GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE …€¦ · January 11, 2017 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:00

January 11, 2017

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, January 19, 2017 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 January 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for January 19, 2017 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 13, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated

January 11, 2017, titled “2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

5.2 Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report Designated Speaker: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated January 11, 2017, titled “Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report” for information.

5.3 Metro Vancouver 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program Designated Speaker: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Metro

Vancouver 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program” for information.

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

ZWC-1

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda January 19, 2017

Agenda Page 2 of 3

5.4 Consultation on Potential Disposal Bans for Expanded Polystyrene and Textiles Designated Speaker: Sarah Evanetz, Division Manager, Programs and Public Involvement, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board approve initiating consultation on potential disposal bans for

expanded polystyrene products as well as textiles and that staff report back with

stakeholder feedback and recommendations for changes to the 2018 Tipping Fee

Bylaw.

5.5 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated January 11,

2017, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Letter dated October 19, 2016 addressed to Chair Brodie and Zero Waste Committee

Members from Mayor Jackson, The Corporation of Delta re Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee.

6.2 Letter dated November 10, 2016 addressed to Paul Henderson, General Manager,

Solid Waste Services from Barry Glotman and Ken Ingram, West Coast Reduction Ltd. re Diversion of Organics from Landfill – Application of Best‐Use Policies.

6.3 Letter dated November 28, 2016 addressed to Barry Glotman and Ken Ingram, West Coast Reduction Ltd. from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services re Food Waste Management Best Practices. 6.4 Letter dated November 22, 2016 addressed to Chair Moore and Directors, Metro Vancouver from The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment re BC’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs. 6.5 Letter dated November 25, 2016 from Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health officer copied to Mayor Malcolm Brodie, City of Richmond re Harvest Power’s Air Quality Permit. 6.6 Letter dated December 2, 2016 addressed to Chris Jenkins, Director, Clean

Technologies, Ministry of Environment, from Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services re Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Intentions Paper Review.

6.7 Letter dated December 5, 2016 from Matt Torgerson, President, WMABC addressed to Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services re Management of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations.

ZWC-2

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda January 19, 2017

Agenda Page 3 of 3

6.8 Letter dated December 16, 2016 addressed to Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver from Matt Torgerson, President, WMABC re Management of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations. 6.9 Letter dated December 23, 2016 addressed to Matt Torgerson, President, WMABC from Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver re Management of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations. 6.10 Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference, Report to Finance and

Intergovernment Committee dated December 22, 2016 from Heather Schoemaker, Senior Director, External Relations.

6.11 National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update, Report to Finance and Intergovernment

Committee dated December 16, 2016 from Heather Schoemaker, Senior Director, External Relations and Ann Rowan, Program Manager, Collaboration Initiatives.

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. That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for January 19, 2017 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1), as follows: “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district;

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of January 19, 2017.

Membership: Brodie, Malcolm (C) – Richmond Hodge, Craig (VC) – Coquitlam Baldwin, Wayne – White Rock Bassam, Roger – North Vancouver District Cameron, Craig – West Vancouver

Corrigan, Derek – Burnaby Coté, Jonathan – New Westminster Hayne, Bruce – Surrey Jackson, Lois – Delta Long, Bob – Langley Township

Reimer, Andrea – VancouverSchaffer, Ted – Langley City Washington, Dean – Port Coquitlam

ZWC-3

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, October 13, 2016 Page 1 of 9

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:05 p.m. on Thursday, October 13, 2016 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 1:30 p.m.) Mayor Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Councillor Craig Hodge, Coquitlam Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta (arrived at 1:20 p.m.) Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District Councillor Bruce Hayne, Surrey Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City Councillor Dean Washington, Port Coquitlam STAFF PRESENT: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 October 13, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 13, 2016 by

adding: i. Item 3.1 Dean Drysdale, Foam Only Recycling Corp; ii. Item 3.2 Joe Casalini, Director of Business Development, RABANCO; iii. Item 3.3 Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling

Depot Association; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED

2.1

ZWC-4


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 September 15, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held September 15, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

3.1 Dean Drysdale, Board Chair, Foam Only Recycling Corp Dean Drysdale, Board Chair, Foam Only Recycling Corp. (Foam Only), informed the Committee about Foam Only and provided a presentation on expanded polystyrene (EPS) including characteristics, production in the Metro Vancouver region, landfill challenges, and recycling process. Also included were Foam Only business accomplishments and revenue model, information on the price of recycled material based on the price of oil, and relation to the regional tipping fee and the potential consideration of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) ban. Mr. Drysdale requested that Metro Vancouver consider: phasing in a ban on EPS in landfills similar to existing bans on plastics, glass, cardboard and beverage containers; and expanding the EPS pilot project at the United Boulevard Transfer Station in Coquitlam to other transfer stations in Metro Vancouver. In response to questions, members were informed about the status of EPS recycling at existing recycling depots in the region, a lack of municipal EPS curbside service, there being no surcharge on EPS materials, and the majority of EPS materials being brought for recycling by manufacturers and retailers.

The Committee suggested staff explore the matter and report back to Committee.

The delegate’s executive summary is presented as Item 6.1 of the agenda package. Presentation material titled “Foam Only” is retained with the October 13, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) refer to staff the October 13, 2016 delegation request from Dean Drysdale,

Board Chair, Foam Only Recycling Corp, seeking Metro Vancouver to consider a ban on expanded polystyrene in landfills similar to existing bans on plastics, glass, cardboard and beverage containers, and expand the Global Positioning System pilot project at United Boulevard Transfer Station to other Transfer Stations within Metro Vancouver; and

b) direct staff to report back with recommendations at a future meeting. CARRIED

ZWC-5


3.2 Joe Casalini, Director of Business Development, ROBANCO Cynthia Shore, Consultant on behalf of RABANCO, informed the Committee about RABANCO concerns regarding the Contingency Landfill Disposal procurement process and about reasons for RABANCO’s decision not to sign the related participation agreement. On‐table executive summary is retained with the October 13, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

1:20 p.m. Mayor Jackson arrived at the meeting.

3.3 Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association (BCBRDA), expressed concerns about materials being captured under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Product Stewardship programs in BC, which are disposed of at the cost of taxpayers with no cost being borne by the manufacturer, and about the lack of provincial authority for Metro Vancouver to charge stewards based on waste audit results. Ms. Atwood requested that Metro Vancouver consider: 1) amending the GVS&DD Tipping Fee Bylaw to include that any and all efforts

are made to determine the amount of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) materials found in waste audits, and that Metro Vancouver invoice for repayment of costs associated with recovery and disposal of EPR materials to EPR stewards based on percentage; and

2) support the creation of a BC Recycling Management Board.

In response to questions, the delegation spoke about the relationship between public behavioural change and the EPR fee. In response to questions, members were informed about legislative challenges to Metro Vancouver performing waste audits and previous staff efforts to discuss this matter with the Province. Comments were offered about how consideration of the delegation’s request may impact the 2017 budget as it relates to GVS&DD Tipping Fee Bylaw 302, 2016.

Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide additional information to the GVS&DD Board for its October 28, 2016 consideration of proposed changes to GVS&DD Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016. The information is to respond to the October 13, 2016 delegation request from Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association requesting that Metro Vancouver consider a surcharge on Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials and Product Stewardship Materials, to increase from $50 to $65 per occurrence.

ZWC-6


On‐table executive summary is retained with the October 13, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) refer to staff the October 13, 2016 delegation request from Corinne Atwood,

Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association asking that Metro Vancouver amend GVS&DD Tipping Fee Bylaw 302, 2016 to include that any and all efforts are made to determine the amount of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) materials found in waste audits, and that Metro Vancouver invoice for repayment of costs associated with recovery and disposal of EPR materials to EPR stewards based on percentage, and to support the creation of a BC Recycling Management Board; and

b) direct staff to report back with recommendations at a future meeting. CARRIED

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 2017 Budget and Work Plans – Solid Waste Services Report dated October 6, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid

Waste Services, presenting the 2017 Solid Waste Services Budget and Work Plans for consideration by the Zero Waste Committee.

Members were provided a presentation on the 2017 Budget and Work Plans for

Solid Waste Services highlighting budget expenditures, operations, key actions, waste diversion initiatives, capital program, and household impact.

1:30 p.m. Mayor Corrigan arrived at the meeting.

In response to questions, members were informed about assumptions in

establishing regional solid waste diversion goals, about the difference between contributions to reserves and contingency funds, and about plans to explore the development of cost allocation policy.

Comments were offered about consideration being given to accessing available

data from academic institutions for a more‐informed approach to tracking impacts on waste diversion and how they relate to expenditures.

Presentation material titled “GVS&DD Solid Waste Services” is retained with the October 13, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

ZWC-7


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the 2017 Solid Waste Services Budget and Work Plan as presented in this report dated October 6, 2016, titled “2017 Budget and Work Plans – Solid Waste Services” and forward them to the Board Budget Workshop on October 21, 2016 for consideration.

CARRIED

5.2 Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi‐Family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors

Report dated October 7, 2016 from Karen Storry, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, updating the GVS&DD Board on the municipal programs and policies in place in the region to encourage recycling in the multi‐family and commercial/institutional sectors. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated October 7, 2016, titled “Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi‐family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors” for information and send a copy to all member jurisdictions and to the provincial Ministry of Environment.

CARRIED 5.3 Non‐Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility

Report dated October 6, 2016 from Chris Allan, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board authorization to award a contract to Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC (Covanta) to construct a non‐ferrous metal recovery system at the Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility in the amount of $5,897,843 (excluding taxes). In response to questions, members were provided with background information on the proposed contract and staff efforts in addressing the findings from the consultant report. Committee members requested more information related to the mechanism for ensuring value for money from ongoing operations for the proposed metal recovery system. Request of Staff Staff was requested to provide additional information to accompany the report being forwarded to the October 28, 2016 Board meeting, regarding the process for determining and mechanisms to ensure best value to Metro Vancouver related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs, as well as bottom ash management and experience on previous projects as it relates to consideration of the non‐ferrous metal recovery project at the Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility.

ZWC-8


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) award to Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC, the construction of the

non‐ferrous metal recovery system at the Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility at a cost of $5,897,843 (excluding taxes), under the terms and conditions of existing Contract 98106; and

b) the Commissioner and Corporate Officer to execute any necessary documents.

CARRIED 5.4 GVS&DD Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016

Report dated October 7, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board approval of Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016 to be implemented January 1, 2017. Members were provided a presentation on proposed changes to the Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw highlighting a transfer station survey about research on food waste threshold changes, and current and proposed tipping fees. On‐table replacement Attachments 1 and 2 titled “Table 4 – Surcharges”, and presentation material titled “Consultation on Proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw Changes” are retained with the October 13, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board:

a) approve the following provisions in the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw effective January 1, 2017:

I. Tipping Fees to remain the same as in 2016 with the following exceptions:

i. Recycling Fee for Source‐Separated Organic Waste, Green Waste and Clean Wood at North Shore Transfer Station to be reduced from $71 per tonne to $67 per tonne;

ii. Surcharge for Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials and Product Stewardship Materials to increase from $50 to $65 per occurrence; and

iii. Recycling Fee for Gypsum to be $150 per tonne, with a minimum $15 fee (including Transaction Fee);

II. Ability for General Manager of Solid Waste Services to waive fees and charges for loads from non‐profit or volunteer community clean‐up projects on public land in certain circumstances;

III. GVS&DD’s costs of providing dedicated recycling depots at the North Shore and Coquitlam Transfer Stations are to be

ZWC-9


apportioned among participating municipalities on a population basis;

IV. Weigh scales precision improved to 5 kg increments; and V. Peak Hours definition change to exclude Statutory Holidays;

b) approve the following provisions in the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw effective July 1, 2017:

I. Surcharge threshold for Food Waste to change from 25% to 5%; II. Surcharge threshold for Clean Wood to change from 10% to

5%; III. New Surcharge for Unsecured Load: 50% of the applicable

tipping fee to a maximum of $50; IV. Personal Hygiene Products making up 10% or more of a load

and not properly contained added to Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials; and

V. Removal of ban exemption for Wax Paper/Cardboard; c) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016; and

d) pass and finally adopt Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, 2016.

CARRIED

5.5 Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to August 31, 2016

Report dated October 7, 2016 from Paul Remillard, Director, Solid Waste Operations, Solid Waste Services, communicating the status of utilities capital expenditures for the Sewerage and Drainage District.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated October 7, 2016, titled “Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to August 31, 2016” for information.

CARRIED 5.6 2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage

Report dated September 23, 2016 from Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications, providing information related to the 2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage, in support of the zero waste objectives of Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive the report dated September 23, 2016, titled “2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage” for information.

CARRIED

ZWC-10


5.7 Manager’s Report Report dated October 7, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, updating the Zero Waste Committee on Ministry of Environment Publication of 2016 Guide to Solid Waste Management Planning, waste flow and year‐end projections, Gypsum Management: Used Gypsum Pilot Project at Maple Ridge and Langley Residential Transfer Stations, 2016 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference, and Contingency Landfill Disposal. Members were updated on conflict of interest provisions in the Contingency Landfill Disposal procurement process. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated October 7, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following Information Item: 6.1 Letter dated September 30, 2016 addressed to Paul Henderson, General

Manager, Solid Waste Services from Mark Obedzinski, President, FoamOnly Recycling re Alternative to the Land‐Filling of EPS (Styrofoam) Waste in Metro Vancouver

CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for October 13, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e), (i), and (g) 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 (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district.”

CARRIED

ZWC-11


10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its regular meeting of October 13, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 2:23 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Janis Knaupp, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 19650495 FINAL

ZWC-12

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: 2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 11, 2017, titled “2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to identify priorities and a work plan for the Zero Waste Committee for the year 2017. BACKGROUND At its October 13, 2016 meeting, the Zero Waste Committee endorsed the 2017 Budget and Work Plans for Solid Waste Services, which served as the basis for the 2017 Budget approved by the GVS&DD Board on October 28, 2016. The 2017 Work Plans included lists of key actions that have been used to develop the Zero Waste Committee’s work plan presented in this report. The work plan presented in this report is consistent with the Zero Waste Committee’s Terms of Reference (Attachment 2) and the Board Strategic Plan and is being brought forward for the Committee’s information and endorsement. 2017 WORK PLAN The Zero Waste Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, bylaws, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to the Solid Waste function. Key actions in the Zero Waste Committee 2017 work plan are described below and listed according to the Committee responsibilities in its Terms of Reference. Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan Goals 1&2: Minimize waste generation; Maximize reuse, recycling and material recovery

Support the delivery of Metro Vancouver’s regional waste prevention programs.

Support the National Zero Waste Council and its national waste prevention agenda, particularly in the areas of food waste, product design and packaging, construction and demolition waste, and the Circular Economy.

Support the delivery of Metro Vancouver’s annual Zero Waste Conference.

Conduct projects to update technical and educational resources for regional waste diversion.

Update regional waste composition monitoring, with special focus on multi‐residential waste.

Continue to improve enforcement, education, and effectiveness of disposal bans.

5.1

ZWC-13

Conduct research and stakeholder engagement on textiles and expanded polystyrene to assess viability of possible disposal bans.

Begin developing recycling contingencies for extraordinary events (e.g. market corrections, shutdowns of major facilities) and emerging issues, in conjunction with municipalities. Conduct stakeholder consultation on and review Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 181, 1996 (Bylaw 181).

Implement municipally funded dedicated recycling at transfer stations, in collaboration with municipalities served by those facilities.

Complete non‐ferrous metal recovery at the Waste to Energy Facility (WTEF).

Review options to increase construction and demolition recycling capacity in the region.

Goal 3 – Recover energy from waste stream after material recovery

Evaluate options and business models for district energy delivery from the WTEF.

Evaluate options for new WTE capacity.

Commence implementation of the Operational Certificate requirements for the WTEF.

Goal 4 ‐ Dispose of all remaining waste in landfill, after material recycling and energy recovery

Transition to new contractor for operation and maintenance of 3 major transfer stations.

Complete North Shore Transfer Station reconfiguration and commence operation.

Secure contingency landfill disposal capacity.

Complete fly ash disposal procurement process.

Continue Coquitlam Transfer Station development and new Surrey Small Vehicle Waste and Recycling Drop‐Off Facility siting and design.

Following approval from the Ministry of Environment, commence implementing the Coquitlam Landfill Closure Plan requirements.

The Zero Waste Committee 2017 work plan is provided in Attachment 1, including the expected time frame for reports to this Committee. The Committee will be updated on the status of the actions and projects in this work plan on a monthly basis per the Committee’s schedule. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan as presented in the report dated January

11, 2017, titled “2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

2. That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan as presented in the report dated January 11, 2017, titled “2017 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan”, with the amendments provided at the Zero Waste Committee January 19, 2017 meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The priorities in the Zero Waste Committee 2017 work plan are consistent with the 2017 Budget approved by the GVS&DD Board on October 28, 2016 and with key actions included in the 2017 Solid Waste Services Work Plans. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The work plan presented in this report conveys the priorities for the Zero Waste Committee in 2017 and is consistent with its terms of reference and the 2017 Budget approved by the GVS&DD Board. Staff recommends Alternative 1.

ZWC-14

Attachments: 1. Zero Waste Committee 2017 Work Plan 2. Zero Waste Committee Terms of Reference 20265563

ZWC-15

Zero Waste Committee 2017 Work Plan Report Date: January 11, 2017

Priorities

1st Quarter Status

Consultation on potential New Disposal Bans In progress

Review of Composting Best Practices In progress

Contingency Landfill ‐ Update In progress

2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program In progress

National Zero Waste Council – Update In progress

Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference ‐ Results In progress

Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement ‐ Update Pending

Create Memories Not Garbage, and Food Scraps – 2016 Campaign Results Pending

North Shore Transfer Station Reconfiguration ‐ Update Pending

2016 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update Pending

Recycling Contingencies for Extraordinary Events Pending

2nd Quarter

New Transfer Station Operator Contractor ‐ Update Pending

Surrey Small Vehicle Waste and Recycling Drop‐Off Facility – Update Pending

Solid Waste Regulatory Bylaw No. 181 Review ‐ Update Pending

Stakeholder Engagement for proper management and diversion of C&D material Pending

Abandoned Waste – Regional Promotion and Communication for 2017 Pending

Love Food Hate Waste ‐ Update Pending

Waste‐to‐Energy Facility 2016 Financial Update Pending

Waste‐to‐Energy Environmental Monitoring and Reporting ‐ Update Pending

3rd Quarter

Organics Disposal Ban & Clean Wood Disposal Ban ‐ Update Pending

2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions Pending

Options for new C&D Processing Capacity Pending

Waste Flow ‐ Update and End of Year Projections Pending

Metro Vancouver 2017 Zero Waste Conference ‐ Update Pending

Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement ‐ Update Pending

Update on implementation of the Coquitlam Landfill Closure Plan requirements following approval from the Ministry of Environment

Pending

Encouraging Recycling in Commercial/Institutional Sectors ‐ Update Pending

Food Scraps Campaign 2017 ‐ Update Pending

National Zero Waste Council ‐ Update Pending

4th Quarter

MMBC Streetscape Pilot Report Pending

Annual Solid Waste & Recycling Report (for calendar 2016), and combined ISWRMP biennial progress and 5‐year comprehensive performance review report

Pending

National Zero Waste Council ‐ Update Pending

Metro Vancouver 2017 Zero Waste Conference ‐ Update Pending

Create Memories Not Garbage 2017 Pending

Abandoned Waste – 2017 Regional Promotion and Communication ‐ Update Pending

Evaluate Options for New Waste to Energy Capacity Pending

ATTACHMENT 1

ZWC-16

10595923 December 21, 2016

ATTACHMENT 2

Zero Waste Committee Terms of Reference

The Zero Waste Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, bylaws, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to solid waste management under the GVS&DD service. Committee Responsibilities Within the scope of the Board Strategic Plan, Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, and Metro Vancouver Financial Plan, the Committee provides guidance and oversight to staff on the implementation of the annual work plan and business plans for the service. Specific Committee responsibilities include the following:

Review and approve annual business plans and budgets for the Solid Waste service;

Oversee and monitor the implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan;

Oversee implementation of the Solid Waste capital program, and development of significant works within the plan;

Oversee and guide programs and initiatives aimed at reducing the volume of solid waste, enhancing recycling and diversion efforts, and promoting recovery; and

Monitor the operation of waste disposal and transfer station facilities, and the overall management of residuals.

Metro Vancouver has primary responsibility for ensuring implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Metro Vancouver is also responsible for operating the regional systems for transfer and disposal of solid waste. Guiding these activities is the primary focus for the Committee. Committee Membership and Meetings The Chair, Vice Chair, and members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board. The Committee meets monthly, except for August and December, and has special meetings as required. Members of the Committee must be members of the GVS&DD. A quorum of 50% plus one of the Committee membership is required to conduct committee business. Committee Management The Committee Chair, or in the absence of the Chair, the Vice‐Chair is the chief spokesperson on matters of public interest within the Committee’s purview. For high profile issues the role of spokesperson rests with the Board Chair or Vice‐Chair. On technical matters or in cases where an initiative is still at the staff proposal level, the Commissioner or a senior staff member is the appropriate chief spokesperson. Where necessary and practical, the Board Chair, the Committee Chair and the Commissioner confer to determine the most appropriate representative to speak.

ZWC-17

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Policy & Facility Development, Solid Waste Services Date: January 13, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated January 13, 2017, titled “Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report” for information.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the GVS&DD Board on the key findings in the Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report. BACKGROUND The Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) sets out regional goals and diversion rate targets and identifies actions for Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and senior levels of government. Metro Vancouver monitors and reports annually on these targets, the quantities of materials recycled and waste disposed by sector (single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/institutional, and construction/demolition) in this region via the Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management Report. The report is typically published in the fall of the following year once the data becomes available from disposal and recycling facilities processing materials in the region. The November 2016 Zero Waste Committee meeting was cancelled so this report is being provided in 2017. A complementary Zero Waste Committee report dated January 11, 2017, titled “Metro Vancouver 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program” describes the composition of the waste stream and identifies diversion opportunities. 2015 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING STATISTICS The Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report provides a breakdown of disposed and recycled tonnages for the region, by sector. The attached table provides a comparison of 2014 and 2015 statistics, alongside key demographic data. Highlights of 2015 recycling and disposal achievements include:

• The overall regional diversion rate for 2015 is 62%, up from 61% in 2014.

• Total per capita disposal dropped 8% in 2015 to 0.49 tonnes, down from 0.53 tonnes in 2014.

Disposal per capita has been steadily decreasing from a high of 0.75 tonnes per capita in 2006. The Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report is available on-line: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/reports-statistics/Pages/default.aspx Single Family Sector By 2015, most member municipalities had implemented curbside food scraps collection. At the same time, many municipalities had shifted garbage collection to every-other-week, which together reduced the garbage disposed in this sector from 0.20 tonnes per capita in 2014 to 0.18 tonnes per capita in 2015.

ZWC-18

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/reports-statistics/Pages/default.aspx

MKINGDON

Text Box

5.2

This sector increased its diversion rate to 66% in 2015 from 62% in 2014. Multi-Family Sector Multi-family sector waste disposal and recycling data is not directly reported to Metro Vancouver through the scale system or by private recycling facilities, as the materials are combined in trucks servicing multiple sectors. The data is calculated by attributing portions of privately hauled garbage and recycling, based on multi-family demographics and historic information. Metro Vancouver has been estimating multi-family data with this methodology since 2006, and performance has been tracked over time with relatively good accuracy. Metro Vancouver continues to improve the accuracy of multi-family estimates with targeted sector studies. In 2015, it is estimated that the multi-family sector reduced the amount of waste disposed from 0.24 tonnes per capita in 2014 to 0.20 tonnes per capita in 2015. Per capita disposal data for the multi-family sector is comparable to the single family sector, but recycling per capita is lower in the multi-family sector for a number of reasons including that recycling of yard trimmings is not part of the multi-family waste stream. This sector increased its diversion rate to 29% from 24% in 2014. Commercial Sector (ICI) The commercial sector also reduced its waste disposed in 2015 to 0.14 tonnes per capita (total population) from 0.16 tonnes per capita in 2014. The ICI diversion rate decreased slightly to 42% in 2015 from 43% in 2014. There has been a reduction in the amount of paper recycled from the ICI sector, likely due to a reduction in the use of paper products. This change is the primary driver for the reduction in diversion rates. Construction and Demolition (DLC) The DLC sector disposal data has remained relatively constant. Approximately 390,000 tonnes of DLC is disposed annually, while over 1 million tonnes is recycled. Material from this sector is disposed in-region at the Vancouver Landfill and the Ecowaste Landfill, and outside of the region as reported by private DLC transfer stations. Material hauled directly to facilities outside of the region is not accounted for in regional totals as the source of origin is not tracked by out-of-region facilities or reported to Metro Vancouver. Even though this sector performs well in regards to its diversion rate, there remains a significant opportunity to divert recyclable material, especially wood, from this waste stream. In 2015 there was a reduction in the amount of wood recycled in the DLC sector due to a change in methodology used to calculate quantities. Some private processors made an adjustment in the volume to tonnage conversion factor that is used to estimate quantities. As the Environmental Regulation and Enforcement Division continues to work closely with the licensed processors, there have been continuous improvements in reporting accuracy. The DLC diversion rate decreased slightly to 74% in 2015 from 75% in 2014. This change was driven by the change in reporting conversion factors.

