The Zero Waste Committee meets monthly, except for August and December and has special meetings as required. A quorum of 50% plus one of the committee membership is required to conduct committee business. Relationship with Other Board Committees Matters of overall budget and financing of the programs are the purview of the Finance Committee. Expenditures within the approved budget remain the purview of the Zero Waste Committee, but items which entail significant changes to the approved budget should be referred to the Finance Committee for their recommendation to the Board as well as the recommendation of the Zero Waste Committee. Matters involving Metro Vancouver s strategic relationships with other governments, agencies and communities are under the purview of the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee. While the Zero Waste Committee will receive reports and discuss issues under its purview, the Committee Chair will keep the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee apprised of any intergovernmental implications arising from such reports and discussions. Matters considered by the Zero Waste Committee may have implications for issues considered by other committees, in particular the Environment and Parks Committee, the Utilities Committee and the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee. Similarly, matters considered by other committees may have relevance for the Zero Waste Committee. The committee manager will attempt to keep the committee apprised of significant reports with inter-committee implications. Committee Membership The Chair, Vice Chair, and members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board. Updated: January 21, 2014 ZWC - 23

28 Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan Report Date: January 15, 2014 Priorities 1 st Quarter Status New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project In progress o Project Update o Recommended of number of facilities, o Recommended number of sites to option Update on engagement with ICI sector for organics diversion In progress Initiate stakeholder consultation program for Organics Disposal Ban In progress 2 nd Quarter Eco-Centre Strategy In progress Waste-to-Energy Facility 2013 Financial Update In progress New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project In progress o Stakeholder workshops/public meetings o Report on consultation plan/results o Business Case National Zero Waste Council Update In progress Wastech Comprehensive Agreement 2013 Financial Summary Pending Fourth Annual Zero Waste Conference Planning Update Pending EPR Update including Printed Paper and Packaging In progress Update on the replacement of Coquitlam Transfer Station In progress Initiate stakeholder consultation program for wood waste disposal ban Pending 3 rd Quarter New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project: Issue RFQ2 to short listed technology In progress proponents Metro Vancouver hosts Fourth annual Zero Waste Conference Pending 2013 Material Disposal Ban Update and Disposal Ban Effectiveness Review Pending Agreement for development of Surrey Residential Drop Off facility In progress Update Implementation of Waste Flow Management Pending 4 th Quarter 2013 Regional Recycling and Disposal Data Pending Commissioning of NOx reduction upgrade at the Waste-to-Energy Facility Pending 2014 Tipping Fee Bylaw revisions Pending Zero Waste Conference Results update Pending 2013 Waste Reduction and Recycling Campaign summaries Pending ZWC - 24

29 5.2 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Sarah Wellman, Project Manager, New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Date: January 22, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: New Waste-to-Energy Project Update RECOMMENDATION That the Board receive the report dated January 22, 2014 titled New Waste-to-Energy Project Update for information. PURPOSE To provide an update to the Zero Waste Committee and Board on various activities related to the development of New Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Capacity. BACKGROUND In October 2012, the Board approved a process to develop new WTE capacity. This report provides an update on various activities related to the project. DISCUSSION Potential Site Identification Process Of the four sites submitted by technology proponents for their exclusive use, three remain. Metro Vancouver sought confirmation from the Plenary Group related to the site they submitted in Vancouver for the potential development of new WTE capacity. No confirmation that the site was secured was provided, and therefore the site will no longer be considered. Metro Vancouver is evaluating the six sites submitted by landowners to the Site Request for Proposals Potential Site Identification for New Waste-to-Energy Capacity: For Options to Purchase or Lease Land. The Board will determine the number of sites to option, and once options are in place, these remaining potential sites will be announced. The timing of the announcement will depend on how long it takes to enter into options, with the sites expected to be announced in April. Second Stage Request for Qualifications (RFQ2) RFQ2 is expected to be issued in mid Technology Proponents will be required to assemble a qualifications package detailing the strength and past experience of the team members, the technical and environmental performance of reference facilities, and their proposed project approach on either sites that they have secured for their own use or any of the sites available to all Technology Proponents. RFQ2 will shortlist the highest ranked Technology Proponents, and in parallel the number of potential sites to be carried into the RFP process will be reduced based on Metro Vancouver s technical analysis of the sites, Technology Proponent feedback on the opportunities and challenges related to each site, and demonstrated level of community support for each site. ZWC - 25

30 Project Schedule An updated project schedule is provided as an attachment. A finalized list of potential sites for new WTE capacity is expected in April RFQ2 will be issued in mid Selection of proponent(s) to develop new WTE capacity is expected to be complete in the first quarter of 2016 with new WTE capacity operational by early The updated schedule is approximately 9 months behind the original schedule outlined in the fall of Consultation Update As described in the October 3 report New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Engagement and Consultation Update, Metro Vancouver will be engaging targeted stakeholders in workshops and holding public meetings in those communities where potential sites have been identified. Meetings will be held in the three communities where sites have been submitted by Technology Proponents for their exclusive use and in communities with sites optioned by Metro Vancouver. Meetings will commence in the spring. The FVRD and FVRD member municipalities will be invited to participate in the targeted stakeholder workshops as well as public meetings in the FVRD and Metro Vancouver. The primary goals of this phase of consultation and engagement activities will be to educate stakeholders including the public on the development of new WTE capacity, seek input on the development of criteria for RFQ2, and begin to gauge the level of community support in communities with potential WTE sites. Metro Vancouver is also working with the FVRD to initiate a Political Liaison Committee to assist in developing an FVRD consultation program including a mandated Working Group. To date Metro Vancouver and FVRD have not agreed on the terms of reference for the Committee. Based on the Minister s requirements for FVRD consultation with respect to the development of new WTE capacity, timing for specific consultation on the items identified in the Minister s approval of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plans (ISWRMP) begins once all potential sites are identified through the Potential Site Identification process (expected to be completed by April). If within one year of that time, Metro Vancouver and FVRD cannot come to consensus on recommendations for emission standards, monitoring requirements and mitigation measures, an arbitrator will develop recommendations for consideration in any regulatory process. Value of Energy/Waste-to-Energy Business Case At the November Zero Waste Committee meeting, staff were requested to provide an update on the anticipated value of energy for this project. Ten qualified technology proponents were identified in the first stage Request for Qualifications (RFQ1). Nine of the ten proponents would convert the municipal solid waste into heat, which could then be used in a District Energy project, provided to an industrial user, or converted to electricity. The tenth proponent would convert the municipal solid waste into a solid refuse derived fuel, for use in their cement kiln to offset the use of coal, and as such, would not generate any additional energy. Given 9 of the 10 submissions, may generate electricity, the value for electricity is important to the overall financial analysis for the project. Metro Vancouver has approached BC Hydro regarding the potential value of electricity from New Waste-to-Energy Capacity. BC Hydro has indicated a willingness to discuss potential options within the boundaries of BC Hydro s provincially approved 2013 Integrated Resource Plan and the applicable regulatory requirements. ZWC - 26

31 Metro Vancouver is updating the business case for WTE and will include implications of various potential electricity rates. As part of the business case development Metro Vancouver is also reviewing contract costs for remote landfill disposal for communities in western Canada and the western U.S. These data will provide a base case comparison for WTE compared to landfilling. According to the B.C. Hydro s Site C Clean Energy Project: Business Case Summary, published in January 2013, the unit cost for electricity for Site C will be $95 per MWhr including capital and operating costs, based on 70 year amortization of capital. The Durham/York WTE facility that is now almost complete has an agreement with the Ontario Power Authority to purchase electricity at $80 per MWhr. Initial analysis has shown both in and out of region WTE would be economically viable in this electricity value range. Metro Vancouver will work with B.C. Hydro to explore the potential value of electricity from new WTE capacity. In addition to BC Hydro s regulatory considerations and need for energy, project details such as timing for commercial operations, potential location(s), scale and electricity generating potential will be critical to reaching agreement with B.C. Hydro on electricity value. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This is an information report and does not include financial implications. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides an update on various activities related to the development of New Waste-to- Energy Capacity, including the potential site identification process, RFQ2, the updated project schedule, consultation, and the value of energy. Attachments and References: Attachment: New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Schedule ZWC - 27

32 ZWC - 28

33 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 22, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: Update on New WTE Capacity, Projected Waste Composition and Energy Content RECOMMENDATIONS That the Board: 1. Receive this update on future waste composition, waste flows, and energy content as information, and 2. Maintain the planned new waste-to-energy (WTE) capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year and direct staff to continue to monitor waste flow and required capacity and report back on recommended new WTE capacity prior to the release of the request for proposals for new WTE capacity. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the Board regarding the tonnage projections and recommended sizing of new waste-to-energy capacity. In addition, this report forecasts waste composition and energy content based on the most recent data gathered in BACKGROUND Updated information on waste projections, composition and energy content guides many ongoing programs of the Solid Waste Services Department. As part of the ongoing procurement activities for new WTE capacity and in developing annual waste projections for tipping fees and operation planning, Metro Vancouver staff updates the actual disposal quantities against the projected waste disposal requirements for the region. In September 2012, a report outlining a recommended annual quantity for new WTE capacity was presented to the Board. This report serves as an update of the current disposal quantities against the waste flow projections presented in Subsequently, a report forecasting the estimated composition of the waste stream and attributed energy content based on achieving the 70% and 80% diversion goals was presented to the Board for information in October Since that time, a waste composition study was completed in Based on this information, this report serves to update the analysis estimating future Metro Vancouver waste composition and heating value. DISCUSSION Update on Waste Composition and Future Energy Content In 2013, Metro Vancouver staff completed a waste composition study. The updated waste composition percentages were used to reassess the potential changes in future waste composition under the diversion targets of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). Attachment 1 provides an update to the current waste composition (2013) and predicts future composition at 70% and 80% diversion. This in turn provides an estimate of the expected ZWC - 29

34 waste characteristics for new WTE capacity and allows for the calculation of the potential energy content in that waste stream. Table 1a shows the historical waste composition of the material handled at Regional Facilities. These composition data exclude the DLC and Residential Drop-Off (RDO) sectors. Waste composition has changed over time, and the organic fraction (food scraps, yard trimmings and wood) remains the largest component of the waste stream. Table 1b shows the existing (2013) and projected composition of the waste at 58% (2012 diversion rate), 70% and 80% diversion. From the forecasted composition, the energy content is calculated based on typical energy and moisture content values for the components. In 2012, estimates of the current and future energy content of the waste were as follows based on 2011 waste composition data: 2011: 11.8 GJ/t; 70% diversion: 12.8 GJ/t; 80% diversion: 12.7 GJ/t. Currently, estimates of the current and future energy content of the waste are as follows: 2013: 11.5 GJ/t; 70% Diversion: 12.0 GJ/t; 80% Diversion: 12.2 GJ/t. Estimates of energy value are provided in GJ/t, meaning gigajoules of energy per tonne of waste. The information shows that estimates for energy value based on 2011 and 2013 measured waste composition data are comparable. Projections continue to show that energy value of waste will increase slightly with increasing diversion given that a combination of high energy value materials (e.g. plastics), and lower energy value materials (e.g. food waste) will be removed from the waste stream. On this basis, the required WTE capacity will be determined by the tonnage of waste that must be managed, and not impacted significantly by changes in waste composition. Update of Waste Flow Graph/Disposal Capacity Requirements The waste flow projections graph, included in Attachment 2, illustrates three scenarios projecting the total quantity of residual waste requiring disposal in the region to The current and future permitted disposal capacity of the Regional System (including new WTE capacity of 370,000 tonnes per year) is shown in the background. The actual disposal quantities have been overlaid onto this graph (vertical bars). Three scenarios were presented to the Board in 2012 in setting new WTE capacity. The three scenarios included: Status Quo: No new diversion and increases in waste quantities tied to economic and population growth. 70% Diversion Scenario: 70% diversion achieved by % Diversion Scenario: 80% diversion achieved by 2020 and no future growth in disposal beyond 2020 For 2012 and 2013, in addition to quantities disposed at Regional Facilities, an additional quantity of material was added to represent the estimated quantity of waste that bypassed Regional Facilities in 2012 and Approximately 50,000 tonnes and 70,000 tonnes of commercial/institutional and multi-family waste bypassed Regional Facilities in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The precise quantities of bypassing waste are unknown and may be higher than 70,000 tonnes per year in ZWC - 30

35 The Waste Flow Graph presented in Attachment 2 shows total estimated residential and commercial/institutional waste quantities for 2012 and 2013 approximate the aggressive 80% Diversion Scenario. Under the 80% Diversion Scenario, not only is 80% diversion achieved by 2020, but there is no future growth in waste quantities beyond 2020 despite expected population and economic growth. Dramatic reductions in waste quantities will be required to reach and maintain 80% Diversion Scenario projections. The disposal capacity under the Status Quo scenario would set new WTE capacity at more than 1,000,000 tonnes per year. The disposal capacity projection for the moderate 70% Diversion Scenario sets required new WTE capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year. The disposal capacity projection for the 80% Diversion Scenario would set new WTE capacity at 250,000 tonnes per year. In September of 2012, the Board approved required new WTE capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year. Bylaw 280 As noted above an estimated 70,000 tonnes per year of waste bypassed Regional Facilities in 2013, but the precise amount is uncertain. If Bylaw 280 is approved by the Minister of Environment and adopted by the Board, waste currently bypassing Regional Facilities will be required to be delivered to Regional Facilities. Additionally, with the implementation of Bylaw 280, mixed waste material recovery facilities recovering recyclables and organics from post-source separated waste may be developed. The extent that these facilities will be developed and the implications with respect to future waste flows are uncertain. In any case, to achieve 80% diversion approximately 60% of all of the organics in the waste stream will need to be removed. Organics are the primary material removed by mixed waste material recovery facilities. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board receive this update on future waste composition, waste flow and energy content as information and maintain the planned new waste-to-energy capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year and direct staff continue to monitor waste flow and required capacity and report back on recommended new WTE capacity prior to the release of the request for proposals. 2. That the Board receive the update on future waste composition, waste flow and energy content for information and reduce the planned new waste-to-energy capacity to 250,000 tonnes per year. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Boards approves Alternative 1 and maintains new WTE capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year, the amount can be adjusted either upward or downward up to issuing the RFP for the development of new WTE capacity, expected in Nonetheless, certainty with respect to required WTE capacity will assist Technology Proponents in developing their submissions to RFQ2 and assist stakeholders including the public in understanding potential WTE projects. Certainty with respect to required WTE capacity will also assist in business case planning as required capacity is an important factor in determining unit capital and operating costs. In advance of the implementation of Bylaw 280, it is uncertain as to the precise amount of material bypassing Regional Facilities. In the event that new WTE capacity exceeds requirements for disposal of waste, the existing WTE facility can be gradually scaled back. If the Board approves Alternative 2 and reduces new WTE capacity to 250,000 tonnes per year, the constructed capacity will meet requirements if 80% diversion is achieved by 2020 and there is no ZWC - 31

