Presented by Nicole Kohnert, P.Eng., FEC Manager of Regional Engineering Services October 2010 Reports Produced by CH2M Hill PHASE 2 Technical Memorandum Review (3 Report Summaries) RDNO Solid Waste Management Plan Review

QUICK REVIEW Phase 1 – completed August ’07 Phase 2 – started Sept ’07 Planning level feasibility analysis Policy definitions & summaries Endorsement of policies for Draft 2010 Plan Update Public Consultation

Short List Revisited…….. 1. Use Development Cost Charges for solid waste management infrastructure. 2. Provide Enterprise Funds to financially assist waste reduction entrepreneurs. 3. Formalize an interregional cooperation in waste management policy. 4. Implement Eco-Depots at Recycling and Disposal Facilities. 5. Provide an economically, environmentally and socially acceptable processing system and facility for recyclable material. 6. Increase recycling through the curbside Blue Bag and the Drop Centre Programs.

7. Provide recycling programs for businesses. 8. Implement universal curbside collection in the entire RDNO for all material possible. 9. Divert more demolition, construction and landclearing waste from disposal. 10. Implement a waste management strategy for all organic waste generated in the RDNO. 11. Include non-typical municipal solid waste in the RDNO Solid Waste Management Plan (e.g. agricultural and industrial waste). 12. Consider waste to energy alternatives for waste generated in the RDNO. Short List Cont’d

Recommendation Include the strategies and policy frameworks in the Draft 2010 Plan Update but not as priority initiatives  These policies primarily clarify and potentially improve the effectiveness of RDNO’s solid waste management programs, but do not necessarily increase diversion

Development Cost Charges for Solid Waste Management Funding (Topic #1) What are DCCs? Feasibility  Other jurisdictions Action

1. Use of Development Cost Charges What is the level of need that exists across the region for additional funds for Solid Waste infrastructure? Do current regulations permit DCCs to be applied to solid waste infrastructure projects? What internal barriers exist for the implementation of this program – municipal regulations, accounting, etc.? Key Features: A procedure for implementing a DCC bylaw A framework for distributing funds A framework for implementing the program in each member municipality

What are DCCs? Infrastructure development levies assessed against new development both residential and non-residential and paid by developer Fund upgrades to, or new infrastructure such as water, sewer, roads and parks Rates determined on a per unit basis – e.g. parcel, square metre, hectare Authorized by bylaw

Feasibility Local Government Act (Sections 932 – 937) No jurisdictions in BC use yet Sewage, water, drainage, highway facilities and parks 11 US states use a form of DCCs (precedence) Enabling legislation should include Service area definitions Defined development plans and improvement programs A set of decision or assessment criteria Tests: needs, proportionality, benefits

Action Investigate feasibility of changes to the Act Determine support of other local governments in BC If lobbying goes well then: Consult with stakeholders Consider RDNO bylaws

Inter-Regional Waste Management Group (Topic #3) Current situation Feasibility Survey results Action

3. Inter-Regional Waste Management Group What is the level of interest from surrounding Regional Districts for the task force concept? Are there other stakeholders who could be participants in the task force? Key Features: a mission statement, or terms of reference for the group, that would define attendees and meeting frequency a policy that provides a process on how and when this group should be formed

Current situation Trans boundary impacts Existing cooperation SIWMA BCPSC RDOS, RDCO and RDNO quarterly meeting Joint tenders and studies

Feasibility Literature review and telephone survey Results: Task Force preferred to meet on as-needed basis with clear focused mandate and timeline Intention to build consensus, gain economies of scale, standardize messaging, fast track inter-regional initiatives Sample: Airshed Coalition MOU

Action RDOS, RDCO and RDNO Administrators and Engineering staff should meet in workshop setting to confirm need for inter-regional cooperation Develop and finalize an MOU if moving forward Develop terms of reference in initial meeting and identify candidate issues

Non-Typical Municipal Solid Waste (Topic #11) Existing conditions Materials for Rendering Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Agricultural waste Asbestos waste Treated Biomedical waste Fibreglass waste Regulatory environment Best Management Practices

Include Non-Typical Municipal Solid Waste in RDNO Solid Waste Management Plan What are the current and potential future wastes that may need to be integrated in the RDNO’s SWMP? What are the existing waste management solutions for the waste streams in question (e.g. burning, rendering)? What are potential strategies to use to manage the waste streams in question? What are the applicable regulations and potential barriers to including these materials with MSW? Key Features: Identify priority non-typical solid wastes and methods needed to ensure proper disposal Consider alternatives to the disposal of these products Key legislation governing environmental protection Consideration of current disposal capacity and impacts of accepting this waste

Regulatory Environment Environmental Management Act Solid Waste Management Plans Waste Discharge Regulation & Codes of Practice Hazardous Waste Regulation Agricultural Waste Control Regulation Contaminated Sites Regulation Asbestos Waste Management Regulation MOE Criteria Federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act CCME Guidelines

Best Management Practices Comply with regulations, RDNO policy, and RDNO bylaws Amend Operational Certificates, bylaws, policies and SWMP where necessary for clarity and compliance Implement proper procedures including records management If not added to SWMP then redirect waste to other approved non-RDNO facilities Set tipping fees to reflect management and operational workload and capacity drawdown

Proposed Tipping Fees

Key Points Investigate implementation of DCCs for SWM infrastructure to reduce costs Cooperate inter-regionally with RDOS and RDCO to reduce costs Formally accept non-MSW in RDNO landfills

THANK YOU