© 2014 – InSinkErator®

Confidential & Proprietary – All Rights Reserved*

*This document and the information it contains are the property of InSinkErator®. By viewing it or accepting it into your

possession, you agree that: (1) all right, title and interest in and to this document, and all information contained herein, are

reserved by and to InSinkErator; (2) you will keep this document, and all information contained herein, in strictest confidence, and

will not disclose, copy, retransmit, use (except for InSinkErator’s benefit), sell, lend or otherwise dispose of the same, directly or

indirectly, without the express written permission of InSinkErator; (3) you will include this legend on any such authorized copy,

retransmission or disclosure; and (4) this document shall be returned to InSinkErator (along with any and all copies, expressly

authorized or otherwise) immediately upon request. This information is being provided "AS IS" and "WITH ALL FAULTS." While

the information contained herein is believed to be accurate, no warranty or representation is provided of any kind, express or

implied. The information contained in this document may also be protected by trade secret laws and other forms of intellectual

property protection.

© 2014 – InSinkErator® – Confidential & Proprietary – All Rights Reserved*

In-Sink Food Waste DisposersAs Organics Management Tool

Comments and Recommendations ReRegional Position on Food Waste Grinders and Similar Technologies

Presentation to Zero Waste Committee

Metro Vancouver

10 September, 2015

Kendall Christiansen, Gaia Strategies, Senior Consultant

2InSinkErator Confidential

In-Sink Food Waste Disposers:Overlooked and Misunderstood

InSinkErator

– World’s leading manufacturer of food waste processing equipment

– 75 yrs; 100 countries; 5 million/yr.

– Division of Emerson Electric; Markham, ON

– Widespread use – est. 50% of Vancouver homes/apartments

Kendall Christiansen, Gaia Strategies

– Founding Assistant Director of New York City’s recycling system (’89-91)

– Chaired Citywide Recycling Advisory Board

– Consultant to InSinkErator

3InSinkErator Confidential

Overview InSinkErator initiated dialogue in 2011 –

coincidental with Plan adoptions; offer to help

Provided extensive technical research, life-cycle analyses, best practice evidence

Work with cities across Canada, U.S., around the world – demonstration projects in six; several developing action plans

Trends

– Increased support for in-sink disposers (bans rescinded; incentives adopted)

– Shift from wastewater to water resource recovery

Metro Vancouver opportunity – expand toolkit/messaging to achieve diversion goals

4InSinkErator Confidential

Report Comments - 1

Definition of “disposal”

Sending food scraps through sewers is not disposal equivalent to landfilling

Current theory and practice in what is now the water resource recovery sector; philosophy reflected in Metro’s own Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Waste Management Plan

Annacis Island and the planned Lion’s Gate plant are zero-waste resource recovery facilities - process wastewater into three products: clean water, renewable energy, and fertilizer products – energy-neutral operations

Water Environment Research Foundation report confirmed the potential of that sector to help solve the organics management challenges faced by municipalities

Major cities considering disposer-based initiatives – following on demonstration projects in six major cities

5InSinkErator Confidential

Report Comments - 2

Highest and best use: More complex – in both concept and execution

Water is principal component (70%+)

Produce energy (biogas) before composting

Metro operates effective biosolids reuse system, returning fully processed organic residuals into compost-quality products; now exploring energy production w/regional concrete industry

Leveraging existing liquid resource system is a good/smart thing

6InSinkErator Confidential

Report Comments - 3

Cost of processing:

Flawed comparison: processing one ton of BOD & TSS via the wastewater system is pegged at $1,800/ton, contrasted with just $70 when a ton of food waste is delivered to a compost facility

The reason: they don’t measure the same thing

A ton of food waste contains 17% TSS (approx. same percentage of BOD)

Food scraps are mostly water (75%)

Comparative-costs analyses conducted for London (ON) and York Region

– Wastewater processing cost was about two-thirds of the regional compost facility