36 growth in waste generation after 2020 despite population and economic growth. In the event that insufficient WTE capacity is developed, more contingency landfill capacity will be required in the future. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides an update on expected waste composition and energy value as well as projected future waste quantities and required new WTE capacity. Information presented in 2012 has been updated with 2012 and 2013 year-end data. The anticipated heating value of the waste stream under the 70% and 80% diversion scenarios is expected to slightly increase from the current value as some materials that will be diverted in the future have high energy content and some have low energy content. Waste quantities for 2012 and 2013 are provided in the report and are adjusted based on estimated quantities bypassing Regional Facilities. The precise quantity of waste bypassing Regional Facilities is uncertain. Estimated waste quantities approximate the aggressive 80% Diversion Scenario, but dramatic future reductions as well as no increase in waste quantities would be required to achieve the 80% Diversion Scenario projected tonnage. Staff recommend that the Board maintain required new WTE capacity at 370,000 tonnes per year, and that staff report back prior to the release of the RFP for new WTE capacity to finalize required waste quantities. Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Table 1a: Historical Waste Composition; Table 1b: Anticipated Future Waste Composition, Moisture Content and Heating Value Attachment 2: Regional MSW System Waste Flow Projection Graph ZWC - 32

37 Table 1a: Historical Waste Composition Waste Category Historical Waste Composition - Weight % Metals 4% 4% 5% 3% 3% Glass 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% Inorganics & E-Waste n/a 8% 12% 13% 10% Paper & Paperboard 24% 24% 17% 13% 15% Plastics & HHW 14% 14% 13% 12% 17% Yard & Food Wood Mixed Organic Composites 41% 44% 47% 49% 47% Household Hygiene 4% 5% 4% 8% 6% Table 1b: Anticipated Future Waste Composition, Moisture Content and Heating Value Waste Category MC % Energy Content (GJ/t) Composition of Waste % 58% 70% 80% Metals 0% 0.7 3% 4% 4% Glass 0% 0.2 2% 2% 2% Inorganics & E-Waste 8% % 11% 12% Paper & Paperboard 24% % 16% 14% Plastics & HHW 8% % 18% 18% Yard & Food 64% % 32% 28% Wood 15% % 8% 9% Mixed Organic Composites 12% % 2% 3% Household Hygiene 25% % 7% 11% Total % moisture 33% 30% 28% Energy Content (GJ/t) ZWC - 33

38 Regional MSW System Waste Flow Projection Graph and Disposal Requirement Table Graph: Regional Municipal Solid Waste disposal projection to 2030 (metric tonnes; excludes DLC). ZWC - 34

39 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Sarah Wellman, Project Manager, New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Date: January 15, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project Number of Facilities RECOMMENDATION That the Board approves the number of waste-to-energy facilities be determined through the procurement process with Technology Proponent submissions based on projects capable of processing the full required new waste-to-energy capacity (370,000 tonnes per year) using either one or multiple facilities. PURPOSE To seek Board approval of a process to determine the number of facilities required for new wasteto-energy (WTE) capacity. BACKGROUND The Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) Goal 3, Strategy (a) specifies that Metro Vancouver will: Establish up to 500,000 tonnes per year of new waste-to-energy capacity in one or more facilities. To date the Board has not made a decision on the number of facilities required to provide new WTE capacity of 370,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste. DISCUSSION To allow Technology Proponents to better define their approach to new WTE capacity in responding to RFQ2, a decision on the number of facilities to provide new WTE capacity is required in advance of issuing RFQ2. Allowing Technology Proponents to define their approach to developing new WTE capacity will enhance the ability for the public to better understand the potential benefits and impacts of potential projects improving the engagement and consultation process. Better defined projects will also be easier to evaluate improving the procurement process for all participants. One or More Facilities The following key criteria have been identified for consideration in determining whether Metro Vancouver should develop one or multiple facilities to meet new WTE capacity requirements: Social and Economic factors; Environmental and health impacts; District energy (DE) system synergy; Potential for private sector innovation; Implementation risk; Project costs (capital, O&M and revenues). Transportation cost/impacts ZWC - 35

40 Of these criteria, social factors, economic factors, transportation costs/impacts, and district energy system synergy are inherently site dependent and are therefore difficult to quantify prior to selection of the final WTE site(s). Multiple facilities though would be expected to provide a higher potential social and economic benefit as well as higher potential district heating opportunities. Transportation cost/impacts may be reduced with multiple WTE facilities. Analysis of the environmental and health criteria concluded that facilities of all sizes examined are well within acceptable environmental and health impact thresholds. Potential for private sector innovation is directly proportional to the flexibility of the process and therefore favors a procurement process open to one or more facilities. Implementation risk is site dependent. Less waste processed may decrease potential implementation risk at one site and not have any implementation risk implications at another site. Both capital and operation and maintenance related costs are expected to be higher for multiple facilities compared to a single facility. Technical review suggests that over the lifetime of a project unit capital and operating costs would be at least 35% higher for two facilities compared to one. ALTERNATIVES 1) That the number of waste-to-energy facilities be determined as part of the procurement process with Technology Proponent RFQ2 submissions based on developing projects capable of processing the full required new waste-to-energy capacity (370,000 tonnes per year) at one or multiple facilities. 2) That the Board select the specific number of required facilities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Alternative 1: If Alternative 1 is selected, whereby Technology Proponents develop RFQ2 project submissions for the full required WTE capacity (370,000 tonnes per year) in single or multiple facilities, the Technology Proponents will have the opportunity to develop submissions that maximize project benefits. It is possible that some of Technology Proponents systems are not able to process all of the required capacity, and/or that some of the potential sites may not be suitable to process all of the required capacity. Benefits from multiple facilities will depend on the specific sites, and thus allowing Technology Proponents to develop project approaches that define the number of facilities will ensure that those potential benefits can be fully understood. Under this approach, Technology Proponents will at their option be able to team up with other Technology Proponents to develop proposed solutions. Analysis by Metro Vancouver s technical team concludes that two facilities processing 370,000 tonnes per year of MSW is likely the highest number of facilities that would be practical from an economic perspective as three facilities would increase unit capital and operating costs by at least 60% compared to a single facility. Nonetheless, under Alternative 1, whereby Technology Proponents develop RFQ2 submissions specifying the number of facilities, it is possible that a Technology Proponent may propose more than two facilities. Alternative 2: If Alternative 2 is selected, the potential options for the Board s consideration would be either setting the number of facilities as one or two, given as noted above more than two facilities is not practical because of increasing unit capital and operating costs. ZWC - 36

41 If the number of facilities is fixed at one, the expectation is that unit capital and operating costs will be minimized due to the economies of scale of a single facility. Nonetheless, if a single facility is specified, the potential opportunities and benefits associated with multiple facilities would not be realized. If the number of WTE facilities is set at two, it is possible that solutions will be proposed in RFQ2 that maximize district heating opportunities, minimize transportation impacts and costs and deliver other potential economic and social benefits associated with two facilities. Depending on the final sites for the two facilities, it is possible though that the extra costs associated with developing two facilities be incurred without there being significant benefit. For instance, two out-of-region facilities would likely not provide any benefits from a transportation perspective, and may not provide any other benefits potentially available with multiple sites. The other drawback of setting the number of facilities at two is that the procurement process is more complex with likely separate processes for each facility. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION A key decision for the Board is the number of facilities for new WTE capacity. A decision on the number of facilities is required in advance of RFQ2 to allow proponents to better define their proposed approach to develop new WTE capacity. A single facility would result in the lowest capital and operating expenses. Multiple facilities may reduce transportation costs/impacts, increase opportunities for district heating and other potential benefits associated with multiple facilities. One or multiple facilities can be developed without creating adverse health or environmental impacts. Given that many of the potential benefits associated with the number of facilities will depend on the final site(s) and Technology Proponent selected, an approach proposed in this report is that rather than the Board specifying the number of facilities, RFQ2 be developed on the basis that Technology Proponents propose projects for the full required WTE capacity (370,000 tonnes per year) with one or multiple facilities. At their option, Technology Proponents could partner on their RFQ2 submissions. The Board may instead choose to specify a number of facilities. Staff recommend Alternative 1, where Technology Proponents propose projects with a capacity of 370,000 tonnes per year in one or multiple facilities. This approach will ensure that Technology Proponents have the maximum opportunity to innovate, and that impacts and costs associated with either one or multiple facilities not be locked into without achieving the potential benefits ZWC - 37

42 5.5 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Chris Allan, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: February 3, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: Update on Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational Certificate Progress RECOMMENDATION That the Board receive the report dated February 3, 2014, titled Update on Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational Certificate Progress for information. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the Zero Waste Committee and Board on the progress of developing an Operational Certificate (OC) for the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF). BACKGROUND The WTEF operates in accordance with performance and emissions requirements set forth in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP), which was approved by the Minister of Environment in July As a condition of the Minister s approval, as of December 31, 2013 the Director may issue an OC specifying new requirements for the WTEF. DISCUSSION Metro Vancouver has cooperated with the Ministry of Environment to develop a draft OC, and Ministry of Environment staff are now working to finalize the OC. Monitoring requirements and emissions standards in the draft OC are consistent with requirements specified in the Ministry of Environment s Guideline for Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustion (Guideline). The Guideline, published by the Ministry of Environment in March 2011, was developed based on an extensive review of North American and international emission standards and monitoring requirements. Opportunities for public input were provided in advance of the Ministry of Environment finalizing the Guideline. Under the Guideline, Metro Vancouver was required to prepare and submit a plan to the Ministry of Environment in 2013 to meet the requirements in the Guideline. The capital projects required to meet the Guideline were approved in principle by the Board in May 2013, and will involve an investment of approximately $30 million over the next five years. WTEF Environmental Performance/Draft Operational Certificate Requirements The WTEF consistently meets emission limits and monitoring requirements established in the ISWRMP. Attachment 1 provides a diagram showing mass balance calculations for the WTEF based on 2012 data. For every 1000 kg of waste delivered to the WTEF approximately 2.9 kg of trace air emissions are emitted. Of the 2.9 kg of trace materials emitted to the air, approximately 2.8 kg is made up of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), and hydrogen chloride (HCl)/Hydrochloric Acid. The draft OC sets new emission limits for NOx and SO 2 /HCl that will be achieved through the ZWC - 38

43 environmental capital projects approved by the Board in Emissions of these parameters will be reduced by approximately half of the existing levels once the planned capital projects are complete. The graphic provided in Attachment 1 shows that only kg of particulates are emitted for every 1000 kg of garbage processed. This translates to only about 100 kg per year of particulates emitted, or roughly the particulate emissions of ten, 2002 vintage, heavy diesel trucks. Emissions of metals and dioxins and furans are many orders of magnitude less than particulates. Draft OC Comments In November of 2013, the Ministry of Environment issued a notice of intent to issue an OC for the WTEF in the Vancouver Sun and invited comment on the draft OC. Comments could be submitted to the Ministry of Environment for 30 days following publication of the notice of intent to issue an OC. Metro Vancouver forwarded the draft OC directly to Fraser Valley Regional District for their information and comment. The Ministry of Environment received comments on the draft OC from the nine (9) individuals/organizations listed in the following table. Copies of all comments received are available on Metro Vancouver s website (see link in Attachments and References section below). Upon receipt of the comments, Metro Vancouver issued a letter to the Ministry of Environment proposing a timeline for submission of responses (Attachment 2). Name Position Group / Entity Date of Communication John Vissers Chair City of Abbotsford Environmental December 16, Advisory Committee 2013 Sharon Gaetz Mayor City of Chilliwack December 19, 2013 Cindy Collins Referral Officer Matsqui First Nation December 19, 2013 Leo Facio Mayor Harrison Hot Springs December 20, 2013 Susan Johnston Mayor District of Hope December 20, 2013 George M. Murray City Manager City of Abbotsford December 20, 2013 Sue Maxwell Zero Waste BC December 20, 2013 Elaine Golds Chair Burke Mountain Naturalists December 20, 2013 Paul Gipps CAO Fraser Valley Regional District December 20, 2013 Metro Vancouver staff have reviewed all of the comments and forwarded responses to the Ministry of Environment for their consideration. Metro Vancouver s responses are available on Metro Vancouver s website. The following table provides a summary of the key comments received, as well as a summary of the responses provided. Comment Any recyclable material must be prohibited from disposal at the WTEF and each load must Response The WTEF receives municipal solid waste (MSW) from all sectors on the same basis that ZWC - 39

44 be inspected to ensure no recyclable materials are received. The WTEF environmental monitoring program scope must be increased to include increased monitoring frequency, additional parameters, comprehensive receiving environment monitoring, independent third party monitoring, etc. All continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data, including data collected during start-up, shutdown, and upset conditions, must be reported. Detailed fly ash and bottom ash information should be provided in the OC, including parameters and requirements that will assure the stability of the ash once it goes to a landfill, the effectiveness and efficiency of its ongoing monitoring and testing, and information about ash stability testing protocols and processes. Information (monitoring and operational data, facility reports/inspections/drawings/plans, MSW information, etc.) must be posted on a public website. The consequences of failing to comply with the requirements of the OC must be specified in the OC. the Vancouver Landfill and Cache Creek Landfill receive MSW. Metro Vancouver has a comprehensive program to reduce the amount of recyclable material contained in MSW, but there will continue to be some potentially recyclable material in the MSW. Metro Vancouver has proposed to increase the frequency of manual stack testing from three to four times per year. The monitoring requirements included in the proposed draft OC are consistent with the recommendations provided in the Guideline. Metro Vancouver has proposed that emission data recorded by CEMS during start-up and shutdown periods will be excluded from regulatory emission calculations due to air flow instability and uncertainty with respect to data validity. Fly ash and bottom ash management plans will be submitted for approval by the Ministry of Environment by March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, respectively. The plans will be made available on request. Metro Vancouver has proposed additional text for the draft OC that will set requirements to develop a plan to post regulatory information and reporting on the Metro Vancouver website. The Environmental Management Act includes enforcement and penalty provisions. No specific provisions are required in the OC. The public consultation process was inadequate. The Ministry of Environment should extend the public consultation period and the Ministry and Metro Vancouver should give presentations in the Fraser Valley to address questions and concerns. The Province of British Columbia controls the process related to development of the OC. Metro Vancouver is not responsible for the public consultation and engagement process related to development of the OC; however, Metro Vancouver will cooperate with any Ministry of Environment requirements. Metro Vancouver regularly provides public ZWC - 40

