greater vancouver regional district zero waste committee€¦ · waste services, informing the zero...

August 27, 2015

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, September 10, 2015

1:00 p.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 Zero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 10, 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 July 16, 2015 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Recycling Council of British Columbia ‐ Update Designated Speaker: Brock Macdonald, CEO 4.2 Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Similar Technologies Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy Planning & Analysis Liquid Waste Services 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Organics Recycling Update Designated Speaker: Marian Kim, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 2, 2015, titled “Organics Recycling Update” for information.

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

ZWC - 1

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda September 10, 2015 Agenda of 4

5.2 Transfer Station Strategy Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board approve a transfer station strategy with the following key elements:

a) provision of dedicated recycling services at Metro Vancouver transfer stations only when requested and funded by communities served by the transfer station;

b) continued development of options for replacement of the Coquitlam Transfer Station and collaboration with tri‐cities municipalities to ensure that there is continuity of service between the closure of the existing transfer station and the development of a new facility;

c) reconfiguration of the North Shore Transfer Station; and d) development of the Surrey Small Vehicle/Residential Drop‐Off facility with the

next steps being the City of Surrey to finalize a site, and Metro Vancouver to enter into an agreement with the City of Surrey where Metro Vancouver pays for the garbage component and the City of Surrey pays for the dedicated recycling component of the facility.

5.3 Solid Waste System Interim Funding Strategy Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board approve an interim solid waste system funding strategy with the following key elements:

a) set the municipal tipping fee for local government single family and public works waste at $100 per tonne for 2016 rising to $109 per tonne in 2017; and

b) set the Regional Services Rate to a fixed percent of the municipal tipping fee for local government single family and public works waste.

5.4 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw Proposed Provisions Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

a) That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to prepare the 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw to be presented at the October 30, 2015, Board meeting including the following key provisions effective January 1, 2016:

i. Tipping fees:

Up to 1 tonne: $133 per tonne, to a maximum of $112 per load

1 tonne to 9 tonnes: $112 per tonne, to a maximum of $720 per load

9 tonnes and over: $80 per tonne ii. Municipal Tipping Fee for local government single family and public works

waste: $100 per tonne iii. Regional Service Rate: 6% of the municipal tipping fee for local

government single family and public works waste, and included in all tipping fees

iv. Surcharge threshold for organics to remain at 25% v. Surcharge threshold for clean wood to remain at 10% vi. Organics drop‐off rate: $67 per tonne at all transfer stations except the

North Shore Transfer Station vii. Special Handle Waste: $250 per tonne viii. Two sheets of gypsum: $133 per tonne with a minimum fee of $10, $5

transaction fee applied to all gypsum loads

ZWC - 2


b) That stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes be reported and summarized as part of the October tipping fee Board report, and stakeholder input be considered in the final proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw.

5.5 Monitoring of Solid Waste Plan Implementation

Designated Speaker: Andrew Marr, Director, Solid Waste Planning That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Solid Waste Function to review implementation progress reports of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

5.6 2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program

Designated Speaker: Veronica Baker, Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 2, 2015, titled “2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program” for information.

5.7 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 3, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Correspondence re Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee

Correspondence dated June 19, 2015 from Mayor Lois Jackson, Corporation of Delta, to Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Chair Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee regarding a report considered by Delta Council and provided as an update on the June 5, 2015 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee.

6.2 BioCycle – August, 2015 re Evaluating On‐Site Organics Management Options Article from BioCycle’s August 2015 issue titled “Evaluating On‐Site Organics Manage‐ment Options” featuring Metro Vancouver’s Organics Disposal Ban, which led to the creation of a guide for businesses and institutions considering on‐site organics management.

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.

ZWC - 3


That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for September 10, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (i) 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: (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor‐client privilege, including

communications necessary for that purpose. 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of September 10, 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 Washington, Dean ‐ Port Coquitlam

ZWC - 4

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, July 16, 2015 Page 1 of 4

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:02 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2015 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (arrived at 1:10 p.m.) Mayor Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District (arrived at 1:07 p.m.) Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City Councillor Dean Washington, Port Coquitlam MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Councillor Bruce Hayne, Surrey Councillor Craig Hodge, Coquitlam STAFF PRESENT: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, 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 adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 16, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED

2.1

ZWC - 5


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 June 25, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2014 Financial Results

Report dated July 10, 2015 from Peter Wishart, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, providing the Zero Waste Committee with the 2014 financial results for the Wastech Comprehensive Agreement. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated July 10, 2015 titled, “Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2014 Financial Results” for information.

CARRIED 5.2 Update to Specifications for Recycling and Garbage Amenities in Multi‐Family

and Commercial Developments Report dated July 9, 2015 from Esther Bérubé, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, informing the Zero Waste Committee of the update to the design specifications for recycling and garbage amenities in multi‐family and commercial developments, which municipalities can use as a reference or adapt as part of their development permit processes or zoning bylaws. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated July 9, 2015 titled, “Update to Specifications for Recycling and Garbage Amenities in Multi‐Family and Commercial Developments” for information.

CARRIED

ZWC - 6


5.3 Battery and Electronics Recycling Awareness Project Report dated July 9, 2015 from Andrew Marr, Director, Solid Waste Planning, Solid Waste Services, and Jerry Colman, Senior Policy and Communications Advisor, External Relations, providing an update on activities to mitigate the impact of batteries and electronics on bottom ash generated at the Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated July 9, 2015 titled, “Battery and Electronics Recycling Awareness Project” for information.

CARRIED

5.4 Manager’s Report Report dated July 9, 2015 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, updating on the Clear Garbage Bag Collection Trial with City of New Westminster and the Zero Waste Committee 2015 Work Plan.

1:07 p.m. Councillor Bassam arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated July 9, 2015 titled, “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Similar Technologies

Report dated June 18, 2015 titled, “Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Similar Technologies”. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following item: 6.1 Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Similar Technologies.

CARRIED 1:10 p.m. Mayor Corrigan arrived at the meeting.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

ZWC - 7


9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for July 16, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (e), (i) 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;

(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor‐client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and

(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

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its regular meeting of July 16, 2015.

CARRIED (Time: 1:11 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Deanna Manojlovic, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 11652200 FINAL

ZWC - 8

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Marian Kim, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Organics Recycling Update

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 2, 2015, titled “Organics Recycling Update” for information.

PURPOSE To inform the Zero Waste Committee on progress in implementing the Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans, update on food scraps recycling campaign and the results of research undertaken to determine the level of participation in organics recycling in the region. BACKGROUND As committed in its Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP), Metro Vancouver introduced the Organics Disposal Ban and Clean Wood Disposal Ban on January 1, 2015, encouraging all businesses and residential buildings to start planning and implementing food scraps and clean wood recycling programs. Enforcement of the Bans began on July 1, 2015 when surcharges of additional 50% of the cost of disposal started to apply on waste loads brought to a regional disposal facility with more than 25% visible food or 10% visible clean wood by volume. FOOD WASTE RECYCLING UPDATE Food Scraps Recycling and Behaviour Change Campaign Metro Vancouver has led a regional organics recycling communications and outreach campaign to help support food waste diversion through developing and distributing communications tools, toolkits and educational and training resources and convening stakeholders to share experiences to learn from each other in complying with the Organics Disposal Ban. Current initiatives include a Food Waste Reduction Pilot program for foodservice businesses to help them find ways to identify, measure and reduce their food waste, and the public awareness, behavior change campaigns Food Isn’t Garbage and Love Food Hate Waste, both of which support changing the way we manage organic waste in our region and in the case of Love Food Hate Waste preventing waste from happening in the first place. Research on Progress and Level of Participation Information gathered and analyzed in the research included:

1) Organics Disposal Ban Readiness Research through a telephone survey; 2) Inspection Survey at regional disposal facilities for the presence and volume of food waste;

and 3) Quantities of Organic Material processed in the region.

5.1

ZWC - 9

The results of the research are presented below. 1) Organics Disposal Ban Readiness Research Following up from the 2012 survey on Waste Management Practices Among Eating Establishments conducted by Mustel Group, further research has been conducted to determine the food waste recycling readiness of hospitality (including food service in hotels, quick service and full service restaurants), multi‐family (MF) dwellings, grocers (including food processors) and large institutional buildings. As most municipalities provide curbside pick‐up of organics for single‐family dwellings, this sector is considered to be fully ready for organics recycling. The objectives of the survey were to assess:

What percent of each sector have access to a food waste recycling program;

What are the key challenges with implementing a food waste recycling program;

What challenges are anticipated by those who have yet to put a food waste recycling program in place?

A telephone survey was conducted with a random selection of businesses in each sector in Metro Vancouver. The results of the survey are summarized in the attached report with some of the key findings presented in Table 1 below. During the finalization of the report, Metro Vancouver met with several businesses and business associations to get their feedback on whether or not the results seem to reflect their industry practice. Some of their comments are included in the table below. Table 1: Key Findings of Organics Disposal Ban Readiness Research

CATEGORY: FOOD WASTE PRACTICES

Survey Results Feedback from Businesses

65% ‐ 81% of businesses and 59% ‐ 65% of multi‐family buildings have access to food waste recycling (compared to 25% restaurants surveyed in 2012 having access to food waste recycling).

Although one‐third could not respond, 28% of those who have access to food waste recycling report that implementing the program cost more than anticipated, while 31% reported it cost about what was anticipated.

Approximately one‐half of businesses (excluding MF) have practices in place to prevent or reduce food waste (compared to one‐third or 34% having practices in place to prevent or reduce waste in 2012 results)

Among the businesses that do not currently have a food waste recycling program, approximately four‐in‐ten expect to have one by the end of 2015 and almost six‐in‐ten expect to have one by the end of 2017.

Generally agree with the results. The size of the business is a factor on whether or not food waste recycling exists.

Bigger businesses may have more incentive in separating food waste because of significant potential reduction in their garbage volume and availability of resources.

Food waste reduction and redirecting is already a normal practice for eating establishments because of high cost of food.

MF building associations indicated that buildings with greater than 100 units may be more likely to have access to

ZWC - 10

The primary reason for not setting up a food waste recycling program for those not expecting to set up a program (16%) is the belief that the ban is not applicable to their business.

food waste recycling.

Those not having access to food recycling may not have control over the waste collection contracts.

CATEGORY: AWARENESS AND CHALLENGES OF ORGANICS BAN

Survey Results Feedback from Businesses

Over eight‐in‐ten businesses are aware of the Organics Disposal Ban that came into effect January 1, 2015.

The media, followed by local government, word‐of‐mouth, company or building management, and waste removal contractors are the main sources of awareness of the ban.

Businesses and building managers surveyed would go to the internet, followed by local government and to a lesser extent, their waste removal contractor for information about the ban.

Key challenges to implementing a food waste program were; a) gaining co‐operation of employees, customers or tenants, and b) storage space.

Odour and pests are also a challenge for some, particularly for MF and large institutions. Cost is a further challenge for a small group (10%‐15% in each sector).

Some businesses may not be aware they belong to a business association and not take advantage of information offered.

Training and education is a key in achieving a successful food waste recycling program.

In summary, awareness of the Organics Disposal Ban is high and most have started recycling programs or intend to within the next year or so. There is a small proportion of businesses in each sector that are not ready and have no plans to implement a program in the immediate future based on the belief that the ban would not apply to their business. Reaching out to these businesses regarding the proper understanding of the Organics Disposal Ban may be worthwhile. 2) Inspection Survey For an approximately one month period starting at the end of May 2015, a dedicated inspection survey was undertaken, separate from the routine material disposal ban inspections. During this period, the survey inspector made observations of the presence and volume of food waste in waste loads received at Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver transfer stations as well as at the Vancouver Landfill, on a rotating basis. The number of waste loads observed during the survey containing greater than 25% food waste was similar to the monthly average of educational notices of 15 per month. Based on the results, if the allowable food waste threshold was decreased to 10%, it is estimated that the number of waste loads exceeding the threshold would approximately double and would double again if lowered even further to 5%. The number of food waste surcharges in July, after the start of enforcement on July 1, 2015, was 27. This is higher than the

ZWC - 11

monthly average of educational notices, potentially due to inspectors focusing their efforts on the new banned material. 3) Quantities of Organic Material Processed in the Region The quantity of organic material processed in the region is increasing. Figure 1 below compares quarterly quantities of organic material processed by licensed organics processing facilities in the region. The quarterly comparison takes seasonal variations into consideration. There has been a steady increase in all quarters and this trend is expected to continue. Figure 1: Quarterly Quantities of Organics Processed at Licensed Facilities in Metro Vancouver

CLEAN WOOD RECYCLING UPDATE Clean wood refers to wood free of glues, paints, or chemical treatments. The disposal ban on clean wood was introduced at regional facilities on January 1, 2015 and applies only to regular garbage loads at this stage. Recycling of clean wood increased by 13% at regional facilities between January and June 2015 compared to 2014. An average of 60 educational notices containing information about recycling options were issued each month to customers delivering loads containing more than 10% clean wood in their regular garbage. Enforcement began on July 1, 2015, and 33 surcharges were issued for excess clean wood in July 2015. Going forward, continuing communication through Metro Vancouver and municipal websites, municipal building permit counters, building supply stores, and social media will help clean wood waste generators comply with the disposal ban. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Provisions are made in the 2016 Proposed Solid Waste Services Operating Budget to continue to support sectors needing encouragement to separate food waste from garbage.

ZWC - 12

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Research was undertaken to determine the level of participation in organics recycling in the region. A telephone survey of businesses and multi‐family residents in the region revealed that awareness of the Organics Disposal Ban is high and most have started recycling programs or intend to within the next year or so. The number of loads with greater than 25%, 10% and 5% food waste observed during a dedicated inspection survey at regional disposal facilities indicate that compliance with the Organics Disposal Ban is high. In addition, the quantity of organic material processed at Metro Vancouver’s licensed facilities is steadily increasing for each quarter and the trend is expected to continue. Since the disposal ban on clean wood free of glues, paints, or chemical treatments was introduced on January 1, 2015, recycling of clean wood increased by 13% at regional facilities in the first half of 2015 compared to 2014. Attachment: Report on Organics Disposal Ban Readiness Research – Mustel Group 11800667

ZWC - 13

1

Organics Disposal Ban Readiness Research

May 2015

Attachment

ZWC - 14

2

Background and Research Objectives

On January 1, 2015, Metro Vancouver introduced the Organics Disposal Ban, encouraging all businesses and residential buildings to start planning and introducing food scraps recycling programs. Enforcement will begin on July 1, 2015 when waste loads brought to a regional disposal facility with more than 25% visible food will be surcharged an additional 50% of the cost of disposal. The amount of food scraps allowed in the garbage before a surcharge is levied will be lowered over time. In order to determine the appropriate timeline for decreasing the allowable threshold, research was needed to determine organics recycling readiness in the region.

Following up from the 2012 survey on Waste Management Practices Among Eating Establishments conducted by Mustel Group, further research has been conducted to determine the food waste recycling readiness of hospitality, multi-family dwellings, grocers (including food processors) and large institutional buildings. The objectives of the survey are to assess:

What percent of each sector have a food waste recycling program in place or are planning to have one in place by the end of 2015;

What are the key challenges with implementing a food waste recycling program;

What financial and other impacts are anticipated by those who have yet to put a food waste recycling program in place.

The key sectors of interest are:

Hospitality including:

Quick Service: Includes counter service, cafeteria, food courts and take-out and delivery establishments.

Full Service: Includes licensed and unlicensed fine-dining, casual and family restaurants as well as restaurant-bars.

