greater vancouver regional district zero waste … · april 8, 2015 6.5 regulation of mixed waste...

April 8, 2015

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Monday, April 13, 2015

9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 Zero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 13, 2015 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 Zero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 5, 2015 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Material Salvage and Reuse Trial at Langley Transfer Station Designated Speaker: Esther Bérubé, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Material Salvage and Reuse Trial at Langley Transfer Station” for information. 5.2 Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2014 Designated Speaker: Paul Remillard, Director, Solid Waste Operations, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2014” for information.

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

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda April 13, 2015

Agenda of 3

April 8, 2015

5.3 Zero Waste Challenge: Fall 2014 Organics and Christmas 2014 Waste Reduction Campaigns Designated Speaker: David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department

That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Zero Waste Challenge: Fall 2014 Organics and Christmas 2014 Waste Reduction Campaigns” for information.

5.4 Metro Vancouver Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign Update Designated Speaker: David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign Update” for information.

5.5 Metro Vancouver Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Update Designated Speaker: David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department

That the GVS&DD Board forward the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Update” to Member Municipalities and other stakeholders for their information and engagement.

5.6 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 7, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station Report dated April 7, 2015, titled “2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station”. 6.2 Public Feedback on Tipping Fee Changes Email dated April 6, 2015, titled “Disposal Rates” from Mike Jijian Owner, Just Junk addressed to Zero Waste Committee. 6.3 Advancing Waste Diversion and Recycling Goals and Programs in Metro Vancouver

Correspondence dated March 27, 2015 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver and Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee addressed to Lori Bryan, WMABC.

6.4 Advancing Waste Diversion and Recycling Goals and Programs in Metro Vancouver Correspondence dated December 22, 2014 from Lori Bryan, WMABC addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver and Malcom Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee.

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda April 13, 2015

Agenda of 3

April 8, 2015

6.5 Regulation of Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities Correspondence dated March 26, 2015 from Russ Black, NextUse Recycling

addressed to Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee (response to March 17, 2015 letter from Wayne H. Davis on behalf of Recycle First Coalition).

6.6 Regulation of Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities Correspondence dated March 17, 2015 from Wayne H. Davis, Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd. on behalf of Recycle First Coalition addressed to Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee. 6.7 NextUse Recycling Ltd. – Facility License

Correspondence dated February 12, 2015 from Russ Black, Vice President, Corporate Development, NextUse Recycling Ltd. addressed to Ray Robb, Solid Waste Manager, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District.

6.8 Disposal of Styrofoam in the Metro Vancouver Landfills Correspondence dated March 13, 2015 from Mark Obedzinski, President, FoamOnly Recycling Corp. addressed to Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee.

6.9 Metro Vancouver Organics Ban

Correspondence dated February 2, 2015 from Sharon Gaetz, Chair, FVRD addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for April 13, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (g) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district”.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 13, 2015.

Membership: Brodie, Malcolm (C) – Richmond Corrigan, Derek (VC) – Burnaby Baldwin, Wayne – White Rock Bassam, Roger – North Vancouver District Coté, Jonathan – New Westminster

Gambioli, Nora – West Vancouver Hayne, Bruce – Surrey Hodge, Craig – Coquitlam Jackson, Lois – Delta Long, Bob – Langley Township

Reimer, Andrea – Vancouver Schaffer, Ted – Langley City TDB – Port Coquitlam

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 5, 2015 Page 1 of 8

2.1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2015 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Mayor Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Councillor Bruce Hayne, Surrey Councillor Craig Hodge, Coquitlam Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Vacant, Port Coquitlam ALSO PRESENT (Intergovernment and Finance Committee members): Chair, Councillor Raymond Louie, Vancouver Mayor Darrell Musatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Barbara Steele, Surrey Mayor Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Mayor Richard Walton, North Vancouver District STAFF PRESENT: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Division Manager, Board and Information Services/Deputy Corporate Officer,

Legal and Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 Zero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 5, 2015 as

follows: i. by adding item 3.2 Barry Azevedo, City of Abbotsford;


ii. by adding item 6.7 Correspondence titled “Metro Vancouver Organics Ban”; iv. by varying the order of the agenda by considering Section 9 Resolution to

Close Meeting after section 3 Delegations; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 Zero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 9, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Sepideh Datoobar, Eurete Enterprises Inc. Peter Holt, on behalf of Sepideh Datoobar, Eurete Enterprises Inc., provided an overview of the company, the benefits of the solid waste collection system, and proposed collaboration with municipalities to establish a pilot organics collection project for multi‐family housing and the commercial sector. Presentation material titled “Intelligent Underground Waste Containers“ is retained with the February 5, 2015 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

3.2 Barry Azevedo, City of Abbotsford Barry Azevedo, Solid Waste and Environmental Engineering Manager, City of Abbotsford, provided an overview of the Matsqui Transfer Station agreement and expressed concern about the financial impacts of the proposed tipping fee increase, unfairness of the proposed rate increase, and inadequate consultation with the City of Abbotsford. He requested that the Matsqui Transfer Station rates remain uniform with the other Metro Vancouver transfer station rates, or that Abbotsford be provided with detailed financial information and a reasonable opportunity to make a complete submission to the Committee before the Committee makes a decision on the tipping fee amount. Discussion ensued on:

The reasons for a significant reduction of solid waste disposed by Abbotsford through the Matsqui Transfer Station, and City of Abbotsford’s and Metro Vancouver’s response to the situation

The rationale for and implications of the proposed Matsqui Transfer Station tipping fee rate


Presentation material titled “Concerns with Report titled 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw” presented to the Zero Waste Committee on February 5, 2015” is retained with the February 5, 2015 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

Agenda Order Varied Pursuant to Section 1 Adoption of the Agenda, the order of the agenda was varied to consider Section 9 Resolution to Close Meeting at this point. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for February 5, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (e), (g) and (k) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements,

if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district;

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed

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

CARRIED ADJOURNMENT The Regular Zero Waste Committee meeting of February 5, 2015 adjourned at 1:24 p.m. to go into a closed meeting. RECONVENE The Regular Zero Waste Committee meeting reconvened at 2:27 p.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2015, with the following members being in attendance: MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Mayor Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Councillor Bruce Hayne, Surrey Councillor Craig Hodge, Coquitlam Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township


MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued): Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Vacant, Port Coquitlam ALSO PRESENT (Intergovernment and Finance Committee members): Chair, Councillor Raymond Louie, Vancouver Vice Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Mayor Darrell Musatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Barbara Steele, Surrey Mayor Richard Walton, North Vancouver District 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw

Report dated January 30, 2015, from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, recommending changes to the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw”. Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, provided an overview of the current state of the solid waste system, recommended tipping fee changes and the next steps. Presentation material titled “Solid Waste Services Strategy” is retained with the February 5, 2015 Zero Waste Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on:

The impact of the rejection of bylaw 280 on the regional solid waste system

Past and current provincial position on waste export

The implications of waste export on regional waste diversion efforts

Concerns about the reduction of the tipping fee amount

Maintaining revenue generated by waste disposal in the region

The optimal tipping fee amount

Financial projections alternatives

Correlation of the tipping fee increase and illegal waste disposal It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board: 1) Approve a tipping fee structure as follows:

a. Loads up to 1 tonne: $130 per tonne to a maximum fee of $109


b. Loads from 1 tonne to 9 tonnes: $109 per tonne to a maximum fee of $720

c. Loads above 9 tonnes: $80 per tonne d. Maple Ridge Loads: $4 per tonne in addition to above rates e. Matsqui Transfer Station: $150 per tonne f. Transaction Fee: $5 per load.

CARRIED

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board: 1) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015”.

2) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015”.

CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee direct staff to correct the formatting errors in the draft “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015” prior to the bylaw being considered by the Board.

CARRIED

5.2 Orientation for the Zero Waste Committee – Verbal Andrew Marr, Acting Division Manager, Solid Waste Services, provided an overview of the following:

Goals of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan

Current and projected Solid Waste diversion rates

The Solid Waste function, services and facilities

1994 to 2013 regional solid waste generation, solid waste disposal per capita and regional diversion rates

2015 Solid Waste budget

Key accomplishments

Major capital projects

2015 priorities Presentation material titled “Solid Waste Services Orientation” is retained with the February 5, 2015 Zero Waste Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the verbal report dated February 5, 2015, titled “Orientation for the Zero Waste Committee”.

CARRIED


5.3 2015 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan Report dated January 23, 2015, from Andrew Marr, Acting Division Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing the Zero Waste Committee with the priorities and work plan for the year 2015. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 23, 2015 titled, “2015 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

CARRIED

5.4 Waste‐to‐Energy Facility NOx Reduction Project Update Report dated January 14, 2015, from Chris Allan, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on the current status of the Waste‐to‐Energy Facility NOx Reduction Project. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 14, 2015 titled, “Waste‐to‐Energy Facility NOx Reduction Project Update” for information.

CARRIED 5.5 Summary of Solid Waste and Recycling Trade Mission to the Netherlands

Report dated January 19, 2015, from Marcel Pitre, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, summarizing a solid waste and recycling trade mission to the Netherlands attended by a Metro Vancouver staff member at the invitation of the government of the Netherlands. The report highlights some of the key policies and technologies in use by Dutch waste management professionals. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 19, 2015 titled, “Summary of Solid Waste and Recycling Trade Mission to the Netherlands” for information.

CARRIED 5.6 Manager’s Report

Report dated January 26, 2015, from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing an update on the following:

Zero Waste Committee 2015 Workplan

Zero Waste Committee Consideration of Attendance at 2015 Events

Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Ban Updates

Zero Waste Challenge Organics Campaign: Outreach to Increase Organics Recycling and Support the Organics Disposal Ban

Ashcroft Ranch

Competitive Selection Process for Transfer Station System Operation and Maintenance


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated January 26, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Zero Waste Committee – Terms of Reference 6.2 2015 Metro Vancouver Board and Committee Meeting Dates 6.3 NextUse Recycling Ltd. – Application for Material Recovery Facility License

Correspondence dated January 26, 2015 from Paul Henderson, GM, Solid Waste Services addressed to R.H. (Ray) Robb, Solid Waste Manager, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District.

6.4 GVS&DD Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 Correspondence dated December 3, 2015 from Greg Moore, Chair, MV Board and Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee addressed to Minister Polak.

On‐table additional correspondence from the Sunshine Coast Regional District, dated January 8, 2015, titled “Letter of Support for Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280” is retained with item 6.4.

6.5 Timeline for NWTE Consultation between FVRD and MV

Correspondence dated November 5, 2014 from Minister Polak addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, MV Board and Sharon Gaetz, Chair, FVRD Board.

6.6 Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 Correspondence dated October 3, 2014 from Rob Hutchins, Chair, CVRD addressed to Minister Polak.

6.7 Metro Vancouver Organics Ban On‐table correspondence dated February 2, 2015 from Sharon Gaetz, Chair, FVRD addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, MV Board.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following items: 6.1 Zero Waste Committee – Terms of Reference 6.2 2015 Metro Vancouver Board and Committee Meeting Dates 6.3 NextUse Recycling Ltd. – Application for Material Recovery Facility License 6.4 GVS&DD Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw

No. 280


6.5 Timeline for NWTE Consultation between FVRD and MV 6.6 Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 280 6.7 Metro Vancouver Organics Ban

CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

This item was previously considered. 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee conclude its regular meeting of February 5, 2015.

CARRIED (Time: 3:39 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Klara Kutakova, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Deputy Corporate Officer 10864967 FINAL

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Esther Bérubé, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: April 8, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Material Salvage and Reuse Trial at the Langley Transfer Station

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 8, 2015 titled, “Material Salvage and

Reuse Trial at the Langley Transfer Station” for information.

PURPOSE To inform the Zero Waste Committee of the results of the Material Salvage and Reuse Trial conducted at the Langley Transfer Station and of opportunities to increase reuse at Regional Facilities. BACKGROUND The Zero Waste Committee report titled “Wood Waste Diversion Strategy”, dated February 25, 2014, included a description of the plan to assess material reuse potential, particularly for wood, at Regional Facilities in 2014. Following a preliminary feasibility study, the Zero Waste Committee received an update on the planned Material Salvage and Reuse Trial at its September 11, 2014 meeting. MATERIAL SALVAGE AND REUSE TRIAL Trial Design From September 20 to October 26, 2014, a material salvage and reuse trial took place at the Langley Transfer Station. Metro Vancouver worked with SSG Ltd., the operator of Langley Transfer Station, and with the Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity to test two models for the salvage and reuse of household goods, furniture, and building materials:

1. For the first three weeks, customers inside the paid disposal area were encouraged to divert reusable items away from disposal into collection bins. Household goods and furniture went to the Salvation Army, and building materials went to Habitat for Humanity.

2. During the next three weekends, the Salvation Army and SSG staffed a collection trailer outside the paid disposal area and intercepted each vehicle before the weigh scale. They offered to accept reusable items for donation, and customers could avoid the tipping fee on those items. The free collection trailer was not available during the weekdays, but SSG staff informed customers inside the paid disposal area that they could drop off reusable items at a collection bin instead of discarding them. In addition, customers were informed that free drop‐off of reusable items would be available on the weekend.

Results More reusable items were diverted with the second model, both during the free drop‐off events on weekends and subsequent paid drop‐off on weekdays as awareness increased. Dedicated staff interacting with every customer increased the amount of recyclables recovered.

5.1

Eight tonnes of reusable furniture, household goods, and building materials were diverted over the 36 days of the trial, which corresponds to the diversion of approximately 1% of material delivered for disposal during the trial in addition to the recycling of routinely accepted materials. Less wood was diverted during the trial than anticipated because some wood that was expected to be diverted did not meet quality requirements for reuse. The trial at the Langley Transfer Station cost about $14,500 before tax to operate. This included daily facility operator staffing over the 36 days and rental of a collection bin. The results of this small‐scale trial indicate that dedicated staffing is generally not cost‐effective, unless residential drop‐off traffic is higher, and staff are able to facilitate the salvage of more reusable material than they did during the trial at the Langley Transfer Station. NEXT STEPS As a result of the trial at the Langley Transfer Station, Habitat for Humanity has introduced unstaffed collection bins for reusable building materials at the Coquitlam Transfer Station, the Surrey Transfer Station, and the North Shore Transfer Station, to provide increased opportunities for material reuse while minimizing the cost associated with having a dedicated facility staff on site. Unstaffed collection trailers for the Salvation Army are already in place at these facilities. Metro Vancouver will increase the promotion of reuse opportunities to facility customers online, at the facilities, and through special events where facility operators and salvage organizations intercept and collect donated reusable items at Regional Facilities where feasible. Work will continue on options to further enhance the program. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The trial at the Langley Transfer Station cost about $14,500 before tax to operate, including daily facility operator staffing over the 36 days and rental of a collection bin. Expansion of the current program to offer reuse services at all Metro Vancouver transfer stations as well as enhanced communications is expected to increase the success of the program at a limited cost. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION During the Material Salvage and Reuse Trial conducted at the Langley Transfer Station, eight tonnes of reusable materials were diverted from disposal between September 20 and October 26, 2014. Overall Approximately 1% diversion was achieved in the trial, in addition to regular recycling activities at the transfer station. As a result of this trial, Habitat for Humanity introduced unstaffed building material reuse collection bins at three regional transfer stations, in addition to existing unstaffed Salvation Army trailers. Metro Vancouver will increase the promotion of reuse opportunities at Regional Facilities and provide reuse services at all Metro Vancouver transfer stations. 10900522

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Remillard, Director, Solid Waste Operations, Solid Waste Services Date: April 8, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to

December 31, 2014

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 8, 2015 titled, “Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2014” for information.

