waste management committee · september 9, 2009 notice to the gvrd waste management committee 1:00...

AGENDA

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:00 p.m.

2nd Floor Boardroom 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Committee Members: Chair, Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Vice Chair, Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Councillor Mary-Wade Anderson, White Rock Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Councillor David Cadman, Vancouver Mayor Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Councillor Fin Donnelly, Coquitlam Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Councillor Scott Hamilton, Delta Councillor Dan Johnston, Burnaby Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

Please advise Kalynka Bellman at (604) 432-6376 if you are unable to attend.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.

September 9, 2009

NOTICE TO THE GVRD WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

1:00 p.m. September 17, 2009

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

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

1.1 September 17, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 17, 2009 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 July 15, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held July 15, 2009 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Elaine Golds, Ph.D., Conservation Chair, Burke Mountain Naturalists regarding the AECOM report on residual waste management scenarios.

3.2 Mr. Rod Muir, Founder, Waste Diversion Canada, and Waste Diversion Campaigner, Sierra Club of Canada regarding “The four steps in introducing foodscrap collection”.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Karen Rothe, Ministry of Community and Rural Development regarding Integrated Resource Recovery.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge

Designated Speaker: Dan Hajdukovic, Division Manager Policy and Planning Department Recommendation:

That the Waste Management Committee receive for information the report dated August 18, 2009, titled “Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge”.

WMA-1

5.2 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 17910 Colebrook Road

City of Surrey Designated Speaker: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer

Policy and Planning Department Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprints of an animal shelter and an existing single family residence located at 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 46 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary, 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey” dated May 25, 2009.

5.3 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie IR #2, Township

of Langley Designated Speaker: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer

Policy and Planning Department Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the Katzie Indian Reserve #2 and the footprint of the existing residence located at 20489 102B Avenue in the Township of Langley as shown plan SA-2376, Sheet 45 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie IR #2, Township of Langley” dated June 24, 2009.

5.4 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows

Designated Speaker: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer Policy and Planning Department Recommendation: That the Board: a) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the land

located at: ● 19800 Lougheed Highway (Meadowtown Centre) ● 19673 Meadow Gardens Way (Portion of Fairways townhouse project) ● 19625 Lougheed Highway, 19671 Meadow Gardens Way, 19639 Meadow

Gardens Way (Dorado subdivision and commercial area) ● 18800 Lougheed Highway (Westfair Foods) and Lot 2 Plan BCP6647 (CP

Rail Intermodal Yard and industrial area) ● Lot 1 Plan 688740E (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● 17900 Kennedy Rd. (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● Lot 2 BCP 9735 (Pitt Meadows Airport Business Park) and 11333 Harris

Road (Pitt Meadows Municipal Operations) ● Portion of Lot 59 Plan 42375 (Pitt Meadows Airport - Ford Road Hangar

Facility) ● 11431 Bonson Road (footprint of bathrooms at Pitt Meadows Athletic Park) ● Katzie First Nation land (Salish and Walter Florence Roads);

b) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the

footprint of the existing Meadow Gardens Golf Course clubhouse and two adjacent out buildings located at 19675 Lougheed Highway subject to a covenant under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act being registered on title and held by the City of Pitt Meadows limiting the use and development to current zoning; and

WMA-2

c) approve the removal from the Fraser Sewerage Area of a portion of

Meadow Gardens Golf Course located at 19675 Lougheed Highway as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 47 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows”.

5.5 Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in

Progress or Resolved April – September 2009 Designated Speaker: Grant McGillivray, Senior Officer Policy and Planning Department Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee receive for information the report dated August 10, 2009, titled “Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April – September 2009”.

5.6 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Toivo Allas, Manager Policy and Planning Department Recommendation:

That the Waste Management Committee receive for information, the report dated September 17, 2009, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Open Letter to Greater Vancouver District Directors, from Utility Worker’s Union of America, Local 369 dated August 18th, 2009 regarding Covanta Proposal to Acquire Burnaby Operating Contract.

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee conclude its regular meeting of September 17, 2009.

WMA-3

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

WMA-4

MINUTES

WMA-5


WMA-6

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Waste Management Committee held on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 Page 1 of 6

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Waste Management Committee held at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Marvin Hunt, City of Surrey Vice Chair, Director Joe Trasolini, City of Port Moody Councillor Mary-Wade Anderson, City of White Rock Director Brenda Broughton, Village of Lions Bay Councillor David Cadman, City of Vancouver Mayor Ernie Daykin, District of Maple Ridge Councillor Fin Donnelly, City of Coquitlam (arrived at 1:04 p.m.) Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, District of West Vancouver (arrived at 1:04 p.m.) Councillor Scott Hamilton, Corporation of Delta Councillor Dan Johnston, City of Burnaby (arrived at 1:07 p.m., departed at 2:53 p.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, City of North Vancouver Director Harold Steves, City of Richmond Director Wayne Wright, City of New Westminster (arrived at 1:02 p.m. and departed at 2:37 p.m.) ABSENT: None STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Toivo Allas, Manager, Policy and Planning Department Paul Archibald, System Operations Division Manager, Operations and Maintenance Department Simon So, Civil, Mechanical Design, and Construction Division Manager, Engineering and Construction Department Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 July 15, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda 1:02 p.m.

Director Wright arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2009 by:

i. withdrawing item 3.1 Elaine Golds, Ph.D., Conservation Chair, Burke Mountain Naturalists;

ii. adding item 6.3 Invitation to Visit Gold River Proposed Energy-from-Waste Project Site; and

b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

WMA-7


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 June 10, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held June 10, 2009 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Elaine Golds, Ph.D., Conservation Chair, Burke Mountain Naturalists

Pursuant to item 1.1 Adoption of the Agenda, this item was withdrawn. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel – Final Report on Draft LWMP (March 2009) Kim Stephens, Program Coordinator, Water Sustainability Action Plan for BC, and member of the Liquid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel, presented the Panel's final report on the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (plan).

1:04 p.m. Councillor Donnelly and Director Goldsmith-Jones arrived at the meeting.

The presenter elaborated on the Liquid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel recommendations, structured in the following subject matters: • Natural Environment • Built Environment • Sewage Treatment • Financing • Implementation

1:07 p.m. Councillor Johnston arrived at the meeting.