45 presentations and tours outlining the environmental performance of the WTEF, and will continue to do so. Along with Metro Vancouver s responses to the comments received by the Ministry of Environment, Metro Vancouver prepared an updated proposed draft OC considering the comments submitted to the Ministry of Environment. The proposed draft OC has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment for their consideration and is included as Attachment 3. NEXT STEPS The Ministry of Environment will consider the comments submitted by stakeholders along with the Metro Vancouver responses and proposed revisions to the draft OC. The Ministry of Environment will then finalize the OC. Staff will report back if the final OC sets new requirements that are not contemplated in current financial projections. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The WTEF operates under the conditions set forth in the ISWRMP, which was approved by the Minister of Environment in July The approval states that the Ministry of Environment may issue an OC, which will establish new requirements for the WTEF. A draft OC was developed. The Ministry of Environment posted a notice of intent to issue an OC, and invited comments through the notice. Comments from 9 individuals/entities were submitted to the Ministry of Environment. Metro Vancouver submitted responses to comments received to the Ministry of Environment on January 31, 2014 along with proposed changes to the draft OC. Ministry of Environment staff will now consider the comments and Metro Vancouver responses and finalize the OC. Attachments and References: Attachment 1 Metro Vancouver WTEF Mass Balance per 1-Tonne of MSW Attachment 2 Correspondence re: Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility Operational Certificate addressed to Avtar Sundher, Ministry of Environment, from Paul Henderson, Dec 27 Attachment 3 Proposed draft Operational Certificate Reference: Comments received on Draft Operational Certificate, including Metro Vancouver response to comments, are available on the Metro Vancouver website: ( stetoenergyfacility.aspx) ZWC - 41

46 Attachment 1 EXISTING METRO VANCOUVER WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY MASS BALANCE PER 1-TONNE OF GARBAGE COMBUSTION AIR OUT Trace Air Emissions: 2.9 kg Nitrogen Oxides: kg Carbon Monoxide: kg Sulphur Dioxide: kg Hydrogen Chloride/ Hydrochloric Acid: kg Antimony: kg Arsenic: kg Cadmium: kg Copper: Lead: Manganese: Mercury: Zinc: Particulates: Dioxins and Furans: kg kg kg kg kg kg kg Nitrogen: 5205 kg Carbon Dioxide: 1105 kg (65% Biogenic) Water Vapour: 887 kg Oxygen: 620 kg COMBUSTION AIR IN 590 kilowatt-hours Moisture: 102 kg Oxygen: 1578 kg Nitrogen: 5198 kg Phosphoric Acid*: 5.8 Kg Bottom Ash: 161 kg 1000 kg Garbage Process Water: 95 kg Reagents* Fly Ash: 42.4 kg Ferrous Metals Recovered: 28.1 kg [Lime: 13.9 kg Aqueous Ammonia: 1.8 kg Carbon: 0.3 kg] * PURPOSE OF ADDED REAGENTS: Lime - for control of acid gases Phosphoric Acid - for ash stabilization Aqueous Ammonia - for control of Nitrogen Oxides Carbon - for control of mercury The mass balance is based on the most current 2012 operational information which is a blend of data from different sources and, as a result, the mass balance does not close perfectly. Sanitary waste flows have been excluded Data prepared by CDM Smith for Metro Vancouver Prepared on January 14, 2014 Responsible engineer: R.L. Hurdle ZWC - 42

47 metro Solid Waste Services Tel Fax File: SW WTEF-05 December 27, 2013 Avtar Sundher Section Head, Environmental Management, Government & Compliance Unit Ministry of Environment # nd Street Surry, BC V3R 0Y3 Dear Mr. Sundher: Re: Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility Operational Certificate As per our conversation on December 24, 2013 we are now in receipt of comments received by the Ministry of Environment related to the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF) draft Operational Certificate As per the Minister of Environment s approval of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP), the Director may issue an Operational Certificate for the WTEF that will provide updated operational requirements for the facility. We appreciate the work of Ministry of Environment staff in moving towards issuing an Operational Certificate for the WTEF. Comments related to the draft Operational Certificate were received from the following individuals/groups: Name Position ] Group I Entity Date of Communication John Vissers Chair City of Abbotsford Environmental December 16, 2013 Advisory Committee Sharon Gaetz Mayor City of Chilliwack December 19, 2013 Leo Fado Mayor Harrison Hot Springs Decernber 20, 2013 Susan Johnston Mayor District of Hope December 20, 2013 George M Murray Ctv Manager Abbotsford December 20, 2013 Sue Maxweii :ero Waste BC December 20, Qj3 E!aneGoids Chair BurkeMountnNaturahsts December20, 2013 Paul Gipps CAD Fraser Valley Regional District December 20, 2013 A complete collection of comments, the Ministry of Environment s published Notice of Intent to issue an Operational Certificate and the draft Operational Certificate provided to stakeholders are included in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respect vely ZWC - 43

48 Avtar Sundher, Head, Government & Compliance Section Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility Operational Certificate Page 1 of 2 We have conducted a cursory review of the comments and concluded that substantial work will be required to respond to all of the comments. We will begin this work at the beginning of January. We expect to be able to submit a document to the Ministry of Environment addressing the comments and proposing any revisions to the draft Operational Certificate to address the comments by January 31, If through our work we conclude that the comments can t be fully addressed by January 31, we will communicate an updated timeline to you in mid January. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Yours truly, Paul Henderson, PEng General Manager, Solid Waste Services PH/PW/ws Attachments: 1. Letters Comments on WTEF Draft Operational Certificate ( ) 2. Environmental Protection Notice ( ) 3. Draft Operational Certificate ( ) Cc: Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee ZWC - 44

49 Revised Proposed Draft Operational Certificate Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility Table of Contents 1. Authorized Discharges Mass Burn Incinerators/Boilers Closed-Circuit Cooling Tower Lime Silo Activated Carbon Silo Fly Ash Silo Emergency Power Generator General Requirements Authorized Fuels and Wastes Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Handling, Storage and Disposal Future Recycling or Beneficial Use Bypasses Process Modifications Maintenance of Works, Emergency Procedures and Non-Compliance Reporting Odour Control Ash Handling Plans Works Standard Conditions Environmental Management System Emergency Response Plan Monitoring and Reporting Requirements MSW and Ash Monitoring Spill Reporting Discharge Monitoring for Subsection Emission Control Device Record Keeping Secondary Combustion Zone Temperature Monitoring Requirements Start Up or Shut Down Period Modification of Monitoring Requirements and/or Treatment Works Sampling Location and Techniques Sampling and Analytical Procedures Reporting Requirements Internet Posting of Section 3.3 CEMS Data Monthly Monitoring Data Reporting CEMS Maintenance, Calibration and Audit Reporting Source Testing Reporting Record Keeping Requirements Annual Monitoring Report Site Plan A ZWC - 45

50 1. AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES 1.1 Mass Burn Incinerators/Boilers This section applies to the discharge of air contaminants for three (3) identical Mass Burn Incinerators/Boilers from a common support stack (with three individual flues) identified as stack on Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXXX The maximum rate of discharge for the three combined incinerator units is 72 dry cubic metres per second (m 3 /s) The authorized discharge period is continuous The characteristics of the discharge shall be equivalent to or better than: Interim Discharge Limits (2)(3) Discharge Limits (3) Response Limits (4) Approved 24-hr 4-hr 1-hr 24-hr Test 1/2-hr Parameter Units (1) Average (5) Average (6) Average Average (5) Method (7) Average (8) Total Particulate Matter (9) mg/dscm Opacity % Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ) mg/dscm mg/dscm (10) mg/dscm mg/dscm Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) mg/dscm Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Dioxins and Furans (as PCDD/F TEQ) (12) mg/dscm - - Manual Stack Test limit of 40 (11) ng/dscm Cadmium (Cd) µg/dscm ZWC - 46

51 Mercury (Hg) (13) µg/dscm Sum of Lead (Pb), µg/dscm Arsenic (As), Chromium (Cr) Chlorophenols µg/dscm Chlorobenzenes µg/dscm Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) µg/dscm µg/dscm dscm = dry standard cubic metre, corrected to 11% oxygen 2. Interim Discharge Limits shall apply until and including the following dates, at which point the Discharge Limits and Response Limits shall apply: a. Opacity December 31, 2015 b. CO December 31, 2014 (Discharge Limit) and December 31, 2015 (Response Limit) c. HCl December 31, 2019 (Discharge and Response Limits) d. SO 2 December 31, 2019 (Discharge and Response Limits) e. NOx December 31, 2014 (Discharge Limit) and December 31, 2015 (Response Limit) f. TOC December 31, 2015 (Discharge and Response Limits) 3. Discharge limits are the criteria for compliance determination of each discharge parameter listed in the column, subject to Note 2 above. 4. Response limits are the threshold requiring the Operational Certificate Holder to take immediate action to bring down the discharge levels to the applicable discharge limits specified in this section. The response limits are expressed as ½ hr (block) average values measured by approved continuous emission monitors. The Operational Certificate Holder is required to demonstrate the response action(s) implemented by record keeping. 5. Daily average values, calculated as the arithmetic average of valid continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data. 6. Calculated as the arithmetic average of 4 hrs of data from a CEMS. 7. Determined by a test method approved by the Director. A single manual stack test result is the average of a minimum of three (3) test runs. 8. Calculated as the arithmetic average of ½ hr block of data from a CEMS. 9. Total particulate matter (filterable portion only) is determined by EPA Test Method 5 or an alternative method approved by the Director. 10. Continuous monitoring of SO 2 shall be used as a surrogate for emission monitoring of acid gases, such as HCl and HF. 11. Monitored as total hydrocarbons (measured as methane). 12. PCDD (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins) & PCDF (polychlorinated dibenzofurans) shall be expressed in dioxin toxicity equivalent value (dioxin TEQ) as defined in the Hazardous Waste Regulation. 13. Mercury determined by EPA Test Method 29 or an alternative method approved by the Director The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure that under no circumstances Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is continued to be fed to an incinerator/boiler when an authorized parameter response limit is exceeded for a period of more than four (4) hours uninterrupted per parameter per unit; moreover the cumulative duration of operation in such conditions over one calendar year shall be less than 60 hours per parameter per unit. ZWC - 47

52 1.1.5 The authorized works are refuse bunker, three (3) mass burn incinerators/boilers each equipped with an independent feed chute, integrated furnace/boiler, Covanta Low NOx System, selective non-catalytic NOx reduction system, lime scrubber, activated carbon injection system and three (3) baghouses, fans, heaters, ash handling and treatment systems, turbo generator, air cooled condenser, a common support stack (with three individual flues) and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A. A furnace temperature of 980 degrees Celsius shall be maintained for a minimum of one (1) second. The furnace temperature for each incinerator unit is monitored and reported with a minimum operating reference temperature of 800 degrees Celsius, which correlates to a combustion zone temperature of 980 degrees Celsius maintained for a minimum of one (1) second The authorized works must be complete and in operation while discharging. It is understood that the Covanta Low NOx System will be commissioned in The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is Legal Land Description: LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 167, GROUP 1, NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT, PLAN Closed-Circuit Cooling Tower This section applies to the discharge of air from a multi-cell Closed Circuit Cooling Tower as shown on attached Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXX The maximum rate of discharge is 70 m 3 /s The authorized discharge period is continuous The characteristics of the discharge shall include water vapour and mist containing dissolved minerals naturally present in water and water conditioning additives for ph and algae growth control The authorized works are a closed-circuit cooling tower, exhaust vents and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is the same as Section above. 1.3 Lime Silo This section applies to the discharge of air from a Lime Silo as shown on attached Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXX. ZWC - 48

53 1.3.1 The maximum rate of discharge is 1.0 m 3 /s The authorized discharge period is intermittent The discharge point shall be equipped with a fully functional particulate matter filter inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications The authorized works are a lime silo, a baghouse and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A The authorized works must be complete and in operation while discharging The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is the same as Section above. 1.4 Activated Carbon Silo This section applies to the discharge of air from an Activated Carbon Silo as shown on attached Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXX The maximum rate of discharge is 1.0 m 3 /s The authorized discharge period is intermittent The discharge point shall be equipped with a fully functional particulate matter filter inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications The authorized works are an activated carbon silo, a baghouse and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A The authorized works must be complete and in operation while discharging The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is the same as Section above. 1.5 Fly Ash Silo This section applies to the discharge of air from a Fly Ash Silo as shown on attached Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXX The maximum rate of discharge is 2.0 m 3 /s The authorized discharge period is continuous The discharge point shall be equipped with a fully functional particulate matter filter inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications. ZWC - 49

54 1.5.4 The authorized works are a fly ash silo, exhaust vents and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A The authorized works must be complete and in operation while discharging The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is the same as Section above. 1.6 Emergency Power Generator This section applies to the discharge of air from an Emergency (Standby) Power Generator as shown on attached Site Plan A. The site reference number for this discharge is XXXX The characteristics of the discharge shall be equivalent to or better than typical emissions from the type of engine in-place at the facility The authorized works are Emergency Power Generator and related appurtenances approximately located as shown on Site Plan A The authorized works must be complete and in operation while discharging The location of the facilities from which the discharge originates and the point of discharge is the same as Section above. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Authorized Fuels and Wastes The authorized wastes for the Mass Burn Incinerators/Boilers are (a) MSW and (b) other wastes approved by the Director. The facility shall only receive waste as authorized by the Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Natural gas may be used as an auxiliary fuel during start up, shut down and flame stabilization. Solid wastes that are approved and authorized for use are as follows: MSW from residential, commercial/institutional, and construction and demolition sources Domestic and international transport carrier waste (e.g., refuse, paper, plastic) Waste Water Treatment Plant residuals Water Treatment Plant filter media Government agency or entity wastes New non-msw waste shall be approved by the Director in writing or approved by the Director without written authorization if Metro Vancouver carries out the following ZWC - 50

55 protocol: 1. Prior to usage of a new waste, the Director must receive written notification identifying the proposed material. A report must accompany this notification which shall contain the following: a. Records detailing analyses and written descriptions establishing the composition, source and quality of the proposed waste. The analyses shall include, but not be limited to, quantitative trace metal composition of the proposed waste. b. Proposed feed rate of the waste shall be expressed as a percentage of the total raw material feed to the incinerators. The proposed feed rate of the waste shall be expressed as a percentage of the total heat value to the incinerators. 2. Conduct a demonstration trial utilizing the proposed waste at the maximum proposed feed rate. The demonstration trial must meet the following requirements: a. Site storage and handling of the proposed waste shall be conducted in such a manner so as to effectively control fugitive emissions. b. Maximum duration of 96 hours. Records detailing the proposed waste usage times and dates shall be maintained and made available for inspection. c. Records detailing feed rates, quantity and quality of all waste and fuel sources utilized during the demonstration trial shall be maintained and made available for inspection for a period of seven (7) years. d. Emissions monitoring shall be conducted to determine the concentration of the parameters listed in Section The Operational Certificate Holder shall provide the Ministry with a minimum of three business days advance notice before any of the emission testing is carried out. All field data and calculations collected for the testing conducted must be submitted to the Director. These submissions shall include the feed rates for all waste and fuel sources utilized at the time of testing. The results of emissions monitoring shall be submitted to the director a minimum of five business days prior to the routine usage of the proposed waste. 3. New wastes that have met the requirements above and demonstrated compliance with all terms and conditions of this Operational Certificate are authorized for use. 2.2 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Handling, Storage and Disposal Subject to the other provisions of this Operational Certificate, MSW shall be protected against weather elements and prevented from releasing leachate, odour or fugitive dust emissions that amount to pollution, as that term is defined in the Environmental Management Act, to the receiving environment beyond the property boundary of the facility during unloading, storage and disposal. The Operational Certificate Holder shall implement necessary housekeeping procedures to eliminate sources and potential sources of attraction for vermin and vectors. ZWC - 51