ZWC-19

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Reporting on waste diversion and disposal is an important tool to measure the success of the implementation of the ISWRMP, and helps prioritize programs and resources in Metro Vancouver’s annual work planning and budgeting process. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver monitors and reports annually on the quantities of materials recycled and waste disposed by sectors via the Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management Report. For 2015, the overall regional diversion rate increased from 61% to 62%, which is lower than the ISWRMP target of 70% by 2015. However, Metro Vancouver’s diversion rate continues to increase over time and zero waste programs remain key priorities. The disposal rate decreased 8% from 0.53 to 0.49 tonnes per capita. Disposal per capita has been steadily decreasing from a high of 0.75 tonnes per capita in 2006. The largest increase in diversion rate was a 5% improvement in the multi-family sector (29%), followed by a 4% increase in the single family sector (66%), while the ICI (42%) and commercial and demolition (74%) sectors remained relatively flat. Approximately 390,000 tonnes of construction and demolition material is disposed annually. Even though this sector performs well in regards to its diversion rate, there remains a significant opportunity to divert recyclable material, especially wood, from this waste stream. Metro Vancouver is pursuing a number of initiatives that should assist in increasing diversion rates for wood. Attachments and References: Attachment – Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Statistics Summary 2014 - 2015 20256377

ZWC-20

Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Quantities

WASTE SECTOR

DISPOSED

(tonnes) (1)

RECYCLED (tonnes)

DIVERSION

RATE (%) (2)

2014 2015 % change 2014 2015 % change 2014 2015 % change

Residential tonnes

517,191

470,422

-9%

553,409

613,217 11% 52% 57% 5%

Single Family (reported)

Tonnes Tonnes/capita

292,787 0.20

275,639 0.18

-6% 482,090

0.32 533,861

0.35 11% 62% 66% 4%

Multi Family (estimated)

Tonnes Tonnes / capita

224,404 0.24

194,783 0.20

-13% 71,320

0.08 79,356

0.08 11% 24% 29% 5%

ICI (estimated) tonnes

392,328

360,039

-8%

298,461

266,066 -11%

43% 42% -1%

tonnes/capita

0.16

0.14 -9%

0.12

0.11

-12%

DLC (reported) tonnes

393,672

390,382

-1%

1,188,409

1,102,855 -7% 75% 74% -1%

Total

tonnes 1,303,191 1,220,842 -6% 2,040,280 1,982,137 -3%

61% 62% 1% tonnes/capita 0.53 0.49 -8% 0.83 0.79 -4%

tonnes/HH 1.42 1.27 -10% 2.22 2.07 -7%

(1) Includes estimated 30,000t delivered to Abbotsford by private haulers (9,000t MF and 21,000t ICI waste).

(2) Including EPR recyclables allocation.248,078 t (MMBC tonnes allocated 90% to SF-RES and 10% to MF-RES).

Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Metro Vancouver Population and Household Demographics

Population Households Population Households Population Households

2014 1,484,766 462,170 945,539 458,205 2,430,305 920,375

2015 1,511,428 471,157 985,623 487,896 2,497,052 959,053

YearTotalSingle Family Multi Family

ZWC-21

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Policy and Facility Development, Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated January 11, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program” for information.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the GVS&DD Board on the results of the 2016 regional waste composition monitoring program. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver monitors the composition of the region’s municipal solid waste (MSW) stream on a regular basis to identify disposal trends and target specific materials for diversion programs to help achieve the diversion goals set out in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). This waste composition monitoring complements the data on quantities of materials recycled and waste disposed by sector described in Zero Waste Committee report dated January 11, 2017 and titled “Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2015 Report”. RESULTS OF 2016 WASTE MONITORING The 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program analyzed the composition of material disposed from the single family (SF); multi-family (MF); industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) and self-hauled or drop-off (DO) sectors. Construction and Demolition (C&D) material was not included in the analysis. In addition to the regular waste composition monitoring, the 2016 monitoring program analyzed streetscape waste from 5 municipalities and abandoned waste and large item pick-up programs in 3 municipalities. A summary of the 2016 findings is provided in the Attachment and the full 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program report is available on the Metro Vancouver website: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/reports-statistics/Pages/default.aspx

ZWC-22

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/reports-statistics/Pages/default.aspx

MKINGDON

Text Box

5.3

Waste Composition The following table summarizes the disposal per capita (kg/capita) and percentage disposed for primary material categories. The population and total garbage figures used in this analysis are for the previous year as the waste composition study is conducted in the summer but the total garbage figures are not finalized until the following year.

Disposal per capita and % disposed for primary material categories

Year 2013 2015 2016

Population* 2,408,599 2,465,03 2,497,052

Total Garbage* 936,042 909,519 830,461

Material kg/capita kg/capita kg/capita %

Paper 53 64 64 19%

Plastics 56 61 63 19%

Compostable Organics 141 105 91 27%

Non-Compostable Organics 41 54 35 11%

Metals 13 12 10 3%

Glass 6 9 9 3%

Building Material 33 19 30 9%

Electronic Waste 4 6 5 2%

Household Hazardous 4 5 2 1%

Household Hygiene 19 31 20 6%

Bulky Objects 16 2 <1 0%

Fines 2 2 4 1%

Total (kg/capita) 389 369 333 100%

*Total garbage quantities and population are from previous year.

In 2016, the three largest components of the waste stream were compostable organics (27%), paper (19%), and plastics (19%). The top three categories are consistent with previous years. Metro Vancouver diversion efforts continue to focus on organics, blue box items and building materials. When analysing year over year trends, per capita disposal rate, compared to percentage, is more accurate as it is not a relative measure. Recent waste composition trends include a reduction in compostable and non-compostable organics, and an increase in building materials from 2015 to 2016. While not large portions of the waste stream, household hazardous and hygiene products also reduced significantly. The inherent variability of waste may impact the accuracy of the data, particularly when analysing one year’s data. Key trends are described in more detail below. Total tonnage for each material category is extrapolated from the waste composition findings and garbage totals. Organics In 2016, an estimated 224,000 tonnes of compostable organics (food scraps, yard trimmings and clean wood) were disposed. This represents a reduction of approximately 13% or 33,000 tonnes from 2015 disposal estimates. The greatest reduction in disposed organics has been in the single family sector. The reduction in disposed organics is likely attributable to an increased awareness of the Organics Disposal Ban and exposure to the Love Food Hate Waste and Food Isn’t Garbage campaigns, along with the other complementary private and public programs.

ZWC-23

Non-compostable organics The non-compostable organics category was estimated at 11% or 91,000 tonnes, the majority of which is painted and treated wood (65,000 tonnes). The balance of the material in this category includes textiles, rubber and composite materials that are currently not recyclable. The amount of material in this category has decreased 32% from 2015, when approximately 134,000 tonnes were disposed. Building material The 2015 building material figures from the waste composition study were lower than in 2016, but this year’s data is more consistent with historic trends. The 2015 sample may not have been representative. The amount of building material disposed in 2016 increased 67% over 2015, to approximately 75,000 tonnes. This category consists primarily of carpet waste (19,000 tonnes), gypsum (12,000 tonnes), and other inorganic material such as stucco, laminate, and insulation (32,000 tonnes). The remaining materials include masonry, asphalt, rocks, sand and dirt. Gypsum being disposed in the waste stream has increased by approximately 4,000 tonnes since 2015. New gypsum recycling has been in place at Metro Vancouver transfer stations since September 2016, following a temporary cessation of gypsum recycling in late 2015. Used gypsum collection services have recently been initiated at two residential drop-off transfer stations and is expected to be expanded to all transfer stations in 2017. Two additional components of solid waste, streetscape and large item pick-up/abandoned waste, were analyzed during the 2016 monitoring program. Results provide a snapshot of how these collection programs are functioning, with a focus on contamination and commonly discarded items. Streetscape Five municipalities volunteered to participate in the additional streetscape study and selected which streetscape stations to analyse. The primary streetscape streams analysed were garbage, mixed containers, paper and organics. The overall diversion rate from the streetscape stations sampled was 40%. If all materials were placed in the appropriate receptacles, diversion would be 74%. The packaging and printed paper steward, MMBC, is currently running a streetscape recycling container study in Vancouver. These results may improve understanding of the performance of streetscape disposal and recycling containers regionally. Large item pick-up /Abandoned waste Three municipalities volunteered to participate in the abandoned waste and large item pick-up study. Each municipality allowed the waste composition monitoring team to shadow their abandoned waste or large item pick-up routes to record the types and quantities of items encountered. The most common items noted in the 52 occurrences of abandoned waste were couches (21), durable plastic products such as strollers, high chairs and cribs (15), and wooden furniture (10). The most common items picked up from municipal large item pick-up programs were couches (67), chairs (34) and other wooden furniture (31), out of 103 pick-ups. In addition, nine mattresses were found abandoned, and four were picked-up by designated large item pick-up programs. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report, therefore no alternatives are presented.

ZWC-24

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The waste composition monitoring program occurs regularly and is included in the Solid Waste Services annual operating budget for 2017. There are no further financial implications regarding this work. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver monitors the composition of the region’s municipal solid waste stream on a regular basis. The 2016 waste composition monitoring program analyzed material disposed from the single family; multi-family; industrial, commercial and institutional; and self-hauled or drop-off sectors. Additional analysis was conducted on streetscape waste, and abandoned waste and large-item pick up programs. In 2016, the three largest components of the waste stream were compostable organics (27%), paper (19%), and plastics (19%); these results are consistent with previous years. The two largest decreases compared to 2015 are a 13% or 33,000 tonne reduction in the amount of organics disposed and a 32% or 43,000 tonnes reduction in non-compostable organics disposed (mostly painted and treated wood). Contamination was relatively high in streetscape receptacles leading to an overall diversion rate of approximately 40%. If all materials were placed in the appropriate receptacles, the potential diversion would be 74%. Couches were the most commonly identified item for both illegal dumping and large-item pick-up programs. Chairs and wooden furniture were also common. The 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Program report is being published on the Metro Vancouver website. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to monitor the composition of the waste stream, report results to the Zero Waste Committee, and review options to increase diversion of materials with high disposal quantities. Attachments and References: Attachment - Summary of the 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Results by Sector 20227897

ZWC-25

Attachment

Summary of the 2016 Waste Composition Monitoring Results by Sector

Category SF MF ICI DO Combined Total Disposed Tonnes

(2015) 162,139 187,860 353,733 126,729 830,461

Paper 18% 21% 24% 5% 19%

001 Junk Mail, Flyers, Unaddressed Mail 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4%

002 Other Fine Office Paper or Envelopes 1.6% 2.2% 1.7% 0.5% 1.6%

003 Newsprint 0.9% 1.9% 0.6% 0.1% 0.9%

004 Clean Recyclable OCC 0.8% 2.0% 2.1% 1.3% 1.7%

005 Waxed OCC 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3%

006 Other soiled OCC 0.1% 0.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.6%

007 Cereal Boxes and Other Box Packaging 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 0.2% 1.5%

008 Telephone Books 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

009 Magazines 0.4% 1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5%

010 Books 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

011 Dairy or Dairy Substitute 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

012 Non-Dairy/Deposit 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

013 Single Serving Cups and Lids 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% 0.2% 0.8%

014 Other Compostable Paper 10.2% 9.9% 9.4% 1.6% 8.5%

015 Non-Compostable, Non-Recyclable Paper 0.4% 0.2% 4.7% 0.9% 2.3%

Plastic 21% 18% 21% 9% 19%

016 Re-used Retail & Grocery bags 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%

017 Empty Retail & Grocery Bags 0.8% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5%

018 Consumables Packaging Bags and Film 5.2% 4.8% 3.4% 0.7% 3.7%

019 Garbage Bags 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 0.1% 1.1%

020 Freezer/Sandwich Bags 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

021 Deposit Beverage Pouches 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

022 Other Plastic Film 0.7% 0.3% 3.9% 0.3% 1.9%

023 Clothing and Accessories 2.2% 3.2% 0.7% 0.1% 1.5%

024 Household 1.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.9%

025 Other 1.2% 0.1% 2.1% 0.0% 1.2%


027 Deposit Containers - Water 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

028 Deposit Containers - Other 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

029 Single Serving Cups 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

030 Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

031 # 1 PETE - Bottles and Jars 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

032 #1 PETE - Other Packaging 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

033 #2 HDPE - Bottles and Jugs 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4%

034 #2 HDPE - Tubs and Lids 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3%

035 #3 PVC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

036 #4 LDPE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

ZWC-26


(2015) 162,139 187,860 353,733 126,729 830,461

037 #5 PP 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

038 #6 PS - Non-Foam 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

039 #6 PS - Foam 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.8%

040 #7 Mixed Resin Plastic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

041 Uncoded packaging/containers 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4%

042 Durable Plastic Products 2.0% 1.4% 4.5% 7.2% 3.7%

043 Coffee Pods 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

044 Other/mixed plastics 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Compostable Products and Packaging <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

045 Cutlery, cups, lids, boxes, trays 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

046 Bags and liners 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

047 Laminated chip bags, bottles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Compostable Organics 29% 37% 25% 15% 27%

048 Small yard waste 0.9% 2.1% 1.5% 0.3% 1.4%

049 Large yard waste 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

050 Unavoidable food waste 11.0% 15.1% 7.7% 2.3% 9.2%

051 Plate scrapings, unfinished meals 9.2% 8.8% 5.8% 2.0% 6.6%

052 Whole fruits and vegetables 1.9% 3.1% 1.3% 0.3% 1.6%

053 Whole meats, fish 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7%

054 Full/unused ready-made 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

055 Baked goods 1.1% 2.6% 0.8% 0.3% 1.2%

056 Dairy 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

057 Liquids (drinks, oil in package) 0.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7%

058 Candy and Snacks 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6%

059 Condiments and Sauces 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5%

060 Pet Food 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

061 Wood pallets 0.1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.9% 2.3%

062 Unfinished wood furniture 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

063 Other wood 1.4% 0.1% 0.7% 8.5% 1.9%

064 Manure, slaughterhouse, animals 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Non-Compostable Organics 7% 4% 8% 33% 11%

065 Pressure Treated Wood 0.5% 0.0% 0.8% 9.7% 1.9%

066 Finished Wood 2.7% 0.8% 3.6% 19.0% 5.2%

067 Finished Wood furniture 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 2.2% 0.7%

068 Natural Fiber Clothing 2.1% 1.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9%

069 Household 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4%

070 Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

071 Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%

072 Other Rubber 0.7% 0.5% 1.5% 0.6% 1.0%

073 Leather 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

074 Composite Organic Materials (shoes) 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

075 Other (wax, non-compostable) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

ZWC-27


(2015) 162,139 187,860 353,733 126,729 830,461

Metals 3% 3% 3% 4% 3%

076 Food Containers 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

077 Spiral-wound Containers 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%

078 Other Ferrous 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

079 Food Containers 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

080 Alcoholic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

081 Non-Alcoholic 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

082 Food containers 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

083 Foil trays, wrap 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%

084 Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

085 Household 0.4% 1.1% 0.9% 3.0% 1.2%

086 Machine Parts 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2%

087 Construction/Industrial 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 1.0% 0.6%

Glass 2% 2% 3% 4% 3%

088 Beer 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

089 Other Alcohol 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

090 Non-Alcoholic & Non-Dairy 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


092 Food Containers 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

093 Other Glass and Ceramics 1.7% 0.9% 2.1% 3.9% 2.0%

Building Material 9% 1% 8% 28% 9%

094 Gypsum/Drywall 2.2% 0.9% 0.9% 3.0% 1.5%

095 Masonry 0.3% 0.1% 0.8% 3.7% 1.0%

096 Rock, Sand, Dirt 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

097 Rigid Asphalt 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5%

098 Carpet Waste 0.9% 0.3% 2.4% 7.0% 2.3%

099 Other Inorganics 0.1% 0.0% 3.6% 14.7% 3.8%

Electronic Waste 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%

100 Desktop Computers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

101 Notebook Computers 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

102 Computer Peripherals 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.3%

103 Computer Monitors 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

104 Printers, Scanners 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

105 Televisions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

106 Other audio/video 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

107 Mobile Phones & Accessories 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

108 Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

109 Small Appliances 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4%

110 Electronic Toys 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

111 Smoke Detectors 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

112 Other Electronics 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Household Hazardous 1% 1% 1% <1% 1%

ZWC-28


(2015) 162,139 187,860 353,733 126,729 830,461

113 Lead acid 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

114 All other batteries 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

115 Sharps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

116 Animal Carcass (Pets) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

117 Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

118 Stains/preservatives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

119 Latex Paint 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%

120 Oil-based Paint 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

121 Paint Aerosols 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

122 Solvents 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%

123 Cleaners, Soaps etc. 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

124 Pesticides/Herbicides/Preservatives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

125 Motor Oil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

126 Oil Filters 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

127 Antifreeze 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

128 Pharmaceuticals 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

129 Other Petroleum Based Products 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

130 Other HHW or containers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

131 Thermostats and switches 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

132 CFLs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

133 Other HHW 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Household Hygiene 12% 9% 4% <1% 6%

134 Diapers 6.2% 5.5% 1.8% 0.0% 3.2%

135 Pet Waste 3.5% 2.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8%

136 Other (sanitary products, condoms) 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%

137 Personal care 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

Bulky Objects <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

138 Large Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

139 Mattresses, Box Springs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

140 Other upholstered Furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

141 Other furniture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Fines 1% 1% 1% <1% 1%

142 Fines 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.4% 1.1%

Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

ZWC-29

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Sarah Evanetz, Division Manager, Programs and Public Involvement Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Consultation on Potential Disposal Bans for Expanded Polystyrene and Textiles

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve initiating consultation on potential disposal bans for expanded polystyrene products as well as textiles and that staff report back with stakeholder feedback and recommendations for changes to the 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek approval to initiate consultation on potential disposal bans for expanded polystyrene and textiles. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s 2011 Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) includes a commitment to “…after suitable public information programs, expand disposal bans to include materials encompassed by new EPR programs and material for which new recycling markets are developed.” Metro Vancouver has a successful 20‐year history of increasing waste diversion through implementing disposal bans. Under the Disposal Ban Program, third party inspectors inspect loads at Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities and surcharges are applied if banned material quantities exceed prescribed thresholds. The Disposal Ban Program prioritizes materials that are present in the waste stream in large quantities, have convenient recycling options and/or are included in provincial recycling regulations or Expanded Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs. Public support is also critical. A regional disposal ban on corrugated cardboard was first implemented in 1997 and the disposal bans on food scraps and clean wood were implemented most recently in 2015. Organics recycling in the region increased by approximately a third between 2014 and fall 2016. In the July 2016 Zero Waste Committee report titled “Proposed 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw Changes”, Metro Vancouver noted that work was underway to evaluate the feasibility of new disposal bans on textiles, expanded polystyrene (EPS), asphalt shingles, carpet and furniture as these materials are priorities in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s (CCME) Canada‐wide Action Plan for EPR programs and are significant material categories in the waste disposed by residents and businesses. The October 2016 “2017 Budget and Work Plans – Solid Waste Services” report included a commitment to consult on new disposal bans for EPS and textiles. This report provides initial findings with respect to the potential implementation of disposal bans for EPS and textiles and recommends initiating consultation on potential bans for these materials.

5.4

ZWC-30

RECYCLING ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION PROGRAM Expanded Polystyrene Metro Vancouver’s 2015 waste composition study estimates that EPS makes up 1.7% (by weight) of residential and commercial/institutional municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed in the region. While it is a relatively small amount when measured by weight, EPS represents a larger portion of the waste stream by volume due to its low density. Residential drop‐off of EPS is available free of charge through Multi‐Materials BC (MMBC) depots as part of the Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) EPR Program. There are no curbside residential EPS programs in the region because typically EPS materials break up if they are collected with other recyclables, contaminating recycling loads. For commercial generators, EPS recycling is available from waste and recycling service providers for a fee. Due to its low density, it is inexpensive to dispose of large volumes of EPS at disposal facilities which set tonnage‐based rates. Recycling is relatively expensive for EPS materials given the low density of the materials and currently low price for oil‐based products. For a 6‐week period in 2014, Metro Vancouver disposal ban inspectors examined waste loads for EPS as if a disposal ban were in place. EPS was observed in loads at the following rates:

Percent of EPS in Garbage Load Percent of Total Loads Containing

this Range of EPS

5%‐10% 0.6 %

10%‐30% 0.4 %

30%‐50% 0.3 %

>50% 0.6 %

Total 1.9 %

Loads with more than 30% EPS were typically cube vans originating from appliance stores. A ban that targeted these large loads of EPS materials would encourage appliance and other similar retailers to recycle EPS materials rather than dispose of them. Textiles Metro Vancouver’s 2015 waste composition study estimates that textiles are about 5% of MSW disposed in the region. The textiles category includes residential and commercial fabrics used in a variety of applications from clothing to carpets and upholstery. Most textiles diversion in the region is in the form of re‐use, with some limited ‘down cycling’ options (e.g. production of wiper rags and insulation) for clothes that cannot be sold locally or globally in second‐hand markets. There are no locally‐available recycling options for textiles that are at their end‐of‐life. Early research suggests that a textiles disposal ban may not be feasible in the short‐term as recycling options are limited and a ban could result in charitable organizations and other generators being surcharged for disposing of non‐sellable and non‐recyclable items. Additionally, a ban could increase the amount of non‐sellable and non‐recyclable items being delivered to these local

ZWC-31

charitable organizations and re‐use businesses, further increasing the amount of material that they must dispose of. Metro Vancouver is taking the following steps to assess the feasibility of a textiles ban and develop strategies to increase textiles recycling in the region:

Review programs and policies in other jurisdictions;

Survey local reuse market stakeholders, such as donation bin owners, thrift stores and graders and sorters;

Research the viability of closed loop textiles recycling technologies;

Observe loads received at transfer stations to determine the number and nature of loads that would be subject to a surcharge; and

Investigate other policies which may be preferable or complementary to a disposal ban. Consultation Program The objectives of the consultation program would be to provide information and receive input on potential disposal bans for expanded polystyrene and textiles, including:

Types and definitions of materials;

Recycling options;

Recycling collection and processing capacity;

Disposal Ban considerations including enforcement feasibility, thresholds, process and surcharges;

Implementation timeline;

Stakeholder impacts; and

Education and information needs.

The consultation program is proposed to start in early 2017 and continue until mid‐2017. Metro Vancouver would seek input on potential disposal bans on expanded polystyrene and textiles through a combination of stakeholder meetings, workshops and online feedback. A broad range of interested parties would be notified including member municipality elected officials and staff, adjacent regional districts, local First Nations, commercial and residential waste producers, business associations, haulers, recyclers and processors, non‐governmental organizations, academia and government agencies. Staff expect to present a proposed strategy for disposal bans on expanded polystyrene and textiles as part of proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw for 2018. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve initiating consultation on potential disposal bans for

expanded polystyrene products as well as textiles and that staff report back with stakeholder feedback and recommendations for changes to the 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw.

2. That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated January 11, 2017

titled “Consultation on Potential Disposal Bans for Expanded Polystyrene and Textiles” and provide alternate direction to staff.

ZWC-32

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVS&DD Board approves initiating consultation on potential disposal bans on EPS as well as textiles, staff will report back with options for implementing potential bans, as well as feedback from stakeholders and recommendations for possible changes to the 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw. Costs to undertake the consultation activities are expected to be minimal beyond staff resources and any costs have been included in the 2016 budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver has a successful 20‐year history of increasing waste diversion through disposal bans at, including the food scraps and clean wood disposal bans implemented in 2015. Expanded polystyrene and textiles are significant material categories in the waste disposed by residents and businesses. Large loads of expanded polystyrene create a potential opportunity for the implementation of a disposal ban to encourage recycling of this material. A disposal ban that targets loads containing large amounts of expanded polystyrene could substantially increase recycling rates for this material. Given the limited opportunities to divert textiles from disposal, except for reuse, a disposal ban may not be appropriate at this time. Staff therefore recommend Alternative 1 that the Board approve initiating consultation on potential disposal bans for expanded polystyrene and textiles, and that staff report back with recommendations to be incorporated into the proposed 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw. 19724144

ZWC-33

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report titled “Manager’s Report”, dated January 11, 2017.

Attendance at 2017 Standing Committee Events Participation at external events provides important learning and networking opportunities. The following events fall under the purview of the Zero Waste Committee and will be considered for approval at the January 18, 2017 Finance and Intergovernment Committee meeting:

BioCycle East Coast Conference Date and Place: April 4-7, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland

Number of attendee(s): 1 The BioCycle East Coast will explore topics related to composting, organics recycling, anaerobic digestion, food recovery and recycling. Program topics include commercial, institutional, and residential organics recycling, nutrient management, biosolids recycling, best practices and comparison of organics diversion models food recovery and recycling.