Discussion ensued on: • inflow and infiltration from private laterals in sewerage system • amortization period, staffing issues and costs relating to a simultaneous

upgrade of the Iona and Lions Gate primary wastewater treatment plants (WWTP)

• the importance of an integrated approach to liquid waste management • UBC project titled “UBC Living Laboratory: Integrated Water and Energy

Project” • existing source control programs • potential replacement of the Iona WWTP with a number of smaller

distributed plants within the Vancouver Sewerage Area • the importance of a comprehensible public and intergovernmental

communication plan

WMA-8


• inclusion of sub-recommendations outlined on page 13 of the final report • the integration of the LWMP Reference Panel recommendations with the

final plan The Committee requested that the LWMP Reference Panel’s final report be referred back to staff for comments. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee: a) thank the Liquid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel and advise

that they have provided Metro Vancouver with an opportunity to move forward with integrated resources management; and

b) refer the report dated July 2009, titled “Final Report on A Liquid Resource Management Plan for Metro Vancouver” to staff for a subsequent report.

CARRIED

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Beverage Container Management in BC Report dated July 2, 2009 from Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Policy and Planning Department, responding to the Committee’s request for a staff perspective on the dispute between the BC Bottle Depot Association and Encorp Pacific. Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide an outline of beverage container types and volumes recycled in the Metro Vancouver region. Members spoke in support of the deposit levels increase, which would reflect changing economic factors since the implementation of the beverage container stewardship program and provide an incentive for more recycling. The Committee also considered additional material that could be diverted from the waste stream and requested that the Provincial Government include milk containers and Tetra Pak food containers in the recycling regulation schedule. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board request the Minister of Environment to: a) review minimum deposit levels for beverage containers as part of the

Recycling Regulation, with the intent of increasing deposits to reflect economic changes since the implementation of the beverage container stewardship program; and

b) include milk containers and Tetra Pak food containers in the deposit-refund system.

CARRIED The Committee requested that all deposits and fees established through the Recycling Regulation be reviewed (it is fees for materials, such as electronics, tires, and paints) and that they be updated on on-going basis.

WMA-9


2:37 p.m. Director Wright departed the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management request the Ministry of Environment to review and continually upgrade all deposits and fees established through the Recycling Regulation.

The Committee requested that staff report on the issue prior to submitting the request to the Province. Referral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee refer the following recommendation to staff for comments: “That the Waste Management request the Ministry of Environment to review and continually upgrade all deposits and fees established through the Recycling Regulation.”

CARRIED Discussion ensued on the management of funds collected by Encorp through the deposit-refund system; particularly expenditure of 25% of the unredeemed deposit fees. It was suggested that Encorp be invited to the October 2009 Waste Management Committee meeting to address the issue. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee invite Encorp to the October 2009 Waste Management Committee meeting to present how the unredeemed portion of the deposits for beverage containers is allocated.

CARRIED Councillors Anderson and Johnston, and Director Goldsmith-Jones

voted in the negative.

5.2 Powell River Regional District Agreement - Expiration Report dated June 18, 2009 from Aby Sharma, Senior Engineer, Engineering and Construction Department, seeking Board authorization to allow the current agreement with the Powell River Regional District (PRRD) to expire and give notification to the PRRD in July 2009 confirming this decision in order to provide maximum time for PRRD to find an alternative by the end of 2009. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board allow the current agreement with Powell River Regional District for providing solid waste disposal at the Cache Creek Landfill to expire as of December 31, 2009.

CARRIED

WMA-10


5.3 2008 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD Report dated June 9, 2009 from Theresa Gregonia, Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment Plant Laboratories, and Stan Bertold, Superintendent of Environmental Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Department, summarizing the 2008 Quality Control Annual Report for the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District.

2:53 p.m. Councillor Johnston departed the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the report dated June 9, 2009, titled “2008 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD”.

CARRIED Councillor Hamilton absent at the vote.

5.4 Manager’s Report

Report dated June 29, 2009 from Toivo Allas, Manager, Policy and Planning Department, informing the Committee about the following: • Metro Vancouver/Municipal Food Waste Collection demonstration project • Metro Vancouver discussions with Morgan McDonald, Carbon Offsets

concerning opportunities for offsetting Metro Vancouver’s corporate greenhouse gas emissions

• mattress recycling program • 2009 priorities

In response to an inquiry, the Committee was informed about the role of the Vancouver Landfill in the solid waste management program. Discussion ensued on the municipal timelines to commence the food waste collection and total anticipated organic waste volumes to be diverted from general waste stream from 2009 to 2015. Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide the Committee with a chart outlining dates by which member municipalities will add food waste collection to their municipal yard waste collection programs and report on anticipated volumes of organic waste to be diverted prior to 2015. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee receive for information, the report dated June 29, 2009, titled, “Manager’s Report”.

CARRIED

WMA-11


6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee receive for information the following information items: 6.1 Correspondence dated June 15, 2009, from Morgan McDonald, Director of

Sourcing, Offsetters, to GVRD Waste Management Committee, regarding carbon offset funding.

6.2 Correspondence dated June 15, 2009, from Vladimir Mikler, Partner, Cobalt Engineering to the Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, regarding Completing The ‘Climate Action’ Puzzle

6.3 Invitation to Visit Gold River Proposed Energy-from-Waste Project Site CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. ADJOURNMENT

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Waste Management Committee conclude its regular meeting of July 15, 2009.

CARRIED (Time: 3:10 p.m.)

___________________________ _____________________________ Klara Kutakova, J. Marvin Hunt, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 004951235 FINAL

WMA-12

DELEGATIONS

WMA-13


WMA-14

On behalf of the Burke Mountain Naturalists in Coquitlam, I wish to speak as a delegation to the Waste Management Committee on July 15 regarding the AECOM report on residual waste management scenarios. 1. We will urge the Committee to consider the energy embedded residual waste and point out that when such waste is incinerated to generate energy, it actually wastes this embedded energy. We recommend committee members review www.no-burn.org/industryblowingsmoke. In addition, a recent study indicated that greenhouse gas emissions in the USA could be reduced by 7% simply through eliminating unnecessary waste and achieving a 90% recycling rate. 2. We are concerned the AECOM report provides no analysis of the contents of the residual waste other than a sentence or two regarding an estimated portion of the contents that would be organically- or fossil fuel-derived. We find this inexcusable in such an otherwise thorough report. Furthermore, the report makes no attempt to distinguish between truly organically-derived waste and that which has been contaminated with fossil fuel products (e.g., furniture treated with flame retardants). Such analysis should have been provided as they are critical to reaching an informed decision on residual waste management. Data should also be provided regarding how the content of the residual waste will vary as the proportion of recycled MSW increases over time. 3. We do not believe residual waste derived from or treated with fossil fuels should be considered as "green" energy. In particular, we are opposed to fossil-fuel derived material being incinerated to generate energy. Rather, we recommend that such material should be returned to ground in a stable landfill 4. We are concerned a WTE plant, if built, will create a “market” and a “need” for residual waste and thus will undermine any future reduction efforts both in the minds of the public and industry. 5. We urge the WMC to place greater efforts on consumer education and developing more extended producer responsibility (EPR) and to work with senior levels of government to extend such programs. This should be the main focus of dealing with municipal waste. Much of the residual municipal waste should be considered to be manufacturers’ waste since it results from poorly-designed products with reduced durability, excessive packaging from shipment and limited capacity for recycling, etc. By spending tax dollars to create plants which conveniently destroy this waste, we are “rewarding” industry for their poor practices. Short-term single-use plastics should be banned. Incineration is not a solution. 6. We are concerned about emissions from WTE incinerators including GHGs, dioxins and heavy metals. It is our view that any new source of dioxin emissions is unacceptable and should be considered to be in contravention of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (i.e., the so-called dirty dozen) which came into effect in 2004 and to which Canada was the first signatory. This Convention, which deals with the most toxic compounds ever produced by mankind, calls for signatory nations to avoid processes that produce dioxin emissions. 7. In our view, the best solution for residual waste is to work towards to eliminating it. We fear construction of a large incineration plant will undermine any such efforts in the future. Metro Vancouver needs to be wary of creating easy solutions for residual waste that will prevent the region from achieving more sustainable solutions in the future. Elaine Golds, Ph.D., Conservation Chair Burke Mountain Naturalists

