greater vancouver regional district zero waste … · 25, 2014 addressed to greg moore, chair,...

May 9, 2014

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:00 p.m.

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

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 May 13, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2014 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 April 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 10, 2014 as circulated.

2.2 April 28, 2014 Special Meeting Minutes That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held April

28, 2014 as circulated. 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update Designated Speaker: Chris Allan, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 28, 2014 titled “Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update”.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

5.2 Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Update Designated Speaker: Sarah Evanetz, Manager, Public Involvement Program, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 25, 2014 titled “Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Update” for information and approve finalizing a recommended implementation strategy for the Organics Disposal Ban for the Board’s consideration in mid-2014.

5.3 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 28, 2014 titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Metro Vancouver/FVRD Political Liaison Committee – Correspondence dated April 25, 2014 addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver from Director Patricia Ross, Vice-Chair, FVRD.

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (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: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district”.

9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of May 13, 2014.

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

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:04 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (arrived at 1:05 p.m.) Councillor Rick Glumac, Port Moody Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Bob Long, Langley Township Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Councillor Neal Nicholson, Coquitlam Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey (arrived at 1:08 p.m.) Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Councillor Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster (arrived at 1:08 p.m.) ABSENT: Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District STAFF: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 10, 2014 as

follows: i. by adding item 6.5 Correspondence from Coquitlam re Waste-to-Energy

Business Case; ii. by adding item 6.6 Correspondence from Progressive Waste Solutions; iii. in Section 8 Resolution to Close Meeting by adding Section 90 (1) (j) of

the Community Charter (information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and

2.1

ZWC - 1


Protection of Privacy Act”); and 90 (2) (b) of the Community Charter (the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party”); and

b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 March 13, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held March 13, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Metro Vancouver Feedback on the FVRD Solid Waste Management Plan

Report dated April 2, 2014, from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing the Board with Metro Vancouver’s feedback on the FVRD Solid Waste Management Plan Update of November, 2013. Discussion ensued on the environmental performance of FVRD landfills. Request of Staff Staff was requested to include in the letter to be forwarded to the FVRD a request that the FVRD provide statistics and projections of methane released by their landfills.

1:05 p.m. Director Corrigan arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 2, 2014 titled “Metro Vancouver Feedback on the FVRD Solid Waste Management Plan” and that the Board Chair forward this report to the FVRD with a copy to the Minister of Environment.

CARRIED

ZWC - 2


5.2 Closure Status of all Known Municipal and Regional Landfills within the Region Report dated March 20, 2014, from Marian Kim, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on the assessment of closure status of all known municipal and regional landfills within the region. Marian Kim, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, and Todd Baker, consultant, Morrison Hershfield, provided an overview of the report.

1:08 p.m. Directors Rasode and Wayne Wright arrived at the meeting.

Presentation material titled “Closure Status of Municipal and Regional Landfills in Metro Vancouver“ is retained with the April 10, 2014 Zero Waste Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated March 20, 2014 titled “Closure Status of all Known Municipal and Regional Landfills within the Region” for information.

CARRIED Concern was expressed that individual landfills were not specified in the report. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee direct staff to provide more details on the landfills reviewed in the study prepared by Morrison Hershfield.

CARRIED

5.3 2013 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update Report dated April 2, 2014, from Brandon Ho, Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on the Metro Vancouver disposal ban inspection program. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 2, 2014 titled “2013 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update” for information.

CARRIED 5.4 Zero Waste Challenge: Create memories, not garbage 2013 Christmas

Campaign and 2013 Organics Campaign Report dated March 20, 2014 from David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, and Gordon Inglis, Multimedia Division Manager, External Relations, informing of two waste reduction campaigns utilizing advertising and social media that were launched in late 2013 in support of the Zero Waste Challenge.

ZWC - 3


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated, March 20, 2014 titled “Zero Waste Challenge: Create memories, not garbage 2013 Christmas Campaign and 2013 Organics Campaign”.

CARRIED 5.5 Status of Solid Waste Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2013

Report dated March 26, 2014 from Paul Remillard, Solid Waste Operations Division Manager, Solid Waste Services, reporting on the status of utilities capital expenditures for the Solid Waste Utility Capital projects that are typically multi-year in nature; therefore, this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion. Discussion ensued on: • the difference between waste-to-energy and material and energy recovery

facility referenced in the report • the report formatting

Request of Staff Staff was requested to: • clarify the material recovery facility referenced in the report • present the data in a more legible format The Committee was informed that the resolution should read “the GVS&DD Board”. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated March 26, 2014 titled “Status of Solid Waste Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2013” for information.

CARRIED 5.6 Manager’s Report

Report date March 24, 2014, from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, informing the Committee about and/or providing an update on the following: • New Waste-to-Energy and Organics Disposal Ban Consultation and Engagement • Bylaw 280 • Proposal for Hazardous Waste Facility in Chilliwack • Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan Discussion ensued on: • the timing of an update of the implementation of the Multi-Material British

Columbia (MMBC) Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) Stewardship Plan • handling of concerns received on potential siting of new Waste-to-Energy

facilities out-of-region

ZWC - 4


Request of Staff Staff was requested to: • provide at its next regular meeting an update on the MMBC PPP • provide municipal councils with contact information of staff who will

respond to concerns received by elected officials regarding new Waste-to-Energy procurement process

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated March 24, 2014 titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS Discussion ensued on the entity accountable for inclusion of out-of-region locations for waste-to-energy facilities in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Request of Staff Staff was requested to report back to the Committee on the communications on the inclusion of out-of-region locations for waste-to-energy facilities in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. 6.1 Fraser Valley Regional District’s Draft Solid Waste Management Plan

Correspondence dated March 31, 2014 addressed to Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver from Paul Gipps, CAO, FVRD.

6.2 Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project – Lehigh Sites on Ross Road and Berg Road, Delta, B.C.

Correspondence dated March 26, 2014 addressed to Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver from George V. Harvie, CAO, Corporation of Delta.

6.3 Support for Waste Flow Management Provisions in Solid Waste Management Plans

Correspondence dated March 25, 2014 addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver from Bill Newell, CAO, Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen.

6.4 Support for Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 2013

Correspondence dated March 17, 2014 addressed to Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment from Rick Fairbairn, Vice Chair, Regional District of North Okanagan.

6.5 Correspondence from Coquitlam re Waste-to-Energy Business Case On-table correspondence dated March 28, 2014 addressed to Greg Moore, Board Chair, Metro Vancouver from Richard Stewart, Mayor, City of Coquitlam.

ZWC - 5


6.6 Correspondence from Progressive Waste Solutions On-table correspondence dated April 9, 2014 addressed to Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, from Tom Loewen, Area Manager, British Columbia, Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following items: 6.1 Fraser Valley Regional District’s Draft Solid Waste Management Plan 6.2 Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project – Lehigh Sites on Ross Road and Berg Road, Delta, B.C. 6.3 Support for Waste Flow Management Provisions in Solid Waste Management Plans 6.4 Support for Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 2013 6.5 Correspondence from Coquitlam re Waste-to-Energy Business Case 6.6 Correspondence from Progressive Waste Solutions

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 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) 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: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district”; (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were

presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act”; and

“90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED

ZWC - 6


9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its regular meeting of April 10, 2014.