– Without considering the costs of municipal truck-based collection

7InSinkErator Confidential

For Your Consideration

Take report under advisement– Don’t rush into a particular course of action

– Don’t ignore/discourage use of in-sink disposers

– Strong consumer interest in ongoing use

Consider food waste disposers as “and” - not “or”– Communicate to residents re all options for managing their food scraps

– Appropriate tool for multi-residential buildings – biggest challenge

Reconsider joint committee of the Utilities and Zero Waste Committees

– An unusual cross-sectoral challenge – silo-busting

– Charge: full, fair consideration of all relevant information

RCBC Hotline and Metro Vancouver

Brock Macdonaldwww.rcbc.ca

@RecyclingBC

Metro Vancouver Hotline Calls

Date Range Jan 1 to Aug 31

Year Hotline Calls MV Calls % of Calls

2015 33,896 27,479 81%

2014 37,042 28,336 76%

% Calls by Municipality

Surrey29%

Coquitlam15%

Vancouver14%

North Vancouver10%

Burnaby8%

Richmond5%

Langley City4%

Delta4%

Langley Township3%

New Westminster2%

Port Coquitlam2%

West Vancouver1%

White Rock1%

Maple Ridge1%

Port Moody1%

Pitt Meadows

0%

Top Categories1. Household Waste 7,564

2. Bulky Items (white goods) 4,517

3. Household Furniture 4,300

4. Plastics 3,640

5. HHW 3,668

6. Organic Materials 3,462 (food waste: 1,087 - up 232%)

7. Building Materials 2,850

8. Metal 2,089

9. Paint 1,900

10. Paper 1,696

Regional Position on the Use of Food Grinders and Similar Technologies

Zero Waste Committee

Fred Nenninger

Director,

Policy, Planning & Analysis, Liquid Waste Services

September 10, 2015

Drivers for Position on Food Grinders

Residential

Integrated Liquid Waste & Resource Management Plan

• Commitment to investigate the implications of the use of domestic food grinders.

Commercial

• Potential option for businesses to manage organic wastes as a part of the solid waste organics ban

Residential Impact on Treatment Plants

Food grinders contribute to WWTP influent loads:

• 9% of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

• 13% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Potential Commercial Food Grinder Impact

• Primary Plants (Iona & Lions Gate) at high risk of BOD permit violation

• Grinding increases soluble BOD

• Soluble BOD cannot be removed by primary treatment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2013 2014 2015

BO

D (

mg/

L)

WWTP Effluent BOD

Iona Lions Gate

OC Limit - 130 mg/L

Recommendations

That the GVS&DD Board endorse the following:

1. The development and implementation of demand side management initiatives regarding the use of residential food grinders while continuing to evaluate their impact on the region’s wastewater treatment plants; and

2. The development of regulatory options to regulate the use of food grinders and similar technologies by the commercial sector that would increase the loadings to wastewater treatment plants.

Endorsed at July 31, 2015 GVS&DD Board Meeting

Organics Recycling Update

Food isn’t garbage!

Zero Waste Committee, September 10, 2015

Marian Kim, Solid Waste Services

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Provide insights on:

• Food Waste and Waste Management Practices in food businesses and multi-family buildings

• Awareness of the Organics Disposal Ban, and challenges in compliance

Sample Size Margin of Error

Hospitality 350 +/-5.2%

Multi-Family Dwellings

150 +/-8.0%

Grocers 115 +/-9.1%

Large Institutions

106 +/-9.5%

ACCESS TO FOOD SCRAPS RECYCLING

2012 Results

COMPARISON OF CHALLENGES ANTICIPATED AND EXPERIENCED

INSPECTION OF GARBAGE LOADS CONTAINING FOOD WASTE AT REGIONAL FACILITIES

Low Number of Loads Containing Food Waste and Clean Wood Waste

Education NoticeMonthly Average(Jan – Jun 2015)

