THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM ENVIRONMENTAL PR~ON CO~8 Jl Wednesday, May +~, 1994 Meeting Room No. 2 2580 Shaughnessy Street. Port Coquitlam, BC 5:00 p.m. Pg~ li5@ PERSONNEL IN ATTENDANCE: CONFIRMATION 0,. hiINUTES OF PREvIOUS MEETING %5M I: DELEGATION: MR. ROBERT FELDHAUS - GRIPTION INDUSTRIES ITEM IE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT'PLAN REVIEW - DRAFT STAGE II ~E: OTHER P.USINESS glR~II: its'S ~]pic,e ll'&i(i( / I I~%I kl )/k% jig.'IS IKl g(l &tni sasRI" i )@ glliwl1 ~~&a aa III 'ae ill&ms' III aa "~=-—: Slitter~! Siaattll&biiss& t==.=::~...,. , ~ .u;::==-~II~ ~: l 1 m .-a ~ g Rf e;;.=; —.'- ~ ~ """~ ,'9 II ll iI5 g4':::-~~t-=:— — — —" ~~ ezs aset p +tean slgnmlkl w ~aaatssp$ 9s4IJLrjl ! iC — ~ = ~ -;--aiii7ti Iiiiilll&:"== ~ianna~if 1II atslg,, ~jig — — — ~ miami — THE CORPORATION OF THB CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE MlNUTES A meeting of the Environmental Protection Committee was held at City Hall, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquhlam, on Wednesday, May l l, l 994 at 5:OO p.m. in Meeting Room ¹3, In attendance were: Councillor M. Gates, Chairman Councillor R. Talbot, Co-Chairman J.E. Yip, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer F. Cheung, P. Eng., Project Engineer C. Deakin, Engineering Secretary The minutes for the April 27, 1994 Committee meeting were considered, read sr 3 adopted. ~C ITEM I: DELEGATION GRIPTION SERVICES — Mr. Robert Feldhaus from Gription Services explained that they would like to provide facghies in multi-family dwellings to encourage recycling. His proposal included containers that would be removed when full and replaced with new clean bins. Mr. Feldhaus anticipated that the profit would generate from all the newspapers and magazines they collected from the bins. Committee asked that the Deputy Engineer write a letter to Mr. Feldhaus thanking him for the information and to ask them to keep Comnuttee abreast of their situation. This item will be reviewed again at a future meeting. ITEM H: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW - DRAFT STAGE H Conanittee received this memo for information and asked that discussion be deferred until a future meeting. I IIIHt OTHER BUSINESS Secondarv Water Disinfectant Treatment Committee agreed with all staff reconunendations but further recommended that the following be added: In supporting Option 3b, consideration be given to have the project antortized/implemented over a longer period of tlute. This report will be forwarded to Council for final support and approval. Cont'd .../2 Itt tsra .IN I I'ls! 8Ii Igl) % lll')Pl NY 1 1 $94 il giB m ' ~ '.~ )'gtu lllglilgFI'I ~ II l)g l)M I '" ' w ttttaa u Igsc~'-'!:s: 'aiiliilii"."~ll,--:-',',""-.";;ii'i"::=".-'-='''l)iilli~=:-:;;='.",,'=-=: ':".:,:'."',:= b) T~lohone Book Recvclina Committee approved the three bin locations chosen for the collection of used telephone books. These locations included: Save On Foods parking lot at 1470 Prairie, Terry Fox Library at 2470 Mary Hill Road and the Recycling Transfer Station at 1675 Broadway. c) Citv Newsletter Counci1ior Gates asked that staff include Rater conservation, composting and the three receptacle limit issues in the next City newsletter. The Project Engineer will prepare draft for the newsletter. There being no further business the meetutg adjourned at 6:00 pm. Cou~dlor M. Gates NOTE CC: I&I K ln I lttIg / Ij M 1 ItBgg Il Committee Chairman Minutes not read and adopted by the Committee until certiTied correct by the Chairman's signature. Mayor and Councillors City Administrator City Engineer Project Engineer Project Technician 'I JEY/cd Dgutggity Engineer 'HAM 'I 1 '" &IIINWI g IN II Rl IW1masH ~ le ~ 811 ll —- Wlu=-a a III ~lama1 '~ ~ = ....".", ss»n ~zllae ~ " Whfgfgglg tf lt, ' slip 'll 'g -~ ~gRllSRe $9)t, si==--".,'",' '' ' 'III ~ "',',."snIII Q IK Fr m.Rob FF Iub * To L T u I . 3123)sh bb I*1 lb bs,)' I F,'d, 2 2oI2 2.-( ~ Q j I Ig@ 2,)b Gripti on Industries ih larch 29. (994 Honourable (h(ayor Lcn Traboulay Pod Coquitlam City I-lail 25SO Shaughnessy Pod (.oquitlam B.C. vgC 2AS )hhttention: Ilonoui'able hlay& r Len 'I'iaiiuulay Re: X(ulti-fami(y dwelling recycling pro ram Gfigtion Indus(i'Ies sees 3 ace&I loi I'CC&'alit)g In ihc high dcfish'I':n'1 I) ot thc Gie)I(l'I';nu aiivel Rbgion il District. A(l aptitment buildings 2nd con&la)nuiiums equipped hvith dumpbters that u c;»c:Ihh'aip ol'mvc liulr or no IVCyrling probr)ma available to thc rcsidcnts. Wc hiV. also ana)c that at onv. &imv (hcic w;IS OnC piOVi&lcd to your aiet by the cit& ol'oit Coquithim Th&ne is no longm a recyrlinb service that hre are aw'are of for app:utmcnts an&I condominums in the Patt Co&luitlarn are(I. Fof thi most patt these buildings therefore. instead o('ec)'clinb. put (hair rcc&a(able rci'use in th» &lumpsters. 'I'his increases the cast ot're(use rmnoval I'or these buildings an&I incr):ascs the spar&I at ivhich thc city 6 rcc clin elfort ta service multi-lamilv &I)Tel(in 3 ih lo ihe citvs')bnelit. 12nd (1((S )hill (v ( u We at Grip(ion (Fr(us(rica c oul&1 like to till this vo)d in the city rcc& cling pr&)&'rains b&'etting up a recycling ac)vice for these buildings. 'I'he seiv'ice is (unclad th)ough the 'user pays'rinciple:. fhere (could be no cost to Ihe city. We are cuitently ready to receive newspaper. cardboard. non-glossy junk mail. (aml something the city does not lake) phonebooks. We are developing a rervcling system tar glass and metal (lin& tnd expect it to be operational in the near li)tuie. We hsl'or Tour endorsement written or olhertvise. as 3 viable recycling scivicc ta your city and outer areas If you. or anyone cise would lik«more infoimation about this rec& cling sciv ice please call, write. or fa3C If coul&i lil'e mc lo (i(ten&I a council meeting to get a better undmstanding of bohr the svivice will b netit your city please contact us. asia( I] bm ~ hm ) ~ I 5 '5 ÃI I Rf I Ours fit)It (( i Robe)t Feldhaus Grip(ion Industries III( I Phone(i"-(1-0977 as g S 82-0974 S6(9-( $ 78& Suniy B.(.. VCN . Gg II%II Illlflll'I ' Mala(I% gt 1 NAP I I 2 I ii ~ SS II %('(sà g g~ « ~ m',)Ib,iglllll " '2 %IIII(5. ', )) a~ig~II b~ R~~~g~&lmg =— 'uh)t I il I'IIII 3 le 'g 9 Ia""II 'Y((sj I s ii& I)III( ~ MCI ~ ~ I I Ilia 2 I I It( ))r 3 u'"m Si n „, ib i risui S.=:1" 11)l rl bi I I )19i.IIIII Ij'(I jl I'I mj ':;:„'- .'== =Is+gUK ia - -: IRau) F2&2mb) ~ CSI $ ~ (2 ( I Satag - — --& I UMIAK(IRMIPR I — — a, j II(f ) c~ - — — I I ~ I(g(j-- (VIIIIi((j ~ INI u sI I 4 — ~ I I "Ili I s( Is sill gg' =; ., —; j luil 8 (I ',,'&+~:.+'-'i:,., j:,*Pg««I"j .', . DRAFT STAGE',2-:;REPORT Iil'. +g« iiri4 March 1994 fli'li NAY !i I! —..i ii 'l iI-,:-'-;= -.==.-:.—,",'-.——: -=: -'- iq ~ - -- i14 ., % ja~+ — &.="..'! liie-== =--'"I ...,, 1 '1'%4 'iI'~',"'-'mW"''.~ ILII',lI ~,4, 'L . III w '', ~g,/g[4$ I..III::::IIIP 4"4""---~~ ll44 ': ill": '~~I~~IC» s4IliiRI44 - 4ii liam&I $ 14iw — = ~--==iIi~itI~ — — == ': --~ == =- =&~~II -—— I ~ 5, '— — — " I TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Acknowledgments Section 1. 2. Pu; pose Background 2.2 2.3 3. 2 2 Provincial Regional District Funding 2.1 2 4 Plan Review Process to Date 3.1 Stage 1 3.2 Siege 2 5 5 8 The Recommended Solid Waste Management Strategy Introduction Key Recommendations 4.2.1 Province 4.2.2 GVRD and Municipalities Roles and Responsibilities 4.1 4.2 4.3 Programs Senior Governments and Manufacturers Residential Sector Programs 5.2.1 Source Reduction and Reuse 5.2.2 Recycling Programs 5.2,3 Garbage Collection Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&l) Programs 5.3.1 Source Reduction and Reuse 5.3.2 Recycling 5.3.3 Garbage Collection Impact of all 3 R Programs Market Development Transfer and Disposal of Waste from Residential and ID&I Sectors Demolition, Landclearing and Construction (DLC) Programs Household Hazardous Waste 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.7 5.8 6. 11 11 11 11 15 23 24 25 26 26 26 28 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 34 35 36 Summary Table Annex A '[ I reeve gggggggg -= = illl i IN lr ~ E r r I ':: .. fi Itrra INI N Bl af! I Il ':: ". -.; ~ shirr S III L ra LI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This draft Report describes a recommended solid waste management strategy, which is being provided to the general public and advisory committees for input and comment before finalization. Upon finalization and approval of the Repcrt by the GVRD Board and the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the strategy will be incorporated into a revised Solid Waste Management Plan for the District. The objectives of this revised plan will be to reduce per capita garbage disposal in the year 2000 by at least 50 percent and to manage the residual in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner. The recommended strategy encompasses a number of Key Recommendations developed by a technical consulting team lead by CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. in consultation with two advisory committees and the genera! public. This was facilitated under a public consultation plan managed by Boutilier and Associates. The reports of these two consultants are to be read as appendices to this report. The recommended strategy would achieve the Plan objectives. absence of new source reduction and reuse initiatives, it is estimated that the amount of solid waste generated by residential and Industriai, Commercial and Institutional (IC&l) sources would grow from 1.5 million tonnes in 1992 to 1.96 million tonnes in the year 2000. In the Recommended source reduction and reuse initiatives would reduce this waste generation by some 250,000 tonnes or 13 percent. All levels of government and manufacturers would contribute to this program through a number of initiatives. Major initiatives and the disposal reduction impact these would have are presented below. 59,900 tonnes 46,800 tonnes 29,300 tonnes 32,386 tonnes 23,385 tonnes Manufacturer Responsibility Program National Packaging Protocol Subsidized Backyard Composting Residential User Pay System Education and Training Other source reduction initiatives which would have a smaller, but still impodant, impact include: an expanded deposit/refund system for beverage containers, removal of subsidies on virgin materials, bans and tipping fee surcharges, government procurement programs, reuse promotion, and municipal planning and tracking of programs. These would combine to reduce projected waste by a further 59,000 tonnes. ! Rlg Jjps I Recommended residential and ID&I recycling and composting initiatives would combine to reduce year 2000 waste disposal by some 852,000 tonnes or over 43 percent. Recycling programs would be expanded to include 14-18 materials and composting would increase significantly for all residential and many ID&1 waste generators. IIIII /@I Wl,',=; = = /,(i ~) Single family urban residences would be serviced by curbside collection for recyclables and yard waste. Multi-family urban residents would have a collection service or access e q gj I 'J I I I I '1 IR l ~ i&q Igt& I& I lij jjiii i MAY11 t $94 I /jju t "'~'~ 'wll%i~j/„ Il,i@ I~ ~ ~ 8 I Il IL ' i IP~''„',,'',zPf ppij'g igggg ~g jail++ -- i i igsssRH RM I I I Ig — — ~ ~ gg g ~ gg I 8 ~ l ~ ggg — . j 5 [ j ) I I E gag g~ g i l, & ~ z&~~lail m y~- g j~~ of this amount. Initiatives which contribute to this reduction include the requirement for large generators to develop and implement waste reduction and recycling plans. These would be supported by bans and tipping fee surcharges on the disposal of specific Education, training, market development and improved recyclable materials. information exchange would support and encourage 3 R activities. Market development for residential and IC&l generated materials which are commodities that would be stimulated by a manufacturer responsibility program. Failing this, backdrop legislation, such as that requiring incorporation of a specified minimum content of recycled material in new products, would be invoked. Market development for targeted materials which would be marketed locally, including DLC materials, would include financial and technical support from the Province for research and development. Processing and marketing of recyclables and composting wouid continue to be done predominantly by private industry and non-profit organizations. Despite the estimated reduction in disposal resulting from the proposed 3 R programs, there would still be some 860,000 tonnes of municipal type waste and 387,000 tonnes of DLC waste which would have to be incinerated or landfilled. The collection and transport of waste to transfer stations or directly to disposal facilities would continue to be done by private industry except where undertaken by municipal forces. The average collection cost, in 1993 dollars, would be $ 78/tonne and $ 74/tonne for residential and IC&l sectors respectively. The existing facilities would continue to receive garbage until their permitted capacities are reached. The Port Mann Landfill would reach this level around 1997. This facility would be replaced by a new transfer station, and out-of-region landfill capacity obtained through competitive bids or proposals. The City of Vancouver landfill at Burns Bog would continue to receive garbage from the area it now services. This is subject to the completion of further studies to ensure the 1993 B.C. Landfill Criteria can be met, and to determine what this might cost. The capacity provided under the existing permit at Cache Creek may be exceeded before the year 2010. Should this occur, an expansion of the landfill would be negotiated with the operators of this facility. The Burnaby incinerator would continue to operate at capacity. All facilities would be upgraded to meet new and changing requirements and standards, such as the 1993 B.C. Landfill Criteria. The average cost of transfer, transport and disposal would be $ 62/tonne. DLC facilities would continue to be owned and operated by private industry, but would be more closely regulated to ensure planned disposal reduction and adequate environmental standards. The following table summarizes the major components of waste management under the recommended strategy, . I 0 VII'Jgajgg ijj YEAR 2000 WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL Waste Generation (Tonnes) Residential IC&I Total (RES + IC&i) Per capita disposal reduction as a % of 1990 per capita Waste Generation DLC TOTAL RES + IC&l + DLC Disposal (Tonnes) Reduction Thru 3 Rs (Tonnes) 898,600 1,065.400 1,964,000 408,187 452,177 860,364 490.413 613,223 1,1 03,636 1,116,000 3,080,000 387,000 1,247,364 729,000 1,832,636 Total per capita disposal reduction as a % of 1990 municipal and 1991 DLC per capita waste qeneration % Dlspo.'educti» r» * Tonnages for DLC wastes are very uncertain. The estimated cost of solid waste management under the recommended strata would be 293 million dollars for the residential and IC&l sectors. This is about percent higher than solid waste management costs would be if the 1992 programs 6 facility standards were to continue unchanged. However, the sources of paym» would be dramatically different. Funding from municipal taxes, which currently g most of the residential sector costs, would drop by over 90%. Of the $ 136 million residential waste management, only $ 11.9 million would be paid from municipal tax» The balance, with the exception of about $ 0.2 million from senior governments, wo( be paid by manufacturers under the manufacturer responsibility program, and by the who put out the waste for collection under a user pay system. The $ 156 million cost IC8 waste management would continue to be borne primarily by the generators excf this cost could be reduced by funds provided under the manufacturer responsibi program. The final division of costs between manufacturers and generators for residential and IC&I sectors would result from negotiations lead by the Province 6 held with manufacturers to determine the extent and application of their contribution. I 1 Information is not available to prepare a defensible estimate on the cost of solid wa. management for the DLC sector. An important element of the recommended strata for this sector is the requirement to install weigh scales and improve the informat; base for financial and environmental reasons. » TI e success of the recommended strategy would depend on all levels of governm» fulfilling these roles as described in this Report and the supporting documents. IV )i»e I~ I I II NAY 1 I ! [z Ipi&;;, e',"„,, JN:: '. —: = -' '~'"'.: ',. Ill»»»Is% ~ I~1 lie ~i s»»r i »» - 3m~»~~ m ~ ~ » I ~ ~~~ Il — fanl I Ijmj& I Ii o'' i' — ~ - ~ mB Ijl N Sl iliul - ale N j~limlI g imjgi~ ~ ~ I 'e-- — — Ig I II aa»c ",=',.",', 1994 ~:: ~ 'a SKK~ ~a~%1&a»»» ir»»»~ae» 1 N NIF «»w»» ~ »~I gi "jj -- --I 5 'jf~aj~ Acknowledgments This Stage 2 Draft Report was prepared under the direction of the Solid Waste Management Steering Committee. It summarizes the recommended solid waste management strategy for the GVRD which was developed by a team of technical consultants lead by CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. This strategy was developed through consultation with a Local Solid Waste Advisory Committee, a Technical Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the general public. This involved several thousand person hours of work. The consultation process was managed by Boutilier and Associates. GVFID staff provided support through development and management of consultant contracts and logistical assistance. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks provided staff, guidance and funding. The Federal government provided funding assistance. The Project Manager, on behalf of the citizens of the District, expresses thanks to all the individuals in the above organizations and members of the general public for their commitment to the Plan Review as evidenced by their hard work, patience, untiring support, constructive criticism and personal time contributed to the development of the recommended strategy. The names of current committee members and key personnel are listed in Annex A. To these should be added the many members of the public and former committee members. STAGE 2 DRAFT REPORT 1. purpose This draft Report describes a recommended new strategy for the management of solid waste within the Greater Vancouver Regional District. This strategy is being presented to facilitate public and stakeholder discussion and input on its acceptability. The objective of this strategy is to reduce per capita garbage disposal by at least 50 percent by the year 2000 and manage the residual garbage in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner. Th!s objective was established by the GVRD Administration Board under the terms of reference for a review of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan which was approved in 1985. The Plan is to cover the period up to the year 2010. This draft Report provides a summary of the strategy recommended the review technical consultants CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd., and describes how thisbystrategy was developed. The April, 1 994 Report titled "Comprehensive Waste Strategy" by these technical consultants, and the Interim Stage 2 Public Management Consultation Report by Boutilier and Associates describe the recommended strategy in detail and document the process used to date in developing it respectively. These two reports are to be read as appendices to this Report. It should be noted that some of the recommendations in this Report differ from those in the CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. Report. This results from changes made to reflect the input and decisions of committees established for this purpose for the Plan Review. These changes are noted in this draft. ~ I H IIBIIIllll e1!N~l"g! gg jn r. m N aa Fr ~ ias mieagj[~ 55INilW Ilh %+ ~ I I 11%I I 6NI~ / (3&~ii .38 I I NINFIIQIN RRK e&mes II'.%el The draft Report will be finalized following consideration of the input now being from the general public and discussion within the advisory committees. It will sought then be processed for approval by the Ministry. Upon approval of this Report, the recommended strategy will be incorporated into a Revised Solid Waste Management Plan for the Region. Stage 2 Draft Report Page 2 Background 2.1 Provincial ln August 1989, Bill 58, The Province of British Columbia Waste Managen Amendment Act was passed which required that Regional Districts submit new revised Solid Waste Management Plans on or before December 31, 1995. These to provide for the management of all types of waste generated within the iRegion exc biomeoical and special wastes other than household hazardous wastes. The Plans to include strategies for reducing the per capita disposal of solid waste by 50 percen. the year 2000. The 5 Rs in order of importance, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYC RECOVERY and RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT are to be applied. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks issued Guidelines in 1990 describin planning process which would satisfy the approval requirements of the Minister. Th call for a plan to be developed using input from advisory committees and the gen public. They also state that a three-stage process should be used, with each st, producing a report which: Outlines the present Solid Waste Management system and options improving it, and recommends which of these are to be evaluated in Stage 2. (Stage 1) St~ Provides detailed analysis of options recommended in 1 identified subsequently and then recommends which of these should be inclu~n Revised Plan. (Stage 2) Describes the Final Revised Solid Waste Plan for the Region wl incorporates the recommendations approved as a part of the Stage 2 Report. (Stage 3) 2.2 Regional District The GVRD Board established a Solid Waste Steering Committee in March, 199 direct the development of the revised Solid Waste Management Plan for approva the Board. The 1990 Ministry Guidelines were adopted as the planning proc framework, a Project Manager was appointed and two advisory committees w, established such that work was underway by May, 1991. The organization for the Plan Review is illustrated on Figure 1. The membership of committees is provided in Annex A. Under the Ministry definition, the per capita garbage disposal rate in the year 2 should be reduced to 50 percent of the 1990 per capita waste (garbage, recyclab and compostables) generation rate. However, the per capita waste generation rat the Regional District has been and is, in the absence of increased source reduction reuse, expected to grow at an annual rate of about 1 percent. Therefore, of the year 2000 per capita disposal objective as required by, the Mi~~ necessitate source reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives which reduce per ca disposal by more than 50 percent of the projected year 2000 generation rate. ac~n II~~~~/ ~~WV III~viIarmR h — ='. ='mIIIIIIIII Il ~ : IN' II lI 8 l ~ a at a . I I I j h I t lliiiii. lnnmrl jiiimit I i III ,Illiiil Si I t I r all ~ hll 11 tiflLI Itlj, l::: ~I I I I IV I.. .., I" Ill I I I ~ h~ I jijiIim Ii I I I Evaluations S Cost Control Subcommittee jml jj ll., Project Manager Education Dept. GVRD Solid Waste I Management Dept. Evaluations Contract ""'""""'""'" .I Local S"lid Waste Advisor)I Committee (LSWAC) 'jj Iljt I Iilm I GVRD Communication a I li.ah rs Technical Solid Waste Advisory Committee I tTS WAG) IHIII IIIIIII. FIQUflE 1 GVltD Solid Waste Management Plan Revlevr Organ)sat)one) Chart I II f III)EJ ~R 'll 'I ~ ~l %BI lllfjjiI j )f4%8 Stage 2 Draft Report 3, Page 5 Plan Review Process to Date 3.1 Stage 1 Stage 1 began in MaY, 1991. The Report which was developed during Stage contained two main components: 1) an overview on the Plan area and how the waste generated within it is managed under the 1985 Solid Waste Management Plan and 2) a description of options recommended for evaluation in Stage 2. I The overview of the Plan Area and waste management activities was prepared largely by staff of the GVRD Solid Waste Management Department. The recommendations on options to be evaluated were developed by the advisory committees and interested members of the public. This was done through 10 advisory committee workshops and six public forums. The focus was primarily on which options under the first 3 Rs {Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) should be evaluated in order to develop recommendations which would reduce per capita garbage disposal by at least 50 percent. The Stage 1 Report was approved by the Steering Committee in January, 1992. Board and Ministry approval and agreement to proceed to Stage 2 was given at the end of May, 1992. Pertinent information on the Plan Area and associated solid waste management activities have been extracted from the Stage 1 Report and are presented below with some updating of figures. This updating uses information from a Waste Flow and Recycling Audit which was recommended in the Stage 1 Report and was completed in 1993 for the Regional District by CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. and other associated firms. The area served under the 1985 Plan and the Revised Plan is shown on Figure 2. The population in 1990 was 1,654,705 and is now projected to grow to 2,067,000 by the year 2000, and to 2,497,000 by the year 2010. For the purposes of this report, municipal type wastes include all recyclable, compostable and disposable wastes from the residential and ID&I sectors. DLC wastes are considered a separate waste stream. /PiNie jNI III j/ The total municipal type waste generated in 1990 was estimated at 1,423,000 tonnes. Additional waste from demolition, landclearing and construction {DLC) is estimated at 830,000 tonnes for 1991. In the absence of efforts to reduce waste generation at source, the municipal type waste generated is projected to grow to 1,964,000 tonnes by the Year 2000 and to 2,620,000 tonnes by 2010. DLC waste is estimated to increase to 1.116,000 tonnes by the year 2000. ita generation of municipal type waste was about 0.86 tonnes per Review Objective is to develop a strategy which would reduce per sposai to 50% of the 1990 generation rate, i.e., to a per capita 3 tonnes by the year 2000. Page 4 Stage 2 Draft Report estimated amount of residential and ICBI waste generation for the year 2000 is 1,964,000 tonnes. Funding 2.3 Cooperative arrangements resulted in the Plan Review being funded by the GVRD and the Provincial and Federal governments. I IHIII IIIII I I~ IIBNI 4 I Nl I IlIIIIII,J (¹~llgm ,I IIII w IIIIII ~Ilail lyra w3~ 'I,tie I ill%I% =.'III !IrllI94II; ;:;, I'---" "-'l I U Ia I I I I . I 'a i P ~ I I INNNNISINJNNI ~ " "=""lil MAY ~ 8 —: ~ NI ~ I II% INIINI~49 NNIIIsalls jgII ~ ' ~I NNN, — -MNN NIN q~@ 11 Il49 II It II I a 4 rr=— I ~ %$ N "Nil lsa4 I I M I ~ II " II SN II44I I I I I I ~ mNI IIII 4":~9.