Transcript PHASE 2 - Moving Forward

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