DedicatedInspectionJun 2015

Surcharges

July 2015

Food Waste>25%

15 12 27

CWW>10%

63 50 33

QUARTERLY TREND IN QUANTITIES OF ORGANICS PROCESSED IN THE REGION

CLEAN WOOD RECYCLING AT REGIONAL FACILITIES 2012-2015

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Q12012

Q12013

Q12014

Q12015

Q22012

Q22013

Q22014

Q22015

Q32012

Q32013

Q32014

Q32015

Q42012

Q42013

Q42014

Q42015

Chipped Wood Waste Clean Wood Waste (with VSTS and VLF) Green Waste

MAIN FINDINGS

Telephone Survey of Businesses & MF Dwellings

• Awareness of Organics Disposal Ban & Management High• 59% - 81% of Businesses and MF Dwellings have Food Waste

Recycling• Small Proportion (12%) need Education on Food Waste

Recycling

Disposal Ban Inspection Survey

• High Level of Compliance with Food Waste (27 Surcharges) and Clean Wood Waste Disposal Bans (33 Surcharges)

Quantities of Organics Processed

• Increasing Trend in the Quantities of Organics Received for Recycling at Licensed Processing Facilities in the Region

Clean Wood Recycling

• 13% increase in Clean Wood Recycling at Regional Facilities compared to 2014

THANK YOU

Solid Waste Strategy Update

Zero Waste CommitteeSeptember 10, 2015

PAUL HENDERSON, P. Eng.General Manager, Solid Waste Services, Metro Vancouver

2

OUTLINE

• Solid Waste Strategy Background

• Update on:

Transfer Station Strategy

Solid Waste System Interim Funding Strategy

2016 Tipping Fee Bylaw Proposed Provisions

3

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

Legend

MV Transfer Station

MV Residential Drop-off

City of Vancouver Facility

Waste To Energy Facility

Cache Creek Landfill

North Shore

Coquitlam

Maple RidgeSurrey

Langley

Matsqui

Vancouver Transfer Station

WTE

Vancouver Landfill

Cache Creek Landfill

4

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY - FINANCIAL UPDATE

• Tipping Fee structure changed to variable rate structure effective April 2015

• Small projected 2015 surplus (2015 Budget $4.5 million deficit)

• Additional measures required to achieve financial stability beyond 2015

• Key financial drivers

• Waste flows

• Landfill operating and closure costs

5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ton

ne

s

Month

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Includes transport by rail and estimated transport by truck

FLOWS ACROSS ABBOTSFORD BORDER DECREASED

Estimates only

6

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ton

ne

s

2013

2014

2015

REGIONAL WASTE FLOWS STABILIZED

- Includes Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver ICI and Residential Garbage- Estimates only; flows finalized year-end.

201320142015

7

ILLEGAL DUMPING

DATA SHOWS NO IMPACT OF TIPPING FEE CHANGES ON ILLEGAL DUMPING

• Municipalities respond to an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 illegal dumping incidents per year, growing over time

• Estimated municipal cost: $3,000,000 per year

• Numerous factors affect illegal dumping

• Municipal data shows no observed increase in illegal dumping due to change in tipping fee structure

• Average cost for small load: $31 (up from $22)

• Will continue to work with municipalities to monitor illegal dumping

8

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

9

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

TRANSFER STATION DEDICATED RECYCLING SERVICES• Coquitlam Transfer Station Pilot:

• Increased convenience for residents

• 60% increase in recycling (1,000 tonnes per year)

• 4,000 recycling visits per month

• Increased small vehicle garbage traffic (increased revenue)

• Equity issues if Metro Vancouver funds dedicated recycling services

• Metro Vancouver to provide dedicated recycling services only when requested and funded by communities served by transfer station

10

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

COQUITLAM TRANSFER STATION

• Continue development of replacement options at Coquitlam Landfill:• Full service transfer

station• Residential drop-off

only

• Work with Coquitlam to determine closure date for existing facility• Work with Tri-Cities on continuity of service (temporary facility if

required)