PURPOSE To report on the status of utilities capital expenditures for the Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste). Capital projects are typically multi‐year in nature; therefore this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion. BACKGROUND The Capital Expenditure reporting process as approved by the Board provides for regular status reports on capital expenditures with interim reports sent to the Zero Waste and Performance and Procurement Committees in June/July and October and a final year‐end report to the Committees and Board in April. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2014. PROJECT STATUS The projects are presented in the context of total projected project costs to completion as compared to the total approved budget (refer Attachment 1). Narrative information is provided in Attachment 2 describing key aspects of specific projects. Table 1 below contains summary information on “Ongoing Projects” and “Completed Projects”. The information presented is for total project completion which will generally cover multiple years. Capital project budgets typically include a minimum contingency of 10%. Table 1

Solid Waste Projects

Total Projected Expenditures to Completion

ACE*/ Total Budget Projected Variance

Ongoing Projects $ 26,378,000 $ 29,060,000 $2,682,000 Completed Projects $5,400,291 $ 6,700,000 $1,299,709 * Authorized Capital Expenditures

5.2

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ongoing Capital Projects: The Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) is currently projecting a positive variance of $2,682,000 (9%) on the approved budgets for projects in progress and included in Attachments 1 and 2, primarily due to the expected completion of the NOx project within the approved project budget. Completed Capital Projects: These projects were completed in 2014, some of which may extend over multiple years. The completed Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) projects are under spent by $1,299,709 (19%). Narrative information for specific projects is presented in Attachment 1. Of the $1,299,709 under spent, $1,212,179 is due the transfer of seismic work to individual project upgrades. Capital expenditures are funded internally through debt charges. Solid Waste debt is financed short term until the end of the year when it is reviewed to determine if enough debt has been incurred to convert to long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority or to continue to finance short term. If capital expenditures are less than budgeted for the year, the savings in debt charges create a surplus which may go against future capital expenditures via the Contribution to Capital Program to reduce borrowing. As of the end of 2014 Solid Waste has $24M in debt remaining which will be paid off by the end of 2018. SUMMARY/ CONCLUSION The capital expenditure reporting process approved by the Board provides for interim reports to Committees in June/July and October, and a final year‐end report to the Board in April of each year. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2014. The Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) is projecting to be under spent for both ongoing and completed projects to December 31, 2014. Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures Attachment 2: Appendix A: Capital Project Status Information as of December 31, 2014 11085723

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures ATTACHMENT 1 Solid Waste As of Dec 31, 2014

Total Total Expected8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

Program Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

On-going Grand Totals 11,802,152 26,378,000 29,060,000 2,682,000 Completed Grand Totals 5,400,291 5,400,291 6,700,000 1,299,709

ON-GOING PROJECTS

SW Landfills CapitalL0029 CLF LFG Upgrades Design Coquitlam 242,788 250,000 250,000 - 97% 2015 YL0033 CLF LFG Upgrade Construction Coquitlam 2,152,500 2,850,000 2,850,000 - 76% 2016 N On hold pending negotiations with leasee.L0044 CLF LFG Upgrade Phase 2 Coquitlam - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2017 N LFG work will be incorporated into development

of site for replacement transfer station.

L0049 Coquitlam Landfill Closure Coquitlam 52,446 100,000 100,000 - 52% 2017 Y2,447,733 3,500,000 3,500,000 -

SW Transfer Station System CapL0047 Coq Trans Sta Replacement Coquitlam 69,414 800,000 800,000 - 9% 2018 YL0048 NSTS Reconfiguration North Vancouver 50,759 500,000 500,000 - 20% 2016 Y

120,173 1,300,000 1,300,000 - SW Waste to Energy Fac Cap

L0020 NOx Reduction Project Design Burnaby 443,567 444,000 900,000 456,000 (3) 99% 2015 YL0034 WTEF NOx Project Construction Burnaby 4,316,486 5,060,000 7,000,000 1,940,000 (3) 85% 2015 YL0045 Scrubber - Design Burnaby - 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 0% 2015 YL0046 CEMS Upgrade - Design Burnaby 110,620 460,000 500,000 40,000 (1) 22% 2016 YL0050 Soot Blower Replacement Burnaby - 800,000 800,000 - 0% 2015 YL0051 Diesel Generator Replacement Burnaby 11,259 754,000 1,000,000 246,000 (1) 1% 2015 YL0052 Bottom Ash Processing Burnaby - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2015 Y

4,881,932 9,318,000 12,000,000 2,682,000 SW Infr Opportunity Prgm Cap

L0040 CLF Landfill Gas Utilization Coquitlam 28,077 260,000 260,000 - 11% N LFG Utilization potential will be reevaluated once transfer station development and any associated LFG works are in place.

28,077 260,000 260,000 - SW Mgmt Plan Initiatives Cap

L0042 New Waste to Energy Capacity Regional 4,324,236 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 36% 2021 Y4,324,236 12,000,000 12,000,000 -

Total On-going Projects 11,802,152 26,378,000 29,060,000 2,682,000

COMPLETED PROJECTS

SW Landfills CapitalL0030 CLF Leachate Upgrades Coquitlam 720,958 720,958 750,000 29,042 (1) 100%

720,958 720,958 750,000 29,042 SW Waste to Energy Fac Cap

L0026 WTEF Seismic Detailed Design Burnaby 488,138 488,138 1,000,000 511,862 (2) 100%

L0041 WTEF ACC Construction Burnaby 4,141,512 4,141,512 4,200,000 58,488 (1) 100%

L0043 WTEF Seismic Construction Burnaby 49,683 49,683 750,000 700,317 (2) 100%

4,679,333 4,679,333 5,950,000 1,270,667

Total Completed Projects 5,400,291 5,400,291 6,700,000 1,299,709

Notes:(1) Full contingency not required.(2) Integrating seismic work into planned facility upgrades.(3) Reduction in scope.

Total Projects

Appendix A

Major GVS&DD solid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program exceptions are highlighted:

i) Landfills Program

The Coquitlam Landfill (CLF) Gas Upgrades will be completed in the winter 2015/2016 to comply with the recent extension of the golf facility lease. The Phase 2 upgrade will be completed with the proposed development of the Coquitlam Transfer Station. The Gas Utilization project will be re‐evaluated once the gas collection system have been installed for the transfer station development.

ii) Waste‐to‐Energy Program

Commissioning for the NOx upgrade project to lower emissions to below MOE 2011 emission guidelines will be completed in the first quarter of 2015.

Preliminary design for the Acid Gas Reduction Project will commence in the first quarter of 2015.

Design of upgrade to Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) to be completed in 2015.

iii) New WTE Capacity Project (Material & Energy Recovery Facility)

The procurement process for the New WTE Capacity Project was approved in October 2012. RFQ1 (Technology Only) was issued, and the short list of qualified technology respondents was announced in June 2013. The Potential Site Identification process has been initiated, and a public solicitation for sites was issued in July 2013. Public engagement and consultation programs will continue, and once potential sites have been identified, site specific consultation will be initiated.

ATTACHMENT 2

To: Zero Waste Committee From: David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: April 8, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Zero Waste Challenge: Fall 2014 Organics and Christmas 2014 Waste Reduction

Campaigns

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Zero Waste Challenge: Fall 2014 Organics and Christmas 2014 Waste Reduction Campaigns” for information.

PURPOSE To inform the Committee of two waste reduction campaigns utilizing advertising and social media that were implemented in late 2014 in support of Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste objectives. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver undertakes communications campaigns to support the Zero Waste Challenge, and the waste reduction and diversion targets established in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, in partnership with Member Municipalities. The Zero Waste Challenge communications and outreach strategy outlines two streams of activity: broad advertising and social media campaigns, and intensive work with key target audiences. This report focuses on the first item, broad advertising and social media campaigns. Advertising Campaigns Overview There are several reasons that Metro Vancouver undertakes broad advertising campaigns:

To create awareness. Garbage is not top‐of‐mind for citizens. Residents, businesses and institutions are busy and may be unaware of new waste management initiatives, such as organics recycling.

To provide information. Once citizens are made aware of the need for change, they also need to be informed about what can be done or how participation can occur. “How to” is answered in the form of information campaigns.

To create energy around a new social norm. A powerful driver of new behaviour is the sense that others, such as neighbours and coworkers, are also doing it.

Two separate, but related, campaigns were carried out in the fourth quarter of 2014:

1. A broad advertising and social media campaign encouraging organics diversion – Food isn’t garbage – developed in collaboration with Member Municipalities, and in support of municipal efforts to collect organics.

2. A broad advertising and social media campaign encouraging waste reduction in the Christmas season – Create memories, not garbage.

5.3

Organics Campaign 2014: Food Isn’t Garbage In response to the Organics Disposal Ban, a formal public consultation process and stakeholder workshops were undertaken in early 2014. The results of this process were captured in the September 11, 2014 report to Committee titled “Organics Disposal Ban Consultation Summary and Proposed Implementation Strategy”. One of the most common themes identified was the importance of a broad regional communications campaign. In response, a campaign was developed in collaboration with Member Municipalities to encourage Metro Vancouver residents to separate food waste from their garbage.

Municipal communications and waste reduction staff provided input throughout the creation of the campaign, including the creative brief, taglines and execution. The result was a colourful and humorous campaign that features eight unique food characters telling us that “Food isn’t garbage” and “food scraps belong in your green bin”. Because the characters are personified food, not real people, simple and direct statements were used to convey a new social norm without seeming overly prescriptive. (See characters and artwork in Attachment 1.) The advertising plan included multiple elements based on best performing media from previous years: the public transit system, targeted online ads, digital screens in malls, theatre pre‐feature and television commercials. A new venue for advertising utilized digital screens in corporate towers. Additional campaign elements included earned media, opportunities for interviews with directors, social media, large poster‐style ads at municipal facilities and other municipal infrastructure such as billboards, sanitation trucks, bus shelters and eco‐media (recycling) bins. The campaign was also presented at the December 2014 Sustainability Community Breakfast with over 80 attendees responding positively. Post‐campaign Metrics Awareness and effectiveness of this campaign was measured using three different methods: web metrics; cost per thousand (CPM) for purchased space on television, Cineplex, and social media channels; and a public opinion survey. Beginning with web metrics, results indicate 26,000 page views of the Metro Vancouver Organics Disposal Ban website. An increase in web visits during a campaign is an indication that online advertising is effective. However, the number of people being impacted by the campaign is much greater – website visits due to clicking an online ad are typically only 1‐3% of total impressions (times the ad was seen). The total number of impressions gives a better idea of the campaign’s impact as our ads are designed to deliver the message at a glance – regardless of whether the viewer clicks through to the website. The food scraps commercial aired on JoyTV, CTV, Global, Shaw, CBC, KVOS, CityTV, Omni Ethnic and Omni BC. With approximately 3,157,000 impressions, the CPM was $13.13 – a cost that is favourable relative to the industry standard of $15.30 according to The Television Bureau of Advertising (2014). This favourable cost was achieved through a weekly strategy based on discounted ad time, rather than buying for the entire campaign. For both campaigns, our CPM is substantially lower than industry standard. On YouTube a lower CPM is an indication that viewers are choosing to watch rather than skip the ad. This suggests messaging that resonates with viewers. Following the campaign, a public opinion survey was issued to evaluate behaviour, attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Following are some observations on food scraps recycling in general:

Inaccessibility is a key impediment in expanding the use of green bins. This applies mostly to multi‐family residences such as apartments and condos, and townhomes to a lesser extent.

However, when a food scraps bin is present, which is typically the case in single‐family homes, it is likely to be used.

Reasons for not recycling food scraps include concern about odour, pests, preference for using a garburator or drain, lack of space for another bin, and uncertainty about what is allowed in the bin.

While the majority of residents who use a green bin dispose of fruit, vegetable, meat and bones, some are unaware that dairy, food‐soiled paper and fat/grease can be added.

Overall, half (48%) of residents use their food scraps bin for one or more types of food waste. About one in three residents recalled seeing or hearing advertising in the past two months about food scraps, and among those, without any prompting of the actual messages, 34% said “food is not garbage” and 21% said that “food should go into the recycling bin”. This indicates that the message of the ads is sufficiently memorable for unaided recall. Once the ads were shown to respondents, 72% agreed that that the ads are fun and playful and 60% agreed that the ads are memorable. The following table is a selection of relevant findings. FOOD SCRAPS CAMPAIGN 2014

Unaided recall of advertising about food scraps

General population 32%

Women 37%

Recall of message among those aware of food scraps ads

Food is not garbage 34%

Food should go in the recycling bin 21%

Recall of sponsor among those aware of food scraps ads

City or municipality 37%

Metro Vancouver 13%

Location of the ads (Where did you see the ads?)