CARRIED (Time: 1:48 p.m.)

___________________________ _____________________________ Klara Kutakova, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 9272989 FINAL

ZWC - 7

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Monday, April 28, 2014 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 9:04 a.m. on Monday, April 28, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia to consider the updated business case for New WTE Capacity. PRESENT: Chair, Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Councillor Rick Glumac, Port Moody Director Bob Long, Langley Township Councillor Neal Nicholson, Coquitlam Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Councillor Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster ABSENT: Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Gayle Martin, Langley City STAFF: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 28, 2014 Special Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for April 28, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED 2. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

2.1 BioCycle Presentation Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District, presented an overview of the BioCycle West Coast regional conference he attended in San Diego from April 7-10, 2014. The conference was focused on organics waste and recycling in

2.2

ZWC - 8


the agricultural and municipal sector. Councillor Bassam highlighted the following: • Metro Vancouver’s leadership role in municipal waste management within

North American jurisdictions • California’s landfilling challenges and legislation implemented to address the

issue • California’s diversion rates • San Francisco’s aspirational diversion target, diversion program guiding

principles, the three-stream system, and factors contributing to its successful implementation of the organics and recycling program

• San Jose’s diversion rates, contamination challenges of organics processed through advanced mixed waste resource recovery facilities, and benefits of Metro Vancouver’s model, established by proposed Bylaw 280, compared to San Jose’s model

• examples of successful programs, such as a food rescue program at Humbolt State University, the bio-plastic process in the organics stream and low tipping costs for organics in San Diego

• comparison of European and North American waste handling models Presentation notes are retained with the April 28, 2014 Special Zero Waste Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on: • caution about the statistics; different categories of material being included

in the recycling statistics reported by different jurisdictions • Zero waste as an aspirational rather than attainable goal • source separation as the best option It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the presentation from Councillor Bassam on the BioCycle West Coast regional conference as provided at its April 28, 2014 special meeting.

CARRIED Recess The Committee recessed from 9:30 a.m. to 9:33 a.m.

2.2 New Waste-to-Energy Project – Updated Business Case Report dated April 23, 2014 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing an updated business case for new waste-to-energy (WTE) capacity and responding to questions raised by the City of Coquitlam in a March 28, 2014 letter to Metro Vancouver related to the development of new WTE capacity.

ZWC - 9


Paul Henderson provided an overview of the report, highlighting the following: purpose of the review, mixed waste material recovery facilities, per capita disposal rates, proposed Bylaw 280, consulting team, business case approach, waste-to-energy (WTE) capital cost estimates, estimated landfill costs, electricity value benchmarks, inflation/discounting, cash flow analysis, landfill to WTE lifecycle cost, and next steps. Presentation material is retained with the April 28, 2014 Zero Waste Committee special agenda. Committee members expressed concerns about the following: • the estimated 100 MWh electricity rate:

o this rate is used by BC Hydro for clean energy projects; waste-to-energy cannot be considered clean energy

o concern that this rate would be subsidized by taxpayers • the capital project cost overrun • the waste management issues being reconsidered repeatedly due to Board

membership changes Committee members commented on the following: • even with the decrease of the originally estimated required waste capacity

from 500,000 tpy to 370,000 or 250,000 tpy, the business case is still applicable

• modern material recovery options, such as advances in mixed waste material recovery technologies, need to be taken into consideration and the business case needs to be updated accordingly

• Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities will be implemented by the private sector at no cost to taxpayer; implications should be considered at this point rather than waiting for the approval of Bylaw 280

• the business case should incorporate the same return rate as a private business would

• assumption that Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities in general extract organics only is inaccurate; modern Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities will also extract higher volumes of plastic, metal and other high value material; consideration needs to be given to how this will affect the energy value of materials to be processed by WTE facilities

• the increase of Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities and their operations may result in lower need for residual waste management technologies

• sensitivity analysis needs to be included in the business case • arguments pertaining to residual waste management are one-sided; equal

opportunity is not provided to waste-to-energy advocates; due to the procurement process, WTE proponents are not able to speak about the benefits of the projects and the rationale for WTE technologies being implemented world-wide

ZWC - 10


• the review of the business case validates the course of actions taken to-date • the business case is solid, it is very conservative which will help to minimize

the risk to Metro Vancouver • further reduction of the volume of residual waste is aspirational but would

be extremely difficult and costly to achieve • the ISWRMP plan provides for scaling down the size of the plant; at some

point, it will also be possible to decommission the existing Waste-to-Energy facility in Burnaby

• it would be beneficial to incorporate Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities in the waste management process to maximize the recycling efforts (as an additional step after source separation to maximize the recovery of valuable materials)

• source separation is repeatedly confirmed by experts as the best value option for recovery of materials from the waste stream

• not only Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities but also waste-to-energy technologies are constantly improving

• the Committee needs to work within the scope of the Ministry-approved ISWRMP that calls for waste-to-energy as the means for dealing with waste residuals

• Bylaw 280 is integrated in the ISWRMP plan • one site comparison to more sites should be incorporated in the sensitivity

analysis • different criteria were set for recycling by Scandinavian countries that have

chosen waste as a source of energy due to the lack of natural resources; on the contrary, Metro Vancouver’s first goal in dealing with waste is to maximize waste diversion and reuse and recycle material; energy generated by waste-to-energy is surplus energy, beneficial energy that does not need to be produced

• new technologies need to be considered in the business case • consistent information about waste disposal management options has been

delivered over the past 10 years; considerable time was spent discussing the issue, Metro Vancouver now needs to move forward and make a decision on waste disposal management

In response to questions and comments, the Committee was informed about the following: • the rationale for the business case review:

o to meet PPP Canada requirements o to respond to questions and to inform the Board about changes

related to the reduction in the required capacity • the assumed 100 MWh electricity rate has been used in the 2009 AECOM

report; staff concluded that this rate is still reasonable • the 100 MWh rate is a rate that BC Hydro is using for electricity generated by

its own projects, which include a wide range of options • costs and the business case were reviewed in its entirety

ZWC - 11


• approach that Metro Vancouver is pursuing is to maximize source separation and to manage of residuals through WTE; Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities are part of the process but are not considered a core technology

• Mixed Waste Material Recovery technology has not evolved to the point that it would warrant re-examination of all assumptions considered in the 2009 AECOM report

• even with the development of Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities, the diversion targets are still very aggressive

• Metro Vancouver has initiated conversation with BC Hydro regarding the electricity rate

• the electricity rate generated by WTE would not be subsidized in any form • estimates of the electricity to be generated by a new WTE facility(ies) is

based on experience from many facilities worldwide; the estimates are based on a single facility, exclusively producing electricity

• design-build-operate procurement process will be undertaken, much of the financial risks will be transferred to private sector entities

• reported material recovery rates by Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities varies widely depending on the reporting format

• due to its weight, organic portion is the most significant portion of material recovered by Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities

• the existing Waste-to-Energy facility in Burnaby recovers 8,000 t of ferrous high-value metals/year