—— -'-'9%ii I ~ IN, NININeI- INI I I Sk, IINI--ll I II s 9 a;;~il~acN NN, ~ I I KS I 4 1 1SA 9 wag ~ II ' 1 es4~ RINMm9999fl Ss Ill 'JI,~IW 'IMI I .I ill„ i;-;"=Slit ':-'=-1111 — ''Rill i \ lll III4I 4I4 I I I I W IIJ T I / I I i I ill I'I'I I II ii Iii II! 'Ii III, ~ ~ ~ sal ~ I ta IW a I ~ DICT I ~ W ~ II ~I Ih Ii4 44Ii VII Sl/ / Il I II .I i . Ij y ii i iill II 4 II BIII"I I '+DTWDOCT — C I II laawnaa DICT Vcassh ~ aal ' slsolal I lists ~I J",2 / f$'LIIII' ILsllat I a ssa ~ sat sltsla I I I'I II LI I ill '4 C 0 r I I I I I llllall r —— j I ~ D II ~ I IOI ILSSIS ~ L 0 I : Ol ILasasc " Ill ~ a 51 SL" ag I ~t ~ la I I I W oOttt~ ,...r /i asasnlsss DOI «sall ~ IL I llgi I Lr I I ag I I CCan COICCP I CCOtsal I ~ SSCO Talltt OCOIONCL OIDTOICT I ~sa il8 I I" 'II',e ' W' i ii ~ I I II Illa''!lI ILlstl I lla MW ' s ~ 1 II I I I4 III I I II IIII Ig II II FIGURE 2 EMEHT as RECVCLING FACILITIES I I I I 44 IO 4 '4T SWIWS I II CTI 0 ~R I !HI I & Ol IIII aaebg R~.-.:.--" +~ %88 ncm i~I= aw IS I ss I I I I s sa ae 8 I I =.s'tj~ml -~11 == I I I s . „'.a~51 i ISIis 11 I le'sil am Ft&3 anageinent & Recycting Facilities 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Recydlng Dynamics Inc. (RDI) -23638 River Road, Maple Ridge New West Gypsum - 44 Spruce St., New Westminster Newstech Recyding -1050 United Blvd., Coqultlam BA Blacktop - 6 Riverside Dr., North Vancouver International Paper (IPI) -132 Riverside Dr., North Vancouver Mohawk Used Ob Service - 130 Foresler, North Vancouver Paperboard Industries - 1860 Broadway, Port Coqultlam Columbia Bitulithic - Mitchell Island, Richmond Richmond Steel Recycling - Mitchell Island, Richmond Rich Van Holdings -15300 River Road, Richmond Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. - 9200 Van Horne Way, Richmond ETL - 12345 - 104th Avs., Surrey International Paper (IPI) - 955 W. Kent N., Vancouver Paperboard Industries - 7678 -132nd SL, Surrey International Paper (IPI) - 955 W. Kent N., Vancouver Pacific Metals - 8350 Ontario St., Vancouver Paperboard Industries - 85 W. 1st Ave., Vancouver )'IIIt; l~ lbll'lt( I:Ilia It) Ik! INI R iilallt 'S II! 8'I I ! $ I I ter III tb I s libre ~ t t(!I!ii (I' Ililf'b It Bumaby - 4800 Still Creek, Bur naby New weslminsier - 6th 8 McBnde, New westminster North Shore - Riverside and Splcer, North Vancouver Pitt Meadows - Harris Road, Pitt Meadows Richmond - 5555 Lynas Lane, Richmond Vancouver - 377 Kent Ave., Vancouver ii. lml i I I i ii, il I I.II I I lib)lb( yl ~ I 11114! Out-n!-Region Facilities 58. li I al'll Sill o' r I Municipal Recycllng Depots 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. ' O'III = Cache Creek Landfill I la I Ilai I Iimhlll u I ~Is s I Miss ul iI'' i(II /g I IS I si L%'s'il I I sila au Ii Ilii,b iilil i tii I I'I : I I ~ N~-;glim R~~ ~ I ~ ~~,'~~S ) i I +~/',SIP ~gasasb IIISawa g I b 'bib)i —— ~ i, b I 8 r ss rwsr a I I I S i gl I I I g r h w 'lq $ I I iim I 8 I i I I , Iil(I .,i PIN P lll i i :rl -:"=3'iahm Page 8 Stage 2 Draff Report TABLE 1. Provides the most recent information on waste generation, recycling disposal. an TABLE 1 Disposal Tonnes RecycledTonnes 691,550 809,050 1,500,600 592,250 540,050 1,132,300 99 300 (14 4%) 269,000 (33.2%) 368 300 (24 5%) 830,000 2,330,600 424,000 1,556,300 406,000 (48.9%) 774,300 (33.2%) Waste Generation Tonnes Residential!1992) IC&l (1992) Total (R & IC&l) DLC (1991) Total (R 8 IC&l 8 DLC) The location of the waste management facilities are shown on Figure.2. The facilities and their locations are described in Figure 3. The annual capacity of the Residential and AC&I waste disposal facilities serving the Region is 1,173,000 tonnes, However, this will be reduced by 180,000 tonnes when the Port Mann landfill closes. This is scheduled for 1997. 3.2 Stage 2 The purpose of Stage 2 is to develop a recommended solid waste management system for the achievement of the Plan Objectives. This required the evaluation of options identified in the Stage 1 Report and additional options which were identified as Stage 2 proceeded. It also required consultation with both advisory committees and the general public to facilitate incorporation of local knowledge and values into the evaluations and Msj the development of the recommended system. p The approach used in developing the recommended system involved the use of independent consultants who undertook their work outside the influence of any single stakeholder or interest group. This involved the engagement of two consulting teams. One team headed by CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. constituted the technical consultants team. Boutilier and Associates were the public consultation team. Wljji% )iAA' Requests for proposals were used to select both consultants. The Request for Proposals for the technical consultants was based on the recommendations of the Stage 1 Report and was reviewed by the advisory committees. These consultar,ts were selected through a two-step process and the decisions were reviewed with the advisory committees, and subsequently approved by the Steering Committee and the Board. jjj ll /$ 'i Ill."fala Il Nl ll la I rg Mj Kl IIII I% I I'l. 11 ! The technical consultants were required to independently develop a single recommended strategy for achievement of the plan Objectives, but at the same time do IIII lm'll].'5 I e ~ ~ ~ aam— I a ~ effloi ai maanEi~ „e ~& R ! aRShlli~~ a ~ a ali ': o eea as II IIIR ~ 'e a I I I ~ '~ I 11 I Iral M,— — . 4 5 lg fI g S trna ii I ~ earn, llew, ala iaa 8A 1 ANflljlla, — — '1'&lAAAI1 I I g I I a a I Mll.- = == aajgpmf = ~ ~ l I a il Stage 2 Draft Report Page 9 this with due consideration of the values of the community. criteria for the evaluations were: 1. Promotion of waste reduction, reuse and recycling 2. Cost effectiveness 3. Minimization of environmental and social impacts The three fundamental The technical consultants followed a procedure which began with the preliminary evaluation of all options, the integration of the most viable of these into a "long list" of separate systems and then the short listing of these. This was followed by more detailed evaluations and the development of a draft Report containing the recommended system. Consultation took place with the advisory committees and the general public at key points during this procedure. Figure 4 illustrates these points. ~ EVALUATION OF OPTIONS OETAILEO EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAOEMENT STNATEOIES W~mma(i+a I ~ FIGURE 4 Evaluation and Consultation Process 4m''4I The public education and consultation was managed by Boutilier and Associates under a public consultation plan which was reviewed within the adv!sory committees and approved by the Steering Committee. The detailed description of the implementation of this plan is provided in their Report tit(ed Interim Public Consultation Report which is Appendix 2 to this draft Report. The technical consultants'raft December, 1993 Report titled "Comprehensive Waste Management Strategy" was reviewed within both advisory committees in midDecember. These committees met again in mid-February, 1994 and developed positions on the acceptability of the Key Recommendations in the Draft Executive Summary. The SteedIng Committee then held a workshop with the consultants to review the Key Recommendations and the associated positions of the advisory committees. J]gi55i Esm', ILmmft ll hagi fa nmg I SIR ' MI4g ~ - '4R (~M EIIISN ~ i'(iMilRR H IM(f eel m The Steering Committee modified seven of the Key Recommendations, such that they differ to some degree from those recommended by the technical consultants. The Key Recommendations, including these modifications comprise the recommended strategy which, along with this Draft Report, is presented for review and comment by the general public. These Key Recommendations are presented in Section 4. 8'll 'III' F:i:=..i 'II 4 I I I se( I I ES 5'4'%4ml - eNII 54 l5IIS ~ me ESSe'44 I IE s IS S I ; I'e 11 ep ( T~l I(I SP~ E E I I 4=: =RE= I ~ ee I MMI SM E4 EE' ~ lee i III~m ieemNI~RIEI55 5MMNIE4 - — 455 4j '515~4MNM(=-- —.: ~ —— ~e&a~ a e 5%5I1 IIIR la-,"; lee — '-'ill (g ~g+l% IIKaar ieeee II := e=miK:,-. ~l ~ iessa ~j„ I" i3 15ll~~~e~'SIC &MBI 5ll! 5 ~ear'II'IM ILSlerm= il a &,eha eee ass IR ~! $ ee ~ M lee I el I ill mme W1% Rhmeee e 1 ~ % ~~ere'FS ) ll -= ~irrrh~ — -:JJII Stage 2 Draft Report Page 10 The technical consultants then considered the positions of the advisory committees and the Steering Committee and completed the final April, 1994 titled "Comprehensive Waste Management Strategy". This Report is to be read report as Appendix 1 to this draft Report. a NY f 1 @g Stage 2 Draft Report Page 11 The Recommended Solid Waste Management Strategy 4. 4.1 introduction The solid waste management system recommended in this Report is a combination of many recommended interdependent and interrelated activities and initiatives under the Key Recommendations. The success of this strategy requires the implementation of al! these activities and initiatives. Therefore, approval of the recommendations in this report must include a commitment by all levels of government to fully implement them. 4.2 Key Recommendations The technical consultants developed a set of Key Recommendations which combine to make up the recommended strategy. In some cases, these recommendations were modified or reworded by the Steering Committee after consultation with the two Therefore, there are some differences between, these advisory committees. recommendations and those made by the technical consultants in their strategy document. Footnotes describe these differences. 4.2.1 Province For more information on these and other recommendations, please refer to the index of detailed recommendations in the CH2M Hill Report: Comprehensive Wast Management Strategy f. The Province, and the Federal Government where jurisdictional authority exists, should implement manufacturer responsibility programs for all packaging and shortlite products not included in the beverage container deposiVreiund system. Phase in manufacturer responsibility for durable products as a second priority. En ure that the responsibility for markets for recyclable and composlable materials is included within manufacturer responsibility programs. All funds derived from this program should remain dedicated solely to 3R programs. Contribution from manufacturers must be maximized and should extend lo all sectors.' ln this recommendation, manufacturers of certain products would be required to help pay for the costs of recycling and disposing of their products when they become waste. For example, newsprint manufacturers would subsidize the costs of recycling and disposing of newsprint. In the case of manufacturers located outside of B.C., the contributions would be collected at the first point of sale in the Province. ~ Funds collected would be dedicated for the management of the products as wastes, rather than going into general revenues. t The Technical Consultants did not endorse extending responsibility to all sectors because il has more difficult to implement. Their been proven effective elsewhere, and would make the program then consider expansion at a later "short-life" products, recommendation was to start with residential only residential recycling and to suppon provided would be manufacturers date. Funds provided by perhaps composting programs. IL I IIIt I II lliii! =.