56 MSW delivered to the facility by truck shall be discharged directly into the refuse bunker. MSW loads delivered to the facility by truck may be periodically discharged onto a dedicated paved area adjacent to the refuse bunker to facilitate MSW load inspections and waste audits, provided all other Section 2.2 conditions are satisfied. Unloading and storage of bulk MSW delivered by trucks shall be managed in an area with appropriate ventilation and odour control. The maximum MSW storage capacity at the site shall be dictated by the capacity of the refuse bunker. All stored MSW must be entirely contained within the refuse bunker. 2.3 Future Recycling or Beneficial Use The Director may require an evaluation of the potential to recycle or beneficially use certain residues from the combustion process and recovery of certain reusable resources. 2.4 Bypasses The discharge of air contaminants, as that term is defined in the Environmental Management Act, beyond the property boundary of the facility, which has bypassed the authorized works, is prohibited unless the approval of the Director is obtained in writing. 2.5 Process Modifications The Director shall be notified prior to implementing material changes to any process that adversely affects the quality and/or quantity of the discharge from the facility to a material extent. Despite notification under this section, permitted levels must not be exceeded. 2.6 Maintenance of Works, Emergency Procedures and Non-Compliance Reporting In a manner acceptable to the Director, the Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the following are conducted: The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the authorized works are inspected regularly and maintained in good working order. In the event of an emergency or condition beyond the control of the Operational Certificate Holder which prevents effective operation of the authorized works or leads to unauthorized discharge, the Operational Certificate Holder shall immediately as soon as reasonably practical notify the Regional Manager, Environmental Protection, and take appropriate remedial action for the prevention or mitigation of pollution. The Operational Certificate Holder shall meet all applicable emergency statutory requirements. The Director may reduce or suspend operations to protect the environment until the authorized works have been restored and/or corrective steps have been taken to prevent unauthorized discharges. ZWC - 52

57 2.6.2 During and after the emergency event or condition, the Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure (1) sampling and analysis of discharges which might be noncompliant with the rates or characteristics of discharges as specified in this Operational Certificate and/or applicable statutory requirements is conducted, (2) the probable causes of the non-compliances are investigated and (3) appropriate remedial actions at the authorized works, plant operations or both to prevent pollution or authorized discharges are implemented Within 30 days of the emergency event or condition which prevents effective operation of the authorized works or leads to unauthorized discharge, the Operational Certificate Holder shall provide a report to Regional Manager, Environmental Protection, describing the sequences of events that led to an emergency event or condition, results of sampling and analysis described above, the root causes of non-compliance, remedial actions implemented and/or planned schedules for potential corrective and preventive action. 2.7 Odour Control Should the facility emit odours to an extent that amount to pollution, as that term is defined in the Environmental Management Act, beyond the property boundary of the facility, the Director may require the facility to implement measures to reduce such odour to an extent that the odour does not amount to pollution. 2.8 Ash Handling Fly ash shall be disposed at an appropriate permitted facility. Bottom ash shall be disposed at an appropriate permitted facility or beneficially used, as authorized by the Director. Prior to disposal or authorized beneficial use, recoverable materials, such as ferrous metal pieces, may be removed. 2.9 Plans - Works Plans and specifications of the works authorized in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 shall be submitted to the Director upon request. For any material modifications to the authorized works, a qualified professional must certify that the works have been constructed in accordance with the certified design before discharge commences Standard Conditions For the administration of this Operational Certificate all gaseous volumes shall be converted to standard conditions of K and kpa with zero percent moisture and 11% oxygen. ZWC - 53

58 2.11 Environmental Management System The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure that an Environmental Management System (EMS) or equivalent (e.g., ISO 14001) is implemented to ensure compliance with the discharge requirements through the use of the effective operating procedures, training and maintenance practices. This system shall include, operating the equipment within its designed capabilities, preventing occurrences of abnormal operating conditions in all areas of the facility, enhancing the capabilities to manage or mitigate/correct such abnormal operating conditions for the protection of the environment and human health. The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the EMS is updated annually and available for inspection or submission upon request Emergency Response Plan The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure that an Emergency Response Plan that describes the procedures to be taken to prevent or mitigate any spills, unauthorized discharge of contaminants to the air or deposit of deleterious substance to the receiving environment is maintained. The Emergency Response Plan shall be immediately implemented if there is a discharge/deposit, or any risk of a discharge/deposit, of a deleterious substance to the receiving environment. The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure that the Emergency Response Plan is updated annually and kept available for inspection. 3. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3.1 MSW and Ash Monitoring In a manner acceptable to the Director, the Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the following are monitored and recorded: Record estimated or measured weight of MSW and natural gas burned per day (back calculated MSW from steam rate and reconciled with truck scale data at the month end), per month (by truck scale) and year Record estimated bulk weight (and estimated % moisture) of treated bottom ash and treated fly ash destined for disposal or beneficial use per month and year A fly ash management plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director by March 31, The fly ash management plan shall include proposed sampling and analytical protocols, sampling frequency, results interpretation process, protocols for interpreting anomalous data and other related information. Fly ash management requirements may be reviewed from time to time at the discretion of the Director A bottom ash management plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director by June 30, The bottom ash management plan shall include proposed sampling ZWC - 54

59 3.2 Spill Reporting and analytical protocols, sampling frequency, results interpretation process, protocols for interpreting anomalous data and other related information. Bottom ash management requirements may be reviewed from time to time at the discretion of the Director. All spills to the environment (as defined in the Spill Reporting Regulation) shall be reported immediately in accordance with the Spill Reporting Regulation. Notification shall be via the Provincial Emergency Program at Discharge Monitoring for Subsection 1.1 The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the discharge is monitored as follows: Annually 5 Annually 5 Parameter for Stack XXXX Sampling and Analysis Frequency 1 Rate of Discharge 2, m 3 /s Continuous & Four times per year Total Particulate Matter, mg/m 3 Four times per year Opacity 3, % Continuous 3,4 & retain records by minute for inspections Oxygen 6, % of dry air Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr average values for concentration adjustments Carbon Monoxide (CO), mg/m 3 Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr and daily average values Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), mg/m 3 Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr and daily average values Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), mg/m 3 Four times per year Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ), mg/m 3 Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr and daily average values Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), mg/m 3 Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr and daily average values Total Organic Compounds (TOC), mg/m 3 Continuous 3,4 & record ½ hr and daily average values PCDD & PCDF TEQ, pg/ m 3 Annually 5 Total Mercury, mg/m 3 Four times per year Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), mg/m 3 Chlorophenols, mg/m 3 Annually 5 Chlorobenzene, mg/m 3 Annually 5 Lead, mg/m 3 Four times per year Arsenic, mg/m 3 Four times per year Cadmium, mg/m 3 Four times per year Chromium, mg/m 3 Four times per year Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), mg/m 3 ZWC - 55

60 1. For those parameters with continuous monitoring requirements, compliance with Section 1.1 discharge requirements shall be verified with continuous monitoring data (with a QA/QC program satisfactory to the Director) collected during normal operating periods, excluding start up and shut down periods described in Section 3.7. Other than instrument errors, all collected data admissible under a QA/QC program must be recorded and reported. The Director may amend the above monitoring requirements when the Operational Certificate Holder is able to demonstrate to the Director that an alternative compliance monitoring method/requirement is equal to or better than the above requirements. 2. The rate of flue gas discharge shall be adjusted to dry standard conditions. The rate of flue gas discharge shall be reported as daily average values, calculated as the arithmetic average of valid CEMS data. 3. The required data capture rate for (CEMS) specified above shall be 90% of the operating hours per quarter and 95% of the operating hours per annum. The monthly CEMS compliance data report shall include % up time for CEMS. The statistic shall be extended to annual reports. 4. The CEMS data (½ hour and 24 hour averages) for the above parameters shall include maximum, minimum and average for the day, month and year and % of time out of compliance. The specified CEMS data may not be available for all parameters prior to December 31, Monitoring conducted once per year on one incinerator/boiler. 3.4 Emission Control Device Record Keeping The Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure performance records are maintained for all emission control devices in conjunction with manufacturer specifications. The emission control devices include Section 1.1 Covanta Low NOx System, selective noncatalytic NOx reduction system, lime scrubbers, activated carbon injection system. The records shall include frequency and duration of any period when an emission control device is not fully operational, along with appropriate description of each malfunction, as well as the corrective measure(s) taken in each case. 3.5 Secondary Combustion Zone Temperature Monitoring Requirements In a manner acceptable to the Director, the Operational Certificate Holder shall ensure the secondary combustion zone temperature is monitored/recorded continuously (or equivalent surrogate temperature) expressed in degrees Celsius measured at a suitable location in the secondary combustion zone of the incinerator. The minimum one-hour average secondary combustion zone temperature shall be 800 C while unburned MSW is present in the combustion chamber during periods of normal operation. 3.6 Start Up or Shut Down Period The start up or shut down period for the boilers shall be no more than five (5) hours each. During this period, emission data recorded by CEMS shall be excluded from regulatory emission calculations. Start up periods shall exclude times when the auxiliary burners are in service but waste has not yet been introduced into the boiler. The start up period shall ZWC - 56

61 commence when the feed chute damper is open and waste is charged to the stoker. After the start up period, all the air emission discharge requirements specified in Section 1.1 are applicable even during periods when feed rates are being adjusted for any reasons other than start up or shut down. Auxiliary burner(s) shall be used during start-up, shutdown, upset conditions, and at any other times as necessary to maintain the secondary combustion zone temperature. The shut down period will commence when the feed chute damper is closed and waste is no longer being charged to the stoker. The Director may alter or exclude CEMS emission data based upon a review of discharge data and actual start up and shut down operations of the facility boilers. 3.7 Modification of Monitoring Requirements and/or Treatment Works Based on monitoring results and any other pertinent information obtained in connection with the discharges, the Director may alter the monitoring requirements, and/or require the Operational Certificate Holder to take additional measures and/or provide additional treatment works to reduce the impact on the environment and human health from discharges to the receiving environment. 3.8 Sampling Location and Techniques All sampling locations, techniques, and equipment shall be acceptable to the Director. Sampling and monitoring data, including the rate of discharge, shall be accompanied by process data relevant to the operation of the source of the emissions and the performance of the pollution abatement equipment involved in the testing. Sampling shall be done under actual operating conditions when the Operational Certificate Holder is able to properly document that these conditions represent a period of normal operation. The following parameters must be reported for the test period: a) Boiler steam production expressed as kg/h or kj/h. b) Boiler secondary combustion zone temperature or an appropriate surrogate expressed in degrees Celsius. c) The estimated rates of waste and fuel, as-fired into the boiler during each compliance test period. 3.9 Sampling and Analytical Procedures Sampling is to be carried out in accordance with the procedures described in the "British Columbia Field Sampling Manual for Continuous Monitoring and the Collection of Air, Air- Emission, Water, Wastewater, Soil, Sediment, and Biological Samples, 2003 Edition", or most recent edition, or by suitable alternative procedures as authorized by the Director. Analyses are to be carried out in accordance with procedures described in the most recent ZWC - 57

62 edition of the "British Columbia Laboratory Manual for the Analysis of Water, Wastewater, Sediment, Biological Materials and Discrete Ambient Air Samples, or by suitable alternative procedures as authorized by the Director. Copies of the above manuals may be purchased from the Queen's Printer Publications Centre, P. O. Box 9452, Stn. Prov. Gov't. Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9V7 ( or (250) ) or via the internet at A copy of the manual is also available for review at all Environmental Protection offices Reporting Requirements Internet Posting of Section 3.3 CEMS Data An Internet Publication Plan for posting facility emissions data shall be submitted to the Director by June 30, At a minimum the plan will: a) Detail all information to be made available on the internet and associated data publishing timeframes and will be approved by the Director, including, but not be limited to: Reports issued to a regulatory body or agency or governmental entity etc (e.g., British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Fraser Health Authority, City of Burnaby) Operational Certificate Monthly Monitoring Report Annual Monitoring Report Operational data (e.g., MSW received and processed, natural gas consumed, secondary combustion zone temperature, operational hours and the percentage of hours per year in start-up, shutdown, and upset conditions) Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) availability and summarized emissions data Manual stack test emissions data and reports Fly ash and bottom ash information (e.g., estimated weights, analytical data, disposal location) Response and discharge limit exceedances and remedial actions Links to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reports Links to National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) reports b) Establish timelines for publishing information included in the Internet Publication Plan Monthly Monitoring Data Reporting The Operational Certificate Holder shall submit to the Regional Manager, Environmental Protection, once each month, the results of the monitoring program specified in Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 3.6, as applicable. The Director may require that ZWC - 58

63 data be submitted in electronic format suitable for entry into the Ministry of Environment computer database. The information shall be submitted within 45 days following the month in which the data was collected. Each monthly data submission shall include a statement outlining the number of exceedances of permit discharge limits; the number and duration of exceedances of the ½ hr response limits, and comments on remedial measures taken in each case; up to date cumulative duration of any ½ hr response limit exceedances for the calendar year; the number of occasions the one-hour average secondary combustion chamber temperature dropped below 800 C during periods of normal operation, the minimum temperature reached in each case, and the corrective action taken; and the CEMS availability factor expressed as a percentage of plant operating hours, causes, and corrective action(s) taken to address exceedances that occurred during the reporting period. The dates of the exceedances and action(s) taken shall be clearly identified in the data submission. Should no exceedances have occurred over the reporting period, a statement to that effect must be included. The monthly report shall also include the following information: a) The quantities of MSW fuel shipments received and processed at the site and the quantity of natural gas fuel consumed. b) An overview of the plant performance describing boiler availability; the percentage of hours in start-up, shutdown, and upset conditions; the estimated weight of fly ash and bottom ash and/or other residue(s) generated and their processing and disposal method or beneficial uses. c) Notice of bypasses of authorized works d) Notice of process changes that materially affect the characteristics of the discharge e) Summary of emergency/spill incidents and remedial/corrective/preventative actions taken CEMS Maintenance, Calibration and Audit Reporting The Operational Certificate Holder shall maintain for a minimum of seven (7) years and make available upon request the performance range, specifications and calibration data for each CEMS; the availability of each CEMS (expressed as a percent of facility operating hours); maintenance and calibration work performed on the CEMS as well as results of any independent audit performed during the preceding month. Within 30 days of the Operational Certificate Holder receiving notice of a Ministry audit of continuous emissions, which alleges that there was a non-compliance with the emissions requirements, the Operational Certificate Holder will respond to the audit and allegation. ZWC - 59

