REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN...The RDEK will, on request, provide staff to assist businesses in conducting waste audits. 2.1.3 The RDEK and member municipalities will implement

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY

REGIONAL

SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

VOLUME 1

Update - May 2003 Prepared By

Regional District of East Kootenay

VOLUME1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ~ ........................... i

SECTION 1: GOALS ............................................................................................................................. 1

SECTION 2: POLICIES ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Reduce ................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Reuse .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Recycle ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Recovery ............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Residual Management. ....................................................................................................................... 7

SECTION 3: IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Reduce .............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Education/Media Campaign ................................................................................................ 13 3.1.2 Waste Audit Manual ............................................................................................................ 13 3.1.3 In House Waste Reduction ................................................................................................. 13 3.:1.4 User Fees and Variable Rate Charges ............................................................................... 14

3.2 Reuse ................................................................................................................................................. i 7 3.2.1 Wood Waste Management .................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Backyard Composting ......................................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Storage Facilities for Reusable Materials ........................................................................... 17 3.2.4 Materials Exchange ............................................................................................................. 17

3.3 Recycling ............................................................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Columbia Valley and Central Subregions ........................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Elk Valley Subregion ........................................................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Education Programs ............................................................................................................ 20 3.3.4 Recycling Directory .............................................................................................................. 20

3.4 Recover .............................................................................................................................................. 21

3.5 Residual Management. ...................................................................................................................... 22 3.5.1 Central Subregion Landfills ................................................................................................. 22 3.5.2 Central Subregion Transfer Stations .................................................................................. 22 3.5.3 Columbia Valley Subregion Landfills .................................................................................. 23

3.6 Closure Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 24

3.7 Stewardship Programs ...................................................................................................................... 24

3.8 Septic Sludge Disposal ...................................................................................................................... 24

SECTION 4: ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Plan Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 25

4.2 Objectives and Tasks of the PMAC .................................................................................................. 26

4.3 Co-ordination ~ith Other Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 26

APPROVAL ............................................................................................................................................. 27

APPENDICES


ASSOCIATED COSTS Appendix I Central Subregion

Columbia Valley Subregion Elk Valley Subregion

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Appendix I Public Participation Stage I & II Appendix II Public Participation - Final

MAPS & BYLAWS Appendix I

VOLUME2

APPENDICES

CENTRAL SUBREGION

Appendix I Appendix II Appendix Ill Appendix IV

Columbia Valley Subregion Central Subregion Elk Valley Subregion

Executive Summary/Site Selection Process Public Participation Contentious Issues Cost Analysis of Alternatives

ELK VALLEY SUBREGION

Appendix I Appendix II

Residual Waste Management Report Waste Minimization Task Force Report

COLUMBIA VALLEY SUBREGION

Appendix I Draft Operational Plan

?

INTRODUCTION

In August 1989, Bill 58 amended the Provincial Waste Management Act to require all Regional Districts

to prepare solid waste management plans by December 31, 1995. Subsequently in September, 1989

the ProVincial Government released a Municipal Solid and Biomedical Waste Management Strategy

that sets the goal of 30% reduction in municipal solid wastes requiring disposal by 1995 and 50% by

2000.

Development of this Plan followed the three stage process defined in the "Guide to the Preparation of

Regional Solid Waste Management Plans by Regional Districts". The purpose of the Plan is to establish

a waste management system that will meet the Regional District's needs for twenty (20) years and that

will guide the activities of the RDEK in working towards the 50% goal. This reduction will be arrived at

within the Five R's hierarchy of reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and residual management.

The Solid Waste 'Management Plan, once approved by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

under the Waste Management Act, will authorize the Regional District and its member municipalities to

manage recyclable material and solid waste and dispose of residual solid waste in accordance with the

plan. In addition, the Regional District may adopt bylaws for the purpose of plan implementation without

requiring the assent of the electors.

The broad objective of Regional Solid Waste Management Planning under the Act is for Regional

Districts to have ultimate control over, and be legally and financially responsible for solid waste

management facilities and programs.

As outlined in the "Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid Waste Management Plans by Regional

Districts" by the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP), a three stage process was

followed by the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) resulting, to date, in development of the

documents listed below:

• Regional District of East Kootenay - Solid Waste Management Plan, Stage One, March 1992, Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd (SAEL)

• Regional District of East Kootenay- Waste Management Final Report (Stage 2), October 1992, SAEL

• Regional District of East Kootenay- Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (Stage 3), October 1995, SAEL

In June of 1993, following the submission of the Stage 2 report, as prepared by Stanley Engineering,

the Regional District of East Kootenay established three subregions by adopting local service area

bylaws. Each of the three subregions were delegated the responsibility for program implementation,

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Introduction

and financial management for their respective subregion. In accordance with this decision the

subregions consist of:

1. Central Subregion - Encompassing the Cities of Cranbrook and Kimberley and Electoral Areas "B", "C" and "E". (Bylaws #1250 and 1094)

2. Columbia Valley Subregion - Encompassing the District of lnvermere, Village of Radium Hot Springs and Electoral Areas "F" and "G". (Bylaws #1162 and 1 095)

3. Elk Valley Subregion - Encompassing the City of Fernie, Districts of Sparwood and Elkford and Electoral Area "A". (Bylaw #1204)

The RDEK Board made the Elk Valley Subregion responsible for the preparation of a subregional plan

for the City of Fernie, Districts of Sparwood and Elkford, and Electoral Area "A" for subsequent incorpo

ration into the overall Regional Plan.

The RDEK Stage 3 Plan was submitted to the Ministry for approval and an extension was granted to

allow completion of the plan, including the Elk Valley Subregion portion, and to identify the preferred

landfill locations in the Elk Valley Subregion and Central Subregion by July 31, 1996.

Subsequent to the RDEK Stage 3 Plan submitted in July 1996 a further extension was granted to

February 15, 1997 to identify a preferred site in the Central Subregion and for the Elk Valley Subregion

to address issues of wildlife mitigation, transfer stations, and a sustainable 3R's program. An extension

was granted to May 31, 1998 for the completion of the Residual Management component for the

Central Subregion and July 31, 1998 for the Elk Valley Residual Management component by July 31,

1999. The latter was completed under the direction of the Ministry of WLAP funded process. A further

extension was granted until April 30, 2000 to consolidate all the components of the subregions as the

individual operations progressed and changed during the drafting of the Plan and to complete a final

round of public meetings on the final draft of the consolidated Plan.

This document provides a description of the programs, implementation requirements, financial control,

and administration of the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Central, Columbia Valley, and Elk

Valley Subregions. Throughout the document references to Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK)

are intended as meaning all subregions and the policies and programs will be common to all

subregions. Policies, programs, finances and administration, which are specific for a subregion, are

clearly identified as such.

The Elk Valley Subregion Solid Waste Management Plan is also based on findings and recommenda

tions of the following studies prepared for the Elk Valley Subregional Refuse Disposal Steering Commit

tee and the Elk Valley Residual Waste Management Advisory Planning Committee:

• Landfill Site Selection Evaluation and Preliminary Design, May 1995, UMA Engineering Ltd. • Potential Impacts on Wildlife of the Proposed Rankin Landfill in the Elk Valley, March 1996,

Keystone Wildlife Research

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Introduction ii

' • Cooley/Olson Inc Report to the Elk Valley Residual Waste Management Advisory Planning Committee.

The Central Subregion Solid Waste Management Plan is also based on findings and recommendations

of the site selection study and subsequent hydrogeological study prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd., June

1997, for the Central Subregion Local and Technical Solid Waste Advisory Committee.

The final round of public meetings was held in February_ and March 2000 to review the final draft of the

Solid Waste Management Plan. A consolidation of these public meetings and key recommendations

was then presented and approved by the RDEK Board of Directors for incorporation into the final Plan.

Submission of the Plan was delayed pending final resolution of the development of the Columbia Valley

Landfill and the open burning of selected wood waste through discussion with Ministry of WLAP staff.

This report includes:

Volume 1

• Section 1 a statement of the goals of the plan;

• Section 2 a list of policies that have been developed from an analysis of options identified

in Stage 1 of the planning process· and later subjected to the scrutiny of the

Waste Management Committee, the RDEK Board and the public;

• Section 3 a list of programs that will be implemented to enable the RDEK to carry out its

policies and reach its stated goals;

• Section 4 an administrative structure to oversee, monitor and implement the plan; and

• Approval

• Appendices

• Regional District of East Kootenay

- Associated Costs - costs associated with programs described in Sections 3 and 4 - Public Participation

Volume 2

o Appendices

o Central Subregion

• Elk Valley Subregion

• Columbia Valley Subregion

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Introduction iii

SECTION 1: GOALS

The goals of the plan are:

• To minimize, as much as possible, the generation of wastes.