-:=-'==1& rag 'ettII / IA erasstetsmi t, ItLI'IIIl '1 I'Il 5 ~ ~ II I h I 1s (5 Il~ilgg/~( a The Technical consultants did not see a need to link the recommendation to the current gFs hierarchy principle, given that the Province has already developed its general approach to new beverage container deposit legislation. 1 t . 1l s Is ~ I $8 I Stage 2 Draft Report Page 13 The National Packaging Protoco! has a mandate to reduce pactcaging waste from 1988 levels by 50% by the 2000. The protocol includes educational campaigns provision for regulations as required. an The manufacturer responsibility program stands to affect the practices, and must be compatible and consistent with the policies of NAPP and the CCME. manufacturers'ackaging ~ It would be the responsibility of the Provincial and Federal governments to ensure compatibility and consistency of their programs. 4. Provide targeted r'ncentives to stimulate and support the development of markets for selected secondary materials. The province would study and observe the supply, demand, and market constraints of specific recycl ble materials, and implement appropriate financial or, other incentives to help develop markets for them. Those incentives could be grants, loan guarantees, R&0 support etc. ~ 5. Such specific, targeted incentives are expected to be more efficient in stimulating and developing local and other markets than incentives broadly applied to an entire recycling industry sector. Increase provincial government procurement of reusatles or products of consumer secondary material&. po In this recommendation, the provincial government would develop and implement formal policies specifying that the products and services that they purchase would meet certain standards for reduced packaging, minimum recycled content, etc. Eventually, other organizations and businesses could elect to adopt similar policies. Procurement policies for large organizations ensure a degree of market demand for products and services which are environmentally superior, and support the development of better practices among suppliers and purchasers. ~ G. ~ The purchasing departments of the provincial ministries, crown corporations and the purchasing commission would be responsible for developing the policies. Evaluate subsidies on virgin materials and adverse impacts on waste management and remove where appropriate. Industries that process or extract virgin materials often enjoy subsidies, grants, loan guarantees, or other financial advantages which industries that produce recycled materials do not. These would be reassessed and revised to provide a "level playing field" between virgin and secondary materials. Technical consultants'ecommended considering post~nsumer rocycling minimum content legislation at a later date, cnd then only if other manufacturer responsibility programs are unsuccessful. 3 The IIHII~i Page 14 Stage 2 Draft Report The financial advantages which virgin materials may receive can unfairly prevent secondary materials from being cost effective or competitive with virgin materials. The provincial and federal government ministries responsible tor administering virgin material subsidies, grants, etc. would be the ones responsible for reassessing their use. 7'. Establish a life cycle assessment task force within 180 days of approval of the Stage II SVVMP Report4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) involves the quantification of all environmental impacts from "cradle to grave" to allow objective compadlson between different products or processes. Numerous organizations worldwide are presently working on developing methods and standards for performing LCAs. A task force would be established to monitor, review and participate in this work. is a field which is still in its infancy, and widely accepted methods and standards do not yet exist. Should it achieve a sufficient level of sophistication and acceptance, LCA has the potential to become an extremely important tool in waste LCA management decision-making. The Province would establish the task force, with representation from stakeholders and government as it sees fit. 'III'he 8. Ensure that adequate backdrop regulations (e.g. minimum material utilization rate) are in place fo take effect should measures implemented in the GVRD waste management plan fail to achieve waste reduction targetsin the ICB/sectors. Province wt,uld bring these Regulations into effect should the manufacturer responsibility programs fail to reduce materials and develop markets as required. R. Develop and distribute IC&I waste audit and reduction plan guide documents to the Develop a formal GVRD, 'ocal municipalities, and waste generators. communications strategy that complements those being developed for the various regional districts. (I@I A formal guide would be developed for IC&1 waste generators explaining how waste I'im I%'I'I Management Plan. II% 5 tfiiI I IIIIII lmll ill i III'Sif fl w~ ls ~ I IPPIIIft II II I ~II Iar i i IMIIP sd I Il I I I I I I I I II% III' I Ifb I I =-: ', g ~ I I llbb ~ I 'I ll II b! ~ l '' 'at lb i I le II I Pl ' I I I I III ' tiib I III I IIIIIIIi i P PP411 I I I I ll 444st 4 I b Salh II wa lbSIIIII IIISI ''144~ I I „ I I'S I I LI'Litt ~P Ill.l I P irP ~ b~ltlw PIPP I III IIIII II jjl - - -~SI ISlbi l~ I II I IIII Pbh I II I NYj f594 ll'I '5li II tl ssi, m I '! Il.ilail 4 The Technical consultants'riginal recommendation did not include a timeline. Their belief was that it would be presvmptuous to dictate a schedule to the Ministry. and that the schedule was an implementation detail that was not intended to be part of the strategy. I I 11Ml la II This would ensure that the audits and plans carried out in the GVRD are equitable and consistent with each other and those in other regional districts, should they also adopt this approach. III Imil ~Ill audit and reduction plans are to be carried out. Waste audits and reduction plans would be a requirement for large IC&l waste generators in the new Solid Waste IIIVI lll bb I I I ~ ~ II II I I P I lt I 'lijll IIIII bPP I Stage 2 Draft Report This guide would be developed by the Ministry for use by a province. 1 0. Implement the BC Landfill Criteria and viork with r governments to provide improved regulation and recoveryltransfer and disposal facilities. ~ In June, f993 the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Park for Municipal Solid Waste. This document specified criter siting, design, operation and closure of municipal solid w amendments to the Waste Management Act have been provincial, regional and municipal governments to mor practices of facilities which handle municipal solid wastes. The operating conditions and performance standards of so facilities require improvement, but close regulation of thes possible. ~ It is expected that the Province will continue to be th regulating landfills. The Province, regional districts and m industry stakeholders, are presently in the process of dete and responsibilities of improved regulation and en recovery/transfer facilities 11. Sponsor and cooperate with the IC&t sectorin research an and expanderf markets for secondary materials and ide reductions and source separation technologies for DLC was F Ilail P I RR BRED II& RSI I I ' , IMWN ~ ~l ~ mmi ltiitl (II ~ m Funding for research and development of new markets an and DLC waste reduction, reuse and recycling would Specifications and other constraints on the utilization of reuse would aiso be reviewed. Industry and governments already make some expenditu markets and techno!ogies for the more "traditional" recycle relatively little has historically been done for DLC wastes, material it represents. '158~ Increased funding for this purpose would be the responsibility of the Province. Q 4.2.2 GVRD and Municipalities i Ill illl For more information nn these and other recommendations, please refer to the index of detailed recommendations in the CH2M Hill Report: Comprehensive Wa ~ Management Strategy )'( Ifli P~Lllll Fii iii JI II NI I% PP Il Pll IS i IP f IIIII IP P PI II 'I If,l -'II I I I I I P I ~ I P ~ ~ : \p I la~= ~~ I I I 'I gg %$ 1 I ff PIP sa I I I 'l I ~ ~ Il I ~ I I F I I II I ~ ~ PP NI I4 If I ! a II IIII l% III IIIIIIPI IIIIm/ @Ill II ~ II II 'P I,P PsSPN I I IIPP I I I / ' ' PNHII I I tl! Ihl II II WIi III IIINM Stage 2 Draft Report The GVRD should set performance standards 1. programs to be delivered by municipalities while municipalities to decide how to meet the standards, K programs that should be implemented by municipali ties i variable-cate based user-pay systems that rei residential waste collection, residential recycling, s of recyclinglcomposting costs not covered b orograms subsidized backyard ccmposter programs curbside collection of yard waste offered to all sing expanded material categories (14-18) expand service areas so that all households have either curbside collection or drop-off depots ~ To ensure that the user pay system is not, or is not s for solid waste, other than general administration exp municipal taxes. The user pay system would then costs of the service. The GVRD would require that the key waste reduction and above recycling initiatives be applied to all municipalities in the District in a fair and equitable manner. The municipalities would have flexibility in determining the exact methods for implementing these initiatives, to accommodate their particular needs. ~ [Ling ~ WSmii !I@5 The initiatives iisted above have been shown in other jurisdictions to be effective in reducing per-capita waste disposal. In order for the District to meet or exceed the provincially-mandated goals, it will be important for all municipalities to be consistent and aggressive in their waste reduction and recycling efforts. The GVRD, in conjunction with the municipalities, would set the standards for application and performance of these initiatives. Implementation and administration of the initiatives would be the responsibility of the municipalities. of waste inventories for ali IC&l and reduction plans for all waste generators in audits waste and require generators IC&I generators would be required All exemptions). (with sectors and DLC the IC&I These lorm to the GVRD. inventory waste simple submit a to conduct and size above threshold recommend a GVRD staff to inventories would be analyzed by which waste audits and reduction plans would be required. The threshold would be established for a target coverage of 90 percent of dry recyclables, 90 percent of yard waste, and 50 percent of food waste generated by the IC&l sector. In the DLC sector, waste audits and reduction plans would be initially required for all developments greater than 2,000 square metres. 2. The GVRD should require the preparation I'I ~ .'il i ~ i IIII Ia ~ ~ mls 5 IIII'S I[i" 'lI'si I ~ 444 I i Saba ss' I III d, of the All IC&i waste generators would be required to complete a simple inventory one-time from this information The generate. amounts and types of wastes they activity would be used to decide which generators would be required to perform an fi 'iji] i I. I V III g 4!4RS ia jII. jl'III IIII'gilt~~ -',=,'.=,~™~—: alll alai I "Iv iil 5ljjj( lg"-''-"z la Sla l ~ I -: =-= i afliL'.:=.= — t IVL aa ~s- iir —.Wial I: I- a 'I IIIL ~ . I I — ~jir . l IS I 111 I I I'Sl l4I I 'kllk(lt IIII~ ii I I svhavmlvi ij' illjij a l I I 111 V 1 1$ 4 ill ii, Wn j j jLjt,;s%8gha jjr— "- — - . "'S 4 Sv " l II ~ . I '- ~ :~ '.liiiiilllf; '. ~ I'IVII Vaa Ill II -;;; Nit jii ~RIsa aa v'v a S II Va fla 4 a a~4IVI ail Stage 2 Draft Report Page 1T audit of their waste practices, and develop a plan for how their wastes could be reduced, reused or recycled. ~@!55 Information from waste inventories is necessary for implementation of subsequent initiatives such as waste audits and reduction plans. In other jurisdictions in Canada and the L.S., mandatory waste audits and reduction plans have been used effectively to increase awareness and activity in reducing and recycling wastes from IC&l generators. ~ The GVRD would develop the waste inventory forms, and would, in conjunction with the municipalities administer the audits and reduction plans. If necessary, these required activities could be tied in with business licenses. 