Caterers: Includes contract caterers supplying food services to airlines, railways, institutions and recreational facilities, as well as social caterers providing food services for special events.

Accommodation: Food service in hotels, motels and resorts.

Grocers including: Food Retailers, Food Distributors, and Food Manufacturers

Large Institutions including: Schools, Hospitals and other Health Care facilities

Multi-Family Dwellings including: low and high rise strata-owned condos, rental buildings, mixed-use buildings.

ZWC - 15

3

Methodology

A telephone survey was conducted with a random selection of businesses in each sector in Metro Vancouver.

A total of 721 interviews were conducted with owners, senior managers, or individuals responsible for waste management decisions as follows:

Sample Size Margin of Error*

Hospitality 350 +/-5.2%

Multi-family Dwellings 150 +/-8.0%

Grocers 115 +/-9.1%

Large institutions 106 +/-9.5%

* at 95% level of confidence

The sample was obtained from an up-to-date listing of Metro Vancouver businesses (Dun & Bradstreet).

To boost the response rate among multi-family dwellings, links to the survey were also sent to members of Landlord BC and the Condominium Home Owners' Association of BC (21 of the 150 interviews were completed through these organizations).

Up to 6 calls were made to each selected business to reduce potential bias due to non-response.

Interviewing was conducted April 22nd to May 13th, 2015 from Mustel Group’s supervised and monitored call centre.

The questionnaire used is appended.

Detailed computer tabulations are provided under separate cover.

ZWC - 16

4

Executive Overview

Food Scraps Waste Practices

Overall 59 to 81% of businesses and multi-family households have access to food scraps recycling for some or all of the food scraps generated. Quick service restaurants and multi-family dwellings are least likely to have access (65% of quick and 63% of MF) whereas full-service restaurants and large institutions are most likely to (77% and 76% respectively). A total of 69% of grocers have access to organics recycling.

The geographic location of the business appears to be a factor in being inclined to separate food waste.

The majority of restaurants who recycle organics, recycle material from back of house (89%, similar to 2012 findings). In addition, 68% recycle material from the front of house.

Six-in-ten food material recyclers use a private hauler, 15% use municipal services (24% of multi-family), and 6% process on site, increasing to 11% of large institutions. Processing on site includes giving or taking away food waste by individual employees. The findings for the hospitality sector are very similar to the 2012 research findings.

Those who separate their food waste were asked if the cost of implementation of the program cost more, less, or about what was anticipated. Approximately one-third could not respond, but 28% do report it cost more. The remainder tend to report that it cost about what was anticipated (only 7% say it cost less). Among the small group that reported it cost more, an average of 31% more is estimated.

Approximately one-half of businesses (excluding multi-family) have practices in place to prevent or reduce food waste, with large businesses being more inclined to do so. Among hospitality businesses, the incidence has increased from 34% in 2012 to 60%.

Among the businesses that do not currently have a food scraps program, approximately four-in-ten expect to have one by the end of 2015; almost six-in-ten expect to have one by the end of 2017.

Therefore approximately 16% of all businesses do not plan to set up a program by 2017: 16% of hospitality, 15% of multi-family, 23% of grocers and 12% of large institutions. These businesses tend to be smaller (have less than 10 employees, serve less than 100 customers or staff per day) but approximately one-in-ten of larger businesses also do not expect to implement a program.

The primary reason provided for not setting up a food scraps recycling program is the belief that it is not applicable to their business or situation. Reviewing the nature of these businesses reveals that the ban appears to be applicable to most.

ZWC - 17

5

Executive Overview (continued)

Awareness and Challenges of Organics Ban

Over eight-in-ten of businesses are aware of the ban that came into place January 1, 2015.

The media, followed by local government, word-of-mouth, company or building management, and waste removal contractors are the main sources of awareness of the ban.

When asked where they are most likely to go to for information about the topic, the internet, followed by local government and to a lesser extent, their waste removal contractor, are the places businesses would go. If the business is aware they belong to a business association, they would also likely go the association for information.

The key challenges to implementing a food waste program were:

• gaining co-operation of employees, customers or tenants, and

• storage space.

Odour and pests are also a challenge for some, particularly for multi-family and large institutions. Cost is a further challenge for a small group (10%-15% in each sector).

Waste Management Practices

Approximately three-quarters of businesses surveyed rent their premises. For approximately four-in-ten of these businesses, the cost of waste management is included in their rent, ranging from approximately half of grocers to only one-in-five quick service. An almost equal size group manage and pay directly their waste management contract. Only a small group are billed separately

Approximately half are aware that their contract allows for amendments and two-thirds believe scheduling adjustments can be made.

Approximately half report that changes in their waste management contract or services are reflected in their service fees.

Summary

In summary, awareness of the new regulations for organic material is high and most have begun recycling programs or intend to within the next year or so. But there is a small proportion of businesses in each sector that are not ready and have no plans to implement a program. Barriers are not the key issue, but the belief that the ban would not apply to their business. Perhaps education is required for these businesses regarding the additional cost of disposal if not in compliance, and the allowable thresholds being considered.

ZWC - 18

6

Detailed Findings

ZWC - 19

7

Food Scraps Waste Practices

ZWC - 20

8

• Overall 59% to 81% of businesses and multi-family buildings (depending on their size) or an average of 63% to 77% have access to food scraps recycling for some or all of the food scraps generated. Quick service restaurants and multi-family dwellings are least likely to (65% of quick and 63% of MF) whereas full-service restaurants and large institutions are most likely to (77% and 76% respectively).

• In addition, those who manage and pay directly their waste management contracts also are more likely than other businesses to recycle food waste (78%).

• Larger businesses and those who own their buildings are slightly more inclined than smaller business to separate their food waste.

Access to Food Waste Recycling

Q.9a) Does your business or organization recycle or separate any of its food scraps?

73%

65%

77%

63%

69%

76%

Quick service

Full service

Multi-family

Grocers

Large institutions

Total hospitality

Overall

Type of Business/ Organization

Base: Total (n=721)Total Hospitality (n=350)Quick service (n=106)Full service (n=217)Multi-family (n=150)Grocers (n=115)Large institutions (n=106)

78%

63%

70%

Yes

Manage and pay directly the waste management contract

Waste management included in rent

Billed separately by landlord

Payment of Waste Management

76% - 80%

59% - 65%

60% - 81%

74% - 76%

59% - 81%

ZWC - 21

9

• As found in the previous survey, the majority of restaurants who recycle organics recycle material from back of house (89%). In addition, 68% of these businesses recycle material from the front of house.

• Those aware of the ban are more likely to recycle material from the front of the house (71% versus 51% of those not aware of the ban), indicating that food recycling from the front of the house will increase with awareness of the ban.

Routinely Recycle from Front/Back of House/Customer Dining Area

Q.9b) IF HOSPITALITY: Does your business routinely recycle organics or food waste from the back of house or kitchen area)?

c. IF HOSPITALITY: Does your business routinely recycle organics or food waste from the front of house or customer/dining area?

89%

81%

92%

68%

57%

74%

11%

19%

8%

31%

44%

25%

1

Quick service

Full service

Quick service

Full service

Yes No Don't know

Recycle organics/food waste from front of house or customer/ dining area

Recycle organics/food waste from back of house or kitchen area

Total hospitality

Total hospitality

Base: Total hospitality businesses which recycle or separate organics/food material/scraps

Total Hospitality (n=255)Quick service (n=69)Full service (n=166)

ZWC - 22

10

• Six-in-ten food organic material recyclers use a private hauler, 15% use municipal services (23% of multi-family), and 6% process on site, increasing to 11% of large institutions. Processing on site includes giving or taking away food waste by individual employees.

• Note that 16% don’t know how the material is handled.

• The findings for the hospitality sector are very similar to the 2012 research findings.

Handler of Organic Material

Q.9d) For your organics or food material/scraps, does your business/building use:

Base: Total recycle or separate organics/food material/scraps

Total (n=510)Total Hospitality (n=255)Quick service (n=69)Full service (n=166)Multi-family (n=95)Grocers (n=79)Large institutions (n=81)

63%

60%

51%

64%

65%

72%

59%

15%

13%

13%

13%

23%

9%

17%

6

5

4

5

2

9%

11%

16%

22%

32%

18%

10%

10%

12%

Quick service

Full service

Multi-family

Grocers

Large institutions

A private haulerA municipal serviceProcess or compost organics on siteDon't Know

Total hospitality

Total


ZWC - 23

47%

17%

3%

37%

Composter

Organic waste/compost is given away

Compost bags

Don't know

11

• Of the small group that process on site, approximately 47% use a composter.

Technology Used to Compost Organics on Site

Base: Total process or compost organics on site (n=30)

Q.9di) What technology do you use?

ZWC - 24

12

• Those who separate their food waste were asked if the cost of implementation of the program cost more, less or about what was anticipated. Approximately one-third could not respond, but 28% do report it cost more. The remainder tend to report that it cost about what was anticipated (only 7% say it cost less).

Implementation of Food Scraps Recycling Program Cost

Q.9e) Did the implementation of the food scraps recycling program cost more, cost less or cost about what was anticipated?

28%

34%

28%

37%

23%

19%

24%

7%

6

10%

5

7%

11%

6

31%

28%

23%

31%

32%

44%

26%

34%

32%

39%

28%

38%

25%

44%

Quick service

Full service

Multi-family

Grocers

Large institutions

More Less About the same Don't know

Total hospitality

Total



ZWC - 25

13

• Among the small group that reports it cost more, an average of 31% more is estimated.

Additional Cost of Food Scraps Recycling Program

Implementation of food scraps recycling program cost more than anticipated

Type of Business/Organization

Total(142)

%

HospitalityMulti-family(22)*

%

Grocers(15)*

%

Large institutions

(19)*%

Total hospitality

(86)%

Quick service(19)*

%

Fullservice(61)%

Less than 10% more 7 7 21 3 5 7 1110% 6 6 5 7 5 13 515% 6 6 - 8 9 - 1120% 12 13 11 13 - 20 1625% 9 14 - 15 - 7 -30% 5 5 - 7 5 7 5More than 30% 17 17 16 16 9 27 16Don’t know 37 33 47 31 68 20 37Average IncreasedCost

31% 29% 21% 30% 26% 53% 24%

Q.9f) IF COST MORE: Can you give a rough estimate of the increased cost? Please express as a percentage of original cost estimate?

* Interpret with caution: small base sizes

ZWC - 26

14

• Approximately one-half of businesses (excluding multi-family) have practices in place to prevent or reduce food waste, again with large businesses being more inclined to do so. Among hospitality businesses, the incidence has increased from 34% in 2012 to 60%.

• In hospitality, the most common practices pertain to food preparation, monitoring of supply order against usage and serving or portion control.

• In grocers, food preparation, reuse of leftovers and giving away leftovers are the most common practices.

• In large institutions, raising awareness and education is the most common practice.

Have Practices in Place to Prevent or Reduce Food Waste


Total(571)

%

Hospitality

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Yes 53 60 64 57 42 43

Food preparation 19 25 38 19 12 7Monitoring of supply order against usage/inventory 18 23 16 26 9 9

Serving sizes/portion control/ packaging 15 21 24 19 5 8

Raising awareness/education/ training 9 7 11 6 4 21

Reusage of leftovers (i.e. stocks, salads) 9 9 6 9 13 6

Give away leftovers/food scraps 6 4 3 4 11 8Menu planning 3 4 5 3 3 1No 42 35 31 38 53 54Don't know 5 5 5 5 5 4

Q.10a) Does your business or organization have practices in place to prevent or reduce food waste?

ZWC - 27

15

• Approximately four-in-ten businesses in total, increasing to almost six-in-ten grocers, have practices in place to redirect surplus food.

Have Practices in Place to Redirect Surplus Food

Q.10b) Does your business or organization: have practices in place to redirect surplus food (e.g. share leftovers with staff, food donations to charitable organizations or for animal feed stock)?

41%

39%

41%

36%

56%

34%

56%

60%

59%

64%

44%

58%

2

9%

Quick service

Full service

Grocers

Large institutions

Yes No Don't know

Total hospitality

Total


Base: Total (n=571)Total Hospitality (n=350)Quick service (n=106)Full service (n=217)Grocers (n=115)Large institutions (n=106)

ZWC - 28

16

• Among the businesses that do not currently have a food scraps program, approximately four-in-ten expect to have one by the end of 2015; almost six-in-ten expect to have one by the end of 2017.

• Therefore approximately 16% of allbusinesses do not plan to set up a program by 2017: 16% of hospitality, 15% of multi-family, 23% of grocers and 12% of large institutions.

• These businesses tend to be smaller (have less than 10 employees, serve less than 100 customers or staff per day) but approximately one-in-ten of larger businesses also do not expect to implement a program.

Plan to Introduce Food Scraps Recycling Program

Q.11a/b/c) Do you plan to introduce a food scraps recycling program by the end of 2015/2016/2017?

44%

41%35%

48%

61%29%

44%

54%

54%49%

60%

67%34%

52%

56%

55%51%

60%

74%34%

52%

56%

59%65%

52%

39%71%

57%

46%

46%51%

40%

33%66%

48%

44%

45%49%

40%

26%66%

48%

Quick serviceFull service

Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions


Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions


Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions

Yes No

Plan to introduce food scraps program by end of 2015



Total hospitality

Total

Total hospitality

Total

Total hospitality

Total

* Interpret with caution: small base size

Base: Total businesses without a food scraps program

Total (n=205)Total Hospitality (n=93)Quick service (n=37)Full service (n=50)Multi-family (n=54)Grocers (n=35)Large institutions (n=23)*

ZWC - 29

17

• The primary reason provided for not setting up a food scraps recycling program is the belief that it is not applicable to their business or situation. Reviewing the nature of these businesses reveals that the ban appears to be applicable to most.

Reasons Not Planning to Introduce Food Scraps Recycling Program

Businesses which are not planning to introduce a food

scraps recycling programTotal(44)%

Not applicable to my business/ situation 57Not my decision (management / building owner makes all arrangements) 16

Concerned about mess/pests 9Need more information (about what is required, how program works, cost, etc.) 7

Too much extra work involved 2No storage space for extra bins 2Not mandatory / don't have to participate 2Extra cost (collection fee, bins) 2No reason in particular 11

Q.11d) Why is your business or organization not planning to introduce a food scraps recycling program?

ZWC - 30

18

Awareness and Challenges of Organics Ban

ZWC - 31

19

• Over eight-in-ten of businesses are aware of the ban that came into place January 1, 2015.

Aware of Ban on Disposal of Food Waste

Q.12a) As of January 1, 2015, new rules have been introduced to encourage residents and businesses in Metro Vancouver to separate food waste from regular garbage, and ban the disposal of food material. Were you aware of this ban?

83%

78%

75%

80%

91%

85%

88%

17%

22%

26%

20%

9%

15%

12%

Quick service

Full service

Multi-family

Grocers

Large institutions

Yes No

Total hospitality

Total



ZWC - 32

20

• The media, followed by local government, word-of-mouth, company or building management, and waste removal contractors are the main sources of awareness of the ban.

Source of Awareness of New Food Waste Rules

Businesses aware of new food waste rules


Total(599)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(136)

%

Grocers(98)%

Large institutions

(93)%

Total hospitality

(272)%

Quick service(79)%

Fullservice(173)

%Media 35 28 25 27 40 43 39City/District/Metro Vancouver notification 17 20 13 24 15 12 16

Word of Mouth 16 16 17 16 16 18 13Company head office/ management communication 15 15 11 17 11 7 27

Waste removal contractor/ company 15 12 10 14 19 17 12

Property/building management/strata 7 10 20 5 7 4 -

Ad campaign 6 3 5 3 7 8 8Website 4 4 6 4 2 6 7Member associations/chamber of commerce 3 4 1 5 2 1 -

Newsletters / flyers 1 2 1 3 - 1 -Miscellaneous 1 <1 - 1 1 - 1Don’t know 5 7 6 6 4 6 2

Q.12b) If YES: Where did you find out about it?

