Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
Presented by Nicole Kohnert, P.Eng., FEC Manager of Regional Engineering Services
October 2010Reports 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 ’07Planning level feasibility analysisPolicy definitions & summariesEndorsement of policies for Draft 2010 Plan
UpdatePublic 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 SIWMABCPSCRDOS, RDCO and RDNO quarterly meetingJoint 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 conditionsMaterials for RenderingHydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Agricultural wasteAsbestos wasteTreated Biomedical wasteFibreglass 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