3. The GVRD should require source separation of designated recyclable materials by all IC&/ and DLC vraste generators (with exemptions approved by the GVRD). Of/site processing of mixed recyclables is an acceptable option for ICE I generators, ~ Large IC&l and DLC waste generators would be required to separate certain materials on the site, and have them recycled. The designated materials would be those for which there are reasonable recyciing alternatives to disposal. The generator would not only keep the recyclables separate from the garbage, but also separate them into various categories (e.g. glass, metals, paper) for recycling. However, some generators might be unable to provide sufficient manpower and space to source separate their recyclables. An acceptable alternative would be for these generators to keep their recyclables separate from their garbage, but place them into a single container for an offsite processor to collect and sort. At the very least, generators would have to separate recyclables from garbage; they would not be allowed to send mixed garbage and recyclables to a processor. in order to meet or exceed the provincial goal of a 50% decrease in per capita disposal, recycling would need to become mandatory for large IC&l and DLC waste generators. ~ ~ ~ 8 The GVRD and the municipalities would enact bylaws and possibly include mandatory separation of recyclables as part of a generator's business license. I 4. The GVRD (or other appropriate governmental body) should develop and apply a system of operational certificates and!or waste management stream licenses'for all waste processing (recycling and composting) facilities and all DLC disposal facilities. For processing facilities, the G VRD should set standards and ensure a level playing field while using existing private-sectorlmunicipality processing and marketing capabfiities and capacitiesin a flexible and competitive manner. 'III Wg fi siiii II 4 11415 ~ 'I f5411! I ! I ft Il III I I I I j 4 I Operational certificates could specify minimum standards for the operation, performance and/or environmental conditions of a waste tacility. regulation and control of waste facilities have not been sufficient to prevent some facilities from causing adverse environmental impacts, and/or from In the past, U 4$ MP IIIII I 4~ ~111 1818111 IIVIIIIII II'LlH"i] 11 II 'till IIII P 'i Lili IIII fit ~;,„ 11'l I I 11 li IIRI fit!14I II I I l 4 Page 1B Stage 2 Draft Report operating questionable transfer and disposal sites under the guise of recycling facilities. Currently, the Province, regional districts, municipalities and industry stakeholders are in consultation to determine the details of operational certificates and/or waste stream management licenses, and the roles and responsibility for applying them. ~ 5. The GVRD (or other appropriate governmental body) should implement a system of This permits or licenses for waste haulers operating within the GVRD. recommendation may be applied as a backdrop measure. As a last resort, local waste haulers would be, as a condition of their continued operation, required to obtain licenses or permits that would control the disposal facilities to which they could deliver wastes. Due to juriisdictional and manpower limitations, there has historically been relatively over the dumping of wastes in inappropriate locations. These inappropriate locations include public lands, ditches, and private disposal facilities with inadequate environmental safeguards. Permits or licenses for waste haulers is viewed as a means of ensuring that more of the waste stream is disposed of at facilities designed for that purpose. little control Currently, the Province, regional districts, municipalities and industry stakeholders are negotiating to determine the need for waste hauling licenses, and the roles and responsibility for applying them. dRI ~ 1 6. The GVRD should coordinate with member municipalities to procure additionalinvessel composting capacity. &+II It is recommended that the private sector, which currently provides the vast majority ~ of the region's commercial composting capacity, be allowed to create or expand existing facilities to accommodate future growth in organics processing requirements, Should this appear to be inadequate, government would establish a centralized composting facility of its own, or could contract with the private sector. It is recommended that this additional capacity be "in-vessel" or enclosed in nature to control odours, and manage a wider range of feed stocks!and particularly food ll1 ISIS! I 4rr wa tes). l 8% I II If implemented fully, the initiatives in this recommended strategy would significantly ~ Ilj@Hj ~J increase the amount of compostable organic material diverted from disposal. Therefore, additional composting capacity would be required in the region by the year 2000. I! ~litchi The GVRD and member municipalities would determine the need for a centralized contracted or public sector composting facility. J j N j 4 I llkll 3 m 4 !444 I I1 ' ~ '4 I R II4IIIrres& rs &,« I r SlI llilll4rsrr, RjlBc. rm ' -', r"-"'-'' = — I ~ — —' 1IMI ~ 9ll rm — ~ 'l'Rnf 4» NtY l - '' 'sS E'II I l 41r 44 r 4II f5m ~ ~ gfii!(,,... r rl rrrrrr r rrr rlrri&i& sss rr II4 rr~ 4IWI !if 4'4444! 7. As soon as acceptable afternatfves to disposal are operational, phase in disposal bans of recyclable and compostable materials generated by the residential, fCtff and DLC sectors at all disposal facilities. ~ii,I! iI) I f'LIM IF '„JS!ri 1 SS4 411!r»r~e R~ I ~ ~ NI~+4 yjijLrlemIi5i era; AR 'g a4III II Page 19 Stage 2 Draft Report Recyclable and compostable materials for which there are reasonable alternativ~ to disposal would be banned from all disposal facilities. One prerequisite banning a material would be its ability to be easily identified in a waste load by visual inspection. f~ Disposal bans give complementary support to other initiatives, such as mandatory source separation and recycling bylaws. They also give waste haulers an incentive to help ensure that waste generators are complying with the disposal bans. ~ Disposal bans at GVRD facilities would be enforced by the facility operators; bans for the same materials at private DLC facilities would be monitored by the GVRD to ensure compliance by the owner/operator. Maintain the current system of standardized tipping fees at GVRDfmunicipat disposal facilities, and use differential tipping fees and tipping fee surcharges to support program implementation at all disposal facilities (including DLC) to support 3Rs program implementation. Currently, all of the publicly operated municipal solid waste disposal facilities in the lower mainland charge a uniform tipping fee ($ 69 per tonne), regardless of the actual cost of operating that facility. Some of the excess revenues are used to support recycling, education and other 3Rs programs. It is recommended that th'" system be continued. Furthermore, surcharges and differential tipping fees (eg. waste loads that have not complied with mandatory recyclables separation be put in place to further finance 3Rs programs. bylaw'ould IIIII @ Without standardized tipping fees, wastes would be hauled from all other municipalities to the facility that has the lowest fee. Also, revenues to help finance waste reduction, reuse, and recycling programs might not be available. I'I The GVRD would continue to set the tipping fee in the region, and would determine differential tipping fees and surcharges. III lf practical on a site specific basis, maintain staffed recycling depots at all transfer, disposal, centralized composting, and multimaterial recyclables processing facilities in the region. ~ It is recommended that areas be added at all transfer stations, landfills and other processing facilities in the GVRD for staffed depots at which residents and businesses could deliver recyclable materials. However, some facilities would not provide depot areas if space, safety, or other considerations did not allow them IRw 4a IM ISR IR l% R'l4 IRII1 lt Drop off depots at waste facilities would serve to complement the onsite collection of recyclables from homes and businesses. They would likely accept a wider materials than could be collected from the generators'ites, and would provide range~ if aaiie i outlet for recyclable materials throughout the week. MlI et l )IIII I I IILIII I UI 8 1 44 L » ~ I III I Illlf IJ I II 'illlnlw~; III 44 rnutalwlewl IIFill'ii ~...I'Ii~ri4 'LII oil I( I LIIII ~~--- ...~imam ~ .& st ml ~ IIII (/if l ill ...l448RII:u,' 5 NI 4' Riias II I p I III' il r = -" '- 'I4II11%'. all II ',~ ~c~ — "-- -- Ii ~ 4 I ~ E— -~, Wgggt ~ II I I e 2 Draft Report Page 20 Responsibility for providing, staffing and administering the depots would be egotiated between the GVRD, municipalities and owner/operators of the facilities. Expand public informati onfeducati on programs targeted at residential, ICE/ and DLC The GVRD and a/l municipalities should develop formal generators. ommunications plans, and develop ongoing programs of audience research to upport overall educational promotional campaigns. An extensive list of education and promotion programs is recommended in the new trategy. Specific program targets are suggested for the Federal government, Provincial government, GVRD, municipalities, IC8 establishments, recyclables rocessors, and environmental organizations to implement. It is also recommended hat the GVRD and municipalities document (as formal communications plans) their nticipated educational and promotional programs. I ducation and promotion are vital to the success of the new Solid Waste Management Plan. The basic principles and philosophies of responsible waste management must be communicated to the public in order to effect significant ehavioral change. In addition, the public must be made aware of all the new olicies, bylaws, bans, facilities and programs contained in the new plan. many IC&l establishments, recyclables processors, and nvironmental organizations will have the responsibility of implementing some of the ew educational and promotional programs. All levels of government, The private sector should continue its role in providing processing capacity for esidential and IC8l recyclables under competitive conditions. The GVRD could ssistin the development of cooperative arrangements among local municipalitieN. .Il At this time, the private sector and non-profit organizations process and prepare for market virtually all of the residential and ICt'I recyclables in the Region. It is @IIII recommended that this continue, and that any required future capacity be provided by the private sector. It is also recommended that, if requested to do so, the GVRD could work with municipalities to form cooperative arrangements for recycling collection and promotion. ~ 12.increase government procurement of reusables and products containing post consumer recyclable secondary materials. sgl . lnlj u,; j IIIIjyi,i i ji i b' The private sector's current capacity to process recyclables is more than sufficient, and its potential to expand that capacity to meet the projected demand up to at least the year 2000 eliminates the need for government to involve itself in creating its own facilities for that purpose. M ~ In this recommendation, the GVRD and municipalities would develop formal policies specifying that the products and services that they purchase would meet certain s The Technical consultanrs recommendation was that the GVRD offer a regional marketing service at the request ol some or all of its member municipalities. isa.,„~"-'-'''':",."".. '' -'=i =--.'-"-';„~~--'="-'"iljjffll,llisyIIj~is Ijtl&RH+~='.', "':„„-.-=salmi: efii~&&~ L.f'~acme ::~Ia~~lr — . ~~55%ws laealltllfgt Ip sixmi IfiilliNIIIT%IIII~IIIQNIRRINs % lilt ~~jjgf llj g ~ „,~I I s 'ww~+ 'u'j% — ==::. ="'=. = —-., "'" ljjjj /'III I III I'll'I."l, ' ' == ':.—.'.' !: zunsesa&=:, -".; wKIIII ea gI ja+ I I~julIIu INwu '" ' - ~ ~ — Ij li' I )~ II Eaas ~ ' I 4ati I laii a I / g&& i I I I !ISJac& qll aIIIstiIII WHM1%$ 54EP II l mmslRIIIII! =v' si . I/I ~i ~ggi I~I f i . NAY 1 t res— — — =-~mmisl Il+&f% lI~+IIIRIIi II II) ''+ffl~ji I u&a&s jlu isji' I I i " ~ ii ui ig g a aa s r III flj~g IijNs,,l-.