Recycling Council of BC 2017 Conference and Trade Show

Date and Place: June 21-23, 2017, Whistler, British Columbia Number of attendee(s): 1

British Columbia's premier networking and education event hosted by the Recycling Council of British Columbia. With the overarching goals of reducing waste and building a circular economy, the conference offers progressive programming featuring best practices, theory, and innovations from BC, Canada, and beyond. The 2017 program will be informed by locally relevant topics such as product stewardship, illegal dumping, and developments in sustainable enterprise.

Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Wastecon Conference 2017

Date and Place: September 25-27, 2017, Baltimore, Maryland Number of attendee(s): 1

SWANA’s Wastecon Conference provides an opportunity to participate in sessions on waste reduction, recycling and residuals management. In 2017 the conference will be co-located with SWANA’s World Congress event. Leading-edge programs from across North America, Latin America, Europe, and around the world will be profiled at the conference.

5.5

ZWC-34

BioCycle West Coast Conference Date and Place: October 16-19, 2017, Portland, Oregon

Number of attendee(s): 1 BioCycle is dedicated to the advancement of organics management. The BioCycle West conference provides an opportunity to learn more about the experiences of communities across North America in managing organics to recover renewable energy.

Please notify the Committee Chair as soon as possible, but no later than February 17, 2017 if you are interested in attending any of the above-noted events. As the funds for these events are budgeted in general government, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee has approved the events, but final approval on attendance rests with the Board Chair. Estimated 2016 Waste Flows The estimated 2016 waste flows are 895,394 tonnes compared to 821,324 tonnes in 2015. This is an increase of 74,000 tonnes or 9%. This additional garbage in the Metro Vancouver system is likely a result of a decrease in waste that was previously delivered to transfer stations out of the region and an increase in construction and demolition waste that was previously delivered to a private in-region facility. It does not appear to be a result of additional waste generation. Organics Management Best Practices Review On November 25, 2016, the following recommendation was authorized by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors to be released to the public:

Metro Vancouver ‐ Harvest Organics Processing Contract That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to: a) work with Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics Ltd. to immediately redirect residential curbside and commercial organics from the North Shore Transfer Station to an alternative organics processing facility in region; b) initiate a composting best practices study and report back to the Board with:

i. a review of Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics Ltd.’s operational processes compared to best practices; ii. recommendations on how to incorporate the results of the study into the upcoming review of Bylaw 181; and iii. recommendations on how to incorporate the results of the study into the procurement process for a new contract to replace the existing organics processing contract on expiry or termination.

c) write Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics Ltd. to: i. advise that in the event facility operations are not improved to control odours within 90 days, GVS&DD will notify the company that it is in default of its contractual obligations under the organics processing contract; and ii. request that organics accepted by the facility be limited to regional sources.

d) write to Vancouver Coastal Health regarding the potential health impact arising from Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics Ltd. operations.

Staff have engaged Morrison Hershfield to undertake the best practices study.

ZWC-35

Brunette Interchange Consultation from Ministry of Transportation The BC Ministry of Transportation had developed three options for a new Brunette interchange. Metro Vancouver participated in consultation meetings in November and December 2016 and staff are assembling comments for submission on the impacts to Metro Vancouver utilities and lands. More information on the project is available on-line: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinterchange/ 2016 Waste Reduction Week National Waste Reduction Week occurs each year in October, to promote responsible consumption, sustainable purchasing, and increased recycling, and increase awareness of some of the great recycling programs available year round.

During Waste Reduction Week in October 2016, Metro Vancouver ran a promotion titled More than Meets the Eye, to highlight electronics and battery recycling, including batteries inside many common household electronics. Examples of electronics containing batteries include electric toothbrushes, power tools, noisy toys, key fobs, electric razors, old cell phones, portable radios and more. In 2016, there were 13,400 tonnes of electronics in the waste stream in the region, plus an additional 380 tonnes of batteries. This represents about 1.6% of our waste overall.

The More than Meets the Eye promotion included a media buy on YouTube, educational posters, social media content and Public Service Announcements, and information on the home page of Metro Vancouver website. Information was shared with member municipalities and stewards. Metro Vancouver also hosted an internal staff event with a lobby display and electronics collection at its head office. In just a few hours Metro Vancouver staff dropped off six boxes of old, unused small electronics, and almost 40 kg of loose batteries for recycling.

In BC, anything with a cord or a battery can be recycled. Recycling locations are listed at mvrecycles.org. Approved Operational Certificate for the Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility On December 15, 2016, the BC Ministry of Environment issued an Operational Certificate (OC) for the Metro Vancouver Waste to Energy Facility (WTEF), under the provisions of the Environmental Management Act. The OC contains regulatory requirements for the operation of the WTEF and supersedes requirements set out in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Highlights of the new OC are new air emission limits, new requirements for discharge studies and modelling, increased reporting to both the Province and the public, and online reporting of emissions. Capital requirements related to meeting the new air emission limits are included in the Solid Waste Services capital plan and budget, and are consistent with a plan approved by the Board in 2013 to meet the requirements of a Provincial Guideline for Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustion published in 2011. Staff will commence implementation of OC requirements, including an Internet Publication Plan, Monthly and Annual Reporting plans, Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Management Plans, and other operational and environmental reporting requirements. The Operational Certificate can be viewed at the following link by entering authorization number 107051: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/waste-discharge-authorization/managing-authorizations/publicly-viewable-authorization-documents. More information on the implementation of the OC requirements will be provided to the Board over the coming months.

ZWC-36

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/brunetteinterchange/

http://www.metrovancouverrecycles.org/?utm_source=newsletter49&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chair_update

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/waste-discharge-authorization/managing-authorizations/publicly-viewable-authorization-documents

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/waste-discharge-authorization/managing-authorizations/publicly-viewable-authorization-documents

MKINGDON

Text Box

MKINGDON

Text Box

Transfer Station Operator Update A new transfer station operator, Emterra, began operations on January 2, 2017 for the North Shore, Coquitlam and Surrey Transfer Stations. Emterra was the successful candidate in the recent public procurement process. Work continues on the transition to the new contract. The current transfer station operator for the Langley and Maple Ridge Transfer Stations, SSG Holdings, was the successful candidate for this procurement process and continues to operate these facilities. Every Other Week Garbage Collection At its April 14, 2016 meeting, the Zero Waste Committee requested more information about the reduction in garbage seen in communities that have transitioned to bi-weekly garbage collection. Combined, these communities have reduced about 58,000 tonnes of garbage, an average 33% reduction. To better understand where this waste was diverted to, Metro Vancouver analyzed organics and illegal dumping data. During this same time period, an increase of about 30% was observed in the amount of organics collected (~53,000 tonnes). In addition, there was no noticeable correlation between the introduction of every other week garbage collection and increased incidences of illegal dumping. Commonly illegally dumped materials include large bulky items like furniture, rather than household garbage. Reduction in garbage following the transition to every other week garbage collection is likely a result of increased recycling and a general reduction in waste generation due to increased awareness. Recycling Management Board At its October 13, 2016 meeting, the Zero Waste Committee requested more information on a delegation request for Metro Vancouver to support the creation of a BC Recycling Management Board. In Alberta, a Beverage Container Management Board is responsible for regulatory oversight of the used beverage collection system. The Board is a delegated administrative organization, and is composed of Directors drawn from beverage container recycling stakeholders, such as the beverage industry and depot operators. It is an arm’s length organization and its powers are delegated by the Alberta Ministry of Environment. There is no equivalent organization operating in B.C., primarily because key regulatory oversight functions reside with the BC Ministry of Environment. Creating an organization like a Management Board in B.C. would likely require an amendment to the B.C. Recycling Regulation and the redistribution of existing responsibilities to this new body. In November 2016, the Office of the Auditor General for B.C. evaluated the Ministry of Environment’s oversight performance and concluded that B.C.’s recycling system is performing well. The Auditor General’s report also identified some points of emphasis, which the Ministry of Environment is addressing through the following actions:

A study to inform future policy development work on how competition in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) can benefit consumers

Enforcement actions to reduce the number of non-compliant producers

Collaborative efforts with EPR programs to expand services

Improvements in performance measurement and reporting Metro Vancouver staff will continue to monitor this issue, and report back to the Zero Waste Committee and Board if there are new developments with respect to the potential for a Recycling Management Board to be put in place.

ZWC-37

Biosolids Pilot A pilot project is planned to assess the feasibility of processing biosolids at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility (WTEF). During this trial, bagged biosolids will be manually fed into the feed chute to assess operational and emissions performance. Feed rates of up to 10% (by weight) of the garbage feed will be assessed. While odour is not expected to be an issue, it will be monitored during transport and processing to confirm. The pilot is expected to take place over one or two days. The new Operational Certificate for the WTEF includes a defined process for considering new materials for management at the WTEF. Under the process, extensive monitoring and testing of emissions and ash are required along with approval by the Ministry of Environment. Based on the outcomes of the pilot, Metro Vancouver will determine whether to proceed with seeking the Ministry of Environment’s approval to receive biosolids at the WTEF on an ongoing basis. In the next several months prior to the commencement of the pilot Metro Vancouver staff will:

• work out logistics with the wastewater treatment plants; • liaise with City of Burnaby and Fraser Health Authority; and, • write to the Ministry of Environment as per Section 2.8.1 of the OC.

The current schedule, subject to the items above, will be to commence test trials in April 2017 following the spring maintenance shutdowns at the WTEF. Contingency Landfill Disposal On December 2, 2016, Metro Vancouver issued a Request for Information (RFI 16-230) as a follow-up to the Contingency Landfill Request for Proposals (RFP 16-126). The RFI asked potential contingency disposal proponents for feedback on the previous RFP, which received no responses. Feedback was requested on three options for contingency disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW):

Option A: Fixed Term Contract with conflict of interest provision

Option B: Standing Offer Agreement – Service provider(s) haul MSW from Metro Vancouver’s Transfer Stations

Option C: Standing Offer Agreement – Metro Vancouver hauls MSW to the service provider’s disposal site.

Responses to the RFI were received on December 22, 2016, from:

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Republic Services

Belkorp Environmental Services Inc. Staff are reviewing the responses now and expect to report back to the Board with proposed next steps in March of 2017. Correction Made to Zero Waste Committee report dated October 7, 2016, titled “Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-Family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors” At its October 28, 2016 regular meeting, the GVS&DD Board requested a correction to the Zero Waste Committee report titled “Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors”, dated October 7, 2016. The Township of

ZWC-38

Langley recently updated a bylaw to require owners and occupiers of property to separate their waste. Attachment 3 of the Zero Waste Committee report, a table summarizing municipal tools and programs to encourage recycling, was corrected to reflect this new information for the Township of Langley (Attachment). The updated report was distributed to the Honourable Mary Polak and GVS&DD Member Jurisdictions. Zero Waste Committee 2017 Work Plan The Zero Waste Committee 2017 Work Plan was the subject of Report 5.1 of this agenda package. The 2017 Work Plan will be attached to the Manager’s Report each month, with updates on the status of the items in the Work Plan, listing them as ‘pending’, ‘in progress’, or ‘complete’. Attachment: Summary of Municipalities with Regulatory Tools and Programs to Encourage Single-Family, Multi-Family and Commercial/Institutional Recycling 19764669

ZWC-39

Summary of Municipalities with Regulatory Tools and Programs to Encourage Single-Family, Multi-Family and Commercial/Institutional Recycling

Single-Family Multi-Family

Commercial/ Institutional

Recycling Organics Recycling Organics Recycling Organics

Burnaby

Coquitlam MMBC MMBC Delta

Langley City MMBC MMBC Langley Township

Lions Bay

Maple Ridge

New Westminster

North Vancouver City

North Vancouver District

Pitt Meadows MMBC MMBC

Port Coquitlam Port Moody

Richmond Pilot Pilot

Surrey

Vancouver MMBC MMBC

West Vancouver

White Rock

TOTAL 18 of 18 18 of 18 16 of 18 12 of 18 6 of 18 6 of 18

= Has a policy or program that applies to at least 80% of households or businesses in the municipality

MMBC = Serviced directly by Multi-Material BC

ATTACHMENT

ZWC-40

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

October 19, 2016

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

Dear Chair Brodie and Members,

Re: Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee

OCT Z 5 2016 • lt( Acdon: .......................................................... .. ......................... ................................................ ....................... -· ...................................... u., .•

i~;~·r;~;·: .. :::ext·::::::::::::::::::::·:··:::::::::::::::::: Fda No. ..C.R{~],~~·4J~ .. ~k Doc. No.: ..................... ] ........... .... 2 .~ ... CAO l ra.-.l(er No.: .......................................... .

At the October 17, 2016 Regular Meeting, Delta Council considered the enclosed report from the Human Resources and Corporate Planning Department dated September 30, 2016 regarding the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee and endorsed the following resolutions:

"THAT a copy of this report be provided to the City of Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson and Council; Mr. Sadhu Johnston; City Manager; and Mr. Jerry Dobrovo/ny, General Manager of Engineering Services.

THAT a copy of this report be provided to: a) Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee b) Delta's Environnment Advisory Committee. "

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

Enclosure cc: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver

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

4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 T 604 946-3210 I F 604 946-6055 I E mayor@delta .ca

6.1

ZWC-41

ahilkewi

Text Box

To: Mayor and Council

The Corporation of Delta COUNCIL REPORT

Regular Meeting

From: Human Resources and Corporate Planning

Date: September 30, 2016

Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee

F.12

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

• RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

B. THAT a copy of this report be provided to:

a. Metro Vancouver's Zero Waste Committee

b. Delta's Environment Advisory 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 eighteenth meeting of the Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee (the committee) was held on September 9, 2016. The following items were discussed:

Landfill Gas Collection and Progressive Landfill Closure Works

Overall landfill gas collection efficiency was 79% for the month of August which is calculated using a site specific landfill gas generation model. Vancouver has received support from the Ministry of Environment to reference this model in their reporting . The year to date

ZWC-42

Page 2 of 4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee September 30, 2016

collection efficiency is 73%. A target efficiency of 75% is set out in the BC Landfill Gas Management Regulation.

As noted in previous reports to Council, Vancouver staff advised that discussions are continuing with FortisBC regarding the installation of a system to clean the gas that is currently being flared so that it can be injected into the natural gas pipeline as urenewable natural gas". A report to Vancouver City Council on this project is targeted for this November.

The Ministry of Environment has approved the closure plan for the Western 40 Hectares. The three-year phased implementation of the final closure work for the Western 40 Hectares will begin in 2017 with a final objective to return the area to as natural state as possible as directed by Delta Council. The site will have undulating topography along with large ponds for stormwater retention which will include aquatic plants. After closure, a detailed vegetation plan will be developed in consultation with Delta, which will include seeking advice from the Burns Bog Scientific Advisory Panel to ensure compatibility with the adjacent bog lands. The estimated project budget for implementing the closure plan is $42 million.

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. Methane has a global warming potential that is 25 times greater than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. 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.

The landfill gas collection efficiency was 71% in 2015, meaning 29% of the methane produced was not captured. This uncaptured methane equals 206,048 tonnes of carbon dioxide or approximately 41 ,200 vehicles. Vancouver is continuing to increase the landfill gas collection efficiency as noted previously which is 73% year to date. Each percent increase in landfill gas collection efficiency represents a reduction in emissions comparable to removing 1,400 vehicles from the road.

Landfill Operations

As of July 16, 2016, Metro Vancouver waste previously destined for the Cache Creek landfill has been redirected to the Vancouver Landfill. It is estimated that Metro Vancouver will be hauling approximately 55,000 tonnes of additional waste to the Vancouver Landfill in the last six months of 2016. The Vancouver Landfill does have the capacity for this added waste under its annual Operational Certificate and the total waste flow is still projected to be below historical highs which previously approached the 750,000 tonne per year limit established by the Ministry of Environment. The tri-partite agreement between Metro Vancouver, Vancouver and Delta allows for this waste redistribution in the short term. A long term disposal solution for the regional waste previously being disposed of in Cache Creek is subject to further discussions between the parties, including Delta Council. Vancouver has recently commissioned a study to look at the composition of demolition and construction waste that is being received at the landfill and investigate further opportunities to recover and recycle components of this waste stream.

·.

ZWC-43

Page 3 of4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee September 30. 2016

Waste drywall potentially contains asbestos which was common in the drywall joint compound prior to the 1990s. Recent changes at the drywall recycler have resulted in the material not being accepted for recycling due to Worksafe BC concerns. This has led to an increase in illegal dumping of the material. Vancouver has recently implemented a program where residents can dispose of drywall containing asbestos (or potentially containing) at the landfill provided the material is double bagged in accordance with the regulations. This should help alleviate the increase in illegal dumping of this material.

Regulatory Reporting

It was confirmed at the committee meeting that Delta was receiving regular information on landfill gas, water quality and leachate monitoring from Vancouver. Since the last committee meeting, Vancouver has submitted the Greenhouse Gas Credit Verification report, the Environment Canada and Climate Change Greenhouse Gas report and the National Pollutant Release Inventory reports.

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 are 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 an important mechanism for ensuring ongoing communication between Vancouver and Delta staff related to Vancouver Landfill issues.

d;: Director of Human Resources and Corporate Planning

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

ZWC-44

Page 4 of 4 Vancouver Landfill Technical Liaison Committee September 30, 2016

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

Concurring Departments

Department Name Signature

Engineering Steven Lan ;L • rii - A_+~ r-

Office of Climate Action and Mike Brotherston ~ Environment

• ATTACHMENT: A. Vancouver Landfill fill plan

ZWC-45

::.. .. u Ill Q. Ill u Cll ... ~ .. :J &L

,

Attachment A Page 1 of 1

~ .. c ell I:: ~ u

ZWC-46

November 10, 2016 Delivered by email [email protected]

Paul Henderson

General Manager, Solid Waste Services

Metro Vancouver

4330 Kingsway

Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8

Re: Diversion of Organics from Landfill - Application of Best-Use Policies

Dear Mr. Henderson:

West Coast Reduction Ltd. (“WCRL”) fully supports the Metro Vancouver Organics Disposal Ban

implemented on January 1, 2015 as an important step towards a sustainable future. As a result of this

ban organics have been successfully diverted from landfill. We believe the next step in this process is

to apply best-use policies to all organics ensuring the highest recycling value and most sustainable use.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in comparing the alternatives for

disposing of organics, recovery for human and animal food should take priority over composting as it

creates the most benefits for the environment, society and the economy. Pre-consumer food by-

products including meat and bakery waste, not fit for human consumption, should be used for animal

feeds rather than composting.

6.2

ZWC-47

Application of Best-Use Policies – Organics Ban November 10, 2016

Page 2 of 3

Traditionally pre-consumer meat by-products, including pork, beef, poultry and fish offal and

trimmings have been recycled by renderers into value add commodities including protein meals and

animal fats. These added value finished products provide a low cost protein ingredient for local animal

feed producers, supporting the regional food system in BC.

As a result of the organics disposal ban, pre-consumer meat by-products that historically went to

rendering are being diverted to composting. Retail stores and other organic producers who previously

separated meat by-products are now required to divert all organics. This has resulted in the mixing of

meat by-products with other organics for convenience and has contributed to increased environmental

issues, such as odour, at composting facilities.

Based on discussions with numerous composting operations in B.C. and Alberta, composters would

prefer to exclude pre-consumer meat by-products as this waste is difficult for composters to manage as

it generates issues including:

• undesirable and difficult to treat odours • disease-transmitting organisms

• attraction of vermin • biosecurity

• greenhouse gas emissions (methane) • ground water contamination

West Coast Reduction Ltd. (“WCRL”) has been providing rendering services of pre-consumer meat by-

products in Metro Vancouver since 1964. Over the past 50 plus years, WCRL has made significant

investments in infrastructure to best manage meat by-product recycling.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by the American Registry of Professional Animal

Scientists which highlights that rendering is the superior solution for managing diversion of pre-

consumer meat by-products from landfill.

“Rendering is a mature, regulated industry that entails cooking to remove water and destroy

pathogens. It allows almost complete recovery of fat and protein from the raw material. Fuel

consumption and other rendering plant operations emit about 25% as much carbon dioxide as

complete aerobic decomposition of the meat by-products would release.

If an equal quantity of meat by-products is processed by rendering, composting, and anaerobic

digestion, the economic value of the rendered products is at least 3 times the value of the products

resulting from anaerobic digestion and at least 5 times the value added to compost by inclusion of

the meat by-products. These differences make rendering the most sustainable method for handling

large quantities of animal carcasses and meat by-products.”

Source: The Professional Animal Scientist 32 (2016):259–270; http://dx.doi.org/10.15232/pas.2015-01487

ZWC-48

Application of Best-Use Policies – Organics Ban November 10, 2016

Page 3 of 3

In order to ensure best-use principles are applied and to alleviate the composting issues noted above, we

recommend that Metro Vancouver give serious consideration to incorporating these policies in the

organics ban.

Through our Vancouver rendering facility and our Chilliwack bakery waste recycling facility, WCRL

has sufficient capacity to handle all pre-consumer meat by-products and bakery waste generated in

Metro Vancouver and is able to provide a best-use solution to diversion of these organics from landfill.

WCRL would like to work with Metro Vancouver, waste haulers and composters to advance this best-

use approach to organics recycling.

We look forward to exploring these options or any other ways in which WCRL can help support Metro

Vancouver’s organics ban. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you wish to explore these

matters further.

Yours very truly, Yours very truly, West Coast Reduction Ltd. West Coast Reduction Ltd.

Barry C. Glotman, B.Sc. Ken Ingram. President and Chief Executive Officer Director of Technical and Environmental Services Direct: 604.252.2070 Direct: 604.252.2078

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

BG/KI/RB

cc: Malcom Brodie, Mayor, City of Richmond / Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee

ZWC-49

a metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

NOV 2 8 2016

West Coast Reduction Ltd 1292 Venables Street Vancouver, BC V6A 484

Dear Mr. Glotman and Mr. Ingram:

Re: Food Waste Management Best Practises

Solid Waste Services Tel. 604.432.6442 Fax 604.451.6180

File: BU-28-01

Thank you for your letter of November 10 regarding the management of waste food in the region.

Metro Vancouver's Integrated Solid Waste and Resources Management Plan is based on the established SRs waste management hierarchy, and we share the desire to send all organic wastes and other resources to their highest and best uses wherever practical.

As per my conversation with Ken Ingram, Metro Vancouver is initiating a composting best practises study. As part of that study we will review potential composting feedstocks from both an operational and waste hierarchy perspective with the goal of identifying potential mechanisms to encourage best management of organic materials. As discussed, if West Coast Reduction has available data on quantities, material types and sources of pre-consumer organics that are composted in the region, the data would be a helpful input to the Metro Vancouver study.

For your information, we will include your letter as a correspondence item on the next Zero Waste Committee agenda.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this issue in more detail.

Paul Henderson, P.Eng. General Manager, Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Services

PH/AM/ah

20024937

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4GB • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

6.3

ZWC-50

Reference: 302138

NOV 2 Z 2016

Greg Moore, Chair and Directors

Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC VSH 4G8

Dear Chair Moore and Directors:

Thank you for your letter of July 18, 2016, regarding British Columbia's (BC's) extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs and Metro Vancouver's request to include mattresses and bulky furniture as a regulated product category. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The Ministry of Environment greatly appreciates your support for the Recycling Regulation framework. This regulation is an important part ofBC's work towards zero waste and supporting a circular economy.

BC is a recognized leader for EPR programs in North America with the most extensive series of established programs operating in a well-respected, results-based framework. The ministry intends to continue to be a leader and expand BC's EPR programs as part of our commitment to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility. Furniture, including mattresses and sofas, is a priority product category in the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility; however, this is also currently under review by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

After years of rapid expansion of EPR programs in BC, the ministry is currently focusing on full implementation and continuous improvement of its existing programs before pursuing new EPR programs. As you may be aware, the packaging and printed paper (PPP) program operated by Multi-Material BC is by far the largest and most complex program in the history of EPR programs in BC, and is still to be fully implemented pending further ministry compliance and enforcement efforts on non-compliant PPP producers. Some of our continuous improvement work underway includes:

• An assessment of performance measures across all EPR programs; • Reviewing and developing policy for competition in EPR programs; • Developing stronger requirements for non-financial assurance of annual reports for all EPR

programs; • Enhancing ministry oversight of EPR programs; and • Enhancing the ministry's compliance and enforcement efforts.

Ministry of Environment

0 fficc of the Minister

Mailing Address: Parliament Buildings Victoria BC V8V 1X4

...2

Telephone: 250 387 • 1 187 F:~csimile: 250 387 ·1356

6.4

ZWC-51

ahilkewi

Text Box

-2-

It is expected that following completion of much ofthe continuous improvement work, we will be in a better position to identify products of interest for future EPR initiatives.

The data related to mattresses and furniture as presented to Metro Vancouver's Zero Waste Committee on June 9, 2016, will be important to understand the magnitude ofthe problem, and I understand that Metro Vancouver is continuing to collect data on mattresses and bulky furniture. Such background research and data gathering is useful when the ministry begins its scoping work on new products to be considered for inclusion in the Regulation.

Local government engagement in EPR is paramount to the programs' success. I would like to ack.nuwledge that local government staiThave been very supportive and continue to provide the ministry with feedback on continuous improvement efforts for all EPR programs. The ministry will continue to engage with local government as staff continue work to strengthen the current programs and begin to focus on future EPR diversion opportunities.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

17~ Mary Polak Minister

ZWC-52

vancouver .., ~ Health

Promoting wellness. Ensuring care.