" To work towards reducing the quantity of waste being disposed of by 30% by 1995 and by 50%

of volumes based on the Municipal Solid and Biomedical Waste Management Strategy of 1989.

• To manage waste in the following manner;

1. waste reduction, 2. reuse of materials, 3. recycling, 4. energy and material recovery, 5. residual management.

• To manage waste economically and efficiently.

• To educate citizens and businesses on how to reduce wastes.

• To strive for annual decreases in per capita waste generation.

• To provide access to environmentally sound waste diversion and disposal facilities throughout

the Regional District.

• To develop and implement a 'User Pay' system that will encourage people to participate in

waste reduction efforts and gradually shift all or a portion of the cost of residual management

from the tax base to the user pay system.

• To develop a 20 year plan that establishes an economical, technically feasible, and practical

program to manage solid waste that is both environmentally safe and accepted by the public.

" To develop a plan that conforms to the strategies of higher levels of government.

• To co-ordinate and co-operate with neighbouring subregions and other Regional Districts on

solid waste management.

• To develop and promote partnerships with senior levels of government by acknowledging a

shared responsibility in the protection and enhancement of t.he environment.

,.

The RDEK will undertake a review including public consultation and will update the plan every five

years, if required.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Page 1

SECTION 2: POLICIES

2.1 REDUCE

2.1.1 The RDEK will promote the benefits and methods of reducing waste by preparing,

publishing, disseminating, and presenting educational material through various media.

2.1.2 The RDEK will prepare and make available to businesses a manual on how to perform

internal waste audits. The RDEK will, on request, provide staff to assist businesses in

conducting waste audits.

2.1.3 The RDEK and member municipalities will implement all feasible waste reduction

programs in their in-house operations to minimize waste.

2.1.4 The RDEK will implement a user pay system including but not limited to user fees,

variable rate charges and local service area charges.

2.1.5 The RDEK will encourage the participation of community groups in waste reduction

initiatives.

2.1.6 The RDEK and member municipalities will cooperate with the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection, other government agencies, private land owners and local

community groups to develop strategies and educational initiatives to minimize the

illegal dumping of refuse. The RDEK and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection will also cooperate on the follow-up and enforcement.

2.1. 7 The RDEK will determine volumes of refuse currently being disposed of and diverted

and follow up with annual audits of the waste stream to determine progress of

reduction.

2.1.8 The RDEK will encourage the development of legisl~tion and will support legislation to

reduce packaging and encourage full industry stewardship of waste by-products.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Page3

2.2 REUSE

2.2.1 The RDEK will facilitate the diversion of reusable items at its landfills and at designated

transfer stations .. This may include the granting of salvage rights to individuals or

organizations.

2.2.2 The RDEK will provide short-term storage of clean wood waste at designated residual

management facilities. The RDEK will encourage private and senior government

initiatives to reduce wood waste volumes and support cogeneration· proposals within

the region. Recycling of wood waste including chipping and co-composting with

municipal sludges and/or other organics will be considered where feasible.

2.2.3 The RDEK will provide information and education on reuse opportunities to all

residents by compiling and updating annually a reference list of stewardship programs

and persons or businesses in each subregion who provide facilities or services that

.encourage reuse and recycling.

2.2.4 The RDEK will support and encourage Provincial Government initiatives to isolate and

divert reusable materials prior to them becoming wastes.

2.2.5 The RDEK will support the use of the BC Waste Exchange and other similar

organizations and stewardship programs.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Page4

2.3 RECYCLE

2.3.1 The Regional District of East Kootenay and its member municipalities shall provide

recycling opportunities to all residents within its boundaries.

2.3.2 The Central, Columbia Valley and Elk Valley Subregions will allocate funds to

facilitate recycling. Recycling programs will be determined from soliciting, reviewing

and selecting programs proposed by private contractors or individuals. These

programs may or may not include capital expenditures by the RDEK for the purchase

of recycling equipment.

2.3.3 The RDEK will continue to support the co-operative marketing of recyclables between

subregions and, as a member of Southern Interior Waste Managers Association, with

other Regional Districts provided such an arrangement is cost effective.

2.3.4 The RDEK will develop and disseminate new or existing educational and promotional

material designed to encourage participation in the recycling program. The RDEK will

encourage other knowledgeable organizations to assist in the educational aspects of

recycling.

2.3.5 The RDEK will support, encourage and promote provincial recycling initiatives

including those aimed at beverage containers, tires, batteries, used motor oil, paint,

and other provincial stewardship programs as approved by the RDEK.

2.3.6 The RDEK will consider disposal bans on products for which viable recycling facilities

are aVailable, if necessary, to ensure product flow.

2.3. 7 The RDEK will encourage backyard com posting and will make available to its

residents backyard composters at cost and provide information on their use, including

information on potential impacts on wildlife.

2.3.8 The RDEK will develop and operate or seek proposals from private businesses and

organizations to establish and operate composting facilities at its residual waste

management facilities or at other locations. Based on these proposals, the RDEK will

strive to develop central com posting facilities at designated solid waste facilities.


2.4 RECOVERY

2.4.1 The RDEK shall not consider the use of incineration of municipal household refuse in its

waste management system, at this time. The RDEK shall review options such as

incineration and cogeneration should a feasible opportunity be presented, as well as

whenever the plan is reviewed, i.e. every five years.

2.4.2 The RDEK may consider a ban on all wood wastes at its landfill facilities if a practical

alternative methqd of utilizing this waste product is developed, i.e. cogeneration.


2.5 RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

2.5.1 The RDEK shall operate all its landfills and transfer stations in accordance with the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste,

Guidelines for Establishing Transfer Stations for Municipal Solid Waste and Landfill

Operational Certificates or other Operational Certificates issued in accordance with

Solid Waste Management Plans and the Waste Management Association~

2.5.2 The RDEK will require all operators of its landfills to be certified by SWANA.

2.5.3 Prior to closing landfills, the RDEK will develop transfer stations and/or transportation

systems to service the affected areas. Transfer stations may be closed or access

restricted if waste flows are significantly altered following the implementation of all

waste reduction strategies. The RDEK will consult with the residents in affected

communities through public meetings prior to any landfill or transfer station closure or

relocation.

2.5.4 The RDEK shall construct predator resistant transfer stations that will minimize conflicts

with wildlife, provide convenient service to users, and locate them in buffered locations

where possible.

2.5.5 The RDEK shall not accept special wastes as defined by the Waste Management Act,

except for those wastes for which handling and l.andfilling procedures are established in

the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid

Waste.

2.5.6 The RDEK shall not accept biomedical waste at its residual management facilities

unless such wastes have been decontaminated and are delivered directly to a landfill

facility for immediate burial by prior arrangement. The RDEK shall comply with the

"Guidelines for the Management of Biomedical Waste in Canada."

2.5.7 The RDEK may prohibit from disposal at its residual management facilities, such

materials for which alternative disposal facilities exist and which may from time to time

be designated reusable, recyclable and/or compostable.


2.5.8 The Provincial Government has established "Industry Stewardship Programs" to deal

with household hazardous wastes. The RDEK shall support programs to intercept and

deliver such waste to a facility for storage awaiting transportation to the disposal facility.

2.5.9 The RDEK shall implement a program of water quality monitoring at each of its

operational landfill sites.

2.5.1 0 The RDEK may staff and limit the operational hours at solid waste facilities to address

proper disposal of materials and budget requirements.

2.5.11 The RDEK may consider instituting curbside collection in designated areas that do not

have that level of service.

2.5.12 The R'oEK will conduct a study of septage disposal options to identify final disposal

options for septage and holding tank facilities permitted by the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection and local health societies.

2.5.13 Central Subregion Residual Management Policies

2.5.13.1 Central Subregion - Includes the Cities of Cranbrook and Kimberley and

Electoral Areas "8", "C" and "E".

2.5.13.2 The Central Subregion has developed a subregional landfill and staffed

urban transfer stations in Cranbrook and Kimberley and rural transfer

stations in Skookumchuck, Wasa, Fort Steele, Elko, Grasmere, Baynes

Lake, Tie Lake, Newgate, Wardner, Green Bay and Moyie to serve the

Subregion. The RDEK has consulted with the residents, through public

meetings in the. affected area, on the site selection and has consulted

with residents through the Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee during the

development of the Operational and Closure Plans.