WMA-15

MKINGDON

Text Box

3.1


WMA-16

The Four Foodscrap Collection Decisions But first, the many benefits of foodscrap diversion. First to come to mind of course, landfill airspace conservation but of far greater importance, is foodscrap diversion's role in Global Warming/Climate Change mitigation. Organic material whether it be foodscraps, leaf and yard material or paper fiber, decomposes in a landfill under conditions which are anaerobic, that is to say, in the absence of oxygen. As such, the byproduct of decomposition is methane (CH4) a greenhouse gas 70 times more potent by volume than CO2. In fact it's often said that landfills, which continue to proliferate, are the largest single man-made source of methane. To continue, another benefit is that by diverting foodscraps compost can be produced, reducing the need for pesticides and fertilizers both of which are surprisingly energy intensive to produce. And damaging to the environment in their use. Finally, diverting foodscraps leads to a decrease in leachate acidity and by extension leachate toxicity. The 4 four foodscrap decisions. 1. Choose your compost processing technology.

Other decisions fall out of the type of processing you use (and the resulting cost per ton, as it will determine what you will collect as part of your program, in particular whether foodscraps and leaf and yard material will be mixed and whether dog-doo and diapers (D&D) will be included. Whether outdoors or enclosed, static, turned or aerated, aerobic or anaerobic these and other technology decisions will, subsequently, influence your collection and container decisions. 2. Collection Method and Frequency

Fully, semi automated or manual but more importantly perhaps co-collection with other materials, ie. collecting foodscraps together with either recyclables or so-called residual waste. Or perhaps even recyclables and residual together and foodscraps alone. (Co-Collection should not be to confused with co-mingled or single stream collection where fibers and containers are mixed together). Examination of co-collection to date has revealed no best practice. Rather the decision can and should be based upon the desired frequency of service of the various streams and secondarily on the location of transfer station, processing and disposal facilities.

Another trend is towards the collection of so-called residual every other week (EOW). This of course drives residents to separate out foodscraps knowing if they don't, they'll have it for 2 weeks. A recent study of seven Municipalities in the Greater Toronto area some who collect residual weekly others EOW shows that EOW collection can increase foodscrap collections rates by 30% or more. 3. Container Size And the Use of Liners

What you collect in your program and how it is to be collected, now leads to the determination of the size of container with which to collect foodscrap material and what type of liner, if any, is permitted. 4. Education and Promotion.

Once the above decisions are made all that's left is resident education. Here the most important consideration is how foodscrap collection will be positioned in the minds of residents. I'd suggest it be as the (logical) next step in diversion. You already separate out recyclables. Now it's banana peel time. The target audience, indisputably, Moms and their kids (6 - 18). Moms via conventional media, the kids, like everybody says, through the schools.

WMA-17

MKINGDON

Text Box

3.2

RR | August 2009 27

Moving the food scrap collection needleA case study of seven municipalities reveals that, by

introducing bi-weekly pick up into a community’s collection

approach, the capture of organic materials can possibly

increase by as much as 50 percent.

By Rod Muir

Bi-weekly, or every-other-week (EOW),

collection of residual material is a recovery

strategy that holds interest to many

municipal coordinators, both as a means to

increase participation in food scrap collection

programs and lower overall collection costs.

It's been speculated by those overseeing munici-

pal recovery programs that an increase in program

participation is likely once residents realize that food

scraps, the portion of the materials stream most likely

to produce odors, can be placed curbside either on a

weekly basis, in conjunction with a community's food

scrap collection program, or bi-weekly with residuals

collection. Cost savings from EOW residual collection

occurs as a result of programs being able to co-col-

lect materials from different streams (i.e., food scraps,

recycling and debris), and loading them into the same

collection vehicle. This is especially true when recy-

clables are commingled into a single stream.

For example, in Toronto, neighborhoods normally

only get one pass per week, meaning one week food

scraps and commingled recyclables are collected,

while the next week it's food scraps and debris. So,

one must ask, what is the true potential of increasing

participation via the use of EOW collection?

The studyThis study focuses on seven Ontario, Canada mu-

nicipalities, which make up the Greater Toronto Area

(GTA), except for the City of Barrie (Figure 1). A pro-

vincial planning area with a population exceeding 5.6

million, the GTA lends itself to being an excellent case

study subject when addressing the effects of EOW re-

siduals collection on food scrap capture. The munici-

palities that make up the GTA are in close proximity to

each other, all being within a radius of 50 miles. As a

result, all have very similar demographic profiles.

When comparing the respective municipal pro-

grams, each of them has food scraps collected on a

weekly basis, and six of the seven require residents to

use the same food scrap bin and curbside container.

The kitchen container measures nine-inches high

by one-foot wide, with 1.6 gallons of capacity, while

the green curbside bin is 27-inches high, 15-inches

wide, and includes 10.5 gallons of capacity. Hamilton

residents use a 32-gallon rollcart for their curbside

container.