Bus shelters 51%

SkyTrain stations 45%

Bus sides 45%

Television 38%

Response to the ads

Like the ads 51%

Neutral toward the ads 30%

Dislike the ads 17%

Understand the message of the ads 90%

Impact of the ads

Now more likely to use the food scraps bin 27% Now about as likely as before 58%

Reach of online ads

Banner ad impressions 2,907,000

Video views 250,000

Organics campaign webpage visits 26,000

Anecdotal feedback from municipal staff and comments from the public also indicated that the print ads were memorable and effective. Additionally, social media (tweets, retweets and Facebook

postings) and earned media were significant. On the topic of organics disposal, approximately 60 print/online stories and 135 TV/radio broadcasts (including repeats) were counted, most during late December and early January; of those, at least eight were specifically about the campaign, including pieces in major international publications like Salon, The Atlantic and Treehugger. With the 2015 Organics Disposal Ban now in place, more work will be needed to increase participation in food scraps recycling. A 2015 campaign will build on the success of the Food isn’t garbage campaign and will be developed in collaboration with Member Municipalities. Christmas Campaign 2014: Create Memories not Garbage This is the seventh year that Metro Vancouver has carried out a Christmas season waste reduction campaign. The message of these campaigns has a focus on the memories that can be created by spending time with family and friends, and by purchasing quality gifts that will last: “Create memories, not garbage”. The 2014 campaign built on the success of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 campaigns, by showing real people modeling the desired behaviour. The campaign depicts people who give gifts of time, experiences or high‐quality, long‐lasting gifts. The models in the ads are labeled as ‘green angels’ since they create less waste with their gifts. Gifts and experiences modeled in the campaign vary in cost and demonstrate that this is not an anti‐shopping campaign. The campaign included an extensive advertising plan: the public transit system, theatre pre‐feature and television commercials, mall digital screens and targeted online ads. Other elements included social media, earned media, e‐cards, large posters at municipal facilities and two public events. The fourth year of The Flame: Holiday Season Edition, a storytelling series that features real people sharing their personal true stories of holiday memories, was held on November 5, 2014 before a live audience. Metro Vancouver collaborated with The Flame to create this event; it was later broadcast during the month of December on local community stations, and distributed online through social media. Additionally, the Create memories, not garbage campaign was the topic of the December 2014 Sustainability Community Breakfast and featured a Metro Vancouver presentation and three of The Flame storytellers. As with previous years, all campaign materials were offered to Member Municipalities via the REAC waste sub‐committee, waste reduction coordinators, and communications coordinators. Metro Vancouver also shared this Christmas campaign beyond our region to other jurisdictions, and through the National Zero Waste Council. Other jurisdictions taking part include: Capital Regional District, Powell River Regional District, Cariboo Regional District, Regional District of Central Okanagan, Resort Municipality of Whistler, the City of Lethbridge and the City of Portland. Post‐campaign Metrics Like the Food isn’t garbage Organics 2014 campaign, awareness and effectiveness of this campaign was measured using three different tactics: web metrics; cost per thousand (CPM) for purchased space on television and online; and a public opinion survey. Beginning with web metrics, the Christmas campaign web pages (metrovancouver.org/Christmas) garnered 10,754 page views. Approximately 90% of these page views took place in December 2014, after the campaign launch, indicating that residents visited the site as a result of viewing the advertising.

The commercial aired on Knowledge, JoyTV, CTV, Global, Shaw, CBC, KVOS, CityTV, Omni Ethnic and Omni BC. Approximately 17.5 million viewers relates to an extremely low $7.78 CPM – this implies an average impression frequency of 8.5 times/person. The industry standard for CPM is $15.30 according to The Television Bureau of Advertising (2014). This favourable cost was achieved through a buying strategy that was based on identifying discounted ad time on a weekly basis, rather than buying for the entire campaign. Post‐campaign public opinion surveys have been conducted for each Christmas campaign and they have found that general awareness of the campaign has grown over the last five years. In January 2015, 46% of residents report seeing the Christmas campaign, slightly higher than in the previous two years (37% and 39%). When asked who sponsored the ads (unaided), 34% responded correctly – this is a significant jump over other years, with the previous highest being 27% in January 2013. Following is a selection of relevant findings, compared with the previous two years: CHRISTMAS CAMPAIGN (year it took place) 2012 2013 2014

Unaided recall of Christmas advertising to reduce waste

Awareness of ads about the types of gifts 50% 31% 49%

Awareness of Metro Vancouver as sponsor 27% 14% 34%

Prompted recall (shown Create memories, not garbage)

Remembered poster ad 39% 37% 46%

Remembered TV ad 37% 41% 50%

Location of ads (Where did you see the ads?)

Transit 60% 43% 56%

Television 47% 58% 59%

Online 10% 16% 9%

Posters in public buildings 8% 15% 13%

Effectiveness of print ads in encouraging rethinking gifts

Very effective 11% 15% 13%

Somewhat effective 46% 55% 44%

Total effective 57% 70% 57%

Effectiveness of TV ads in encouraging rethinking gifts

Very effective 16% 19% 12%

Somewhat effective 48% 52% 50%

Total effective 64% 71% 63%

Had impact on purchasing behavior 24% 17% 19%

Reach of online ads

Banner ad impressions 1,032,000 2,079,000

Video views 393,000 570,000

Christmas campaign webpage visits 20,806 10,754

*Note that the 2013 Christmas survey testing was conducted in February 2014, this differs from all other years where testing was performed in January. Two conclusions can be drawn from the research. First, recall of the ads and of the sponsor seems to have increased with a shorter duration between the campaign and the survey; this indicates a need for a continued presence in media aimed at strengthening awareness of the Metro Vancouver brand. Second, the ads’ continued high level of effectiveness, and the timing around a specific decision point (Christmas purchases), demonstrates that the campaign remains valuable. Further consideration will be given in 2015 as to how to leverage opportunities for social marketing with the allocated advertising budget. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Outreach campaigns to support the Zero Waste Challenge and the waste reduction and diversion targets established in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan are a key component of the External Relations Department work program. Both campaigns were approximately $250,000 each. These costs were included in the 2014 External Relations budget, with television and online content produced in‐house. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In support of the Zero Waste Challenge, two broad advertising campaigns were held in the fourth quarter of 2014. Both campaigns had a substantial presence throughout the region and ran on the transit system, television, online, movie theatre screens, digital screens, municipal facilities and infrastructure and via social media. The organics campaign, Food isn’t garbage, focused on broad social awareness of the opportunity to recycle food scraps, and in support of organics diversion efforts. The campaign took a humorous but direct approach to remind residents that “food isn’t garbage” and “food scraps belong in your green bin”. Survey results show that 90% of residents agree the ads are easy to understand, and 77% say the ads provide useful information. Translating this to behaviour change in the region – 1 in 4 residents (27%) feel that they are now more likely to use the food scraps bin. With the 2015 Organics Disposal Ban now in place, more work will be needed to increase participation in food scraps recycling. A 2015 campaign will build on the success of the Food isn’t garbage campaign and will be developed in collaboration with Member Municipalities. The Christmas/Holiday campaign, Create memories, not garbage, focused on reducing waste during the Christmas season. The campaign reminded residents to celebrate the holidays with gifts of time and high‐quality, long‐lasting gifts. Using real people to model the desired behaviour, the campaign was positive and humorous. This is the seventh year that Metro Vancouver has carried out waste reduction campaigns over the Christmas season – a time when many are actively considering and making purchasing decisions. This campaign continues to build momentum with survey results demonstrating brand awareness (recognizing Metro Vancouver as the sponsor), consistent effectiveness evaluations, and with Member Municipalities and other jurisdictions using campaign elements in their own outreach.

Attachments and References: Food isn’t garbage Organics campaign Reference 1: Talking food characters, shared resources: www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid‐waste/recycling‐signage‐campaigns/campaign‐posters‐artwork/Pages/default.aspx Reference 2: Food isn’t garbage commercial: http://bcove.me/5r7crnhq Reference 3: Media release: http://www.metrovancouver.org/media‐room/media‐releases/solid‐waste/2/food‐isnt‐garbage‐food‐scraps‐belong‐in‐your‐green‐bin‐ Attachment 1: MV Food Scraps Recycling 2014 ‐ post campaign public opinion report summary – January 2015

Create memories, not garbage Christmas campaign Reference 4: Shared campaign resources including artwork: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid‐waste/recycling‐signage‐campaigns/campaign‐posters‐artwork/Pages/default.aspx Reference 5: Dog walking commercial: http://bcove.me/ik4f69bl Reference 6: Lessons for grandma commercial: http://bcove.me/8syg9uqv Reference 7: Circus lessons commercial: http://bcove.me/8dd8eryi Reference 8: Babysitting commercial: http://bcove.me/99ovdszo Reference 9: Media release: http://www.metrovancouver.org/media‐room/media‐releases/board‐information/382/create‐memories‐not‐garbage Attachment 2: MV Christmas 2014 ‐ post campaign public opinion survey report summary ‐ January 2015

10901417

Food Scraps Program Campaign

A SURVEY OF METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

December 2014

DRAFT

ATTACHMENT 1

4

Overview

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Between October and late November 2014, Metro Vancouver launched an advertising campaign for their Food Scraps Recycling Program. The goal of this program is to encourage Metro Vancouver residents to separate food waste from regular garbage. This is in advance of the ban on organic materials from waste facilities starting in 2015.

With a goal of evaluating public behaviour, attitudes, and advertising effectiveness, Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research. Specifically, the research answers the following business questions:

• What recycling bins do residents have access to and use?• What are residents’ attitudes toward recycling food

scraps?• Are residents aware of the food scraps recycling

advertising campaign?• What impact has the campaign had?

Introduction

Methodology

Surveys 614 adult residents.

Field dates: December 8 to 15, 2014.

Population: The table on the following slide displays the areas sampled for this study.

Methodology: Online.

Weighting: The final data were weighted to match actual demographic characteristics and regional distribution of the household population.

Languages: Surveys were conducted in English.

Margin of error: A probability sample of 614 carries a margin of error +/‐ 4.0 percentage points 95% of the time.

4

The table below displays the areas sampled for this study.

Sampling

Areas Sampled Sample size

Vancouver/UBC 125

North Shore 76

Eastern suburbs (includes all municipalities east of

Vancouver and north of the Fraser river)

160

Richmond/Delta 103

Surrey/White Rock/Langley 150

Total 614

A note on weighting: Our design ensured a minimum number of surveys in each broad region for reliable regional analysis. Weighting re‐proportioned the surveys to reflect the actual population in the overall findings. The resulting final sample is projectable to the target population. For example, a survey of 100 adult residents including 60 males and 40 females is completed. For this population, it should be a 50/50 gender split. To correct for this, the 60 males are weighted down to reflect 50 males. The 40 females are weighted up to reflect 50 females. Now the survey results should better reflect the target population.

4

Observations

• Inaccessibility is a key impediment in expanding the use of food scraps bins. Residents who do not have a food

scraps bin in their residence do not use one. This particularly impacts residents living apartments, condominiums

or, to a lesser extent, townhouses. A large proportion of residents in these household types do not have a food

scraps bin. Single occupant households, a group more inclined to be apartment dwellers and renters, are unlikely

to have a food scraps bin.

• When a food scraps bin is present, it is likely to be used. A large majority of residents with a food scraps bin

available use it for at least some recyclable food waste. Residents living in detached houses are the largest group of

food scraps bin users.

• Residents are not clear about what goes into the food scraps bin.While the majority of residents with access to a

food scraps bin use it to dispose fruits, vegetables, meat and bones, there is room for improvement. This is

particularly the case for food‐soiled paper towels and napkins. Among this already engaged group of residents, an

education program will refine understanding and improve proper compliance.

• There are misconceptions about the food scraps bin. Some residents feel that using the food scraps bin results in

unwanted odours or that it may attract pests. This may limit what they place in the bin and indicates some

residents do not know how to care properly for their food scraps bin to eliminate or mitigate these concerns.

• The ad campaign successfully reached a significant proportion of residents. Three‐in‐ten residents recall seeing or

hearing advertisements about Metro Vancouver’s Food Scraps Program. The advertising campaign, which ran for a

full month, was particularly successful reaching residents ages 18 to 34 years.

5

Observations cont’d

• The advertising campaign has broad reach.Metro Vancouver’s advertising campaign used a multi‐mode approach.

Advertisements at bus shelters and SkyTrain stations reached the largest group of residents and were particularly

effective reaching residents under age 45. On the other hand, television advertisements primarily reached

residents 45 years and older.

• Residents who recall the ads are largely neutral to positive. Approximately one‐half of residents like the

advertisements with another three‐in‐ten neutral toward them. Relatively few residents dislike the advertisements.

The advertisements resonate most with women and residents under the age of 35.

• Not all food characters are liked equally. The melon and chick drumstick characters are enjoyed by the largest

proportions, while the salmon and lamb chop characters are enjoyed by the fewest.

• The appeal of the advertisements lay in their fun and simple nature. Residents who like the advertisements

generally feel it is “funny”, “cute”, or “conveys the message effectively”. Other reasons residents enjoy the

advertisements are because they are “eye catching”, “straight forward”, and “has a good message”.

• The core strengths of the advertisements are also their weaknesses. Several of the top reasons residents dislike

the advertisements include feeling they are “too childish”, the “message is obvious” or “the ad looks ugly”. These

are some of the aspects that appeal the most to residents who like the advertisements.

• The advertisement’s likeability impacts its effectiveness. Residents who “like the ad a lot” are most likely to follow

the advertisement’s message and use the food scraps bin in the future. Based on this, the advertisements are most

effective among the region’s younger adults.

6

Executive Summary

Waste bin availability and usageDoes our residence have designated bins?According to Metro Vancouver residents (“residents”), nearly all (94% to 96% each) have designated bins for garbage, mixed paper and newsprint at their residences. Other commonly available bins include those used for plastics and metals (84%), glass (77%) and returnable beverage containers (67%). Yard waste (58%) and food scraps (57%) bins are available to the fewest residents.

Residents who own their own home are more likely than renters to have a food scraps bin at their residence (67% versus 42%). Residents living in a detached house are most likely to have a food scraps bin:

• Detached house (82%)• Townhouse (57%)• Apartment/condo (29%)

Which bins do we use?Closely reflecting their availability, nearly all (96%) residents use their garbage bin (96%), closely followed by mixed paper (94%) and newsprint (92%) bins. A majority of residents use their designated bins for plastics and metals (83%), glass (76%) and returnable beverage containers (64%). Over one‐half (53%) use yard waste or food scraps bins.

Among residents with a food scraps bin at their residence, more than eight‐in‐ten (83%) use it.

How much of our waste do we recycle?Nine‐in‐ten (90%) residents feel they sort half (about 50%) or more of their waste for recycling, including one‐quarter (24%) who sort all (about 100%) and forty‐five percent (45%) who sort most (about 75%) of their waste for recycling. One‐in‐ten (9%) sort some (about 25%) of their waste for recycling.

The likelihood residents feel they sort all (100%) their garbage for recycling increases with age:

• 18 to 34 (15%)

• 35 to 44 (22%)

• 45 to 64 (26%)

• 65 and older (38%)

Where do we dispose of our waste?What do we put in our food scraps bin?Overall, one‐half (48%) of residents use their food scraps bin for one or more of the 12 types of waste covered in the survey. Four‐in‐ten (40% to 41% each) residents use the food scraps bin to dispose of fruits and vegetables, animal and fish bones, meat or plate scrapings. Thirty‐seven percent (37%) place tea leaves and tea bags in the food scraps bin, followed by one‐third (33%) who use it for dairy products and three‐in‐ten (31%) for coffee grounds.

Fewer residents place used paper towels and napkins (23%) or fat, grease and oil (21%) into the food scraps bin.

7

Executive Summary cont’d

Where do we dispose different types of waste?Residents typically dispose the following types of waste in different ways:

Animal and fish bones are placed in the garbage (51%) or food scraps bin (40%).

Coffee grounds in the garbage (42%) or food scraps bin (31%).

Cardboard in corrugated cardboard recycling (62%) or mixed paper recycling (31%).

Dairy products in the garbage (41%) or food scraps bin (33%).

Fat, grease in oil in the garbage (48%), food scraps bin (21%) or drain (16%).