2.5.13.3 The Central Subregion has developed and operates the subregional

landfill, comprising 75± hectares, located on Crown Land immediately

northeast of the effluent storage pond at the City of Cranbrook spray

irrigation property. The site is off the old Eager Hill/Fort Steele Road

approximately 12 km from Cranbrook

2.5.13.4 The Central Subregion will undertake testing and monitoring programs as

required to conform to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

criteria at the new subregional landfill site.


2.5.13.5 The City of Cranbrook's and the City of Kimberley's active landfills will be

closed when the subregional landfill is available for use. Closure plans will

be reviewed with the communities through public meetings.

2.5.13.6 The Central Subregion will develop marshalling areas to serve Electoral

Areas "8" and "E", at designated transfer station sites to enable separation

and stockpiling of recyclable and reusable materials and to accept clean fill,

demolition, land clearing, and construction wastes for transfer to the landfill.

2.5.14 Columbia Valley Subregion Residual Management Policies

2.5.14.1 The Columbia Valley Subregion includes the District of lnvermere, the

Village of Radium Hot Springs, and Electoral Areas "F" and "G".

2.5.14.2 The Columbia Valley Subregion Landfill is designated as a subregional

landfill serving the Columbia Valley Subregion. The RDEK will consult with

the residents, through public meetings, and or open houses through the

Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee in the affected area during the

development of Operational and Closure plans.

2.5.14.3 The RDEK will undertake a landfill site· development process to maximize

the life of the existing Columbia Valley Subregion Landfill beginning in

2002. The Columbia Valley Landfill has a life span ranging from 10 to 20

years depending on waste diversion activities.

2.5.14.4 The Columbia Valley Subregion will improve existing septic tank waste

facilities and/or operations at the Columbia Valley Landfill to minimize

odour.

2.5.14.5 The Columbia Valley Landfill will remain operational until the maximum

life of the landfill has been reached, as outlined in the operational plan.

2.5.14.6 As part of the operational plan, a development trigger will be established

to indicate when the final five years of the landfill site has been reached.

2.5.14.7 Upon the reaching of this trigger, the RDEK will undertake a process to

identify a new residual management facility to service the Subregion.

2.5.14.8 The Columbia Valley Subregion will consider the design and construction

of additional transfer stations to minimize conflicts with wildlife and provide

convenient service to users.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Pfan Page9

2.5.14.9 The Columbia Valley Subregion will develop marshalling areas at

designated transfer stations to enable separation and stockpiling of

recyclable materials, and to accept clean fill, demolition, land clearing, and

construction wastes for transfer to the landfill.

2.5.15 Elk Valley Subregion Policies

2.5.15.1 The Elk Valley Subregion includes the City of Fernie, Districts of Sparwood

and Elkford and Electoral Area "A".

2.5.15.2 The Elk Valley Subregion will construct solid waste transfer stations in the

District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood, and in or near the City of

Fernie. Residual waste will be collected and transferred to an authorized

facility at Lethbridge.

2.5.15.3 The existing landfills near the City of Fernie, and the District of Elkford will

be closed to the disposal of waste when transfer stations are available for

use. These sites may continue as transfer sites for acceptance of waste,

marshalling of recyclables, treating of hard to handle wastes and

composting. Closure plans will be reviewed with the communities through

public meetings and/or open houses.

2.5.15.4 The Sparwood Landfill will remain open for disposal of construction and

demolition wastes and other wastes as specified in the final operational

certificate.

2.5.15.5 The RDEK will close the existing septic tank sludge disposal facility at

Hosmer when facilities to dispose of septic tank sludge as identified in the

septage disposal study are constructed.

2.5.15.6 Mortalities from agricultural operations may be discharged at the Sparwood

site where the generator has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the

Regional Waste Manager that the carcass(es) cannot be disposed of in

accordance with the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation under the

Waste Management Act (B.C. Reg. 131/92, O.C. 557/92). Carcasses or

road kills shall be set aside and temporarily covered then buried at the end

of the operational day when daily cover is applied. Large carcasses (over

200 kg) shall be deposited in a separate slit trench and covered

immediately.


2.5.15. 7 The municipalities and electoral area in the Elk Valley Subregion will

consider developing bylaws controlling storage and handling of garbage to

minimize wildlife conflicts.

RnFK- Snlirl WR.~IP. MRnRaP.mP.nf PIRn PRaP. 11

SECTION 3: IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 REDUCE

3.1.1 Education/Media Campaign

Public education will address all age groups and both the public and private sectors,

and provide a consistent, visible and positive message regarding the benefits and

specifics of each subregional program. The message can be delivered through, but will

not be limited to any of the following channels:

• newspaper, radio, and television; • newsletters, brochures and videos; • liaison with school districts; • public speaking engagements; • contact at waste management facilities; • in school education programs; • displays; • workshops; and • internet.

The content of the programs will be prepared by staff or based on the information and

publications available from the Provincial and Federal Governments or other Regional

Districts.

3.1.2 Waste Audit Manual

The RDEK has prepared a self-audit manual for business. Businesses will be

encouraged to carry out waste audits and RDEK staff will be made available upon

request to assist in carrying out the audit and to suggest techniques for waste

reduction.

3.1.3 In House Waste Reduction

The RDEK and its member municipalities will implement waste reduction techniques in

their daily operations. Although the operations of local governments do not produce a

large percentage of the waste stream it is incumbent to set an example. Examples of

such techniques may include:

• requiring all printing to be two sided; • utilizing electronic rather than hard copy record keeping; • utilizing electronic mail wherever possible;

Paae 13

• reducing junk mail (sending and receiving) including notifying the Post Office to stop sending junk mail; and

• eliminating the use of disposable products wherever possible.

3.1.4 User Fees and Cost Recovery

The RDEK will be responsible for program administration and cost recovery for all

common regional programs, as well as local programs for unincorporated electoral

areas. Member municipalities will be responsible for cost recovery of their own

diversion, collection and disposal programs.

There are several means of recovering the full costs of integrated waste management.

The primary mechanisms include:

• taxes through property assessment, • a utility fee (per household rate based on municipally supplied/contracted

service), • a service fee (for individuals who directly contract a service such as

collection), • user pay programs such as bag tags for extra waste bags over a set limit, • disposal tipping fees, and • other fees and fines.

The RDEK, through its public meetings held in April 2000, has established a user pay

system at its landfills and designated transfer stations.

The RDEK established these fee schedules based on public input, recommendations

received by the Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) and recognition of the

need to encourage the public to dispose of wastes in the appropriate locations.

User I Disposal Fees

User fees have been established for:

• designated materials generated through economic activity such as demolition waste,

• materials requiring additional handling for waste diversion purposes such as scrap metal,

• materials requiring special handling for disposal such as animal carcasses or asbestos,

• differential rates to encourage source segregation (clean wood), and • no charge materials to encourage segregation such as yard and garden

waste, auto batteries or propane tanks.

In addition the RDEK has material bans in place on commercially generated cardboard,

as well as oil and oil filters. Loads containing these banned materials are subject to

additional fees and penalties.


Taxes

The primary source of funding for solid waste infrastructure such as transfer stations

and landfills, waste diversion and public education operations that benefit all

residents of the RDEK is property taxation.

Funds will be raised through property taxes that are assessed on all classes of

property within the RDEK. Solid waste planning, operations and general regional

programs and services are supported primarily through these tax requisitions.

Through this mechanism, payment is loosely related to the ability to pay, since

taxes are assessed through property value. The advantage of using tax requisitions

is the stability of program funding.

Utility Fees

Unlike taxes, which are usually assessed on the basis of property value regardless

of the service provided, a utility fee is a cost item equal for each household or

dwelling unit equivalent e.g. an apartment unit, in a service area. For some, this is

seen as a more equitable means of paying for a service; i.e., equal charges for

equal service. Some municipalities have chosen to recover their cost in this

manner.

Service Fees

Although not used to recover any of the RDEK costs outlined above, a service fee

would be the fee charged to an individual homeowner or business by a private

contractor for a direct service, such as collection. It is assumed that, for specific

services such as collection, service fees would be very similar to utility fees.