ZWC - 33

21

• The internet, followed by local government and to a lesser extent, their waste removal contractor are the places businesses are most likely to go to for information about the topic.

• If the business is aware they belong to a business association, they would also likely go the association for information.

Where Likely to go for Information About Topic


Total(721)

%

HospitalityMulti-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Internet 52 52 57 48 39 64 59Municipality 34 29 28 28 49 29 36Waste removal contractor/ company 19 14 9 16 29 17 21

Company head office/ management 10 11 13 11 5 7 15

Metro Vancouver website 5 4 5 4 5 5 9Media 5 5 2 7 7 6 1Property/building management/strata 4 5 9 4 3 4 1

Misc. government 3 4 4 3 - 3 3Member associations/ chamber of commerce 2 2 - 3 2 1 -

Ask other people 1 1 - 1 1 1 3Health authority/inspector 1 1 2 1 - 1 -Miscellaneous 1 1 2 1 1 - 3Don’t know 9 10 9 12 10 10 4

Q.13) Where are you most likely to go to for information about this topic?

ZWC - 34

22

• The key challenges to implementing the food waste program were:

• gaining co-operation of employees, customers or tenants, and

• storage space.

• Odour and pests are also a challenge, particularly for multi-family and large institutions. Cost is also a challenge for a small group (10%-15% in each sector).

Top Three Challenges of Implementing Program


Total(721)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Cost 13 15 7 19 10 13 11

Collection fees 7 6 4 7 6 10 6Cost of supplies (i.e. containers, liners) 4 6 4 8 1 1 2Increased labour costs 2 2 - 4 - 3 3Cost (misc. & not specified) 2 2 - 2 3 - 2

Participation or co-operation by employees 28 35 28 39 9 28 30Storage space for waste 24 31 31 33 22 17 10Participation or co-operation by customers/tenants 23 14 24 8 51 6 33

Odour 19 13 10 16 33 15 24Pests 19 13 11 13 31 13 27Lack of information on options and how to adopt new practices 7 6 8 5 10 10 5

Availability of service from hauler or other hauler challenges 6 7 5 7 4 7 3

Issues with storage bins (i.e. mess, other people accessing bins) 5 4 2 6 8 5 5

Availability of service from property manager 4 6 9 5 1 2 5

Issues with separating food waste (i.e. time consuming, contamination concerns) 3 3 2 2 2 3 9

Participation (misc.) 3 - - - 9 2 6Lack of places to send food scraps for processing 3 2 2 1 2 4 5

Miscellaneous <1 - - - 1 - -None 23 24 30 21 13 37 16

Q.14) IF FOOD SCRAPS RECYCLING IN PLACE: What are the top 3 challenges your business has experienced with the implementationof food waste recycling program?

ZWC - 35

23

• Currently, businesses tend to get their information about their industry, new operational techniques and/or regulations from a variety of sources, with the most common being the company and internet, and to a lesser extent, industry associations and municipal governments.

• Large businesses are more inclined to receive the information internally whereas smaller establishments are more likely to rely on the Internet.

Sources of Information about Industry/New Regulations


Total(721)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Within company/organization 18 19 29 15 12 11 27

Internet 16 18 17 18 17 10 15

Municipality/Metro Vancouver 10 8 8 9 18 7 9Industry/organization member association(s) 10 9 3 11 19 4 9

Waste removal companies/suppliers 5 5 3 5 9 3 3Word of mouth 4 5 3 7 3 4 3Misc. government 4 3 4 3 4 4 8Health authority/ inspector 4 5 7 5 1 4 4Media 4 5 7 4 4 4 1Trade publications 3 4 5 4 1 4 1Landlord/property management 2 3 3 3 4 - -Business association(s) 2 3 2 3 1 2 -Trade shows/seminars 1 1 1 1 1 2 -Miscellaneous 1 1 - 1 1 2 1Nowhere in particular 44 41 40 42 37 57 45

Q.15) Where do you go to for information about your industry, new operational techniques and/or new regulations that affect you? Do you refer to any particular publication to get this type of information?

ZWC - 36

24

• Approximately half of businesses in each sector are a member of at least one business or industry association.

Member of any Business or Industry Association


Total(721)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Hospitality 9 18 4 24 - 4 -

BC Restaurant and Foodservices Association 4 8 - 13 - 1 -

Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association 2 4 1 6 - 1 -

Misc. hotel/hospitality 2 3 - 5 - 1 -Misc. food supplier related 1 1 2 1 - 1 -BC Hotel Association 1 1 - - - - -Chef Association <1 1 - 1 - - -Green Table Network <1 1 1 1 - - -ABLE <1 <1 - 1 - - -

Misc. Residential/Landlord/ Real Estate Associations 6 - - - 30 - -

Board of Trade/Chamber of Commerce 4 7 3 6 1 4 2Local Business Improvement Associations 3 3 2 4 1 6 1Misc. Education Associations 3 - - - - - 18

Misc. food manufacturing/ operating/processing 3 - - - - 16 -

Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) 2 3 3 3 - 6 -

Misc. Health Associations 1 - - - 1 2 6Better Business Association 1 1 - 1 3 1 -Ethnic Business Association <1 - - - - 1 -Miscellaneous 5 2 2 1 9 4 12No memberships 55 58 69 54 51 52 52

Don't know 13 14 19 13 11 12 13

Q.16) Is this business a member of any business or industry related associations? ZWC - 37

25

Waste Management Practices

ZWC - 38

26

• Approximately three-quarters of businesses surveyed rent their premises. For approximately four-in-ten of these businesses, the cost of waste management is included in their rent, ranging from approximately half of grocers to only one-in-five quick service.

• An almost equal size group manage and pay directly their waste management contract. Only a small group are billed separately.

• Note that full-service restaurants and grocers are more likely to directly pay for waste collection, whereas quick service and large institutions are more inclined to have it included in their rent.

Directly Pay Waste Collection

Businesses Who Rent Premises


Total(416)

%

Hospitality

Grocers(85)%

Large institutions

(38)%

Total hospitality

(293)%

Quick service(95)%

Fullservice(182)

%Manage and directly pay its waste collection contract 39 37 20 44 49 32

Included in the rent 37 40 56 32 25 45

Billed separately by your landlord 15 15 11 18 18 11Don’t know 9 8 14 6 8 13

Q.7) IF TENANT: Does your business manage and directly pay its waste collection contract, is it included in the rent, or are you are billed separately by your landlord?

ZWC - 39

27

• Approximately half are aware that their contract allows for amendments and two-thirds believe scheduling adjustments can be made.

• Approximately half report that changes in their waste management contract or services are reflected in their service fees.

• The findings do not vary significantly by sector.

Contract Amendments & Scheduling Adjustments

Q.8b) Does your waste management contract allow for amendments to services (e.g. adding material streams)? c. Does your waste management contract allow for scheduling adjustments (e.g. for seasonal changes)? d. Are changes in your waste management contract or services reflected in your service fees? (e.g. reduced fee for change to less frequent pick up, etc.)

49%

49%45%47%

55%51%

36%

62%

64%60%64%

58%68%

61%

52%

53%49%55%

54%54%

45%

18%

17%21%18%

21%16%

16%

17%

18%23%18%

23%16%

8%

21%

24%19%

25%

19%22%

15%

34%

34%34%35%

25%33%

48%

20%

19%17%19%

19%16%

32%

27%

23%32%

20%

27%23%

40%


Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions


Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions


Multi-familyGrocers

Large institutions

Yes No Don't know

Base: Total owners or renters that manage and directly pay their waste collection contract or are billed separately by their landlord

Total (n=567)Total Hospitality (n=234)Quick service (n=53)Full service (n=159)Multi-family (n=150)Grocers (n=94)Large institutions (n=89)

Amendments to services

Allow for scheduling adjustments

Changes in contract/ services reflect in service fees

Total hospitality

Total

Total hospitality

Total

Total hospitality

Total

ZWC - 40

28

Characteristics of Businesses

ZWC - 41

29

Characteristics of Business/Organization


Total(721)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Region

Vancouver 41 41 39 41 50 34 34Surrey 10 9 11 8 11 9 14Richmond 9 9 8 10 3 17 9Burnaby 8 7 5 9 9 5 10Langley 6 6 6 6 3 8 6North Vancouver 5 6 8 5 5 4 4New Westminster 4 4 4 5 6 4 4Coquitlam 4 4 4 4 3 4 8Delta 4 3 6 2 3 8 5Maple Ridge 2 3 4 2 1 - 3West Vancouver 2 3 2 4 1 1 1Port Coquitlam 2 2 4 1 - 4 1Port Moody 1 1 1 1 1 2 -

Number of Locations

1 58 60 44 65 49 73 492 9 8 9 8 10 6 103 4 6 9 4 3 1 14 3 2 2 3 3 2 45-9 7 8 13 7 9 5 310+ 15 13 18 13 17 10 24Don’t know 5 2 5 1 9 4 9

Average number of locations 9.0 6.2 11.1 4.5 12.0 4.5 20.3

Q.2) Is this business or organization located in _____? Q.3) How many locations does your business have in the Metro Vancouver Region?

ZWC - 42

30

Characteristics of Business/Organization (cont’d)


Total(721)

%

Hospitality

Multi-family(150)

%

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%

Number of Years Operated in MV

5 years or less 16 25 27 24 2 22 4

6-9 years 9 14 12 15 4 5 6

10 years 7 8 14 6 3 8 7

11-19 years 17 23 22 24 9 16 10

20-29 years 18 14 8 17 25 26 12

30+ years 29 15 13 14 51 24 49

Don't Know 4 2 4 1 7 - 12

Average 19.1 14.3 13.0 14.1 29.4 17.7 24.7

Q.A) How many years has this business or organization operated in the Metro Vancouver area?

ZWC - 43

31

Characteristics of Business/Organization (cont’d)


Total(571)

%

Hospitality

Grocers(115)

%

Large institutions

(106)%

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Fullservice(217)

%Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees

Less than 5 20 19 31 13 31 95-9 18 23 26 23 14 810-19 20 25 26 24 18 920+ 38 29 14 37 32 70Don’t know 4 3 3 3 4 6Average Number of Employees 20.0 17.1 10.8 20.2 17.6 33.1

Owner/Tenant

Own 24 14 7 14 24 59Rent 73 84 90 84 74 36Don’t know 3 3 4 2 2 6

Q.4a) Approximately how many employees does this business or organization have at this location? Please provide an estimate of full-time equivalents.Q.6b) Do you own the building you operate in, or are you a tenant?

ZWC - 44

32

Characteristics of Multi-Family

Multi-family(150)

%Units Manage per Building

Less than 5 55-9 110-19 520+ 87Don’t know 1Average Number of Units 85.3

Building Rental or Owned

Own 23

Rent 76Don’t know 1

Q.4b) Approximately how many units do you manage in a typical building?Q.6a) Do you own the building you operate in, or are you a tenant?

ZWC - 45

33

Characteristics of Hospitality Businesses

Hospitality

Total hospitality

(350)%

Quick service(106)

%

Full service(217)

%

Customers Serve Per Day

50 or less 14 13 1251-99 10 11 11100-199 23 21 25200-299 14 13 15300+ 25 30 23Don’t know 14 11 15

Average 232.1 272.4 216.8

Franchise

Yes 29 52 19No 70 47 80Don’t know 1 1 1

Q.5a) Approximately how many customers does this establishment serve per day at a typical location?Q.b) Is the business a franchise?

ZWC - 46

34

Characteristics of Large Institutions

Total large institutions

(106)%

People/Staff Serve Per Day

50 or less 4651-99 6100-199 7200-299 7300+ 10Don’t know 25Average 72.5

Q.5b) Approximately how many people, including staff does the food services serve per day?

ZWC - 47

5.2

To: Zero Waste Committee

From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: September 1, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Transfer Station Strategy

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve a transfer station strategy with the following key elements:



c) reconfiguration of the North Shore Transfer Station; and d) development of the Surrey Small Vehicle/Residential Drop‐Off facility with the next steps

being the City of Surrey to finalize a site, and Metro Vancouver to enter into an agreement with the City of Surrey where Metro Vancouver pays for the garbage component and the City of Surrey pays for the dedicated recycling component of the facility.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek direction from the GVS&DD Board on future transfer station development and operations. BACKGROUND This report outlines various transfer station activities included in the Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Services capital plan and budget. Initiatives in this report include operational improvements and new and replacement infrastructure. Recycling at Transfer Stations On June 24, 2015, Metro Vancouver hosted a workshop with municipal Chief Administrative Officers and senior Engineering staff to discuss the transfer station strategy and funding options for the Solid Waste Services function. One key topic discussed at the workshop was equity in the provision of dedicated recycling services at transfer stations. Dedicated recycling services at transfer stations are areas ahead of the weigh scales where customers drop‐off recyclable materials, typically at no charge. These facilities receive a range of recyclable materials including metal, paper, glass, and extended producer responsibility materials such as electronics, batteries, paint, and pesticides. At the workshop, Metro Vancouver reported on the provision of dedicated recycling services as a pilot program at the Coquitlam Transfer Station. The site was reconfigured in 2014 to add a dedicated recycling drop‐off area in front of the weigh scales, and to increase the number of materials accepted for recycling. The cost of these improvements was relatively small as no additional land nor substantial infrastructure changes were required. The capital cost of the improvements was

ZWC - 48

approximately $100,000, and annual operating costs are approximately $130,000. Expanded recycling services at the Coquitlam Transfer Station has resulted in:

increased convenience for facility users;

approximately 60% more material dropped off for recycling (1,000 tonnes per year); and

4,000 recycling visits per month Following the addition of dedicated recycling services there has also been a 7% increase in the total number of residential drop‐off garbage customers at Coquitlam Transfer Station (and thus increased revenue), potentially due to the convenience of a one‐stop drop. Customers appear to be coming to the transfer station more frequently with smaller loads of garbage due to the convenience of dropping off recyclables and garbage at the same facility. Nonetheless, additional revenue from increased garbage visits does not fully fund the cost of the additional recycling services at this time. At the June 24, 2015 staff workshop, municipalities recognized the benefits of including dedicated recycling services at Metro Vancouver transfer stations. However, some municipalities have independently invested in recycling depots. Recycling infrastructure at Metro Vancouver facilities primarily benefits the communities nearest the transfer stations. Some municipal staff at the workshop expressed the perspective that this is inequitable. Municipal staff at the workshop recommended that Metro Vancouver only provide dedicated recycling services at transfer stations if local communities request and fund the service. As there does not appear to be a simple solution to incorporate Metro Vancouver funded dedicated recycling depots into all Metro Vancouver transfer stations, the most appropriate approach is to only implement dedicated recycling services at transfer stations where the communities served by the transfer station request and fund the service. This principle is particularly relevant for the development of new or replacement transfer stations where additional land and capital is required to develop dedicated recycling services. To maximize consistency in service delivery, Metro Vancouver will work with municipalities to identify best practices and standards for provision of these recycling services. Coquitlam Transfer Station The Coquitlam Transfer Station is on a month to month lease to Wastech Services Ltd. (Metro Vancouver’s contractor) from the City of Coquitlam. The final closure date for the existing facility is unknown, but the expectation is that this facility may stop receiving waste by the end of 2016. It may be possible for the facility to remain operational beyond the end of 2016. A new transfer station facility is being planned for the Coquitlam Landfill. Cost analysis and preliminary design for two options for replacement of the Coquitlam Transfer Station continue to be developed. Option 1 is a full service transfer station for both large and small vehicles, and Option 2 is a residential drop‐off‐only facility. The current estimate for a full service transfer station is $35 million for garbage infrastructure. The current estimate for a residential drop‐off only facility is $20 million for garbage infrastructure. Dedicated recycling infrastructure in either option is estimated at an additional $5 million. Both options continue to be explored, with a final recommendation expected to be presented to the Board for consideration in 2016. In the event there is a time lag between the closure of the existing Coquitlam Transfer Station and the opening of a new permanent facility, at a minimum a temporary residential drop‐off for small vehicles at the Coquitlam landfill is required to adequately service surrounding communities.