Traditional compostable materials are recog-

nized by each program, including fruit and veg-

etable scraps, soiled paper products and household

plants; however, other non-traditional items are also

Reprinted from

RR | August 2009 27WMA-18

INVITED PRESENTATIONS

WMA-19


WMA-20

Ministry of Community Development

2009

Resources From Waste:

A Guide to Integrated Resource Recovery

WMA-21

MKINGDON

Text Box

4.1

MKINGDON

Text Box

Provided Under Separate Cover


WMA-22

REPORTS

WMA-23


WMA-24

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009

To: Waste Management Committee From: Dan Hajdukovic, Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department Date: August 18, 2009 Subject: Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee receive for information the report dated August 18, 2009, titled “Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge”. 1. PURPOSE To provide the Waste Management Committee with an update on the status of Metro Vancouver’s Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge. 2. CONTEXT The projects highlighted in this report represent a subset of the Metro Vancouver’s initiatives to increase the diversion of organics, refundables and recyclables from the garbage stream, as a part of the Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge, and the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan. All initiatives presented rely on public engagement to promote waste reduction, reuse and recycling by investigating interrelations between the following three factors: waste generation, waste diversion facilities and public awareness. Information is provided for the following initiatives: Swangard Stadium Waste Reduction Pilot Project, Community Events Waste Diversion, Park Royal Shopping Centre Solid Waste Diversion, Home Depot Wood Waste Diversion Pilot and Multi Residential Waste Diversion Pilot. Swangard Stadium Waste Reduction Pilot (SSWRP) Project SSWRP is the first test of the draft Guidelines for Waste Reduction in Stadiums and Arenas, developed in 2008. Sporting events can generate large amounts of waste in short periods of time (usually in the form of disposable food ware, food waste and packaging) and these events currently have little to no recycling infrastructure in place. A baseline waste audit conducted at Swangard Stadium following a Whitecaps game in 2008 showed a diversion rate of 10%, as well as a 35% organic content in the overall disposed waste from the event. SSWRP project is currently in its second month and will continue until the end of the Whitecaps 2009 season in September. The project introduced the following: sustainable purchasing policies for the vendors, 15 Zero Waste Stations located around Swangard stadium stands, and public engagement techniques. These measures all work towards the

5.1

WMA-25

Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge Waste Management Committee Meeting: September 17, 2009 Page 2 of 4 following goals: reduce overall solid waste by 10%, increase diversion of all remaining waste to 85%, and minimize contamination of separated waste streams. By mid-August, the first two goals had been achieved, and the diversion rate is 70%. Data and examples generated from the pilot will be added to the Draft Guidelines to support the recommend best practices. Additional testing of the guidelines will investigate the transferability of the proven measures to more than 200 other sporting facilities in the region. The ultimate goal is to implement the proven waste reduction practices on the region-wide scale. Community Events Waste Diversion More than two thousand public events occur in the Metro Vancouver region on a yearly basis, resulting in large quantities of disposed solid waste (e.g. 2008 Surrey Vaisakhi parade produced 80+ tons of solid waste in less than 10 hours). Metro Vancouver staff is currently cooperating with the organizers and solid waste removal businesses for several events in the region, in order to use the opportunity to establish community norms and expected behaviour during public events. These events are: Vancouver Folk Festival, Surrey Vaisakhi Parade, Metro Vancouver Parks Country Celebration, and Vancouver Pride Parade. Major Metro Vancouver ZWC initiatives are: standardizing colours for public space recycling bins and pictorial signage aimed at special events. The objective of standardizing colours for public space recycling is to provide design consistency across Metro Vancouver for recycling bins. This will over time assist the public and business operators to more successfully source separate recyclables from the garbage. The pictorial signage act as downloadable templates that can be used by businesses and municipalities to establish prompts and norms for the public. The Metro Vancouver Parks Country Celebration event shows that there is potential to divert up to 90% of solid waste materials generated (upper end with composting). Also, the 2009 survey at the event shows that the attendees like the Zero Waste Stations and are very pleased these facilities are available. The ultimate goal of the Metro Vancouver public event initiatives is to develop a best practices guide and curriculum for delivering a train-the-trainer type of outreach to community event organizers throughout the region. Park Royal Shopping Centre (PRSC) Solid Waste Diversion PRSC commercial-retail pilot has been under way since the fall of 2008, commencing with a waste sort/waste composition study that showed a current 25% diversion rate and the opportunity to divert an additional 900 tonnes of organics, 400 tonnes of paper and 300 tonnes of plastics. Recent activities are: a program that will collect all soft plastics from tenants in the mall, and the organics recycling bins for two streams (coffee/tea grounds and other organics) which have been available since the end of July. Current Metro Vancouver initiatives include seeking a commitment from South Mall vendors to help reduce waste and improve recycling. As recognition of a vendor's commitment they will receive a window sticker and posting on Park Royal's website.

WMA-26

Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge Waste Management Committee Meeting: September 17, 2009

Page 3 of 4

The intent is to create more of a community norm that waste reduction and recycling is expected from vendors in the mall. Also, recording and distribution of two educational videos for PRSC South Mall retail staff and shoppers is planned. The first video will air in a common, public space in the mall, and will overview the solid waste management at PRSC and how it connects to the bigger picture of managing waste in the region. The second will be a how-to video that explains how retailers can help to reduce waste and recycle at retail stores. Information gathered from this pilot will be used to develop a commercial retail best practices guide. The ultimate goal is to implement proven waste reduction practices on a region-wide scale. Home Depot Wood Waste Diversion Pilot Metro Vancouver has partnered with The Home Depot, Urban Wood Waste Recyclers, and Urban Impact Ltd. in a two-month pilot project, whose primary purpose is to test new ways of diverting home renovation wood waste from disposal. Also, this project provides the opportunity to engage and educate the public – in this case home renovation do-it-yourselfers and small contractors – regarding the wood collected at The Home Depot Coquitlam store. The wood collected will be processed by Urban Wood Waste Recyclers, where it is chipped for either paper manufacturing, ground up for hog fuel, or mulched for compost.

By the end of week two of the project, more than 34,000 kilograms of wood waste had been collected. Information gathered from the trial period will be used to determine the financial, social and environmental viability of establishing permanent recycling depots for home renovation waste near home renovation retail centres. Multi Residential Waste Diversion Pilot The Multi-Family waste diversion pilot is a joint initiative between Metro Vancouver and the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) that has been under way since August of 2008, at MVHC developments in Surrey and Port Coquitlam. Estimated waste diversion among multi-family buildings, which house about 50% of the region’s population, shows that residents of multi-family buildings only divert 20% of the waste. Furthermore, approximately 60% of the garbage from multi-family is potentially recyclable or compostable. This pilot specifically targets Metro Vancouver housing sites using Community Based Social Marketing tools and strategies.