64 Source Testing Reporting The Operational Certificate Holder shall submit a report in electronic format to the Regional Manager, Environmental Protection, within 60 days of the completion of the actual source testing, with the exception of testing for chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and/or total dioxins and furans, in which case source testing results shall be submitted within 90 days of the actual source testing Record Keeping Requirements Maintain all emission testing results, data of analysis, reports, continuous emission results (1/2 hour and 24 hour averages) and calibration records for continuous monitors required under Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 3.6 for a minimum of seven (7) years and make available upon request Annual Monitoring Report The Operational Certificate Holder shall submit an annual summary report for the monitoring conducted in the preceding calendar year to the Regional Manager, Environmental Protection, by March 31 of each year. The Annual Report shall include an executive summary, review and interpretation of monitoring data for the preceding calendar year and provide graphical analysis with suitable interpretation of any trends relative to discharge limits and all applicable federal and Province of BC guidelines, evaluation of authorized works and monitoring programs, conclusions, recommendations and any proposed changes to the monitoring program or the facility. Specific issues identified for reporting include, but are not limited to: a) The quantities of MSW fuel shipments received and processed at the site and the quantity of natural gas fuel consumed. b) An overview of the plant performance describing boiler availability, period(s) and cause(s) of any non-availability; the percentage of hours in start-up, shutdown, and upset conditions; the status of operation and maintenance of various pieces of equipment; the net energy balance; the estimated weight of fly ash and bottom ash and/or other residue(s) generated and their processing and disposal method or beneficial uses; general housekeeping practices; incidents of emission control equipment malfunction; and emission limits exceedance summary. c) Operation, performance and maintenance of emission control devices and CEMS including availability factor expressed as percentage of plant operating hours. d) Notice of bypasses of authorized works e) Notice of process changes that materially affect the characteristics of the ZWC - 60

65 discharge f) Summary of emergency/spill incidents and remedial/corrective/preventative actions taken g) Summary of any complaints received from members of the public and associated responses with reference to the facility s EMS, and incidents of exceedances or emergency conditions at the facility. ZWC - 61

66 ZWC - 62

67 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Solid Waste Services Date: January 13, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: Update on Implementation of Packaging and Printed Paper EPR Program RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 13, 2014 titled Update on Implementation of Packaging and Printed Paper EPR Program for information. PURPOSE To update the Zero Waste Committee on the member municipal responses to the Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) incentive offer and to identify some upcoming issues related to implementation Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) program. BACKGROUND The B.C. Recycling Regulation requires producers of PPP to be responsible for an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program beginning May 19, Over 700 producers have joined MMBC in order to discharge their obligations under the Regulation. In preparation for the May launch date, MMBC has been making arrangements for collection of PPP from single-family residences, multifamily buildings and recycling depots. After the May launch of the program, MMBC will study options for streetscape collection and the composition of compostable packaging and food soiled paper in existing municipal organics collection, and based on the results will phase-in program expansion, as required. DISCUSSION Within Metro Vancouver, several member municipalities decided to join the MMBC program, and several others decided to maintain status quo operations, at this time. As the PPP program moves towards the implementation date, significant changes in the recycling systems will impact member municipalities, including those municipalities which joined the program and those which decided to maintain status quo operations. Member Municipal Responses Among member municipalities, decisions were made to the full spectrum of options specified by MMBC, including: Agreeing to accept the MMBC market clearing price Declining the offer, and permitting MMBC to provide collection services to residents directly Taking additional time to consider the MMBC program, and continuing to operate the system status quo ZWC - 63

68 Community Curbside Multi-Family Anmore Declined, MMBC collection N/A Belcarra N/A N/A Bowen Island N/A N/A Burnaby Accepted Accepted Coquitlam Declined, MMBC collection Declined, MMBC collection Delta Opted out, status quo collection Opted out, status quo collection Langley (City) Accepted Accepted Langley (Township) Opted out, status quo collection Opted out, status quo collection Lions Bay Unknown Unknown Maple Ridge Accepted Accepted New Westminster Accepted Accepted North Vancouver (City) Accepted Accepted North Vancouver (District) Accepted Accepted Pitt Meadows Accepted Accepted Port Coquitlam Accepted Accepted Port Moody Accepted Accepted Richmond Accepted Accepted Surrey Accepted Accepted Vancouver Accepted Accepted West Vancouver Accepted Accepted White Rock Accepted Accepted In addition, some municipalities also accepted the MMBC offer for depot collection, including: Burnaby, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, District of North Vancouver, Richmond (for glass, film plastics and polystyrene only) and Vancouver. Glass MMBC decided to segregate the collection of glass from the other recyclable materials, and to focus the collection of glass at depots rather than at the curb. MMBC did not prohibit the collection of glass at the curb, but is requiring that glass be segregated, and offered the same financial offer as the glass collection at depots. The characteristics of existing municipal recycling collection programs will influence the decision that each member municipality may make on how best to manage glass collection. Some municipalities have the flexibility in their systems to continue to collect glass at the curb in a segregated container. Others may decide to phase-out of the collection of glass at the curb and use depot collection only. At this time, it appears that member municipalities will use several different options to address the collection of glass throughout the region. Expanded Collection Under the MMBC program, the types of PPP to be collected will be significantly expanded from the materials most commonly accepted in existing municipal recycling systems. In addition, MMBC is planning province-wide marketing campaigns to introduce system changes and to clearly identify the PPP which will be acceptable in this new program. From an overall recycling system perspective, there are benefits from this broad, province-wide approach. ZWC - 64

69 However, some member municipalities have opted out of the MMBC program and will be maintaining their respective current systems. In these cases there may be a need for an enhanced communication strategy so that residents are aware of the different programs and understand the distinctions between the MMBC system and the one operated by their local municipality. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Under the Recycling Regulation, MMBC is responsible to fund the costs of recycling PPP materials from residential sources, and thus implementation of the program has substantial potential financial implications for member municipalities. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Recycling Regulation requires producers of PPP to be responsible for an EPR program, and MMBC has prepared a program for launch on May 19, Within Metro Vancouver, several member municipalities decided to join the MMBC program, and several others decided to maintain status quo operations. As the PPP program moves towards the implementation date, significant changes in the recycling systems will impact member municipalities. Municipalities may choose to continue to collect glass, in a segregated stream, at the curb or shift to depot-only collection. Expanded collection associated with the MMBC program may also demonstrate a need for enhanced communication so that residents clearly understand the program elements of those communities who are participating in the MMBC program and those who are not ZWC - 65

70 5.7 To: From: Zero Waste Committee David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department Date: January 16, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: 2015 Organics Disposal Ban Pre-consultation Outcomes with the ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) Sector RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receives for information this report on engagement with the ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) sector in support of the upcoming consultation on the 2015 Organics Disposal Ban. PURPOSE This report captures progress made on preparing the region s largest organic waste producers (after residents), the ICI sector, for the Organics Disposal Ban. It assesses the environment the disposal ban will be received in, and details some of the extensive collaborative effort being undertaken between businesses and Metro Vancouver. BACKGROUND The Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) includes actions to prepare the ICI sector for the Organics Disposal Ban in Removing organics from regular garbage requires more than additional bins. It requires engaging entire sectors: manufacturing, packaging, distribution, storage and retail in order to encourage waste reduction. In addition, engaging early adopters in the ICI sector helps to develop a robust processing system (collection, hauling, depackaging, processing and end markets) in advance of the expected large volumes that will need processing once the ban is in place. DISCUSSION Current status on regional organics recycling rates Metro Vancouver estimates that about 270,000 tonnes of organics were collected from business and residents for processing into compost and/or biofuels in However, well over 300,000 tonnes of food scraps and yard trimmings entered the waste system for disposal in About half of that was identified as coming from the ICI sector. Less clear was the reason organics are still going to the garbage when separation is available, where they originate from, and what could be done to further diversion. Criteria for engaging ICI audiences (Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) Staff investigated the approach various sectors are taking to organics separation, prioritizing sectors by large volumes and regular occurrence. Five sectors and audiences were identified: food retail (grocers), restaurants and hotels, schools, office buildings (property managers) and public health facilities. Further engagement identified a need for a separate approach to large and small business, and a sixth sector was identified as small and medium enterprises, largely grocers and restaurants (SMEs). ZWC - 66

71 Workplans to engage each of these sectors had the following objectives: Grow awareness of the organics disposal ban in each sector; Understand better the current approach trending in each sector; Capture, through dialogue, the challenges and opportunities each sector anticipates or experiences in separating organics; Explore with each sector if there are untapped opportunities to redirect consumable food; and Contribute to the regional desired outcome that separating food from regular garbage is a normal behavior at school, home and work. Outcomes with the prioritized sectors within the ICI Sector 1. Grocers This sector is supportive in principle of the organics disposal ban as it largely aligns with their declared Corporate Social Responsibility goals. Issues raised and explored included, as examples: Use of commercial digesters to transfer organic waste from the solid to liquid waste stream. Packaged food, regional capacity to offer de-packaging and related costs. Store compliance with corporate direction. Metro Vancouver audited several garbage dumpster loads of grocers with corporate policies on food diversion. Up to 60% continues to be organic waste. 2. Restaurants and Hotels Metro Vancouver convened two distinct groupings in 2012/13: the first was Representative associations (Group 1) to engage in the disposal ban, and the second, a Food Soiled Paper Task Group (Group 2) to explore a regional and national approach to compostable quick serve products. Group 1. This sector is medium supportive of the organics disposal ban very supportive of the principle of not wasting valuable food yet very concerned of the financial toll of the disposal ban. Issues raised and explored included, as examples: Initial costs to establish food separation in kitchen and customer areas Additional costs for increased hauling needs. Waste prevention as an opportunity to avoid diversion. Additional space and access for bins or totes. Cleanliness at collection sites and of bins or totes. High staff turnover, education and compliance. Existing and inflexible waste hauling contracts. Group 2. The group is highly supportive and motivated to provide advice on a regional and national policy on compostable quick serve products as a mosaic of regulations is a detriment to their business. Key representatives of the entire supply chain worked with Metro Vancouver to identify opportunities to set regional and national policy on take away packaging, which will be encompassed in the Organics Disposal Ban consultation in the form of a recommendation report on the direction Metro might take on food soiled paper and compostable containers, which could advise national policy. ZWC - 67

72 3. Schools (public K-12) This sector is supportive of the principle of the disposal ban, particularly as it aligns with their own sustainability principles and demand for organics recycling from school user groups. Issues raised and explored included, as examples: Initial costs to establish infrastructure during enormous budget pressure. Labour group resistance to additional tasks. Cleanliness in classroom and hallway settings. Existing and inflexible waste hauling contracts. Potential to promote take-it-home programs to reduce school collection costs. 4. Property Managers This sector is supportive of the principle of the disposal ban, particularly as it aligns with their own sustainability principles and demand for organics recycling from some tenants. Some are early adopters and have already instituted organics collection services in their facilities. Issues raised and explored included, as examples: Planning and initiating an organics separation program in diverse settings. Tenant engagement. Public engagement (tenant customers). Costs, including transfer to tenants. Site-specific challenges (low population business parks vs. mall food courts). 5. Health Facilities Public health authorities expressed enormous support for this disposal ban and credit the upcoming ban as an incentive to change the way they manage their waste. They expressed a willingness to share and champion their experiences with others. All public health facilities currently divert organics from all onsite kitchens and patient meals, including outsourced meals. Success is credited to supportive senior staff, a single point person for all procurement and disposal contracts, and Metro Vancouver s tipping fee differential. The initiative is also supported by food suppliers, and driven by cost savings (reduced waste hauling requirements). Private health facilities such as care homes have not been approached. 6. Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) SMEs are generally recognized as small organic waste producers, but collectively make up 1000 s of businesses and staff. SMEs are a key audience in creating the norm across the region that food no longer goes in regular garbage. There is not currently an amalgamated level of support from SMEs for the disposal ban. The incentive for a small business to not throw away food is cost savings, and valuing food. As independent businesses there isn t an association or voice for this sector, nor do they behave collectively. Issues raised and currently being explored included, as examples: Initial costs to establish food separation in kitchen and customer areas. Common practice to not know any details of waste hauling contracts including lifespan, options, and even service provider. Communication with non-english speaking business operators. Technical studies to support this engagement Metro Vancouver initiated studies and pilot projects that directly meet the issues raised by this engagement process. Examples include: ZWC - 68

73 Voluntary waste audits of large grocers. Grocers recognized that despite corporate policies there is room for improvement in recycling of both blue-box and organics. Piloting Lean Path technology in 5 SME restaurants, a proven technology that measures and categorizes food waste so that kitchen managers can change inventory, food preparation, serving size etc. to generate less waste. Commercial digesters and their impact on the region s liquid waste system. Interviews and surveys of SME businesses in various Business Improvement Associations across the region to capture current recycling practices and attitudes towards the disposal ban. Review of on-site technologies to discover if there are practical options to off-site processing that produce composted material on-site. Investigation into redirect opportunities to food banks, shelters etc. including work in partnership with the Centre for Disease Control and receiving agencies. (February 2014) 5 pilots with property managers, for example addressing food court practices, mixed tenant commercial buildings etc. (February 2014) in-house support for SMEs to initiate organics recycling in hard-to-access businesses identified in earlier surveys and interviews. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This report describes Metro Vancouver s initiatives as a convener, to prepare the region for its regulatory role in the context of the upcoming 2015 Organics Disposal Ban. The described work forms part of the approved workplan and budget of the External Relations Department. There is no additional financial ask or implications at this time. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION After residents, the Industrial, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) sector ranks among the region s largest organic waste producers. In support of the upcoming 2015 Organics Disposal Ban and consultations, significant work has and is being undertaken to engage the ICI sector; in particular, key sectors such as grocers, restaurants and hotels, schools, property managers, health facilities, and SMEs. Reducing the amount of organics that get disposed requires engaging manufacturing, packaging, distribution, storage and retail in order to encourage waste reduction, and at the same time developing a robust processing system (collection, hauling, de-packaging, processing and end markets). This extensive collaborative effort between businesses and Metro Vancouver has been instrumental in preparing the ICI sector for the ban and in assessing the environment in which the disposal ban will be received, including identifying the early adopters and key challenges facing sectors. Engagement with these key sectors will continue forming a key component of the consultation process and allow for a more deliberative process. Additionally, Metro Vancouver s work to date with the business community is helping to develop rich relationships which are key to making inroads on the ISWRMP goal for 80% diversion by ZWC - 69

74 5.8 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Paulette Vetleson, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer, Corporate Services Date: January 8, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2014 Subject: Zero Waste Committee Consideration of Attendance at 2014 Events RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Zero Waste Committee supports Zero Waste Committee members attendance at the following events in 2014: a. BioCycle West Coast Conference b. Recycling Council of British Columbia: Closing the Loop: Preventing Waste Through Sustainable Enterprise c. Solid Waste Association of North America Wastecon Conference. 2. That the Zero Waste Committee Chair recommends attendee(s) for each of these events to the Board Chair. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek committee decision on the event(s) it will support for attendance by Committee members. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION Under the Remuneration Bylaw, authorization for members travel and payment of expenses for attendance at events is made by the Board Chair based on recommendations from the Committee. Pursuant to the Bylaw, the Committee s role is to determine by resolution a) what event(s) will be supported with the Board approved budget and b) the recommended attendees to the Board Chair for authorization. Attendance by Directors is recommended at the following events for 2014: BioCycle West Coast Conference: Composting, Organics Recycling & Renewable Energy San Diego, April 7-10, 2014 BioCycle is dedicated to the advancement of organics management. The BioCycle West Conference provides an opportunity to learn more about communities across North America s experience in managing organics. Recycling Council of British Columbia: Closing the Loop: Preventing Waste Through Sustainable Enterprise: Whistler, May 28 30, 2014 The 40 th annual RCBC Conference will take place in Whistler May th The conference provides an opportunity for Metro Vancouver to engage with conference participants from across B.C. as well as internationally, and participate in this milestone event for RCBC. ZWC - 70