• due to contamination, materials recovered by Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities are of low quality and have low economic value

• a report on the projected waste composition and energy content was considered by the Committee earlier this year, staff concluded that the anticipated overall heating value of the waste stream under the 70% and 80% diversion scenarios is expected to remain about the same

• under draft Bylaw 280, individual municipalities may develop a bylaw that would exempt specific multi-family buildings within the municipality from organics source separation

• assumptions in the business case are based on one landfill/one WTE facility; however, it will be up to the proponents to determine whether they prefer to proceed with one or more sites

• costing is based on a waste-to-energy technology, which is the predominant technology in the 10 submissions shortlisted through the RFQ1 procurement process; however, the preferred technology or site was not determined yet, more information will become available after the completion of the RFQ2 procurement process

• cost of residual management is incorporated in the financial model as part of the estimated operating costs

• landfilling costs are based on the existing experience; net revenues from the landfill gas recovery are relatively small

• in staff view, management of the residual waste will not affect waste diversion management

ZWC - 12


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 23, 2014 title “New Waste-to-Energy Project – Updated Business Case” for information.

CARRIED Councillors Glumac and Nicholson voted in the negative.

2.3 Manager’s Report

Report dated April 23, 2014 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on the following: • New Waste-to-Energy Consultation and Engagement • Responding to Input Regarding the New Waste-to-Energy Project In addition, the Committee was informed that site-specific new Waste-to-Energy consultation meetings will be delayed until after all potential sites have been identified. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated, April 23, 2014 titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED 3. INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Site Identification

Correspondence dated April 23, 2014 addressed to Carol Mason, CAO Metro Vancouver from Craig Anderson, Mayor, Village of Gold River.

3.2 Waste-to-Energy – Metro Vancouver’s Incinerator Proposal

Correspondence dated April 17, 2014 addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board from John R. Ruttan, Mayor, City of Nanaimo.

3.3 NextUse Recycling Ltd. Correspondence re New Waste-to-Energy Business Case

Correspondence dated April 24, 2014 addressed to Metro Vancouver Board of Directors, from Russ Black, Vice President, Corporate Development, NextUse Recycling Ltd.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following items: 3.1 New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Site Identification 3.2 Waste-to-Energy – Metro Vancouver’s Incinerator Proposal 3.3 NextUse Recycling Ltd. Correspondence re New Waste-to-Energy Business Case

CARRIED

ZWC - 13


4. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its special meeting scheduled for April 28, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (j) and 90 (2) (b)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: (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were

presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and

90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED 5. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its special meeting of April 28, 2014.

CARRIED (Time: 11:08 a.m.)

___________________________ _____________________________ Klara Kutakova, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 9355714 FINAL

ZWC - 14

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Chris Allan, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: April 28, 2014 Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Subject: Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 28, 2014 titled “Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update” for information. PURPOSE To provide the Zero Waste Committee a 2013 financial update for the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF) located in Burnaby. BACKGROUND On an annual basis, results of the operation of the WTEF and contract with Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC (Covanta), including tonnages, expenditures, revenues, performance/service level adjustments and unit costs are provided to the Zero Waste Committee for information. DISCUSSION Table 1 provides the past five years of expenditures for the WTEF.

Table 1: 5-Year Expenditures for the WTEF 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operating Cost $17,599,907 $16,950,524 $17,685,665 $17,320,753 $20,220,447

Debt Charges $4,242,173 $3,521,640 $3,821,779 $2,592,462 $1,887,004

Total Expenditure $21,842,080 $20,472,164 $21,507,444 $19,913,215 $22,107,451

Tonnage 276,650 284,277 281,159 281,260 280,139

Unit Cost/Tonne (See Note 1)

$78.95 $72.01 $76.50 $70.80 $78.92

Note 1 - Includes debt servicing costs.

Operating costs include operating and maintaining the WTEF, minor plant upgrades, service level and performance adjustments, and ash management. There was an increase in operating costs from 2012 to 2013 resulting primarily from increased ash management costs as a result of managing the fly ash in Alberta rather than at Cache Creek, and the change at the Vancouver Landfill whereby bottom ash is now accounted for as garbage. A request for proposals for the management of fly ash for a three year term has just closed, and will result in decreased fly ash

5.1

ZWC - 15

management costs once a contract is in place. New beneficial use options for bottom ash are being investigated. Debt charges are payments for Metro Vancouver debentures for capital upgrades including the construction of the turbo generator in 2003. Table 2 below outlines the Metro Vancouver portion of offsetting energy revenues from the sale of steam and electricity. Table 2: Metro Vancouver’s Portion of Energy Revenues for the WTEF

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Steam Revenue $3,557,571 $4,385,297 $3,993,177 $0 $0 Electrical Revenue $6,043,775 $6,619,587 $6,486,799 $6,750,393 $7,444,460 Total Revenue $9,601,346 $11,004,884 $10,479,976 $6,750,393 $7,444,460 Tonnage 276,650 284,277 281,159 281,260 280,139 Unit Revenue / Tonne $34.71 $38.71 $37.27 $24.00 $26.57

In September 2011, Norampac Inc. announced that they were permanently shutting down the paper recycling mill operation located adjacent to the WTEF. As of December 2011 all steam sales to Norampac Inc. have ceased and all energy revenues now result from electrical generation. Table 3 outlines the net unit cost per tonne for operation and maintenance of the Metro Vancouver WTEF, including debt servicing. Table 3: 5-Year Net Unit Cost for Operation and Maintenance of the WTEF (including debt servicing)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Unit Cost / Tonne (from Table 1)

$78.95 $72.01 $76.50 $70.80 $78.92

Unit Revenue/ Tonne (from Table 2)

$34.71 $38.71 $37.27 $24.00 $26.57

Net Unit Cost/ Tonne $44.24 $33.30 $39.23 $46.80 $52.35 In 2013 Covanta met contractual requirements for both service level and environmental performance. ALTERNATIVES None presented as this is an information report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS WTEF costs have increased in 2013 primarily due to increased ash management costs. The WTEF continues to be the lowest cost disposal asset in the Metro Vancouver system when considering operation, transportation and expected landfill future closure and post-closure care costs.