Bag Limits

At their discretion, municipalities within the RDEK have set bag limits on the amount

of garbage collected. A surcharge for additional bags of waste can be established

by the participating municipalities. The RDEK will consider bag limits in the Electoral

Areas if curbside collection is undertaken.

Review of Fees

The· PMAC will annually, or as requested by the RDEK Board, assess the

effectiveness of the cost recovery model in generating revenue to cover waste

management costs, and advise the RDEK on suggested changes to the cost

recovery structure.


The fee structure shall also be subject to a full review every five years when the full

Plan is reviewed to ensure that the strategies in the Plan are still appropriate for the

changing demographics of the RDEK. The reviews will be completed under the

direction of the Manager of Engineering & Environmental Services, with input from

the Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee.


3.2 REUSE

3.2.1 Wood Waste Management

The chipping and com posting of wood waste will be considered in conjunction with the

evaluation of centralized com posting. Wood chips may be made available to the public,

used for reclamation of closed landfills, or incorporated into the operations of the

landfills and transfer stations for moisture, dust control, closure and landscaping.

3.2.2 Composting

The RDEK may develop central composting facilities at its landfill or residual

management operations. Community groups will be encouraged to organize workshops

on backyard com posting. The RDEK will develop trial com posting programs at its waste

management residual facilities and/or at other locations. These trial programs will be

developed within a two-year time frame of the plan approval and comply with the

Production and Use of Compost Regulation, as it applies.

3.2.3 Storage Facilities for Reusable Materials

The RDEK will designate storage areas at its waste management residual facilities and

designated transfer stations to enable separation of reusable materials and direct the

public to the appropriate storage area. The RDEK will solicit and consider proposals

from private businesses and organizations to carry out the separation and reuse of the

materials.

3.2.4 Materials Exchange

The RDEK will promote and encourage the use of existing materials exchange

programs through the Recycling Council of BC.


3.3 RECYCLING

3.3.1 Columbia Valley and Central Subregions

3.3.1.1

3.3.1.2

Residential Recycling

The residential recycling commenced in 1995, with residential recycling

available by conveniently located drop off points throughout the Central,

Columbia Valley and Elk Valley Subregions.

There are presently approximately 400 drop boxes and depots throughout

the Central, Columbia Valley and Elk Valley Subregions. These drop off

points currently accept mixed paper, cardboard, boxboard, glass,

newspaper, magazines, aluminium, tin and plastic milk jugs. Recycling of

designated materials will continue if not cost prohibitive or until alternatives

such as full industry stewardship become available.

The number and location of the drop off points will be re-evaluated on an

ongoing basis.

The RDEK will consider the option of curbside recycling collection based on

possible reduction in the cost of service and the maximization of program

effectiveness.

Commercial Recycling

The RDEK, during the current contract period (2002 - 2007) with South

Sky Ltd., will provide containers to businesses and institutions and

arrange for regular pickup of recyclables and delivery to a processing

facility. The RDEK will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the provision of

recycling bins to the commercial sector, and through its contractor,

assess additional fees to cover operational costs.

The RDEK has further stimulated the effectiveness of recycling by

promoting recycling through education, waste audits, and by implementing

disposal bans on products for which recycling facilities are available.


3.3.1.3 Ferrous Metals and White Goods Recycling

The RDEK will provide space at its residual management facilities or other

suitable locations for the drop off of scrap metal and white goods (large

appliances). The removal of these items will be carried out under a

contractual arrangement with the assistance of current or any

Provincial/Federal funding.

The RDEK will ensure that appliances containing Ozone Depleting

Substances (ODS) will be seNiced by a qualified person prior to recycling.

This will be accomplished by requiring certification by a qualified person

prior to disposal and/or storage and removal of ODS at designated RDEK

facilities.

3.3.2 Elk Valley Subregion

3.3.2.1

3.3.2.2

Residential Recycling

Recycling programs are and will continue to be operated by private

contractors in the Districts of Sparwood and Elkford, the City of Fernie, and

Electoral Area "A". Expanded or co-operative programs can be established

in the Elk Valley communities at their discretion.

There are presently depots throughout the Elk Valley Subregion. These

drop off points currently accept mixed paper, cardboard, boxboard, glass,

newspaper, magazines, aluminium, tin and plastic milk jugs. Recycling of

designated materials will continue if not cost prohibitive or until

alternatives such as full industry stewardship become available.

Commercial Recycling

Commercial recycling is presently in operation in Sparwood, Fernie and

Elkford is contracted out to private contractors. The majority of the waste

from this sector consists of paper products, either corrugated cardboard or

fine quality paper. To divert this material from disposal, the Subregion will

continue to provide recycling opportunities as long as they are

required.

The contractor will provide containers to some businesses and institutions,

and arrange for regular pickup of recyclables and delivery to a processing

facility or as an alternative, drop-off points will be available to businesses.


3.3.3 Education Programs

The RDEK will collate and distribute existing educational and promotional material

available from the Provincial Government and Federal Government, to encourage

participation in the recycling program. The RDEK will promote and provide information

on specifics for . each of the Subregion's recycling programs. The RDEK shall

encourage other organizations to assist in educating residents and businesses in all

aspects of recycling.

3.3.4 Recycling Directory

A directory of businesses and organizations providing recycling services will be

prepared co-operatively between the Subregions.


3.4 RECOVER

3.4.1 RDEK staff will work with proponents to assist in the development of cogeneration

proposals as necessary. The possibility of diverting wood wastes to fuel a

cogeneration plant may become a reality within the life of this plan. A wood waste

management study will be undertaken to evaluate options for the final disposal, reuse,

recycling and/or recovery options.

RDEK- Solid Waste Mana!Jement Plan Page 21

3.5 RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

3.5.1 Central Subregion Solid Waste Management Facility

3.5.1.1

3.5.1.2

3.5.1.3

3.5.1.4

The Central Subregion has developed and operates one subregional

landfill on the Spray Irrigation Site No. 2 comprising 75± hectares. The

site is located on Crown Land immediately northeast of the effluent

storage pond at the City of Cranbrook spray irrigation property. The site

is off the Old Fort Steele Road approximately 12 km from Cranbrook.

Facilities will also be developed to receive, treat, and dispose of septic

tank sludge on site after the completion of study and amending of the

Operating Certificate.

Designated wood waste will be trench burned at the Central Subregion

Landfill as a means of disposal as a last resort if other disposal or reuse

options are not viable. This is subject to the completion of a wood waste

management study and the amendment of the operational certificate.

The Central Subregion has developed marshalling areas to serve

Electoral Areas "B" and "E" to enable separation and stockpiling of

recyclable materials. The sites accept clean fill, demolition, land clearing,

and construction wastes with designated materials transported to the

Central Landfill.

Designated clean wood wastes will be open burned on a periodic basis

and at approved times at the Tie Lake and Wasa Transfer Station

Marshalling Areas.

3.5.2 Columbia Valley Subregion Solid Waste Management Facility

3.5.2.1 The RDEK will undertake a landfill development process to maximize the

life of the existing Columbia Valley Subregion Landfill beginning in 2002.

The Columbia Valley Landfill has a life span ranging from 10 to 20 years

depending on waste diversion activities. The Columbia Valley Landfill will

remain open until the future disposal system is approved.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan · Page 22

3.5.2.2

3.5.2.3

3.5.2.4

3.5.2.5

As part of the operational plan, a development trigger will be established

to indicate when the final five years of the landfill site has been reached.

Upon the reaching of this trigger, the RDEK will undertake a process to

identify a new residual management facility to service the Subregion.

The existing transfer stations located at Canal Flats, Fairmont Hot

Springs, Brisco/Spillimacheen and Radium/Edgewater will continue in

operation. The Columbia Valley Subregion will construct additional

transfer stations to improve refuse handling within the Subregion if

required.


and at approved times at the Canal Flats Transfer Station Marshalling

Area.

3.5.3 Elk Valley Subregion Solid Waste Management Facilities

3.5.3.1

3.5.3.2

3.5.3.3

The Elk Valley Subregion will develop and operate transfer stations in

· the District of Elkford, District of Sparwood and in or near the City of

Fernie. Waste will be hauled to the Lethbridge Regional Landfill

commencing in June 2001 from Sparwood and Elkford, and December

2002 from Fernie.

The City of Fernie and District of Elkford existing landfills are to be

closed to the public for waste disposal when the subregional transfer

stations are in operation.