In addition to a literature review, focus groups and a survey were conducted with residents at both sites in fall of 2008. After introducing a series of changes at the pilot sites that increased the recycling capacity, new education materials were developed using results from both the survey and direct feedback from residents, including a focus group with residents who primarily communicate in Mandarin. These materials were distributed to all residents in mid-May and the measurement of waste diversion is on going. Other CBSM tactics will be introduced at both sites in mid September 2009. Pilot study results will ultimately be used to create a field-tested toolkit for owners and managers of multi-family units to increase recycling rates in their multi-family buildings. 3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

WMA-27

Public Initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge Waste Management Committee Meeting: September 17, 2009 Page 4 of 4 4. CONCLUSION Presented are five public initiatives in Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge. These initiatives provide the opportunity to educate the public on best waste reduction practices, the vendors and other businesses responsible for the sustainable sourcing of materials at public events, as well as the waste collecting and hauling businesses on options for waste recycling and removal. Also, the initiatives serve as test platforms for waste reduction guidelines that will be implemented region-wide in their applicable sectors. 004963079

WMA-28


To: Waste Management Committee From: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: August 13, 2009 Subject: Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 17910 Colebrook Road,

City of Surrey

Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprints of an animal shelter and an existing single family residence located at 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 46 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey” dated May 25, 2009. 1. PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the City of Surrey for GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary. 2. CONTEXT Sewerage and Drainage area boundaries are occasionally amended at the request of a member municipality in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act. District procedure regarding amendments to sewerage area boundaries requires the examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, land use compliance, effect on service levels, local and community interests and regional interests. The GVS&DD has received a request from the City of Surrey to expand the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) boundary to include the building footprints of a proposed animal shelter and an existing single family residence owned by the City of Surrey located at 17910 Colebrook Road, Surrey as illustrated on Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 46 (Attachment 1). The following summarizes the considerations for these boundary expansions:

• The applications were approved by City of Surrey Council on April 20, 2009. • There will be no financial impact on the GVS&DD. • The Agricultural Land Commission has approved the subdivision of the easterly

portion of the lot for the purposes of the animal shelter. The shelter is a permitted ALR use under the City’s A-1 zone.

5.2

WMA-29

Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3

4961649

• Onsite treatment was considered but both septic fields and sand mound disposal systems were not considered practical because of the very high water table in the area.

• The proposed FSA extension application includes lands located within the Green Zone and the ALR, and would extend the FSA into Green Zone/ALR lands located south of the existing BC Rail line. However, extension of the sewer main under the BC Rail line at 180 Street would provide direct service access to the property, and would minimize the potential pressures for future FSA expansion and development in this area. The proposed development of a SPCA facility is supported by the ALC and is a permitted use within Surrey’s A-1 Zone. Based on the above considerations, limiting FSA expansion to include the building footprint only would not have a significant effect on growth strategy policies.

• There will be no significant impact to the service levels provided by the GVS&DD system.

3. ALTERNATIVES The GVS&DD Board may: a) Approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprints of an

animal shelter and an existing single family residence located at 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 46 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 17910 Colebrook Road, City of Surrey” dated May 25, 2009.

b) Reject the proposed boundary expansion. 4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the application be approved. Attachment: Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 46.

WMA-30

WMA-31


WMA-32


To: Waste Management Committee From: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: August 13, 2009 Subject: Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie IR #2, Township of Langley Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the Katzie Indian Reserve #2 and the footprint of the existing residence located at 20489 102B Avenue in the Township of Langley as shown plan SA-2376, Sheet 45 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie IR #2, Township of Langley” dated June 24, 2009. 1. PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the Township of Langley for GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary. 2. CONTEXT Sewerage and Drainage area boundaries are occasionally amended at the request of a member municipality in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act. District procedure regarding amendments to sewerage area boundaries requires the examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, land use compliance, effect on service levels, local and community interests and regional interests. The GVS&DD has received requests from the Township of Langley to expand the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the Katzie First Nation Reserve #2 and Lot A, Ref Plan 1471. The following summarizes the considerations for these boundary expansions:

• The applications were approved by Township of Langley Council on October 22, 2001 and on April 7, 2008.

• There will be no financial impact on the GVS&DD. • While the Katzie Indian Reserve is within the area administered by the Land Reserve

Commission, the commission has no jurisdiction over the actual reserve and does not have to approve any on-site works.

• Health Canada has determined that subsurface septic disposal systems are not suitable for the area due to poor soil and high water table conditions and have approved holding tanks and pumpout systems as a “temporary” measure to deal

5.3

WMA-33

Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie #2, Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2

4961656

with sewage. A consultant engaged by the Katzie Band reviewed alternatives for sewage management on the reserve and concluded that the best environmental and financial solution is a community sanitary collection system connected to the Township of Langley and GVS&DD system.

• The Katzie IR#2 currently has approximately 10 dwellings, with the potential for an additional 18 dwellings in as yet undetermined locations. Expanding the FSA to include the area of the reserve provides service flexibility for a relatively small number of residential dwellings and would not have a significant effect on growth strategy policies.

• A right of way through the property at 20489 102B Ave. is required to connect the Katzie Reserve to the Township sewer system. As a condition for granting the right of way the property owners wish to connect their home to sewer.

• Service expansion to the adjacent private property at 20489 102B Ave. is intended only for the existing residential dwelling on that property. Limiting FSA expansion to include the existing dwelling footprint only would not have a significant effect on growth strategy policies.

• There will be no significant impact to the service levels provided by the GVS&DD system.

3. ALTERNATIVES The GVS&DD Board could: a) Approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the Katzie Indian

Reserve #2 and the footprint of the existing residence located at 20489 102B Avenue in the Township of Langley as shown plan SA-2376, Sheet 45 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Katzie IR #2, Township of Langley” dated May 25, 2009.

Property owners on the Katzie IR #2 with failing septic fields will be able to connect to a municipal sewage system. This will reduce the chance of contaminants entering the local groundwater or the Fraser River. Connection of the residence at 20489 102B Ave. is required in order to obtain a needed right of way but limiting the expansion to the footprint of the existing residence would not have a significant effect on growth strategy policies. b) Reject the proposed FSA boundary expansion. 4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Alternative a) - that the application be approved. Attachment: Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 45.

WMA-34

WMA-35


WMA-36


To: Waste Management Committee From: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: August 13, 2009 Subject: Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows Recommendation: That the Board: a) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the land located at:

● 19800 Lougheed Highway (Meadowtown Centre) ● 19673 Meadow Gardens Way (Portion of Fairways townhouse project) ● 19625 Lougheed Highway, 19671 Meadow Gardens Way, 19639 Meadow Gardens

Way (Dorado subdivision and commercial area) ● 18800 Lougheed Highway (Westfair Foods) and Lot 2 Plan BCP6647 (CP Rail

Intermodal Yard and industrial area) ● Lot 1 Plan 688740E (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● 17900 Kennedy Rd. (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● Lot 2 BCP 9735 (Pitt Meadows Airport Business Park) and 11333 Harris Road (Pitt

Meadows Municipal Operations) ● Portion of Lot 59 Plan 42375 (Pitt Meadows Airport - Ford Road Hangar Facility) ● 11431 Bonson Road (footprint of bathrooms at Pitt Meadows Athletic Park) ● Katzie First Nation land (Salish and Walter Florence Roads);

b) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the

existing Meadow Gardens Golf Course clubhouse and two adjacent out buildings located at 19675 Lougheed Highway subject to a covenant under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act being registered on title and held by the City of Pitt Meadows limiting the use and development to current zoning; and

c) approve the removal from the Fraser Sewerage Area of a portion of Meadow Gardens

Golf Course located at 19675 Lougheed Highway as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 47 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows”.