ZWC - 49

Residential drop‐off customers, or small vehicles, represent approximately 85% of current Coquitlam Transfer Station traffic. Additionally, directing Coquitlam Transfer Station residential drop‐off traffic to either North Shore Transfer Station or Surrey Transfer Station would create congestion at those facilities. A temporary residential drop‐off on the Coquitlam Landfill would be a low cost facility with lock block tipping areas and bins placed on an asphalt surface. Large vehicles would be rerouted to another disposal facility. Metro Vancouver will continue to work the City of Coquitlam to determine the closure date for the existing transfer station, and work with tri‐cities municipalities to ensure continuity of service if there is any time lag between closure of the existing transfer station and operation of the new permanent facility. North Shore Transfer Station Reconfiguration of the North Shore Transfer Station is being planned in parallel with the development of the Second Narrows Water Supply Tunnel project scheduled to start construction in 2017. The reconfiguration includes the relocation of the North Shore Transfer Station queuing yard and the North Shore Recycling Depot from the west side of Riverside Drive to the east side. All transfer station and recycling activities would then be east of Riverside Drive. The transfer station reconfiguration has been made possible because a Metro Vancouver owned property immediately north of the transfer station that was previously tenanted is now vacant. Site plans showing the current lay‐out and proposed reconfiguration lay‐out are found in Attachments 1 and 2. A detailed analysis of options was conducted by a joint Metro Vancouver Water Services/Solid Waste Services working group. Options evaluated included reconfiguring the transfer station, or maintaining the current transfer station lay‐out and Water Services developing works yards on both sides of Riverside Drive. The working group recommended proceeding with the reconfiguration of the North Shore Transfer Station with benefits realized by both Water Services and Solid Waste Services. In order to accommodate the tunnel construction, Water Services need to temporarily relocate several existing facilities at the GVWD Beach Yard on the west side of Riverside Drive. Temporary relocation options include utilization of the North Shore Transfer Station queuing yard on the west side of Riverside Drive or an alternative site on the east side of Riverside Drive. Maintaining Water Services activities on the west side of Riverside Drive during tunnel construction would be more efficient compared to separating operations. Maintaining all Water Services activities west of Riverside Drive is approximately $1 million less expensive than relocating facilities to the east side of Riverside Drive. The reconfiguration has multiple benefits for the operation of North Shore Transfer Station. Benefits include reduced operating costs through the elimination of traffic control staff required to operate the traffic queuing yard and improved customer service through the installation of automated scales for municipal and commercial traffic. Similar automated scales have recently been installed at the Surrey Transfer Station, improving traffic flow at that facility and reducing wait times for municipal and commercial traffic. Improved traffic flow at the North Shore Transfer Station is also important for other solid waste system users because if the Coquitlam Transfer Station closes in advance of a new facility being constructed, large vehicles may be rerouted to other existing facilities including the North Shore Transfer Station.

ZWC - 50

The reconfiguration will improve traffic convenience and safety in the vicinity of the North Shore Transfer Station because consolidation of Water Services and transfer station traffic on either side of Riverside Drive will mean traffic will not need to cross Riverside Drive. District of North Vancouver staff have confirmed that no development permit will be required for the transfer station reconfiguration. Detailed design and tender documents are now complete for the transfer station reconfiguration. The next step would be tendering for construction. A decision on whether to proceed with the reconfiguration is required at this time to avoid delaying construction of the Second Narrows Water Supply Tunnel. If the reconfiguration does not proceed in 2016 there would be no opportunity for reconfiguration for approximately 7 years. The current estimate for North Shore Transfer Station reconfiguration is $4.5 million. Water Services would contribute $500,000 towards this cost in recognition of their savings compared to the alternative approach of no transfer station reconfiguration and the temporary splitting of Water Services works yard activities on both sides of Riverside Drive. The Water Services contribution is equal to approximately half the savings compared to the alternative approach. Surrey Small Vehicle/Residential Drop‐Off Facility Metro Vancouver committed to develop a new small vehicle/residential drop‐off facility serving south Surrey as part of the rezoning of the Surrey Transfer Station site in 2001 and in the 1995 Solid Waste Management Plan. In July 2013, the Board approved Metro Vancouver payment of 50% of the cost of a site option to purchase, and the development of a funding and operations agreement for the facility. The approach would be that Metro Vancouver funds the garbage components of the facility and Surrey funds the dedicated recycling components. Metro Vancouver analysis continues to show that South Surrey residents are underserved by current residential drop‐off facilities, supporting the need for a new residential drop‐off facility.

The City of Surrey is currently evaluating properties and has not yet finalized a site for the new residential drop‐off facility. Metro Vancouver’s initial analysis suggests that land and capital requirements for the Surrey residential drop‐off would be roughly 60% garbage and 40% recycling. Current estimates for a Surrey residential drop‐off are approximately $10 million for land and $20 million capital. Metro Vancouver’s share of the total cost based on 60% garbage would be $18 million. Metro Vancouver will continue to work with Surrey to:

finalize a site;

finalize a funding and operations agreement;

confirm appropriate site zoning and allowed use; and

develop facility design. The key terms of the draft funding and operations agreement will be brought to the Board for consideration. To align with the goals of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, respond to Zero Waste Committee input and municipal feedback on the development of a regional transfer

ZWC - 51

station strategy, and to ensure that regional transfer stations deliver services on a fair and equitable basis to all GVS&DD members, the following alternatives are presented for consideration. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve a transfer station strategy with the following key elements:



c) reconfiguration of the North Shore Transfer Station; and d) development of the Surrey Small Vehicle/Residential Drop‐Off facility with the next steps

being the City of Surrey to finalize a site, and Metro Vancouver to enter into an agreement with the City of Surrey where Metro Vancouver pays for the garbage component and the City of Surrey pays for the dedicated recycling component of the facility.

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive the report for information and provide alternate direction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, Metro Vancouver will continue with the development of new and replacement infrastructure as contemplated in the 2015 budget and capital plan. The transfer station capital projects described in this report are summarized below:

Project 2015 Capital Plan Budget (millions)

Estimated Solid Waste Services Portion (millions)

Timing

North Shore Transfer Station

$7 $4 2016

Surrey residential drop‐off

$25 $18 2016 ‐ 2019

Coquitlam $57 $20 ‐ $35 2017 ‐ 2019

Total $89 $42 ‐ $57

Metro Vancouver would only develop dedicated recycling facilities at transfer stations if requested and funded by communities served by the facilities. Metro Vancouver costs assume no dedicated recycling facilities at transfer stations. The capital investments will make up about $4 million per year of the annual debt charges or roughly 5% of the overall annual Solid Waste Services operating budget once the projects are constructed. Proceeding with the North Shore Transfer Station reconfiguration in 2016 will ensure that the Water Services Tunnel crossing is not delayed, and continue to ensure the competiveness of the Metro Vancouver system for commercial waste by minimizing wait times for commercial haulers at the North Shore Transfer Station.

ZWC - 52

The Board has previously committed to the development of the Surrey residential drop‐off facility, and residential drop‐off service data analysis continues to support the need for this facility. There continues to be uncertainty with respect to future commercial waste flows. A final decision on the development of the Coquitlam Transfer Station is expected to be sought from the Board in 2016. Key information that will support that decision includes:

additional certainty with respect to commercial waste flow and tipping fee revenues; and

final closure date of the existing Coquitlam Transfer Station. Information on waste flows and the closure date for the Coquitlam Transfer station will be reported to the Board along with recommendations on whether to proceed with a residential only or full service transfer station. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report summarizes transfer station initiatives included in the current capital plan and seeks approval to continue with the development of those projects. The report also proposes that dedicated recycling services should only be provided at Metro Vancouver transfer stations if those services are requested and funded by communities served by those facilities. The report proposes proceeding with North Shore Transfer Station reconfiguration, and continuing the development of the Surrey small vehicle/residential drop‐off facility and the Coquitlam Transfer Station replacement. Options for Coquitlam Transfer Station replacement include a full service transfer station or a residential drop‐off‐only facility. A final decision on the Coquitlam Transfer Station can be made by the Board in 2016 once there is more certainty of waste flows and the closure date for the existing facility. To align with the goals of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and respond to Zero Waste Committee and member municipal feedback on the development of regional transfer station strategy, Alternative 1 is recommended. Attachments and References:

1. Current North Shore Transfer Station Layout 2. Proposed North Shore Transfer Station Reconfiguration

11719479

ZWC - 53

Current North Shore Transfer Station Layout

ATTACHMENT 1

ZWC - 54

Proposed North Shore Transfer Station Reconfiguration

ATTACHMENT 2

ZWC - 55

5.3


From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Solid Waste System Interim Funding Strategy

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve an interim solid waste system funding strategy with the following key elements:



PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to propose an interim solid waste funding strategy for implementation beginning in 2016. BACKGROUND In February 2015, the Board approved a new tipping fee approach with tipping fees based on load weight. Larger loads are charged at a lower rate per tonne than smaller loads. This approach is consistent with the cost of managing loads, and is intended to encourage large commercial haulers to use the regional system. The financial projections included in the February report showed deficits in the solid waste function for the five year planning horizon, and the report noted that additional measures would be required to eliminate the budget deficit.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM FUNDING SRATEGY A number of options have been reviewed to achieve a balanced budget. The approach proposed in this report is to undertake a number of initiatives in parallel. The initiatives include:

Implement cost savings

Implement a municipal tipping fee

Modify the Regional Services Rate

Fund Zero Waste Communications and Behaviour Change initiatives as part of the GVRD General Government function

Cost Savings Cost savings of approximately $2.0 million per year on a budget of approximately $90 million have been identified. Major cost components for the solid waste system are related to third party contracts typically calculated on a cost per tonne basis. Because the majority of costs are related to third party contracts, short‐term savings are most achievable through staff and consulting expenditure reductions. Additional savings are expected in 2017 as Metro Vancouver stops transporting waste to Cache Creek Landfill, and the Coquitlam Transfer Station is expected to close.

ZWC - 56

Cost savings have primarily been in the following areas:

Reductions in staffing and consulting in various Solid Waste Planning and Operations roles to minimize costs. Staffing reductions have been achieved by only filling critical roles as positions become vacant.

Reduction of the Environmental Regulation and Enforcement budget as a result of eliminating positions that were approved for 2015 and not filled, and will not be requested for 2016.

In total, 8 out of approximately 50 Solid Waste Services positions included in the 2015 budget are either being eliminated or not filled in 2016. As in previous years, waste flows, Vancouver Landfill and Cache Creek Landfill operating costs and closure liability costs will be the key drivers in determining overall system costs. Municipal Tipping Fee Under the current tipping fee structure, loads delivered by municipalities are charged using the same weight based rate structure as commercial loads. Prior to April 2015, the tipping fee was $109 per tonne for all waste including municipally collected waste. This tipping fee included contributions to Zero Waste education, engagement, planning, and other non‐disposal related activities. Following discussions with member municipalities and through feedback received from the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC), it is proposed that a flat municipal tipping fee for local government single family and public works waste be reinstated to ensure equity among municipalities and still allow for contributions by municipalities to support waste reduction and recycling initiatives. The recommended approach is a return to the $109 per tonne rate over a two year phase in period, with a $100 per tonne rate in 2016 and $109 per tonne in 2017. The $5 per load transaction fee would continue for all users in recognition of fixed costs associated with managing each load. Since the change in the tipping fee structure implemented in April, municipalities have been paying between $84 and $111 per tonne with an average rate of approximately $94 per tonne. Municipal rates vary because some municipalities, on average, deliver heavier loads than others. Reinstating a flat municipal tipping fee would ensure equity among municipalities. The municipal tipping fee will apply to all waste generated from single family homes and collected either by local government, local government contractors or entities contracting directly with individual residents for regular waste collection. The rate will also apply to public works waste. Municipal front‐end trucks that typically service apartments and businesses would continue to be charged using the weight based tipping fee structure given these municipal fleets compete with commercial haulers. Only a small number of municipalities operate front‐end fleets. Regional Services Rate In 2009, Metro Vancouver enacted its first Tipping Fee Bylaw setting fees and related requirements for the solid waste disposal system. The Tipping Fee Bylaw includes provisions relating to the collection of a “Regional Services Rate”, initially set at $2.20 per tonne. The Regional Services Rate was developed to pay for Zero Waste education, planning and administration, regulation and enforcement and other activities benefiting the entire region. The Regional Services Rate is charged to all users of Metro Vancouver disposal facilities as a component of the tipping fee. Member municipalities other than Vancouver and Delta pay the Regional Services Rate as part of the tipping

ZWC - 57

fee for waste collected by their municipal and contracted hauling crews. Because Vancouver and Delta do not pay a tipping fee to Metro Vancouver, they pay the Regional Services Rate separately to Metro Vancouver for all residential and commercial/institutional waste originating from their municipalities and delivered to the Vancouver Landfill or Vancouver Transfer Station. The current Regional Services Rate is $6 per tonne. The expected Regional Services Rate contribution from Vancouver and Delta in 2015 is approximately $1.3 million, and a slightly lower contribution is expected in 2016 due to expected lower waste quantities with increased recycling. To ensure that the Regional Services Rate is calculated on an annual basis as a component of solid waste program expenditures, it is proposed that the formula for the rate calculation be changed to a percentage of the municipal tipping fee. If the municipal tipping fee is set at $100 per tonne for 2016, the Regional Services Rate would be set at 6% of the municipal tipping fee. The Regional Services Rate would then increase proportionally as municipal tipping fees increase over time. REAC recommended this approach in the fall of 2014 when it reviewed proposed tipping fee changes for 2015. Based on the model used to calculate the Regional Services Rate for 2015, and current 2016 budget and waste flow estimates, the calculated value for the Regional Service Rate for 2016 is $5.40/tonne. Given the nature of the estimates, $6 or 6% of the municipal tipping fee continues to be an appropriate value. The estimates will be reviewed with the REAC and REAC Solid Waste Subcommittee in advance of finalizing the draft Tipping Fee Bylaw, with any proposed revisions brought forward as part of the Tipping Fee Bylaw report in October. Zero Waste Communications Approximately $1 million per year is spent to fund Zero Waste communications and behavior change programs such as the Christmas Campaign, Love Food Hate Waste, the National Zero Waste Council and the Zero Waste Conference. A report is being developed that will propose funding these activities as part of the GVRD General Government function. The report will be presented to the Intergovernmental and Finance Committee for consideration on September 17, 2015, for possible inclusion in the 2016 budget. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve an interim solid waste system funding strategy with the following key elements:



2. That the GVS&DD Board receive this report for information and provide alternate direction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, the solid waste function financial position is projected to be balanced over the current five year planning horizon. A table showing projected tipping fees and draft financial projections over the next five years is attached. Waste flows, and costs related to operations and closure liability for the Vancouver Landfill and Cache Creek Landfill will have significant impact on the actual financial position. The funding strategy will be reviewed and updated as information on

ZWC - 58

these issues changes. In the event there are short‐term revenue short‐falls, sufficient reserves are available to fund those short‐falls. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In February 2015, the Board set a new weight based tipping fee structure. The report noted that additional measures were required to achieve a balanced budget for the solid waste function. This report proposes a number of initiatives that collectively are expected to achieve balanced budgets over the next five years. Staff therefore recommend Alternative 1 that the Board approve an interim strategy for funding the solid waste function including reverting to a fixed municipal tipping fee of $100 per tonne in 2016 and $109 per tonne in 2017, and setting the Regional Services Rate as a percentage of the municipal tipping fee. Attachments and References: Attachment: 5 Year Financial Projection 11731265

ZWC - 59

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District ATTACHMENTSolid Waste Services

Financial Projections

9/4/2015

5 YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTION DRAFT

2014

BUDGET

2015

BUDGET

2015 Year End

Projection

2016

DRAFT BUDGET

2017

FORECAST

2018

FORECAST

2019

FORECAST

2020

FORECAST

REVENUES

Tipping Fees 89,233,082$ 75,813,273$ 79,503,860$ 78,892,159$ 79,421,077$ 81,442,549$ 82,073,559$ 84,976,697$

Energy Sales 5,775,750$ 6,264,348$ 6,102,848$ 5,719,900$ 5,791,399$ 5,863,791$ 5,937,089$ 6,011,302$

Other Revenue 6,390,303$ 6,661,552$ 7,492,461$ 3,693,282$ 4,032,536$ 4,072,413$ 4,112,844$ 4,153,839$

Funds and Reserves 726,478$ 4,887,352$ 337,807$ 3,686,123$ 109,117$ 114,108$ 623,140$ 127,249$

TOTAL REVENUES 102,125,613$ 93,626,525$ 93,436,976$ 91,991,464$ 89,354,129$ 91,492,861$ 92,746,632$ 95,269,088$

EXPENDITURES

Solid Waste Operations

Transfer Station - System Ops. 32,859,808$ 35,236,437$ 35,163,780$ 33,416,414$ 27,666,414$ 28,219,742$ 28,784,137$ 30,130,141$

Transfer Station - Env. Initiatives 8,615,387$ 4,997,354$ 5,368,570$ 5,234,882$ 5,091,875$ 5,311,288$ 5,546,073$ 5,799,866$

Landfills 19,843,356$ 17,522,457$ 19,257,634$ 19,532,178$ 19,693,082$ 18,636,855$ 18,636,855$ 17,944,454$

Waste to Energy Facility 22,123,003$ 22,942,375$ 21,926,556$ 22,794,804$ 23,022,411$ 23,482,820$ 23,952,437$ 24,431,447$

Ashcroft Ranch 1,258,544$ 462,456$ 468,950$ 277,608$ 210,557$ 213,568$ 216,637$ 219,767$

Minor Capital Projects -$ 56,208$ -$ 7,771$ 7,927$ 8,086$ 8,248$ 8,414$

Engineers in Training 457,592$ 463,598$ 463,598$ 158,589$ 165,485$ 168,717$ 172,014$ 175,374$

Allocation of Quality Control 21,503$ 22,315$ 22,315$ 23,223$ 27,863$ 30,048$ 29,009$ 26,048$

Sustainability Fund 1,612,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operations Sub-Total 86,791,193$ 81,703,200$ 82,671,403$ 81,445,469$ 75,885,614$ 76,071,124$ 77,345,410$ 78,735,512$

Solid Waste Planning & Other

Zero Waste Implementation 1,810,517$ 1,774,662$ 1,617,662$ 1,756,325$ 1,792,605$ 1,829,614$ 1,867,363$ 1,905,852$

Policy & Facility Development 2,006,055$ 1,537,140$ 1,327,140$ 1,158,983$ 1,187,455$ 1,216,502$ 1,246,134$ 1,276,350$

3,816,572$ 3,311,802$ 2,944,802$ 2,915,308$ 2,980,060$ 3,046,116$ 3,113,497$ 3,182,202$

New Waste to Energy Capacity 625,530$ 576,904$ 576,904$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Strategy & Public Involvement 728,579$ 737,731$ 495,381$ 409,135$ 417,459$ 425,945$ 434,604$ 443,434$

Regulation 1,171,255$ 1,293,467$ 1,148,467$ 913,707$ 1,033,687$ 1,279,469$ 1,301,098$ 1,281,397$

Admin and Department Support 864,095$ 900,345$ 830,345$ 790,794$ 804,972$ 819,433$ 834,174$ 849,199$

93,997,224$ 88,523,449$ 88,667,302$ 86,474,413$ 81,121,792$ 81,642,087$ 83,028,783$ 84,491,744$

Allocation of Centralized Costs 3,573,262$ 3,703,892$ 3,703,892$ 4,204,324$ 3,971,294$ 4,084,275$ 4,131,198$ 4,463,859$

Total Operating Program 97,570,486$ 92,227,341$ 92,371,194$ 90,678,737$ 85,093,086$ 85,726,362$ 87,159,981$ 88,955,603$

Debt Service and Capital (15yr amrt.) 4,500,144$ 1,399,184$ 899,184$ 1,312,728$ 2,495,048$ 4,610,911$ 5,586,651$ 6,109,122$

Contribution to Capital / Reserves -$ -$ 166,598$ (0)$ 1,765,994$ 1,155,588$ 0$ 204,363$

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 102,070,630$ 93,626,525$ 93,436,976$ 91,991,464$ 89,354,129$ 91,492,861$ 92,746,632$ 95,269,088$

NOTES:

Tipping Fees:

Municipal Tipping Fee 100$ 109$ 113$ 117$ 125$

Small Vehicles (0-1t) 108$ 109$ 130$ 133$ 137$ 141$ 145$ 150$

Medium Vehicles (1-8t) 108$ 109$ 109$ 112$ 116$ 120$ 124$ 130$

Large Vehicles (>9t) 108$ 109$ 80$ 80$ 83$ 85$ 87$ 89$

Transaction Fee 5$ 5$ 5$ 6$ 6$ 7$

Small Vehicle Min. Fee 10$ 10$ 10$ 10$ 10$ 10$ 10$ 10$

ZWC - 60

5.4 To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw Proposed Provisions

RECOMMENDATION a) That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to prepare the 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw to be presented at

the October 30, 2015, Board meeting including the following key provisions effective January 1, 2016: i. Tipping fees:



9 tonnes and over: $80 per tonne ii. Municipal Tipping Fee for local government single family and public works waste: $100 per

tonne iii. Regional Service Rate: 6% of the municipal tipping fee for local government single family

and public works waste, and included in all tipping fees iv. Surcharge threshold for organics to remain at 25% v. Surcharge threshold for clean wood to remain at 10% vi. Organics drop‐off rate: $67 per tonne at all transfer stations except the North Shore

Transfer Station vii. Special Handle Waste: $250 per tonne viii. Two sheets of gypsum: $133 per tonne with a minimum fee of $10, $5 transaction fee

applied to all gypsum loads

b) That stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes be reported and summarized as part of the October tipping fee Board report, and stakeholder input be considered in the final proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek direction for the 2016 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Bylaw (Tipping Fee Bylaw) in advance of a draft bylaw and the 2016 Solid Waste Services budget being brought forward to the Board in October. Tipping Fee Bylaw changes will be implemented on January 1, 2016. BACKGROUND The Tipping Fee Bylaw sets disposal fees and requirements, including disposal bans, for Metro Vancouver waste disposal facilities. The bylaw is amended or replaced when the tipping fee or any other fees or surcharges require changes or if operational requirements of the facilities are changed.

ZWC - 61

2015 Tipping Fees Changes In February 2015, the GVS&DD Board approved a new tipping fee structure with rates based on load weight. Large loads are charged a lower per tonne rate than small loads, and a $5 per load transaction fee is applied to all loads. The new rate structure took effect April 6, 2015. Charging based on load weight is more consistent with the cost of managing the waste. Under the new tipping fee structure, the 2015 budget forecast has changed from a projected $4.5 million deficit on an approximately $90 million budget to a small projected surplus. The final 2015 budget position will depend on a number of factors such as final 2015 waste quantities, Cache Creek Landfill and Vancouver Landfill operating and closure costs. When the tipping fee structure was implemented in April 2015, Metro Vancouver received approximately 75 phone calls and emails related to the new tipping fee structure, with roughly half originating from Maple Ridge residents. Communications from large commercial haulers in advance of the new tipping fee structure being implemented suggested that haulers’ preference would be one low rate for all of their loads with large haulers preferring a system under which discounts were based on total monthly tonnage. Haulers also suggested that lower rates for large loads could increase potential for overweight loads. Data since implementation of the new tipping fee structure has not shown a significant increase in potentially overweight loads. Haulers are responsible for ensuring their loads are road legal. Illegal Dumping There has been no observed increase in illegal dumping with increased costs for small loads. Comparison of quarterly member municipality data on the number of incidents and costs for illegally dumped waste show that the fluctuations between 2014 and 2015 are within typical range and do not show increases as a result of the new tipping fee structure. The total number of illegal dumping incidents in Metro Vancouver is estimated to be 40,000 to 50,000 incidents per year, with a cost to municipalities of approximately $3.0 Million per year. Metro Vancouver is continuing to work with member municipalities in monitoring the incidents and costs of illegal dumping and better characterizing the incidents through a study on litter and illegal dumping in municipalities that host a regional solid waste facility. The purpose of Metro Vancouver’s work is to continue monitor illegal dumping across the region, and to identify potential mitigating measures particularly if illegal dumping and litter issues are related to the operation of Metro Vancouver facilities. 2016 TIPPING FEE BYLAW CHANGES 2016 Proposed Tipping Fees For 2016 a $3 per tonne increase in tipping fees is proposed for medium and small loads with large load rates proposed to remain the same. Increasing the tipping fee for large loads could result in additional waste being delivered out of the regional system. The following table provides 2015 tipping fees, 2016 tipping fees projected in the February 2015 Tipping Fee Bylaw Board report, and proposed 2016 tipping fees:

ZWC - 62

Weight Range 2015 Tipping Fees 2016 Tipping Fees Projected in Feb 2015

Proposed 2016 Tipping Fees

Less than 1 tonne $130/tonne to a maximum of $109 per load

$136/tonne $133/tonne to a maximum of $112 per load

1 tonne to 9 tonnes $109/tonne to a maximum of $720 per load

$114/tonne $112/tonne to a maximum of $720 per load

Greater than 9 tonnes $80/tonne $80/tonne $80/tonne

Assuming no increase in waste migration, each across the board one dollar increase in tipping fee results in approximately $500,000 per year increase in revenue in the Metro Vancouver system. As small and medium loads represent about 50% of total loads, a $1 per tonne increase in small and medium loads results in approximately $250,000/year increase in revenue. Municipal Tipping Fee and Regional Services Rate: For 2016, a uniform $100 per tonne municipal tipping fee is proposed for all local government single family and public works waste loads, regardless of load size. This rate would not apply to municipal front‐end trucks that service apartments and businesses; instead, those vehicles would be charged on the same basis as commercial trucks. Additionally, the method used to calculate the Regional Services Rate is proposed to be changed from a flat rate per tonne to an amount that is equal to 6% of the municipal tipping fee. The Regional Services Rate will increase in the future along with the municipal tipping fee. Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Bans In October 2014, the Board approved an implementation strategy for the organics and clean wood disposal bans. The organics and clean wood disposal bans were implemented in January 2015 with ban surcharges applying as of July 1, 2015. As with other banned materials, contracted inspectors at Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities visually inspect garbage loads, and if banned materials are present in quantities exceeding the allowable threshold, a surcharge is applied. The initial ban threshold for organics was set at 25% of the load volume and clean wood at 10% of the load volume. Under the strategy approved by the Board in October 2014, the threshold for organics was proposed to decrease to 10% in 2016 and 5% in 2017. The clean wood threshold was proposed to decrease to 5% in 2016. Cardboard, yard trimmings and other banned materials have ban thresholds of 5%. During the educational period from January to June 2015, inspectors issued educational notices for organics and clean wood loads exceeding ban surcharge thresholds. Organics educational notices averaged 15 per month, and clean wood averaged 64 per month. Organics educational notices were issued primarily to loads hauled directly from large organics producers such as grocery stores. Clean wood educational notices were issued primarily to small residential drop‐off loads, typically from renovation and small construction projects. Following implementation of surcharges on July 1, 2015, 27 organics surcharges and 33 clean wood surcharges were issued in July. On average, for all banned materials, approximately 450 surcharges are issued per month. The number of organics surcharges in July was higher than the monthly average of educational notices during the educational period, likely due to inspectors concentrating their efforts on organics after surcharges applied. The number of clean wood surcharges in July was approximately half of the monthly average of notices during the educational period. Anecdotally,

ZWC - 63

the rationale is that most loads with large amounts of clean wood are residential drop‐off loads. When an inspector notifies a residential drop‐off customer that a surcharge will be applied to a load, the customer often removes the banned material for recycling onsite or offsite to avoid a surcharge. For 2016, it is proposed that the thresholds for organics and clean wood remain at 25% and 10% respectively. Maintaining the surcharge thresholds at their current levels is proposed for a number of reasons:

Only one month’s data is available on the number of surcharges applied

The organics disposal ban is working effectively to encourage recycling of food scraps

Waste haulers have indicated that concern over organics disposal ban charges is a key motivator in their decision as to whether to haul waste to remote disposal facilities where no disposal bans are applied

Metro Vancouver is developing a pilot program to move towards a more incentive based disposal ban model, and additional time in advance of decreasing the threshold will allow this approach to be fully explored with waste haulers and other stakeholders

Additional Proposed Changes A number of additional changes are proposed:

An inflationary increase of $1 per tonne from $66 to $67 is proposed for yard trimmings, clean wood and household food‐scraps. The fee charged at the North Shore Transfer Station is proposed to remain unchanged at $71 per tonne. The North Shore Transfer station organics rate is higher than the rate at other facilities to pay for a building that was built to support food scrap handling at that facility. The building is now almost paid for.

The tipping fee for Special Handle Waste is proposed to increase from $200 per tonne to $250 per tonne. This rate applies to materials requiring special disposal at the WTEF in Burnaby. This rate applies to international wastes and other waste where specific thermal destruction is required. The rate for these loads has not changed since the inception of the program in 1995. The rate will be reviewed again for 2017, and the program is being enhanced for generators.

The recycling fee for up to two sheets of gypsum is proposed to increase from $109 per tonne to $133 per tonne to align with garbage disposal fees. The minimum fee for all gypsum is proposed to be $10 plus the $5 transaction fee, again to align with garbage disposal fees.

All references to the Matsqui Transfer Station will be removed from the Bylaw since it will be closed effective November 1, 2015.

Stakeholder Input With the publishing of the September 10, 2015, Zero Waste Committee agenda, this report will be circulated to waste management, business and non‐profit stakeholders. The communication to stakeholders will note that they have an opportunity to delegate to the Zero Waste Committee and/or the Board, and provide written comments on the proposed changes to the 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw. The proposed changes are also being reviewed with municipal stakeholders including Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC), REAC Solid Waste and the Regional Administrators Advisory Committee. Input will be summarized and attached to the October Tipping Fee Bylaw with input considered in the drafting of the bylaw presented to the Zero Waste Committee and Board.