The Elk Valley Subregion shall develop a marshalling area at the

Sparwood Transfer Station to enable separation and stockpiling of

recyclable materials, and to accept and dispose of clean fill, demolition,

land clearing, and construction wastes to serve the Elk Valley

municipalities and Electoral Area "A", as per the Operational Plan.


and at approved times at the Sparwood Transfer Station Marshalling

Area.

Efforts will be made through public presentations and open houses to familiarize

local residents and contractors with the new subregional solid waste facilities prior to

closure of any landfill.


3.6 CLOSURE PLANS

In compliance with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Landfill Criteria for

Municipal Solid Waste, the RDEK will prepare closure plans for all landfills that will cease to

operate and submit the plans for approval to the Regional Waste Manager. The plans detail

the following mandatory components of closure:

• shaping, consolidation of fill and placement of final cover; • drainage systems; • water quality monitoring wells where necessary at selected sites; • final cover placement and seeding; • site clean up; • site monitoring schedule; and • wildlife management program.

The residents of affected communities will be consulted by way of public meetings or open

houses regarding the content of closure plans.

Draft closure plans will be available for review commencing in 2000 for the Central and

Columbia Valley, and September 2002 for the Elk Valley landfills.

3.7 STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS

The RDEK will encourage the use of existing industry stewardship programs for products

such as paint, oil, solvents, and automobile batteries. The RDEK will support provincial

legislation requiring industry stewardship of herbicide and pesticide and will institute

household hazardous waste bans at residual management facilities in support of -these

programs.

3.8 SEPTIC SLUDGE DISPOSAL

The RDEK shall investigate, on a region wide basis, alternatives for accepting and treating

septic tank sludge and holding tank effluent from facilities approved and inspected by the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and local health societies. Septic sludge receiving

facilities may be incorporated into regional solid waste facilities and landfills or into

centralized com posting facilities. This may result in the closure of existing septage facilities at

·the Wasa, Elko and Hosmer sites when the new subregional septage facilities are

operational.


'l

SECTION 4: ADMINISTRATION

4.1 PLAN MONITORING

Following the adoption of the Plan by the Regional Board and its approval by the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection, the implementation and operation of the plan for the Central,

Columbia Valley and Elk Valley Subregions will be administered by the RDEK. A Plan

Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) will be established for the entire RDEK. This review

committee will report to the Board.

It is anticipated that representation on the PMAC will, if possible, reflect:

• the geography, demography and political organization of the RDEK; • a balance between technical and non-technical interests; and "' the subregional components of the Plan.

The role of the PMAC will be to monitor plan effectiveness from a public perspective.

Reporting to the RDEK, the PMAC will have available to it all necessary information for

evaluating the effectiveness of the plan, Of primary importance, is the determination of the

effectiveness of waste reduction, reuse and recycling. Waste quantities being landfilled will

be measured either through the use of scales and/or on the basis of volume estimates and

landfill surveys. Each year, waste disposed of will be divided by the total population and a

kilogram per person per year figure will indicate a trend in waste disposal. In addition,

recycled quantities will be tracked and can be used to confirm waste minimization estimates.

In the event that the PMAC identifies an issue with the implementation of the Solid Waste

Management Plan, the PMAC will first make a determination as to the cause, advise the

RDEK Board and provide recommendations as to how the issue can be solved.

The RDEK will revisit the plan every five years to make adjustments that may be

necessitated by changing conditions within the plan area. Other requests by municipalities,

electoral areas or interested groups will be considered by the Board and PMAC as they

arise.


4.2 OBJECTIVES AND TASKS OF THE PMAC

• To meet at least two times per year to discuss issues relating to Plan implementation.

• To review information related to implementation of the Plan, including waste quantities,

population, diversion rates and costs of each Plan component.

• To recommend strategies to increase diversion rates, taking into consideration cost

effectiveness.

• To conduct an annual Plan review and recommend updates, if necessary, of the

following Plan components;

1. material bans, 2. user fee schedules, 3. effectiveness of education and promotion programs, 4. the annual solid waste management budget, 5. effectiveness of User Pay system.

• To review and make recommendations on Operational and Closure plans.

• Public consultation programs to review plans and programs and their effectiveness.

4.3 CO-ORDINATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan will affect a number of groups during

implementation. It is the RDEK's intent to encourage communication among all of these

groups to the greatest extent practical. These groups include;

• municipalities and electoral areas, • the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, • surrounding Regional Districts, • recycling facility owners/operators, • landfill operators, .., industries with waste concerns, • other interested parties.


APPROVED THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2002.

CHAIR JIM OGILVIE

I, LEE-ANN CRANE, Chief Administrative Officer of the Regional District of East Kootenay hereby certify, under the corporate seal of the said Regional District, that the foregoing is a true copy of the Regional District of East Kootenay Regional Solid Waste Management Plan as approved by the Regional Board of Directors on May 31, 2002.

LEE-ANN CRANE, CAO

APPROVED pursuant to Section 18(7) of the Waste Management Act.

MINISTER OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION Date


\

)

ocr o s zooJ

Reference; 94913

Gregbec.k, Chairman and Board oftHrectots Reiional :D.istricJ ofBas.t Kootenay 1.9 · 241h Avenue South Cranbroo.k BC VlC 3H8

Thank you fonul:nn:i:ssi~n pfy:Qut$PM w~st~ mMMemrent plan as requited by the W<Js:t.? Manageme.i# ;i9t (WMA). . ..

In acQQrdaneewithS.ection 18; Su:b~sec.tion {7) o.fi.heWMA y~;iw;~pHc! w&s,te management plan S-ections 11 2 ano :3 (Le. pages 1 to. 27) dated May .2002 'is :appro.ved.

Attached is an action plan reached by mufuai agr..eero~nJ·outlining strategies to nis.oJve outstanding 'issues :Wid achieve outooines that wi.ll meetthe objectives·ohoth the minJstry tilld the Regional District ofE~Wf Koqtenay •

. cc: Eric Bonhari:J,; D.iteetor, ~unicipal :Engineering Se.rvices, NH;~WS

Attaclrrhent

ftllnistryofWafer,Land and Air Pt.otecllon

Otffc~;~ ortha.Minister M!i-lll!:ig.Add.fe~: p~rli~ri1ent·B~11dlngs ViCtoria 80 V8!/1X4

~hiit~

C$ft:t~ ~OYlj W"b r ' • ····· .......... ~ .. ._. .. . ""'*"'

;fl~!Utton #; \W2024

Res tonal District of East Kot>tehay Waste Management Action Plan .... . .. . ..... .. ·- ·-··-· ..... ~·· - ....• \A> ' ' .

Thi$ Mtion pll:rn ha~ been· agreed up6n by the Regional District :0f !East Kbotenay and the Minrstty of Water. Lan.d :and Air Protection to. re:solv.El outS:tanding is?l..le? q(}d :CJQhi'EJVe. ,objeCUYes thai are nmtually b:ene:fioial. ·

.Item 1 ""': Fernie 'fraMfer Shtfion

On or before December at. 2:005 RDEK will, in acc:or:dance with minlslry guideHm~s; design, oliild and pJa:ce into op·e.r:atitin a full se_r-Vice, :transfer s.f1iltion in orh~arthe City:of Fernie. RDEK will :ens:ure adequa(e public .Qonsult?tiqn with ~dj~ce'r)t JatidbWMrs/ ·re·sid.f.mi$ qn tbe s.ttirm anr:f d¢sig~ qffne. ftahsfer s.tatibn.

The. extension to: Deoemb.~r 31, 2QOS to. GO.JrlJ?il=)te ~rrrew·~ram~f~n>tfltioh f6r-the Qity of Femia {!o_es not·c.onstuute ;;~n ~ndor-semeni by tn~ mJnistry ofthe :eXistih\il waste transfer 'fa:¢ilities ;:~t'f,he old t='~mJ~ landfill site, The RDEKaf'idlot the Glty of Fern1e :co:nlihue to be r~sponglbl¢ fot ·anY hl.Jrnantwildlite conf:licf or ofherliabllffy arising from the operatior:~ of fhe $Xi sting was:te tran-sfer faoilitie:s. It is understood that lhe City' of t=''ernie, i:ls the" permitho1der, is responsible tor the :op!:!rc;~tion qflh~ l$OdfUI.