ZWC - 16

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Operating expenditures in 2013 for the WTEF totalled $20.22 million with an additional $1.89 million in debt charges. Metro Vancouver’s portion of energy revenues from electrical sales totalled $7.44 million. Based on a throughput tonnage of 280,139 tonnes, the net unit cost per tonne for operation and maintenance of the WTEF in 2013 was $52.35 per tonne. Tipping fee revenues are accounted for separately and are not included in this analysis. The WTEF continues to be the lowest cost disposal asset in the Metro Vancouver system. 9319458

ZWC - 17

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Sarah Evanetz, Manager, Public Involvement Program, Solid Waste Services Date: April 25, 2014 Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Subject: Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Update RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 25, 2014 titled “Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Update” for information and approve finalizing a recommended implementation strategy for the Organics Disposal Ban for the Board’s consideration in mid-2014. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Board receive an update on engagement and consultation activities and findings regarding the implementation of an Organics Disposal Ban for Metro Vancouver and approve finalizing a recommended implementation strategy for the Organics Disposal Ban for the Board’s consideration in mid-2014. BACKGROUND In October 2013, the Board approved the engagement and consultation program in support of the implementation of an Organics Disposal Ban for Metro Vancouver. A February 2014 report to the Zero Waste Committee outlined pre-consultation engagement activities with organics waste producers (grocers, restaurants and hotels, schools, property managers, health facilities, and small-to-medium enterprises) considered key to maximizing the diversion of organics from disposal. The focus of 2014 engagement and consultation activities is on the commercial and multi-family residential sectors. Discussions with municipal staff through REAC, REAC Solid Waste sub-committee, Waste Reduction Coordinators and communications staff are ongoing. DISCUSSION Formal stakeholder engagement and consultation began in early February 2014 with notification to a broad range of stakeholders, including: member municipality elected officials and staff; adjacent regional districts; local First Nations; organics waste producers, haulers and processors, non-governmental organizations, academia, and government agencies. A series of three stakeholder workshops and a corresponding multi-part online survey are the core of the engagement and consultation program: Workshop #1 (February 25, 2014):

• 125 participants; • summarized input gathered from pre-consultation engagement with key business sectors; • presented organics diversion experiences from local businesses and the commercial

organics disposal ban by the Regional District of Nanaimo; • stakeholders from different sectors shared perspectives and provided initial feedback on

ban implementation;

5.2

ZWC - 18

• workshop summary provided to participants and posted on-line at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/Engagement/ConsultationDocs/ODBWorkshopNo1Summary-February25-2014.pdf

Implementation Options: Four implementation options were developed considering input received during pre-consultation and consultation initiatives with stakeholders. Each option varies three standard elements of the Disposal Ban over a three-year period (2015 - 2017): threshold (the allowable limit of organics in a load of garbage); surcharge (the financial penalty if the threshold is exceeded); and materials (the types of organic materials included. These organic materials are in addition to the Green Waste Disposal Ban already in effect.) The options are:

• Option 1: Immediate implementation - includes a 5 % threshold in a load, a 50 % surcharge applied to loads exceeding the threshold and applies to all organic materials. This option affects everyone equally and is relatively simple as only one transition point exists.

• Option 2: Increasing surcharge over time - includes a 5 % threshold, a surcharge that starts at 10% and increases over a three year period and applies to all organic materials. This option affects everyone equally and is fairly simple with only 2 transition points.

• Option 3: Declining threshold over time - includes a 50% threshold that gradually declines, a 50 % surcharge and applies to all organic materials. This option affects higher volume producers first and is more complicated with three transition points.

• Option 4: Gradual introduction of threshold, surcharges and materials - includes a 50 % threshold that gradually declines, an extended education period that transitions into an increasing surcharge and the introduction of various organic materials over time. This option affects higher volume producers first and is the most complicated.

In all cases, a six month “education” period is included as changes are made During this period, disposal ban inspectors will inform haulers if their loads exceed the applicable threshold, but surcharges are not levied. Workshop #2 (April 23, 2014):

• 123 participants • presented examples of organics waste diversion experiences from local businesses • outlined the method by which disposal bans operate • presented four potential options for implementing the ban (described in section above) • received detailed feedback from participants on the benefits and concerns they identified

with each option • received suggestions for methods of implementing the Organics Disposal Ban in addition to

the four options presented. • presented and received feedback on potential ways to support the transition as businesses

comply with the organics disposal ban through education and communications • preliminary findings from Workshop #2 will be posted on-line in mid-May

Workshop #3 (June 11, 2014)

• after considering all input received to date, a proposed strategy will be presented for implementing the Organics Disposal Ban

• receive final comments and suggestions for the proposed implementation strategy

ZWC - 19

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/Engagement/ConsultationDocs/ODBWorkshopNo1Summary-February25-2014.pdf

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/Engagement/ConsultationDocs/ODBWorkshopNo1Summary-February25-2014.pdf

On-line Survey

• A multi-part on-line survey, corresponding to the discussion topics at the three workshops, is being used to receive additional written feedback regarding ban implementation

Communications and Outreach Communications initiatives are ongoing to complement the organics consultation and support other Metro Vancouver diversion initiatives. Through the Organics Disposal Ban workshops and pre-consultation, Metro is regularly asked to show leadership on promoting consistent messages and imagery. Metro Vancouver is convening stakeholder groups (those with their own large audiences of tenants, employees, students etc) to engage on the desire and benefits for consistency of recycling (including organics) communications region-wide. These conversations include feedback around the colour schemes, icons, images, advertising and communication materials that stakeholders can use and invest in. Stakeholders can leverage their message and advertising investments through consistency between one another. A recommended implementation strategy for the Organics Disposal Ban, considering feedback from all workshops and the on-line survey is expected to be presented to the Board for consideration in mid 2014. ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 25, 2014 titled “Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Update” for information and approve finalizing a recommended implementation strategy for the Organics Disposal Ban for the Board’s consideration in mid-2014.

2. That the GVS&DD Board provide alternate direction to finalize the Organics Disposal Ban strategy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 2014 engagement and consultation costs related to the development of the Organics Disposal Ban are expected to be $75,000 and are included in the Solid Waste Services budget for 2014. This figure was presented to the GVS&DD Board at its meeting on October 11, 2013. Any costs to support the ongoing Disposal Ban will be included in the Board report recommending an implementation strategy. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION There has been a great deal of interest in, and feedback received on, the implementation of an Organics Disposal Ban for Metro Vancouver. Feedback has been received on four potential implementation options, as well as other suggestions. Feedback has also been received on mechanisms to support the transition towards the removal of organics from our garbage. At a third workshop on June 11, staff will present a proposed strategy for implementing the Organics Disposal Ban and will receive final comments and suggestions. Staff will report to the Board in mid-2014 with a recommended strategy for implementation of an Organics Disposal Ban for Metro Vancouver. If the Board approves an Organics Disposal Ban strategy, Tipping Fee Bylaw changes for 2015 will be brought to the Board for consideration in the fall. 9343351

ZWC - 20

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 28, 2014 Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Subject: Manager’s Report RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 28, 2014 titled “Manager’s Report” for information. 1. Update on MMBC Program for Packaging and Printed Paper

The MMBC program for Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) is expected to launch, on schedule, on May 19th. Among the member municipalities, some have decided to accept the financial offer from MMBC and participate in the program, some decided to continue status quo operations and make a decision at a later date whether or not to participate, and some decided to turn over collection to MMBC’s contracted hauler. As a result, there will be some minor differences among the municipal recycling programs delivered in the region, however, in most cases residents will receive a service level comparable to what the recycling programs have provided historically.

For the member municipalities involved in the transition to the MMBC program, residents will experience two main changes in their blue box recycling:

1. Glass Management: MMBC has required local government collectors to manage glass by segregated collection at the curb, or collection only at depots (including municipal depots and participating bottle depots). The decision by member municipalities to collect glass at the curb in a segregated format or to collect only at depot varies throughout the region.