ZWC - 64

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to prepare the 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw to be presented at

the October 30, 2015, Board meeting including the following key provisions effective January 1, 2016:

i. Tipping fees:



9 tonnes and over: $80 per tonne ii. Municipal Tipping Fee for local government single family and public works waste: $100

per tonne iii. Regional Service Rate: 6% of the tipping fee for local government single family and public

works waste, and included in all tipping fees iv. Surcharge threshold for organics to remain at 25% v. Surcharge threshold for clean wood to remain at 10% vi. Organics drop‐off rate: $67 per tonne at all transfer stations except the North Shore

Transfer Station vii. Special Handle Waste: $250 per tonne viii. Two sheets of gypsum: $133 per tonne with a minimum fee of $10, $5 transaction fee

applied to all gypsum loads 2. That the GVS&DD Board receive this report for information and provide alternate direction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, the changes proposed in this report will be incorporated into the Tipping Fee Bylaw for 2016. Tipping Fees are the primary revenue source to fund the operation of the regional waste disposal system along with Metro Vancouver Zero Waste planning and communications. Low tipping fees for large loads encourages haulers to deliver those loads to the regional system, thereby improving economies of scale for the system. The 2016 budget revenues will be based on tipping fees set by the Board. The 2016 budget will be brought forward for consideration by the Board in October. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report proposes changes to the 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw. Changes will be incorporated into a draft bylaw presented for consideration of the Board in October. The report proposes that for 2016 the tipping fees change by $3 per tonne for small and medium loads with large load rates remaining fixed. Municipally collected loads would revert to a flat rate of $100 per tonne, and the Regional Services Rate would be set at 6% of the municipal tipping fee. The report also proposes that the surcharge threshold for organics and clean wood remain the same in 2016 as in 2015 primarily due to continued uncertainty in future waste flow and the potential for reduced thresholds to drive waste to remote disposal facilities where there are no disposal bans in place. The report is being circulated to waste management stakeholders, and their input will be summarized and considered in preparing a draft bylaw to be presented to the Board in October. 2016 budget revenues will be based on the proposed tipping fee structure. Staff recommend Alternative 1. 11720166

ZWC - 65


From: Andrew Marr, Director of Solid Waste Planning, Solid Waste Services Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Monitoring of Solid Waste Plan Implementation

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Solid Waste Function to review implementation progress reports of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to obtain the Board’s approval to use the Zero Waste Committee to review progress reports on the implementation of the regional solid waste Plan, rather than an ‘Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee’ as originally outlined in the Plan. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s approved Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP action 2.11.1) and Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP action 3.5.1) share the following action:

Metro Vancouver will: Establish a new overarching committee, the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC), to advise Metro Vancouver on plan implementation, particularly from the perspectives of integrated planning and resource recovery across utility systems.

Metro Vancouver has attempted to maintain an ongoing IUMAC with responsibility for monitoring the Plans for both the solid waste and liquid waste services. However, the broad scope of the integrated committee has made it challenging to recruit members with interest and expertise in both utilities, and limited its effectiveness in providing input on the implementation of these two distinct management plans. This report is being brought forward to present a revised approach that better aligns with the governance framework of Metro Vancouver. PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT APPROACH Metro Vancouver staff looked at alternative methods for monitoring utility plan implementation, including those used in other regional districts. It was found that most regional districts monitor their solid and liquid waste utilities separately, and many use their elected officials to oversee the implementation of solid and liquid waste management plans. In response to Metro Vancouver’s request (Attachment 1) the Ministry of Environment has confirmed (Attachment 2) that it would be acceptable for Metro Vancouver to use its Zero Waste Committee to

5.5

ZWC - 66

review implementation reports on the Solid Waste Plan (and its Utilities Committee for the Liquid Waste Plan). ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board designate the Standing Committee with oversight of the Solid Waste Function to review implementation progress reports of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, prior to their submission to the Ministry of Environment.

2. That the Board provide alternative direction to staff. Staff recommend Alternative 1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no significant financial implications; all activities would be accommodated within the existing approved budgets. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver’s approved Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan share a commitment to monitor the implementation of both Plans using a combined ‘Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee’ (IUMAC). Metro Vancouver has found it challenging to recruit members with interest and expertise in both solid and liquid waste, and to maintain an ongoing IUMAC that can provide effective input on implementation of two distinct management plans. Staff proposed to the Ministry of Environment that subject to Board approval Metro Vancouver could monitor their solid and liquid waste utilities separately, using our elected officials (the Zero Waste Committee, and Utilities Committee) to oversee implementation of solid and liquid waste management plans. The Ministry of Environment confirmed that it agrees with this approach. Attachments and References:

1. March 18, 2015 Letter from Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver

2. July 22, 2015 Letter from Lori Halls, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment

11778999

ZWC - 67

ATTACHMENT

1

ATTACHMENT 1

ZWC - 68

ZWC - 69

MKINGDON

Text Box

Reference: 280939

JUL 2 2 2015

Carol Mason

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC VSH 4G8

Dear Ms. Mason:

GMD c JUL_2 7 20151"'

AcUon: .............................................................. .

................... oti .... n~·~,:r ...... l'"'PC::"" Info Copy. \t .. ~ .. :::t ........ L~ ....... ~,vrT· Ale No.: ... S: ...... ~.Q1.:::QZ..-:::.r;;;.! ............. . Doc. No.: w ........................................................ .

CAO Tracker No.: ................................. - ........ .

Thank you for your letter of March 18, 2015, regarding the replacement of the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC) with two specific standing committees to monitor the implementation of Metro Vancouver's solid and liquid waste management plans. I apologize for the delay in responding.

We understand that the broad scope of the IUMAC to monitor both the solid and liquid waste services was challenging and had limited effectiveness. The Ministry agrees and accepts your new approach to use your Zero Waste Committee and Utilities Committee to review the biennial reports on the implementation of the individual plans.

The Ministry encourages Metro Vancouver to continue to seek input from individuals and organizations that have expertise in specific areas of solid or liquid waste management.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Lori Halls Assistant Deputy Minister Environmental Protection Division

Ministty of Environment Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister Environmental Protection Division

Mailing Address: PO Box 9339 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC VBW 9Ml

Telephone: 250 387-9997 Facsimile: 250 953-3414 Website: www.gov.bc.ca/ env

ATTACHMENT 2

ZWC - 70

MKINGDON

Text Box

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Veronica Baker, Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: September 2, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: 2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 2, 2015, titled “2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program” for information.

PURPOSE In 2014, Solid Waste Services staff retained the services of Tetra Tech EBA to characterize the municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed of by four major subsectors of the Institutional, Commercial, and Light‐Industrial (ICI) sector in the region:

Accommodation & Food Services

Business Commercial Services

Manufacturing

Retail Trade

The information gleaned from this waste audit of 98 ICI establishments is intended to supplement Metro Vancouver’s previous small‐scale waste audits, often one‐offs on hospitals, grocery stores, wholesalers, film sets, parks, entertainment venues, and schools. The study also effectively generated benchmarking data on these large generators before the implementation of the Organics Disposal Ban in January 2015. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver is mandated by the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan to regularly monitor the composition of MSW received at its waste handling facilities. Waste composition studies are used to track progress in achieving the region’s diversion targets and identify areas where more resources are required. Metro Vancouver estimates that ICI waste accounts for approximately 45% of the region’s total MSW stream (excluding demolition, land‐clearing, and construction waste). The management, collection, and transportation of ICI waste materials, which are handled by the private sector, are complex due to the diverse nature of waste materials generated in this sector. ICI sector waste is collected in commingled loads from multiple businesses and multi‐family residences, and it is therefore difficult to isolate samples at solid waste facilities to monitor by industry type. The scope included significant upfront work in contacting 300 businesses to ultimately recruit 100 participants, interviewing them about their waste management practices, and sampling waste in situ to isolate samples sourced explicitly from each establishment. As an incentive for participating, each of the businesses received a customized waste summary assessment sheet.

5.6

ZWC - 71

RESULTS The four subsectors examined represent approximately 30% of the total ICI waste stream, and were grouped according to the North American Industry Classification System. Of the four subsectors, Manufacturing contributed the most waste to the total ICI waste stream at 10% and Retail Trade the least at 4%. Figure 1 below shows the summary of tonnages and waste composition profiles for the four subsectors examined.

Figure 1: Waste Characterization Comparison across Business Categories

As expected, Accommodations & Food Services disposed of the most compostable organics, however Manufacturing (Food & Beverage in particular) wasted a comparable amount. Business & Commercial Services (e.g., office buildings) also disposed of a large amount of compostables. Paper (particularly food‐soiled paper and tissues) was the most prevalent material in the waste stream for Retail Trade, and the second‐most prevalent material for the rest of the subsectors; plastics was the third highest‐contributing material category for all of the subsectors. It’s worth noting that, despite the high fractions of organics and food‐soiled paper discovered in the trash, 53% of the participants had organics management programs in place at the time of sampling.

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

ZWC - 72

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications of the waste composition study’s publication. OTHER IMPLICATIONS The results presented in the study were compiled from confidential information provided by each business; however, the aggregated data reveals which industries in particular are still contributing large quantities of divertible materials to the region’s MSW stream, and in many cases, despite having adequate diversion programs in place. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This “2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program” generated benchmark data on four large industry types in the region before the Organics Disposal Ban was implemented in January 2015. The study provided insight into the four subsectors’ waste management practices and supplements previous small‐scale waste audits conducted on other ICI subsectors. Of the four subsectors examined, Manufacturing produced the most waste and Retail Trade the least. Compostable organic material was the most prevalent material wasted by three of the four subsectors; not surprisingly, Accommodations & Food Services and Food & Beverage Manufacturers disposed of the most. Paper, particularly food‐soiled paper and tissues, and plastics were the next two highest‐contributing material categories across all of the subsectors. Solid Waste Services staff presented the report to REAC‐SWS for information on July 17th, 2015. A copy of the final report is available on Metro Vancouver’s website: (http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid‐waste/SolidWastePublications/FinalReport‐2014ICIWasteCharacterizationProgram3‐Jun‐15.pdf)

Attachments and References: Attachment: Executive Summary of 2014 ICI Waste Characterization Program 10806022

ZWC - 73

2014 ICI WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM

June 1, 2015

ISSUED FOR USE

FILE: ENVSWM03362-01

ATTACHMENT

ZWC - 74

ICI WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM

FILE: 704-ENVSWM03362-01 | JUNE 2015 | ISSUED FOR USE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech EBA) was retained by Metro Vancouver to conduct an institutional, commercial, and light-industrial (ICI) Waste Characterization Study. Sampling was conducted from November 2014 to January 2015.

The objectives of the study were to establish current data on the composition of solid waste disposed by a subset of businesses across the region, and to provide information about the types of diversion activities they practice. The following four industry groups, which are major sources of solid waste, were selected by Metro Vancouver – ICI establishments were categorized using the North American Industry Classification System1 (NAICS):

Accommodation and Food Services;

Business Commercial Services;

Manufacturing; and

Retail Trade.

The majority of garbage samples handled for the study were collected directly from participating establishments by Tetra Tech EBA and transported to Vancouver South Transfer Station (VSTS) where the sorting was conducted. A handful were sorted in situ at the business location. This report is split into three sections as detailed below:

Section 1.0 Introduction – outlines project objectives and the background and rationale for the study.

Section 2.0 Methodology – summarizes the methodology utilized for business selection and recruitment, garbage sampling and sorting, and data analysis.

Section 3.0 Results and Discussion – provides the results of the waste characterization data by category and subsector. It also provides key data collected from ICI establishments including tonnages and diversion practices.

A total of 98 samples weighing 7,274 kg, an average of 74 kg per sample, were sorted into 128 material subcategories within 12 primary categories. Of these, 92 samples were sorted at the VSTS and the remaining six were sorted in situ at the business location. The table below shows the distribution of samples.

Table E1: Sampling Distribution by Business Category and Location

Zone Accommodation

& Food Business

Commercial Manufacturing Retail Trade

1 – Central/North (including Vancouver and North Shore)

15 15 10 11

2 – East (including Burnaby, Tri-Cities, Maple Ridge)

5 3 4 9

3 – South (including Richmond, Surrey, Delta) 5 7 9 5

Total 25 25 23 25

1 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. NAICS was adopted in 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/

i

Metro Vancouver ICI Waste Characterization Program.docx

ZWC - 75



The total ICI tonnage disposed of in Metro Vancouver in 2013 was estimated at 414,191 tonnes2 (excluding demolition, land-clearing, and construction waste). The four categories sampled for this study are depicted in Figure 1 below as a percentage of the overall ICI annual tonnage. Estimated annual tonnages for each business category3 are as follows:

Accommodation & Food – 38,900 tonnes;

Business Commercial Services – 28,800 tonnes;

Manufacturing – 42,700 tonnes; and

Retail Trade – 14,800 tonnes.

Figure E1: Regional Tonnage by Business Category

Overall, the categories selected for this study represented approximately 30% of the total ICI waste stream. The other 70% includes education, health care, construction, public administration, retail food and beverage, and wholesale. Of the categories selected for this study, Manufacturing represented the greatest proportion of the ICI waste stream at 10%, and Retail Trade represented the least at 4%. However, several types of retail, most notably grocery stores, were not included in the scope of this study.

The overall waste characterization results for the four primary business categories are presented in the figure and

table below.

2 Metro Vancouver, 2013. Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management – 2013 Summary. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/SolidWastePublications/2013_Solid_Waste_Management_Annual_Summary.pdf

3 For each category, a ‘waste disposal per employee’ figure was calculated from the average of samples collected for this study (i.e., estimated annual tonnage for business A, divided by total number of employees). This was multiplied by the total number of employees in that category, as per the Dun and Bradstreet database.

Accommodation & Food, 9%

Business & Commercial Services,

7%

Manufacturing, 10%

Retail Trade, 4%

Other, 70%

ii


ZWC - 76



Figure E2: Waste Characterization Comparison across Business Categories

As seen above, Manufacturing produced the most unsorted disposed waste and Retail Trade the least. Accommodation & Food produced the largest amount of organic material (58%, 22,400 tonnes) despite having a smaller overall waste disposal rate (38,900 tonnes). Manufacturing produced the largest amount of plastics (18%, 7,800 tonnes); the proportion of plastics was comparably lower for the other business categories. Business & Commercial Services produced the most paper (38%, 10,800 tonnes), followed by Manufacturing (25%, 10,700 tonnes). Retail Trade produced the least of the three major material categories: organics, plastics, and paper. In terms of smaller-tonnage product categories, Accommodation & Food produced a relatively large amount of glass and metals (2%, 750 tonnes each), and Manufacturing produced a noteworthy amount of non-compostable organics (e.g. treated or painted wood, textiles, rubber, and other composite organic materials), household hazardous, and fines (4%, 3%, and 3% or 580, 180, and 72 tonnes, respectively).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Accommodation &Food

Business &Commercial Services

Manufacturing Retail Trade

Estim

ated

Ton

nage

Paper

Plastic

Compostable Organics

Non-Compostable Organics

Metals

Glass

Building Material

E-Waste

Household Hazardous

Household Hygiene

Bulky Objects

Fines

Other

iii


ZWC - 77



Table E2: Waste Characterization of NAICS Categories by Primary Materials

Primary Category

Combined Accommodation & Food Services

Business Services

Manufacturing Retail Trade

(N=98) (N=25) (N=25) (N=23) (N=25)

Estimated Annual Tonnage* 125,200 38,900 28,800 42,700 14,800

Estimated kg per Employee 300 500 100 1,000 200

Weighted Mean (%)

Paper 30.5% 22.6% 37.7% 25.1% 38.2%

Plastics 18.0% 12.7% 15.3% 18.3% 26.2%

Compostable Organics 40.3% 57.8% 36.7% 44.8% 21.0%

Non-Compostable Organics 2.2% 0.5% 1.1% 3.5% 3.9%

Metals 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 1.5% 2.7%

Glass 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 0.3% 2.1%

Building Material 1.2% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8%

Electronic Waste 0.5% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1.1%

Household Hazardous 1.1% 0.4% 0.5% 2.5% 1.2%

Household Hygiene 0.7% 1.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.1%

Bulky Objects 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1%

Fines 1.2% 0.2% 2.0% 2.4% 0.5%

*Data provided by participating companies then extrapolated to represent each industry category in the study. Kg per employee amounts

were calculated from the estimated tonnages, and are comparable to other studies that have estimated kg per employee.