1. PURPOSE This report responds to requests from the City of Pitt Meadows for Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary.

5.4

WMA-37

Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3

2. CONTEXT Sewerage and Drainage area boundaries are occasionally amended at the request of a member municipality in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act. District procedure regarding amendments to sewerage area boundaries requires the examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, land use compliance, effect on service levels, local and community interests and regional interests. The City of Pitt Meadows has identified a number of developed and serviced parcels in the existing urban boundary that are not included in the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The GVS&DD has received a request from the City to expand the FSA to include the following properties indicated on Attachment 1: 1. 19800 Lougheed Highway (Meadowtown Centre) 2. 19675 Lougheed Highway (footprint of existing Meadow Gardens Golf Course

clubhouse and two adjacent out buildings) 3. 19673 Meadow Gardens Way (Portion of Fairways townhouse project) 5. 19625 Lougheed Highway, 19671 Meadow Gardens Way, 19639 Meadow Gardens

Way (Dorado subdivision and commercial area) 6. 18800 Lougheed Highway (Westfair Foods) and Lot 2 Plan BCP6647 (CP Rail

Intermodal Yard and industrial area) 7. Lot 1 Plan 688740E (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) 8. 17900 Kennedy Rd. (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) 9. Lot 2 BCP 9735 (Pitt Meadows Airport Business Park) and 11333 Harris Road (Pitt

Meadows Municipal Operations) 10. Portion of Lot 59 Plan 42375 (Pitt Meadows Airport - Ford Road Hangar Facility) 11. 11431 Bonson Road (footprint of bathrooms at Pitt Meadows Athletic Park) 12. Katzie First Nation (Salish and Walter Florence Roads). It was also requested that: 4. 19675 Meadow Gardens Way (Portion of Meadow Gardens Golf Course) be removed

from the FSA as it is part of the golf course and in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The following summarizes the considerations for this boundary expansion:

● The applications were approved by City of Pitt Meadows Council on February 5, 2008 and February 17, 2009.

● There will be no financial impact on the GVS&DD. ● With the exception of item 2 and 11 above all of the properties are within the

Livable Region Strategic Plan’s (LRSP) Urban Area and therefore comply with the LRSP from a land use perspective.

● The expansion of the FSA to include item 2 which is within the LRSP Green Zone can be supported if the expansion is limited to the footprints of the golf course clubhouse and out buildings and if Pitt Meadows develops and holds a restrictive covenant for the property that ensures the land usage will be restricted to current zoning with an intention to prevent future urban expansion.

● Item 11 is within the Green Zone but extension of the FSA boundary to include the building footprint of the athletic park washrooms is supported.

● There will be no significant impact to service levels provided by the GVS&DD system.

WMA-38

Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009

Page 3 of 3

3. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may:

a) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the land located at: ● 19800 Lougheed Highway (Meadowtown Centre) ● 19673 Meadow Gardens Way (Portion of Fairways townhouse project) ● 19625 Lougheed Highway, 19671 Meadow Gardens Way, 19639 Meadow

Gardens Way (Dorado subdivision and commercial area) ● 18800 Lougheed Highway (Westfair Foods) and Lot 2 Plan BCP6647 (CP Rail

Intermodal Yard and industrial area) ● Lot 1 Plan 688740E (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● 17900 Kennedy Rd. (foot print of existing building on CPR Intermodal Yard) ● Lot 2 BCP 9735 (Pitt Meadows Airport Business Park) and 11333 Harris Road

(Pitt Meadows Municipal Operations) ● Portion of Lot 59 Plan 42375 (Pitt Meadows Airport - Ford Road Hangar Facility) ● 11431 Bonson Road (footprint of bathrooms at Pitt Meadows Athletic Park) ● Katzie First Nation land (Salish and Walter Florence Roads);

b) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the

existing Meadow Gardens Golf Course clubhouse and two adjacent out buildings located at 19675 Lougheed Highway subject to a covenant under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act being registered on title and held by the City of Pitt Meadows limiting the use and development to current zoning; and

c) approve the removal from the Fraser Sewerage Area of a portion of Meadow

Gardens Golf Course located at 19675 Lougheed Highway as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 47 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – City of Pitt Meadows”.

2. The Board may reject any or all of the proposed boundary expansions. 4. CONCLUSION The City of Pitt Meadows has requested that the FSA boundary be amended to include a number of developed and serviced parcels and several undeveloped parcels that are within the existing urban boundary. The city’s expansion request also includes two properties, a golf clubhouse and out buildings and a playing field washroom, which can be supported if the boundary expansion is limited to the footprints of existing buildings. Because the golf course is privately owned, the boundary expansion should be subject to a covenant registered on title and held by the city of Pitt Meadows limiting the use and development of the property to the current zoning. There are no technical issues surrounding the application. Accordingly staff recommends alternative 1. Attachment Drawing SA-2376, Sheet 47 004961644

WMA-39

WMA-40

Environment and Energy Committee Meeting Date: September 8, 2009

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2009 To: Environment and Energy Committee Waste Management Committee From: Grant McGillivray, Senior Officer, Policy and Planning Department Date: August 10, 2009 Subject: Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in

Progress or Resolved April – September 2009 Environment and Energy Committee Recommendation: That the Environment and Energy Committee receive for information the report dated August 10, 2009, titled “Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April – September 2009”. Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee receive for information the report dated August 10, 2009, titled “Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April – September 2009”. 1. PURPOSE To inform the Environment and Energy, and Waste Management Committees about enforcement actions taken by Metro Vancouver Regulatory Programs to promote compliance with Metro Vancouver bylaws that support the Board’s Air Quality, Liquid Waste and Solid Waste Management Plans. 2. CONTEXT 2.1 Background The Metro Vancouver Boards have adopted environmental bylaws regarding air emissions, liquid waste discharges to sewer and municipal solid waste and recyclable materials management at private facilities. The bylaws have been enacted to achieve a variety of environmental goals in support of management plans related to air quality, liquid waste and solid waste. 2.2 Prosecutions under the Bylaw Metro Vancouver staff lay charges against a company or individual when the following criteria are met: • There is a strong need to send a message of deterrence • There is a substantial likelihood of conviction and • Enforcement action is in the public interest.