November 25, 2016

Peter Russell Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy Engineering and Public Works Division 6911 No. 3 Road Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 By email: [email protected]

Dear Peter Russell,

Re: Harvest Power's Air Quality Permit

Office of the Chief Medical Health Officer

#800-601 W. Broadway Vancouver, BC VSZ 4C2

Thank you for your letter sent November 4, 2016 to Dr. Meena Dawar seeking a formal response to Richmond City Council regarding any Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) public health investigations or assessments of the potential health impacts of the odour related to Harvest Power. Please find below information on complaints received by VCH, our response to these complaints including a review of the relevant published literature, and the assessment of air quality with Metro Vancouver. In addition, we draw your attention to current provincia l policy intentions to addressing odour caused by organic matter recycling.

Like the City of Richmond, VCH-Richmond Public Health also receives complaints from members of the public about odour. The majority of reports are about diminished quality of life ("air used to be fresh in Richmond, now it stinks all the time"), a minority have reported concerns about their own health or of their family members, and a few have mentioned symptoms (nausea, vomiting, headaches, feeling unwell). These individuals are referred to Metro Vancouver as the governing body responsible for air quality monitoring in Richmond. VCH Environmental Health Officers are prepared to speak with the complainants, if requested, and have spoken with approximately 6 individuals in 2015 and 30 in 2016. In addition, Metro Vancouver sends VCH an anonymized list of reports on days when they receive 2: 10 complaints; these have been arriving to Richmond Public Health almost daily in the recent weeks. As always, we also advise individua ls reporting health concerns to see their family physician. However, we are not aware of any increase in health care utilization at VCH facilities or in community physician offices from health complaints associated with odour.

VCH staff do not conduct onsite assessments at Harvest Power to address odour issues as this falls within the purview of Metro Vancouver.

We have reviewed the situation with Metro Vancouver staff. Metro Vancouver confirms that the source of the recent odour episodes is likely Harvest Power. Metro Vancouver shared information on complaints received over a recent two day period (November 18-19, 2016). A total of 97 complaints were made by the members of the public who reported the following concerns: Odour (100%), difficulty with opening windows or going outside (14%), and health symptoms (21%). Among individuals who reported health symptoms, the following symptoms were reported: Nausea, respiratory symptoms such as cough or difficulty breathing, symptoms of irritation such

Promoting wellness. Ensuring care. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority 1

6.5

ZWC-53

vancouver ""' ------Health



#800-601 W. Broadway Vancouver, BC V5Z 4C2

as burning eyes, headache, and vomiting. These are consistent with those noted in the published environmental health literature on the impacts of unpleasant odours from composting (and other sources).

We also reviewed with Metro Vancouver staff their monitoring data for Harvest Power. The total level of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) released from the composting processes at Harvest Power has gone up since 2013. This likely explains the recent increase in odour complaints. Given the sensitivity of the human nose, odour from VOCs produced from com posting can be detected at levels much lower than levels that would result in long term harm. Some residents have expressed concern about bioaerosols. Metro Vancouver does not require measurement of bioaerosols (organic particles consisting of animal, plant or microbial particles). Our literature review confirms that while bioaerosols are relevant to the occupational health of staff at the com posting facility, they should not impact the health of surrounding residents given the location of Harvest Power relative to the location of residences. Based on the information provided by Metro Vancouver and our literature review, we are satisfied that while Harvest Power is generating extremely unpleasant odorous compounds, the air emissions from the operation are unlikely to cause health effects in addition to ones triggered by the offensive smell. Therefore, as th is issue does not meet the threshold of a health hazard, VCH Medical Health Officers and Environmental Health Officers are not planning further health assessments at this time.

Nevertheless, based on calls we and Metro Vancouver have received, the odour from com posting operations at Harvest Power is affecting the quality of life and well-being of residents in Richmond. Information from the complaints suggests the odour is causing physical discomfort for some Richmond residents . This is not acceptable.

While even a well-designed, constructed and operated compost system will not be odour-free, it should not produce offensive odours. Metro Vancouver is the delegated authority for regulating air emissions in our region, including odour causing air contaminants. Adequate odour management is imperative for community wellbeing. VCH Medical Health Officers and Environmental Health Officers support the conditions placed by Metro Vancouver on Harvest Power's new permit for odour management.

Finally, the British Columbia government has recognized the need for a better regulatory framework for odour management in the recycling of organic matter. To this end, the Ministry of Environment published an Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Policy Intention Paper in October 2016. The ministry is soliciting feedback to the policy proposals until December 2, 2016.1 The City of Richmond's experience with responding to odour from the Harvest Power facility could be most informative for the policy reviewers. We encourage the City and the community to submit feedback to this provincial policy review. Sinch Patricia Daly MD, FRCPC Chief Medical Health Officer

1 http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/recycling/organics/regulations-guidelines

Promoting welln es s. Ensuring c are. Vancouver C o astal H e alth Authority 2

ZWC-54

vancouver _, -------' Health


Cc: Malcolm Brodie Mayor, City of Richmond

Dr. Meena Dawar Medical Health Officer, Richmond

Dr. James lu Medical Health Officer, Envi ronmenta l Health

Claud ia Kurzac Manager, Health Protect ion - Richmond

Ray Robb Environmental Regu lation and Enforcement Division Manager Metro Vancouver


#800-601 W. Broadway Vancouver, BC V5Z 4C2

Promoting wellness. Ensuring care. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority 3

ZWC-55

~~ metrovancouver .. SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

DEC 0 2 ?fJ1~ Chris Jenkins Director, Clean Technologies Ministry of Environment PO Box 9341 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9Ml VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Dear Chris:

Re: Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Intentions Paper Review

Liquid Waste Services

Tel. 604.456.8818

File: CR-07-02

Please find attached Metro Vancouver staff comments in response to the request for comments on the information and proposals outlined in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Policy Intentions Paper. These comments present the views of Metro Vancouver staff, and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board.

Kind regards,

fol' •..

laurie Ford Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management Liquid Waste Services LF/RG/TG

Encl: Attachment

20120433

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org ----------~---------------


ZWC-56

MKINGDON

Typewritten Text

6.6

MKINGDON

Typewritten Text

Page 2 of 16 20120433

REVIEW OF ORGANIC MATTER RECYCLING REGULATION RESPONSE FORM – 2016 Intentions Paper

The following comments are provided by Metro Vancouver in response to the October 2016 Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) Policy Intentions Paper published by BC Ministry of Environment.

General Questions

G1. Overall, please indicate your level of support for the proposed revisions to the OMRR described in the intentions paper: Please select one box from the scale below (1 = Not at all supportive; 6 = Extremely supportive)

Three (3)

G2. What are the reasons for your choice?

The proposed intentions paper lacks specificity needed in order for stakeholders to provide an informed response. OMRR was designed to enable organic matter recycling, while ensuring protection of human health and the environment; without the details, it is unknown how the proposed revisions will affect the ability to recycle organic matter and achieve a greater level of human health/environmental protection.

G3. Do you have any general comments about the ministry’s proposed revisions to the OMRR?

Because of the high level nature of the intentions paper, it is critical for the Ministry to allow for a round of submissions and comments on a draft of the revised regulation prior to implementing final amendments. Without the specifics, we cannot comment on any revisions that could have a significant impact on the ability to recycle organic matter. “Management and Recycling of Organic Matter” (page 3 of intentions paper): We recommend that Ministry directors should consult with Medical Health Officers when reviewing and issuing permits for composting facilities, in addition to review of land application. “Waste and Climate Action in British Columbia” (page 4 of intentions paper): This section talks about GHGs, but does not mention methane or the process by which it is formed (anaerobic decomposition). Although the prevention of landfill disposal of organic matter is mentioned, it would be helpful to clearly identify that one of the primary reasons for this practice is to avoid methane production in the landfill and subsequent release to the atmosphere. Although climate change and climate action are a key environmental concern for the Provincial Government, the Regulation currently does not contain the terms “climate”, “climate change”, “greenhouse gas”, or “methane” (that is formed when organic matter decomposes anaerobically, e.g. in an unoptimized organic matter treatment facility or when organic matter is landfilled).

PROPOSED UPDATES 1. Organic Matter Suitable for Composting

The OMRR sets out a list of organic matter suitable for composting and management under the regulation. Sections 1.1 to 1.4 of the intentions paper (pages 5 to 6) outline how differing types of material may be defined and regulated under the OMRR.

ZWC-57

20120433

1.1. Do you have any comments regarding the definitions and regulation of organic matter suitable or not suitable for composting under the OMRR or other regulations?

We support the expanded definition of "untreated and unprocessed wood residuals." However, there is concern that implementing general permission, such as regulation under the OMRR, that this may result in circumventing or misdirecting this material from existing established higher valued recycling, only for the purpose of being diverted to a lower valued recycling use such as Class B compost. It is recommended that wording above Schedule 12 include: “Organic matter in the following table may be composted into Class A compost or Class B compost where there are no higher valued recycling options, or where the quantity of organic matter listed exceeds the capacity of higher valued recycling options available.” Given some compostable plastics are not derived from renewable materials and may be derived from petroleum, how will the definition of compostable plastics be articulated in the regulation (i.e. will it exclude compostable plastics derived from petroleum)? The Ministry needs to establish a regulatory verification process to ensure that facilities that are composting any undigested sludge (including domestic composting toilet sludge, domestic septic tank sludge, municipal sewage sludge, etc.) are meeting the OMRR’s Schedule 1 (pathogen reduction processes), Schedule 2 (vector attraction reduction), and Schedule 6 (record keeping). Without a robust verification process by the Ministry, land application of the finished product cannot be considered protective of human health, and we would not be supportive of the inclusion of “domestic composting toilet sludge” in the Schedule 12 as materials suitable for composting. It would be useful for the director to have discretionary authority to approve additional materials suitable for composting under the OMRR on a case specific basis. To reduce contamination in both managed organic matter and retail‐grade organic matter, we would like the definition of “food waste” in Section 12 modified to read: Recyclable food for humans that has been diverted at source from residential, commercial or institutional sources. The proposed definition for “paper and cardboard that cannot be reasonably recycled into a paper product” lacks specificity, given that recyclable paper and cardboard can become unfit for recycling if these materials are not separated at the source and come into contact with wet garbage. The definition could be improved by referring to specific materials: “source‐separated, food‐soiled paper and cardboard that cannot be reasonably recycled into a paper product, specifically: disposable plates, napkins, food containers, beverage containers, parchment paper, paper towels, newspaper liners, and food‐soiled cardboard boxes.” OMRR needs to be clear about whether waxed cardboard will be accepted.

2. Composting Facilities

Composting facilities under OMRR must ensure protection of human health and the environment. Adopting best practices and completing plans and reports help address regulatory requirements.

2.1. Best practices (see intentions paper page 6) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

ZWC-58

Ministry of Environment OMRR Reg Review

Page 4 of 16

20120433

Ministry intends to amend the OMRR to “require any materials, products or substances at the composting facility, including organic matter, ….to be stored in a manner that prevents access by, and attraction of, wildlife, domestic animals, birds and associated vectors.” Is it the Ministry’s intent to specify the accepted storage methods in the OMRR, or will the Ministry reference best management practices (i.e., be open to a host of management practices)? We encourage the Ministry to require mandatory compost facility operator training to ensure a baseline expertise that is common across all sites. It would be beneficial to expand the proposed amendment to require any material, products, or substances to be managed and stored in a manner that prevents impacts of odorous air contaminants on communities surrounding compost facilities. OMRR supporting best management practices should include guidance for monitoring odours. In relation to air quality, it would be beneficial for the OMRR to reference best management practices for buffers around compost facilities (distance, vegetation screening, wind direction, etc.) to provide a basis for municipal or regional district zoning and related bylaws, given the Ministry's greater knowledge of potential impacts of compost facilities and suitable buffers for mitigation of odour impacts. With reference to “Composting Facilities must ensure protection of human health and the environment”, we recommend OMRR mention methane management as an aspect of protecting the environment. GHGs from a well‐managed composting facility are expected to be reasonably low. OMRR’s provisions around aerobic conditions, oxygen saturation, and moisture content in the active composting process should align with composting best management practices that have been demonstrated to minimize GHGs.

2.2. Plans, reports and associated requirements (see intentions paper page 7)

Do you have any comments regarding the ministry intention to update provisions so that all composting facilities designed to produce 5,000 tonnes or greater of compost per year prepare a facility environmental management plan (FEMP)?

We support the submission of "facility environmental management plans", including odour management

plans, from composting facilities designed to produce 5,000 tonnes or greater of compost per year that

are accepting food waste or biosolids. OMRR needs to identify the specific submission requirements for a

facility environmental management plan for consistency across facilities. We suggest that composting

facilities be regulated according to the tonnage of compostable organic material received at the facility,

rather than by the production capacity.

For clarity around composting facility permit requirements, we recommend the OMRR include the following: “Where regional districts have obtained ministerial approval under Section 34 of the Environmental Management Act (EMA) for regulatory bylaws, as recognized under Section 25 (Authority to regulate the management of municipal solid waste and recyclable material in regional districts), or where regional districts have bylaws in place under Section 31 (Control of air contaminants in Greater Vancouver) of EMA, composting facilities that require an OMRR Permit must also adhere to the regional authority requirements as recognized under the EMA.”

ZWC-59


Page 5 of 16

20120433

In order to control the spread of invasive species, we recommend the OMRR require industrial composting facilities to:

a) include an invasive species management strategy within their facility environmental

management plan or environmental impact study. Land owners are already required to control

noxious weeds on their property per Section 2 of the Weed Control Act, but a requirement for a

qualified professional to prepare an invasive species management strategy would ensure the

implementation of preventative measures and best practices to reduce the spread of noxious

weeds and invasive insects.

b) conduct periodic third party sampling and testing for noxious weed seeds and propagules, and

invasive insects. Noxious weeds are defined under Schedule A – Parts I and II of the Weed Control

Regulation. For weed seed and propagule sampling frequencies, test methods and limits, consider

those from the British Standards Institute (BSI PAS‐100‐2011).

Invasive species can damage infrastructure, reduce ecological health and threaten public health. For example:

Knotweeds can damage infrastructure and displace native plants, significantly impacting

biodiversity and eroding stream banks.

Giant hogweed has highly toxic sap that causes hypersensitivity to sunlight resulting in painful

and recurring burns, blisters, and scarring after contact with skin.

European fire ants can swarm and deliver a painful sting when disturbed and, in some severe

cases, cause anaphylaxis and lead to hospitalization.

European chafer beetles have destroyed lawns throughout the Lower Mainland and could

impact crops in the Fraser Valley and beyond.

Industrial composting facilities provide a valuable service to municipalities and businesses looking for a responsible invasive species destruction option. However, there have been anecdotal reports of invasive plants growing in compost purchased from these facilities. Requirements for periodic testing of noxious weed seeds, propagules and invasive insects will a) validate the effectiveness of temperature and duration requirements for each method of composting in the regulation, b) reduce the risk of invasive species spreading via this vector, and c) increase consumer confidence. With increasing production of compost expected in the Province, testing will provide assurances that compost is not a significant vector to spread noxious weeds and invasive insects. In addition to “environmental impact study, odour management plan, operating plan, and leachate management plan”, the facility environmental management plan should also include a screening level human health impact assessment. The specific requirements for each facility’s human health impact assessment should be developed in consultation with the relevant Medical Health Officers for the area in which the facility is to be located.

3. Land Application and Distribution of Managed Organic Matter

The OMRR is designed to ensure that managed organic matter is used in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

ZWC-60


Page 6 of 16

20120433

3.1. Addition of new standards (see intentions paper page 7)

Do you have any comments regarding the ministry’s intention to introduce regulatory standards for chromium and copper for Class A biosolids?

Chromium and Copper in Class A biosolids: The OMRR currently states: “Class A biosolids must not contain elements at concentrations above those specified in Trade Memorandum T‐4‐93 …, Standards for Fertilizers and Supplements, as amended from time‐to‐time…” For clarity, we recommend eliminating the T‐4‐93 reference for Class A biosolids in the OMRR and replacing with a fourth column in Schedule 4 “Class A biosolids” to specify all trace element limits for Class A biosolids. ESOCs and Legacy Compounds: o The basis for potential inclusion of emerging substances of concern (ESOC) and legacy organics is not

clear in the intentions paper. Given that the presence of a constituent in managed organic matter

does not necessarily equal risk, the addition of numeric limits for these substances could have

profound impacts on organics recycling without a clear benefit to public health and the environment.

The additional requirements for testing represents a significant cost to utilities/taxpayers, in particular

for smaller municipalities. If there is not sufficient justification for these standards, directing these

resources to Source Control initiatives would be of greater benefit to public health and the

environment.

o In order for the Ministry to include these substances in OMRR, the following would be required:

specific indicator chemicals that will be regulated, with recommended established analytical methods;

numerical standards and the basis for their selection; risk assessment results such as has been done

for the existing parameters in OMRR; frequency of testing; cost implication to utilities/tax payers, etc.

o Because of the limited scope and First Nations participation in the Province’s Review of Biosolids

(literature review and sampling project), it is recommended the Ministry commission a

comprehensive review of all available alternatives and set up replicated study plots, in collaboration

with all regulators, First Nations, environmental non‐government organizations, generators,

academia, and industry, to advance the understanding of the issue more fully.

3.2 Land application (see intentions paper pages 7 to 8) Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding this topic?

Given that Biosolids Growing Medium is defined in the intentions paper as a soil amendment as opposed to a soil, we don’t support limiting application rates of soil amendments to agronomic requirements as it will prohibit the ability to use Biosolids Growing Medium as a topsoil/landscaping soil, and has the potential to eliminate novel and beneficial uses of biosolids. We support the responsible use of organic manner on land where it is beneficial and offer the following for the Ministry’s consideration:

o Organic matter is applied to land to achieve many different goals (as a soil amendment to aid

plant growth on agricultural land, to increase growth/yield in forestry, to reclaim land devoid of

organic matter and the ability to be revegetated, provide erosion control/slope stability, etc.). As

ZWC-61


Page 7 of 16

20120433

the starting point and the desired end goal are different in all these cases, there are a multitude

of factors to consider in designing an appropriate application rate.

o Application of organic matter is conducted on a non‐agronomic bases where there is no

vegetation or established soil system; and, it is often applied to enhance soil development,

providing organic matter and nutrient capital to initiate vegetation establishment and nutrient

cycling (as is the case in land reclamation, consistent with the Ministry’s Land Application

Guidelines for the OMRR and Soil Amendment Code of Practice: Best Management Practices

(2008)). Although the Ministry intends to amend the OMRR to enable the director to issue

permits/approval for mine site reclamation and landfill closure, there are several situations

outside of mines and landfills where non‐agronomic applications would benefit sites where the

soil system is not established and lacks vegetation.

o Biosolids growing medium (BGM) is classified as a soil amendment in the intentions paper,

requiring its application to be limited to agronomic requirements. It is unclear how this would be

practicable. How would an agronomic rate for a landscaping soil such as BGM be determined? Is

it intended that each and every location where BGM is used, the agronomic rate must be

determined, measured, and monitored? Will a qualified professional need to be engaged for every

site where BGM is used to confirm the agronomic requirements are met? This would not be

practical and would severely limit the use of BGM as a topsoil/landscaping soil alternative.

o As it’s currently regulated, BGM is a viable alternative to other manufactured topsoil/landscaping

soil and provides a sustainable, beneficial use of biosolids in urban areas. The function of

topsoil/landscaping soil is to provide a planting substrate (e.g. in new garden installations) that

allows a sufficient rooting depth for trees/shrubs, in addition to providing nutrients and organic

matter. This is a different function than amending an area of soil through application of fertilizer,

or compost. By limiting BGM to an agronomic application rate, the use of biosolids to make BGM

for topsoil/landscaping soil is not viable.

o BGM end quality standards currently limit the potential for over‐application of nutrients by

limiting total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and organic matter content. The intention to limit

application rates of biosolids growing medium (which the intentions paper includes in the

definition of soil amendments) to agronomic requirements appears to be in conflict with the

intention to increase the allowable TKN in BGM from <0.6% to <1.0%, eliminate the C:N, and

increase organic matter content from 15% maximum to 20% maximum.

o With respect to the Ministry’s intention to specify land application plans must include a

contingency plan in the event that sampling and monitoring results suggest non‐compliance, what

specifically will Ministry require in a contingency plan?

3.3. Mine site reclamations and landfill closures (see intentions paper page 8) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

ZWC-62


Page 8 of 16

20120433

We support a director‐issued permit/authorization, with the understanding that this would allow consideration of application rates in excess of agronomic requirements that are typically required for effective land/mine reclamation/restoration projects. However, the process needs to be clearly laid out in the regulation, streamlined and timely, in order to enable responsiveness to opportunities when they arise, and to meet other regulatory requirements of a project (e.g. the landfill closure date). The OMRR needs to include the specific protocol and steps required in order to obtain a permit/approval, and the timeline for the Ministry’s response. This is necessary for clarity among all parties, and to ensure consistency across the Province, as historically there has been inconsistency across regional offices. A critical component of the protocol will be the requirements around notification/consultation, recognizing that the time required to undertake full consultation could prohibit organics recycling opportunities, and may not be appropriate in all cases (such as landfill closures). We support enabling use of biosolids to reclaim mine sites, which has been proven by many case studies to accelerate plant growth through soil forming processes (e.g. increasing microbial activity, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration). In addition to the soil development benefits, rapid vegetation establishment and sustained yields greatly reduce harmful environmental and human health impacts often associated with surface erosion issues encountered on mine sites (e.g. assist in reducing wind‐blown dust/contaminants). Historically, the OMRR has not enabled development of new opportunities to reclaim mine sites because mines inherently have natural metals concentrations that are higher than those shown in Schedules 9 and 10, and the Ministry did not have approved protocols for development of site‐specific numeric soil standard. Since the enactment of OMRR (2002), Metro Vancouver has not been able to develop any new biosolids mine reclamation projects; work done was under biosolids permits issued prior to 2002. A clear process for addressing sites with naturally occurring high background levels of trace elements (non‐landfill/mine sites) also needs to be included in the amended OMRR. We support enabling use of biosolids for landfill closures, which has potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases from landfills, which are a significant source of provincial GHGs. To date, biosolids have been beneficially used in BC landfill closures under the landfill closure plan with some guidance from Ministry personnel on a case‐by‐case basis. Biosolids have been used as part of final cover in the form of fabricated soil designed for a particular end use (e.g., parkland), as a component of a “biocover” or “biofilter” for methane mitigation, and in evapotranspiration covers. This can be done with significantly lower costs than active landfill gas capture systems, so it may be of value to use on unregulated (small) landfills where an active system is not mandatory, yet significant quantities of methane are being produced, and in regulated landfills in cases where landfill design, geological or climate conditions would not support a landfill gas capture system. The greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration benefits related to land application of organic matter and landfill closure with organic matter should be considered in policy development. Land application of organic matter has the potential to result in significant carbon sequestration, primarily through the additional carbon stored in the soil, and also through the increased growth rate of plants and trees on the land.

ZWC-63


Page 9 of 16

20120433

4. Notification under OMRR

The ministry has received feedback from stakeholders that existing notification requirements in the OMRR are inadequate and there is a need for the regulation to provide increased public transparency.

4.1.1 Composting facilities (see intentions paper page 8) (a) Do you have any comments regarding the ministry’s intention to amend the OMRR and include notification provisions for composting facilities?

We support the proposed notification provisions for composting facilities that produce less than 5,000 tonnes of compost per year and do not require a permit, in addition to the existing notification provisions for larger facilities. For biosolids growing medium facilities, it is understood that notification requirements are the same as composting facilities that do not require a permit. Our interpretation of the Intention Paper is that information submitted to the Ministry by the Proponent will be made available on‐line to the public by the Ministry. What is the process for responding to public concerns, and who is responsible to do it? What is the process if there is opposition by members of the public to a facility? Will there be a prescribed time limit for public feedback on the proposed facility? For biosolids growing medium facilities, it would be enabling if the director was allowed discretionary authority over the 90 day notice on a case‐by‐case basis, in order to respond to smaller scale projects that arise on short notice, where a temporary biosolids growing medium (BGM) mixing operation may be needed (e.g., to create a large volume of BGM on site for use in a park). In regards to “compost facilities must notify the ministry…of significant amendments”, how is “significant” defined? Regarding, notifying of “any change within 30 days of the change”, what specifically would the Ministry consider to be a “change”?

(b) Please indicate your level of support for the proposed notification provisions for composting facilities? Please select one box from the scale below (1 = Not at all supportive; 6 = Extremely supportive)

Two (2)

(c) What are the reasons for your choice in question 4.1.1(b)?

There is not enough information in the intentions paper with regards to how the process will be affected by public comments or concerns (see comment 4.1.1 (a)).

4.1.2 Land application (see intentions paper pages 8 to 9) (a) Do you have any comments regarding the ministry’s intention to amend the OMRR and include notification provisions for land application and distribution of managed organic matter?