Section 3.2 of the report details the waste characterization, as broken down by NAICS subsectors.

Out of the 98 samples sorted, 53% came from buildings with organics management programs already in place. Of the samples which came from buildings managed by property managers (malls and office towers combined), 58% had organics management programs in place. Each participating business was provided with a Business Assessment Sheet that summarized the characterization of their sample and provided key tips and resources for improving waste diversion programs. This summary was a key tool for incentivising businesses to participate. A template for the Business Assessment Sheet can be found in Appendix F.

Knowledge of waste characterization, management practices and tonnage data of different business categories will enable Metro Vancouver to better understand the waste disposal of key generators and further support the development of waste prevention, reduction and diversion initiatives.

iv


ZWC - 78

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: September 3, 2015 Meeting Date: September 10, 2015 Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated September 3, 2015 titled, “Manager’s Report” for information.

1. Turbine Generator Update On July 17, Covanta shut down the Waste‐to‐Energy Facility turbine generator to investigate suspected issues with the emergency stop valve (ESV) and high pressure control valve that arose after a BC Hydro power interruption. The inspection revealed that the basket strainer contained inside the ESV (which serves as a last defense against foreign objects entering the turbine) had failed and broken into small pieces, which then carried further towards the turbine. The basket strainer pieces were collected and sent off‐site for analysis in an attempt to determine the cause of the failure. This analysis is ongoing. The basket strainer had been removed and inspected as part of the 2014 turbine generator failure analysis and was deemed fit for continued service. Due to difficulty in sourcing a timely replacement and concerns over the design of the basket strainer from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), Covanta sourced a locally‐built replacement strainer modelled around a different manufacturer’s design. This new strainer is deemed to be structurally superior to the OEM model and will alleviate the risk of a future strainer failure. Covanta has completed repairs to peripheral equipment and has installed the replacement strainer. Covanta began turbine start‐up on August 14 and the turbine generator fully operational and producing maximum power by August 16. Business interruption insurance will protect lost electrical revenue after the 15 day deductible period, resulting in about a $100,000 loss to Metro Vancouver. For the equipment insurance claim, which Metro Vancouver is responsible, the costs are currently estimated to be about $800,000. 2. Matsqui Transfer Station In February 2015, the Board resolved to close the Matsqui Transfer Station on October 31, 2015 and retain the property at this time. A closure plan is being developed with Wastech and the City of Abbotsford.

5.7

ZWC - 79

The permitted uses of the property are relatively limited. The property is zoned Civic Institution and principal uses include civic use, community services, and non‐permanent commercial. The property is also situated within Agricultural Land Reserve, and subject to the Agricultural Land Commission Act and regulations. In 1988, the Agricultural Land Commission granted approval to construct the solid waste transfer station on the property. This approval has no expiry date and is likely transferable to any subsequent owner / occupier of the property. Private and non‐profit entities have approached Metro Vancouver expressing interest in using the property. The rental fee derived from any tenure (e.g. lease, licence) of the property will help offset Metro Vancouver’s costs to retain the property. If the property remains unoccupied, Metro Vancouver would incur ongoing security and other maintenance expenditures. Given the marketplace interest in the property, Metro Vancouver will carry out a Request for Proposals to secure a tenant to use the property. Key terms and conditions of any tenure will include:

Prohibition on receipt of mixed municipal solid waste generated in Metro Vancouver

Tenant to secure any required approvals to use the property

Tenure term up to five years

Option to renew term up to five years at Metro Vancouver’s sole discretion

Tenant to indemnify and release Metro Vancouver for risks related to the use of the property

Tenant to secure sufficient insurance to protect and Metro Vancouver in the event of loss; and

Tenant to post a security deposit or bond to insure compliance and completion by the tenant of all the obligations and requirements specified in the tenure.

3. Update of Solid Waste Management Planning Guideline In May, 2015 the Ministry of Environment announced that the 1994 Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid Waste Plans would be updated. The announcement also included six recommended principles for the future of solid waste in B.C. building on MLA Marvin Hunt’s review of solid waste diversion. That update process will consult with regional districts and key stakeholders on the process, targets, principles and format of Plans, but not on legislative changes, or local/municipal solid waste policy issues. All regional districts that have existing approved Plans (including Metro Vancouver) will not need to follow the new guideline until such time as the current Plan is amended. Regional districts currently consulting on new Plans have the option of following the existing guideline or pausing until the new guideline is implemented. The Ministry has stated it intends to focus on providing more upfront guidance and approval of the final Plan, rather than actively participating in each Plan’s development. Like the existing guideline, the new guideline will still include requirements for a 5‐year review and public report of the Plan, triggers for Plan amendments, and public consultation. However, the Ministry proposes that the new guideline also include reporting on:

∙ historical facilities and sites ∙ the regional district’s interrelationship with industry product stewardship programs, and ∙ collaborative opportunities between regional districts.

The Ministry will release an Intentions Paper in September/October for regional districts’ comment. The Ministry hopes to complete the updated guideline by May 2016.

ZWC - 80

4. Transfer Station Operation and Maintenance Services Procurement On July 15th a Request for Qualifications (RFQ No. 15‐132) was issued to invite interested parties to submit statements of qualifications with respect to the provision of services for the operation and maintenance of the Surrey and North Shore transfer stations. The RFQ closed on 27 August following two extensions of the deadline. Responses were received from the following eight (8) companies:

Cascades Recovery Inc.;

Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC;

Emterra Environmental (Halton Recycling Ltd.);

MCL Waste Systems & Environmental Inc.;

Miller Waste Systems Inc.;

SENA Waste Services Inc.;

SSG Holdings Ltd.;

Wastech Services Ltd. The responses will be evaluated by a committee to select a shortlist of up to five (5) respondents considered qualified to respond to the Request for Proposals. The Request for Proposals will be issued in late fall 2015. An additional Request for Proposals, for which prequalification is not required, will be issued concurrently for procurement of similar services at the Langley and Maple Ridge transfer stations. It is anticipated that the procurement process will be complete by June 2016. 5. Metro Vancouver 2015 Zero Waste Conference ‐ October 29, Vancouver Convention Centre Building on the 2014 conference, this year's conference, taking place October 29 at the Vancouver Convention Centre, will focus on redefining value and building the circular economy by presenting game changing perspectives and leading initiatives that challenge traditional assumptions around waste and demonstrate the economic value to be realized from zero waste and circular economy approaches. This ties closely with the two primary areas 2014 conference delegates identified wanting to hear more about: waste as a resource and the circular economy. Similar to previous years, the overall conference objective is to elevate discussions both locally and nationally on waste prevention and reduction – helping Canadian businesses and communities align with a global shift toward a future without waste and the circular economy and supporting Metro Vancouver zero waste goals.

The program will look closely at food waste, materials innovation, the business case for zero waste and the circular economy as well as how to leverage the sharing economy to advance waste prevention. William McDonough, a designer and a globally recognized leader in sustainable development, and Chair of the World Economic Forum's Meta‐Council on the Circular Economy is confirmed as the opening keynote.

The conference also provides a platform for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the National Zero Waste Council which will take place October 28 the day before the conference.

Details on the full program can be found at www.zwc.ca and you can follow the conference blog at zwcblog.org/.

ZWC - 81

6. 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 11748845

ZWC - 82

Zero Waste Committee 2015 Workplan Report Dated: August 24, 2015

Priorities

1st Quarter StatusTipping Fee Bylaw Update

Complete

New Waste‐to‐Energy Project Update

Complete

2014 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update

Complete

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

Complete

Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement Update

Complete

Packaging and Printed Paper Program Update

In progress

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility 2014 Financial Update

Complete

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

Complete

Launch “Love Food – Hate Waste” campaign

Complete

Battery awareness and recycling campaign

Complete

3rd Quarter 2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions

Complete

Waste Flow Update and End of Year Waste Projections

In progress

ISWRMP Biennial Progress Report

Pending

Eco‐Centres Strategy

Complete

Surrey RDO Update

Complete

North Shore Transfer Station Redevelopment Update

Complete

National Zero Waste Council Update Pending

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

Food scraps recycling campaign Complete

Zero Waste Conference Pending

ATTACHMENT

ZWC - 83

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

ZWC - 84

THE CORPORATION OF DELTA Office of Tile Mayor, Lois E. Jackson

June 19, 2015

Mayor Malcom Brodie, Chair Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4GB

Dear Chair Brodie,

Re: Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee

GMD CM ~-UL _1 4 2015 1 0 z.-, Action: ............................................................. .. ........................................................................... OOOOOfOOOOUOOOUUOUOOOooOotoOOOOOoooooooooonoooooooooUOHUOIUUOo .. o

............................ ,. .. , ..................................... .. Info Copy: .......... f .. .n .. t ................................. . Ale No.: .. C.&.Ql:Ql::.QEL: .. ,_,_ .. Doc. No.: ....................................................... _, CAO Tracker No.: ........................................... ..

At its June 15, 2015 Regular Meeting, Delta Council considered the enclosed report by the Human Resources and Corporate Planning department regarding the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee, and resolved as follows:

A. THAT a copy of this report be provided to the City of Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson and Council; Dr. Penny Ballem, City Manager; and Mr. Jerry Dobrovolny, Acting General Manager of Engineering Services.

B. THAT a copy of this report be provided to the Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee.

C. THAT a copy of this report be provided to Scott Hamilton, MLA Delta-North and Vicki Huntington, MLA Delta-South.

Accordingly, this letter and report are enclosed for your information.

Enclosure

cc: Delta Council George V. Harvie, Chief Administrative Officer Sean McGill, Director of Human Resources and Corporate Planning Mike Brotherston, Manager of Climate Action and Environment

4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 T 604 946-3210 I F 604 946-6055 I E [email protected]

ZWC - 85

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

MKINGDON

Text Box

MKINGDON

Text Box

6.1

•

•

•

To: Mayor and Council

The Corporation of Delta COUNCIL REPORT

Regular Meeting

From: Human Resources and Corporate Planning

Date: June 5, 2015

Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee

F.15

The following report has been reviewed and endorsed by the Chief Administrative Officer.

• RECOMMENDATJONS:

A. THAT a copy of this report be provided to the City of Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson and Council; Dr. Penny Ballem, City Manager; and Mr. Jerry Dobrovolny, Acting General Manager of Engineering Services.

B. THAT a copy of this report be provided to the Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee.

• PURPOSE:

To provide information to Council on the subject of a recent meeting of the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee.

• BACKGROUND:

At the April 11, 2011 Regular Meeting of Delta Council, the establishment of a Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee was endorsed in response to concerns raised by Delta regarding landfill gas emissions. The committee meets quarterly to discuss issues relating to the Vancouver Landfill and consists of senior staff from the Corporation of Delta (Delta) and City of Vancouver (Vancouver). A map showing the phases of the Vancouver Landfill is included as Attachment A. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 West have been closed. The current active area of the Landfill is Phase 3 East.

• DISCUSSION:

The fifteenth meeting of the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee (the committee) was held on May 28, 2015. The following items were discussed:

Landfill Gas Collection and Progressive Landfill Closure Works

For the month of April, overall landfill gas collection efficiency was 62% which is calculated using a Provincial landfill gas generation model. Landfill gas collection efficiency is averaging 61% year to date which is slightly higher than 2014. Vancouver is continuing to pursue approval from the Ministry of Environment for a site specific landfill gas generation model that if approved would mean an approximate 9% increase to the reported landfill gas collection efficiency rate.

ZWC - 86

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

of 4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee June 5, 2015

Vancouver will be conducting aerial remote monitoring of methane emissions again this • summer. This program has provided data on actual emissions and identified areas where additional gas collection or cover material is required.

Approximately 60% of the landfill gas that is collected is beneficially used by the Village Farms Cogen~ration Facility located at their Greenhouse on 801

h Street in Delta. The remaining 40% of captured gas is currently flared and as landfill gas collection rates improve the amount of gas bein'g flared will increase. Vancouver staff advised that discussions are continuing with FortisBC regarding the installation of a system to clean the gas so that it ·can be injected into the natural gas pipeline as "renewable natural gas".

Village Farms is also investigating opportunities to clean and use the carbon dioxide produced from the exhaust gas from the landfill methane combusted within the cogeneration system as a growth supplement within their greenhouse which could reduce the burning of natural gas to produce carbon dioxide for this use.

Vancouver is in the initial phases of planning for the closure of the current active landfill phase (Phasf? 3 southeast) which is anticipated to commence in 2017. A number of stakeholder workshops will be held related to this closure and the upcoming closure of the Western 40 hectare area that will be addressed in future reports to Council. The current capital plan for closure and other associated work at the landfill over the next four years is approximately $50 million.

As per Council's request, a workshop has been scheduled for July 13, 2015 to provide the opportunity for Council to hear directly from City of Vancouver staff regarding efforts underway to improve landfill gas collection and other ongoing operation issues of interest.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

While Vancouver is striving to collect as much landfill gas as possible, there still is a quantity of methane that is not collected and emitted to the atmosphere which is a potent greenhouse gas. Methane has a global warming potential that is 25 times greater than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxid~. As a result, the estimated quantity of methane emissions from the landfill are multiplied by 25 to get emissions that are reported in carbon dioxide equivalents. ·

In the 2014 Annual Report for the Vancouver Landfill that has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment, it is stated that the total volume of landfill gas collected in 2014 equates to approximately 20,196 tonnes of methane or 504,893 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. This means emissions equal to approximately 100,000 vehicles were avoided through the landfill gas management system. The landfill gas collection efficiency was 60% in 2014, meaning 40% of the methane produced was not captured. This estimated quantity of uncaptured methane equals 336,638 tonnes of carbon dioxide which is the same as the emissions of approximately 67,000 vehicles.

Landfill Operations

Staff reviewed and commented on proposed upgrades to the site access and Residential Drop Off area at the landfill. This includes the installation of an additional set of scales for

•

• ZWC - 87

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

. . ' .

•

•

•

Page 3 of4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee June 5, 2015

commercial traffic and options for separating residential traffic from commercial traffic in an effort to reduce queuing and increase recycling.

In early April a new $5 transaction fee was added to residential loads. To date there has only been two complaints regarding the new fee.

Regulatory Reporting

It was confirmed at the committee meeting ttiat Delta was receiving regular information on landfill gas, water quality and leachate monitoring from Vancouver. Since the last committee meeting, the Vancouver Landfill Annual Report, 2014 Greenhouse Gas Report and 2014 Landfill Gas Report were submitted to the Ministry of Environment. Upcoming regulatory reports to be submitted include the Federal National Pollutant Release Inventory Report and Environment Canada Greenhouse Gas Report.