Fruits and vegetables in the food scraps bin (41%) or garbage (37%).

Meat in the garbage (47%) or food scraps bin (40%).

Paper or light cardboard containers in the mixed paper recycling (63%) or corrugated cardboard recycling (30%).

Plate scrapings in the garbage (41%) or food scraps bin (39%).

Recyclable plastics in the plastics and metals recycling (80%).

Tea leaves or tea bags in the garbage (43%) or food scraps bin (37%).

Used paper towels and napkins in the garbage (53%), food scraps bin (23%) or mixed paper recycling (15%).

Reasons to use or not use the food scraps binTop two reasons why we may not use the food scraps bin?Three‐in‐ten residents (31% each) may not use the food scraps bin because they’re worried that it may attract pests, it isn’t offered at their residence or they’re concerned about odours.

Concern about odours decreases with age:

• 18 to 34 (39%)• 35 to 44 (33%)• 45 to 64 (28%)• 65 and older (20%)

Residents living in detached houses are most likely to be worried about pests:

• Detached house (43%)• Townhouse (27%)• Apartment (18%)

A smaller minority prefer to use the drain or garburator (11%), do not have the space for another bin (8%) or are not sure what is allowed in the bin (7%). Other reasons for not using the food scraps bin include it is too time consuming and not knowing that food scraps can be recycled (6% each).

8


Top two reasons we use the food scraps bin?Among the one‐half (48%) of residents who use the food scraps bin, three‐quarter (76%) do so to help reduce the amount of garbage that is sent to the landfill. This is the case for a greater proportion of women than men (95% versus 78%).

Other reasons include it is required by their city or municipality(35%), it reduced greenhouse gas emissions (24%), prevents them from overflowing their garbage bin (17%) or allows them to take out their garbage less often (15%).

Younger residents are most likely to consider reduce greenhouse gas emissions a reason to use the food scraps bin:

• 18 to 34 (44%)• 35 to 44 (27%)• 45 to 64 (23%)• 65 and older (22%)

A greater proportion of women than men use the food scraps bin in part to prevent them from overflowing their garbage (27% men versus 15% women).

Food Scraps Program AdvertisingUnaided awarenessJust over three‐in‐ten (32%) residents recall seeing or hearing advertising about food scraps in the past two months. Among subgroups of interest:

• Residents ages 18 to 34 are more likely to recall seeing this advertising than those 35 and older (41% versus 28% to 29%).

• Women are more likely than men (37% versus 26%).

What was the advertisement’s message?Among residents aware of food scraps advertising, the largest proportion (34%) recall the message “food is not garbage”. The other aspects of the advertisements related to Metro Vancouver’s food scraps recycling program residents recall, include “food should go into the recycling bin” (21%) and “cartoon characters” (5%).

Fourteen percent (14%) recall seeing or hearing information on food recycling regulations and an equal proportion (14%) something else. Two‐in‐ten (19%) do not recall the advertisement’s message.

Aided awarenessThree‐in‐ten (31%) residents recall advertising with the messages and characters from the Metro Vancouver’s Food Scraps Program advertising campaign.

9


Where did we see or hear this advertising?Among residents who recall food scraps advertising, the largest proportion (28%) recall seeing them at SkyTrain stations, closely followed by bus shelters (27%), television (26%) and bus sides(21%).

When prompted with a list of advertising mediums, one‐half (51% aided aware) recall seeing advertising at bus shelters, followed by SkyTrain stations (45%), bus sides (45%) or television (38%).

Residents ages 18 to 44 years are more likely to recall hearing or seeing ads at bus shelters than those 45 years and older (61% versus 28% to 42%) .

Notable differences among age groups include:

SkyTrain stations

• 18 to 34 (61%)• 35 to 44 (41%)• 45 to 64 (36%)• 65 and older (22%)

Television

• 18 to 34 (21%)• 35 to 44 (22%)• 45 to 64 (55%)• 65 and older (69%)

Impact of advertisementAmong residents who recall food scraps advertising, one‐third (33%) feel they are now more likely to use the food scraps bin while nearly six‐in‐ten (58%) are about as likely as before.

Ad testing ‐ Overall impressionsHow do we feel about the advertisements?Having viewed two of Metro Vancouver’s poster ads, nine‐in‐ten (90%) residents agree (strongly + somewhat) that the ads are easy to understand, including sixty‐four percent (64%) who strongly agree. Women are more likely than men to strongly agree (72% versus 55%). Strong agreement decreases with age:

• 18 to 34 (71%)• 35 to 44 (63%)• 45 to 64 (62%)• 65 and older (51%)

Seventy‐seven percent (77%) agree that the ads provide useful information, including over four‐in‐ten (40%) who strongly agree. Women are more likely than men to strongly agree (44% versus 35%).

10


Just over seven‐in‐ten (72%) agree that the ads are fun and playful, including four‐in‐ten (42%) who strongly agree. Women are more likely than men to strongly agree (47% versus 37%). Strong agreement decreases with age:

• 18 to 44 (48%)• 45 to 64 (37%)• 65 and older (34%)

Six‐in‐ten (60%) agree that the ads are memorable, including thirty‐two percent (32%) who strongly agree. Women are more likely than men to strongly agree (38% versus 25%).

Do we like the characters?One‐half (51%) of residents like (a lot + a little) the characters created from food scraps, including one‐quarter (24%) who like them a lot. Women are more likely than men to like the ads a lot (29% versus 18%).

Three‐in‐ten (30%) residents feel neutral towards them (take them or leave them). Seventeen percent (17%) of residents dislike (a lot + a little) the characters.

Impact of advertisementsHaving viewed two of Metro Vancouver’s poster ads, over one‐quarter (27%) of residents feel they are now more likely to use the food scraps bin. The majority of residents (65%) feel about as likely. The impact of the advertisement is more noticeable among

residents ages 18 to 44 years than 45 years and older (33% are now more likely to use the food scraps bin versus 22%).

Ad testing ‐ Individual adsWhich characters have we seen before?The melon character has the highest visibility (28%), closely followed by the chicken drumstick (27%). The bagel sandwich, spring roll and lamb chop form a middle tier seen by 15% to 19% of residents, while the characters with the lowest visibility include noodles (10%), salmon (10%) and egg shell (8%).

Do we understand the message of these ads?The message of the ads is clear to residents. They understand that the ads are conveying the messages “food is not garbage” and “food belongs in the green bin”.

How do we feel about the ads?The largest proportion (55%) of residents liked (a lot + a little) the ad with the melon character, including over one‐quarter (28%) who like it a lot. The add with the chicken drumstick is liked by just over one‐half (53%) of residents. Nearly one‐half (46% to 48%) like the ads with the spring roll, egg shell, noodles and bagel sandwich characters. The smallest proportion (40% to 41%) of residents liked the ads with the lamb chop or salmon characters.

11


Why do we like the ads?Residents were randomly shown poster advertisements from Metro Vancouver’s Food Scraps Program campaign. The following are the top reasons residents liked (a lot + a little) the ads they viewed:

Egg shell – “Funny and entertaining” (19%), “effectively conveys the message” (18%) and “cute” (18%).

Lamb chop – “Funny and entertaining” (18%), “easy to understand” (17%) and “effectively conveys the message” (14%).

Chicken drumstick – “Funny and entertaining” (23%), “attention grabbing” (17%) and “cute” (17%).

Melon – “Funny and entertaining” (22%), “like character” (21%) and “effectively conveys the message” (18%).

Noodles – “Attention grabbing” (16%) and “cute” (16%).

Spring roll – “Funny and entertaining” (17%) and “cute” (13%).

Salmon – “Cute” (18%), “effectively conveys the message” (17%) and “funny and entertaining” (16%).

Bagel – “Funny and entertaining” (19%) and “straight forward” (14%).

Why are we neutral toward or dislike the ads?The following are the top reasons residents felt neutral toward or disliked (a lot + a little) the ads they viewed:

Egg shell – “Not creative” (10%), “not an effective ad” (10%) and “message is too obvious” (9%).

Lamb chop – “Dislike character” (20%).

Chicken drumstick – “Too childish or comical” (12%) and “not an effective ad” (10%).

Melon – “Not eye catching” (23%) and “message is too obvious” (15%).

Noodles – “Message too obvious” (13%) and “too childish” (10%).

Spring roll – “Looks ugly” (15%) and “message is too obvious” (10%).

Salmon – “Dislike the character” (17%).

Bagel – “Looks ugly” (15%).

2014 Christmas Post-Campaign Tracking Research

January 2015

ATTACHMENT 2

Introduction

Background

Metro Vancouver first launched a Zero Waste Challenge Christmas campaign in 2009 to encourage residents to reduce the volume of garbage they produce over the holiday season. The 2014 Christmas campaign consisted of transit, print, on-line, radio, and television advertising, in addition to posters and decals in public buildings throughout Metro Vancouver. This report presents the findings from the post-campaign measure conducted shortly after the campaign ended. Comparisons are made in the report to previous measures where possible.

2

Methodology

400 interviews completed using Mustel Group’s randomly recruited panel;

Field dates: January 7th – 12th, 2015;

Sample weighted by age within gender and region to match Statistics Canada data for region;

Margin of error: +/-5% at the 95% level of confidence;

Questionnaire used appended;

Detailed computer tabulations presented under separate cover.

Executive Overview

A total of 49% recall any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make at Christmas, higher than the level recorded last year (31%) but similar to the level recorded for the 2013 campaign (50%)

A total of 46% report seeing one of the print ads, a slightly higher level in comparison to the last two year campaigns (37% and 39%). Awareness is slightly higher among those under 55 years of age but does not vary significantly by gender.

Again recall is highest of the transit advertising. A link to the TV advertising is also made by a considerable proportion when shown the print ads.

A total 50% report recall of the TV ad, a significant increase from 41% of residents in the 2013 measure and 37% in the 2012 campaign.

As noted in the past, women are more inclined than men to recall the commercial (56% versus 44% of men). But unlike the print ads, older residents are more inclined to recall the TV ads (60% of those 55 years plus versus 46% of those under 55).

3

The majority found each type of advertising to be effective in making them think about the types of gifts they would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create. A total of 57% rated the print ads ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ effective, and 63% found the TV ad to be effective (similar to previous measures).

A total of 19% of Metro Vancouver residents reported some impact on their behaviour (responded yes or maybe) when asked if the campaign had an impact on the types of gifts they bought at Christmas. This level is comparable to the 2013 Christmas campaign.

Those who reported to have been influenced by the advertising tended to give experiences as gifts, and to a lesser extent, attempted to purchase gifts that created less waste, give more practical gifts, make their own gifts, give fewer gifts, and/or gave charitable donations instead of gifts.


Department Date: April 8, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign Update” for information.

PURPOSE To update the Committee on Metro Vancouver’s behavioural change campaign to reduce avoidable food waste. BACKGROUND Organics make up about 40 per cent of the total waste stream, and a significant portion of the food being disposed of could have been eaten. After reviewing avoidable food waste reduction campaigns in other jurisdictions, staff determined that, rather than develop a new avoidable food waste campaign, it would be more cost effective to work with the UK’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to replicate their successful Love Food – Hate Waste campaign. A fee for service agreement with WRAP was signed last fall and a licensing agreement for the use of WRAP’s intellectual property has been negotiated. Love Food Hate Waste Campaign The United Kingdom’s Love Food – Hate Waste campaign, presented at last year’s Zero Waste Conference, frames food as a cherished resource that should not be wasted, along with strategies and actions to help consumers and businesses reduce the amount of discarded food. Avoidable household food waste in the UK was reduced by 21% between 2007 ‐ when the WRAP campaign was launched ‐ and 2012. A regional Love Food – Hate Waste campaign will support Goal 1 of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP): Minimize Waste Generation; specifically Strategy 1.3 Provide information and education on options to reduce waste. The plan also contains an aspirational goal of reducing per capita waste generation by 10 per cent by 2020. Baseline Research In preparation for the launch of a regional Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign, baseline research was undertaken. The research included 500 household kitchen diaries completed by a representational sample of the region’s population and household type where participants documented what food was being disposed, when and why, how they were disposing of it, and how much of that food waste was avoidable. A composition analysis from 80 representational households (garbage and food scrap

5.4

bin tips) throughout the region will be used to gauge if household diary participants are under‐reporting the food scraps being disposed of. In addition to quantifying how much of the food disposed of in the region could have been eaten, for the first time Metro Vancouver will have data regarding organics entering the liquid waste stream. At the conclusion of this three‐year campaign, Metro Vancouver will repeat the household kitchen diary and waste composition studies to quantify and report reductions in the region’s residential avoidable food waste. Campaign Strategy This campaign, like the UK model, will primarily rely on a web‐based resource to share information. It will be designed in a way that invites residents to contribute to an ongoing, solution‐based dialogue regarding avoidable food waste; specifically, residents will be invited to share their solutions thereby giving them and their social circles a reason to keep coming back to the site. Like the WRAP campaign, Metro Vancouver’s Love Food – Hate Waste campaign will feature simple, practical steps that residents can take to immediately start reducing their avoidable food waste, including:

Tips on food storage and how to keep it fresher longer;

Five‐day menu sets with shopping lists to enable residents to practice the behaviour of buying only the food that they will use;

Portion planning to avoid too many leftovers;

Incorporating leftovers in meal planning; and

Education about product labelling and what ‘Best Before’ really means. It could be ‘Still Good After’.

While much of the campaign will utilize rebranded WRAP materials, menus must feature local cuisine for uptake. Accordingly, Metro Vancouver is collaborating with the North Shore Culinary School, a social enterprise, to create new menu content. Over time, new content will include seasonal, locally‐sourced ingredients as well as meals that reflect the ethnic diversity of the region. Campaign Launch The Metro Vancouver Love Food – Hate Waste Campaign will officially launch on May 7th, 2015 at this year’s RCBC Zero Waste Conference. Media kits will also be provided to news outlets not in attendance at the conference. Next Steps To further develop the campaign, Metro Vancouver will:

Use baseline research to identify audiences, key behaviours to target messaging;

Work with Member Municipalities and other stakeholders to provide a link to this online resource on their food scrap recycling web pages;

Work with campaign advocates to generate social media content;

Develop point‐of‐sale interventions with a retail partner; and

Engage earned media, including breakfast and noon hour television, talk radio and food sections of local papers.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Budgeted expenditures in 2015 are $84,000. This includes a service and License Fee for WRAP UK of $27,030, and expenditures for outreach materials, such as advertising. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The United Kingdom’s Love Food – Hate Waste campaign frames food as a cherished resource that should not be wasted, along with strategies and actions to help consumers reduce the amount of discarded food. Avoidable household food waste in the UK was reduced by 21% between 2007 ‐ when the WRAP campaign was launched ‐ and 2012. After reviewing avoidable food waste reduction campaigns in other jurisdictions, staff determined that, rather than develop a new avoidable food waste campaign, it would be more cost effective to work with the UK’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to replicate their successful Love Food – Hate Waste campaign. Metro Vancouver’s Love Food – Hate Waste behavioural change campaign, to be launched May 7th, 2015 at the RCBC Zero Waste Conference, will provide the region’s residents with easy‐to‐adopt practices to immediately reduce household avoidable food waste. Baseline research, which includes over 500 completed household kitchen diaries and waste composition analysis from 80 food scrap bin tips, is currently being analyzed. A report that quantifies what avoidable food waste is occurring within our region will be released as part of the campaign launch. This will include, for the first time, metrics for organics being disposed of in the liquid waste stream. At the conclusion of this three‐year campaign, Metro Vancouver will repeat the household kitchen diary and waste composition studies to quantify and report reductions in the region’s residential avoidable food waste. 11068374


Department Date: April 8, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Metro Vancouver Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board forward the report dated April 8, 2015, titled “Metro Vancouver Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Update” to Member Municipalities and other stakeholders for their information and engagement.