Same comment as 4.1.1 (a): Our interpretation of the Intention Paper is that information submitted to the Ministry by the Proponent will be made available on‐line to the public by the Ministry. What is the process for responding to public concerns, and who is responsible to do it? What is the process if there is

ZWC-64


Page 10 of 16

20120433

opposition by members of the public to the land application? Will there be a prescribed time limit for public feedback on the application? At what point in the process does the Ministry intend to publicly post land application plans? We recommend the Ministry not post land application plans until they are considered accepted by the regulator (i.e. after the 30 day submittal period) as there is potential for land application plans to change significantly during the 30 day period if the regulators require clarifications, or changes to the plan. Additionally, if the regulators deny a land application plan during the 30 day period there is no value in having the plan publicly posted. Regarding “[LAPs and other plans] will be made available online to the public”, how will the Ministry address privacy issues? (e.g., this has the potential for private land owners to be targeted/harassed by land application opponents). Has this process been implemented for other regulations such as the CSR? Regarding, notifying of “any change within 30 days of the change”, what specifically would the Ministry consider to be a “change” (are there defined thresholds, e.g. land application rates increased by 10%)? The Ministry intends “producers of compost that contains biosolids or biosolids growing medium disclose to users that the product contains biosolids irrespective of the volume of compost or biosolids growing medium distributed (i.e., even if less than 5m3).” Please define “users” (is it the purchaser)? We recommend that OMRR require all printed/promotional materials, websites, and all bills of sale disclose biosolids as an ingredient in biosolids growing medium and compost. Regarding potential requirement for notification of large volume applications of Class A compost and Biosolids Growing Medium: What volume (m3) is considered large and what is the basis for that threshold?

(b) Please indicate your level of support for the proposed notification provisions for land application and distribution of organic matter? Please select one box from the scale below (1 = Not at all supportive; 6 = Extremely supportive)

Two (2)

(c) What are the reasons for your choice in question 4.1.2(b)?

There is not enough information in the intentions paper with regards to how the process will be affected by public comments or concerns (see comment 4.1.2 (a)). We recommend the Ministry follow the SILGA Resolution/UBCM Resolution B‐59 to develop more robust outreach/engagement processes for inclusion in the OMRR, with increased community acceptance. Without a clear response mechanism to public feedback, making this information accessible may further frustrate the process, and community members.

4.2. Engagement with First Nations (see intentions paper page 9) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

ZWC-65


Page 11 of 16

20120433

The intentions paper does not provide sufficient detail on the implementation of this proposed policy. Details on the method and process of notification needs to be clearly outlined in the regulation, and include the following: o What is the required notification method (e.g. letter, fax, email), contact person (e.g. Chief, council,

Land Resources Manager, administrator), etc.

o Will the Ministry advise proponents which specific First Nations communities must be notified for

each project? If not, how will a proponent identify all First Nations having interest in an area?

o What is the process for responding to comments and concerns submitted by a First Nations

community, or individual members, regarding a compost facility, biosolids growing medium facility,

or land application plan? Is there a maximum time frame for answering and resolving concerns? Who

is involved in the process?

5. Sampling, Monitoring and Record Keeping

5.1. Sampling and monitoring requirements (see intentions paper page 9) (a) Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the proposed revisions to sampling requirements?

What is the definition of “finished product”? Biosolids, compost, soil? With respect to “Sampling of the finished product will be done based on volume rather than mass to ensure accuracy and consistency and ease of operation”, sampling based on volume makes sense for compost and biosolids growing medium. However, for straight biosolids cake, mass makes more sense, as biosolids are tracked by (mass) hauling records (wastewater treatment facilities scale biosolids haul trucks leaving the facility or on the highway). Biosolids density varies from plant to plant and during operational changes, so volume between plants will not be directly comparable; as well, conversions based on density have more opportunities for errors. Land application rates and physical applications for biosolids are determined and conducted on a dry tonne basis. Clarification is required re “Fecal coliform levels must be met in all seven discrete (not representative) samples.” Will this apply to Class A biosolids and Class A compost, as specified in OMRR Schedule 3, Section 4 and will the same criteria remain for Class B biosolids as specified in Schedule 3, Section 8 remain? (OMRR Schedule 3, Section 8: fecal coliform levels for Class B biosolids and Class B compost must be met for the geometric mean of 7 discrete samples). We recommend to increase frequency of biosolids sampling by amending OMRR Schedule 5, which currently requires “sampling be carried out at intervals of at least every 1,000 dry tonnes of organic matter or once per year whichever occurs first” to: intervals of at least three times for every 1,000 dry tonnes organic matter, or once per month, whichever occurs first. Under the current requirements, some small facilities are only required to sample once a year, which does not help public confidence.

ZWC-66


Page 12 of 16

20120433

(b) Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the proposed requirements for confirmatory soil sampling and monitoring?

The intentions paper indicates “proposed revisions will introduce requirements for soil sampling and monitoring to be conducted at the land application sites, including after each land application occurrence where a land application plan is required.” More detail is needed in order to comment on this issue, such as: How long will monitoring be required? What informs, or determines the length of time for monitoring? What are the Ministry’s intended requirements around soil sampling and monitoring (what is covered under ‘monitoring’, e.g. ground water, surface water, vegetation)? OMRR supporting manuals and guidelines should include standards and procedures for monitoring compost maturity.

5.2. Record keeping requirements (see intentions paper pages 9) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

We support increasing the record keeping from the current 3 years to 7 years, as consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Although maintaining records for 10 years, as proposed in the intentions paper, may not present a challenge for larger organizations it could be overly burdensome for smaller facilities/municipalities.

6. Updates to Technical Standards The proposed amendments will ensure that the OMRR is consistent and harmonized with national and provincial standards, legislation and regulations.

6.1. Consistency of schedules with other national standards and regulations (see intentions paper page 10) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

The intentions paper includes “adding maximum limits for Salmonella (as already required by CFIA T‐4‐120 trade memoranda for the regulation of compost)”. Please clarify the intent is to add salmonella testing to compost only (T‐4‐120 trade memorandum requires Salmonella for compost, not biosolids). If the intention is to consider adding Salmonella testing to biosolids standards, we recommend OMRR stipulate biosolids must meet fecal coliform or salmonella, as is the case under the US EPA Part 503 biosolids rule. The addition of salmonella testing to fecal coliform testing for biosolids would result in considerable additional costs, without clear scientific justification or benefit to public health and safety. To improve the final quality of compost and biosolids growing medium, we propose for these materials that the limitation on foreign matter content in Schedule 4 (2)(a) be changed to:

Foreign matter content less than or equal to 0.5% dry weight.

No more than 20% by dry weight of this 0.5% shall be film plastic greater than 4 millimeters.

This change would be consistent with California’s Composting Operations Regulatory Requirements:

Section 17868.3.1 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/regulations/title14/ch31a5.htm

ZWC-67


Page 13 of 16

20120433

(a) Compost shall not contain more than 0.5% by dry weight of physical contaminants greater than 4 millimeters; no more than 20% by dry weight; of this, 0.5% shall be film plastic greater than 4 millimeters.

We recommend that a standard test method for foreign matter content be established and referenced in the OMRR to improve quality in compost and biosolids growing medium. Currently, there are no specific methods in the OMRR or in the Guidelines for Sampling of Biosolids, Compost, Soil and Vegetation under the BC OMRR (2002) for defining and quantifying foreign matter. Although there are methods put forth by provincial and federal organizations, such as the BC Ministry of Environment’s British Columbia Field Sampling Manual (2013), the manual does not adequately describe a sampling method or define a specific sample size or frequency. There is currently inconsistency in results from different test methods used in BC. We strongly support strengthening the OMRR standards for compost maturity by aligning with Section 3.4 in CCME Guidelines for Compost Quality PN1340 (2005). The proposed amendments should go further by updating Section 2 (iv) of OMRR ("the compost must not re‐heat upon standing to greater than 20° Celsius above ambient temperature") to align with Section 3.4 (c) of the CCME Guidelines for Compost Quality PN1340 (2005) ("the temperature rise of the compost above ambient temperature is less than 8°C"). We strongly support extending curing time requirements for compost or introducing a requirement to demonstrate maturity according to CCME standards if curing time for compost is less than 14 days.

6.2. Consistency with the Contaminated Sites Regulation (see intentions paper page 10) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

Details regarding which sections of the Contaminated Sites Regulation (CSR) will be referenced in the OMRR are not provided in the intentions paper; it is assumed the reference is to OMRR Schedules 9 and 10, but the OMRR needs to be very specific as to which standard is being referenced in the CSR. The CSR background release mechanism and risk based standards that are built into the CSR must also be included/referenced directly in the OMRR, as these are not currently included in the OMRR. For example, the OMRR currently includes only numerical standards, but risk based standards should also be included. CSR Protocol 21 Water Use Determination provides criteria to determine groundwater uses at site and

therefore informs the selection of the appropriate numeric soil standard for a site. Land application of

biosolids does not create a contaminated site, but because it is referencing the CSR standards, OMRR

needs to be explicit about how to interpret groundwater uses in the CSR as they apply to biosolids use.

We recommend that OMRR supporting Best Management Practices be updated to provide

recommendations around water use determination (and therefore the appropriate numeric soil standard)

to inform the land application of Class A biosolids.

Given the expansion of the CSR to cover emerging compounds in water, OMRR Part 2, Section 4 Contaminated Sites, should be updated to include an exemption of sites that have previously had biosolids applied and, in addition to soil, include water.

ZWC-68


Page 14 of 16

20120433

The intentions paper indicates “revisions will consider all provincial regulations, including the CSR made under the Environmental Management Act.” It would be helpful to know which other regulations, other than CSR and Agricultural Waste Control Regulation (AWCR) the Ministry has considered (e.g., landfill regulations).

6.3. Consistency with the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation (see intentions paper page 10) Do you have any comments regarding this topic?

The Ministry intends to harmonize and ensure consistency between the AWCR and the OMRR, particularly in regard to land application of soil amendments by agricultural operations. Is it the intent of the Ministry to reference only the land application requirements (i.e., Part 5 — Application and Composting of Agricultural Waste) of the AWCR? The AWCR is currently under revision, additions or changes to the AWCR could significantly impact the OMRR and beneficial use of organic matter. Will the AWCR include requirements around notification consistent with the OMRR?

7. Additional Housekeeping Changes Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the proposed housekeeping changes (see intentions paper page 10)?

We recommend the Ministry add a regulatory commitment in the OMRR to a 5 year fixed term of updating the regulation. This is consistent with the CSR Stage 10 omnibus and will provide stakeholders certainty about timing of future changes.

The exemption for small composting sites that process less than 20 m3/year of food waste and yard waste should be subject to the condition that the activities do not cause pollution.

8. Development of Guidance Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding development of guidance (see intentions paper pages 10 to 11)?

We recommend the OMRR identify the Ministry contact/position that generators, professionals, public and regulators should go to for more information if they have questions, as it’s not currently clear. In addition, in order for the regulation to be interpreted consistently across the Ministry’s regional offices, it is critical that an interpretation mechanism and process be clearly laid out in the OMRR (as identified by other comments provided in this response). We recommend updating Section 10.1 Public Information and Community Considerations of the Land Application Guidelines for the OMRR and Soil Amendment Code of Practice: Best Management Practices (2008) to include references to: the CCME’s Guidance Document for Beneficial Use of Municipal Biosolids, Municipal Sludge and Treated Septage (2012); and WERF’s Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust (2004), and Conducting Effective Community Outreach and Dialogue on Biosolids Land Application (2011).

ZWC-69


Page 15 of 16

20120433

We recommend that the odour management plan for composting facilities should describe how air contaminants will be “monitored, managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that minimizes the impacts associated with air contaminants, including odorous air contaminants” instead of allowing facilities to reach the threshold where air contaminants from the facility are "managed, treated, and discharged in a manner that does not cause pollution" (as is presently stated in the intentions paper). Facilities need to be required to proactively monitor (measure) operations and document monitoring to ensure they are staying well below threshold levels. OMRR should specify how threshold levels will be set.

9. Assuring Compliance Do you have any comments regarding this topic (see intentions paper page 11)?

We support the Ministry’s compliance promotion to include training of Ministry staff, to address historical inconsistencies in regulation across the Province. We also support the Ministry providing information and education for regulated parties; and, encourage the Ministry to extend this information and education approach to the general public to help increase awareness and transparency and to build relationships with communities. We recommend that Ministry inspections include routine and random checks, documented site inspections at land application sites, compost facilities, and biosolids growing medium production facilities. Enforcement of the regulations, through inspections, would increase credibility of the safety of organics composting/land application, ensuring all activities are meeting a baseline standard (and protects well managed programs from being vulnerable to shortcomings of less rigorously managed programs). Inspection activities may also bolster public confidence in the regulation and the practice of recycling and land applying organic matter. One conclusion of the US National Academy of Science study on the safety of biosolids was that increased regulation/regulatory presence would greatly increase the credibility of [biosolids] land application. It is unclear what is meant by the statement “Compliance verification will also occur through the addition of contingency provisions to land application plans.”

Additional Comments Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the ministry regarding the proposed revisions to the regulation?

We recommend: o the Ministry provide the specific standards and processes it proposes to implement prior to

promulgation of the regulation.

o the terms director, septage, sludge, soil conditioner, and notification be added to OMRR Part 1

Definitions.

o the director be given discretionary authority to approve specialty soil amendments that are not

designed to meet Class A compost or biosolids growing medium standards (e.g., potting soil, green

roof blends, storm water mixes) and the regulatory process provided to obtain such an approval.

ZWC-70


Page 16 of 16

20120433

Please clarify in the OMRR that fertilizers and supplements recognized under the CFIA (such as LysteGro Biofertilizer, or dried biosolids used in commercial fertilizer) do not require a land application plan.

Recognizing that the number of other types of “organic matter processing facilities” is increasing in BC, particularly bioenergy production facilities (e.g., anaerobic digestion, bioconversion technologies), we recommend that the Ministry consider developing a regulatory framework for managing these types of facilities (to ensure protection of human health and the environment). Regarding reduction of ESOCs in organic matter, we strongly support and welcome the promotion of disposal programs (e.g. existing paint and pharmaceutical EPR programs) through guidance documents and/or other targeted outreach initiatives by the Province. We also welcome consideration of new disposal programs and/or other initiatives to control emerging substances of concern at source.

Contact Information If you wish to receive further information concerning updates to the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation, please provide your contact information – including an email address – below. All submissions will be reviewed for inclusion without attribution in a consultation summary report to be made public following the consultation period. Please note that comments you provide and information that identifies you as the source of those comments may be publicly available if a Freedom of Information request is made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Contact Name: Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services Business or Organization Name: Metro Vancouver Email: [email protected] Mailing address: 12th Floor, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Telephone: 604.436.6862

ZWC-71

Waste Management Association of BC PO Box 3322, Station Main

Mission, BC V2V 4J5 [email protected] 604-283-5603

December 5, 2016

Mr. Paul Henderson General Manager, Solid Waste Division Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC, V5H 4G8

Via E-Mail

Re: Management of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations

Dear Paul,

On behalf of the Waste Management Association of BC (WMABC), I am writing to express our continued concerns about the awarding of and the future management of the Metro Vancouver Transfer Station facilities in Coquitlam, North Vancouver and Surrey which will come into effect January 1, 2017.

The WMABC’s specific concerns are twofold: the confidentiality of customer information and data of those private waste services companies using the transfer facilities, and; a significant change in the original RFP for the management of the transfer facilities which precipitated the industry’s concerns.

With respect to the confidentiality of information, our members still do not have confidence that our their customer information, market share data and other proprietary information gathered during transactions at these transfer stations controlled by Metro Vancouver and managed daily by your future contractor, will be protected from being used by said contractor, for competitive gain. Although Metro Vancouver has addressed some of the simpler data management issues, the industry’s major concern pertaining to information garnered from the tipping floor is much more complex and requires immediate resolution. To date, Metro Vancouver has steadfastly refused to address the tipping floor issues which involve the potential for preferential treatment with respect to fines and surcharges as well as our member’s market data intelligence being passed on from the contractor’s on-site staff to its sales representatives to pursue newbusiness with insider knowledge. The WMABC is adamant that this matter be addressed to ensure a level playing field on operations and use of these publicly owned assets prior to the new contract proceeding.

6.7

ZWC-72



Furthermore, we believe the confidentiality provision under Section 27 of the contract is wholly inadequate. As the contractor is itself a competitor to the customers of the Metro facilities there is absolutely no prohibition for them using the information they garner performing those services against those very customers without breaching this weak and poorly constructed clause.

Therefore, we believe Metro Vancouver has two options to prevent the above situation from occurring at placing the reputation of Metro Vancouver at risk.

a) Metro Vancouver should cancel the upcoming contract with the futurecontractor so that a different corporate entity that has no other collectionbusinesses or affiliations operates these transfer facilities with the contractand amended to execute proper confidentiality agreements.

b) Alternatively, Metro Vancouver should amend the current confidentialityprovision (Section 27) to include punitive results for breach of this provisionwhich could include and not limited to the loss of the contract andacknowledgement that misuse of this information will give a direct cause ofaction by the supplier and agreement that treble damages would be a propermeasure.

The first alternative is much preferable and easier to monitor and enforce. This would require separate computer systems, accounting records, email, etc., so no one entity or person(s) can access the Metro transactions, even accidentally.

This leads to the WMABC’s second concern: the significant change in the originalRFP for the management of the transfer facilities which precipitated the industry’s concerns. The current service provider operating the said Metro Vancouver transfer stations was prohibited from having a collection business whilst undertaking the service contract. We are confounded by the action of Metro Vancouver to remove this provision from the RFP or lack of foresight concerning the potential for the misappropriate use of confidential information. And lastly, with the change in contractors, key services are being deleted from the facilities including commercial cardboard and organics which run contrary to Metro’s zero waste strategy.

The WMABC believes these concerns could have been avoided as early as the issuing of the RFP for the management contract. By way of background, since April of this year, the WMABC has been in direct contact with you and encouraging the establishment of a working group including the WMABC, your staff and the successful contractor, to ensure a transition plan that would protect the interests of the competitive marketplace. Despite your acknowledgment to the WMABC at that time your agreement for this process and implementation there was no further discussion from you or your staff until in September 2016

ZWC-73



when you stated in an email exchange with one of our Directors that you needed to discuss this with the Contractor and thought it would “be more beneficial once we are closer to operations starting.”

During a meeting held between the WMABC and Metro Vancouver staff on September 15th 2016, the topic was again raised about the confidentiality of the information which the contractor of your facilities would have access, and that our members and the industry in general were extremely concerned. The feedback we received from Metro Vancouver during this meeting, was that it was still working on this process and that we would be informed at a future date on what the contractor would have access to and what they would not. We can only surmise that Metro Vancouver does not understand the impact this matter will have on maintaining a highly competitive marketplace.

In the interest of fair competition, we strongly suggest that the transition to your new contractor be delayed, until your customers (our members) are confident that the processes that will be put in place, will in fact protect all the confidential information of each of your customers and that the use of government controlled assets, in a regulated monopoly are protected and not allowed to be used in the market place, for the contractor’s competitive advantage.

Sincerely,

Matt Torgerson President

C. Carol Mason, CAO, Metro Vancouver

ZWC-74



December 16, 2016

Ms. Carol Mason Chief Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC, V5H 4G8

Dear Ms. Mason,

On behalf of the Waste Management Association of BC (WMABC) we urgently request a meeting with you before Christmas Day to discuss our continued concerns about the confidentiality of the data being collected as well as safety issues related to the transition of the management of Metro Vancouver’s Coquitlam, North Vancouver and Surrey Transfer Stations on January 1, 2017.

As you are aware, the WMABC was invited by Metro Vancouver’s Waste Services Division to tour the North Vancouver Transfer Station to highlight the mitigation and remediation actions Metro Vancouver had undertaken to address the Association’s concerns with respect to the security of its customer data collected during the management of the facility.

During our tour, many of the actions that Metro Vancouver’s Waste Services Division stated had been addressed, have not been completed. Notably:

x There are still no security cameras installed around the facility we toured. x The servers with customer data are not secured from the contractor. In fact they

are on wheels and can be accessed by numerous people. x The removal of all USB ports on all desktop computers to prevent the

unauthorized transfer of data has not been completed. These ports are not required for IT access as IT personnel can access computers remotely.

x We cannot confirm that system barriers are embedded to prevent backdoors to the software.

x There is a lack of a protocol for addressing reporting issues and making changes.

x There needs to be a transparent protocol to ensure audit trails are in place to track information the new contractor has access to.

x The contractor can still go back in time and do reprint of tickets which we understand will not be fixed until February and is entirely too late and unacceptable.

6.8

ZWC-75



In addition to our request for a meeting, we would strongly recommend that WMABC be afforded the opportunity to meet with the software company that designed the system for Metro Vancouver as we believe they could make the necessary changes required prior to the transition of management. At the very least, they would be able to answer our questions and concerns. We also learned that Metro Vancouver and the new contractor are still working on the development of new safety policies at the transfer stations pertaining to the tipping floor for inspectors, traffic control personnel and swampers. We are confounded by the lack of progress and callousness we received from your staff on this critical issue which could endanger the wellbeing of our members’ employees and Metro Vancouver staff and its contactors. Furthermore, questions asked of your staff could not be answered or they did not have the information available. Quite frankly, for your staff to provide us assurances prior to the tour that our concerns regarding these matters had been addressed, and to discover that they have not been mitigated or that MV staff had no answers to explain this shortcoming, is not only disconcerting but insulting. This situation was avoidable. The WMABC has been proactive with Metro Vancouver since last April outlining security shortcomings with the new management system that protect not only our members but the integrity and reputation of Metro Vancouver. Again we urgently request an emergency meeting with you to discuss the actions required to ensure the confidentiality of our members’ proprietary information and data of those private waste services companies using the transfer facilities. We are prepared to meet whenever during the holiday break to address and resolve these and other critical matters. Sincerely,

Matt Torgerson President WMABC

ZWC-76

metrovancouverSERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative OfficerTel. 604 432-6210 Fax 604 451-6614

DEC 232016 File: CR-07-09-WMABC

Matt Torgerson, PresidentWaste Management Association of BCPC Box 3322, Station MainMission, BC V2V 4i5

Dear Mr. Torgerson:

Re: Management of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations

We are in receipt of your correspondence received on Monday, December 19, 2016 outlining yourconcerns with respect to the measures being taken to address data security and facility safety as part ofthe transition to the new operator of the North Shore, Coquitlam and Surrey transfer stations.

You have asked to meet with me prior to the start date for the new operator to discuss your concerns;however, I will be out of town next week and am unavailable to meet-I have asked our staff to provide anupdate on the work that has been undertaken in preparation for the transition to the new contractorwhich we believe responds to your concerns. A summary of these activities is described below.

FACILITY SAFETYEmterra is Prime Contractor at the transfer stations and has demonstrated its commitment to safeoperations both for its employees and for all other visitors to the sites. As required by the contract,Emterra has submitted its safety plan for review by Metro Vancouver’s safety team to confirm that itcontains all of the elements required upon which to build the safety program and safe operatingprocedures. The implementation of the plan will be monitored by Solid Waste Services staff over theduration of the contract. Metro Vancouver staff are also working to engage a third party specialist tocomplete an audit of the implementation by end of February 2017. Emterra is in the process of trainingall of its transfer station staff and has included safety as a key component of the orientation.

WMABC members requested that Metro Vancouver provide information about the transition to updatedrivers on scale operations and safety on site. Drafts of these materials were provided to WMABC forfeedback on December 15, 2016 (see attached). Metro Vancouver shared the information with wastemanagement industry stakeholders on December 19, 2016 following confirmation from Lori Bryan thatWMABC members had not requested any changes.

DATA AND INFORMATION SECURITYSolid Waste Services staff have implemented a number of new procedures to ensure that data concerningtransfer station customers is protected.

• Security Cameras: A contract is in place to provide and monitor security cameras at each of thetransfer stations. The equipment is expected to be installed in the first week of January.

• Servers: The servers at each of the transfer stations are secured and not accessible to Emterra.

203371254330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 • 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org


ZWC-77

MKINGDON

Typewritten Text

6.9

Matt Torgerson, President, Waste Management Association of BCManagement of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations

Page 2 of 3

• USB Ports: The USB ports while physically in place will not be accessible to Emterra staff by thebeginning of operations on January 2.

• System Barriers: Metro Vancouver IT staff have confirmed that no mechanisms will be availableto allow Emterra staff to export any data off the weighscale computers.

• Reprinting Historic Tickets: On December 20, 2016 Metro Vancouver issued a purchase order toMettler Toledo to provide an Autoscale customization that will prevent access to any tickets priorto the current date. Mettler has advised that it will take approximately two weeks to deliver.Metro Vancouver staff expect to be able to deploy and test the new functionality during the thirdweek of January.

• Access to Automated Scale Tickets: As part of the same purchase order, Mettler Toledo willupdate the system such that once automated scale tickets are completed, Emterra staff will haveno access to the tickets.

• Automated Scale Access Cards: Automated scale access cards are being sent out to haulers thathave submitted applications. All of the automated scales are expected to be functional by thesecond week of January.

If there are still questions from WMABC members regarding the data security system, staff from ourMetro Vancouver IT department and Mettler Toledo will be available to meet with WMABCrepresentatives in mid-January to discuss these matters.