Jtem :2 ~Columbia Valley Landfill (\Nlridetmete.l~h_dfi!ll

RDI;K:Will_,, on or before December 31, 2.004, devetop P. tamlfjfl qp:er~{iqn;;illil.fl_n t"pr the . existing'Wihdertnere JMdfill 'that mitigates th:e c~mcerns of li:!nd¢Wners withfn 2 km of'the

landfill .and actdre:ss:e_s' environmental and heaftl't concerns. As part tf the Go!umbJa Valff;ly S:l.l_b.r~gJqn 4a.il.c!Jiil qp.erational plan, the RDEK wli{,.Jrr .c.oop:eration wi~b th~ ·adjacentl?MoWnerstresidents within 2km of:the landfilf, f-irst Nations ahq the Minis:try·of W~terLarid and Air Pro.te.e>tion; develop an Qp~rattonai Ce.rt(fic:ate forth~ landfilL ··

The develpprnent o.fthe opetafional plan and Operational Certificate for the Columbia Valley $t,Jbtegioh Lantlfill will in\loiW:) .c.onsultatton with 19ndi:>wnw~lfesfdents· and f:J'rst .Nalions Withib- 2 km of .the landfill. !.he . .operational pl9,fJ ;;J.nd :bperatlonai·Certlflcate will ~d.drf:ls.s lal'!:cWU.Ii.fe ~ng 'ali envifol'ltnent~V!iealth pr.oteellon Jss.ul:}.s arid be::ih ;acoPrdanc:e with the Mihi$Jr:Y ofWat$'r !,.and and AirPro:te'Ctiotl Landfill Cri.teria 'for Mur.ilcip.al 'S'QH<i Wa~;te and Gutct~tin:e:s !or Envir-onmental MpnltQrin9 atM!:Iriidipal .$6lid Waste Landfills.

Item 3 "':" Bitisolfd~, Slu~fie.-Septage ;and Holding .Tank Effiuent

The Septage Disposal and Handlihg Study prepared by rocus lhte.C'for RDEr<: and dated December 12, 2001 Will beJJs~d to gukl~ RO~K .$trate-gies 'fbt septage treatment and disposal. - · ·

Rb~K Wlll particlp·ate with the ministry; cofher government agenqies f,!tf(:l oiher slakenoJders in 1he.. dev~Joprnent or a str;;itegy for the treatr.m~r;it and disposal of blosoUds. shJdg;e, $epta~e. ?rid holdln_g tahk effluent within fh:e regional distrJct.

1

J

\

.. ·-···-·-·············-·--··--·-. ··-~-~--------------------..,.,....,......,

Bio.solids, sluClg~. septage .and holding tat.iKefflliH!lnt lre·atmt=J.nl and disposal fadlities maybe 'incorporated into -regional solid waste fa:OUitie.s and landfills or Lnto~.centr-alfze.d comp.ostJn:g f~cHIJies In accordance With the,Organic Matt~r Recycling Reglliafion ii!hd guio~n¢$ :dQcQrn~n.ts:w they rnaYi;>E? ihcbtporated int<:> exf$ffng waste wab=idre.afment fa-cilities· wheif;l appropriate using suitable pretreatment works.

Item A~ Demolition. landciearing :and .b:onstructioitW~ste Strafegy:and Burning of'Woodwaste · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · ·· · - · ·· · · ·· · · · ..

Rb.EKwill develop terms of reference for :an fnte.gr!:lfed region Wid.e sJr<:!tegy for . d€l.mQJH!On1 lami C)egriO~lS!Nd C()J1S~fl.lttlo.r\ {0.1,.~). f~fUse ah~fsl,lbmit the terms 6( ($ftm:~nce to the Regltinal Waste Manager f6rapptoval on (J.r hefbre May,-31, 2005.-and implement the :strategy on or p_~fore May $T, ,20:08;

The maoagl!l!iier\t $y$lem. for PI-C f$(kJ$$ wnr b¢:·conslsteiit wlth the ,5R hlerartihy; the strategy will .be devekiped in ·consttltatlon with 'the' Plarr Monitoring Ad'vis,o.JJ Gommlttee (PMAc~ ancl affe.cted sfakeholders and will include but not: b.e limited to addressing ahd making recommendations, on th.e. following; · · ·

,., reduoin'g tile g,eneration.of-con:s:tr:wctton and=damolitlonr~fuse PtWork sHes, • ent>Ouraglng fhe~sorting of DLC r.efuseby g.ener.atq)rs, ·

. " fhe role oftnuhiolpl:ll construction .and dem01iHo.n permits, ~ ~va11W1€! -and potentia.! <ma·rl<ets for clean OLC refuse fn ,aJI sqb.regions.,

inCluding the p~bte'r.lUEJl for use of non.~musaP.Je :;~nd nt;m-reclf~fa):J)$. fn'l¢fjon$ ·of th:e our r~ll.!se $Ir~am as fuef iti the. ¢og~ner$tlon fadHty-abSkbeil~umchuok,

• the cost Bfvartous options; · · • the sharing of processing equipment with· ah!j~c.entmg·ional cli~t.r!¢ts, <;~fiq • the etwkonmenial and he.alth imp.acts of op,en and trench burn]r:t.g :of. ole~rr

DLCrefuse.

The OL:G r:efuse stn:[email protected]! be ;(n:tl:lfi)Qt.a.ted intQ the plan by amendment at the earliest .oppoJtunity, · · · ·

Until the· plan amendment ac!ding the new DL.O .refUse strategy fs approved by the Minister, the. ROE!\ will: ·· · ·· ·

• :consid'er all o~tlons for reduction, r~us@, reqyc)log, tecovE:Jry ·and disposal of DI.;Crefuse.

• provide mCJr$halllng are.as for · DOLC refuse at desfgnatect resid.ual m~l199~tnentfacilities,.l3rid

• develop nperiit!P.na:l •ceriifiwt~~. including: provision for open or tr.ench butoin9. for DLC. tefu·se: site:s, an'd mar.shaUin@ -areas: at -des.lgnaled re:sidMC!I manag~m:ent facilities in cQnsultation wUh. stakehoiQ.er$,

RD5K in th!'l O$ntr~J SUbtegio('l wll.l.d~velop marshallihg ·areas to oServe Elector-al Areas "B!' .gnd ;,E~ .~t Wa$a and Tie Lli!ke transfer statioh slte.s for DLC refwse with d~sigr:rated materials to be tran·sferr:e.d to·'the Centrg,l ~~mdfiU, ·tJe$!gn€itcpd. cJear'i woo<fwaste may oe: op:en burned on a period i.e b<Jsl$ an~l at ;;!pproved tlmss attn~ Tie Lake :and Wa:s-a

2

,. 't

•'

'··------·--·-·----·····--------------~-~----~--~---------,-

l.r:arisfer Station Matshallirf9 Areas ln ac<:<on:tan~ with ·bp~ratlonal Certificates when iss.ued or ;as approved l:JY the ReglotiG\i Wasfe MaM~er itrwrmng,

D.esignated clean wood W$$te ·may beUtench burned (no op~o P:umiog}at.ttw Gentt.":li $qb_reglbn Landfill as a last resort means o.f O.J~po.l?.<!l if.otb~r r$!J$$, tecoveryordisposal options .are nQt viable, s.ubJe.c;t to <:~me.nomE'lnto( the .exlsfing ope.rafioh·al C!:lrtifi~te,

Rbi;K In the Qolumbfa Valley:s~ubregiofl wlll.pevelop_ -~ mar.sMJiing ~t~~ ~t:lhe Canal Flats transfer statiM site 'for OW w.a$.tJ:lsJo sEHVi¢e· ¢£iMI Fiats and surrounding an~G\. wUh· desig.o·ate·ct -r:na.teri<J:Is lP: tl$ tr.anMerted io the Columbia Valley Subregion:.Landfr!L Design;;~teq c!!?~\1 Wood W9Ste may be open b.urned on a p~riodJG t>as·is ano aU~pproved tlm,e$ .at fh$,.Canal Flats. transfer,statio:n mar,shalling ar.ea in accordance with -the Opi;!rational Certificate. Whl;ln i?.s.qed or?& -appr<N~d in writing by the Regional Waste Manager prior to. th·e l$$.!JgnG~r :Ot th~- Operational G~rtificate. ·

RDEK in the E(k y'g_il~y $.ubr.egioh will-deve.Jop .a 01-C WG\s.te .olS.po$al1andfiff and DLC wasle m?r$halling :a tea ·to sai'V1ce Jh_e ~lk V~lley mwnlg)p~:~lfties .and ~DEKEtectoral Area "A', Des1gnated.:cilean woGd W?§te ma.y be open butl:'le:d O"rl a periodlc ba.sis and 'at a ppto.ve.d· time.$ atJh~ ~lk V$1ley 'Subre:Slon DLC waste . .site near $par:wo:¢d iri accotd$!1G~ With the bperatlonat Ce.rtifioatE:J.Wh:.!3n tss!J~d of aS::apprbV.ed by the Re@ional W~$te Mana:£Jetin writing.. ·

Item 5 -User :Fees 'and Cost Recovery

RDEKwill be responsible for prpgr:arn-i:!d.rhflllsfration .and cost-re:covetyfor .ail commor\ regional programs, as well as Joca:l programs for unincorppr;;~te.g -~!e-9ton:!l qr¢~s\ Member muniOipalitle$ wrrr be tespotisib.le--for' cos:t rs:c.ove.ry :Of th~k <?w.n &v.etslon, ct>Jle.ction and dispos~l programs and ens.ur~ co-ordination wjtb RDE:K progr-ams.