75 Solid Waste Association of North America Wastecon Conference: Dallas Texas August 26 28, 2014 SWANA s Wastecon Conference provides an opportunity to participate in sessions on waste reduction, recycling and residuals management. Leading edge programs from across North America will be profiled at the conference. Participation in the conference will provide opportunities for knowledge sharing and information gathering in a wide range of solid waste areas. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Zero Waste Committee supports attendance at events outlined in this report and that the Zero Waste Committee Chair recommends to the Board Chair Zero Waste Committee members to participate in the events. 2. That the Zero Waste Committee recommends alternative event(s) to support within the purview of the committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The costs associated with these events were approved as part of the 2014 budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Remuneration Bylaw authorizes committees to determine the event(s) it will support for attendance and travel by members, and to recommend to the Board Chair the attendees at those events. The events recommended in this report provide an important opportunity for Metro Vancouver to both share our experiences and gain from the knowledge of others across North America. Alternative 1 is recommended ZWC - 71

76 5.9 To: From: Zero Waste Committee Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 17, 2014 Meeting Date: February 13, 2013 Subject: Manager s Report RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated January 17, 2014, titled Manager s Report. 1. Organics Ban Implementation Metro Vancouver is scheduling a series of meetings with stakeholders to develop an organics ban implementation strategy. Workshops commence on February 25, 2014, and will provide an opportunity to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing an organics ban, specific materials that will be subject to the ban, enforcement, penalties and transition strategies. The workshops will build on outreach and engagement work previously carried out. A final strategy and implementation plan will be reported back to the Board later in the year. 2. Waste Flow Management/Bylaw 280 Update Bylaw 280 was submitted to the Minister of Environment for consideration on November 5, Chair Moore, Mayor Brodie, Carol Mason and Paul Henderson have been meeting with MLAs since November to provide an explanation of the need for a waste flow management strategy and an overview of Bylaw 280. Meetings have been very productive with lots of excellent questions and conversation. On January 10, 2014, the Cowichan Valley Regional District Chair wrote to the Minister of Environment noting their support for Bylaw 280 and recommending the Minister approve the Bylaw. On January 28, 2014, the Regional District of Nanaimo Board voted to support Bylaw 280. Cowichan Valley s letter and the Regional District of Nanaimo s Board report are attached. 3. Bottom Ash Management On January 30, 2014, the Ministry of Environment provided direction on sampling and analysis of bottom ash from the Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF). The Ministry of Environment advised that statistical analysis can be used to classify bottom ash generated from the WTEF. On this basis, all of the ash generated to date is considered municipal solid waste and suitable for disposal at the Vancouver Landfill. A final plan for testing and analysis of the bottom ash is a requirement of the draft Operational Certificate, and will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment later this year. Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Letter addressed to Minister Polak dated January 10, 2014 from Rob Hutchins, Chair, CVRD Attachment 2: Regional District of Nanaimo report dated January 21, 2014 re: Solid Waste Management Flow Control ZWC - 72

77 ZWC - 73

78 308 ZWC - 74

79 309 ZWC - 75

80 310 ZWC - 76

81 311 ZWC - 77

82 312 ZWC - 78

83 a metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION Executive Offices Tel Fax FEB File: CR ENV CR The Honourable Mary Polak Minister of Environment PO Box 9047 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Dear Minister Polak: Re: Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 On October 11, 2013, the Metro Vancouver Board gave third reading to the "Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclables Bylaw No. 280", (Bylaw 280) and resolved to send Bylaw 280 to you for consideration. We forwarded Bylaw 280 to you on November 5, This letter provides follow-up information to our November 5, 2013, letter, and seeks the completion of your review and approval of Bylaw 280. A group of 11 British Columbia recycling companies have formed the Recycle First Coalition. The Recycle First Coalition continues to advocate for the approval of Bylaw 280. Their interest in supporting Bylaw 280 is to ensure that the regulatory and policy framework in Metro Vancouver supports the diversion of source separated recyclables and organics from disposal and helps ensure the continued success of their industry in British Columbia. This interest aligns with the Provincial 5Rs hierarchy and the goals of the Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). We have attached their October 13, 2013 letter to you along with an overview of their coalition. In addition to the Recycle First Coalition, other regional districts support Bylaw 280. For your information, I have attached a letter from the Cowichan Valley Regional District and a resolution from the Regional District of Nanaimo supporting Bylaw 280. We believe that the fact that other regional districts are taking this unprecedented step in supporting a Metro Vancouver regulatory bylaw speaks to the importance of this issue for every community in British Columbia. Waste Flow Management/Flow Control is a specific action under the ISWRMP, and all of the major actions in the ISWRMP rely on the implementation of Bylaw 280. Metro Vancouver is initiating consultation on the implementation of the 2015 Organics Disposal ban. The ban hinges on the ability to apply bans and prohibitions as a way to encourage source diversion. Bans and prohibitions applied at Regional Facilities will be ineffective without Bylaw 280. The impact on the local recycling industry if Bylaw 280 is not approved is uncertain. The extent to which existing recycling activities would diminish is unknown, but new diversion initiatives such as increased com posting would be limited without the regulatory tools provided under Bylaw Kingsway, Burnaby, BC. Canada VSH 4G Greater Vancouver Regional District Greater Vancouver Water District Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation ZWC - 79

84 The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management and the GVS&DD Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 Page 2 of 2 Metro Vancouver engaged in an open and transparent consultation and engagement program in developing a waste flow management strategy which is now reflected in Bylaw 280. All stakeholders' interests have been considered in developing Bylaw 280. Bylaw 280 balances stakeholders' interests while ensuring the Province's SRs hierarchy and the goals of the ISWMRP are maintained. Bylaw 280 also ensures that a cost effective and equitable disposal system can be provided for all residents and businesses of the region, and helps ensure that the local recycling industry continues to flourish. While opponents to Bylaw 280 have suggested that it prevents the development of mixed waste material recovery facilities (MWMRFs), Bylaw 280 has been specifically drafted to allow for the development of MWMRFs for the purpose of recovering recyclables and organics from post-source separated garbage. Metro Vancouver believes that Bylaw 280 is consistent with the ISWRMP and with Metro Vancouver's regulatory authority. We are hopeful that you will complete your review of Bylaw 280 and approve it in the near future. Enacting Bylaw 280 will provide certainty for the waste management and recycling industry and allow Metro Vancouver to continue with the implementation of the ISWRMP. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. We are hoping to have an opportunity to meet with you again to discuss Bylaw 280, and will be happy to answer any questions or concerns you have. Metro Vancouver staff will contact your office to arrange another meeting. Yours truly, Yours truly, Greg Moore, MBA Chair, Metro Vancouver Board Malcolm Brodie Chair, Zero Waste Committee GM/MB/ph cc: Jonn Braman, Regional Director, Ministry of Environment David Ranson, Executive Director, Environmental Standards Branch, Ministry of Environment Attachments: 1. Letter - dated January 10, 2014 from Rob Hutchins, Chair, CVRD addressed to Minister Polak, Minister of Environment (Orbit # ) 2. Report - dated January 21, 2014 from Regional District of Nanaimo, "Solid Waste Management - Flow Control" (Orbit # ) 3. Letter - dated October 13, 2013 from Recycle First Coalition addressed to Minister Polak, Minister of Environment (Orbit # ) ZWC - 80

85 CVRD 175 Ingram Street Duncan, BC 1/91 INH WW\'1 GVId.llCCa Office Fax 2:10.74fi.f51:1 Toll Free January 10, 2014 File No.: Minister of Environment PO Box STN PROV GOVT Room 247 Parliament Buildings VICTORIA BC V8W9E2 via env.minister@gov.bc.ca Attention: Honourable Mary Polak Dear Minister Polak, Re: Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) in support of Metro Vancouver's Waste Flow Management Strategy and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No Waste flow management is an important issue for many Regional Districts in British Columbia. The ability to effectively manage waste flow is key to our ability to provide the recycling and organics collection services necessary to meet our ambitious diversion targets. Garbage haulers that bypass regional facilities avoid disposal bans and prohibitions designed to encourage recycling. These haulers do not contribute toward the cost of the regional systems thereby placing increasing costs on local business and residents. In addition, it is important to the recycling industry to ensure that recyclables are captured from the waste stream. On southern Vancouver Island we are beginning to see signs and feel the effects of "leakage" from the waste stream and if the trend continues we at the CVRD may very well need to implement a bylaw similar to that of Metro Vancouver. The CVRD appreciates the leadership of Metro Vancouver on this matter and we encourage you to approve their Bylaw No Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Rob Hutchins Chair WJ/ann pc: Mr. Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver ::w ICH AN C::~R:EEYR:::~;:::~:,:::::; ncefto Minister Polak Support or MV Waste F~ Management Bylaw Jar c)w,: ( ltat\ ZWC - 81

86 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Thorkelsson DATE: January 21, 2014 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Dennis Trudeau FILE: General Manager Transportation and Solid Waste SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management- Flow Control PURPOSE To report on Solid Waste Management flow control issues in the RON. BACKGROUND In British Columbia, regional districts are mandated by the Provincial Environmental Management Act to develop Solid Waste Management Plans (SWMP) that are long term visions of how each regional district would like to manage their municipal solid wastes, including waste diversion and disposal activities. SWMP's are approved by the Minister of Environment (MOE), and following plan approval, the MOE expects that a review of plan effectiveness be completed by the end of each five year period. The current RON SWMP was approved by the minister in 1988 and was amended in 1996 to include the 3Rs Plan for waste diversion activities. The plan was amended once more in 2005 to include three main components: an update of the 3Rs Plan, evolving it into a Zero Waste Plan; the Residual Waste Management Plan; and a Waste Stream Management Licensing Bylaw. In August 2010, the plan was amended again to include the Design and Operations Plan for the Regional Landfill. The goal of the Zero Waste Plan is to divert roughly 75% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) generated from residential; industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI); and demolition, land clearing and construction (DlC) sources away from disposal in the Regional landfill. This goal, adopted by the Board In 2004, included the diversion of biosolids from landfill disposal. Since that time the MOE has advised that biosolids are a liquid waste and should not be included in the SWMP. This means that the 75% diversion target should be adjusted to 70%. In 2012, with full implementation of the green bin program, the RON diversion rate achieved the 70% target. However, more significantly, the disposal rate was an impressive 350 kilograms per capita (for comparison, the 2010 provincial rate was 587 kg/capita). The low disposal rate combined with projects outlined in the Regional landfill Design & Operations Plan, results in 20 years of in-region disposal capacity. Staff is currently reviewing the SWMP which should provide further opportunities to improve upon our already successful programs. These programs are funded through tipping fees and a small tax requisition. In addition the historic landfill infrastructure and future capital requirements of our facilities are funded by tipping fees. In order to have continued success with our program adequate revenues have to be collected by our facilities. Unfortunately, some garbage haulers are bypassing Regional Flow Control Metro Bylaw Report to CoW February 2014.docx 308 ZWC - 82

87 File: Date: Page: January 21, Facilities and hauling commercial/institutional and multi-family garbage collected in the region to other jurisdictions for disposal. These haulers avoid material disposal bans and prohibitions in place to encourage recycling, don't pay their share of the cost of the regional system including waste diversion activities, and create an uneven playing field for other waste haulers and the recycling industry. In August 2013, solid waste staff noticed that tonnage received at the landfill from a number of private solid waste handling firms that collect garbage from private businesses and multifamily dwellings was reduced greatly compared to months past and the same time in Specifically staff noticed a reduction of approximately 700 tonnes/month of garbage dropped off at our facilities. Additionally, in September staff received information that a hauler was taking their front load trucks (commercial waste) to another facility to be sorted and shipped to a landfill in Oregon. Based on the verbal report and landfill tonnage information, staff performed an inspection of the facility and witnessed waste being sorted I transferred. As follow up to the inspection a letter from RDN staff was sent the facility to notify them that they were in contravention of their Waste Stream Management License (WSML) regarding transferring waste. The company responded to the letter and said that they would not be acting as a transfer facility and would be redirecting Waste Management's garbage to the landfill. Staff is continuing to monitor the tonnage that private haulers are bringing to the landfill. landfill staff has reported that the private hauling firms are dropping waste at the landfill again however the tonnages have not yet returned to prior year numbers. Staff is concerned that some of the garbage generated in the RDN is not being taken to regional facilities. We do know that there are containers of garbage and recycling material leaving Vancouver Island. Cowichan Valley Regional District does not have a landfill so they must ship everything off the island. They are currently sending it to a landfill operating in Oregon. In addition, since the markets for recyclables are not located on Vancouver Island this material is also shipped off island. Waste haulers bypassing Regional Facilities impact the ability to achieve the diversion targets in the SWMP, impact the ability to ensure cost-effective equitable solid waste disposal services for all users in the region and undermine local recycling businesses. If action is not taken, the trend is expected to increase. This is an issue that is affecting other regions. It can jeopardize Zero Waste planning activities and can be addressed in two ways. Either tipping fees (which is what these companies are trying to avoid) have to be subsidized by increased taxes or flow control measures have to be put into place. Metro Vancouver has been dealing with this issue and their Board recently approved a Flow Control Bylaw that they are now waiting for Provincial approval. Metro Vancouver's Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) was approved by the MOE in July The ISWRMP targets achieving 70% waste diversion by 2015 and 80% by The ISWRMP includes the implementation of waste flow management (described as flow control in the ISWRMP) to help achieve the sustainability principles of the ISWRMP. Metro Vancouver has been consulting with government and industry stakeholders on the development of a Waste Flow Management strategy for approximately 16 months. The two-phase engagement and consultation program included three workshops for government and industry with over 130 attendees, 12 reports to the Board's Zero Waste Committee, over 70 presentations and meetings with stakeholders, and nearly SO stakeholder delegations presenting to the Zero Waste Committee and Board. Flow Control Metro Bylaw Report to CoW February 2014.docx 309 ZWC - 83