5.5

WMA-41

Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April – September 2009 Environment and Energy Committee Meeting Date: September 8, 2009 Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 2

004960279

Once charged, it is up to the courts to determine if a suspected offender is guilty and to establish the level of fine if found or deemed guilty. 2.3 Public Access to Compliance Information To improve regulatory transparency and accountability, Metro Vancouver is developing an application that will allow the public easy access, via the internet, to compliance information regarding environmentally regulated entities. The first regulatory transparency module has been completed. Emission testing results for permitted air discharges are now available on-line at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/permits/Pages/search.aspx. Similar reporting capabilities are also planned for liquid waste and solid waste permits and licences as well as air emissions authorized by regulations instead of permits. This new reporting system replaces reporting that was previously done through a semi-annual non-compliance list. 3. ALTERNATIVES None presented. 4. CONCLUSION To promote regulatory transparency and compliance with environmental bylaws and laws administered by Metro Vancouver, two lists are attached: a) Persons or companies that have been charged in the past six months. b) Persons or companies whose charges have been resolved in the past six months. ATTACHMENT Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April – September 2009 (eRIM doc. # 004960141).

WMA-42

ATTACHMENT

Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April - September 2009

Page 1 of 2

In Progress Companies or Persons Date Charged Details Status Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008 0727219 BC Ltd. 3033 Beta Avenue Burnaby

Company charged May 13, 2008 under Bylaw and provincial Environmental Management Act.

Discharging of 3,810 kg of an ozone depleting substance in contravention of Metro Vancouver Air Quality Management Bylaw and provincial regulation.

Trial set for various dates in October 2009.

Lafarge Canada Inc. 7611 No. 9 Road Richmond

Company charged July 21, 2008 under Bylaw and provincial Environmental Management Act.

Discharging of an air contaminant in contravention of Metro Vancouver Air Quality Management Bylaw and provincial Environmental Management Act.

Discharging of an air contaminant causing

pollution Failure to report a spill of a polluting substance in

contravention of Environmental Management Act.

Trial set for various dates in November 2009.

Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 International Bio Recovery Corp. 52 Riverside Drive North Vancouver

Company charged August 12, 2009 under Bylaw.

Two counts of discharging total suspended solids in excess of the maximum limit authorized in their Metro Vancouver permit.

The discharge contributed to an exceedance of the provincial Operating Certificate for Metro Vancouver’s Lions Gate wastewater treatment plant.

Trial dates to be determined.

Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaws Nos. 181 and 183 Great West Disposal Inc. 15410 68 Avenue Surrey

Company charged October 10, 2008 under Bylaw.

Operation of a municipal solid waste facility without a valid and subsisting Metro Vancouver licence from September 20, 2007 to October 9, 2008.

Trial dates set for January 27and 28, 2010.

WMA-43

ATTACHMENT

Metro Vancouver Environmental Regulatory Bylaw Enforcement Action in Progress or Resolved April - September 2009

004960141 Page 2 of 2

Resolved Companies or Persons Date Charged Details Resolution Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008 No actions to report during this time period. Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 No actions to report during this time period. Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaws Nos. 181 and 183 No actions to report during this time period.

WMA-44

Attachment

4963699


To: Waste Management Committee From: Toivo Allas, Manager, Policy and Planning Department Date: September 17, 2009 Subject: Manager’s Report Recommendation: That the Waste Management Committee receive for information, the report dated September 17, 2009, titled “Manager’s Report”. 1. Table of 2009 Priorities Attached is the updated Table of 2009 Priorities (Attachment 3) indicating the quarter that the priority will be considered by the Waste Management Committee. Completed items are shown in bold. 2. Cache Creek Landfill Annex The Village of Cache Creek and Wastech Services Ltd., the holders of the Operational Certificate for the Cache Creek Landfill (CCLF), have been pursing an expansion of the CCLF known as “the Annex”. On August 31, 2009, the B.C. Ministry of Environment approved an approximate 7 hectare expansion of the CCLF, adding an estimated 800,000 tonnes of total additional capacity. (See attached letter from the Ministry of Environment dated August 31, 2009) At the expected filling rate of 400,000 tonnes per year, the Annex will provide an additional two-year extension to the Cache Creek Landfill to approximately the end of 2012. The estimated construction cost for the Annex is $2.5 million and has been included in the proposed 2010 GVS&DD Capital Budget. Subject to Board approval of the 2010 GVS&DD Budget, construction work on the Annex will start immediately with completion expected by mid-2010. Attachments: 1. Table of 2009 Priorities – Waste Management Committee 2. Cache Creek Landfill Annex

5.6

WMA-45

Attachment 1

Table of 2009 Priorities – Waste Management Committee

1st Quarter

• Zero Waste Challenge – Goals, Strategies and Actions

• Liquid Waste Management Plan and Integrated Resource

Management

• 2009 GVS&DD Capital Projects

• Regional Organics Management

• Status of the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of

Municipal Wastewater Effluent

2nd Quarter

• Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver

• Zero Waste Challenge Consultation Results

• Zero Waste Challenge Target

• Waste Export Final Application

• Status of Capital Expenditures

• Solid Waste Tipping Fee Bylaw

• GVS&DD / Montenay Operating Contract – 2008 Financial Results

• Regional Organics Management

3rd Quarter

• Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan – Consultation Results

• Liquid Waste Management Plan (Final Plan)

• Draft Solid Waste Management Plan

• Powell River Regional District Waste Import Agreement

4th Quarter

• GVS&DD / Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2008 Financial

Results

• Solid Waste Management Plan ( Final Plan)

• 2010 Programs and Priorities

• Status of Capital Expenditures

• Wood Waste Diversion – Home Depot Project

WMA-46

Attachment 2

WMA-47

MKINGDON

Text Box

MKINGDON

Text Box

WMA-48

MKINGDON

Text Box

MKINGDON

Text Box

INFORMATION ITEMS

WMA-49


WMA-50

, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA

Local No. 369 120 BAY STATE DRIVE • BRAINTREE, MA 02184

(781) 848-3740 (781) 848-3741

FAX (781) 848-4108 ®~19-N

August 18, 2009

Open Letter to Greater Vancouver Regional District Directors

Re: Covanta Proposal to Acquire Burnaby Operating Contract

Dear Directors:

I am writing to alert Greater Vancouver Regional District leaders to Covanta Energy's disturbing record on labour and environmental issues in the U.S., and to urge GVRD directors to oppose any transfer of the' operating agreement for the Burnaby waste facility to this company.

I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet summarizing recent environmental and labour violations by Covanta.

As you n1ay know, Covanta has announced an agreement with Veolia to purchase the operating agreements for seven incinerators, including the Burnaby plant. Coincidentally, Covanta is also the u.S. company that Green Island Energy has partnered with for a proposed waste incinerator on Vancouver Island.