~ 19tl a s ~ m& la~,g g age 2 Draft Report Page 21 standards for reduced packaging, minimum recycled content, etc. Eventually, other organizations and businesses could elect to adopt similar policies. Procurement policies for large organizations ensure a degree of market demand for products and services which are environmentally superior, and support the development of better practices among suppliers and purchasers. The purchasing departments of the GVRD and municipal governments would be responsible for developing the policies. . The GtfRD should develop a waste exchange database for alf'aterials. recommended that the District develop a computerized service by which generators of waste materials which could be reused or recycled could find potential users of their specific materials. Such a service is currently in existence for industrial wastes, and is operated by the Recycling Council of B.C., but at this time the system is not fully operational. In particular, diversion of DLC wastes from disposal could be increased by inclusion in a waste exchange program. It is Often the reuse and recycling of materials is hampered only by the ability to place a generator and a user in contact with each other. The current industrial waste exchange service has been shown to be effective in diverting some materials from disposal. . Market development (f.e. technical advice, grants, loans) should become an integral part of municipalities'conomic development function, and be viewed as a local strategy for both waste reduction andj ob creation. Municipalities should include economic instruments and other incentives to develop markets for recycled materials and recyciing technologies. This should be included in the mandate of each municipality's economic development department. In order for the recycling and composting initiatives of the new plan to be successful in the long term, adequate markets must be developed and/or maintained and supported for the utilization of the recycled materials that will be produced. By including market development within economic development, it is recognized that recycling creates more jobs (on the basis of tonnages or investment amounts) than disposal, and that potential secondary industries such as remanufacturing add to the true value of recycling. . Municipalities should support the establishment of local reuse and repair centres. The municipalities would promote local reuse and repair centres, and if site specific conditions allow, the GYRD and municipalities would establish salvage centres at Landclearing The Technical consultants'ad recommended a waste exchange database for Demolition, Council of BC already d Construction wastes, nol alf wastes. Their reasons were Ia) the Recycffng cost-effective and are most exchanges waste Province, for the Ib) crates a waste exchange DLC. such as propriate when focused on certain waste sectors and material types, continue for the foreseeable future. However, initiatives that would be implemented in the new Plan may cause changes in the characteristics of the waste stream going to the incinerator. This in turn may cause changes in operation of the incinerator or properties of the ash streams that warrant reconsidering its operation. 20.Continue operating the Vancouver landlill at Burns Bog subject to the outcome of the facility evaluations recommended. NAY 11 $94 Page 23 Draft Report s been recommended that a number of specific additional studies be conduct e Vancouver Landfill such as seismic, stability, leachate properties a The results of those studies cou ation, and groundwater conditions. term use of the facility. mine the appropriateness of longer GVRD should fulfill the existing contract with Wastech for transportation and osal of waste at the Cache Creek landfill unless changes in environmental, cial, or operational conditions warrant otherwise. Permit for this landfill is held jointly by the Village of Cache Creek and Wastech. District would continue to use this facility under the existing contract until the full itted capacity has been utilized. bject to the results of Recommendation ff18 and as the end of the existing ract with Wastech approaches, the GVRO should enter into discussions with tech to develop acceptable tern:s for expanding the Cache Creek landfill to ide extended disposal services to the GVRD.r uld the Village/Wastech not be successful proponents for the Port Mann Landfill cement capacity, there would be adequate capacity under the existing Permit tisfy the District's disposal needs providing the per capita disposal objective is under the Revised Plan. 3 Roles and Responsibilities RD has the overall responsibility to ensure, within the limits of its authority, the effective implementation of the system which is created by the Key mendations for the Revised Plan and therefore the achievement of its es. This includes making every effort to ensure all parties, and particularly vels of government meet their. responsibilities. It also means the District must the resources to fully implement the measures which would be its direct bility. vince would be required tn provide the legislative framework required to enable ntation of recommended activities and to regulate facilities, including disposal outside the District. The Province would also establish manufacturer bility programs which reduce waste products, develop markets and provide support the waste management programs for the municipalities and the IC&l strict would establish standards for recycling and composting programs ken by the municipalities primarily to serve the residential sector. It would be for this to be done under a consultation process including all municipalities. ID&I and DLC sectors the District would require large waste generators to and implement source reduction and recycling plans and would I establ Wastech for echnical consultants had also recommended that in addition to negotiating with or bids to proposals competitive for request issue a expansion of Cache Creek Landfili, the GVRD should needs. disposal waste future for terms contract market-driven receive the most favourable " ll +III ls »Rl»IL ~j Il hslWt5 I Il~iilliIMIIIlfaaallf jj( Smiilllj Ija I & ' I i, ~I~ % W»I I MRS» —— ww saILI sa ps I M enamel ( I / aa»i ~&iBIHw~~ IIII jim f aaaasati~ — —'illia I Stage 2 Draft Report Page 24 disposal reduction incentives to drive these plans. Also, the District would inspect the operations of facilities for the processing of recyclables and compostables and for the disposal of DLC waste. Regulatory measures would be taken as required to ensure the waste reduction and recycling plans are effectively implemented, and that all privately owned facilities are operated to control the flow of waste and meet environmental requirements. The District would continue to manage those transfer and disposa! facilities for municipal waste which currently are their responsibility and would establish required additional facilities. Also the District would, in the absence of adequate private initiatives, cooperate with municipalities to procure composting capacity for food wastes. municipalities would continue to pian and operate the programs serving the residential sector up to and including the delivery of garbage, recyclables and compostables to transfer, disposal and processing facilities. They would do so in accordance with standards developed by the District. These would be developed in consultation with the municipalities. This would require acceptance that the standards must be such that the Plan Objectives would be met. They also would continue to operate transfer and disposal facilities which they own. All Private industry would continue to pick up garbage, recyclables and compost from ICB and DLC generators and some residential waste under arrangements with certain municipalities. The provision of services for processing and marketing of recyclables from all sectors would continue to be undertaken by private industry except where provided by non-profit organizations. The ownership and operation of in-vessel composting facilities and DLC landfiils would remain an industry responsibility. I Large ICBI and DLC generators would be required to respond to financial incentives and disposal bans by reducing their garbage through the development and implementation ot source reduction and recycling plans. Members of the public would create less waste as a result of programs which provide incentives for source reduction, reuse and recycling. They would now pay for waste mostly in accordance with the amount they, as individuals, purchase and put out for pickup, instead of through their municipal taxes. Also, as interested members of the public or as representatives of public interest organizations, they would assist in the implementa'.Ion of c.mmunication and education programs. tw LI I N I ( $ I Siii~asi II II~ IS IIIIIIiILIil levels of government, institutions, business, industry, public interest groups and individuals would have a role to play and a responsibility to ensure that the communications and education programs, so necessary for the success of the recommended strategy, are effectively planned, coordinated and implemented. All 5. Programs The above Key Recommendations would result in a Revised Solid Waste Management Plan made up and/or supported by the following programs and initiatives: III Rill!I [ II I== Li IISt S IIIL5ilS NAY jjmg/, Stage 2 Draff Report 5.1 Page 25 Senior Governments snd Manufacturers The senior governments and the manufacturers would play a vital role in providing incentives and support for source reduction, reuse and the development of markets for recyclable commodities. Also, the manufacturers would provide significant funding for waste management activities which have historicaliy been paid from municipal taxes. The Province would provide the legislation needed to ensure manufacturer responsibilities are met and to enable management of the pickup, transport, processing and disposal of garbage as required to achieve the disposal reduction and environmental objectives of the revised Plan. Estimated costs in 1993 dollars and reduction in garbage disposal are provided in Table 2 for senior government and manufacturer responsibility programs. TABLE 2 Reduction in Garbage Disposal end Costs - Year 2000 Waste Stream of S96,600 Residential and 1,065,400 IC& I tonnea. Residential Sector Prooram Tonnes ID&I Sector Cost S'000 Tonnes Cost 6'000 21,478 2.4 7,307 38,456 3.6 ~i 1,802 0.2 811 2,133 0.2 960 1 1,008 Procurement Removal of Subsidies Guidelines for Waste Reduction Plans Education 2,298 TOTALS 46,503 Totals may not add due to rounding. 1.2 1,939 35,830 7,014 14,808 3.4 0.7 1.4 5,073 2.400 8,372 0.8 745 106,613 10.1 19~898 Manufacturer ResponsibiTttv Expanded Deposit/Refund System NAPP 0.3 5.2 The costs would be distributed as follows: Residential generators: $ 2,684,000 IC&l generators: $ 6,500,000 Municipal taxes: $ 200,000 Senior Governments: $ 2,694,000 Manufacturers: $ 1 6,026,000 150 10,207 I lS ~ Page 26 ctor Programs Reduction and Reuse would be the subsidized backyard composting program ar,d the hese would be supported by expanded education programs and of specific recyclables or compostables. Reuse/repair programs Overall program success would be planned, tracked and reported. osal and the cost in 1993 dollars of source reduction and reuse in Table 3 for the year 2000 residential waste stream of 898,600 TABLE 3 UCTION IN GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND COSTS ll~ II1 IIIIRI8% Residential Sector IIIII WW Kll IIIIHIII . SS II! I ( TOTALS lt=lI IS II I 1! I ll I I'III '!I' II I I! III f't l lI tvr %I I 'I 111 5 II I 1II ~ 65,179 7.3 3,472 $ 75,000 $ 3,397,000 ~ Existing programs would expand, such that 14-18 types of recyclable materials (preferably in four streams) and yard waste would be picked up or taken to an expanded system of recycling depots. ~ All urban single family residences would have available a container, such as a blue box or bag for weekly curbside pickup of source-separated recyciables. Yard waste would also be picked up weekly during the 9-month growing season but bi-weekly I 1 15 Under Recycling Programs: I l I%I 1! I II%A ~ 'III I V 0.1 0 5.2.2 Recyciing Programs Slits'1 III 3.3 3.6 0.3 $ '000 1,348 75 1,860 100 74 i )If xl I 29,300 32,386 2,298 838 357 Municipal generators Municipal taxes I ll I I Tonnes The costs would be distributed as follows: I II I! rW III II Activity Backyard compostino User pav Education Reuse/Repair centres Annual Reporting of S.W. Plans Disposal Bans during the other three months. The charges for collection of recyclables and compostables would be less than for garbage and would be phased in. I I I I I' I I ~ ll I NY 11 IS4 II i%I li5I'tf~ leuc I I I 118%58 5 .=: RSI Ill ~ ',«(~. SM ~ Recyclables Recyclables SUBTOTAL Single Family Res. Compostables Multi-Family Res. Cornpostables Rural Compostables SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL Recyciing and Compostfnt3 Education Bans and Admin. SUBTOTAL TOTAL 5,389 0.6 878 252,694 108,282 28.1 12.0 44,771 17,497 14,951 1.7 1,265 2,806 126,039 .3 14.0 217 18,980 III,III 177 IIIII li IjilllI4l 151 aii iit IIII' 378,733 378,733 378,733 IIII 1,24n 3.681 4,921 42.1 I 68,672 ii'ijI Rural Family Res. 13 181 I'I I 'SR IR II 1 I Totals may not add due to rounding. The costs would be distributed as follows: Municipal taxes: $ 8,463,000 fr It l'll l! III iilil 1 'l I EE7II I II II Stage 2 Draft Report Page 28 Generators: $ 60,209,000 minus the negotiated contribution from manufacturers. The processing and marketing of recyclables would continue to be undertaken by the private industry and non-profit organizations. Existing municipality and private composting facilities would, with some expansion, provide the needed apacity for organics. I~Hi 5.2.3 Garbage Collection 1 Collection of garbage from residences in the urban area would continue to be done by municipal forces, private industry under contract to the municipality or, as often is the case, by private industry from multi-family residences. The year 2000 collection for garbage and transport to transfer or disposal facilities would amount to 395,672 tonnes at an average estimated cost in 1993 dollars of $ 140/tonne. 