PURPOSE To update the Committee on Metro Vancouver’s efforts to improve recycling within multi‐family complexes and develop an on‐line multi‐family recycling toolkit. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) has the goal of 70% diversion by 2015. To achieve that goal, the diversion rate at multi‐family complexes needs to increase from about 14% to 30%. In support of ISWRMP Goal 2, Strategy 2.2: Increase the effectiveness of existing recycling programs, staff have developed an online Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit to help motivated building managers, residents, strata councils and haulers improve residential recycling within their individual complexes. A separate, complementary online resource has already been developed for food scrap collection. The Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit has been developed from the experience gained through several years of work aimed at increasing recycling rates at Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation complexes. Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Development – Pilot Programs In 2009, Metro Vancouver staff applied the Community Based Social Marketing model to identify and test interventions that would increase recycling rates within Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) complexes. Initial work at two pilot sites focused on ensuring there were sufficient recycling bins, providing a clean, more attractive recycling space, as well as developing tenant engagement strategies. To create the space required for more recycling bins at those sites, the size of garbage bins was reduced where possible, or individual garbage bins were removed with that space then cleaned and dedicated to recycling. In 2012, five new sites were identified for additional pilot projects. An evaluation of education materials then available to building managers highlighted a lack of consistency with respect to content and design. To identify evidence‐based best practices, staff initiated a research collaboration with the Brain and Attention Research Lab within the UBC Department Psychology. Testing confirmed that simple graphic icons resulted in more materials being placed in the correct recycling stream and fewer test subjects placing recyclable materials in the garbage. After presenting the results of that BAR Lab research to municipal waste reduction coordinators, staff collaborated with those

5.5

municipalities where the five new pilot sites were located to develop graphics‐based recycling signage. Surveys identified an additional barrier to recycling – residents reported feeling disheartened because they believed “they were the only ones” recycling properly, reaffirming the importance of tenant engagement. In 2013 new recycling kits were developed to:

Address the convenience barrier by providing a reusable bag to transfer recyclables from individual units to recycling areas;

Reduce the thinking required to sort recyclables by providing the new outreach materials tailored to each municipality’s collection program;

Help residents reduce waste at source; and

Provide the catalyst for staff and tenant associations to engage all residents in a “reboot” of their existing recycling programs.

Pilot Program Results Post‐intervention observations and waste composition studies at our five pilot sites confirmed that more recyclables were being diverted from the garbage. Sites that formed “recycling teams” reported the highest level of satisfaction with the program with the least regression to pre‐intervention contamination levels. In 2011, the year staff conducted waste composition baseline research, garbage removal costs were 27 per cent ($146,000) over budget. In 2012, the year that recycling and garbage capacity was optimized at select sites, costs were reduced, but still four per cent ($26,500) over budget. With system‐wide implementation of recycling interventions in 2013, garbage removal costs were further reduced to seven per cent ($51,000) under budget. The most significant savings were realized by optimizing garbage bin sizes at some sites. At other sites costs were reduced by switching from communal bins to door‐to‐door collection service. While reductions in garbage generation can be attributed to vagaries such as the economy, post‐intervention surveys with residents at our pilot sites confirmed a high level of satisfaction with the program. Toolkit Development The best practices learned from the pilot programs have been developed into an online resource – a Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit. Metro Vancouver worked with municipal waste reduction coordinators to ensure that recycling outreach materials aligned seamlessly with the specific multi‐family collection programs in each municipality. The Toolkit will help motivated building managers, residents, strata councils and haulers throughout the region walk through the three steps necessary to improve residential recycling within their complexes. Step 1 prompts users to first identify how many recycling bins they need for the number of units within their complex. Step 2 provides municipal‐specific resources to give to residents and post within recycling areas. Step 3 provides resources to help establish a recycling community within complexes to address the sense of isolation and establish new social norms that support a recycling ethos.

NEXT STEPS To promote the Toolkit so that target audiences are made aware of its availability and value, Metro Vancouver will:

Carry out a media launch to drive stakeholders to the online resource,

Work with Member Municipalities and other stakeholders to provide a link to this online resource on their multi‐family recycling web pages,

Develop a common recycling icon set to share with managers of residential, commercial and institutional complexes.

ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board forward the report dated March 4, 2015 titled “Metro Vancouver Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit Update” to Member Municipalities and other stakeholders for their information and engagement.

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive this report and provide alternate direction. 3. That the GVS&DD Board receive this report for information.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Development and implementation of the on‐line Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit were undertaken in‐house by the External Relations Department. There are no financial implications related to alternative one – staff will work directly with Member Municipalities and other stakeholders to build awareness and engagement with the on‐line toolkit. Social media and in‐house multimedia resources of the External Relations Department will also be employed to further disseminate awareness and use of the tool. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Community Based Social Marketing model was utilized at Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation pilot sites to improve participation in recycling and decrease contamination in all waste streams. When efforts to improve recycling commenced in 2011, garbage hauling costs were 27 per cent over budget. With system‐wide implementation, garbage removal costs were seven per cent under budget in 2014. While garbage reductions can be attributed to vagaries such as the economy, post‐intervention surveys with residents and observations at our pilot sites confirmed more recyclables were being diverted and that there was overall satisfaction with the program. Metro Vancouver has collaborated with the region’s municipal waste reduction coordinators to develop materials that share the best practices that emerged, while reflecting local collection programs. Those materials and other behavioural change interventions have been incorporated into a new, online resource – the Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit ‐ to help motivated building managers, strata councils, residents and haulers improve recycling within multi‐family complexes. A complementary resource has been developed for food scrap collection. Making these materials available through an online toolkit will help advance more consistent recycling education and outreach materials for residents of the Metro Vancouver region. This forms part of a larger initiative to provide a consistent approach to recycling signs and outreach materials whether residents are at home, at work or in public spaces, with the aim of improving recycling in all three contexts. Alternative one is recommended for adoption by the GVS&DD Board. 11049288

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated April 7, 2015 titled, “Manager’s Report” for information.

Stakeholder Notification and Communications on Tipping Fee Changes The following table outlines the key external audiences and approaches that have and continue to be used to inform customers of Metro Vancouver disposal facilities of changes to the tipping fee effective April 6, 2015.

Stakeholder Communication Approach

Haulers and Recyclers ‐ Commercial Regional Facility Customers

‐ Two letters to Metro Vancouver customers with accounts ‐ Updates to signage at Regional Facilities ‐ Meeting of Ban Effectiveness Working Group (composed of

haulers and recyclers) ‐ Phone calls and meetings, as requested

Public ‐ Regional Facility Customers

‐ Updates to signage at Regional Facilities ‐ Distribution of information materials at Regional Facilities ‐ Updates on Metro Vancouver and Member Municipality

websites ‐ Social media updates ‐ MV Information Center phone line

The City of Vancouver is also updating signage and distributing information at the City’s Transfer Station and Landfill, on‐line, over the phone and by letter to City of Vancouver account customers. Update on Enhanced Recycling at the Coquitlam Transfer Station As part of the 2014 Operating Budget and workplan, recycling services at the Coquitlam Transfer Station were expanded, including increasing the number of materials accepted for recycling and creating a dedicated entrance to the free drop‐off recycling area. By September 2014, the following new materials could be dropped off in the recycling area at the transfer station for no charge as they are managed by product stewards or Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs:

Cooking oil

Electronics or “e‐waste”

Household batteries and lead‐acid (automotive) batteries

Light bulbs, lamps and fixtures

Outdoor power equipment and power tools

5.6

Smoke and carbon monoxide alarms

Thermostats

Large and small appliances

Single‐use propane canisters

Polystyrene

Beverage containers (No refunds)

Paint, pesticides, solvents and gasoline

Between September and December 2014, approximately 34,500 customers used the expanded recycling area to drop off 746 tonnes of recyclable materials, approximately a 50% increase in material over the previous year. Other recyclable materials are accepted at the transfer station for a fee to cover the cost of recycling – mattresses ($15 per mattress), green waste (including residential quantities of food scraps as of January 1, 2015 ‐ $66/tonne), and gypsum ($150/tonne). In addition to the materials listed in the previous sentence, mixed metals, blue box recyclables, lead acid batteries, oil filters and propane tanks have historically been collected within the facility. Study of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Extended Producer Responsibility

Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Environment signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in 2012 to ensure the viability and success of existing and future EPR programs. The Zero Waste Committee received a progress update on a study of economic and environmental benefits of current and future EPR programs at its April 4, 2013 meeting. The study was finalized in 2014 and concluded that BC’s EPR programs have resulted in:

Reduced waste collection and land‐filling costs of $30 million (rising to $115 million by 2022)

Market value of recovered EPR material of $40 million (rising to $100 million by 2022)

Estimated job creation of 2,400 (rising to 5,400 jobs by 2022)

Avoided disposal of 150,425 tonnes of garbage (rising to 625,171 tonnes by 2022)

Net GHG reductions of 173,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (rising to 935,000 tonnes by 2022) The study has been distributed to Member Municipalities, through the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee – Solid Waste Sub‐Committee.

Study of Diversion Potential at Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction (DLC) Material Recovery Facilities Metro Vancouver commissioned a study of international and local material recovery facilities (MRFs) that handle DLC materials, to enhance regional DLC recycling policy and initiatives. The study explores the diversion potential at various facility types and highlights the importance of municipal demolition recycling requirements to diversion rates and increased DLC recycling and processing capacity. Approximately 1.2 million tonnes of DLC materials are recycled in Metro Vancouver per year, a diversion rate of about 75%. However, about 400,000 tonnes of DLC materials continue to be disposed and present an opportunity for diversion. Preliminary findings have been shared with the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee – Solid Waste Sub‐Committee and Metro Vancouver is currently reviewing the study findings and possible applications in the region.

Study of On‐Site Organics Management Technologies Metro Vancouver commissioned a study of on‐site organics management technologies to assist industry with organics management plans and programs, and increase organics recycling in the region. The audience is businesses and institutions that produce 10 to 1,000 tonnes of food waste per year (360 L to 40 cubic yards per week) and multifamily buildings with at least 50 units. The study reviewed options for storage, hauling, automated weight reduction and processing technologies available in Canada and used successfully in various industries. Technologies that discharge an end product to the sewer system were excluded as organic waste is hard on the sewer system and these technologies do not produce compost or biofuel. The study is available on‐line: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid‐waste/SolidWastePublications/On‐site_Organics_Management_Options_Review‐Dec‐14.pdf and has been shared with the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee – Solid Waste Sub‐Committee and industry stakeholders across the region. Study of Recycling Incentive Programs Metro Vancouver commissioned a study of recycling incentive programs from around the world to assess potential policy models for increasing recycling in businesses, apartments and condos across the region. An initial stakeholder workshop was held with haulers and businesses to shape the study’s scope and focus. Three different policy models emerged from the research: (1) a hauler‐focused incentive; (2) a generator‐focused incentive, and (3) a form of mandatory recycling where member municipalities collaborate with haulers to provide targeted education and enforcement to generators who are not effectively source separating materials. Preliminary findings have been shared with the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee – Solid Waste Sub‐Committee. Metro Vancouver will further engage stakeholders and explore the merits of a pilot program to test suitable options identified through consultation. The Recycling Council of BC Conference The Recycling Council of BC (RCBC) will hold its annual conference on May 6‐8, 2015. Metro Vancouver staff are collaborating with RCBC in the delivery of the circular economy discussions and will host a booth in the trade show. Highlights include a presentation by Director Brodie on Effecting Policy Change, including local government bans, behavior change campaigns and the National Zero Waste Council and the official launch of Metro Vancouver’s Love Food – Hate Waste campaign by Director Brodie, kick‐starting a conversation and actions to reduce our household food waste. Zero Waste Committee 2015 Work Plan The attachment to this report sets out the Committee’s Workplan for 2015. The status of work program elements is indicated as pending, in progress, or complete. The listing is updated as needed to include new issues that arise, items requested by the Committee and changes in the schedule. Attachments and References: Attachment: Zero Waste Committee 2015 Workplan

Zero Waste Committee 2015 Workplan Report Dated: April 7, 2015

Priorities

1st Quarter Status Tipping Fee Bylaw Update

Complete

New Waste‐to‐Energy Project Update

In progress

2014 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update

In progress

Launch of Multi‐Family Recycling Toolkit

Complete

2014 Waste Reduction and Recycling Campaign Results Complete

2nd Quarter Update on Organics Disposal Ban and Clean Wood Disposal Ban Implementation

In progress

Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement Update

In progress

Packaging and Printed Paper Program Update

Pending

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility 2014 Financial Update

Pending

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility 2014 Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Update

Pending

Launch “Love Food – Hate Waste” campaign

Pending

Battery awareness and recycling campaign

Pending

3rd Quarter 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions

Pending

Waste Flow Update and End of Year Waste Projections

In progress

ISWRMP Biennial Progress Report

Pending

Eco‐Centres Strategy

In progress

Surrey RDO Update

In progress

North Shore Transfer Station Redevelopment Update

In progress

National Zero Waste Council Update Pending

GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2014 Financial Results Pending

Food scraps recycling campaign Pending

Zero Waste Conference Pending

ATTACHMENT

4th Quarter Annual solid Waste & Recycling Report (for Calendar 2014)

Pending

Christmas Waste Reduction Campaign Pending

2015 Waste Reduction and Recycling Campaign

Pending

Packaging and Printed Paper Program Update

Pending

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2015 Meeting Date: April 13, 2015 Subject: 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated March 25, 2015, titled “2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station” for information.

At its meeting of March 27, 2015, the GVS&DD Board considered the attached report dated March 25, 2015, titled “2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station” for information. Attachments and References: Attachment: Report dated March 25, 2015, titled “2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station”

6.1

To: GVS&DD Board of Directors From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: March 25, 2015 Meeting Date: March 27, 2015 Subject: 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Amendment for Matsqui Transfer Station

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board:

1) Approve an amended tipping fee structure for Matsqui Transfer Station as follows: a. Loads less than 1 tonne: $150 per tonne to a maximum fee of $109 b. Loads 1 tonnes and above: $109 per tonne

2) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015”.

3) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015”.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend changes to the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw” (Tipping Fee Bylaw) for loads delivered to the Matsqui Transfer Station. BACKGROUND The amount of waste delivered to Matsqui Transfer Station has dropped from approximately 82,000 tonnes in 2007 to 22,800 tonnes in 2014. With the close proximity of the Matsqui Transfer Station to the private transfer stations in Abbotsford, commercial waste volumes at the Matsqui Transfer Station have dropped by more than 90% and it now receives primarily Abbotsford single family residential and small vehicle, self‐haul garbage. The City of Abbotsford has provided written notice to terminate its agreement with Metro Vancouver and will stop delivering its single family residential waste to the Matsqui Transfer Station on October 31, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the GVS&DD Board set a new Tipping Fee structure. The differential rate structure sets a tipping fee of $130 per tonne for loads under 1 tonne, $109 per tonne for loads 1 and above, but less than 9 tonnes and $80 per tonne for loads above nine 9 tonnes. A rate of $150 per tonne was set for all Matsqui Transfer Station loads. In addition, on February 13, the Board resolved to close the Matsqui Transfer Station on November 1, 2015. MATSQUI TRANSFER STATION TIPPING FEE OPTIONS At its February 13 meeting, the GVS&DD Board received a delegation from the City of Abbotsford outlining the financial impact to the City from the increase in tipping fee at the Matsqui Transfer Station. Abbotsford staff noted that the increase would result in an increase in its solid waste expenditures of approximately $190,000 compared to its budget that was set based on 2015 tipping fees originally approved by the Board in October 2014. The City of Abbotsford’s presentation also suggested the potential for loss of the commercial and self‐haul tonnage as a result of this change.

6.1 ATTACHMENT

Metro Vancouver staff has conducted further analysis on implications of the tipping fee structure and met with the City of Abbotsford’s staff to discuss options. The two alternatives presented below compare the current tipping fee structure, approved by the Board in February of this year that takes effect on April 6, 2015, with an amended tipping fee structure that would respond to the concerns raised by Abbotsford. If the Board is supportive of amending the fee structure at the Matsqui Transfer Station, the amendment to the Tipping Fee Bylaw would need to be approved at the March 27, 2015 GVS&DD Board meeting in order to meet the April 6, 2015 implementation date. Other options such as early closure of Matsqui Transfer Station are not viable because in the short term, direct cost savings realized by closing the transfer station are less than lost revenues. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board:

i) Approve an amended tipping fee structure for Matsqui Transfer Station as follows: a) Loads less than 1 tonne: $150 per tonne to a maximum fee of $109 b) Loads 1 tonnes and above: $109 per tonne

ii) Give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015”.

iii) Pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015”.

2. That the GVS&DD Board maintain the Tipping Fee at the Masqui Transfer Station at $150 per

tonne. 3. That the GVS&DD Board provide alternate direction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the Matsqui Transfer Station tipping fee would be adjusted to $109 per tonne for loads that are 1 tonne and above and $150 per tonne for loads under 1 tonne. Given the proximity of the Matsqui Transfer Station to private transfer stations in Abbotsford it is unlikely that further lowering the tipping fee below $109 per tonne for large vehicles would result in substantial recovery of waste from these facilities in the short time prior to the closure of the Matsqui Transfer Station. The following table provides a comparison of projected tonnage and revenue streams under the proposed tipping fee structure in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2:

Matsqui Transfer Station 2015 Financial Analysis Summary April 6, 2015 Implementation

Alt 1: Adjust Tipping Fee to $109‐$150/t

Alt 2: Maintain Tipping Fee at $150/t

Annualized Tonnage 19,325 t 15,850 t

Estimated Revenue $1,850,000 $1,810,000

Direct Transfer Station Costs $(1,310,000) $(1,310,000)

Net Revenue $540,000 $500,000

The financial analysis shows that setting the tipping fee at $109‐$150 per tonne would generate slightly more revenue than setting it at $150 per tonne. The level of uncertainty for waste flow to

the facility increases as the tipping fee is raised. Setting the tipping fee at $150 per tonne for loads less than 1 tonne will allow for more equitable cost recovery for small loads. There is effectively no difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in terms of consequences for Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Services Budget. However, Alternative 1 means that Abbotsford will have waste disposal costs for 2015 consistent with its budget. Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 the tipping fee would remain at $150 per tonne for all loads. As noted above, there is effectively no difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in terms of consequences for Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Services Budget. However, Alternative 2 presents greater uncertainty regarding the reduction in waste flow to the Matsqui Transfer Station because of the higher tipping fee. A reduction in waste delivered to the Matsqui Transfer Station consequently drives a reduction in the amount of waste that Metro Vancouver transfers to the Vancouver Landfill. Waste transfer affects revenue for the City of Vancouver and the Corporation of Delta. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The amount of waste delivered to Matsqui Transfer Station has dropped from approximately 82,000 tonnes in 2007 to 22,800 tonnes in 2014. As a result of these reductions there is an associated loss of economies of scale to operate the Matsqui Transfer. On February 13, 2015, the GVS&DD Board set a new tipping fee structure and resolved to close the Matsqui Transfer Station on November 1, 2015. At that meeting, the GVS&DD Board received a delegation from the City of Abbotsford outlining the financial impact to the City from the increase in tipping fee at the Matsqui Transfer Station. Metro Vancouver staff further evaluated options for the operation of Matsqui Transfer Station for 2015. The financial analysis shows that there is effectively no difference in net revenue between Alternative 1 at $109‐$150 per tonne and Alternative 2 at $150 per tonne. Based on the updated financial analysis, staff recommends Alternative 1: that the Matsqui Transfer Station tipping fee be adjusted to $150 per tonne for loads up to 1 tonne (to a maximum fee of $109), and $109 per tonne for loads greater than 1 tonne, and that the Tipping Fee Bylaw be amended on that basis. Attachments and References: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No.289, 2015 11098178

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015 Page 1 of 4

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

BYLAW NO. 289, 2015

A Bylaw to Amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015”

WHEREAS:

A. The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District has adopted “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015”, a bylaw to establish the scales of charges for services rendered by the GVS&DD and for the use of any of the GVS&DD’s waste disposal facilities; and

B. The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District wishes to amend the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015”.

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. The “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 288, 2015” is amended by deleting Schedule B of the Bylaw in its entirety and substituting Schedule B of this Bylaw in its place.

2. This bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 289, 2015”.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _______ day of _____________________, 2015. PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _______ day of _________________________, 2015.

Greg Moore, Chairperson

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

ATTACHMENT


SCHEDULE “B”

TIPPING FEES, TRANSACTION FEE, RECYCLING FEES AND SURCHARGES

Table 1 –Tipping Fees for Garbage (including the Regional Services Rate) and Special Handle Waste

Net Weight North Shore

Transfer Station1 Surrey Transfer

Station1

Coquitlam Resource

Recovery Plant1

Matsqui Transfer Station1

Maple Ridge Transfer Station

Langley Transfer Station1

Burnaby WTE1

Garbage

0 to .99 tonnes 1.0 to 8.99 tonnes 9.0 tonnes or more

$130/tonne2

$109/tonne4

$80/tonne

$130/tonne2

$109/tonne4

$80/tonne

$130/tonne2

$109/tonne4

$80/tonne

$150*/tonne2

$109*/tonne

$109*/tonne *Plus FVRD Levy

$134/tonne3

$113/tonne5 Not accepted.

$130/tonne2

$109/tonne4

Not accepted.

$130/tonne2

$109/tonne4

$80/tonne

Minimum Tipping Fee during Peak Hours

$20/Load

$20/Load

$20/Load

$10/Load

$10/Load

$10/Load

$10/Load

Minimum Tipping Fee outside of Peak Hours

$10/Load $10/Load $10/Load $10/Load $10/Load $10/Load $10/Load

Special Handle Waste

All Loads Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. $200/tonne, $50 minimum.

1 All Loads originating from Maple Ridge will be assessed an additional fee of $4/tonne.

2 To a maximum of $109 per Load. 3 To a maximum of $113 per Load. 4 To a maximum of $720 per Load.

5 To a maximum of $756 per Load.

Table 2 – Transaction Fee

Each Load of Garbage disposed of at any Disposal Site and each Load of

Special Handle Waste disposed of at the Burnaby WTE

$5/Load


Table 3 – Recycling Fees for materials dropped off in designated Recycling Areas

North Shore

Transfer Station Surrey Transfer

Station Coquitlam Resource

Recovery Plant Matsqui Transfer

Station Maple Ridge

Transfer Station Langley Transfer

Station Burnaby WTE

Source Separated Organic Waste

$71/tonne, $7 minimum

Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted. Not accepted.

Green Waste $71/tonne, $7 minimum

$66/tonne, $6 minimum.


Not accepted. $66/tonne, $6 minimum.


Not accepted.

Clean Wood $71/tonne, $7 minimum






Not accepted.

Gypsum – two sheets 1.22m x 2.44m or less







Not accepted.

Gypsum – more than two sheets 1.22m x 2.44m but less than ½ tonne







Not accepted.

Mattresses $15 per Mattress $15 per Mattress $15 per Mattress $15 per Mattress $15 per Mattress $15 per Mattress Not accepted.


Table 4 – Surcharges

1 Surcharges for Food Waste will be effective as of July 1, 2015. 2 Surcharges for Clean Wood will be effective as of July 1, 2015.

Loads of Source‐Separated Organic Waste containing more than 0.05% (by wet weight) of any other type of Refuse

North Shore Transfer Station

$50 per Load

Loads containing Recyclable Material other than Food Waste or Clean Wood that exceeds either 5% of the total weight of the Load or 5% of the total volume of the Load (section 5.5)

All Disposal Sites 50% of the applicable Tipping Fee

Loads containing Contaminated Recyclable Paper that exceeds either 5% of the total weight of the Load or 5% of the total volume of the Load (section 5.6)


Loads containing Food Waste that exceeds either 25% of the total weight of the Load or 25% of the total volume of the Load (section 5.7)1


Loads containing Clean Wood that exceeds either 10% of the total weight of the Load or 10% of the total volume of the Load (section 5.8)2


Loads containing any Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials or Product Stewardship Materials

All Disposal Sites $50 per Load plus the cost of removal, clean‐up and remediation

From: Mike Jijian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:02 PM To: Information Centre Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Disposal Rates

To Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee,

I am writing this in order to express my anger and frustration with your rate increases that took

effect at the transfer stations in Metro Vancouver today. These rate increases are not only

exorbitant, they are absurd. This 24% increase is punitive to small operators like ourselves and

will have a major impact on our operations, at least those of us who survive.

The justification that you provide of "more accurately reflecting the cost of managing the regions

waste" is simply not true. The real reason is that you lowered the cost to big operators because

they were using alternate facilities and you did not want to lose their business. In order to offset

these rate DECREASES to the large and already profitable bigger companies you have jacked up

everyone else's rates. This means that residential and small commercial operators are now

subsidizing the profits of the larger operators. On top of the increase from $109 to $130 per

tonne, the $5 transaction fee on EVERY disposal is adding insult to injury. This is disgusting

and you folks should be ashamed of yourselves for increasing the costs to your residents and

small businesses in order to make big corporations more profitable.

Though we have already made arrangements with alternate facilities and will only be using

Metro and Vancouver transfer stations when absolutely necessary, I would prefer to continue the

positive relationship that we've developed with Metro and Vancouver. As such, I would like to

formally request that some type of allowance be made for smaller commercial operators.

Specifically I am requesting that our rates be decreased to the original $109 per tonne and that

the $5 fee be waived. We are not opposed to a small increase but cannot continue our

relationship with your facilities with the rates that are now in effect. Already today we have used

private facilities numerous times, money which would have otherwise gone to Metro or

Vancouver.

Mr. Moore, I am a Port Coquitlam resident and my business is based in Port Coquitlam. I am

hoping that as your constituent you might be willing to go to bat for us in order to allow small

business to continue to grow in our municipality, and others.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mike Jijian Owner, Just Junk (Vancouver)

604.790.1965

JUSTJUNK.COM Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

6.2

mailto:[email protected]




http://justjunk.com/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/justjunk

https://twitter.com/#!/justjunk

http://www.youtube.com/justjunk

6.3

Ms. Lori Bryan, Executive Director Waste Management Association of BC PO Box 3322, Station Main Mission, BC V2V 4J5

Dear Ms. Bryan:

Executive Offices Tel. 604-432-6215 Fax 604-451-6614

File: CP-16-02-016

Re: Advancing waste diversion and recycling goals and programs in Metro Vancouver

Thank you for your letter of December 22, 2014 requesting a meeting with Metro Vancouver to discuss how the private waste and recycling services sector can help further advance waste diversion and recycling goals and programs in Metro Vancouver. We appreciate the spirit of collaboration articulated in your letter and we look forward to meeting you.

As you know, over the past few months we have brought forward new initiatives to increase recycling and encourage a financially sustainable, equitable and resilient waste management system in Metro Vancouver. We look forward to hearing your feedback on these changes, in addition to your ideas for advancing recycling across the region.

Please contact Kimberly Ho, Executive Assistant to the CAO's office, at 604-436-6919 to schedule a meeting.

Yours truly,

Gre~Meor~, c ir Metro Vancouver Board

GM MB/PH/se

cc: The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of the Environment Marvin Hunt, MLA (Surrey-Panorama)

10970561

Zero Waste Committee

6.4

2014

Metro Vancouver Chairman Moore

Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee Malcolm Brodie

Dear Chairman Moore & Brodie,

On behalf of the Waste Management Association of British Columbia

a with you, your Committee and staff to discuss how the waste and services

sector can further advance waste diversion and and programs in Metro Vancouver.

The WMABC is that its members have played a role in Metro Vancouver reach its current

58 percent diversion rate and we look forward to continuing to work with the Region to reach its goals

of 70 and 80 diversion. We are confident that with the waste diversion initiatives

we can reach these before its dates.

Metro Vancouver's current open and waste and market has helped create and

nurture a diversion and industry in BC that includes over 60 and

The BC waste and recycling industry is committed to building additional diversion

infrastructure which will increase the diversion rates in the municipal, industrial and commercial sectors

in Metro Vancouver as well as across British Columbia.

We believe that we can help make Metro Vancouver and British Columbia a world leader in

waste diversion and recycling. We stand ready and willing to work with the Region and I will follow up

with your office to coordinate a date.