EMTERRA AMENDING AGREEMENTI understand that WMABC has also requested that Metro Vancouver update the contract with Emterra toexplicitly speak to confidential information related to transfer station customers. Metro Vancouver hasdeveloped a draft amending agreement and staff are working with Emterra to finalize it. The principles ofthe amendment are to include a provision explicitly prohibiting the contractor (or its advisors orsubcontractors) from collecting or using any confidential information for any purpose other than tocomply with the terms of the contract and in particular to prohibit its use to further their commercialinterests. Confidential information will explicitly include customer data collected through the delivery ofthe services from the scale system, photographs, video surveillance and by any other means. In addition,a requirement is being included that requires that all customers be treated equitably with respect to themethod and frequency of screening, inspecting and testing of potentially hazardous and operationalimpact materials. Provisions will be included regarding discovery of any hazardous materials deposited atthe transfer stations and requests to the GVS&DD to seek payment from the customer for the appropriatecosts of remediation.Metro Vancouver is committed to working with WMABC and the wider waste management industry toensure that this transition runs smoothly and that Metro Vancouver continues to deliver excellent serviceacross the region.

ZWC-78

Matt Torger5on, President, Waste Management Association of BCManagement of Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations

Page 3 of 3

Yours truly,

Carol MasonCommissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

CM/PH/jt

End: Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations Operational Changes Coming January 2017 (Dcc #20245253)

20337125

ZWC-79

Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations Operational Changes Coming January 2017 This January, some changes are taking place at Metro Vancouver transfer stations. A new transfer station contractor is starting January 1st and work is underway to facilitate a smooth transition. As an account customer and regular visitor to Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations, here are a few things to note for 2017.

New Hours of Operation

North Shore Surrey Coquitlam Maple Ridge Langley WINTER Oct 1 – Mar 31

Mon-Fri 05:30 to 17:00 05:30 to 17:00 05:30 to 18:00 08:00 to 17:00 08:00 to 17:00 Saturday 08:00 to 17:00 08:00 to 17:00 08:00 to 17:00 08:00 to 17:00 08:00 to 17:00

SUMMER Apr 1 – Sep 30

Mon-Fri 05:30 to 18:00 05:30 to 18:00 05:30 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00 Saturday 08:00 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00 08:00 to 18:00

All Year Sunday and Stat Holidays*

09:00 to 17:00 09:00 to 17:00 09:00 to 17:00 09:00 to 17:00 09:00 to 17:00 *Closed December 25 and January 1

Recycling drop-off depot at Coquitlam and North Shore transfer stations open at 8:00am Mon-Fri. Please note that facilities will close promptly at scheduled closing times. Only vehicles in line-ups at closing time will be processed.

Weigh Scale Operations

Metro Vancouver will be introducing automated scales at the North Shore and Coquitlam Transfer Stations starting January 2, 2017 in response to requests from commercial and municipal customers. For more information on access cards and registering your vehicles, visit metrovancouver.org and search “account customer”. Below are a few tips on using the access cards:

• Only hold your access card to the reader once at the inbound and outbound automated scales. For inbound, once the screen shows the weight of your vehicle, you may exit the scale and proceed to the tipping floor. For outbound, wait for your ticket to print before leaving the facility.

• If you swipe your card and nothing happen or if there is an error message, please contact the scale operator.

• Please do not swipe your card a second time. It will cause ticket errors that will need to be resolved.

New scale house operators have been hired and trained. Similar to today the scale operator will need go ask drivers questions related to the loads being delivered to the transfer station:

• Which municipality was the waste collected in • What materials are being delivered. • Payment method • For trucks with multiple accounts, confirming which account to charge the load to.

ZWC-80

Site Safety Requirements

The safety of employees and customers is extremely important to the operations of the transfer stations. The transfer station operator is considered the Prime Contractor and is responsible for safety on site. Below are some safety requirements in transfer stations:

• All personnel must adhere to all posted signage and direction from transfer station staff, whether visual or verbal

• The speed limit at the sites is to not exceed 15 km/hr (9 mph) • All vehicle operators (“operators”) must follow established traffic patterns for each site • No operator is permitted to use an electronic device on site while operating a vehicle or walking outside

of their vehicle. In the event of a ban material surcharge being issued, the operator may take a photo to document the load. Procedures are in development and will be shared.

• No smoking is permitted in the transfer station, including in vehicles. • Operators must wear proper PPE if they require exiting the vehicle which includes at a minimum, high

visibility safety wear and CSA approved steel toed boots • Operators must stay within 5 feet of their vehicle at all times. • Passengers are not allowed to exit the vehicle in the transfer station. • When backing vehicles, operators must sound horn, check clearances and ensure no persons are behind

their vehicle prior to backing. • All spills, injuries, incidents, near misses and first aid must be reported to site personnel immediately.

Feedback or questions?

─ Questions, feedback, or complaints about Metro Vancouver Transfer Stations: call 604-681-5600. ─ Commercial account inquiries: 604-451-6185.

Thank you for your patience during the transition.

ZWC-81

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference

The attached report will be considered by the Finance and Intergovenment Committee at its meeting scheduled for January 18, 2017, and is presented to the Zero Waste Committee for information. Attachment: Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference, December 22, 2016

6.10

ZWC-82

20353614

To: Finance and Intergovernment Committee From: Heather Schoemaker, Senior Director, External Relations

Ann Rowan, Manager, Collaboration Initiatives Date: December 22, 2016 Meeting Date: January 18, 2017 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference

RECOMMENDATION That the Finance and Intergovernment Committee receive for information the report titled “Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference” dated December 22, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Finance and Intergovernment Committee with an overview of the Metro Vancouver’s Sixth Annual Zero Waste Conference ‐ “A Future without Waste: Innovation in Policy, Innovation in Practice”, held on Thursday, November 3rd at the Vancouver Convention Centre. BACKGROUND The Zero Waste Conference directly supports the first two goals of the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan related to waste prevention. The annual Zero Waste Conference has become a fixture on Metro Vancouver’s public engagement calendar attracting interest from all levels of government, the business sector, sustainability practitioners and academia. 2016 ZERO WASTE CONFERENCE Program Highlights The focus on innovation set the tone for this years’ conference. Featuring thought leaders at the intersect of science and business, the program was designed to challenge participants to think differently about waste as well as about new approaches to policies and business practices that could lead to a world without waste. The opening and closing keynote presenters anchored the day exploring how the frontiers in science and business, respectively, are moving towards waste prevention and circularity. The program began with Neri Oxman, a world renowned designer from MIT, who challenged participants to visualize the components of a regenerative economy – to imagine how products and systems could be redesigned using biological systems to not produce waste. At the other end, Owen Zachariasse, the head of Innovation and Sustainability for the Delta Development Group described how this commercial properties developer was applying cradle‐to‐cradle concepts and circular thinking to the building of viable, successful and award winning projects and development in the Netherlands. In between these two presentations, representatives from all levels of government shared their approach to resource sustainability and waste prevention, business leaders spoke of the value of changing business models and material production, practitioners in repair and reuse shared success stories, and innovators in construction, architecture and design talked about changing the built

ZWC-83

Metro Vancouver 2016 Zero Waste Conference Finance and Intergovernment Committee: January 18, 2017

Page 2 of 4

environment to reduce and prevent waste. Featured in the program was the National Zero Waste Council hosted session on the topic of Food Waste. Malcolm Brodie, Chair of the Council, announced the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy that will require collaboration of many partners to be effective in reducing food waste in Canada. This announcement was followed by a “spark talk” by Toine Timmermans from the Netherlands who shared how social, business and policy innovation was driving reductions in food waste in the EU. Closer to home, a North American panel described how businesses, governments and environmental organizations are tackling food waste reduction. The Conference Program is available in Attachment 1 and more details about the excellent slate of keynotes, panelists, and moderators can be found in Attachment 2 and on the conference website at www.zwc.ca. As the Zero Waste Conference has grown in size and profile, it has become an important event for government staff and operators engaged in solid waste issues, sustainability practitioners, the built environment, and business innovators to learn and network. One presenter, Scott Hamelin from Looptworks in Portland made the observation that the conference is the one venue where his passion for material reuse and waste prevention was matched by the other presenters and the participants. Befitting that reputation, requests by the federal government and a private foundation were made to make important announcements. The Honourable Joyce Murray announced the federal government’s new program on green and sustainable procurement while Edward Schwarz announced the call for proposals for the 5th International LafargeHolcim Awards for Sustainable Construction. Audience/Participation Total attendance at the 2016 Zero Waste Conference was over 550, this included 419 people in Vancouver plus those attending the satellite event in Toronto where the audience averaged 130 people. According to the advanced registration, 34% were from the private sector, 23% from local governments, 6% from other orders of government, 14% from community organizations and 5% from academia. The remainder were individuals interested in the topic. The registration fee for the 2016 Conference was $200. Once again, a satellite event was hosted by the City of Toronto’s Solid Waste Management Services as a component of their stakeholder engagement program following the adoption of their Long Term Waste Management Strategy that includes the aspirational goal to work towards a circular economy and zero waste future, which will be measured by a new key performance indicator: waste generation rate per capita. The Toronto event began with a presentation on their Strategy – they joined the Conference during the opening remarks and participants were able to interact and participate in the conference discussion through Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole As in the last two conferences, members of the audience were able to engage with the moderators, key notes and panelists through Pigeonhole; a dynamic, interactive smartphone platform where questions can be posed in real time and then, through a voting system, questions can be ranked. Moderators then pull their questions according to the ranking, so it is more likely that shared concerns and hot topics are covered in the discussion. We have found Pigeonhole to be an excellent tool for engaging a broader audience since it allows for more questions to be asked and answered than when participants ask questions from the conference floor.

ZWC-84


Page 3 of 4

In total just under 300 questions were posed at the Conference; the Innovation in the Marketplace session garnered the most questions (71) with the Opening Keynote, and the sessions on Food Waste and Repair and Reuse each generating 60 or more questions. A record of all questions asked and their ranking can be found on the ZWC website. (Reference 1.) Social and Earned Media In terms of social media, the Zero Waste Conference hashtag, “#ZWC2015”, generated 400 mentions the day of the event with an additional retweets of 150. The Metro Vancouver Twitter ID “@MV” received 40 new followers. The National Zero Waste Council was also active on the day, generating 40 mentions and receiving 41 new followers. Media coverage of the Zero Waste Conference was also good. Six broadcast stories ran in advance of the conference (News 1130, CBC, Roundhouse, CHEK, and BT Early Start on CityTV) and eight print articles featured the Conference (Business in Vancouver, Vancouver Sun, Waste Dive, Richmond News, The Peak, and the Province.) While most of the print media focused on the announcement of the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy, there was a particularly strong story in the Vancouver Sun business section which profiled the Conference and two business innovators presenting at the Conference a week before the event. The headline was “The Home Front: Zero Waste Conference promotes circular economy.” Conference Materials While less than nine hours long, the conference produces a wealth of ideas and conversations. There were two stimulating keynotes and four thought‐provoking sessions: Innovation in the Marketplace – rethinking material inputs and scaling transformative business models; Food Waste – a call to action; Repair and Reuse – challenging obsolescence through design and behavior change; and the Built Environment – preventing waste and shifting practice. Videos of the keynotes and sessions are available on the Conference website. (Reference 1.) In addition, graphic recorders were hired to capture the essence of the material presented as well as some of the discussions between presenters and the audience. (Attachment 3.) Together, the videos and graphic illustrations become reference points for those who attended the Conference as well as those who missed it. The ZWC blog is used both to promote the Conference but also to begin to stimulate thinking and conversations about topics related to waste prevention and circular economy. The number of views are good with about 902 visitors to the blog between September 26 and November 14 with 1655 views during the same time period. Next Steps: Maintaining the Momentum Over the six years, the Zero Waste Conference has grown in size and in profile as the venue to discuss waste prevention and the opportunities for establishing circular economy systems in Canada. Advancing a waste prevention agenda in Canada is the mission of the National Zero Waste Council and the Council bookends its AGM with that of the conference hosting its AGM the day following the conference and so discussions should continue as how to best proceed and build stronger synergies between the two event.. Options include expanding the length of the Conference beyond one day which would allow for more participant engagement in topics as well as making it more attractive to business and government leaders outside of B.C.

ZWC-85


Page 4 of 4

In developing the conference content, consideration of issues important to Metro Vancouver and its zero waste agenda are paramount as are the national scale objectives of the National Zero Waste Council. So the intent is to include innovators in policy and business practice who can not only explain how they achieved positive results but also their thought process that can be adapted to our local, provincial and national conditions. For instance, the Built Environment session was the outcome of a discussion on dealing with the solid waste implications of building construction and demolition in Metro Vancouver – the discussion has to shift to how to prevent waste in the design of buildings and communities and in the materials used in construction. ALTERNATIVES This report is presented for information only. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The budget for the 2016 Zero Waste Conference was $133,000 was supported by the General Government Program. Revenues from conference fees were $58,000. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The focus of the 2016 Zero Waste Conference was on innovation and the role of disrupters in changing business practices and policy in advancing waste prevention and circularity in processes, product design and business systems. The program involved four thought‐provoking sessions organized around the topics of innovation in the marketplace, reducing food waste in Canada, repair and reuse, and the built environment that were anchored by the opening and closing keynote. Neri Oxman challenged participants to rethink the boundaries of what it possible in terms of using biological systems to redesign products and systems without waste as an end product. At the other end, Owen Zachariasse described how Delta Development, a successful commercial properties developer, was applying cradle‐to‐cradle concepts and circular thinking to the building of viable, successful and award winning projects and development in the Netherlands. Over the six years, the Zero Waste Conference has grown in size and in profile as the venue to discuss waste prevention and the opportunities for establishing circular economy systems in Canada. Participation in the event, including those involved in the Toronto satellite event, totaled 550 people and the general observation was that the audience tended to be younger than previous years and very engaged. Media coverage continues to be positive with the conference gaining in stature as a national event attracting renowned international speakers. An important component of the conference is the National Zero Waste Council AGM which takes place immediately following the conference. Attachments (Doc #: 20409032) 1. Zero Waste Conference, November 3, 2016 “A Future without Waste” Program 2. Speaker Bios 3. Graphic Illustrations References 1. Zero Waste Conference website, www.zwc.ca/Pages/index.aspx 20353614

ZWC-86

VANCOUVER | NOVEMBER 3, 2016

A Future without Waste

Innovation in Policy, Innovation in Practice

November 3, 2016

Conference Host: Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee and Chair, National Zero Waste Council

Lunch from 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm.

8:30 am Welcoming/Opening Remarks

• Jonathan Wilkinson MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment andClimate Change Representing Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau

• Jordan Sturdy, Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Literacy and the Environment to theMinister of Environment of British Columbia

• Jim McKay, General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services, City of Torontocoming in from Toronto Satellite Event

• Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

9:00 am OPENING KEYNOTE - Design by nature, revolutionary innovation at the edge

At the intersection of science and art, this world renowned designer offers new and disruptive ways of working with materials, taking us beyond biomimicry to material ecology . . . away from consuming nature as a geological resource to editing it as a biological one. Advancing innovation at the edge, Neri brings the future to life – pushing us to visualize a regenerative economy, and offering inspiration for how products and systems could be redesigned without waste.

Keynote:

• Neri Oxman, Architect and Designer

Moderator: Kathryn Gretsinger, Journalist and Professor

ATTACHMENT 1

ZWC-87

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/malcolm-brodie

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/jonathan-wilkinson

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/jordan-sturdy

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/jim-mckay

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/greg-moore

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/neri-oxman

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/kathryn-gretsinger

http://www.zwc.ca/

9:45 am Innovation in the Marketplace

From rethinking material inputs to scaling transformative business models, learn how the circular economy is transforming the marketplace – offering opportunities to eliminate waste while enhancing competitiveness. What innovations are redefining our relationship with stuff – delivering goods and services in new and innovative ways without the waste embedded in current production and consumption patterns? What is driving businesses to innovate? How do we support innovation in the marketplace? Five business pioneers share their stories in this TEDx-style session and panel.

Panel

• Eben Bayer, CEO & Co-Founder, Ecovative• John Ortiz, Director, Product Stewardship, HP• Scott Hamlin, Co-Founder, Looptworks• Tim Brooks, VP Corporate Responsibility, LEGO Group• Sam Grill, CEO of International Material Recovery

Moderator: Stephanie Bertels, Director, Centre for Corporate Governance & Sustainability, Beedie School of Business

11:00 am BREAK

11:15 am Food Waste - A call for national action

Hosted by the National Zero Waste Council

Food waste in Canada accounts for more than $31 billion dollars in lost revenue, almost 200,000 tons of food in landfills, and about 2% of the national greenhouse gas inventory. How do we change this picture? How can we align with other policy leaders around the world to join in global action? How can we reclaim the nutritious food we lose, and build resiliency, a stable economy and a healthy environment?

Special Announcement

• Malcolm Brodie, Chair National Zero Waste Council

Spark Talk

• Toine Timmermans, Program Manager, Sustainable Food Chains, WageningenUniversity, and Coordinator, EU Fusions: Food Use for Social Innovation by OptimisingWaste Prevention Strategies (The Netherlands)

ZWC-88

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/eben-bayer

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/john-ortiz

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/scott-hamlin

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/tim-brooks

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/sam-grill

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/stephanie-bertels

http://www.nzwc.ca/


http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/toine-timmermans

Panel

• Scott Tudor, Director of Sustainability, Sobeys, and Representative, Consumer GoodsForum

• Bob Long, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, NZWC Board Member• Darby Hoover, Senior Food & Agriculture Specialist, Natural Resource Defense Council• John Lillard, R&D Project Leader, Innovation Team, Campbell Company of Canada

Moderator: Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

12:45 pm Presentation - Open IDEO Food Waste Challenge

• Matthew Ridenour, Partnerships & Community Designer, IDEO

1:00 pm LUNCH

2:00 pm Repair and Reuse - Challenging obsolescence through design + behaviour change

Repair and reuse is a radical act in our modern world, with vast innovation potential tied to rethinking how we use and consume goods to keep goods in useful life for longer. Designing products for repair and reuse and, encouraging a culture of repair and reuse can drive waste prevention and a people-centred circular economy at scale. From redesigning products and traditional business models, supporting behaviour change campaigns aimed at how consumers use goods, to addressing challenges related to resale value and skills development - how do we scale a repair and reuse revolution where reuse is more common than replace?

Panel

• Tony Shumpert, Vice President, Recycling and Reuse, Value Village, and CircularEconomy Working Group Member, National Zero Waste Council

• Michal Len, Director, RREUSE (EU)• Ryan Dyment, Executive Director, Institute for a Resource-Based Economy• Shelagh Kerr, President and CEO, Electronics Product Stewardship Canada

Moderator: Vanessa Timmer, Co-Founder and Executive Director, One Earth and Board Member, National Zero Waste Council

3:00 pm Tribute to Our Friend Bing Thom

Architect and Urban Designer 'building beyond buildings'

ZWC-89

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/scott-tudor

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/bob-long

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/darby-hoover

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/john-lillard

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/greg-moore

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/matthew-ridenour

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/tony-shumpert

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/michal-len

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/ryan-dyment

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/shelagh-kerr

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/vanessa-timmer

3:05 pm The Built Environment

Buildings are material intensive, demanding over half the world’s extracted materials and generating roughly one third of waste globally as well as here in Metro Vancouver. What can be gained by applying circular economy principles to this sector - preventing waste and shifting practice?

Panel

• Clint Undseth, Vice President, Innovation, Stuart Olson Inc. • Sudhir Suri, Senior Architect & Partner, L’OEUF Architects • Josh Taron, Professor, Co-Leader of the Laboratory for Integrative Design, University of

Calgary and Principal, Synthetiques

Moderator: Trevor Boddy, critic and curator of contemporary architecture

4:05 pm SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

• The Honourable Joyce Murray, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Government of Canada’s commitment to a cleaner and more sustainable economy.

• Edward Schwarz, General Manager of the LafargeHolcim Foundation, 5th International LafargeHolcim Awards for Sustainable Construction projects

4:15 pm Closing Keynote: Circular Innovation and Business Leadership in the Netherlands

In 2016 the Netherlands jumped into the international spotlight with plans to become a national circular economy hotspot, and the Delta Development Group has been there from the start as a foundational partner and business leader. As Head of Innovation and Sustainability, Owen Zachariasse will speak about the implementation of Cradle-to-Cradle and circular economy into the award winning Park 20I20 project and its groundbreaking neighboring development referred to as “the Valley”. Envisioned as a living lab that demonstrates circular organizations, processes and activities - and the flagship for the national hotspot initiative - the Valley, once developed, will be a blueprint for large scale transition to a circular economy, bringing together businesses, academia, government and finance to incubate new circular solutions.

• Owen Zachariasse, Innovation and Sustainability, Delta Development Group, The Netherlands

Moderator: Raymond Louie, Vice-Chair, Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

ZWC-90

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/clint-undseth

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/sudhir-suri

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/josh-taron

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/trevor-boddy

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/joyce-murray

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/edward-schwarz

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/owen-zachariasse

http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/raymond-louie

4:45 pm Closing Remarks / Key Themes and Takeaways

• Malcolm Brodie, Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee and Chair, NationalZero Waste Council

• Robyn Shyllit, Senior Public Consultation Coordinator, City of Toronto coming in fromToronto Satellite Event

5:00 pm Networking Reception

Unwind and connect with the speakers, panelists and delegates.

ZWC-91


http://www.zwc.ca/speakers/robyn-shyllit

CONFERENCE HOST

Malcolm Brodie Chair, Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee and Chair, National Zero Waste Council

Malcolm Brodie has been a Board Director and Chair of the National Zero Waste Council since its inception in October 2013. He has also been a member of Council for the City of Richmond since 1996, and following a by-election, he was sworn in as Mayor on October 29, 2001. Mayor Brodie was re-elected on November 16, 2002, November 19, 2005, November 15, 2008, November 19, 2011, and November 15,

2014.

Malcolm Brodie has been appointed by his Council to the Board of Directors of Metro Vancouver and he currently is the Chair of the Zero Waste Committee and also serves on the Intergovernmental & Finance Committee, the Mayors' Committee, the Performance & Procurement Committee, and the Federal Gas Tax Task Force. He represents Metro Vancouver on the Municipal Finance Authority, and in 2015, was elected as Chair.

Before election to Council, Mayor Brodie was a practicing lawyer and had a long record of service to Richmond in the volunteer community.

OPENING KEYNOTE

Neri Oxman Architect and Designer

Neri Oxman combines breakthroughs in materials science with design principles found in nature – bringing a sustainable future within reach.

Neri Oxman is an award-winning designer who looks to nature for practical design solutions, bringing a lush, wondrous, and sustainable future within reach—one where technology and nature live in harmony. Featured on the cover of Fast

Company's 100 Most Creative People in Business, Oxman transcends the boundaries between art, science and environmentalism.

Oxman is the Sony Corporation Career Development Professor and Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at the MIT Media Lab where she works to enhance the relationship between the built and the natural environments by employing design principles inspired or engineered by nature and implementing them in the invention of novel digital design technologies in areas such as product and architectural design, as well as digital fabrication and construction.

Oxman was named to ICON's list of the top 20 most influential architects to shape our future, and was selected as one of the 100 most creative people by Fast Company. She was named a "Revolutionary Mind"

ATTACHMENT 2

ZWC-92

http://www.zwc.ca/

by SEED Magazine and was included in Esquire's Best and Brightest. In 2015 she was named to ROADS' 100 Global Minds: The Most Daring Cross-Disciplinary Thinkers in the World. She is included in prestigious private collections and has received numerous awards including a 40 Under 40 Building Design + Construction Award, a Graham Foundation Carter Manny Award, the International Earth Award for Future-Crucial Design, and a METROPOLIS Next Generation Award. Oxman received her PhD in design computation as a Presidential Fellow at MIT, where she coined the term Material Ecology.

SPEAKERS

Eben Bayer CEO & Co-Founder, Ecovative

Eben Bayer is the CEO and Co-Founder of Ecovative. Ecovative is a world-leading biomaterials company that is specialized in adapting natural processes to create sustainable materials. Ecovative has commercialized two high performing products: an engineered wood alternative called MycoBoard™ and a plastic foam alternative for protective packaging called Mushroom® Packaging. Ecovative has been recognized as a Tech Pioneer by the World Economic Forum, for its potential impact

on climate change by the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge, the EPA Environmental Quality Award, and the Buckminster Fuller Challenge for socially responsible design.

Stephanie Bertels Director, Centre for Corporate Governance & Sustainability, Beedie School of Business

Stephanie Bertels is the Director of the Centre for Corporate Governance and Sustainability and an Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business. Bertels studies how organizations make the transition towards sustainability by undertaking practitioner informed research on sustainable operations, embedding sustainable innovation.

She founded and leads the Embedding Project, a collaborative initiative between researchers and practitioners that brings together companies from across industries to help them learn from one another and embed sustainability. To date, Bertels has worked with over two dozen global firms. Bertels also teaches courses in managing innovation and change, sustainable operations, and managing for sustainability in both the undergraduate and MBA programs.