No issues of non-compliance with regulations or the Landfill's Operational Certificate were identified.

Complaints

A summary of the complaints received since the last meeting was reviewed by the committee. No formal odour complaints have been received. Delta has also not received any formal odour complaints that were attributed to the Vancouver Landfill since the last meeting.

Implications: Financial Implications -There ate no financial implications

• CONCLUSION:

A summary of items discussed at the last meeting of the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee is provided for information. This committee is continuing to be productive and it is recommended this report be shared with the City of Vancouver's Mayor and Council and senior staff.

~~ Director of Human Resources and Corporate Planning

Department submission prepared by: Mike Brotherston, Manager of Climate Action and Environment

ZWC - 88

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

of 4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee June 5, 2015

This report has been prepared in consultation with the following listed departments.

Concurring Departments

Department Name Signature......,

Engineering Steven Lan ~ Office of Climate Action and Mike Brotherston ~ Environment

• ATTACHMENT: A. Vancouver Landfill fill plan

•

•

• ZWC - 89

pgoingo

Text Box

... I •

•

•

•

Fill Plan for Vancouver Landfill

L. GJ c c -I

Attachment A Page 1 of 1

ZWC - 90

pgoingo

Text Box

L BIOCYCLE REfOR15: OCTOBER 19, 20, 21, 22, 2015, BOSTON, MASSACHUSEFS15TH Annual Conference On Renewable Energy BioCycleREFORcom

EioCycle.net

VCL UTH

Ii

tidal Magazine of the

6.2

ZWC - 91

Organics RecyclingIn Canada

DISPOSAL BAN COMPLIANCE

EvaluatingOn”$ite Organics

ManagementOptions

IN 2015, the Metro Vancouver regionin the lower mainland of BritishColumbia, Canada, instituted anorganics disposal ban. Metro Vancouver is a regional government

representing 21 municipalities, oneElectoral Area, and one Treaty FirstNation, and is responsible for managing the solid waste produced by 2.4 million residents. Its organics disposal bantargets food scraps being disposed byresidents and businesses. From January until July 2015, an extensive education campaign was used to raise awareness and encourage compliance withthe ban.

Starting July 1, 2015, the regionalgovernment is enforcing the ban at itsdisposal facilities. Loads containingmore than 25 percent visible organicsby volume are issued a 50 percent surcharge on the tipping fee. Although theorganics disposal ban applies to all sectors, this 25 percent threshold effective-

ly targets the largest generators first,such as restaurants and food retailers. Pending political direction, MetroVancouver may decrease this thresholdover time. Monitoring during the six-month education period showed that 99percent of the region’s customers are incompliance with the 25 percent limit.

For a restaurant or grocery store, apamphlet introducing a new organicsdisposal ban can be the start of a logistical challenge. Without the propertools, businesses are uncertain just howmuch “doing the right thing” will costthem. Staff training, hauling contractsand new disposal procedures all becomepart of a long stream of questions thatfoodservice establishments are asking,and answers can be hard to find. With

the onset of the organics disposal ban,Metro Vancouver sought to providebusinesses with appropriate tools andresources, including an on-site organicsmanagement review. Metro Vancouverretained the services of Tetra Tech Inc.to conduct a desktop review of optionsavailable for storage, hauling, and automated processing of organic materialon-site for establishments producingbetween 10 to 1,000 metric tons (11 to1,100 tons) of food waste per year. Thereview evaluated and compared on-siteorganics management options availablein North America and used successfully in various industries, but excludedtechnologies that discharged a slurryto sewer without recovering materialsor energy

Options evaluated include storage (1)for transportation off-site, and aerobicin-vessel systems (2, 3) that createa ready-to-cure material or, in somecases, a ready-to-use soil amendmentthat can be applied on-site.

A 2015 organics disposal ban in the MetroVancouver Region of British Columbia,led to creation of a guide for businessesand institutions considering managing

their organics on-site.

Ternj Futton and Veronica Baker

26 BI0CYcLE AUGUST 2015

ZWC - 92

AVAILABLE OPTIONSBecause of the abundance of avail

able technologies, Tetra Tech groupedthem into four overarching options:Storage, Pretreatment, Aerobic In-Vessel, and Anaerobic Digestion. Storageis what most users are already familiar with — they have bins, organicsare put in the bins, and they get takenaway. Specialized storage options, suchas a compactor equipped with a biofilter,make this even easier for organics byproviding capacity for larger volumesand designs that are better suited todense organics.

Pretreatment and other processingoptions increase the commitment tomanaging more of the organics processing on-site. Pretreatment rapidlyreduces the volume of organics by removing the largest component: water.Excess water can be removed througha mechanical process (dewatering), orby heating the organic material to accelerate evaporation and stimulate biological activity (dehydration). Thesetechnologies are effective for establishments that are short on space or time,as they can fit in a dishwashing areaand the process is generally measuredin hours or days, not weeks or monthslike other processing options.

For those aiming for the next level ofon-site organics management, aerobicin-vessel systems are available to helpbusinesses create a ready-to-cure material or in some cases, ready-to-use soilamendment that can be applied on-site.The downside is that aerobic in-vesselsystems require more time and space;staff would need to be trained to ensurethe system is operating efficiently andmight spend an hour or two each day onkeeping the system running smoothly.The “black gold” payoff is sweet, however; for businesses with landscaping,gardens or green roofs this can be anexcellent option to close the loop.

For those who want other benefitssuch as electricity small anaerobicdigesters can process food scraps whilesimultaneously creating energy-rich biogas. Not only do these systems help manage organics, they can reduce relianceon grid electricity and save a businessmoney. There’s always a catch of courseas these systems have a higher capital

cost compared to other options. The on-site options review assessed the mediumand large options most readily availablein the North American marketplace.

For both aerobic and anaerobic in-vessel systems, Tetra Tech’s study reviewed three sizes (Table 1): small (approximately 10 metric tons/year or four32 gallon containers per week), medium(approximately 100 metric tons peryear or one 6 cubic yard (cy) containerper week) and large (approximately1,000 metric tons/year or one 40 cy compactor per week).

DECISION MAKING STEPSTo give businesses a starting point,

Tetra Tech provided the following set ofquestions for a business to ask, to helpthem choose which option best suitstheir needs:

How much organic material do weproduce?

What type of organic material do weproduce?

How much space do we have?How much labor is required?What sort of corporate sustainability

benefits can we expect?How close will we get to producing

compost?How much will it cost?The amount of organics produced is

the first determining factor for filteringoptions. If an establishment fills a 40 cycompactor of organics each week, obviously a small in-vessel system wouldn’tbe sufficient (Table 1). Most options arescalable to some extent, but in general,smaller producers are more likely to belooking at storage or pretreatment andlarger producers may need to look athigher capacity systems.

The amount alone doesn’t dictatewhat options might be applicable; thetype of organic material is also important. Some systems have limitations on what type of material can beaccepted (Figure 1). Bioplastics andyard and garden debris in particularcan cause problems in some systems.Harder items, such as bones, may negatively impact mechanical parts in somesystems. When determining acceptablematerials, it is best to confer directlywith the chosen technology provider,and, if the organic material will be sentto a local processor, what’s accepted atthat facility should also be verified.

Table 1. Organics generation and bin sizes, quantities

Number of Organic Bins Filled WeeklyOrganics Generation Rate (est. for each bin size)

Metric Tons MT! Kilograms! 32 64 126 2 6 20Size (MT)!Year Week Day Gal. Gal. Gal. yd3 yd3 yd3

Small 10 0.19 27 4 2 1 <1 - -

Medium 100 1.92 275 38 19 13 2 1 <1Large 1,000 19.23 2,747 385 192 128 24 8 2

Figure 1. Type ot organic material and on-site management options

KeOption works Option does not F Option potentially

‘. tor teedstock work tor teedstock at works, with caveat(s)

0 UFood Bones and Paper and Compostable Yard aed

P 00 scraps carcasses cardboard plastic garden debris

storage *11 2 /3

Dewaterieg. A! I A!

Dehydration 01 *Smallaerobic J j 2

Ain vessel I I .

Medium aerobic 1 5 2 5in-vessel I I

Large aerobicin-vessel .1’

Medium anaerobic / / * * *r0 / / / X *

1. May iam mechanical campeeents at system. 2. Maximam 10% st teedsteck. 3. Masimam 5% at teedatack mast be shredded.4. Masimam 2O°/ at teedatack. 5. Acceptable, bat may nat degrade campletely.

Auwus’r 2015 Bt0CYCLE 27

ZWC - 93

Space is the most important selectionfactor for businesses located in a denseurban core. Good intentions aside, if thesystem can’t fit into the space you have,with room to load, unload, and storeany input, output or hulking agent material, it’s not going to be viable. Pretreatment options are well suited toa small footprint as they take up lessspace compared to other technologiesreviewed. Our report estimated that adehydration unit uses about 10 squarefeet (sq. ft.), and a dewatering unit uses2 sq. ft. Aerobic in-vessel systems cantake up as little as 20 square feet (and

Figure 3. Comparative analysis

Minimal effort is required for basic operation of a pretreatment unit, where

partpation starting the process may be as easy aspressing a button. However aerobic in-vessel and anaerobic in-vessel systemsoften require careful monitoring of process parameters, addition of hulkingagent or moisture, and routine maintenance to keep things running smoothly.The larger systems may even require afull time operator.

Not all benefits are strictly tangible;some businesses are more interested

in

how they can help the environment,or how they can be perceived to helpthe environment. With this consider-

ation

in mind, more involved on-siteprocessing options may be preferred.While pretreatment may reduce overallgreenhouse gasses by reducing hauling,aerobic in-vessel systems are producinga usable end product and may eliminatethe need for hauling altogether. Anaerobic digestion can also generate energy. In general, the more complex theprocess, the more sustainable benefitsresult and can be leveraged for publicrelations value (Figure 2).

For some businesses, especially thosewith a use for soil amendment, how closethey turill get to producing compost is animportant factor. For pretreatment, mosttechnologies produce a biomass whichmay look like compost, but lacks someof the “maturity” provided by an activecomposting process with a curing phase

0=— .0 0

O2 0

E 0

•1Annual .

Capital cost maintenance .2 . • .c, .2

(per ton basis) cost i i c. c c.. .2 c

Depends on hauling Up to $1,000 Minimal J•• ••••

Depends on hauling $4,000-6000 Minimal•• ••••

Up to 400,000 kg/week $25,000 $250• J • •

(Up to 14.000 kg/week $27,000-50,000 $200 J J J JQ150-3,500 kg/ week $18,000 $400 J J J700-8,000 kg/ week $30,000+ $600

••c.’:: 1 1

2,000-18,000 kg/ week $450,000 $500 J J ‘

•c::i

$240000÷ $14,000 Q JQ Q20,000 kgJ week $825,000÷ $10,000 Q Q•JJQ Q Q Q••

Figure 2. Sustainability benefits

Option

Volumereduction

Amount of organicmaterial hauledis substantially

reduced

Greenhouse gas Closingreduction the loop

Reducegreenhouse

gas emissions(reduced hauling)

Storage

Minimal ecologicalfootprint

System produces Technologymote electricity enhances staff

than it consumes education andenvironmental

awareness

Pretreatment

After curing, endproduct can be

used as soilamendment

I1Aerobicin-vessel

Anaerobicin-vesset

I// /

up to >300 sq. ft), and new anaerobicsystems are starting to make their wayinto the smaller market, but generally,the in-vessel composting and digestionoptions require more space. By comparison, a 64-gallon rolling cart uses 5 sq.ft., a yard container uses about 30 sq.ft., and a roll-off container uses about160 sq. ft.

While some businesses might havespace, do they have time to maintainan on-site system? Most staff are accustomed to throwing material into abin — but what happens when a systemneeds to be installed and maintained?

Fair Good Better Best

Weekly capacity

Key:

Mediocre

Option

Conventional storage

Specialized storage

Dewatering

Dehydration

Small aerobic in-vessel

Medium aerobic in-vessel

Large aerobic in.vessel

Medium anaerobic in-vessel 5,000-20,000 kg/ week

Large anaerobic In-vessel

30 BtoCvcLr AuGusT 2015

ZWC - 94

to follow. Aerobic in-vessel systems generally produce a “ready-to-cure” material, although some now claim to produceready-to-use soil amendment. Anaerobicin-vessel systems are more complex witha solid digestate that may need furtherprocessing as well as a liquid componentand biogas.

With these questions, businesses canessentially select what option worksfor them by a process of elimination.This leaves the final, and for many, themost important question: How muchwill it cost? ‘While the marketplace israpidly changing with newly emergingoptions, when looking strictly at capitaland maintenance costs, storage is cheapest and anaerobic digestion systems arethe most expensive. However; the cost ofhauling adds another important layer forconsideration, and the business case formany ofthese options becomes apparent.

For an overall comparison of all ofthese factors at a glance, Tetra Tech created a summary of key factors, rankedfrom mediocre to best, in a consumerreport-style matrix (Figure 3).

PRACTICAL EXAMPLESo how would this work? Imagine a

small restaurant in a busy downtowncore. To begin to follow the decisionmaking process, they measure theirsource separated organic material anddetermine that about two 32 gallon rolling carts per week are generated, whichworks out to about 700 kilograms perweek (1,500 pounds) of organic material. Based solely on weight, the primary options that could be consideredare storage, pretreatment, and small ormedium aerobic in-vessel systems.

The back alley behind the restaurantis already tightly packed, as is the kitchen, so the restaurant can only fit smalleroptions, which effectively eliminates in-vessel composting. Another eliminatingfactor is the time required for in-vesselcomposting. With a small staff and abusy lunchtime rush, staff don’t havemuch time to operate an in-vessel system and therefore would most likelyconsider either storage or pretreatment.

The restaurant owner prides herselfon being environmentally consciousand would like to choose an option thatwould help reduce her restaurant’s environmental impact. She doesn’t simplywant organics hauled away, nor doesshe want them going down the drain.That means pretreatment will likelybe the option of choice. A pretreatmentsystem could reduce volume by up to70 to 90 percent with a correspondingreduction in frequency of hauling. Costsavings could be even greater if the restaurant were to partner with other establishments nearby to reduce capitalcost of a pretreatment system.

All types of businesses could follow

these same steps and determine different options suitable to their situation.Then, by contacting individual distributors, they could price out different options and more specific features, andsoon have their own organics management systems up and running. The ffillreport, “On-Site Organics ManagementOptions Reviex” was published in Fall2014 and is available on Metro Vancouver’s food scraps landing page under eachsector’s Tools and Resources link (livelink at biocycle.net). Although the reportwas designed with commercial estab

lishments in mind, this guide may alsocome in handy for multi-family buildings containing at least 50 units. Withthis decision-making tool in hand, a business’s perception of the organics disposalban can shift from logistical headache toa new opportunity to reduce waste andbenefit from positive publicity.

Terry Futton is an Environmental Engineer with Tetra Tech’s Solid Waste Practice. Veronica Baker is a Project Engineerwith Metro Vancouver (BC’s,) Sotid WasteServices Department.

If you want to makeGREAT COMPOST, you have to

GET AGITATED.

Contact: Rich NicolettlPE, Compost Systems Manager

Tel: 978-724-0214Cell: 518-441-0141Fax: 518-695-5417Email: rieh@’bctpttdustres.com

BDP Industries PD Box 118, Greenwich, NY 12834

INDUSTRIES

www.bdpindustrIes.com

AuGusT 2015 BI0CYCLE 31

ZWC - 95

greater vancouver regional district zero waste committee€¦ · waste services, informing the zero...

Documents