Our union represents employees of Covanta's SEMASS incinerator in West Wareham, Massachusetts. Covanta has failed to agree to a fair contract for SEMASS workers, despite these employees voting for union representation more than a year ago.

Last n10nth, the u.S. National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint charging that Covanta has illegally discriminated against workers at SEMASS - including by imposing unlawful pay cuts on workers because they voted to form a union. The complaint also charges that Covanta has maintained illegal work rules that coerce employees from exercising rights protected by U.S. labour law at all of the company's incinerators throughout the U.S.

As you can see from the enclosed fact sheet, Covanta's recent history also includes significant violations of environmental laws designed to protect the public health.

Based on this record, we believe Covanta has failed to n1eet the high standards that GVRD leaders should expect from any contractor proposing to operate a \vaste incinerator in Metro Vancouver.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please let me know if I can provide additional information. Please also visit www.cicw.org for more details concerning Covanta's labour and environmental violations.

Sincerely,

Gary P. Sullivan President

WMA-51

MKINGDON

Text Box

6.1

1111111111111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 UTI L I TY WORK E R S UN ION 0 F AM ERI C A 111111111111111111 D. MICHAEL LANGFORD STEVEN VANSLOOTEN

PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AlII*d wit! A.F.L.cJ.O

GARY M. RUFFNER JOHN DUFFY 815 SIXTEENTH STREET, N.W.SECRETARY·TREASURER VICE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 974-a200

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS (202) 97~201 FAX HARRY FARRELL WIllIAM STERNER ROBERT KOVAR Will EllSWORTH _.uwua.netHELEN OLAGUE-PIMENTEl JIM ANDERSON JOHN CAPRA NOEL J CHRISTMAS MIKE COLEMAN KEllY J. COOPER lOUIS CORREA ROBERT FARREll ROBERT N. FRONEK SHAWN GARVEY JIMGENNETI JAMES C. HARRISON KEITH HOLMES DAN HURLEY MONTE KOTUR RICH MATA lUCIA PAGANO CHARLIE D RITIENHOUSE JOHN SUGRUE GARY SULLIVAN

Covanta Violations of Environmental and Labor Standards in the U.S.

Covanta Energy, a U.S.-based waste incineration finn, has been cited by U.S. regulatory agencies for the following violations of environmental and labor statutes: .

Environmental Violations

./ In September 2008, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued an order finding Covanta had exceeded the allowable emission rate for dioxins and furans at its incinerator in Pittsfield, Massachusetts by nearly 350%, according to tests conducted in November and December 2007. The World Health Organization classifies dioxin as a known human carcinogen.

./ The Massachusetts regulatory agency also cited Covanta for failing to report other violations of its air quality pennit at the Pittsfield facility during January, February, and March 2008, as required by environmental regulations, and imposed a U.S. $7,653 penalty on the company.]

./ Three weeks after signing the Massachusetts order, Covanta violated it by failing to properly operate an air quality control system for one of the boilers at the Pittsfield plant over a l6-hour period in October 2008. The agency imposed a U.S. $1,000 penalty for the new violations?

./ In October 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fined Covanta U.S. $45,600 for excessive emissions of toxic nickel and related compounds at its incinerator in Chester, Pennsylvania during 2006. Nickel emissions for a waste combustor at the plant were more than twice the permitted level, according to tests conducted in November 2006. 3 Nickel compounds are also known human carcinogens, according to the World Health Organization.

./ Five months later, the Pennsylvania agency once again cited Covanta for multiple air pollution violations at the Chester incinerator, including excessive emissions of nickel and total particulate matter during 2008.4

./ In August 2008, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection fined Covanta U.S. $14,025 for air pollution violations at the company's Newark, N.J. incinerator between 2006 and 2008. The agency has cited the Newark incinerator - which is located in a densely populated urban area - for violating air pollution regulations every year from 2003 through 2008. 5

WMA-52

./ The New Jersey agency has also cited Covanta for violating air pollution regulations at the con1pany's incinerator in Oxford, N.J. each year from 2005 through 2008,6 and at the incinerator operated by Covanta in Rahway, N.J. each year from 2005 through 2007.7

Labor Standards

./ In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor cited Covanta for serious violations of safety rules at its SEMASS facility in West Wareham, Massachusetts, based on an April 2009 inspection. The violations included an accumulation of fly ash on energized 208-volt electrical equipment, flexible cords "hot-wired" into electrical equipment as a substitute for fixed wiring, unguarded lamps exposing workers to bum hazards, and emergency lighting units missing or not functioning. 8 The agency assessed total proposed penalties of U.S. $13,500.

./ The Department cited the same Covanta facility in April 2009 for violating safety rules, based on an October 2008 inspection, and proposed total penalties of U.S. $6,375. The unsafe conditions included electrical equipment "maintained" with cardboard and duct tape, and improper storage of oxygen and acetylene cylinders side-by-side with no barrier between them.9 Fire safety rules in the U.S. require employers to store oxygen and fuel gas cylinders at least 20 feet apart, or to separate them by a non-combustible barrier at least five feet high.

./ The Department of Labor had previously cited Covanta for failing to require employees fighting a fire inside the SEMASS plant in March 2007 to wear appropriate protective clothing. 10

./ In May 2009, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint charging Covanta with maintaining illegal work rules at 46 Covanta facilities throughout the U.S. The government's complaint is scheduled for a hearing in October 2009.

./ In June 2009, the Board amended its complaint, charging Covanta with illegally withholding bonuses and wage increases from employees at the SEMASS plant because they had voted for union representation. The complaint also charges Covanta with numerous other unfair labor practices at the SEMASS plant. I I

Utility Workers Union of America Local 369 represents employees at Covanta's SEMASS incinerator in West Wareham, Massachusetts, USA. The company has failed to agree to a collective agreement for these employees, despite workers there having voted for union representation in May 2008. Please contact us for more information concerning our campaign for justice for Covanta employees.

1 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta Massachusetts environmental violations.pdf 2 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta DEP penalty 11-24-08.pdf 3 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta Pennsylvania environnlental violations.pdf 4 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta PA NOV 3-19-2009.pdf 5 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta NJ Newark env citations.pdf 6 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta NJ Oxford env citations.pdf 7 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta NJ Rahway env citations.pdf 8 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Citation Junel-09.pdf 9 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/OSHA Complaint SEMASS.pdf 10 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta safety citation SEMASS fire 2007.pdf 11 http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta consolidated complaint.pdf

Utility Workers Union of America • 120 Bay State Drive, Braintree, MA 02184 USA • www.cjcw.org Email : [email protected]· 781.848.3740 (tel) • 781.848.4108 (fax)· 7 July 2009

WMA-53


WMA-54

waste management committee · september 9, 2009 notice to the gvrd waste management committee 1:00...

Documents