5.3 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&l) Programs 5.3.1 Source Reduction and Reuse The major initiatives would be the mandatory development of waste reduction and recycling plans by large generators and supporting incentives in the form of bans and tipping fee surcharges on the disposal of specific recyclables and compostables. Significant education and training programs would be provided to support these plans. Procurement policies by all local governments, support for reuse/repair'centres and the planning, tracking and reporting on overall program success would also be important initiatives. The reduction in disposal and the cost, in 1993 dollars, of source reduction and reuse initiatives are shown in Table 5 for the year 2000 waste stream of 1,065,400 tonnes. II~ I TABLE 5 REDUCTION IN GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND COSTS g$ Nllmillj 4E4 IC& I Sector I ~ illE li ill l Activitv III I» I'I I I IIII Gov't. Procurement Traininc of Generators I III %I 4 I II I I Reuse/Repair Centres Annual Reporting 11 I 4 Bans/Surcharoes 'I IIII I. 4 . ll I TOTALS Municipal Taxes IC&l Generators Ill 0.3 1.0 0.2 0 800 120 500 86 1.5 81 3.0 1,587 E The costs would be distributed as follows: ,ii$ $ ,1 ~ I $ '000 3.548 10,417 2,092 424 16.380 32.881 I II f II I Tonnes ~ $ 1,542,000 1'l A%11 SS4 I I 411 E Em 6 4'I I ~ ~ II gl I ~ IE I j!ll Iiill il I'i E I 441 II,I I I I,I ~ 1 III I ' 45,000 I I $1 I'l I I I I I4 I' '»I II 4l- IN Illi ' ~ I I from compostables and garbage to Allowing recyclables which have been separated streams, or as a commingled be put out for collection in several source separated Ill/ load. I%I e II 4 SJ,9JJt JJ% III 1114 I 'l 441 I'ill I 99 1 9 199 W J I IIIINj '9 i ejls 4 P 5 'ii I 9 'Nji I 9 9 191 ~ ::". I I ~ I''Jd 141 I ~ I I I Id I I I I 11 bans, establishment of disposal Providing incentives for recycling througli the fees. tipping fee surcharges and increased tipping and recycling plans, to compost Requiring generators under their waste reduction food wastes, delivered to Regional their own yard waste or have it, as well as their composting facilities. and marketing of recyclables would Services for collection, transport, processing industry. Existing facilities would continue to be provided predominantly by privateof materials which would result from provide adequate capacity to process the quantity of the Revised plan. The residuals achievement of the disposal reduction objective are commingled would be regulated to ensure from the processing of materials which enough to achieve this objective. the percentages of recyclables recovered is high ' yard wastes would be done at composting Th e processing o the organic food and industry. Current y, 'I' nd operated by municipalities and privateex ected f aci ities owne d an these facilities and would be expec e too ex p and private sector operates all food waste with coordina',e would expansion, the District as required. In the absence of such composting capacity. municipalities to provide additional in-vessel nnes of ICOSI 1,065,400 tonnes 1993 dollars of collection and processing and the effect'veness the year 2000 recyclables and compostables generated in garbage disposal are shown in Table 6. these recycling initiatives in the reduction of Nfllf ~ I ' Id 11 —.mddf 4 ~4 ~ '1 ~ I 1 1 WP II Ijll I! I! ! I ~ «e «« I I Il I liee=- «I !II«I' i! I«a Collection and transport to disposal some 319,000 tonnes of waste from IC&l generators in the year 2000 would continue to be almost totally done by private industry at an estimated cost in 1993 dollars of $ 136/tonne. 5.4 I) j I I 5.3.3 Garbage Collection !«Ie el Impact of all 3R Programs The combined impact of all recommended source reduction, reuse and recycling and the cost in 1993 dollars of initiatives and programs is summarized in Table 7 Sk Ifl'III I II ' ~ ~ II Itm'I [ lil58 flan le usl! e! I liI lg'sl« III jj ii( III I) II! Ill l l 'Illii ill i ieleI "all !I I 'I I a!i ll! I I'Ill Iil li It! ! II I I I ii I I U ~ ~ I jli e l " SPI Uli ~I I I t IIIj I U IU. e &jiili i III« I I ' I I . Ilk la! 8 l,ll I II I in MAYj ~ !eel« I«e . «UIIIII «— ~ «I I I '! « I I ! Ilr Page 31 Stage 2 Draft Report TABLE 7 REDUCTION IN GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND COSTS FOR YEAR 2000 WASTE STREAM Residential Waste Steam = 898,600 IC& I Waste Stream = 1,065,400 Tonnes tonnes Programs & Initiatives Senior Gov'ts & Manufacturer's Reduction & Reuse GVRD Municipalities Tonnes 46,503 5.2 65,179 73 Cost Tonnes Cost $/ $ /000 Tonne $ '000 9,899 10,207 219 106,613 3472 53 32,861 3.0 1,587 44.771 18,980 4,921 177 38n 8 36.2 8.2 66,068 12,789 82,351 168 1 0.1 1 $/ Tonne 187 I Reduction & Reuse Recvclincl 252,694 126,039 28.1 14.0 Comoostinc & Recycling Composting Admin. 490,415 TOTALS AND AVERAGES Totals may nol add due to rounding. 54.6 151 171 146 3„449 613,222 57.6 103,792 169 Therefore, the total impact of all 3R activities under the proposed strategy would be the avoidance of garbage disposal amounting to about 1,104,000 tonnes. The cost about $ 188 million, except for $ 14.8 million which would be funded from the municipa tax base, would be paid by the manufactuiers of products and the generators of the waste. The proportions paid by manufacturers would be negotiated with the manufacturers, leaving the balance to be paid by the generators. of~ 5.5 Market Development The development of markets for recyclables and compostables woulcl recognize the existence of two market places for selling recyclables for secondary processing and incorporation into products. These are the international market and the local market. lani,o e a s t ~ 'I i & I'l I''l l sl ' l I llll l I lii I I I I ~I I'1)i; III. N ln ': — = I I 9 niif I '" i ig, ll ~I 41 ill Pi fl I I Ilil I I I'I II I Local markets pertain to products which are not normally processed and markete~ internationally. These include compost and DLC wastes, such as asphalt, concrete drywall and some wood products. Development and improvement of these markets would be supported by the Province through financial and technical assistance for facilities and for research and development. Iiiih i,li I I III I i[I I llll II ~ 114 i: Ihl I I,!l" II I The international market is changing and expanding rapidly. Products in this market are bought and sold as commodities and flow freely across international borders. The continued development of these markets would of necessity continue to be left to private industry. However, the manufacturer responsibility program would create incentives for industry to develop these markets further and quicker. These incentives would result from the impetus to reduce recycling costs because manufacturers would be required to pay all or a part of these under the manufacturer responsibility program. Backdrop legislation containing minimum materials content legislation would provide further impetus for industry to improve markets. Ii '..'; l l ' I I Sl ~~ I ~ ,I I 41 Stage 2 Draft Report Page 32 Government procurement programs and the removal of subsidies on virgin materials would also support the development of markets. 5.6 Transfer and Disposal of Waste from Residential and IC&l Sectors Despite a reduction of some 1,104,000 tonnes in disposal through reduction, reuse and recycling, about 860,000 tonnes of residential and IC&l waste would remain to be landfilled or incinerated by the year 2000. This could grow to 1,039,000 tonnes by the year 2010. The closure of the Port Mann landfill scheduled for 1997 would result in a short fall of available capacity. The program recommended for transfer and disposal of residual waste takes into account both costs and environmental impacts. An acceptable site for an additional landfill in the Region could not be identified. %IISirat'll I Rl III Therefore, additional capacity will have to be provided by either more incineration capacity or an out-of-region landfill. Incineration has an advantage over landfilling in that with proper care of the ash, there is less adverse impact on water resources than with landfilling. However, this difference is minimized for a landfill in a dry climate area, such as Cache Creek. On the other hand, incineration is more expensive than either out-of-region landfilling and/or landfilling at Burns Bog. The air impact studies performed for this project have suggested that it has a greater adverse impact than landfills on the air environment even when the impacts of long haul transport are taken into account. This is particularly so for the low level Regional contaminarits, such as the nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and particulate which are of significant concern in the Region's air shed. Therefore, out-of-region landfilling is recommended as the most acceptable means of providing additional capacity to handle wastes which would have gone to the Port Mann landfill had it remained open. Also, out-of-region landfilling would be used in the event it becomes necessary in the future to reduce or stop the landfilling at Burns Bog, The program to provide adequate transfer and disposal capacity to the year 2010 would include: ~ I I I I The early construction of a transfer station in Surrey and the establishment of outof-region landfill capacity to handle and receive the waste that would have gone to the Port Mann landfill, had it remained open. The majority of waste received at this facility originates in Surrey but it does receive waste from nearby municipalities, including some nuisance and industrial wastes. The transfer station would have a capacity of 200,000 tonnes to provide a contingency margin and also to provide for capacity beyond the year 2010. The disposal capacity to replace Port Mann would be obtained through an immediate request for proposals or public tenders called by the District. The Port Mann landfill currently receives about 140,000 tonnes of waste per year. With the disposal reduction under the Plan, the amount of waste generated within Surrey would be about 117,000 tonnes in the year 2000 and 165,000 tonnes in the year 2010 based on a disposal rate of 0.42 tonnes/capita. The contract would be such that the guaranteed minimum garbage tonnage would not become an impediment for reductions in per capita garbage disposal beyond the ~ gg11 99 Stage 2 Draft Report Page 33 50% level. The use of 3 to 5 year contracts would be considered as a means of ensuring this. ~ The continued operation of the Burnaby incinerator at an operating capacity of 240,000 tonnes per year. Its operating standards would be upgraded as necessary to meet changing requirements. This facility annually produces about 45,000 tonnes of bottom ash and about 7,000 tonnes of fly ash which is classified as a special waste under the Waste Management Act. The bottom ash would continue to be used as road construction and cover material at landfills until such time as other markets are developed through the efforts of the District. The fly ash would continue to be placed in secure landfill cells until the District develops or proposes recycling or other disposal methods which are approved by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Continued operation of the City of Vancouver landfill at Burns Bog to receive garbage from the area it currently serves. Future operation and particularly expansion to new cells within the existing permit would be in accordance with the June 1993 Provincial Landfill Criteria. This continued operation is subject to the outcome of a technical review commissioned by the City to confirm that the June, 1993 Landfill Criteria can be met, and to determine what this would cost. The modification of the existing operating plan for the Cache Creek landfill to affect compliance with the 1993 Landfill Criteria and to make available the additional 2,000,000 tonnes of capacity provided under the permit. With achievement of disposal reduction objective, this permitted capacity would satisfy the District's disposal needs to the year 2010 providing Cache Creek landfill is not successful in the selection process for replacement of the Port Mann Landfill. However, if it is successful, there would be a need to provide capacity beyond that available under the Cache Creek permit. This would be accomplished through negotiations for and expansion of the Cache Creek Landfill beyond its present permit area. Contrary to the recommendation of the technical consultants, this additional capacity would not be obtained through competitive bids or a call for proposals by the Distdlct in concert with these negotiations. ~ the Monitoring of the adequacy of the waste transfer capacities for the Coquitlam Resource Recovery Plant and the Maple Ridge Transfer Station. This would ensure early warning of capacity shortages resulting from faster than anticipated population growth or lower than planned per capita disposal reduction. ~ The costs of transfer, transport.and disposal of garbage and the residuals from recyclables processing along with costs of garbage collection are summarized in Table 8. ~ I II' I ;;I ~ ~ 1 I11 I III ~ 111 I I IIW II I II III ' I II I' II " !II ~ jlii " '- a JI,e =- Stage 2 Draft Report Page 34 TABLE 8 IR Residential Sector IC81 Sector Tonnes $ '000 $ /Tonne Tonnes $ '000 $ /Tonne 395,672 30,772 78 319,374 23,634 74 Activity I Collection I Residuals from Processing Transfer, Transport and Disposal 12,515 TOTALS 408,187 132,803 25,351 62 56,123 137 452,177 28,083 62 51,716 114 In total, about 860,364 tonnes of garbage and residuals would be managed at an estimated cost of about $ 108 million, or an average of $ 125/tonne. The inclusion of residuals from processing facilities lowers the average estimated cost for collection, transfer, transport and disposal of residential and IC & garbage which are $ 140/tonne and $ 136/tonne respectively. This cost would be paid for by generators except for that portion provided under a manufacturer responsibility program contribution. I Demolition Landclearing and Construction (DLC) Programs: 5.7 Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling programs and related activities include: Mandating that all large DLC waste generators must develop and implement waste audits and waste reduction and recycling plans. ~ Smazmll IySSSI8 — 4 —— II i4 11 z ~ i44mli I 5 4 r4K I! 4 M PR 4I 4l I ~ Imposing tipping fee surcharges and bans on matedials for which there are markets. This would require weigh scales to be operated at all but very small facilities. These would also provide additional information necessary to plan and support disposal reduction measures. Surcharges and bans would be supported by education and enforcement programs to minimize illegal dumping. 