' ' '

There :are s:everal means of rec-overint~ thE: full costs of integrated wastE;! management The primary m~clianisms hiclude:

·• taxe·s through prcperty as$essm~=mt, • a utility fe~ (per household r:ate based on mtJnlc!paily

s.upplied/cohtracted ser.vice), • ;;i s~Mc~ fee {forlndividuaTs:wbo .dlrectly--Elontract .a servjce :Su.oh as:

uolleoffon)., .. • user PaY p:rograms such -as bag tags for?xtrawas1e.b:ag~HJV.er.a .set

Uniit, . -~ :disp.os:al tlp-pJng fees, and. •· other tees ana fmes:

RPEK, through its•publicmeetings held ih Apt:ll2000', has es-tablished a user pay 'sYSt$m -at Its landfilts.and designated trans.ferstations.

HOEK estf'\!Jiished itiese fe$ schedules bas.ed 011 public inp!Jt, ree¢mrnendafions received by the;)?MA:Cand recogniUo:r; of ihe·ne:ed to enooyri:J!)ethe,public to: minimize wastes.and d($po$e ofw!'lstes:Jn the.approprlate lo~tlons> · ·

.User /DisPosal Fees . ·· User lees have been ·established for:

" designated m,ateril:lls g en.erated through e conornic activity ,Such a:s dern:olilfon waste. .

• materials requiring, additiona1 handJing;TQr waste dlverslbn purpp$e$ .such as sorap metal~ . · ·

·• materials r~quJrihg. sp·ectal han~IJng for qi$ppsal sl!ch :a$ anl!m>l ·cgro.~s.ses•pr ~sl!$stos,,

• differential rgte~ t0-~r:lQoi.Jrqg~ sQurE;~ $69regatlon (clean ·wood)., and • no: char:9e materi.~ls to. eQoovta,9e· $.egregf!.tlon s(:i¢h as· yard and

gan;l~n waste, auto !-iatterres or propane. tahk's. ·

In ~dditicin RDEK nas rna:teria.l :bans 'in _pl<;~oe. ·oo comm~r~r~ny· generat~d · cardboard, as weO a_s oil ;;tnd oii ;filters. Loads containihg::tlieS.e' banned tnalerials are s.t,tbjecrto additional fees and pename.s. . ' '

Taxes· ~e primary sou roe qffui:J~tr'!9 (9r soiid waste irtftastroetor.e such as lransf~r

statfMs and landfills, waste dlvwsion ano pu_ollc-~du®.tion oper9tions th~t benefit all r.esiden!s of the RO.EK i$ prop~rtyJax!'ltkm, · ·

Funds will P.e ffil$ed tnri;iUgh property. taxe:dhat are assessed on: all ,classes ofpropettywilfll'o the ROEK Solid wast~ p!annlng, opc.:ralrP!1~ ancl.g~ne:r<:li reigional prGgtarns. anct·'S'ervice.s :axe ~UPI?o!:ted P.dmf!r11y ti'WQ\:lgb fn~s~tl:lx requisitions. Tlirov.gh this rn~~han[srn. pl;iyrn_eht is loosely .related to the ability ~o way, s_ii)~: tax$s. are as$essed Inrough pr:op.erty -value. The advantage of using tax. requisitions is the stability ofprograrn funding.

UtilitvFees \J.n1Jke~Xl3S, whlch:are.usualfyassess-ed on the basis of property v~lue regardless offhe service provided, a utiJJtyfee is a Gost item eqwalf91' each bous~li<::>ld or dwelling unit ·equlvai!:iot e-.g, ~n apartment' unit, in a serv:ice · are;a, For s.Qfl'!E!, ·fhJs Is $(;i~n $$ a tQC)f~ ~qolfable means. of p~ying for a -sE!rvk:e; t$., $qi,if!l c.n~tge$ rot e(Ju~l'Servlce. Sdrne munlt:Jpalfties have. -cho~?n. to recover 'their costs in this manner. ·

SeMceFees · Althol!gh not used to recover any of thEl ROS.K cpS!s QLitlJned above, a serllice

feewoutct:bethe f~ecfi?rgl'Jd to an individual homeownerorbusih:essby:e- .. priVate. eon tractor for :a di[ecf service., such as :qoJigcffon, It :i$: ~~'$llr:rled th?.t. for sP~l:iifiQ -serv.i\3es $.\:10:8 as cq!!~c.Uon., .$.etvi~ tees wouid be vetfJ similar to utility fees~

Bag Limits ···· 'Attheir discretion, munieip~liiies wJ~hin fh~ RDEK have stit ba_g limlls on lhe

amount of garb:l;lge colle¢ted. A$lJi'cMrge for adoifional bags ofwaste can be

4

.__ ________ ___;,~~----~--------------------

. . ~ \ ~···: .....

e:st~blished by the .partiCipating municipalities: RDEK will :consider bag ·limits In the Electoral Areas if curbside collection is undertaken.

Review on=ees , . The PMAC will annually, or. as requested by RDE.K BParo.; .assess· lbe. effectiveness ·onhe .cost reGOve.ry mode[ In generathig revenue to ¢ov~r waste nirmagemen.t ¢osts, arid ;:~dV.i$e the R.DEK oh &Uggesfed char\ges to t.he costreoovfi!ty structure. · ·· ··

The: Tee. structure shaJI also be ··s!Jl;>jecUo a full revlew\¢\fery five ye;;irs wh~n: the ruff 'Plan Js reviewed to ehstire that ~the :strategies irl'the Plan ,:are =still appropriate for ihe .changing dernographitlll of th.e HOEK;, The reviews will be co.mple.te:d under the dkection:Ofthe Manager Qf .Engineering c& Environmental S~N.l¢es; with

. :inp.uHrom the Plan Mpnito.rins Advisory Oommltt~e and the Ministry of Water, Land ar\d.Afr Ptotec.tiort · · · -

i.tem 6·-:- C'lo.sure and Post Closure Plans . ··-······· ·-.

In ac-cordance. with the Ministl)l ofW~ter; Land and A1rProtedfo.o :!.:Mdffll Critetla :fbi' Mqnidp@i $oiiqWaste, RDI::K Wfll pr.epar~ olosure,plans and past cli'Usure.plans for:aiJ lam;fOfls; beginnln~vJlth tho·sf.Hhat are: closed and submit the, plans· fbrapp.rov1;1l to thEl Regional Waste Manager.

Thf!' resicl!'>D!S. aq]a~n,t ~6 ¢)(:)s~q f~nqnlls Will· be e<lnsulted i;ly RDEK in .cooperation with Ministry pf W$t~r. LaJ19:and Air f:ir.otection by way of me:etings,_publio meetings or open ·hQuses ri;igar~ing'the~co:nfent ofclosute:plans,and closure Operational Ce.rtJUqptes.

RPEK, in consl)ltatlon with WJ)..P reglbtial staff, will' prepare a priorif~r li:St and schedule for $t;ibmJ~~i61i of dralt dosure.:piansto -the Re~ional Waste Manager for Wiprovat on Qf before oecemher'B1, :mos. Closed landfills ifrcli.;Jde Cmnbrook; Kimberley, Sk:ookurnchuck! Wa$~. Fort Slee.le, ~lko, Gr$sm¢re, .Ba)ines Lake; Tie La'ke, Newgate, Green B<:Jy,. Canal Raf$; Fairmont Edgewater, artsco, Fernie, Efkford ..;~nd Upper ElK VaHey. ·

Item 1 . ..,. Syiaws to Mlnfmize: Wildlife Conflicts

RDEK ana member monicip:aiJt!e.& wiil p;;~rtn~r with to~ Mfnl~(cy· ofWafer Land· and Air Pr:0tectlon an.d othet:§tc;~keh_ptder$ to.reducewildlif.e conflicts ~used by the storage hgng)lhg, friil?tment ordfsposa1 of solid waste wi~hin fhe regional .district.

lt~m8 ~Elk '(alll:wCon~lnqen:ey Strateg\!