2. Expanded Materials for Collection: The MMBC program has expanded the types of PPP which can be collected in the residential recycling program. A promotions and education campaign (www.RecylingInBC.ca) has already launched to raise awareness among residents of this expansion.

Member municipal staff have been working with MMBC to formalize logistical arrangements and to coordinate the roll-out of communication materials.

Under the provincial Recycling Regulation, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs are required to develop Product Stewardship Plans in adherence to the order of preference established in the Pollution Prevention Hierarchy (Section 5 (3) of the Regulation). In essence, this means that reduce is preferable to reuse, reuse is preferable to recycle, recycle is preferable to energy and material recovery, and energy and material recovery is preferable to disposal in landfills. In its approved Plan for PPP, MMBC focused on actions targeted mainly for the recycling of collected materials. MMBC indentified activities for energy and material recovery and disposal in landfills only in relation to “process system residues”. Collection and

5.3

ZWC - 21

http://www.recylinginbc.ca/

processing of PPP occurs at a higher level, under recycle. In most circumstances, this is consistent with the manner in which municipal recycling systems are currently operating.

2. P3 Canada Application for New Waste-to-Energy Capacity

Based on direction from the Board on May 25, 2012, staff submitted an application to Round 4 of the P3 Canada fund for the New WTE Capacity project. The project was screened in to Round 4 (2012/2013) of the P3 Canada Fund, as reported to the Board in February 2013.

The Zero Waste Committee was updated in June 2013 that staff was applying to Round 5 (2013/2014). To ensure the project will continue to be considered by PPP Canada for funding support, staff will be submitting an updated application to Round 6 (2014/2016).

3. Summary Report on the Closure Status Assessment of Municipal and Regional Landfills

At the April 10, 2014 Zero Waste Committee meeting, the Committee requested further details on staff report titled “Closure Status of all known Municipal and Regional Landfills within the Region”, including the names of the municipal and regional landfills. The attached report (Attachment 1) on “Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study” prepared by Morrison Hershfield provides the closure assessment strategy, the updated inventory of known municipal and regional landfill sites, and the closure assessment summary of the sites on the inventory list.

4. Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan

Attachment 2 is the Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan indicating the quarter that the priority is expected to be considered by the Zero Waste Committee.

Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study – Summary Report by

Morrison Hershfield (9303498) Attachment 2: Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan

ZWC - 22

Morrison Hershfield | Suite 310, 4321 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, BC V5C 6S7, Canada | Tel 604 454 0402 Fax 604 454 0403 | morrisonhershfield.com

Project #: 5131106

Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study

SUMMARY REPORT

Submitted to: Metro Vancouver Purchasing & Mail Reception 5th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC, V5H 4G8 Submitted by: Todd Baker, P.Eng Senior Environmental Enginner Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Suite 310, 4321 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, BC, V5C 6S7 Email: [email protected] Tel: 604 – 454-0402

Fax: 604 – 454-0403

Project No.5131106.00 March 19, 2014

C:\USERS\NPEDERSEN\DESKTOP\NEW FOLDER (2)\5131106 SUMMARY REPORT MARCH19_2014 _TCB.DOCX

ZWC - 23

mailto:[email protected]

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

Morrison Hershfield | Suite 310, 4321 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, BC V5C 6S7, Canada | Tel 604 454 0402 Fax 604 454 0403 | morrisonhershfield.com

March 19, 2014

Lyn Ross, Eng.L. Metro Vancouver 5th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4G8

Re: Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study, SUMMARY REPORT

Dear Mr. Ross,

Morrison Hershfield is pleased to submit the attached report summarizing the findings of the Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study. The main report provides an overall summary of the project, the closure assessment strategy and the status of the sites on the inventory list. The appendices include the site-specific screening and closure status assessment reports.

We have enjoyed working on this project with you and the member municipalities. We look forward to your feedback on the report.

Regards,

Morrison Hershfield Limited

Todd Baker, P.Eng

Senior Environmental Engineer

ZWC - 24

TABLE of CONTENTS

Page

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. CLOSURE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1 OVERALL APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 CLOSURE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 ARCHIVAL SEARCH AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE GUIDELINES ................................................................................ 3

3. REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITE INVENTORY .......................................................................... 5

4. INITIAL CLOSURE STATUS REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 8

5. ASSESSED SITES ..................................................................................................................................... 10

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SCREENED SITE REPORTS

APPENDIX B: ASSESSED SITE REPORTS

APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: SITES REMOVED FROM INVENTORY OF KNOWN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES ......................................... 5

TABLE 2: UPDATED INVENTORY OF KNOWN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES ........................................................... 7

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SITES SCREENED FROM FURTHER ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 9

TABLE 4: ASSESSED SITES SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 11

ZWC - 25

Project# 5131106 Landfill Inventory and Closure Status Assessment Study 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Metro Vancouver was issued a number of conditions of approval by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) on July 22, 2011 associated with their Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). This report addresses portions of condition #5 from the MoE approval letter, related to determining the closure status of all known municipal and regional landfill sites in the region.

Condition #5 from the MoE approval letter of the ISWRMP directs Metro Vancouver, in association with its member municipal partners to:

a) Generate, by December 31, 2012, a list of all known municipal and regional landfill sites in the region and submit it in the subsequent solid waste management plan biennial report;

b) Determine the closure status of the landfills identified under (a) above by December 31, 2013;

c) Ensure closure plans are in place by December 31, 2016 for all landfills identified in (a) above, with appropriate Ministry authorizations , and;

d) Submit, in the 2017 biennial report, a status summary.

Metro Vancouver previously submitted a list of known municipal and regional landfill sites to the MoE in compliance with (a) above. The purpose of this report is to determine the closure status of each of the identified landfills, to meet condition (b) above.

The report has been structured to demonstrate the approach and rationale for determining closure status of each landfill site. The methodology and closure assessment strategy and criteria are outlined in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the inventory of known sites that have subsequently been evaluated. Section 4 summarizes the initial closure status review to identify sites with existing approved closure plans (or equivalent) or have closure plans in development. Sites identified with approved closure plans, or closure plan in development, were screened out from further assessment. The results of the closure assessments for the remaining sites are summarized in Section 5. Individual site closure assessment reports are appended to the report.

1.1 SCOPE

The overall project methodology consisted of five primary tasks, as follows.

1. Project start-up and background review 2. Initial closure status review and archival search 3. Site reconnaissance visits 4. Reporting 5. Project management

The project was initiated on October 21, 2013 with a meeting at the Metro Vancouver office. A request for site screening information was sent to municipalities on October 23, 2013. Archival information reviews and site reconnaissance visits were undertaken in October, November and the early part of December, 2013. Site-specific screening and assessment reports were prepared and submitted in draft in November and December, 2013. A review of archival information was also undertaken at the Ministry of Environment office in Surrey on Tuesday, November 5, 2013.

ZWC - 26


2. CLOSURE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY

At the beginning of the project Morrison Hershfield prepared a draft closure assessment strategy that was documented in a technical memorandum dated October 23, 2013 and reviewed with Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. The draft assessment strategy was also reviewed with Ministry of Environment staff during a meeting held at MoE offices on October 29, 2013. The final strategy, incorporating input obtained from Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and MoE, is outlined below.