88 File: Date: Page: January 21, Several options for waste flow management were considered, and the strategy was adjusted several times in response to stakeholder feedback. The initial preferred approach proposed on September 21, 2012 included requiring residential and commercial/institutional waste to be delivered to Regional Facilities and licensing of commercial haulers. The final waste flow management strategy approved by the Board eliminates hauler licensing and allows for the development of mixed waste material recovery facilities for the purpose of recovering recyclables and organics from post-source separated waste. The "Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Bylaw No. 280" (Bylaw 280) the bylaw that implements the waste flow management strategy, was given third reading by the Metro Vancouver Board on October 11, Bylaw 280 requires approval by the MOE prior to adoption by the Board. Metro Vancouver staff report that Recycling industry representatives support Bylaw 280. The Recycle First Coalition represents lllocal recycling companies that employ more than 800 people and that process more than 1,000,000 tonnes per year of recyclables in the Lower Mainland. Members of the Recycle First Coalition have invested more than $135 million in recycling infrastructure in the Lower Mainland in the last five years. The Recycle First Coalition recently wrote to the MOE recommending that they approve Bylaw 280. In addition to recycling industry representatives supporting Bylaw 280 the Cowichan Valley Regional district has also endorsed Metro Vancouver's development of a waste flow management strategy for Metro Vancouver and has also sent a letter supportive of the initiative to the Ministry of Environment. RON staff also support the bylaw since without this option the funding of the Zero Waste Program and solid waste infrastructure is severely jeopardized. Without adequate financial resources the RON would not be able to meet the commitments approved in the SWMP. AlTERNATIVES 1. That the Board endorse Metro Vancouver's development of a waste flow management strategy for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 and that a letter supportive of the initiative be provided to the Ministry of Environment. 2. That the Board not endorse Metro Vancouver's development of a waste flow management strategy for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 and provides alternative direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As indicated previously our solid waste programs, historic landfill infrastructure and future capital requirements of our facilities are funded through tipping fees and a small tax requisition. If commercial garbage haulers are bypassing Regional Facilities and hauling commercial/institutional and multi-family garbage collected in the region to other jurisdictions for disposal they won't pay their share of the cost of the regional system including waste diversion activities, and create an uneven playing field for other waste haulers and the recycling industry. Flow Control Metro Bylaw Report to CoW February 2014.docx 310 ZWC - 84

89 File: Date: Page: January 21, In 2012, the total revenue from commercial haulers was $4,216,765 which represents 56.7% of the total revenue generated through our solid waste facilities. In 2013 the total revenue from commercial haulers was $3,868,940 which represents 52.3% of the total revenue generated through our solid waste facilities. This corresponds to an 8.25% decrease in 2013 from the previous year and is likely an impact of the loads staff had noted earlier that were being transferred out of the region to other facilities. Without flow control in place approximately 50% of the revenue the solid waste function requires to operate could be at risk. The main reason commercial haulers would want to divert garbage collected in the region to another facility would be to avoid higher costs. There are other facilities that do not operate at our level (landfill gas collection, liners, leachate control, bird control, etc.} or in our environment that could have reduced costs. Our cost infrastructure has been built upon operating a state of the art landfill in addition to a number of recycling programs that are a requirement under our SWMP. Cowichan Valley Regional District does not have a landfill and has to ship their wastes out of the district. They are currently exporting to the United States and have a tipping fee that is $140/tonne of which 50% is subsidized by a tax requisition. Their fees cover the costs of their collection contract, landfill tipping fee and the cost of their recycling programs that are a part of their SWMP. They also have concerns about flow control as it would jeopardize their solid waste programs and as a result have endorsed Metro Vancouver's waste flow management program. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In terms of strategic priorities, promoting diversion, innovative approaches to residual waste management, and enhanced product stewardship shares responsibility for effective waste management between private and public sectors. The result is a more resilient system, with operational costs shifted from regional taxpayers to those generating waste, and grows opportunities to build an economically viable waste management sector, providing employment and driving innovation in the region by integrating waste management with resource and energy recovery. SUMMARY /CONCLUSIONS The current RDN Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was approved by the minister in 1988 and was amended in 1996 to include the 3Rs Plan for waste diversion activities. The plan was amended once more in 2005 to include three main components: an update of the 3Rs Plan, evolving it into a Zero Waste Plan; the Residual Waste Management Plan; and a Waste Stream Management Licensing Bylaw. In August 2010, the plan was amended again to include the Design and Operations Plan for the Regional Landfill. With the full implementation of the green bin program, the RDN's 2012 diversion rate was 70%. However, more significantly, our disposal rate was an impressive 350 kilograms per capita, which, combined with projects outlined in the Regional Landfill Design & Operations Plan, results in 20 years of in-region disposal capacity. Staff is currently reviewing the SWMP which should provide further opportunities to improve upon our already successful programs. These programs are funded through tipping fees and a small tax requisition. In addition, the historic landfill infrastructure and future capital requirements of our facilities are funded by tipping fees. In order to have continued success with our program adequate revenues have to be collected by our facilities. Unfortunately, some garbage haulers are bypassing Regional Facilities and hauling Flow Control Metro Bylaw Report to CoW February 2014.docx 311 ZWC - 85

90 File: Date: Page: January 21, commercial/institutional and multi-family garbage collected in the region to other jurisdictions for disposal. These haulers avoid material disposal bans and prohibitions in place to encourage recycling, don't pay their share of the cost of the regional system including waste diversion activities, and create an uneven playing field for other waste haulers and the recycling industry. Waste haulers bypassing Regional Facilities impact the ability to achieve the diversion targets in the SWMP, impact the ability to ensure cost-effective equitable solid waste disposal services for all users in the region and undermine local recycling businesses. If action is not taken, the trend is expected to increase. This is an issue that is affecting other regions. Metro Vancouver has completed a comprehensive engagement and consultation program on waste flow management. On October 11, 2013, Metro Vancouver's Board gave third reading to Bylaw 280, a bylaw that requires residential and commercial/institutional garbage to be delivered to Regional Facilities and allows for the development of private sector Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities for the purpose of recovering recyclables and organics from post source separated multi-family and commercial/institutional garbage. Bylaw 280 is supported by the local recycling industry and must be approved by the MOE prior to adoption by the Metro Vancouver Board. The comprehensive Bylaw prepared by Metro Vancouver addresses many flow control concerns of local government and if approved by the MOE provides options the RDN could utilize in the future. Staff therefore recommends that the Board send a letter supporting the initiative to the MOE. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Board endorse Metro Vancouver's development of a waste flow management strategy for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 and that a letter supportive of the initiative be provided to Ministry of Environment. Report Writer Flow Control Metro Bylaw Report to CoW February 2014.docx 312 ZWC - 86

91 RECYCLE FIRST COALITION c/o Knox Way, Richmond BC, V6V 3A6 P: October 13, 2013 Minister of the Environment Honorouble Mary Polak Station Provincial Government Box 9319 Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Dear Minister Polak, On behalf of the 11 Recycle First Coalition companies, we would like to thank you for meeting with us. We really appreciate your time. Our coalition members are competitors in our day to day business lives, but share a common belief that: Source separation of discarded materials is the key to real diversion and recycling. Source separation encourages upstream consumer behavior change, procurement and packaging innovation that is designed for the environment. Discarded materials should be recycled in ways that promote their best, highest possible end use. Discarded materials that are not source separated are considered waste; priority should be given to having waste created in the region, be dealt with in the region. Society (the generator of discarded materials) can and should be engaged to minimize waste. Bans and prohibitions are most effective when economic incentives for "right behavior" are applied consistently, timely, and as close as possible to the generator of discarded materials. Metro Vancouver policies of the last 25 years have created vibrant, free market recycling and hauling sectors in the lower mainland. Uniform landfill fees, augmented with bans and prohibitions, establish a level playing field that has and will continue to promote source separation, encourage competitive innovations in recovery programs and services, and stimulate new markets for materials-all of which result in lower overall disposal costs for the public. Most of our member businesses began 15 years ago or more, when landfill fees in the Metro Vancouver region were quite low. With disposal a relatively inexpensive alternative, recycling was a difficult sell. Customers felt they had to choose between "doing the right thing" for the environment and their own pocketbook. As Metro Vancouver raised landfill fees and implemented disposal bans on selected materials, the economic and environmental incentives for landfill diversion became aligned, and recycling in the region grew dramatically. In effect, Metro Vancouver policies created a system in which total societal costs for waste handling get properly priced into the cost to the generator. Unfortunately, the increasing volumes of trash and potentially recyclable materials now leaking from the Metro Vancouver transfer system will undermine the incentives for recycling and turn the clock back on many years of successful diversion efforts ZWC - 87

92 As a coalition, we are in support of By Law 280 and hope that you endorse it quickly, so that we can all get back to operating our businesses focused on diverting waste from our region's landfills and promoting the provinces green economy and jobs. Again we thank you for your time and appreciate the time to be able to meet you in person. Sincerely, Nicol fenelli CEO l!jrba Impact, spokesperson Recycle First Coalition 604 8~ 468 Cc: Chair Zero Waste Committee, Malcolm Brodie Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, Greg Moore ZWC - 88

93 Recycle First Coalition Eleven member companies, who compete in the recycling and waste management sector every day, who have come together and share a common belief: Source separation of discarded materials is the key to real diversion and recycling. Source separation encourages upstream consumer behavior change, procurement and packaging innovation that is designed for the environment. Discarded materials should be recycled in ways that promote their best, highest possible end use. Discarded materials that are not source separated are considered waste; priority should be given to having waste which is created in the region, be dealt with in the region. Society (the generator of discarded materials) can and should be engaged to minimize waste. Bans and prohibitions are most effective when economic incentives for "right behavior" are applied consistently, timely, and as close as possible to the generator of discarded materials. Uniform disposal fees, augmented with disposal bans and prohibitions, establish a level playing field that has and will continue to promote source separation, encourage competitive innovations in recovery programs and services, and stimulate new markets for materials-all of which result in lower overall disposal costs for the public. The Recycle First Coalition companies have invested $135 million in the last five years in recycling infrastructure, jobs and the green economy, when canvassed, the 11 members felt that another $135 million was planned for the next five years. Collectively we employ over 825 employees in the region alone. Our members are entrepreneurs who actively invest in their businesses, the regions diversion and in jobs. The Recycle First Coalition members companies have driven innovation in the region. The Recycle First Coalition member companies employ over 825 people in the region in a wide ranging of skilled and unskilled, management and administrative roles. The Recycle First Coalition members divert over 1,000,000 metric tonnes of material from local landfills yearly. Collecting and process a wide variety of materials in the region including: all grades of paper, all grades of Recycle First Coalition c I o Knox Way Richmond BC V6V 3A6 October 2013 vl ZWC - 89

94 plastics, ferrous and nonferrous metals, organics, construction and demolition materials, mattresses, drywall and a variety of items under stewardship programs including: tires, batteries, electronics and appliances, used oil, fluorescents. The Recycle First Coalition are entrepreneurial success stories in our province, with most of the companies still operated by their founding entrepreneurs. Members of the Recycle First Coalition EarthRenu ~ Cascades MERLIN PlASTICS west coast\ ( lawns~t CANADIAN ma1iress RECYCLING n=~cydinq ot 'vvork EMTERRA Environmental <»HARVEST Rer:;,cDng Alternati'i r,;~ Recycle First Coalition c I o Knox Way Richmond BC V6V 3A6 October 2013 v1 ZWC - 90

95 3 February 2014 File: REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO Honorable Mary Polak Minister of Environment PO Box 9047 STN PROV GOV Victoria BC V8W 9E2 Dear Minister Polak; Re: Letter or Support for Metro Vancouver's Proposed Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 The purpose of this letter is to advise of the Regional District of Nanaimo's support for the proposed bylaw referenced above. The Regional Board, at their regular meeting of January 28, 2014, carried the following motion: That the Board endorse Metro Vancouver's development of a waste flow management strategy for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Materials Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 and that a letter supportive of the initiative be provided to Ministry of Environment. The Guide to the Preparation of Solid Waste Management Plans sets out the expectation of the Ministry that solid waste management plans are to include polices where "individuals and firms are enabled to make environmentally sound choices about consumption of resources and generation of waste through provision of appropriate information, including user-pay and market-based incentives wherever possible". To fully realize the benefit of market-based policies in reducing waste and conserving resources, local government must have the ability to regulate the flow of municipal waste and recyclable materials as provided for in the Environmental Management Act. I trust this letter of support will be given consideration regarding Metro's request for your approval of Bylaw Hammond Bay Rd. Nono imo, B.C. V9T 6N2 Ph: (250) Toll Free fox (250) RON Web~ i te: Paul H. Thorkelsson, MArch, MPA, Architect-AIBC Chief Administrative Officer cc: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver Pauf H nder on. General Manager, Metro Vancouver ZWC - 91

96 RECflE JAN 2014 Coouitlam CATracker# j/ 2011 Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan - The proposed Belkorp Environmental Services facility aligns well with Goal #2 of the follow-up action. That Council express its support for the Belkorp Environmental Services Inc. mixed waste materials recovery facility and instruct staff to take appropriate Council report dated January 14,2014 and approved the following resolution: Coquitlam Council, at its Regular Meeting of January 20, 2014, received the attached Metro Vancouver s regulatory framework. of both their proposal and their submission to Metro Vancouver for a license under The City reviewed the proposal from Belkorp Environmental Services and is in support 200,000 Tonnes of waste a year. The City received an unsolicited proposal from Belkorp Environmental Services to site a This proposed facility would service the entire Tn-City area and be designed to accept Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility on land they own at 1050 United Boulevard. RE: Belkorp Environmental Services Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility Dear Mr. Henderson: VIA paul.henderson@metrovancouver.org Burnaby BC V5H4G8 Metro Vancouver 4330 Kin gsway General Manager, Solid Waste Services Paul Henderson, P.Eng. Doc #: vl Our File: /SWMP1/ January 21, 2014 File #...C.t r[ $?z.?3- Orbft if if Cfty of Coquitlam 3000 Gufldford Way, CoquWam. Bc (1 ww\v.coquicam.ca ZWC - 92 SoIid,)4Iast Department

97 Page 2 January 21, 2014 you have any questions regarding the City s support for this proposal please contact Tracy Kyle at or TKyle@coguitlam.ca. Yours truly, C - Russ Black, Vice President, Corporate Development, Belkorp Environmental Services Inc. Jozsef Dioszeghy, General Manager Engineering and Public Works, City of Coquitlam Attachment: Belkorp Environmental Services Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility Report to Council-in-Committee, January 14, File #: /SWMP1/ Doc It: V1 ZWC - 93

98 CoQuitlam For Committee l ZWC - 94 File #; /000/ Doc #: vl in the City of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley at this time. operation in the US and in Europe. Additionally, similar MRF s are being proposed from waste that would otherwise be landfilled. There are numerous MRFs in A MRF is a mechanized sorting facility, which separates recyclables and organics Materials Recovery Facility station began operation. positive relationship with Wastech, going back over 20 years when the transfer Transfer Station and the Cache Creek Landfill). The City has a very long and BESI isa Vancouver company that owns Wastech (operators of the Coquitlam Belkorp Environmental Services Background: proposed MRF presents an economic opportunity to the City of Coquitlam, and Prosperity and Enhancing Sustainability of City Services and Infrastructure. The delivering service value. This report responds to the City s strategic goals of Expand Local Jobs and Local will contribute to the City s strategic goals of building community capacity and Strategic Goal: (MRF). Services Inc. (BESI) proposal to develop a Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the Belkorp Environmental Report Purpose: Waste Materials Recovery Facility for information. Works dated January 14, 2014, entitled Belkorp Environmental Services Mixed That Council receive the report of the General Manager Engineering and Public Recommendation: For: Council-in-Committee Subject: Belkorp Environmental Services Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility From: General Manager, Engineering and Public Works To: City Manager Doc #: vl Our File: /000/ January 14, 2014