ZWC-93

http://www.zwc.ca/

Trevor Boddy Critic & Curator of Contemporary Architecture, Consulting Urban Designer

Trevor Boddy is a critic of contemporary architecture/urbanism and a Vancouver-based consulting urban designer. His writing on buildings and cities has been awarded the Alberta Book of the Year Award, the RAIC's Advocacy Award, membership in Lambda Alpha International, Fellowship in New York's Institute of Urban Design and RAIC, and an Honorary Membership in the American Institute of Architects. At the 2011 World Architecture Congress/Tokyo, Boddy's essay (for A/V

in Madrid) entitled "MEGA + MICRO: Canada, Innovation at the Extremes" received commendation for the UIA/CICA's Pierre Vago Prize for best architectural criticism worldwide. His "HybridCity" was included in the 2011 VAG exhibition "WE Vancouver: 12 Manifestoes for the City." As curator, Boddy produced the "Vancouverism: Architecture Builds the City" exhibition plus linked Trafalgar Square demonstration construction (named marquee event for the 2008 London Festival of Architecture), re-mounted 2009 in Paris, then in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics. Appointed Adjunct Professor in UBC's School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture in 2012 and 2014; previous appointments at Manitoba, Oregon, Toronto and Carleton, plus serving as a studio critic and lecturer world-wide.

Tim Brooks VP Corporate Responsibility, LEGO Group Tim is the Vice President for Environmental Responsibility at LEGO. Based in Billund, Denmark, he leads a global team responsible for the company's global sustainability strategy, performance, and the impact of its products. Tim established and co-leads the new LEGO Sustainable Materials Centre which is a $150M project to find and implement sustainable raw materials by 2030. He is

also responsible for driving a number of other key projects addressing sustainability impact in the value chain. The most recent is the investment of over $800M in offshore wind farms in the UK and Germany in order to meet the LEGO Group target of 100% renewable energy by 2020. Prior to joining LEGO Tim worked for Tesco, and led environmental R&D within its property division developing new environmental technologies, processes and systems. He has more than 15 years’ experience in sustainability, focusing on corporate sustainability strategy with particular knowledge of renewable energy technologies, sustainable buildings, and product manufacturing. He started his career with the Building Research Establishment and has worked for international engineering consultancies, FTSE 100 companies, the Carbon Trust, and as an environmental policy advisor to the Mayor of London.

ZWC-94

http://www.zwc.ca/

Ryan Dyment Executive Director, Institute for a Resource-Based Economy Ryan is a Chartered Accountant who worked in the fields of accounting and finance for eight years before becoming the Executive Director of the Institute for a Resource-Based Economy (IRBE). Since 2013, IRBE has expanded its programming and now manages 4 Tool Libraries, a Makerspace and its newest venture, the Sharing Depot, Canada's first Library of Things. The programs accept donations of lightly

used items (6,000 inventory items and counting) and loan them to over 3,000 members who pay small annual membership fees. With over 60 volunteers supporting the programs, the Tool Library, Sharing Depot and Makerspace are truly community hubs that encourage access over ownership to reduce waste and share the abundance that already exists in Toronto.

Kathryn Gretsinger Journalist and Professor, UBC Graduate School of Journalism Kathryn Gretsinger is a Vancouver journalist. She's a regular contributor at CBC and she teaches at UBC's Graduate School of Journalism.

Sam Grill CEO, International Material Recovery

Sam Grill is CEO of International Material Recovery, a drywall recycling company based in Surrey BC. Sam grew up in northern BC and has called BC home all his life - save for a brief 3-year stint in Toronto. While in Toronto he completed an MBA at the University of Toronto and working in finance before coming to his senses and returning to BC. He now resides in North Vancouver with his young family and when

not covered in drywall dust he can be found on any number of mountain trails throughout the sea-to-sky corridor.

ZWC-95

http://www.zwc.ca/

Darby Hoover Senior Food & Agriculture Specialist, Natural Resource Defense Council

Darby Hoover is a Senior Resource Specialist with NRDC's food and agriculture program. She specializes in issues related to food waste reduction, composting, anaerobic digestion, solid waste management, recycling, paper industry reform, and sustainable packaging. Darby's previous work includes helping to manage NRDC's sustainability initiatives with sports and entertainment organizations, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey

League, the Academy Awards, and the GRAMMY Awards. She has authored and co-authored numerous publications including NRDC's "Guide to Composting at Sports Venues" and NRDC's report "Game Changer: How the Sports Industry is Saving the Environment". Darby received her bachelor's degree from Stanford University, and her master's in Energy and Resources from U.C. Berkeley.

Scott Hamlin Co-Founder, Looptworks

Scott Hamlin is the co-founder of Looptworks, a certified B corporation design brand that creates meaningful products from excess materials. Looptworks repurposes abandoned materials into beautiful, long-lasting and limited-edition products such as bags, clothing and accessories; it has been featured on Oprah’s O list, the Today Show, The Guardian, The BBC, NBC National News, The Washington Post, and Fox Business News. By re-using the world's pre and post-consumer excess, the Portland,

Oregon based brand aims to rid the world of waste, while inspiring a generation to reduce their impact on the planet.

With industry experience at adidas AG, Jockey International and Royal Robbins, Hamlin is a thought leader on the circular economy from a practitioner’s perspective. His passion is focused on re-imagining product creation with a focus on zero waste and closed loop manufacturing methods. Hamlin has served on a panel with former Vice President and Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore, has served as the key note speaker at Temple University’s Social Entrepreneurship Conference, and spoken to audiences internationally including at Harvard University and The Green Biz Forum. Hamlin was featured in Entrepreneur Magazine and on their website where his video was the most watched video on the site and garnered coverage from The Wall Street Journal. Hamlin’s podcast with the Fresh Water Trust landed on the front page of iTunes and has been the most downloaded podcast in their successful series.

In addition to leading Looptworks, Scott is involved in his Portland, Oregon community, serving on the advisory board for the University of Oregon’s Sports Product Program and as a member of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. He is a year-round bicycle commuter and spends his free time surfing, biking, running, hiking and playing outdoors with his family.

ZWC-96

http://www.zwc.ca/

Shelagh Kerr President and CEO, Electronics Product Stewardship Canada

As President and CEO of Electronics Product Stewardship Canada (EPSC), Shelagh Kerr has extensive experience in government relations, public affairs and environmental stewardship. EPSC is a not-for-profit organization and the leading product stewardship voice for information technology and consumer electronics companies in Canada. Shelagh helps electronics manufacturers develop consensus policy positions on provincial legislation and regulations. She is also active with

Environment Canada on their Chemical Management Plan Stakeholder Advisory Group.

As Vice President of Corporate and Environmental Affairs for Coca-Cola Ltd Canada in the 1990's Shelagh helped to establish, and was a Director on the Boards of, provincial beverage recycling organizations in Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick. She was also appointed to the Board of the federal Environmental Choice Program. In the 1990's Shelagh sat on committees for EUROPEN, the industry group for packaging and the environment, while working for Coca-Cola in Europe. As Vice President, Technical of Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, she helped to establish the original industry financing formula for the Ontario Blue Box packaging recovery system. Shelagh also worked for nearly a decade with the R&D pharmaceutical industry in Brussels, representing their intellectual property interests with EU institutions.

Michal Len Director, RREUSE (EU)

Michal Len is Director of RREUSE, a representative body for social enterprises active in the field of re-use, repair and recycling. He has been with the organisation since 2011 and specialises in EU waste and product policies as well as policy mechanisms supporting social enterprise. Michal holds an MSc in Environmental Policy and Regulation.

John Lillard R&D Project Leader, Innovation Team, Campbell Company of Canada

John Lillard is a nutritionally and sustainably focused product developer. He has his undergraduate degree in Food Science and Human Nutrition and a Master's in Food Science, as well as his culinary degree. He is currently a Project Leader on the Innovation Team at Campbell's Canada, where he is actively working on food waste initiatives with the support and assistance of Campbell's global Corporate Social Responsibility team, Provision Coalition, and Enviro-Stewards. Along with his

ZWC-97

http://www.zwc.ca/

wife Marcy Lillard, he is also owner/operator of Mindful Grocer, an online education and communication portal devoted to food waste reduction and sustainable living.

Bob Long Federation of Canadian Municipalities, NZWC Board Member

Serving multiple consecutive terms as a councillor on the Township of Langley municipal council, he is also an elected member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities national board of directors and a member of the national standing committee on the environment and sustainable development. He also serves as a director on the Metro Vancouver Regional Board.

Through his work at FCM, Long was appointed to the NZWC management board and he sits on the Metro Vancouver Zero Waste committee. He is an active member of his home town community of Aldergrove, BC where he resides with wife Karen and together they have operated various restaurants throughout the Lower

Raymond Louie Vice-Chair, Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

Raymond Louie is serving his fifth term on Vancouver City Council, having been first elected in 2002. His vision is to help create a Vancouver where new opportunities to learn, succeed, and thrive are available to all. As a champion of communities, an expert in civic issues, and a fierce advocate for those who have been forgotten and ignored, he is working to ensure that this vision becomes a reality.

This term, Council has appointed him to the position of Acting Mayor. For the past two Council terms Acting Mayor Louie has served as the chair of the City Finance and Services Committee, and helped ensure that vital programs impacting affordable housing, the environment, and public safety maintained strong funding during an economic downturn.

From June 2015-June 2016 he held the position of President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) where he represented our nation's 2000 local governments to the Federal government. Currently serves as Vice Chair of the Metro Vancouver Region as well as a, trustee and board director on numerous other regional, provincial, and national boards including his fun favorite Chairing the Pacific National Exhibition board.

Acting Mayor Louie was born and raised in East Vancouver, where his family operated a bakery in the heart of "Little Italy" on Commercial Drive for 25 years. Today, he still calls East Vancouver home with his wife and their three children. He served for many years on his children's Parent Advisory Council and is an avid cyclist who raced for several years with a local team.

ZWC-98

http://www.zwc.ca/

Jim McKay Solid Waste Management Services General Manager, City of Toronto

Jim is the General Manager of the City of Toronto’s Solid Waste Management Services Division. In this capacity, he is responsible for all of the solid waste management programs and services for Canada's largest city and the fourth largest municipal waste management system in North America. Jim is a recent addition to the City coming from the consulting industry where he has a long history of working with municipalities across Canada and the United States on

some of North America's largest and most innovative Solid Waste projects and programs.

Jim currently sits as member of the Board of Directors for both the Ontario Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and the Ontario Waste Management Association

Greg Moore Chair, Metro Vancouver Board of Directors

Greg Moore was elected as Port Coquitlam’s 15th Mayor in 2008, after serving as City Councillor from 2002 to 2008. Greg Moore believes community engagement results in better Council decisions, and began his term by revising Council’s committee system – with Council’s consent – to include citizen advisors in the decision-making process.

He has a Masters of Business Administration and Bachelor of Urban Geography/Planning, and as Port Coquitlam’s Mayor he serves as Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors and Vice Chair of the Intergovernmental Committee, among other committee appointments. His volunteer work includes co-chairing the Capital Fundraising Task Force with the New View Society and sitting on the HR MacMillan Space Centre Board of Directors.

Joyce Murray Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Joyce Murray is the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Ms. Murray was first elected to Parliament in 2008. She has served on Standing Committees on Trade, Health, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment and Sustainable Development, and Defence.

From 2011 to 2015 Ms. Murray chaired the Liberal Northern and Western Caucus, and co-chaired her party’s weekly Policy and Platform Caucus in Ottawa. Her legislative work includes presenting a Bill banning crude

ZWC-99

http://www.zwc.ca/

oil tanker traffic from BC’s North Coast and a Bill to increase accountability and transparency of Canada’s Communication Security Establishment (CSE) and other security and intelligence agencies.

Before entering federal politics Ms. Murray was elected to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, serving as a cabinet minister in the BC Liberal government from 2001 to 2005. Her political career followed 25 years spent building an international reforestation company she co-founded that has planted over one billion trees. Her interest in environmental sustainability was expressed in her thesis on climate change policy, which contributed to the SFU Deans Medal she was awarded for top MBA graduate of 1992. Joyce emigrated from South Africa as a child. She has three adult children and lives in Vancouver with her husband Dirk.

John Ortiz Director, Product Stewardship, HP

John Ortiz leads the global product stewardship organization for HP Inc., a $50B annual business. Ortiz's organization drives environmental design of computer and printer hardware products, ink and toner supplies, and paper products to minimize the impact of HP products throughout the product lifecycle.

Ortiz is currently championing circular economy thinking and action across HP's Print, PC, and 3D printing businesses. Recently his team has completed two closed-loop recycled polypropylene projects in over 40% of HP's inkjet cartridges, equal to approximately 5,000 tons of recycled resin annually. With the completion of this latest project, HP now uses recycled plastic in more than 80% of its ink cartridge products. Several other active projects are underway to incorporate recycled plastic into hardware printer products. Ortiz's team also focuses on product energy reduction and recently marked a milestone of driving an 88% energy reduction across HP's consumer printer products over the previous 5 years. Ortiz led the development of HP's Product Portfolio Use Phase GHG intensity reduction goal, an industry first, announced in 2014.

Ortiz lives in Corvallis, Oregon and enjoys hiking and biking in the Pacific Northwest.

Matthew Ridenour Partnerships & Community Designer, IDEO

Working on IDEO's Open Innovation platform, Matt designs strategies to grow and scale OpenIDEO's global impact while developing key partnerships to support the business. Focused on OpenIDEO's Food Waste initiative, Matt is building a network of partner organizations while helping manage the open innovation challenge. Matt leads OpenIDEO's environmental program "Accelerate", which includes an ongoing global event series and a Climate Fellowship program for social entrepreneurs.

ZWC-100

http://www.zwc.ca/

Matt holds an MBA in Design Strategy from CCA (California College of the Arts), a BArch from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, and studied design in Denmark through University of Copenhagen.

Edward Schwarz General Manager, LafargeHolcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction

Edward Schwarz is General Manager of the LafargeHolcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction since it was created (as the Holcim Foundation) in 2003. He is responsible for all activities of the LafargeHolcim Foundation, including the international Awards competitions for sustainable construction projects and visions. He has produced more than 35 intraregional and global prize hand-over ceremonies, and edited some 30 publications related to sustainable construction.

Edward Schwarz was a journalist and editor of a Swiss trade magazine for the construction industry before joining a daily newspaper covering the Zurich area. He was then appointed editor-in-chief of a private radio station in the same region.

From 1992, he was in charge of communications of a Swiss building materials holding company that was later integrated into the then Holcim Group. He subsequently became Head of Corporate Communications for the united operations of Holcim in Switzerland. From 1999 until 2003, Edward Schwarz was the global Head of Internal and Online Communications of Holcim, in addition to being a member of the brand development and implementation team.

Tony Shumpert Vice President, Recycling & Reuse, Value Village

Tony Shumpert oversees the recycling and reuse business operations for Savers (also known as Value Village and Village des Valeurs), a purpose-driven thrift retailer with 330 stores across the US, Canada and Australia. In his 14 years with Savers, Tony has been instrumental in establishing Savers as a global leader in clothing and textile reuse and recycling, including having expanded the scope of items diverted from landfills from three categories to almost 20, including plastics, metals, sporting

goods and kitchenware. This enabled Savers to divert 650 million pounds of goods from reaching North American landfills in 2015 alone.

Tony is passionate about reuse, representing Savers through his membership on the National Zero Waste Council’s Circular Economy Working Group, as a board member of Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART), an international trade association promoting high standards and best practices for reducing solid waste by recycling textiles, and through his Huffington Post contributions. Through his work with these organizations, and by sharing his experience as a leader in the textile reuse space with industry groups, public officials and communities, Tony is supporting the bringing together of the reuse and recycling industries, a reduction in the amount of reusable clothing that ends up in landfills, and progress towards a circular economy.

ZWC-101

http://www.zwc.ca/

Robyn Shyllit Senior Public Consultation Coordinator, City of Toronto

Robyn Shyllit is a Senior Public Consultation Coordinator with the City of Toronto where she designs, coordinates, implements and facilities large-scale public consultation and engagement strategies for many divisions and infrastructure projects across the city. She holds a Bachelors degree in Communication Design from the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, and worked in the arts and graphic communications before changing careers. Robyn completed a Masters degree in

Urban Planning and Certificate in Community Development at the University of Toronto, and worked in the non-profit sector for several years with leading social justice organizations before joining the City of Toronto in 2015. In 2016, Robyn received a Leadership Excellence Award from the City Manager in recognition of her contributions to Toronto's Long Term Waste Management Strategy.

Jordan Sturdy Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Literacy and the Environment to the Minister of Environment of British Columbia

MLA Jordan Sturdy entered public service as a local trustee for the Pemberton Valley Dyking District, served the Sea to Sky Corridor as a member of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District Board, and as Chair of the Squamish Lillooet Regional Hospital District Board and was a three term Mayor of Pemberton.

Jordan was elected provincially in 2013, and currently serves as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.

He is a member of the Cabinet Committee for Environment and Land Use and chairs the Provincial Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Jordan was also chair of the Climate Leadership Team and previously served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Jordan and his wife Trish both grew up in Vancouver but have lived in Pemberton for 25 years where they have raised two wonderful daughters. They started, own and operate North Arm Farm which produces and markets 45 acres of certified organic vegetables and berries and hosts numerous long table dinners and events.

ZWC-102

http://www.zwc.ca/

Sudhir Suri Senior Architect & Partner, L’OEUF Architects

An innovator in collaborative process, Sudhir has investigated and designed architectural, landscape and living systems for over 20 years. Convinced that ‘sustainability’ sets the bar too low, his ‘resonant design’ work has been awarded multiple prizes, including the Green Energy Benny Farm project, judged the most sustainable project in North America and third in the world by the Swiss Holcim Foundation. Sudhir also designed the living systems and ecosystem services

framework for the Petit Rivière Master Plan, and designed the first structural, insulated rammed earth house in Quebec. His recent work was shortlisted for the Saint-Laurent Sports Complex competition, the Pierrefonds Public Library competition, the Montreal Biodome competition and most recently for the Chambly Center for Knowledge, History and Culture. Sudhir’s current work includes completion of the NDG Cultural Centre; a micro-housing and agriculture project in downtown Montreal; and a soon-to-be-released series of prefabricated passive homes.

Josh Taron Professor, Co-Leader of the Laboratory for Integrative Design, University of Calgary and Principal, Synthetiques

Joshua M. Taron is an Associate Professor of architecture at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Environmental Design where he co-directs the Laboratory for Integrative Design (LID). His current research focuses on the way in which new modes of drawing, fabrication and construction can yield new performative effects in the built environment. This work is done in partnership with a variety of disciplines

such as computer science, structural engineering and city planning. His work has been published internationally and orients itself toward finding new ways of revitalizing and sustaining the already-built environment.

Taron is also Principal of Synthetiques, an award-winning research+design+build outfit focusing on the hybrid ecologies afforded through the interface of computational and physical economies across multiple scales. He earned his undergraduate degree in architecture from the University of California, Berkeley and holds a Master of Architecture degree from the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc).

Vanessa Timmer Co-Founder and Executive Director, One Earth and Board Member, National Zero Waste Council

Vanessa Timmer is the Executive Director of One Earth, a Vancouver-based “think and do tank” focused on sustainable consumption and production. One Earth is curating the New Economies theme of Cities for People, initiated by The J. W. McConnell Family Foundation – a Canada-wide experiment in advancing a movement to create more resilient and livable cities through innovation networks.

ZWC-103

http://www.zwc.ca/

Vanessa is also an Associate with the Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University focused on innovation and holds a Doctorate in environmental studies with degrees from Queen’s University, Oxford University and UBC. She teaches sustainability and systems thinking, and co-hosts the television show, The Sustainable Region. In 2013, Vanessa was named one of Business in Vancouver’s Top Forty under 40. One Earth is one of the founders of the National Industrial Symbiosis Program – Canada and is also co-leading a global campaign to create positive and compelling visions of life in sustainable futures

Toine Timmermans Program Manager Sustainable Food Chains at Wageningen University & Research

Toine is coordinator of the EU projects FUSIONS and REFRESH. FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising waste prevention Strategies) has established a tiered European multi-stakeholder Platform to generate a shared vision and strategy to prevent food waste across the supply chain. The overall aim of the project REFRESH (Resource Efficient Food and dRink for the Entire Supply cHain) is to

contribute significantly towards the objective of reducing food waste across the EU and maximizing the value from unavoidable food waste and packaging materials. A central ambition of the REFRESH project is to develop a ‘Framework for Action’ model that is based on strategic agreements across all stages of the supply chain (backed by Governments), delivered through collaborative working and supported by evidence-based tools to allow targeted, cost effective interventions.

Scott Tudor Director, Sustainability, Sobeys Inc.

Scott is Director of Sustainability for Sobeys Inc., and is based at their Ontario offices. His role has a broad scope that includes areas such as animal welfare, responsible product sourcing and reducing food waste. Through its Safeway banner, Sobeys partnered earlier this year with Vancouver's Love Food – Hate Waste program on an in-store, consumer education initiative. The company has also recently run "ugly" produce campaigns in both Alberta and Quebec . In addition Sobeys actively

participates on the sustainability executive committees for the Retail Council of Canada, the Food Marketing Institute and The Consumer Goods Forum; all of which have food waste initiatives in progress . A professional engineer, Scott has worked in food retailing for nearly twenty years and before that had roles in the railroad and steel industries. He sits on the Board of Directors for Stewardship Ontario, PAC – The Packaging Consortium and Partners in Project Green.

ZWC-104

http://www.zwc.ca/

Clint Undseth Vice President, Innovation, Stuart Olson Inc.

I've always had an interest in how we can improve, how we can do things differently all with a perspective to uniquely differentiate and be more relevant for our customers' business. Over the last 8 years the focus has been oriented to Building Performance from collaborative design, construction and operating lifecycle with an emphasis on sustainability, reducing waste and regenerative building. More recently my curiosity has me studying how to effect positive

change. Change is difficult and I've been fortunate to work in diverse environments (from startups to fortune 500s) where I've gathered important experiences and lessons learned regarding change management.

I'm grateful for the opportunity that Stuart Olson has provided; the opportunity to realize our vision for Building Performance where we are addressing the challenges associated with sustainability where we have a Centre to test and prove "what if"; where we are changing the industry one step at a time.

With both my family and our team we consistently say "never stop learning". We live by this philosophy and are excited by the possibilities. I am a student of applied technologies and processes that advance our work and my ability to lead cross-functional creative teams.

Jonathan Wilkinson MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Representing Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau

Prior to becoming the Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, Jonathan spent 20+ successful years as a senior business leader and executive. He has extensive experience in the energy and environmental technology sectors, having served as CEO of QuestAir Technologies and BioteQ Environmental Technologies, as well as Senior Vice-President of Business Development for Nexterra. Previously, he also

worked at Bain & Company, a leading global management consultancy.

A Rhodes Scholar, Jonathan holds Masters Degrees from Oxford University and McGill University. Early in his career, he worked as a constitutional negotiator and a federal-provincial relations specialist.

Jonathan has served on numerous industry and charitable boards, including B.C. Technology Industries Association Chair, United Way of the Lower Mainland Cabinet Committee Chair and Board member and Treasurer of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation. He is also a long time soccer coach with the North Shore Girls Soccer Club. Jonathan, his wife Tara, and their two daughters live in North Vancouver.

ZWC-105

http://www.zwc.ca/

Owen Zachariasse Innovation and Sustainability, Delta Development Group, the Netherlands

Owen Zachariasse is responsible for all Innovation and Sustainability activities within the Delta Development Group. Over the last 12 years Delta has deeply embedded Cradle to Cradle and Circular Economic principles into the heart of its business and within his roll Zachariasse links upstream acquisition to downstream realization with the mandate of delivering on, and ensuring the continuous improvement of Delta's key principles behind innovation and sustainability, leadership, creating and

leveraging networks within its developments and building/running an effective, transparent, and efficient innovation process. In addition to his work at Delta Zachariasse is a Principle Partner at Delta's offshoot advice agency "Zachariasse Consulting", is active in a number of local charities and serves as a guest lecturer on the topics of real estate development, business management and change management at The Hague University of Applied Science. Owen holds a BBA from Adelphi University and a Masters Degree in Strategic Management with concentration in Real Estate Finance from the Rotterdam School of Management.

ZWC-106

http://www.zwc.ca/

ATTACHMENT 3

ZWC-107

ZWC-108

ZWC-109

ZWC-110

ZWC-111

ZWC-112

ATTACHMENT 4

ZWC-113

20355314


Ann Rowan, Program Manager, Collaboration Initiatives Date: December 16, 2016 Meeting Date: January 18, 2017 Subject: National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update

RECOMMENDATION That the Finance and Intergovernment Committee receive for information the report titled “National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update” dated December 16, 2016.