4N! t8 Supporting market development through the provision of funds by the provincial government for research. Also, a recycled product task force would be formed to review current standards and remove barriers to the use of recycled asphalt and concrete where it is reasonable to do so. gili$ il4 44 I 4 ! ~ Establishing a waste exchange database to facilitate matching the needs of waste generators and waste reusers. Initiation of education and training programs to modify traditional attitudes and practices. These programs would be developed through a stakeholder promotion lg II+111 8 ~ Bll I Ilea! llÃH 4I I I! RW ii iiiiii 'IIII!Iif Ilia liii 'I and education organization. The ownership and operation of DLC transport, processing, transfer and disposai equipment and facilities would remain with private industry. However, these would be regulated to ensure: 4N I II »41 nfl g4 '; : i~ III f4' II I 19II4 — i 411 I I I %44 I II I .14:' I ;:= MWI ii ~ ICi 1I ~ . ili8 41 = -Ii = li Iii I I I"':- — I I 1 41 'I i ~jgg iurN4iin I Ill i i ='! mI ~ ~ ii1... ii'" ~ ~ II ~ I ,",IIII: 4 IIRlf!4i41441114'Irllw4 I fl ri4 I 4 1i m 4 4 I I, ;'Pi I ~I II I iit ~! Page 35 Stage 2 Draft Report Processing facilities remove required recyclables and transfer the residual to approved disposal facilities. The direct haul or transfer of DLC waste to only approved disposal facilities. Facilities are operated to acceptable environmental standards, such as the 1993 Provinciai Landfill Criteria. ~ however, A lack of reliable information precludes an estimate of DLC materials flows, Table 9 provides at least an indication of the waste generation in the year 2000 and the degree to which disposal might be reduced by the above 3 R initiatives. TABLE 9 PROJECTED DLC MATERIAL FLOWS YEAR 2000 Potential Generation (tonnes) Material 564,000 62,000 170,000 320,000 1,116,000 Concrete/Asphalt Gvpsum Wood Other Total IIIII .~='- )I iajjsti] 56,000 6,000 85,000 240,000 387,000 I Generation 90 90 I 25 65 61 Household Hazardous Waste 5.8 the The Province is initiating a household hazardous waste program under which and recycling receiving, for responsible become manufacturers of hazardous products is a recent disposing of the household hazardous waste from these products. This consultants. technical the addressed by initiative by the Province and therefore was not landfill disposal bans implement Plan, .Revised under the would, Region However, the household and education programs to provide incentives for generatorsendto return facilities in the up hazardous wastes to the manufacturers so that they do not serving the District. III~I $1 la — — I 3Rs Percent of Potential Disposal (tonnes) Per capita disposal as a '/o of 1990 psr capita osneration I/@Ill (II Reduction Reuse Recycling (tonnes) 508.000 56,000 85,000 80,000 729,000 ~ f~iItilll tm4 ": WS I'Iii ".: lr4:''"- ',,, ll lit III PASt~',",, lr II I! II Ilse 1!! 4 I! ~ I ii I I=== I I II 144 = — =: ' "'4! !ejt4lg 4 I' Iln .9eieje~ — !,s!4s4! jgg,' '"=' = ' — ~'. 'Ines — IIfittsi r r- — "(g/PIIj4 (I'g I/ g $ — ii '':: a ia j44 — .. ! 'I I I II I ~I I, .35jg,=;"= "=::,;,;;; gg~il; "',,','llLJl,~g)Jlljs ',ll, ~4ii i~i ( II/() el e II O'I @I I IIII I I I I I Xl II S! I S ."" 44M!44j - N maasis4%%4 ~ "~lsiie! ~ ~ ~le 9 jl jg~ IM Stage 2 Draft Report ' Page 36 Summary Tabie 6. RECOMMENDED STRATEGY - YEAR 2000 Tonnss $ '000 (1993) 8/Tonne SYSTEM COMPONENTS Potential Generation Residential 898,600 1.065.400 1,964,000 j.1 16.000 3,080,000 ID&I Total Potential R + IC&I DLC Total Potential ail Sectors Source Reduction and Reuse Residential GVR 0/Municipalities Senior Gcv't/Private Sector 65,178 3,472 53 11,680 13,378 219 Av. 122 32,862 106.613 139,475 1LQQR 21,486 48 187 Av. 154 251,155 3~51 64 Av. 140 252,694 42,857 6,834 170 27 252,694 49,691 197 126,039 15,181 3.799 120 30 Subtotal Residential ~4'f iC&l GVRD/Municipalities Senior Gcv't/Private Sector Subtotal IC 8 I 1,587 Subtotal Source Reduction and Reuse Recycling - Collection and Processing Residential Dry Materials Collection Processing (net and revenue) Subtotal Dry Materials Organics Collection Processing (net of revenue) Subtotal Organics 126,039 18,981 151 Subtotal Residential 378,733 68,672 Av. 181 386,105 53,343 16,174 69,517 f38 180 87,643 6,993 5,796 12,789 80 66 146 Subtotal IC 8 I 473,748 82,305 174 Subiotal Collection and Processing Res. +ID&I 852,481 150,977 Av. 177 IC &I Dry Materials Coliecticn Processing (net of revenue) Subtotal Dry Materials 386,i05 42 Organics Collection 87,643 Processing (net of revenue) Subtotal Organics ', I)aa 1,581,481 =.:=: ~ ~ . ~r~ MImpg Si ~ « I,illa I » » I I »M '; 'I«Ill IIS Subtotal Recycling / ~ g«ianna == .': r r il:Il.:.= a e is a ~ 88 g I / I ~ ~ 729,000 l n o«»« I II I.... DLC - Collection and Processing - asaal a iiil 1 SS4 » ., iiaZi i» 1'l olo I ' ...—.4os I» II laa la al 5 I I I I ls 5; - —, =:.-:.: I 'I'I i Q I Il P 5 I I I I l I I 5 l 1+ I 8 Sg «e z,@l5'I ilmi» I I I mwa 1 II1»a I '» u!l.:. i i N '. —; IZ jiPP I itglllil l»illit a81'".a jg jta ~ NY 1 iao«is,: — — -''- gim ggli~g«s '.. ~ h'! QIP 'asmIRRg g Stage 2 Draft Report Page 37 $ '000 (1993) Tonnes SYSTEM COMPONENTS Residuals Collection and Disposal Residential Collection iRegular Garbage) Transfer, Transport and Disposal Subtotal Residential raarbage Residuals from Processing 395,672 IC& $ /Ton~ 12,51 5 30,772 24,574 55 346 777 78 62 140 62 408,187 56,123 Av. 137 319,374 74 62 136 62 395,672 Subtotal Residential Waste I I I Collection (Regular Garbage) Transfer, Transport and Disposal Subtotal IC 8 I Residuals from Processing 319,374 132,803 23,634 19,936 43,470 8,246 Subtotal IC 8 I Waste 452,177 51,716 Av. 114 Subtotal Residuals Collection & Disposal Res. +IC8 I 860,364 107,839 Av. 125 DLC Collection and Disposal 387,000 Total System Residuals Collection and Disposal 1,247,364 DLC + 107,839 898,600 138,473 Total lc & I Waste 1,065,400 155,507 TotalR+ IC 8 I Waste 1,964,000 293,980 Total DLC Waste 1,116,000 TOTAL SYSTEM WASTE 3,080,000 l POTENTIAL GENERATION Total Residential Waste Av. 149 DLC + 293,980 Disposal Reduction 56.2 51.6 65.3 62.7 59.6 55.7 3 Rs% of Potential Generation R + IC ft I 3 Rs% per Ministry Definition' + IC 6 3 Rs% of Potential Generation Dl C 3 Rs% per Ministry Definition'LC 3 R-% ot Potential Generation All Sectors 3 Rs% oer Ministrv Definition** All Sectors I isa & ~ mNI Table may not add because of rounding off ilwl w~l * I'11115 Ministry definition - reduction in per capita disposal as a percentage of 1990 per capita waste generation. Assumes 1990 DLC generation is same as in 1991. Isla" IIIII Ial I~II IiS II I Ii II IN ~ I LE I III&E ~ I : ="'= 'llflWI llbili, ql'I@J I IIINlgP%$laaaI)I)I~ —. 'I": -. S: .I 5„,~ '~/IiI+I%$ ~l ~, -'.."''~~ et'Z =.:.=-I IK I 5 fl I 2 =-=: ~ miigi, III llll III,, „,,~ gII if — -"'—,''ILIQIIII~its --:: . e!,e.=: II.,IIIIII +'-„" =„'„„ ~ ~ a~Ia~a~, -"-. 9.,,4& tiill] I, II &INttsm,tjgg /fir, =:s;::;~,.—.== e Ig,", ~; &.".".,'»I I~ ... $ -' -— 'iia."=. ' '... '"'".'"" I I ~ I i — = ';',. ! i — IRIS @I)II ANNEX A ts of Committee Members ee City of Vancouver City ofNorth Vancouver ..I jll tg 11 ill rljsi IfiiiIiii )Mild l1ilsl ¹II I I 5 liI ljgpm iljaa ala I» IIPII js li II III a s r I n 'i I I I l It ili Councillor Lee Rankin Mayor Lou Sekora B.E. Marr Peter Brady City of Port Coquitlam District of North Vancouver Township of Langley City of West Vancouver Corporation of Delta City of Burnaby City of Coquitlam Regional Manager, GVRD Project Manager I51lja Local Solid Waste Advisory Committee Wendy Turner Chairpermn ILIIIII Rock Appleton Karen Asp B.C. Waste Management Associabon/BFI 'I jmjII Anita Boyd Irma Boyd John Bremner (TSWAC) Ada Brown Rick Close Ken Davidson Bruce Elphinstone Ken Erne Robert Feldstein Lorne Fili ppelli Julie Gordon Grant Hankins Lenore Herb Sharon Horsburgh Councillor John Keryluk Brendan Killackey Gordon Lee Emmie Leung Ruth Lotzkar Don Mazankowski John Metras Pamela Nel Rob O'Day Deborah Ramsey Tim Reeve IFIIIil Ridge Meadows Recyding Sodety Delta Recyding Sodety Paperboard industries Corporation District of North Vancouver Consumers'ssociation of Canada (B.C.) Consolidated Envirowaste Industries CUPE 1004 - Unit ¹2 Hospital Employees Union Worldwide Homemakers Environmental Network Davis Trading Ltd. Independent Consultant City of Vanrouver Overwaitea Food Group Society Promoiing Environmental Conservation Corporation of Delta Port Coquitlam B,C. Hydro Surrey Regional Chamber of Commerce International Paper Industries Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition ETL Envirorunental Technology Ltd. University of British. Columbia GVRD- Solid Waste/Recyding Cooperative Housing Assoc. of B.C. Vancouver Board of Trade Institutes for Envirotunental Intdatives Rtst i ill'i 3II (I, lllI ¹ jIIl ill l sm t¹l 'I'lI I II ill.t lt il Page 1of2 NAY i PMKI I I 1 $94 I'f Il EI I IIII jmjll T IIjqfjj ~ Ijli,ii Rll I 1 . 111 le is Ills 1 ~ a 1 111e «& ~ As 1P l»litt a I Izts I Ill III 0ll ~ lursss ~ -g( jljj'Ill jg JI ji IIII IiiimIIIy 1baWIIW ! II jl 11itlll u jm J II I I I'1 1 ~ IJI.Iif ill ii IIBI1 I 'AAAW t ry Committee Loucks, Chair person Ilf IS IIII 1 t Recycling Council of B.C. Assoc Greater Vancouver Home Builders Managers'ssoc. Building Owners 4 District of Coquitlam West End Recycling Connection North Shore Disposal Parks Ministry of Environment, Lands Ik Association Res'.aurant (k Food Services AA'ack II rr w s: III la 1 B.C. Telepho Ae Company Greg Rideout Jim Romano Peter Simpson Jim Storie Rosa Telegus (TSWAC) Andy Telfer Gerry Wild Mike Wong Tony Wood I i Ralph Bischoff John Bremner Brian Davies Dave Douglas Tom Gardner Grant Hankins (LSWAC) Lenore Herb (LSWAC) Tom Hunt Jim Laughlin Ruth Lotzkar (LSWAC) Arthur Louie Ken Low Jim Lowrie Gerry McKinnon Don Mazankowski (LSWAC) Hugh McKay Fred Peters David Semczyszyn Rosa Telegus Ed Trottfer Jeff van Haastregt Phil Wong Doug Wylie lgon Zahynacz Consultants II Dave Sturtevant (Project Manager) Ann Svendsen (Project Manager) City of North Vancouver Ctty of Burnaby District of North Vancouver City of Vancouver Parks Ministry of Environment, Lands (k District of Maple Ridge Overwairea Foods Conservation Society Promoting Environmental City of Port Moody Corporation of Delta Coalition Environmentally Sound Packaging City of Richmond City of White Rock District of Pitt Meadows District of Surrey Ltd. ETL Environmental Techrwrlogy Vancouver City of North Township of Langley City of New Westminister City of Coquitlam City of Langley Pa. ks Ministry of Environment, Lands and Environment Canada District of West Vancouver City of Port Coquitlam lii CH2M Hig Engineering Ltd, (Technical) Consultation) Boutilier Ik Associates (Public Amq Administrator, Waste Reduction and Recyding Education Administrator, Communications 8c Project Engineer Administrative Assistant tjI I' i'ii i I 1111 I 1 GVRD Staff Support Linda Shore David Cadman Andrew Marr Jola Holt Page2of2