Lori

Executive Director

Minister Polak

NextUse Recycling Ltd. | 328 -1508 W. Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V6J 1W8

March 26, 2015

Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Zero Waste Committee Zero Waste Committee Members

Dear Chair & Committee Members:

Re: March 17, 2015 Letter from Wayne H. Davis on behalf of the Recycle First Coalition

We were provided with a copy of Mr. Davis' March 17, 2015 letter addressed to Mayor Brodie and circulated to all members of Metro Vancouver's Zero Waste Committee and others. In that letter, Mr. Davis offers you some thoughts, on behalf of the Recycle First Coalition ("RFC"), regarding the possible regulation of mixed waste material recovery facilities. We would like to offer you some commentary on a few of Mr. Davis' propositions as we believe they are based on false premises and, as such, are potentially misleading.

First, while Mr. Davis makes note of the fact that the Minister of Environment rejected draft bylaw 280, his summary of the Minister's reasons for doing so is incomplete. In particular, flow control was only one of the "significant public interest concerns" identified in the Minister's letter of October 17, 2014. Rather, all of the concerns stated in the letter led to a review of what, if any, changes are required to the current system to maximize the diversion of waste from disposal. Given the Minister's rejection of draft bylaw 280 and pending the outcome of the review, we question the merit of Mr. Davis' advice that Metro Vancouver should proceed to develop a licensing scheme specific to mixed waste MRFs using the rejected draft bylaw as a "helpful starting point".

Second, Mr. Davis is incorrect when he asserts that mixed waste MRFs conflict with the principles and objectives of the ISWRMP and threaten or undermine the RFC's sectoral business interests. As Metro's Solid Waste Services Division has admitted, it is neither practical nor possible to achieve 100% diversion of banned materials at the generating source. Nor is an imposed, but inevitably imperfect, regulatory regime an effective or publicly-palatable driver for absolute separation at the generating source. What private sector, market-driven mixed waste MRFs can do is take a last pass at the waste stream before ultimate disposal to a landfill or incinerator, removing valuable recyclables after residents have exercised their best efforts to separate. This is consistent with the objectives of the ISWRMP.

6.5

NextUse Recycling Ltd. - Facility License Application

March 26, 2015

Page 2 of 3

Source separation alone can't maximize "recovery", even if supported by a cumbersome regulatory regime. Rather, the goal of maximizing recovery is most effectively accomplished by encouraging private sector investment in and development of mixed waste MRFs. In this same vein, Mr. Davis' suggestion that mixed waste MRFs merely "divert" disposed materials "from the bottom to the top of the landfill", while an interesting refrain, is simply not true. The example he uses easily proves the point. The NextUse facility will be generating compost for beneficial use purposes, consistent with strategy 2.6 of the ISWRMP. It will also generate a smaller fraction for use as alternative daily landfill cover, which the ISWRMP does not preclude. Our application materials also explain how any organics that might be used for daily landfill cover will first be biologically stabilized (through composting) to eliminate any methane production. This transformative process is consistent with the re-use and recycling objectives of the ISWRMP and also reduces greenhouse gases. It is also entirely subsidiary to the role played by mixed waste MRFs in retrieving and diverting valuable recyclables that, by Metro's own admission and by referencing Metro's own data, inevitably does and will remain in the waste stream despite best efforts at source separation. Third, Mr. Davis' assertion that mixed waste MRFs could become an "easy path for generators and haulers to escape disposal bans" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the business case for and operation of mixed waste MRFs. The simple fact is that we have committed in our license to send residual waste to a Metro designated disposal facility, so why would we invest $30 million in capital to process nothing and ship everything we receive from haulers to disposal. That is a business absurdity that we have no doubt you will easily grasp. So too is the notion that disposal bans be applied to the front end of what are recycling facilities, as we have made clear to the Zero Waste Committee on prior occasions. We do stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Davis when he recommends "end to end reporting transparency". As perhaps you are aware, our license application for a mixed waste MRF in Coquitlam provides for end to end reporting, consistent with other licenses issued by Metro's Environmental Regulation and Enforcement Division. However, we are opposed to any notion of a regulation that is designed to protect sectoral business interests, especially where those interests limit market choice. The ISWRMP is clear that recycling and materials recovery has been and will continue to be founded on private sector innovation and investment. By its very nature, that investment – in the form of capital – is temporal and its renewal is the hallmark of innovation leading to better ways and means of achieving higher diversion rates. While we understand Mr. Davis’ and the coalition’s desire to protect sunk-capital in existing recycling facilities, this would clearly run counter to the ISWRMP’s principles and goal of maximizing recovery and, more importantly, it


March 26, 2015

Page 3 of 3

would be anti-competitive to tailor any form of bylaw, regulation, or extraordinary licensing requirements to that end. We trust that you will find these comments helpful in your consideration of the issues raised and addressed in Mr. Davis' letter, and his wish that Metro develop a draft bylaw specifically applicable to the licensing of mixed waste MRFs. Yours truly,

Russ. S. Black, MBA, P.Eng. Vice President, Corporate Development c. Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment

Cori Lynn Germiquet, CEO, New Westminster Chamber of Commerce Ian Tait, Executive Director, Delta Chamber of Commerce Matt Pitcairn, Manager, Communications and Policy, Richmond Chamber of Commerce Anita Huberman, CEO, Surrey Board of Trade

Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Chair, Zero Waste Committee

MetroVancouver

4330 Kingsway

Burnaby, B.C.

March 17, 2015

Dear Mayor Brodie:

The Recycle First Coalition (RFC) would like to follow up with MetroVancouver’s Zero Waste

Committee now that it has been reconstituted and has had its initial meeting. As I believe you know, the

RFC represents 12 companies with 825 employees. Together, we have invested $135 million over the past

five years in B.C. and plan similar levels of investment over the next five years.

First, we would like to heartily thank you and the members of your Committee for your continued

support for recycling in the Lower Mainland and B.C. Your leadership in such areas as source separation,

disposal fees, materials bans (and their enforcement) and dealing with the “leakage” of waste outside our

region has been outstanding and will help all of us meet our long term diversion goals.

Second, the RFC would like to express support for the Zero Waste Committee’s new Solid Waste

Services Strategy. In particular, the new “tipping fee” structure represents an appropriate balance, one

which will still encourage recycling but also help deal with the issue of leakage of waste outside of our

region.

Third, we continue to strongly support your efforts in the area of disposal bans – which have most

recently been extended to organics – as well as their strict enforcement. A big part of the reason that

our current recycling system works is that there are restrictions and bans on what can be disposed

of at transfer stations. These need to be even more strongly enforced so that recycling continues

to provide the greatest possible economic and environmental benefits. And while every region in

the province needs to adapt its approach to local circumstances, overall success can best be

assured if there is consistency so that businesses cannot simply “go somewhere else” where the

rules are less stringent (or don’t exist at all).

Finally, we would like to offer our thoughts regarding the pending approval and

subsequent regulation of “Mixed Waste Material Recycling Facilities” (“MWMRFs”). For the

past several years, there has been disagreement between MetroVancouver and some proposed

operators of such facilities about the precise regulatory basis for licensing. The Zero Waste

Committee had attempted to resolve any ambiguities for licensing MWMRFs in proposed Bylaw

280. The proposed approach was reasonable and balanced, allowing and encouraging the private

sector to invest in new technologies while ensuring that MWMRFs would not undermine source

separation. As we all know, the Minister of Environment rejected proposed Bylaw 280 over

concerns about flow control, and MetroVancouver has now responded to that rejection by

6.6

restructuring tip fees. While the tip fee restructuring may address the “leakage” problem, it

leaves in place uncertainties around the proper approach to licensing of MWMRFs. Such

uncertainties inhibit investment in all sectors of the recycling industry – MWMRFs and

otherwise—since companies are reluctant to invest when the regulatory and competitive

landscape is unclear.

We therefore encourage MetroVancouver to again take up the question of the proper

approach to licensing of MWMRFs. We believe that the basics laid down in proposed Bylaw

280 offer a helpful starting point. The key principles that should be recognized in any licensing

scheme include:

1. The overall goal should be to maximize “recovery” and not just “diversion.”

True recycling entails transforming materials that would otherwise be disposed into

products with real economic value. Merely “diverting” disposed materials from the

bottom of a landfill to the top (as “alternative daily cover”) confers little

environmental benefit. To count such materials as “diverted” is an accounting

sleight-of-hand at best.

2. Source separation should continue to be encouraged and not be undermined. In

particular, source separation at single-family residences has been highly successful

and is eminently practical. MWMRFs should not be permitted to accept material

from single family residences.

3. Disposal bans must be enforced. Appropriate mechanisms must be put in place and

funding provided to ensure that MWMRF’s do not become an easy path for

generators and haulers to escape disposal bans.

4. End to end reporting transparency should be required. If MWMRFs are truly

recycling facilities, then most of their output can and will be sold to product markets

and yield revenue; if they are instead transfer stations in disguise, then a significant

portion of their output will have to be disposed at a cost. Appropriate reporting

requirements should be established to ensure that MWMRFs operate as recycling

facilities.

We hope that MetroVancouver will take up this issue. We look forward to providing further

input through the usual stakeholder processes.

In conclusion, the RFC would like to thank you again for all your efforts to support

recycling in the region (and across BC) and we look forward to working with you to help the

region meet its future diversion goals.

On behalf of the Recycle First Coalition

Wayne H. Davis

Vice President, Government Affairs

Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre, Ltd. (dba “Harvest”)

cc: Derek Corrigan, Vice Chair, Zero Waste Committee

Wayne Baldwin, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Roger Bassam, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Jonathan Cote, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Nora Cambioli, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Bruce Hayne, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Craig Hodge, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Lois Jackson, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Bob Long, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Andrea Reimer, Member, Zero Waste Committee

Ted Schaffer, Member, Zero Waste Committee

The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment

Cori Lynn Germiquet, CEO, New Westminster Chamber of Commerce

Ian Tait, Executive Director, Delta Chamber of Commerce

Matt Pitcairn, Manager, Communications and Policy, Richmond Chamber of Commerce

Anita Huberman, CEO, Surrey Board of Trade

Mr. Ray Robb, Solid Waste Manager Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C., VSH 4G8

Dear Mr. Robb,

February 12,2015

Re: NextUse Recycling Ltd. - Facility License Application

This letter responds to and comments on both the fact and content of the January 26, 2015 letter sent to you by the General Manager, Solid Waste Services, copied to Minister Polak and Marvin Hunt and, as you may be aware, included with materials circulated to Zero Waste Committee members for their February 5, 2015 meeting.

As you well know, members of the Zero Waste Committee and representatives of the Solid Waste Services branch are on the record as strongly opposed to NextUse's material recovery and recycling facility. This is principally if not entirely because private sector material recovery operations threaten the viability of the second waste-to-energy disposal facility that certain factions of Metro Vancouver seem intent on pursuing. The threat results from the fact that material recovery facilities would recover and divert from disposal recyclables required as fuel for a second incinerator.

Additionally, the NextUse facility would likely render unnecessary the new transfer station that Metro Vancouver has proposed which is to be located across the street from the NextUse site (at a cost to the taxpayers of some $57 million). This is because the NextUse facility is designed to receive the same quantity and type of waste as a transfer station but will perform a recovery function with residuals sent to a Metro-designated disposal facility. In contrast, Metro's proposed facility will primarily transfer waste at a significantly higher cost and without the "value-added" service of taking a last pass at recovering recyclables in the waste.

Bearing that context in mind, we say that Mr. Henderson's letter is a transparent and improper attempt to see or have you impose onerous, unique and unusual restrictions on the NextUse facility so as to make the enterprise unmanageable or impossible to operate efficiently and effectively. We further say that the apparent Solid Waste Services branch bias against innovative, private sector solutions for achieving the primary Goals of the ISWRMP through diversion, and which therefore threaten the viability of a second incinerator or transfer station, is not a factor that you may or should take into account in considering NextUse's license applications and in connection with issuing the (now long-delayed) licenses.

NextUse necycllng Ud. 1 328-1508 W. Broadwny. V:.mcou';er BC. V6J 1WR

6.7

NextUse Recycling Ltd" - Facility license Application

February 12" 2015

Rather, if you intend to look beyond Bylaw 181 in connection with issuing the licenses, we believe that you should be guided by the primary Goals of the ISWRMP identified in our e-mail of January 29, 2015 (which we have attached for ease of reference).

Turning then to particular statements and recommendations in Mr. Henderson's letter:

• He states that "it is critically important that the proposed NextUse facility operates as a materials recovery facility rather than a transfer station or disposal facility."

As is clear from the NextUse license applications and as we have explained above and on numerous prior occasions, our material recovery and recycling facility is neither designed nor intended to operate as a waste transfer station or a disposal facility. Mr. Henderson's inference or suggestion to the contrary is intentionally misleading, and in any event is irrelevant to the license applications.

• He recommends that the licenses should prohibit NextUse from receiving municipal solid waste from single-family residences.

As we have previously explained elsewhere, the NextUse facility is not intended to and will not undermine source separation. Rather, it is premised on retrieving and diverting recyclables that, by Metro Vancouver's own admission and using its own data, inevitably does and will remain in the waste stream notwithstanding source separation. In other words, the NextUse facility will ensure maximum recovery of recyclables from municipal solid waste following diligent source separation whether originating from single-family residences or other sources. As such, the NextUse facility won't detract from the Goals of the ISWRMP but will instead drive toward those Goals as a complement to source separation.

In that regard, we remind you that the City of Coquitlam fully supports the NextUse facility, particularly as a means of taking a last pass at removing the recyclables that it recognizes will ultimately remain in its residential waste stream despite source separation efforts. The City of Coquitlam's position is significant given Bylaw 181's emphasis on host community support.

• Mr. Henderson recommends that Metro Vancouver's disposal bans be made to apply to the NextUse facility.

As we have stated on numerous occasions, it makes no sense to apply disposal-based bans to the front-end of a recycling facility. Unless heavy-

2 . 8

•


February 12, 2015

handed policing takes place at the generating source (which nobody wants and which would cost significantly more than mechanical processing), disposal-based bans will never be 100% effective; which is exactly what Metro's Solid Waste Department has itself determined and stated publicly.

We suggest that the Province, and in turn the City of Coquitlam, made the right administrative and fiscal policy decision when they let the private sector assume principal responsibility for driving the recycling initiative. As a result, the City's property tax base is no longer burdened with recycling expenses and, apart from point of purchase charges, the City achieves its recycling objectives at no cost. The City understands the important role that the private sector does and can play, and the fact that taking a last pass at the waste stream won't impair recycling at the generating source.

Mr. Henderson expresses a concern that stabilized organics used as daily cover at landfills could be a source of methane gas. He further states that Metro Vancouver "has taken the position" that the use of material recovered from municipal solid waste as landfill cover does not constitute a "form of waste diversion."

Firstly, as our application materials explain, the NextUse facility will be generating compost for beneficial use purposes, consistent with strategy 2.6 of the ISWRMP. It will also generate a smaller fraction for use as alternative daily landfill cover, which the ISWRMP does not preclude.