PURPOSE This report provides the Finance and Intergovernment Committee with an update on the 2016 activities and initiatives of the National Zero Waste Council. BACKGROUND Founded by Metro Vancouver in collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the National Zero Waste Council is a cross‐sectoral leadership initiative focused on advancing a waste prevention agenda in Canada. The Council was formally launched at the 2013 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference, since this time the Council’s Secretariat has been housed at Metro Vancouver. The Finance and Intergovernmental Committee is provided an update at least once a year on the progress of the National Zero Waste Council. NATIONAL ZERO WASTE COUNCIL The Council’s year began with a strategic planning session where the members of the Management Board set out a roadmap document for 2016/2017 and re‐affirmed the vision and mission statements as well as the strategic directions for the organization. As a relatively small and young organization, there was also agreement that the Council must narrow the scope of work planned to effectively optimize both financial and in‐kind resources. Doing so will allow the Council to remain nimble and ready to respond to emerging opportunities to advance waste prevention in Canada. Growing Network of Members and Partners Council membership has grown to 82 members (Attachment 1), with solid representation from local governments, business, business associations and community organizations. Membership highlights include the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Halifax, Markham and Fort St. John, and business organizations such as Second Harvest, Value Village, Dell Canada, BASF‐Canada, A&W Canada, Nature’s Path and Lafarge‐Canada amongst others. The Council also continues to develop an extensive and growing number of partners who are involved in our knowledge transfer activities like webinars and workshops and in the development of Council projects. (Recordings of all webinars are available on Reference 1.) In addition to members, the Council has also engaged a diverse range of organizations including IIDEX‐Canada (Canada’s

ZWC-114

National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update Finance and Intergovernment Committee Meeting Date: January 18, 2017

Page 2 of 6

Architecture + Design Conference), Provision Coalition (association of food and beverage manufacturers focused on sustainability issues), Divert Nova Scotia, Caterpillar, Terra Cycle, Cedar Grove (composting facility in Washington State), and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Working Groups The driving force of the Council is its working groups who with the support of the Secretariat develop annual work plans involving knowledge transfer, outreach and engagement, research and advocacy initiatives that deliver on the Council’s mission and vision. In 2016, there were 4 working groups: Circular Economy, Food, Product Design and Packaging and National Communications Campaign. The 2016 actions and projects of each working group includes: Circular Economy

The Circular Economy Business Toolkit was publicly released in English in June and in French in October (Attachment 2). The toolkit is designed to support businesses interested in applying circular economy concepts to their businesses. Response has been very positive and the document has become the foundation of the working group providing a basis for continued outreach and engagement. A “workshop in a box” based on the toolkit was developed providing working group and Council members as well as other circular economy champions the capacity to organize and host two hour workshops, based on the toolbox, with interested audiences.

Two webinars linked to the toolkit were delivered in 2016: Implementing a Circular Business Strategy and By Design, Waste Prevention and Textiles. Beginning in June, the working group began to implement a cross‐Canada engagement initiative with business leaders on the topic of implementing a circular business strategy. The first event was on the Circular Economy Summit in Halifax hosted by Divert Nova Scotia on June 28th. The next event, co‐hosted by the Council, City of Edmonton and Recycling Council of Alberta was a business luncheon held on November 15. A similar event is being scheduled in Toronto in 2017.

In conjunction with Value Village, the Council organized the Textiles Reuse Summit on June 16 in Toronto. This provided an opportunity for more than 50 representatives of the industry and government stakeholders to engage in a conversation on preventing waste in the textiles sector.

Through the work of a Sustainable Region Scholar, the working group produced Advancing the Circular Economy in Canada: a Green Paper presenting in plain language the concept of a circular economy and identifying opportunities to advance the concept In Canada. The document will be launched in English and French in January 2017.

Food

The efforts of the Food Working Group focused on building the case and support for a federal tax incentive to increase the donation of nutritious food to charitable organizations. By June, 22 local governments had passed resolutions supporting a tax incentive and forwarded the resolutions to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). At its September Board meeting FCM adopted, as policy, the value of a federal tax incentive. The resolution reads

ZWC-115


Page 3 of 6

“That FCM support the National Zero Waste Council’s food waste reduction federal tax incentive proposal and urge the Government of Canada to implement tax incentives for food producers, suppliers and retailers to donate unsold nutritious food, thereby helping reduce food waste, lower municipal costs for waste disposal and decrease the environmental impact of food waste.” (More details can be found at Reference 2.)

Product Design and Packaging

The online portfolio, Celebrating Canadian Design for Waste Prevention, celebrating Canadian products and packaging that demonstrate how waste prevention and the concept of circularity can successfully be launched in the market. Each featured product has been assessed for its ability to deliver on principles for waste prevention and systems‐thinking and each year an annual call for submissions is made and those received are reviewed by a distinguished panel of experts. (The

Portfolio and the principles used in scrutinizing the submissions can be found at Reference 3.) In July the working group organized a webinar, By Design: Waste Prevention and Textiles that

generated a robust discussion among the participants indicating that there is an audience interested and engaged in the topic.

In a first foray into engaging more with designers, the working group organized two separate sessions on designing for circularity and waste prevention at the Interior Design Show West and IIDEX, Canada’s National Design + Architecture Conference. The sessions were two hours long and provided professional credits for designers who attended. Both were well‐attended.

National Communications Campaigns

The working group did some initial research into the opportunities of how existing local government behaviour change campaigns in Canada could be extended nationally. The work ended up focusing on the feasibility of a cross‐Canada campaign using the creatives and materials of Metro Vancouver’s Love Food Hate Waste campaign. While a number of local governments have expressed a strong interest in engaging in a National Love Food Hate Waste Campaign, it was decided earlier in the year that communications should be a strategic element of the Council’s overall work. However, the efforts to establish and launch a National Love Food Hate Waste campaign will be continued through the National Zero Waste Council Secretariat.

Strategic Initiatives and Partnerships National Food Waste Reduction Strategy The need to reduce food waste broke onto the world scene in 2016 and was immediately adopted by the Council as a key priority resulting in the development and definition of a call to action in the form of a National Food Waste Reduction Strategy. At the same time, the Canadian government was trying to identify the effective strategies for its new climate action plan. Reducing food waste is a significant opportunity to cut greenhouse emissions; the disposal of organic materials in landfills accounts for about four percent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other benefits associated with food waste reduction include lower waste disposal costs incurred by local governments in the long run, new economic

opportunities and improved community resiliency. The National Food Waste Reduction Strategy was submitted to the Federal Government’s Pan‐Canadian Climate Framework portal for consideration, and aligns with policy changes and best practices being advanced in other North American and European jurisdictions including those championed by Metro Vancouver. (Attachment 3.)

ZWC-116


Page 4 of 6

The National Food Waste Reduction Strategy was officially launched on November 3rd at the 2016 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference, generating media interest. (Attachment 4.) Next steps involve engaging important stakeholders from across Canada on the Strategy, including governments at all levels – the Council has already engaged B.C.’s Environment Minister, Mary Polak, and is reaching out to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna ‐ the food processing and retail sector, food banks and other community groups, health authorities, and others.

Policy Solutions Lab Partnering with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the Council hosted more than 55 participants to a Business Solutions Lab on November 4th. Participants included senior representative from the business sector and all levels of government interested in identifying the barriers to more sustainable use of resources and the adoption of circular economy concepts and discussing policies that would support businesses interested in making these changes. The Lab is one in a series of workshops that the WBCSD has organized to probe senior business leaders and sustainability practitioners on their experience in enhancing the circular material flows and reuse within their organizations. A Summary Report will be available in 2017 documenting company best practices on secondary materials reuse, an assessment of policy frameworks in key global regions, and policy recommendations to accelerate material reuse. Findings will be distributed through the WBCSD, Corporate Eco Forum and the Council through social media and communication channels. Communications Strategy In April, the Management Board approved a communications framework for the Council. The focus of this new framework is to better engage with members, potential members and supporters through social media and other traditional communication channels. The results have been positive. The Council now has over 600 followers on Twitter which is a six‐fold increase over a year ago. The new blog, the Circular, launched in April, is pulling new audiences into the Council’s website—and boosting traffic significantly. For example, in the six months from March to September this year, the National Zero Waste Council had about 7,680 visitor sessions on the landing page of its website, more than double the number for the same period in 2015. The Council also launched a redesigned website which provides visitors easier access to information through better design and improved navigation. Business Planning Task Force At its 2015 AGM, the Council created a Business Planning Task Force to consider and evaluate the options for the National Zero Waste Council to become a self‐sustaining organization. To inform this discussion, Global Advisors was contracted to do some preliminary research and analysis and presented a report to the Board in April. The Task Force has met three times since then and has developed a document that provides the initial steps in developing a critical path to a self‐sustaining organization. The document articulates the goals of the initiative and the elements of a strategic business plan: the Council’s value proposition, the revenue model and sources, and governance. (Attachment 5) To guide its work the Task Force has identified two key principles in developing a new revenue model. The Council will:

pursue a blended revenue model with a diversified funding base; and

be cautious not to compete with its membership in identifying new funding sources.

ZWC-117


Page 5 of 6

The objective of the Task Force is to oversee, in collaboration with the Management Board, the process to incorporating the National Zero Waste Council as a not for profit corporation in the fourth quarter of 2018. To accomplish this, the Task Force will have to finalize the Critical Path document and develop a pre‐incorporation transitionall work plan. 2016 Annual General Meeting (AGM) On November 4, the Council held its Annual General Meeting on the shoulders of the Zero Waste Conference with approximately 50 members attending in person or by remote connection. The AGM opened with a presentation by Owen Zachariasse, Head of Innovation and Sustainability for the Delta Development Group in the Netherlands, an organization whose approach to commercial development incorporates cradle‐to‐cradle design and processes consistent with a circular economy.

Other presentations and reports included an update on the work of the four working groups, the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy and the initial plans for stakeholder engagement.

The AGM concluded with the announcement of the 2017 Management Board. The call for nominations resulted in a very strong slate of candidates to the Board some of whom were acclaimed – Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, BC Ministry of Environment, etc. ‐ with new members such as BASF Canada, LaFarge Canada, Nature’s Path Foods, Retail Council of Canada, Surrey Board of Trade and the City of Markham. (See the full List of 2017 Board Members in Attachment 6.) Malcolm Brodie, Metro Vancouver Board Director was acclaimed as the Board Chair and Jim Downham, Packaging Consortium (PAC) was nominated and confirmed as Vice Chair.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016 budget for the National Zero Waste Council was $371,738 funded through the General Government function. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The National Zero Waste Council developed an ambitious work plan for 2016 to advance a waste prevention agenda in Canada. This involved supporting four active working groups involved in advancing changes in product design and packaging, circular economy, reducing food waste and national communications campaigns. The work of the latter two contributed to the development of the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy which the Council will be working to engage key stakeholders to collaborate in implementing the Strategy in 2017. Among these stakeholders are the federal and provincial governments who are working to implement a cross‐Canada climate action plan. Other initiatives include the launch of the Circular Economy Took Kit and the continued development of the online portfolio, Celebrating Canadian Design for Waste Prevention. The Council also created a Business Planning Task Force that will oversee the process to incorporate the National Zero Waste Council as a not for profit corporation in the near future.

ZWC-118


Page 6 of 6

Attachments 1. National Zero Waste Council Membership Directory

http://www.nzwc.ca/membership/benefits/Documents/MembershipList.pdf 2. Circular Economy Business Tool Kit http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/circular‐

economy/toolkit/Documents/CircularEconomyBusinessToolkit.pdf 3. Reducing Food Waste and Cutting Canada’s Carbon Emissions: policies for reaping the

environmental, economic and social benefits http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/national‐food‐waste‐strategy/Documents/NZWCSubmissionOnPan‐CanadianFrameworkForCombattingClimateChange.pdf

4. National Food Waste Reduction Strategy: Call for Collaboration and Action http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/national‐food‐waste‐strategy/Documents/NZWCFoodWasteStrategy‐CallforCollaboration.pdf

5. Developing a Critical Path for a Self‐Sustaining Organization (http://orbit.gvrd.bc.ca/orbit/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=18805057)

6. Canada’s National Zero Waste Council Announces Members of its Management Board – News Release November 8, 2016 http://www.nzwc.ca/additional‐info/media/Documents/MediaRlease‐2017NZWCBoardMembers.pdf

References

1. Recordings of National Zero Waste Council Webinars http://www.nzwc.ca/videos 2. Food Donor Tax Incentive (National Zero Waste Council)

http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/tax‐incentive/Pages/default.aspx 3. Design Portfolio (National Zero Waste Council) http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/design/portfolio

20355314

ZWC-119

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: January 11, 2017 Meeting Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update

The attached report will be considered by the Finance and Intergovenment Committee at its meeting scheduled for January 18, 2017, and is presented to the Zero Waste Committee for information. Attachment: National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update, December 16, 2016

6.11

ZWC-120

20355314


Ann Rowan, Program Manager, Collaboration Initiatives Date: December 16, 2016 Meeting Date: January 18, 2017 Subject: National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update

RECOMMENDATION That the Finance and Intergovernment Committee receive for information the report titled “National Zero Waste Council 2016 Update” dated December 16, 2016.

PURPOSE This report provides the Finance and Intergovernment Committee with an update on the 2016 activities and initiatives of the National Zero Waste Council. BACKGROUND Founded by Metro Vancouver in collaboration with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the National Zero Waste Council is a cross‐sectoral leadership initiative focused on advancing a waste prevention agenda in Canada. The Council was formally launched at the 2013 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference, since this time the Council’s Secretariat has been housed at Metro Vancouver. The Finance and Intergovernmental Committee is provided an update at least once a year on the progress of the National Zero Waste Council. NATIONAL ZERO WASTE COUNCIL The Council’s year began with a strategic planning session where the members of the Management Board set out a roadmap document for 2016/2017 and re‐affirmed the vision and mission statements as well as the strategic directions for the organization. As a relatively small and young organization, there was also agreement that the Council must narrow the scope of work planned to effectively optimize both financial and in‐kind resources. Doing so will allow the Council to remain nimble and ready to respond to emerging opportunities to advance waste prevention in Canada. Growing Network of Members and Partners Council membership has grown to 82 members (Attachment 1), with solid representation from local governments, business, business associations and community organizations. Membership highlights include the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Halifax, Markham and Fort St. John, and business organizations such as Second Harvest, Value Village, Dell Canada, BASF‐Canada, A&W Canada, Nature’s Path and Lafarge‐Canada amongst others. The Council also continues to develop an extensive and growing number of partners who are involved in our knowledge transfer activities like webinars and workshops and in the development of Council projects. (Recordings of all webinars are available on Reference 1.) In addition to members, the Council has also engaged a diverse range of organizations including IIDEX‐Canada (Canada’s

ZWC-121


Page 2 of 6

Architecture + Design Conference), Provision Coalition (association of food and beverage manufacturers focused on sustainability issues), Divert Nova Scotia, Caterpillar, Terra Cycle, Cedar Grove (composting facility in Washington State), and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Working Groups The driving force of the Council is its working groups who with the support of the Secretariat develop annual work plans involving knowledge transfer, outreach and engagement, research and advocacy initiatives that deliver on the Council’s mission and vision. In 2016, there were 4 working groups: Circular Economy, Food, Product Design and Packaging and National Communications Campaign. The 2016 actions and projects of each working group includes: Circular Economy

The Circular Economy Business Toolkit was publicly released in English in June and in French in October (Attachment 2). The toolkit is designed to support businesses interested in applying circular economy concepts to their businesses. Response has been very positive and the document has become the foundation of the working group providing a basis for continued outreach and engagement. A “workshop in a box” based on the toolkit was developed providing working group and Council members as well as other circular economy champions the capacity to organize and host two hour workshops, based on the toolbox, with interested audiences.

Two webinars linked to the toolkit were delivered in 2016: Implementing a Circular Business Strategy and By Design, Waste Prevention and Textiles. Beginning in June, the working group began to implement a cross‐Canada engagement initiative with business leaders on the topic of implementing a circular business strategy. The first event was on the Circular Economy Summit in Halifax hosted by Divert Nova Scotia on June 28th. The next event, co‐hosted by the Council, City of Edmonton and Recycling Council of Alberta was a business luncheon held on November 15. A similar event is being scheduled in Toronto in 2017.

In conjunction with Value Village, the Council organized the Textiles Reuse Summit on June 16 in Toronto. This provided an opportunity for more than 50 representatives of the industry and government stakeholders to engage in a conversation on preventing waste in the textiles sector.

Through the work of a Sustainable Region Scholar, the working group produced Advancing the Circular Economy in Canada: a Green Paper presenting in plain language the concept of a circular economy and identifying opportunities to advance the concept In Canada. The document will be launched in English and French in January 2017.

Food

The efforts of the Food Working Group focused on building the case and support for a federal tax incentive to increase the donation of nutritious food to charitable organizations. By June, 22 local governments had passed resolutions supporting a tax incentive and forwarded the resolutions to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). At its September Board meeting FCM adopted, as policy, the value of a federal tax incentive. The resolution reads

ZWC-122


Page 3 of 6

“That FCM support the National Zero Waste Council’s food waste reduction federal tax incentive proposal and urge the Government of Canada to implement tax incentives for food producers, suppliers and retailers to donate unsold nutritious food, thereby helping reduce food waste, lower municipal costs for waste disposal and decrease the environmental impact of food waste.” (More details can be found at Reference 2.)

Product Design and Packaging

The online portfolio, Celebrating Canadian Design for Waste Prevention, celebrating Canadian products and packaging that demonstrate how waste prevention and the concept of circularity can successfully be launched in the market. Each featured product has been assessed for its ability to deliver on principles for waste prevention and systems‐thinking and each year an annual call for submissions is made and those received are reviewed by a distinguished panel of experts. (The

Portfolio and the principles used in scrutinizing the submissions can be found at Reference 3.) In July the working group organized a webinar, By Design: Waste Prevention and Textiles that

generated a robust discussion among the participants indicating that there is an audience interested and engaged in the topic.

In a first foray into engaging more with designers, the working group organized two separate sessions on designing for circularity and waste prevention at the Interior Design Show West and IIDEX, Canada’s National Design + Architecture Conference. The sessions were two hours long and provided professional credits for designers who attended. Both were well‐attended.

National Communications Campaigns

The working group did some initial research into the opportunities of how existing local government behaviour change campaigns in Canada could be extended nationally. The work ended up focusing on the feasibility of a cross‐Canada campaign using the creatives and materials of Metro Vancouver’s Love Food Hate Waste campaign. While a number of local governments have expressed a strong interest in engaging in a National Love Food Hate Waste Campaign, it was decided earlier in the year that communications should be a strategic element of the Council’s overall work. However, the efforts to establish and launch a National Love Food Hate Waste campaign will be continued through the National Zero Waste Council Secretariat.

Strategic Initiatives and Partnerships National Food Waste Reduction Strategy The need to reduce food waste broke onto the world scene in 2016 and was immediately adopted by the Council as a key priority resulting in the development and definition of a call to action in the form of a National Food Waste Reduction Strategy. At the same time, the Canadian government was trying to identify the effective strategies for its new climate action plan. Reducing food waste is a significant opportunity to cut greenhouse emissions; the disposal of organic materials in landfills accounts for about four percent of all of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other benefits associated with food waste reduction include lower waste disposal costs incurred by local governments in the long run, new economic

opportunities and improved community resiliency. The National Food Waste Reduction Strategy was submitted to the Federal Government’s Pan‐Canadian Climate Framework portal for consideration, and aligns with policy changes and best practices being advanced in other North American and European jurisdictions including those championed by Metro Vancouver. (Attachment 3.)

ZWC-123


Page 4 of 6

The National Food Waste Reduction Strategy was officially launched on November 3rd at the 2016 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference, generating media interest. (Attachment 4.) Next steps involve engaging important stakeholders from across Canada on the Strategy, including governments at all levels – the Council has already engaged B.C.’s Environment Minister, Mary Polak, and is reaching out to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna ‐ the food processing and retail sector, food banks and other community groups, health authorities, and others.

Policy Solutions Lab Partnering with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the Council hosted more than 55 participants to a Business Solutions Lab on November 4th. Participants included senior representative from the business sector and all levels of government interested in identifying the barriers to more sustainable use of resources and the adoption of circular economy concepts and discussing policies that would support businesses interested in making these changes. The Lab is one in a series of workshops that the WBCSD has organized to probe senior business leaders and sustainability practitioners on their experience in enhancing the circular material flows and reuse within their organizations. A Summary Report will be available in 2017 documenting company best practices on secondary materials reuse, an assessment of policy frameworks in key global regions, and policy recommendations to accelerate material reuse. Findings will be distributed through the WBCSD, Corporate Eco Forum and the Council through social media and communication channels. Communications Strategy In April, the Management Board approved a communications framework for the Council. The focus of this new framework is to better engage with members, potential members and supporters through social media and other traditional communication channels. The results have been positive. The Council now has over 600 followers on Twitter which is a six‐fold increase over a year ago. The new blog, the Circular, launched in April, is pulling new audiences into the Council’s website—and boosting traffic significantly. For example, in the six months from March to September this year, the National Zero Waste Council had about 7,680 visitor sessions on the landing page of its website, more than double the number for the same period in 2015. The Council also launched a redesigned website which provides visitors easier access to information through better design and improved navigation. Business Planning Task Force At its 2015 AGM, the Council created a Business Planning Task Force to consider and evaluate the options for the National Zero Waste Council to become a self‐sustaining organization. To inform this discussion, Global Advisors was contracted to do some preliminary research and analysis and presented a report to the Board in April. The Task Force has met three times since then and has developed a document that provides the initial steps in developing a critical path to a self‐sustaining organization. The document articulates the goals of the initiative and the elements of a strategic business plan: the Council’s value proposition, the revenue model and sources, and governance. (Attachment 5) To guide its work the Task Force has identified two key principles in developing a new revenue model. The Council will:

pursue a blended revenue model with a diversified funding base; and

be cautious not to compete with its membership in identifying new funding sources.

ZWC-124


Page 5 of 6

The objective of the Task Force is to oversee, in collaboration with the Management Board, the process to incorporating the National Zero Waste Council as a not for profit corporation in the fourth quarter of 2018. To accomplish this, the Task Force will have to finalize the Critical Path document and develop a pre‐incorporation transitionall work plan. 2016 Annual General Meeting (AGM) On November 4, the Council held its Annual General Meeting on the shoulders of the Zero Waste Conference with approximately 50 members attending in person or by remote connection. The AGM opened with a presentation by Owen Zachariasse, Head of Innovation and Sustainability for the Delta Development Group in the Netherlands, an organization whose approach to commercial development incorporates cradle‐to‐cradle design and processes consistent with a circular economy.

Other presentations and reports included an update on the work of the four working groups, the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy and the initial plans for stakeholder engagement.

The AGM concluded with the announcement of the 2017 Management Board. The call for nominations resulted in a very strong slate of candidates to the Board some of whom were acclaimed – Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, BC Ministry of Environment, etc. ‐ with new members such as BASF Canada, LaFarge Canada, Nature’s Path Foods, Retail Council of Canada, Surrey Board of Trade and the City of Markham. (See the full List of 2017 Board Members in Attachment 6.) Malcolm Brodie, Metro Vancouver Board Director was acclaimed as the Board Chair and Jim Downham, Packaging Consortium (PAC) was nominated and confirmed as Vice Chair.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016 budget for the National Zero Waste Council was $371,738 funded through the General Government function. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The National Zero Waste Council developed an ambitious work plan for 2016 to advance a waste prevention agenda in Canada. This involved supporting four active working groups involved in advancing changes in product design and packaging, circular economy, reducing food waste and national communications campaigns. The work of the latter two contributed to the development of the National Food Waste Reduction Strategy which the Council will be working to engage key stakeholders to collaborate in implementing the Strategy in 2017. Among these stakeholders are the federal and provincial governments who are working to implement a cross‐Canada climate action plan. Other initiatives include the launch of the Circular Economy Took Kit and the continued development of the online portfolio, Celebrating Canadian Design for Waste Prevention. The Council also created a Business Planning Task Force that will oversee the process to incorporate the National Zero Waste Council as a not for profit corporation in the near future.

ZWC-125


Page 6 of 6

Attachments 1. National Zero Waste Council Membership Directory

http://www.nzwc.ca/membership/benefits/Documents/MembershipList.pdf 2. Circular Economy Business Tool Kit http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/circular‐

economy/toolkit/Documents/CircularEconomyBusinessToolkit.pdf 3. Reducing Food Waste and Cutting Canada’s Carbon Emissions: policies for reaping the

environmental, economic and social benefits http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/national‐food‐waste‐strategy/Documents/NZWCSubmissionOnPan‐CanadianFrameworkForCombattingClimateChange.pdf

4. National Food Waste Reduction Strategy: Call for Collaboration and Action http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/national‐food‐waste‐strategy/Documents/NZWCFoodWasteStrategy‐CallforCollaboration.pdf

5. Developing a Critical Path for a Self‐Sustaining Organization (http://orbit.gvrd.bc.ca/orbit/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=18805057)

6. Canada’s National Zero Waste Council Announces Members of its Management Board – News Release November 8, 2016 http://www.nzwc.ca/additional‐info/media/Documents/MediaRlease‐2017NZWCBoardMembers.pdf

References

1. Recordings of National Zero Waste Council Webinars http://www.nzwc.ca/videos 2. Food Donor Tax Incentive (National Zero Waste Council)

http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/tax‐incentive/Pages/default.aspx 3. Design Portfolio (National Zero Waste Council) http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/design/portfolio

20355314

ZWC-126