2.1 OVERALL APPROACH

An initial closure status review was completed to identify sites with existing approved closure plans (or equivalent) or those with closure plans in development. Other than documenting the approval of a closure plan or the status of the closure planning work in progress, landfills having one of the following were not assessed further:

a) A closure plan or equivalent plan approved by the Ministry of Environment (MoE);

b) A Certificate of Compliance (COC); or

a) Either a completed landfill Closure Plan, Closure plan in development or Certificate of Compliance (COC) under the Contaminated Sites Regulation in development (e.g. Approval-In-Principle, application for Approval-In-Principle or application for COC).

These criteria have been referred to as the “initial screening criteria” for the purposes of this study. Site-specific reports were prepared for each site that was screened from further assessment, as discussed in Section 4.

Landfills that did not meet the conditions above required an archival search for information relating to landfill closure and site reconnaissance visits. The following steps were undertaken to assess the closure status of each site.

1. Initial Closure Status Review – Request and obtain information that will allow sites to be pre-screened and excluded from further action, as per the conditions above.

2. Archival Search – Coordinate with the municipalities and Metro Vancouver to obtain and review relevant site information.

3. Site Reconnaissance Visits – Verify information obtained during the archival search and assess closure in accordance with the closure assessment criteria.

2.2 CLOSURE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

For sites that required a more detailed assessment of closure status, two sets of criteria were used to determine the closure status.

A. Regulatory requirements and relevant Provincial landfill guidelines

a. Assessed compliance with relevant Permits and Operational Certificates

b. Assessed closure status against relevant Provincial guidelines:

ZWC - 27


i. For sites that closed prior to 1993 (when the BC Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste came into effect), the Operational Guidelines for the Discharge of Refuse on Land (BC MoE, 1971) were used;

ii. For sites that were active or closed after 1993, the BC Landfill Criteria were used.

B. Best practices for landfill closure and post-closure, based on professional experience and judgment

a. Assessed closure status against best practices requirements for protection of the environment and human health (outlined further in Section 2.4).

The intent with applying both regulatory and best practices criteria was to assess each site in a pragmatic way to determine whether it has been closed and whether any further work may be required to close the site or improve the site in its post-closure phase. The intent was not to rigidly apply the Landfill Criteria to all of the sites. Age of the site and time since waste was last deposited on sight were also considered. If a site was closed and capped adequately and was deemed to adequately protect human health and the environment, the site was considered closed.

2.3 ARCHIVAL SEARCH AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE GUIDELINES

The archival search and site reconnaissance visits were used to determine the status of permits and operational certificates, compile correspondence with the Province and to determine the status of landfill closure related work. A one-page guidance document was prepared to guide the project team during reviews of archival search information and for the site reconnaissance visits. The considerations for the archival searches and site reconnaissance visits are provided below.

Regulatory (Archival Search)

Permit number & status (active, abandoned, cancelled) Operational Certificate CSR Related Approvals/Certificates/Correspondence

Evidence of Closure or Equivalent (Archival Search)

Closure Plan Closure Plan in process Documentation of Closure Plan submission to MoE MoE approval of Plan Documentation of closure implementation (contract documents, reporting to MoE, etc.) Documentation of post-closure monitoring (monitoring reports – submitted to MoE?) Certificate of Compliance or Approval-in-Principle Other related closure, remediation or CSR related documents

Best Practices Considerations (Archival Search and Site Reconnaissance)

Final cover (sufficient? soil type? topography and slopes? erosion? vegetated? exposed waste? litter?)

Surface water management (surface water diverted? positive drainage? surface water management systems? condition?)

Water quality (groundwater issues? surface water issues? on-going monitoring programs?)

ZWC - 28


Geotechnical (steep slopes? instability or slumping? settlement? structures on waste?)

Access and signage (access restricted? signage?)

Landfill gas (LFG issues? signs of gas migration? observed risks, nearby receptors? odours? LFG control in place? LFG mitigation for structures?)

Leachate (leachate issues? signs of leachate? leachate controls in place?)

Site use (site use? being used for intended purpose? site use compatible?)

Post closure monitoring / maintenance (monitoring infrastructure? plans in place for post-closure? monitoring and maintenance undertaken? budget for care maintenance and monitoring, personnel assigned for maintenance and monitoring?)

The guidelines summarized above were used for summarizing the findings of the archival searches and the site reconnaissance visits. The findings were documented in site-specific assessment reports, discussed in Section 5.

ZWC - 29


3. REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LANDFILL SITE INVENTORY

An inventory of 27 known municipal and regional landfill sites in the region was submitted to the MoE by Metro Vancouver earlier in 2013. The updated inventory of known municipal and regional sites is summarized in Table 2 on the following page. The site identification numbers used in this table correspond with the earlier submission to the MoE and are used throughout the report for consistency.

Three of the 27 sites have been removed from the inventory and from further assessment based on information obtained during the course of this assessment. The sites removed from the inventory are summarized in Table 1 below with the rationale and supporting documentation noted.

TABLE 1: SITES REMOVED FROM INVENTORY OF KNOWN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES

MUNICIPALITY SITE NO. SITE NAME RATIONALE FOR REMOVING SITE FROM INVENTORY

City of Burnaby

5 Barnet Highway Landfill Same as Barnet Highway Landfill (also known as the Semple Landfill – Site #17) in City of Port Moody

6 Brunette Landfill Private land & no record of municipal solid waste disposal at this site.

City of Surrey 23 Semiahmoo Bay Landfill First Nation land

Barnet Highway Landfill

Based on available background information it was determined that the Barnet Highway Landfill, identified as Site #5 and thought to be used by the City of Burnaby, is the same site identified as Site #17, which is located in the City of Port Moody. The source of this confusion appears to have come from Environment Canada’s 1980 Fraser River Estuary Study Water Quality Impacts of Landfills. In the discussion of the Burnaby’s Stride Avenue Landfill, the report makes the following statement “Prior to 1964, the refuse from North Burnaby went first to the old Barnett [sic] Highway site then from about 1956 to 1964 to the Sperling Avenue Site.” The only landfill site identified to date on Barnet Highway is the site in Port Moody. There are no other references or information that suggests a site in Burnaby located along Barnet Highway. Port Moody’s Barnet Highway Landfill is located near the boundary between Port Moody and Burnaby and would have been a logical temporary site for North Burnaby’s waste. It is not be reasonable to believe there would be two landfill sites in close proximity to each other, both located on Barnet Highway.

Brunette Landfill (Site #6)

No records or anecdotal information relating to a “Brunette Landfill” could be located. This site name appears on an archived Metro Vancouver list of demolition and construction waste sites, however no one is aware of the source of the information and the reference. The list identifies the site as being at the intersection of Caribou Road and Government Streets in Burnaby. This area is fully developed as light industrial land use and there are no visual indications of a former landfill site. Inquiries were made of various City of Burnaby staff, including the City of Burnaby Parks department staff, and none were aware of any historical landfill in the area. A BC Environment Site Registry search was completed for the area and no landfill related sites were listed in the registry for this area.