99 Discussion: Plan has the following four goals. 1. Minimize waste generation; 2. Maximize reuse, recycling and material recovery; 3. Recover energy from the waste stream after material recycling; and 4. Dispose of all remaining waste in landfill, after material recycling and energy BESI approached the City of Coquitlam with an unsolicited proposal for a MRF. MRF. Attachment B provides a site plan of the proposed MRF. The proposed At this time it is not known if there is any contamination on the proposed MRF File #: O1/000/ Doc #: vl ZWC - 95 with any problems prior to development of the site. site. As the current owner of the property, BESI would be responsible for dealing Site Issues and Mitigation review of the industrial zones is complete, any use on the property would need to comply with the M-5 Zone. including recycling of goods, materials or similar items. Furthermore, the proposed new zone to be assigned to 1050 United Boulevard is M-1. Until the Site Zoning The 16 acre property located at 1050 United Boulevard is currently zoned M-5, Recycling and Salvage Industrial. Based on the Industrial Zone Review Stage 2 Zone. The new M-1 Zone is proposed to permit all types of industrial uses Report, the proposed MRF would fall under the new M-1, General Industrial $30 million facility (excludes land costs) would be designed to accept up to Paper site), on land they own. Attachment A shows the location of the proposed 260,000 Tonnes of material a year and employ up to 80 staff. Be)korp Proposed Facility The BESI MRF facility is to be located at 1050 United Boulevard (former Catalyst goal #2. The hierarchy of these goals is from ito 4 and a MRF falls directly in line with recovery. The 2011 Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Metro Vancouver Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan January 14, 2014 Page 2

100 Page 3 January 14, 2014 The Fraser Mills residential development will be located adjacent to the proposed MRF facility. BESI proposes that the building be enclosed and under negative air pressure and have indoor loading with double doors to control dust and odor. In addition, the facility will employ either bio-filters or ozone to treat odorous air. For noise mitigation, the structure will be enclosed and will have the lower walls constructed in concrete. Metro Vancouver Approval BESI are required to apply to Metro Vancouver for a license under the Metro Vancouver Bylaw 181. In order to submit their facility for consideration for a license, a letter of support is required from the City of Coquitlam. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications. Conclusion: This report advises Council of the BESI proposal to develop a MRF at 1050 United Boulevard. The City has no concerns with this proposed facility at this time. The proposed MRF aligns with Goal #2 of the Metro Vancouver Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. BESI will be applying to Metro Vancouver for a license and the City will send a letter of support for this proposed facility. c 4z7 Jozs Dioszeghy(Eng.,/) Attachments: Attachment A: Attachment B: Location Plan Site Plan for the Proposed MRF This report was prepared by Tracy Kyle, P. Eng., Manager Special Projects. File #: /000/ Doc #: vl ZWC - 96

101 MlldLrlrrlern M 0 C.) 0 -j U, a) a) 0 U, U, N. U., 0 U, CU U, CU )0 ZWC

102 Attachment B I ZWC - 98

103 ZWC - 99

104 ZWC - 100

105 ZWC - 101

106 EVan66.26 CAC OffJcn I JAN REGIoNAL DISTRICT OF NANAIM0 January 13, 2014 Chair Greg Moore and Members of the Board Metro Vancouver Regional District 4330 Kingsway Avenue Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Dear Chair Moore and Members of the Board: FOe II Orbft N: Irwlcrr #:,,--, RECE N Cll4 At Regional District of Nanaimo Board meeting held July 23, 2013, the Board passed the following motion: That the Board direct staff to advise Metro Vancouver that the RDN does not support a waste-to-energy facility within the boundaries of the RDN. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, PrkeIsso Chie Administrative cc Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Zero Waste Committee Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver Paul Henderson, General Manager of Solid Waste Services, Metro Vancouver Dennis Trudeau, General Manager of Transportation & Solid Waste, Regional District of Nanaimo 6300 Hommond Boy Rd. Nonoimo, B.C. V9T 6N2 Ph: (250) ToN Free: Fax: (250) RON Website: ZWC - 102

107 6.4 Dec 17, 2013 For immediate release "Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility planned for Fraser River Floodplain" The potential of a catastrophic fish kill due to leaching into the Fraser River of hazardous materials including PCB's and mercury has united First Nations, environmentalists and Sport Fishing organizations in opposition. Chilliwack Council recently approved rezoning of land on the flood plain allowing for construction of a hazardous waste disposal facility adjacent to the Fraser River. This facility would be built on property that has been historically subject to flooding. All appreciate the extreme potential negative impact on fish stocks and wildlife common to the area. Executive Director, Craig Orr, from "Watershed Watch" stated (cell # ), "Wild salmon are at risk from hazardous spills of PCB's, mercury, and other contaminants, and placing these toxins next to Canada's greatest salmon river is fraught with peril." Of particular concern is the perceived lack of adequate notice from Chilliwack Council for individuals and groups to voice their concerns. Many were not aware of the December 3rd meeting nor that final rezoning decisions were to be made at that meeting. Rod Clapton, President of the B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers stated (cell # ), "No amount of economic benefit can justify putting a hazardous waste facility next to the world's Number 1 salmon river." Regardless of the safety record of the proponent, "Aevitis", it would take only one incident for permanent damage to fish stocks and wildlife on the river. As well, the potential serious health risk to residents is obvious. Regardless of the economic benefit to Chilliwack, the very real potential of irreparable damage to priceless fish stocks demands the proposal for this location be terminated. Sto:lo Tribal Council Grand Chief Clarerence Pennier, stated, (contact # ), "The recycle plant will be in the heart of Sto:lo territory and it will be too close to the Fraser River. It's unacceptable because it poses a ZWC - 103

108 danger to the river and the salmon." Considering the serious impact on all Fraser River communities it is imperative that the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health conduct comprehensive public reviews which will allow all groups and individuals to voice these concerns. We recognize the need for a safe facility of this nature but it must be located away from "any potential" for harm to fish stocks. We, the undersigned, ask that these reviews be initiated in a timely manner. 1. Sto:lo Tribal Council 2. B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers 3. Fraser Valley Salmon Society 4. Watershed Watch Salmon Society 5. B.C. Federation of Fly Fishers 6. Steelhead Society of B.C 7. The Water Wealth Project 8. Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association 9. Fraser River Salmon Table 10. Chilliwack Fish & Game Protective Association 11. Sport Fishing Institute 12. Wilderness Committee 13. David Hancock Wildlife Foundation 14. Friends of the Chilliwack River Valley 15. Sumas First Nations 16. Outdoor Recreation Council of BC 17. International River Foundation 18. Wild Game Fish Conservation International ZWC - 104

109 ZWC - 105

110 ZWC - 106

111 ZWC - 107

112 the Food Banks Canada DEC & December 4, 2013 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H4G8 Dear Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee, We are writing you today following up on our previous letter dated October 23, 2012 that asked the committee to examine our policy proposal that would create a tax credit for farmers who donate to food banks while reducing food waste. In an average month in BC, close to 100,000 separate individuals receive food from a food bank, and close to a third of those helped are children. Food bank use in BC is more than 20% higher than it was before the global economic recession of and has risen by nearly 30% over the last decade. Though individuals, community groups and businesses have been incredibly generous during the past few difficult years, donations to food banks have not kept up with the increase in demand for their services. In 2012, close a third of food banks reported running out of food, and half of food banks were forced to provide less to each household in order to stretch their resources. Even before the most recent recession, food banks have consistently struggled to meet the need for their services average food bank is only able to provide three to five days worth of food, once per month, to those they assist. Not only do we believe that creating a provincial tax credit for farmers who donate to food banks would help improe this situation and enable food banks to proide more nutritious food to those ir need we also believe that such an incentic would reduc the amount of food waste in public d r a v a Ic agc r nt facil tics acr s B iti F C I r bi I. nder the current tax system, there is little financial incentive for BC s farmers to donate food to a food bank. For example, in most cases, food that is donated to a food bank is treated the same, from a tax perspective, as food that is thrown into a landfill or ploughed back into a farmer s field. ZWC - 108

113 Food Banks Canada Food Banks Canada has developed a policy proposal to help address this situation and we believe that our Fresh Food Tax Credit would provide a valuable cost recuperation mechanism for farmers who donate to food banks and increase the amount of fresh, nutritious food available to food banks; all while reducing food waste. Luckily, we are not alone in sharing this vision. During the last BC provincial election, the BC Liberals committed to enacting this policy in their electoral platform and to give growers a tax credit of 25% of the wholesale value of food donated to a food bank. Given the high demand of food bank use across the province of BC and the difficulties felt by food banks to meet the need; we are asking the committee to study our Fresh Food Tax Credit policy proposal and to urge the provincial government to act on its electoral promise and implement this important tax credit by December If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Philippe Ozga Manager of Government Relations Food Banks Canada I: Cc. Laura Lansink, Executive Dtrector, Food Banks BC ZWC - 109

114 0 C 0 1 C C -Il (D,, 0 0 -n 0 ci C 0) x I, (D 0 I. S,, ZWC ) 0

115 Food Banks Canada Fresh Food Tax Credit: An Agricultural Tax Credit for Fresh Food Donations Su mmarv There is currently no tax incentive, at the federal or provincial level, recognizing charitable donations of fresh food to food banks in Canada. Unused fresh produce, livestock, seafood and other fresh food is treated the same, from a taxation perspective, whether it is thrown into a landfill, ploughed back into a farmer s field or donated to a food bank. This document lays out a proposal that will benefit Canada s food producers while filling an essential need for Canada s food banks and families in need. Plan: Strengthen Canada s agricultural sector while supplying fresh food to Canada s food banks and the people they help. Proposal: Create a non-refundable tax credit that will allow food growers (farmers, fishers, livestock producers, etc.) and processors to deduct from taxes owed 25% of the wholesale value of fresh food donated to food banks. Potential Foregone Revenue: Up to $4,122,500 per year In March ,188 separate individuals, 38% percent of them children were assisted by a food bank in Car ada Food bank use in 2012 was at an all time high and was 31% higher thar e pre rece sior levels of March 2008, Food banks in Car ada have served over 700,000 individuals every month for the better part of the last twelve years. Food banks acquire and share 200 million pounds of food to those in need every year. While this is a significant amount of food, it accounts for only 0.3% of the value of food products F-ooa Banks Canada 12012). HurigerCount Toronto: Food Banks Canaaa All figures from the Food Banks Canada Ht.ngerCount survey uniess otherwise noted. Food Barks Canada, October 2013 ZWC - 111

116 Food Banks Canada manufactured in Canada each year 2 The majority of food banks provide 3 to 5 days worth of food, once per month, to the households they assist. Due to the recent recession, in 2012, 35% of food banks did not have enough food to meet the need in their communities, 30% lacked adequate funding, and half were forced to give out less than usual. Regardless of the health of the economy, food banks have struggled for years to bring in enough food and funds to fill the gaps in family food pantries. Nearly half of food banks are completely volunteer-run, and the majority of them receive no government funding. Less than 5% of food banks receive funding from the federal government, and the majority of food banks receiving provincial government funding are located in only two provinces, Quebec and New Brunswick. Food banks are there for Canadians in need and there is very little government support for the work they do. Their lifeblood is donated food, yet there is no legislative support to encourage the agricultural sector to increase in-kind donations. Agricultural Benefit Because it will improve the bottom line for Canada s farmers, Canada s agricultural sector supports the proposed tax credit. While the value of the credit will amount to a small percentage of the retail market value of donated food, it will provide an important opportunity for food producers to recoup some of their production costs. Ron Bonnett, the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), feels that the recommendations put forth in this proposal are important for their members, who represent over 200,000 farm famhes across Canada Many Canadian farms already donate fresh vegetables, fruits and other products to food banks, and there is a lot of room to grow. A tax credit would have a positive effect on farmers bottom lines, and increase the amount of nutritious food available to those in need - it s a win on both sides/ -Ron Bonnett, President of the CFA Car ad r our of Gr cry Dstr b for, Car d ar Federat o of depe dent Groc r & Food a d C rsurrer P uctsofcaiadaj2006 Stateofthefoodard(or umcrp duct Iidustry ZWC - 112

117 Food Banks Canada Similar programs have been put into place in several U.S. states, including Oregon, North Carolina, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Arizona. Beneficiaries This non-refundable tax credit would directly help Canada s agricultural sector by recognizing donations to food banks that are registered charities, from primary producers and processors of livestock, seafood, dairy products, and fresh fruits and vegetables. The credit will not be available to individuals donating fresh produce to a charitable organization. Use of Donation The organization receiving the food donation must be a registered charity engaged in the distribution of food without charge; and the food that is donated must be provided to the recipient without charge. Potential Foregone Revenue The proposed benefit will provide a non-refundable credit of 25% of the wholesale value of the quantity of the product donated. The wholesale market price of the crop would be based on: The amount paid to the grower by the most recent cash buyer; or The market price of the nearest wholesale buyer or regional u-pick market price (if there was no previous cash buyer). Example An apple grower allows food bank volunteers to glean his orchards at the end of harvest season. Followng an afternoon of work, the volunteers are able to glean klograms of apples Caculator f tax redit Retai $3J7 per kg $ Wholesale $L70 per kg $ 1,700 Tax credit 25% $ 425 The apple grower would see a reduction in tax burden of $425 for their donation thanks to the new tax credit. Food Banks Canada, October ZWC - 113

118 Food Banks Canada For the federal government, this represents an excellent return on its investment. Every foregone dollar invested in the tax credit could generate more than seven dollars worth of food for food banks and families in need. The Ontario Association of Food Banks has estimated that its member food banks will have, by 2014, the capacity to absorb a maximum of 6.8 million kg of fresh produce. 3 Ontario accounts for 35% of food bank use in Canada; extrapolating from Ontario research, we estimate a national absorptive capacity for food banks of 19.4 million kg. Using the estimated wholesale value per kg of apples in the example provided above, 19.4 million kg X 25% = $ 8,245,000. With an estimated claim rate of 50%, the potential national foregone tax revenue could reach $ 4,122,500 annually. Conclusion The proposed Fresh Food Tax Credit would provide more food for Canada s food banks and families in need while creating a valuable costrecuperation tax credit for Canada s farmers. The plan would also represent a valuable investment for the federal government as every dollar foregone in national revenue will result in seven dollars worth of food for Canada s food banks while simultaneously helping Canadian farmers make ends meet. o tan A iat r c t F ad Bar k Hgft iq h iger w,tt ocalfood Optio is f ci forrr donotior tax ad t &,u plu agricultural p odu cc grant oronto OAF B 4 ZWC - 114

119 Food Banks Canada About Food Banks Canada Food Banks Canada supports a unique network of over 3,000 food-related organizations in every province and territory, that assists more than 800,000 Canadians each month. Together our network shares over 200 million pounds of essential, safe, quality food annually, provides social programs that help to foster self-sufficiency, and advocates for policy change that will help create a Canada where no one goes hungry. Visit foodbankscanada.ca for more information. Relieving hunger today. Preventing hunger tomorrow. For more information, please contact: Philippe Ozga Manager of Government Relations Food Banks Canada T: Food Banks Canada, October 2013 S ZWC - 115

120 ZWC - 116

121 ZWC - 117

122 ZWC - 118