Secondly, our application materials also explain how any organics that might be used for daily landfill cover will first be biologically stabilized (through composting) to eliminate any methane-producing potential. Whether or not a provincial regulatory regime exists that defines "stabilization" is irrelevant- our commitment is to eliminate the methaneproducing potential of any organic matter that might be used for daily landfill cover. To the extent that Mr. Henderson has suggested that NextUse is proposing to use unstabilized organic material as daily landfill cover, he is incorrect and unnecessarily (although perhaps intentionally) alarmist.

Thirdly, there is no rational basis for treating stabilized organics used as daily landfill cover as "disposal" of residual municipal solid waste. Mr. Henderson's submission in that regard is perhaps best characterized as an attempt to describe NextUse's facility as a disposal rather than recycling facility, which it is not. All that NextUse proposes is torepurpose for use by landfill operations a smaller fraction of the com posted organics that it recovers from the municipal solid waste it receives. Those operations require daily cover - and better that it take the form of a stabilized, organic by-product (in effect the result of recycling) than a byproduct of incineration disposal (bottom ash) or elements of demolition

•

NextUse Recycling Ltd. ~ Facility License Application

February 12, 2015

debris which have not been treated and will likely have volatile elements remaining in them. It is also worth noting that (i) bottom ash must be treated to "stabilize" its toxicity and (ii) exposing the bottom ash to MSW leachate as well as acidic environments such as Burns Bog is a bad strategy as it has the potential to reverse the stabilization process. In any event (and understandably) this incineration by-product should never be accounted for as diversion.

Finally, there is nothing in Bylaw 181, or in any other bylaw or regulation, that requires or even gives you a mandate to consider whether stabilized, organic material re-purposed for use as daily landfill cover should be "counted as disposal", or that empowers you to impose limiting terms in a license for a material recovery and recycling facility relating to same.

In item 4 of his letter, Mr. Henderson implies that NextUse intends to use its facility as a transfer station. He is once again being unnecessarily alarmist since that is not the premise of the license applications nor is it in any way reflected in the Operations Plans originally submitted to your staff and amended in response to their various questions and concerns. NextUse will process all residential and commercial/institutional waste precisely as described in the Operations Plans. Accordingly, nothing additional or exceptional is required in the licenses.

Mr. Henderson says that "it is critical" that "a minimum 20% Recovery Rate" be imposed as a requirement of the NextUse license.

To justify his recommendation, Mr. Henderson has concocted a false premise: "To ensure that the proposed NextUse facility does not operate as a transfer station". However, he has ignored the whole of the license application in doing so, including, in particular, the economic driver for NextUse to maximize the removal of recyclables (i.e., minimization of the tipping fee for residual waste delivered to Metro-designated disposal facilities). This is and should be a business, not a regulatory issue. Given the economics of the facility, there is no risk that the NextUse facility will operate as a transfer station and there is no point or utility in your including minimum recovery rates in the licenses.

Mr. Henderson proposes that NextUse be required to provide an independent report with associated recovery rates for each material stream received at the facility. He further proposes that residuals removed from organics should be deducted from calculations for the purpose of performance reporting.

As you know, the terms of the reporting requirements set out in our Operations Plan, and signed off by your staff include "the quantity in tonnes of incoming material received or rejected in addition to the quantity

----

4 '._'l 8

NextUse Recycling Ltd. - Facility License Application ----

February 12, 2015

and type of recyclable material shipped from the facility." These terms are similar to those found in a// other material recovery and brokering licenses issued by your department.

In terms of residuals removed from organics, we are not certain as to the utility and practicality of what Mr. Henderson suggests, bearing in mind that whoever we contract to process our organics is an open market choice and that the processor may in fact be outside of the Metro region (and governed by Provincial regulations). In this context we are not aware of any processor (including those licensed with Metro Vancouver) that is capable of uniquely segregating and processing by customer (e.g., a municipality or commercial business). Perhaps this is a question you may put to municipalities in terms of what requirements they place on processors to report residuals from their specific loads after processing as well as how they use these numbers in the derivation of their diversion rates.

Finally, we note that you or members of your staff have engaged Mr. Henderson in some discussion regarding, or have shared with him, the substance if not the actual content of our e-mail exchanges with you between December 11, 2014 and January 8, 2015. In particular, Mr. Henderson refers to your "contemplating visiting some mixed waste material recovery facilities as part of your process in specifying requirements for the proposed NextUse facility" and identifies possible facilities to visit and persons to contact. This was in part the subject of the said e-mail exchange (wherein we offered to assist you and your staff to develop a deeper understanding of and appreciation for mixed waste material recovery facilities but rejected that exercise as a basis for further delaying the issuance of the licenses). The fact that such discussions or exchanges of information have taken place and/or are taking place give us reason to question the degree to which your branch is operating independent of Mr. Henderson's branch - at least in relation to NextUse's license applications - and suggests coordination between the two in order to justify further delay in your issuing the licenses. This is something you and Carol Mason have emphatically stated would not happen in connection with our licensing process and without our express knowledge. This adds to the concerns expressed by us and others that the dual role Metro plays as an operator and a licensor gives rise to an inherent conflict and is a matter that needs to be addressed by the Province.

While we once again reiterate our now months old offer to assist you and your staff to better understand the operation of mixed waste material recovery facilities (which we once again note you have never taken up), we also again reject your recourse to that exercise as a proper basis for refusing to issue the licenses. As our December 19, 2014 e-mail advised:


February 12. 2015

... the fact is, that Nextuse has complied with all of the requirements of the application process in force and effect and has responded to all questions and complied with all requests posed/made by your staff throughout that process, the latter of which included revisions to the facility's operations and closure plans. You require nothing further to evaluate the licence application per Article 3. 7 of the Bylaw 181, or to identify appropriate terms and conditions to include in the licence per Article 4.1.

In particular, whether or not the facility will be "efficacious" is a business issue, not a regulatory or licensing issue. If the business fails to produce the results that NextUse projects, then that will be a consequence that affects only NextUse; it is not a criteria that you must be satisfied on before issuing a licence pursuant to the authority delegated the Solid Waste Manager under the existing regulations nor, I suggest, is it a proper exercise of the discretion accorded the Solid Waste Manager under those regulations.

Yours truly,

Russ. S. Black, MBA, P.Eng. Vice President, Corporate Development

Attachment: January 29, 2015 email from NextUse to Ray Robb

c. Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment Marvin Hunt, MLA Avtar Sundher, Ministry of Environment Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, Metro Vancouver Peter Steblin, CAO, City of Coquitlam Zero Waste Committee, Metro Vancouver

Attachment 1

From: Russ Black Sent:

To: Cc: Subject:

January-29-15 11:04 AM 'Ray Robb' Rick Laird; 'Johanna van den Broeke' RE: NextUse License Applications

Thank you for your email of 8 January 2015.

We note that you are no longer referencing the defunct proposed Bylaw 280 but instead are grounding your comments on the purpose and provisions of Bylaw 181, understood in the context of the objectives of the current ISWRMP. That, in our view, is the proper application of your delegated authority. We are encouraged by your having abandoned what appeared was an agenda to support a proposed bylaw that had been expressly rejected by the Minister.

That said, we do not accept that there is any validity to the new assertion that you must or are obliged to incorporate requirements in the NextUse licences "that are substantially more onerous to the operator than would otherwise be the case, since the type of facility is untested with respect to its ability to support the objectives of the Plan." There is no basis or justification for that assertion in Bylaw 181 and it is, in fact, antithetical to the express Goals and objectives of the ISWRMP.

Although it should be unnecessary to do so, we remind you that Goal 2 of the ISWRMP is to maximize reuse, recycling and material recovery. In that regard, the ISWRMP expressly provides that:

To reach the second goal of waste reuse, recycling and material recovery, as much as possible must be diverted away from the waste disposal stream and into programs aimed at reuse, recycling and material recovery.

Additionally, Goal 2 strategies include the following:

Metro Vancouver Will:

2.3.1 Facilitate the siting of private sector recycling activities.

(a) Review the GVS&DD Solid Waste Regulatory Bylaw to facilitate the siting of municipal solid waste facilities that meet municipal bylaws.

We further remind you that the governance rights and responsibilities accorded Metro Vancouver by the ISWRMP in relation to facilities extend only to "approved disposal facilities", "new disposal facilities" and to manage waste flows to regional disposal facilities. They do not extend to or justify the imposition of exceptional, unusual and/or onerous licence requirements on private sector recycling facilities. Rather, the ISWRMP expressly recognizes the important and significant role played and to be played by the private sector prior to the delivery of residual waste to regional disposal facilities:

7 .·.~ 8

Attachment 1

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Solid waste management services are provided for the region co/laboratively by Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and the private sector. While the roles of each party may overlap, primary roles for recycling include: Metro Vancouver establishes policy for waste diversion initiatives, member municipalities implement recycling programs including collection within their municipalities, and the private sector provides collection services, manages material brokerage and physical recycling of materials including provision of infrastructure for recycling facilities.

[emphasis added]

In other words, if you are taking guidance from the ISWRMP, it directs you to encourage and facilitate, not obstruct, the licensing of private sector recycling facilities.

In that regard, there is no mention in the ISWRMP of standards of efficiency or effectiveness that must or should be imposed on private facilities, whether or not a facility might utilize or introduce new operating systems and technology. Rather, the ISWRMP clearly encourages private sector innovation and investment to maximize recycling and materials recovery irrespective of the degree to which a private sector facility contributes to the Goal 2 objectives.

Next Use satisfied all of the elements of the licensing application some six months ago. We answered all of the questions posed by your staff and incorporated all of their requests into the operation and closure plans for the facility. As you are also well aware, the host municipality, which strongly supports the application, has expressed its own extreme frustration with your delay in issuing the licences.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to characterize the most recent reason provided for your refusal to issue the licences as anything but an improper (if not bad faith) exercise of the discretion delegated to you under Bylaw 181.

We reiterate the offer extended on December 191h to assist you and your staff to develop a

deeper understanding of and appreciation for mixed waste material recovery facilities (and note that neither you nor any of your staff has taken up that offer). But we also reiterate that none of the reasons you have provided over the last three to four months for refusing to issue the licenses have any legitimacy in the face of the existing law and the express Goals, strategies and objectives of the ISWRMP.

We expect you to cease crafting excuses to further delay issuing the licences. We expect you to instead comply with your statutory duties and obligations in good faith and issue the licenses forthwith.

Thank you,

Russ Black, MBA, P.Eng. Vice President, Corporate Development

8

FoamOnly Recycling Corp. 107A 81 Golden dr.

Coquitlam March 13, 2015

Mayor Malcom Brody Chair of the Metro Zero Waste Committee City of Richmond Mayor's Office 6911 No 3 Road Richmond, BC V6Y 2Cl

Dear Sir:

I am writing to respectfully suggest that Metro should consider a ban on the disposal of Styrofoam in the Metro Vancouver landfills. Please allow me to provide you this following information for background:

Styrofoam (Expanded Polystyrene or EPS) is currently a permitted material for disposal at the Metro Vancouver landfill. The price for disposal is $108 per tonne. As EPS is a very light material, consisting primarily of air, this means that the revenues received per cubic meter is only $1.08 per cubic meter. Judged on a cubic meter basis, EPS provides you with the lowest tipping revenue on any material you

receive. Given the distance to landfill and the cost of cartage for waste, removing EPS in Metro Vancouver will reduce the frequency of waste loads to Ashcroft by up to 10%. In addition, EPS is a poor material for disposing of in a landfill as it takes hundreds of years to decompose. EPS consumes up to 10% of land fill space generating marginal or negative revenues based on tonnage charged for tipping.

There has been no alternative to tipping EPS at the landfill until recently as there have been no large commercial recyclers for the material. My company, Foam Only Recycling Corp, has now filled this void. We have been recycling EPS for 3 years, and have recycled over 1000 tonnes of the material. We are currently able to recycle approximately 6 tonnes per day. We are operating at about 30% capacity. Our

6.8

business has been organized on a modular basis, and we are able to scale up quickly, either at our current location or at other locations that Metro might identify.

The finished material is a substitute for refined oil products and, as such, the market for our product is global- we can sell all we could produce.

In short, Metro should want to ban EPS from their landfills and we are ready to accept it. We estimate that there is approximately 24 tons of EPS going to the landfill every day in Metro Vancouver. These numbers were provided to us through Metro Vancouver's own waste audits. This is approximately 6 times what we currently process working a 5 day week. We would therefore request that any ban be implemented gradually, so as to permit us to scale up appropriately to meet demand.

We are of course open to discussion on this subject but we would suggest a ban be phased-in along the following lines.

• Place EPS bins at all Metro recycling depots and waste transfer stations, July 1, 2015 • Ban EPS from landfills, September 1, 2015

This would result in higher revenues for Metro while eliminating this recyclable material from the waste stream thus lengthening the life of the Metro landfills. This would reduce haul times for haulers and lead to an extended life for Metro Vancouver landfills.

We understand that you will need to be satisfied that we could scale up to meet the volumes that would likely result from a ban and would like to invite you to tour our plant which is located on Golden Drive in Coquitlam. We are sure that once you see our facility you will agree that it is time to ban EPS from the Metro landfills.

Sincerely, /

_., ... - _,.~ ,----·~---,..<"' /-:.>·...-: / ,...,. __ ./.-···· ·;.-;;...--- ~

0.-;::::-.;. Mark Obedzinski ~

President FoamOnly Recycling Corp.

cc. Mr Paul Henderson Manager of Zero Waste Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8

6.1FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT

45950 Cheam Avenue. Ch 'hwack Brit1sh Columbia V2P 1 N6 Phone 604-702-5000 Toll Free 1-800-528-0061 (BC only) Fax 604-792-9684

Fraser Valley Regional District

February 2, 2015

Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC V5H 4G8

Attention: Mr. Greg Moore, Chair

Dear Chair Moore:

Re: Metro Vancouver Organics Ban

Webs1te www tyrq be ca e-mail inlo@fvrd be Ci!

File No. : 5365-24-001

G~- CM Aclion: ....... i'iJ ., ................... ·;·_-p··r"e_"~~ ....... .. .... .... .. ..... l..fc ............ k.~.\~-....... .. o ooooooooooo••-••• O•oo o oo ooo oo ooOHo••• ••OMO_._., , . , , ..... oOoo•0 00000

,.;

I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Metro Vancouver on the recent implementation of your Organics Disposal Ban. With your Region's commitment and diligence on this initiative, you have provided a learning platform for other Regional Districts who are planning to implement similar programs.

The Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) has been watching Metro Vancouver's progress with great interest, as we prepare for our own Regional Organics Disposal Ban. Metro Vancouver staff have been gracious and open to helping our own staff in planning and preparation.

Once again, congratulations on your accomplishment, and best wishes for continued successes with the implementation.

Sincerely,

~~ Sharon Gaetz Chair, Fraser Valley Regional District Board

6.9

ahilkewi

Text Box

ahilkewi

Text Box

greater vancouver regional district zero waste … · april 8, 2015 6.5 regulation of mixed waste...

Documents