ZWC - 30


A review of historical aerial photography back to 1954 was conducted due to the lack of any information relating to a potential landfill site in this area. The aerial photo review identified some filling activities occurring in the vicinity of the current Bonneville Place, a small cul-de-sac north of Government St. Landfilling may have occurred between 1963 and 1978 and then again in 1981. The nature of the material being filled is unknown but it could have been simply soil or other inert material. There is no information that suggests municipal solid waste was disposed of at this location.

Bonneville Place was developed in 1981 by a private developer and now provides access to 5 privately owned parcels of land. The City of Burnaby indicates (December 9, 2013 letter addressed to Morrison Hershfield; Appendix C) that they have never owned or controlled this property. Preliminarily land title searches for these properties do not show the City as being a land owner. Therefore the “Brunette Landfill” site has been removed from the inventory because: 1) There is no evidence or information located to date that suggests that municipal solid waste was ever disposed of in the vicinity of Bonneville Place (intersection of Caribou Road, Government Street); and 2) The City of Burnaby states that they have never owned, operated or controlled the land at Bonneville Place.

Semiahmoo Landfill (Site #23)

The Semiahmoo Landfill site is definitively located in Environment Canada’s 1980 report entitled Fraser River Estuary Study Water Quality Impacts of Landfills. This report shows the former landfill site as being south of Marine Drive (at Kell Street), immediately adjacent to the Campbell River meander before it enters Semiahmoo Bay. This location is clearly located on Semiahmoo First Nation’s Indian Reserve land; this parcel was last surveyed as CLSR M.1387 in 1947 and identifies the land as “Semiahmoo Indian Reserve”. The former landfill site lies on a parcel of land that was until recently used as baseball diamonds. The land has recently been fenced off to the public for unknown reasons. The City of Surrey has no knowledge of ever operating or disposing of waste at this location. No information or records relating to waste disposal at this location were located to date. A BC Environment Site Registry search was completed for the area and no landfill-related sites were listed in the registry for this area. Therefore, this site has been removed from the inventory because it is located on First Nation Reserve land (federal land) and there is no evidence of municipal usage of the site.

.

ZWC - 31


TABLE 2: UPDATED INVENTORY OF KNOWN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL LANDFILL SITES

MUNICIPALITY SITE NO. SITE NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION

City of Burnaby

1 Stride Avenue Landfill Stride Avenue, North of Marine Drive

2 Sperling Avenue Landfill Sperling between Laurel and Still Creek

3 Beta Ave and Still Creek Rd. Beta Ave and Still Creek Rd.

4 Riverway Landfill South of Marine Way between Patterson and Royal Oak

City of North Vancouver 7 Loutet Park Landfill 1440 Rufus Ave.

Metro Vancouver 8 Coquitlam Landfill Braid Street

18 Iona Island WWTP 1000 Ferguson Road, Iona Island

City of Langley 10 Pleasantdale Landfill 44 Ave & 206 St

Langley Township 11 Jackman Landfill 272 St and 8 Ave.

Village of Lions Bay 12 Lions Bay Landfill Village of Lions Bay - approx. one mile north of Lions Bay, near Brunswick Beach

District of Maple Ridge 13 Cottonwood Landfill 11589 Cottonwood Drive

District of North Vancouver

14 Premier St Landfill 1101 Premier Street

City of Pitt Meadows 15 Bonson Landfill 11546 Bonson Road

City of Port Coquitlam 16 Port Coquitlam Landfill 2500 Welcher Avenue/Reeve Street

City of Port Moody 17 Barnet Highway Landfill (also referred to as Semple Landfill)

South of Barnet Highway at Reed Point Way

City of Surrey

19 Port Mann Landfill Port Mann Landfill

20 Bear Creek Landfill King George and 88th

21 Johnston Road Landfill 152 St. and 112nd Ave

22 Elgin Landfill 34th

Ave and 140th

to 144th

St.

24 24th Ave Landfill On 24th Ave between 140th and 144th

City of Vancouver

9 Vancouver Landfill 5400 72nd Street, Delta

25 Kerr Road Landfill (Everette Crowley Park)

East of Kerr Road, North of Marine Drive

26 China Creek Ravine Landfill China Creek Park South – East Broadway and Clarke Drive

District of West Vancouver

27 Third Street Landfill (Hugo Ray Park) 3rd Street at Keith Rd

ZWC - 32


4. INITIAL CLOSURE STATUS REVIEW

Metro Vancouver requested the following information from municipalities in an email dated October 23, 2013:

Documentation of an approved closure plan, remediation plan or equivalent plan prepared to address the BC Landfill Criteria and/or the Contaminated Sites Regulation, (e.g. report cover pages, Table of Contents, links to documents, etc.) and relevant document dates.

Documentation of an Approval in Principle and/or a Certificate of Compliance issued under the Contaminated Sites Regulation, (e.g. report cover pages, Table of Contents, links to documents, etc.) and relevant dates of issue.

If either of the documents noted above are in process, supporting information indicating that they are in process (e.g. Board or council resolution, MoE correspondence, etc.) and the anticipated completion date.

Much of this information was provided by the municipalities through email. Furthermore Morrison Hershfield staff were able to obtain additional information from the Site Registry search, archival searches at municipal offices and at the MoE office in Surrey. In some cases letters were requested from municipalities to confirm closure planning work in progress and the timing of the work.

Of the twenty four sites on the inventory list, fourteen were removed from further assessment because evidence of closure plans or closure planning in progress was provided. For the screened sites, site-specific assessment reports include the following sections.

1. Initial Screening Criteria

2. Relevant Permits and Operational Certificates

3. Relevant Screening Information

4. Screening Rationale

5. Landfill Status Conclusion

A summary of the screened sites (sites with closure plans in place or in development), related site information and the status of closure planning / remediation work is included on Table 3. Site-specific screening reports are included in Appendix A.

ZWC - 33


TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SITES SCREENED FROM FURTHER ASSESSMENT

Municipality Site # Site Name Permit No.

Landfill Closure Status Status in Contaminated Sites

Regulation Process Comment

Existing Closure Plan? Closure Plan Submitted? Closure Plan Approved by

MoE?

City of Burnaby

1 Stride Avenue Landfill none - - - CoC issued 12-Mar-12

2 Sperling Avenue (Noreland Landfill)

none - - - Proposed application for CoC in 2013

Site has partial remediation and risk-based remediation/closure plan to be developed in 2015. City of Burnaby is proposing to apply for CoC in 2015

3 Beta Ave. and Still Creek Rd. PR-5443 10-Apr-96 24-May-96 5-Jul-99 - Permit cancelled in 1999 due to MoE acceptance of Closure Plan and satisfactory completion of follow-up studies.

4 Riverway Landfill PR-7276 Monitoring data to be compiled and application for permit cancellation proposed for 2014.

- Monitoring and assessment since 1990. In 2014 will be compiling post-closure monitoring data and will apply for permit cancellation

City of Vancouver 9 Vancouver Landfill OC MR-01611 2000 Phase 1 Closure Tender

Documents: 11-Dec-2008

- - Active landfill with ongoing progressive closure. Annual reports filed with MoE documenting implemented and planned closure activities.