Current Coquitlam Transfer Station

Proposed site

11

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

• Proceed with reconfiguration of North Shore Transfer Station

• Timing on decision dictated by Second Narrows Water Supply project

NORTH SHORE TRANSFER STATION

Current Layout

Queuingyard

North Shore Recycling

Scales

Green waste

Transfer building

Beachyard

Queuing lanes

Recycling

Scales

Drilling Location

Green waste

Transfer building

Beach Yard temporary location

Proposed Reconfiguration

Former tenant site

12

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

• Continue to develop Surrey Residential Drop-Off facility

• Surrey to finalize site

• Enter into funding and operating agreement based on Metro Vancouver to pay garbage portion and Surrey to fund dedicated recycling portion

SURREY SMALL VEHICLE / RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF

13

TRANSFER STATION STRATEGY

TRANSFER STATION DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

Project 2015 Capital Plan Budget (millions)

Estimated Solid Waste ServicesPortion (millions)

Timing

North Shore TransferStation

$7 $4 2016

Surrey Residential Drop-off

$25 $18 2016-2019

Coquitlam $57 $20-$35 2017-2019

Total $89 $42-$57

14

SOLID WASTE SYSTEMINTERIM FUNDING STRATEGY

15

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM FUNDING: ZERO WASTE EDUCATION, COMMUNICATIONS and PLANNING

HISTORICALLY BUDGETED APPROX $6 MILLION/YEAR ON ZERO WASTE INITIATIVES.

Options explored Challenges

Increase tipping fee to cover costs

• Unsustainable• May encourage waste to bypass regional

facilities

Introduce a new GVS&DD Municipal User Fee

• Need to reduce costs • Some GVRD members would not contribute• Complex Regional Services Rate

New solution required?

16

PROPOSED INTERIM FUNDING STRATEGY

COST SAVINGS

• Identified $2 million/year cost savings on $90 million budget

• Staffing and consulting – reduced departmental staffing by eight positions compared to 2015 budget

• Waste flow and landfill operating and closure costs are key budget drivers

17

MUNICIPAL TIPPING FEE

Weight based fees lead to a range of “effective” municipal tipping fees:

• $84 - $111/tonne

• Average $94/tonne

Overall average: $108 per tonne

Top commercial haulers: $95 per tonne

Proposed Municipal Tipping Fee: $100 in 2016, $109 in 2017

• Applies to all municipal single family and public works waste

• Does not apply to municipal “front-end” trucks

• $5 transaction fee applies to all loads

18

REGIONAL SERVICES RATE

• Regional Services Rate is embedded in the tipping fee

• Proposed municipal tipping fee in 2016: $100/tonne

Local governments other than

Vancouver and Delta

• Pay the Regional Services Rate separately – currently $6/tonne

Vancouver and Delta

• Regional Services Rate set at 6% of Municipal Tipping FeeProposed

Funding for: Zero Waste education, planning,

regulation, and material ban enforcement

19

PROPOSED INTERIM FUNDING STRATEGY ANNUAL IMPACT

Cost Savings $2 million

Municipal Tipping Fee $1 million

Vancouver/Delta Regional Services Rate $1.3 million

Tipping Fee Changes $0.7 million

GVRD Funding of Communications $1 million

Total $6 million

20

2016 TIPPING FEE BYLAWPROPOSED PROVISIONS

21

PROPOSED 2016 TIPPING FEE

2015 AND PROPOSED 2016 TIPPING FEES

Load size 2015 tipping fee (as of April 6)

2016 Proposed tipping fees (January 1)

Loads < 1t $130/t ($109 max) $133/t ($112 max)

Loads 1-9t $109/t ($720 max) $112/t ($720 max)

Large Loads > 9t $80/t $80/t

Municipal Tipping Fee - $100/t

Transaction Fee $5/load $5/load

22

TIPPING FEE BYLAW OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES

• No change in Organics and Clean Wood Disposal Ban Surcharge thresholds (25% and 10% respectively)

• $1/tonne increase in organics drop-off rate at all transfer stations except North Shore (new rate $67/t)

• $250 per tonne Special Handle Waste fee (was $200 in 2015)

• Gypsum rates harmonized with garbage

23

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

• Inviting stakeholder feedback on proposed tipping fee changes

• Will consider, summarize and report with final proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw for October 30 Board (October 8 Zero Waste Committee)

24