City of Langley 10 Pleasantdale Landfill PR-1898 5-Mar-96 5-Mar-96 19-Apr-96 - Letter from MoE dated April 19, 1996 approving

closure plan.

Township of Langley

11 Jackman Landfill PR-01841 Apr-94 Not determined 8-Jul-94 - Letter from MoE dated July 8, 1994 approving closure plan.

District of Maple Ridge

13 Cottonwood Landfill PR-1710 Closure Plan in development

No No - District has retained EBA Engineering (Sept 2013) to prepare closure plan.

District of North Vancouver

14 Premier St Landfill PR-4231 Dec-95 and finalized

15-Dec-99

Dec-95 and finalized 15-Dec-99

No formal documentation located

- Closure implemented in 1999 with routine monitoring, reporting and correspondence, with MoE, including MoE review of Closure Plan.

City of Port Moody

17 Barnet Hwy (aka Semple Landfill) PR-1771 Closure Plan in development

No No - District has retained a consultant (August 2013) to prepare closure plan.

Metro Vancouver

8 Coquitlam Landfill PR-4385 Revised: 21-Sep-2009 6-May-99 No formal documentation located

Approval in Principle issued 6-Sep-96

Metro Vancouver intends on updating the closure plan in 2014 for review and approval by MoE.

18 Iona Island WWTP PE-23 and PR-5904 for oil sludge beds

17-Feb-00 Not determined 6-Apr-00 - Letter from MoE dated April 6, 2000 approving closure plan.

City of Surrey

19 Port Mann Landfill OC PR-1686 12-Dec-97 18-Jan-98 2-Sep-99 - Letter from MoE dated Sept 2, 1999 approving closure plan.

22 Elgin Landfill none - - - CoC issued 21-Jan-12 Additional information is required to confirm that the CoC covers entire landfill site.

CoC = Certificate of Compliance

ZWC - 34


5. ASSESSED SITES

Sites that did not have closure plans (or equivalent or closure plans in development) were evaluated further to determine the closure status, in accordance with the strategy outlined in Section 2. Available and relevant information provided by municipalities was reviewed and site reconnaissance visits were completed for the remaining sites. Both archival search information, discussions with municipal staff and observations collected during the site reconnaissance visits were used to determine the closure status.

Of the twenty four sites on the inventory list, ten were assessed further based on archival search information and the site reconnaissance visits. For the assessed sites, site-specific assessment reports include the following sections.

1. Initial Screening Criteria

2. Steps Undertaken to Review Closure Status

3. Relevant Permits and Approvals Including Status

4. Relevant Documents and Correspondence

5. Site Overview and Closure History

6. Regulatory Setting

7. Summary of Best Practices Considerations and Key Issues

8. Closure Assessment Status

A summary of the assessed sites and summary information from the assessed sites reports is provided in Table 4. Site-specific assessment reports, including complete rationale for determination of landfill closure status, are included in Appendix B. Recommended follow-up work and additional considerations are provided in Section 8 of each assessment report.

ZWC - 35


TABLE 4: ASSESSED SITES SUMMARY

Municipality Site # Site Name Permit No. Site

Registry ID

Cease of Operation

Conforms with Best Practices Criteria Used in the Site Assessment

Final Cover Surface Water Management

Water Quality

Geotechnical Access & Signage

Landfill Gas

Leachate Site Use Post Closure

Maintenance & Monitoring

Permit Specific Requirements

City of North Vancouver

7 Loutet Park Landfill none none unknown,

but prior to 1979

Acceptable Acceptable Follow up Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

Village of Lions Bay

12 Lions Bay Landfill PR-2059 none 1979 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Follow up Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable No closure-related

permit specific requirements.

City of Pitt Meadows

15 Bonson Landfill none none 1972 Acceptable Follow up Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Follow up Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

City of Port Coquitlam

16 Port Coquitlam

Landfill none none

unknown, but prior to

1979 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

City of Surrey

20 Bear Creek Landfill none none 1967 Acceptable Acceptable Unknown Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

21 Johnston Road

Landfill none none 1969 Acceptable Acceptable Unknown Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

24 24th Avenue

Landfill none none early 1970's Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

City of Vancouver

25 Kerr Road Landfill (Everett Crowley

Park) none none 1966 Acceptable Follow up Follow up Unknown Acceptable Follow up Follow up Acceptable Follow up Not applicable

26 China Creek Ravine

Landfill (China Creek Park South)

none 8953 & 9002

1946 Follow up Acceptable Follow up Follow up Acceptable Follow up Unknown Unknown Follow up Not applicable

District of West Vancouver

27 Third Street Landfill

(Hugo Ray Park) none none 1969 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Not applicable

ZWC - 36

Attachment 2

Zero Waste Committee 2014 Work Plan Priorities 1st Quarter Status New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project

o Project Update (complete) o Recommended of number of facilities (complete) o Recommended number of sites to option (complete)

Complete

Update on engagement with ICI sector for organics diversion Complete

Initiate stakeholder consultation program for Organics Disposal Ban Complete

2nd Quarter Eco-Centre Strategy In progress Waste-to-Energy Facility 2013 Financial Update In progress New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project

o Stakeholder workshops/Public meetings (complete) o Report on consultation plan/results o Business Case (complete)

In progress

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 Complete Update on the replacement of Coquitlam Transfer Station In progress Initiate stakeholder consultation program for wood waste disposal ban Complete 3rd Quarter New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Project: Issue RFQ2 to short listed technology proponents

In progress

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 4th 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 - 37

Fraser Valley Regional District 45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, British Columbia V2P 1N6 Phone: 604-702-5000 Toll Free: 1-800-528-0061 (BC only)

Fax: 604-792-9684 website: www.fvrd.bc.ca

April 25, 2014 File No.: 9050-20-099 Mr. Greg Moore, Chair Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Dear Mr. Moore: Re: Metro Vancouver/FVRD Political Liaison Committee Thank you for your letter of March 17th, 2014 regarding your proposed plan to build additional garbage burning capacity within our shared, sensitive airshed. The Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) is pleased that you have agreed that the Political Liaison Committee (PLC) should be held in open sessions and are ready to move forward on the negotiated Terms of Reference as provided in your January 15, 2014 letter. The FVRD understands that this process must occur in a timely manner as indicated in your letter and will try to accommodate Metro Vancouver. Our board believes the PLC should meet at least a couple of times to discuss how our two organizations can facilitate consultation of our communities. To expedite the process we propose the following date options for these two meetings:

Wednesday, May 28, 2014; and Thursday, June 5, 2014

In the interim, we will garner feedback from our community on how they best feel we should consult them on this very important topic. Thank you for forwarding a first attempt at drafting both a consultation framework and Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Working Group. Your efforts will serve to hasten the completion of the PLC’s required tasks, so that the next stage can begin. The FVRD will modify these documents to include our requirements prior to our first PLC meeting to assist in accelerating the discussions. Please indicate as soon as possible which of the above dates would work for your members of the PLC. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

Director Patricia Ross, Vice-Chair Fraser Valley Regional District

ZWC - 38

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

6.1

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text

ahilkewi

Typewritten Text