RDEK will develop a ~ntlngeocy ~lr~te.gyfo.rlhe~lkValley..Subre_gion·that can be implemented if erW!ronmenfal, re,gq-l?tory or political Cbntlitlonsterriporarily prevent the transport and/or disposal of muniGipal sblid waste at the l:!l!lfhor:ized landfill in Lethbridge, Alberta. ·

. ··:

ltern 9 ~'Plan. Monitoring Advisory Committee {.PM AUt

Th~ PMACwill inwlte r~prEi.si:m(a1l:eitl ft¢m First Natibns. W'e als.o re~nmmend .the fnclusJon. pf a re)m~sent~tive 'from th"e MfhistiY dfWl:lter; Land :and Alr Protection on {he RMAC.

Dated .September 30_, 2003


APPENDIX I

1.1 CENTRAL SUBREGION PLAN COSTS

1.1.1 Reduce/Reuse Programs

The following reduce/reuse programs are to be implemented for the Central Subregion.

The following costs are to be considered maximums and can be revised.

Program Component Annual Cost One Time

Cost 1. Backyard Com posting -including administration, $

10 000 -··-- ··---~!2E~9.~,! .. _c:!.i_~!!l~~!.!2t.l __ <:\_r:29._~_<:l,,'{_~E!i.~ir.:t.g _____ , ____ ,... ·------·------·- ·---·-··-··--·-·----~······-----··- ------·---------····

2. Business Waste Audit/Recycling Directory 5,000 $ 3,000

3. Woodwaste Diversion 200,000

4. Education/Promotion 25,000

Estimated Total Annual Cost $ 240,000

1.1.2 Recycling Programs

The Central Subregion may allocate up to $400,000/year towards recycling programs.

1.1.3 Cost Summary

Based on the preceding, ·the estimated annual cost of the Solid Waste Management Plan

for the Central Subregion is as follows:

Reduce/Reuse Recycle Residual Management (including Debt Retirement Costs)

Estimated Total Annual Cost

1.1.4 Plan Cost Appropriation

$ 240,000 400,000

1,760,000

$ 2,400,000

All costs associated with implementation of the Central Subregion Solid Waste

Management Plan will be shared by the Cities of Cranbrook and Kimberley, and Electoral

Areas "B", "C" and "E", based on Bylaw Nos. 1250 and 1094.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs - Appendix I Page i

ASSOCIATED COSTS

CENTRAL SUBREGION

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES- CLOSURE COSTS

CLOSURE MONITORING WELLS TOTAL

CRANBROOK $ 1,030,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,080,000

KIMBERLEY 1,720,000 25,000 1,745,000 ~-----~-····--·--~---~------... --......... ~.--.. -·-·-·-·-·····--·· --·-···-·--·····---··-··"···-·-·-----·h•···-~-----.---... ····--·--··· ·--··---··---------··--···-·---.. ---------·~ .. ·~- ...................... ··--·······-··----------.................. _., ... , .. _____ ,_, __ .. _____ _ RURAL DUMPS 220,000 50,000 270,000

----·-···-------·-·---·---·--·--····--·····-.. -·---.. -·-----· _____ , .... , .. ,. _____ .,,,,, ________ ,~···"-----.. ·-··--· .. --··-···-·"' ________ .............................. -............. ---··-----···--·---··-- ····-·---··-····-··---·--··--··-··-.. ···---····-------····--··--·-·-ENGINEERING included

TOTAL $ 2,970,000 $ 125,000

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES~ NEW FACILITIES

CRANBROOK

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

$ 1,221,600

GRANT

$ 3,095,000 *

NET TOTAL

$ 1,221,600

KIMBERLEY 889,545 889,545 -------~···-··-.. --···---.. ---·-----.. -----~-----·-···-·-·-·----.. --.-·--···------~---··-···-··-- -··-·····---·-···--·----.. ~~······---·-··-·-···-·· ·-----~---·-·-····-····-····-·--······-··---··-···-·--······· ----~--·----···-····--···· .. ··---~-·-·--·-·····-· LANDFILL 1,136,021 1,136,021

RURAL TRANSFER STATIONS 1,339,207 $ 240,000 1,099,207

SEPTIC WASTES to be determined

ENGINEERING 427,952 427,952

TOTAL $ 5,014,325 $ 240,000 $ 4,774,325

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES

DEBT RETIRE ANNUAL COSTS

CAPITAL COSTS- TOTAL $ 4,774,325 $ 406,000 $ 406,000 ., .. , __ ,,, .... ,,,,_,,_,., ...... ,,,,,_,-.. ,-., .. , ... ,, .... , ..... --•••-·---···--••·--·-•-·•·--•••-•••••----·-·---••·U••·-•'• __ ,,,_, __ ..__,,,.,,.,,,,_,,, ...... , .. ,,,,, ___ ... ,,~-··-•-·•--••·• ••·•-••••·---••·•-••••••--~--•••-•·-•--··•-·-··-·"""""'- , .... ,,,.,., .. -... ,,, .. _,, ____ ., __ ,, ... ,,_..,.,_ .. __ ,.,.~.,,.,,.

LANDFILL OPERATIONS $ 449,000 -·~···-·--······~-······-···~ .... -... ----··-~-·-·····--·· .. ···-~·-~---········----~--~-·-········-······--···--· .. ~- -·--·-.. -........... -..... ., .. , ____ ....... - ... ~.-- .. ··-·-····"· ...... ,_,.,.,. .................... __ ,_ .................. --------........... ------·-----·---.... ___ .,,_.,,,. .. __ , .......... , .. __ _

TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS $ 765,000 ...... _,..., ....... ~·--·--.. -~----·---·.------------"--"··---· .. --.... -.~--............. ,_,_, _____ ,.,_,,_. __ ,_,...., --.. -------~---------.. -..... _ ............ ~ ..... -.... _____ ,.,,,_,.,., .. __ ,_,,, __ ,., ___ ,,,,., ____ .. ,, ........... ____ ,., ................... ----·-·---·-·------.. -· .. ··-.. ..

3 R'S $ 640,000 ,. ... , .... ..., ____ """'"""·••·--""•'-'""''"-""""""'""'"""-'"~"'''"'-"'"'-''''""'"''..,""~"'-'"'""-"•'"""""'"'""-'~ "~""'~---•-·•-·""""""""-~~_,,. .. ,., .. .,,., .. ,_,_~,,.., '"""-""'""""'-''"'"'''~"'•"~•-.. -·-••••"""""'""""'"'" ,,,_, ________ ,.,,_., .. ,.,.,.n~--·-"""-"'""-·

SEPTIC WASTES $ 20,000 -·---·--------·------.. --~-........... _,_,._..,, .. - ... -~ .. -·--·-··----------............................. _~-·--"' ·------............. --.... -.. ---~-----"---·--- ..... _____________ , _____ ,,, .......................... _ .. , ___ ..... .. .......... -~----·-·---·-·------·--·-·-··--

ADMINISTRATION $ 120,000

TOTAL $ 4,774,325 $ 406,000 $ 2,400,000

COST ALLOCATION

POPULATION 100% (2001) ASSESSMENT ANNUAL COSTS $/YRICAPITA

$11000 ASSESSMENT

,,_, __ ,_, __ ,~--.. ·-------"-"•"""'""'"-··--- ............... ,_,_, _____ , ..... , .. ____ , _____ , __ , ......... ______ ,,, ________ ... ~ ............. _, ____ ......... ~·--·-- .................................... -----·-------.. -----·-........... ...,.,. ____ ,._,,_,, __________ ,,,.,,,., ___ ............... ..

$2,400,000.00 34,829 $2,217,232,893 $68.91 $1.08

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs- Appendix I

* Final costs to be determine when closure plans are approved. Debt paymer have not bee included in operational expenditures

Page iii

2.1 COLUMBIA VALLEY SUBREGION PLAN COSTS


The following Reduce/Reuse programs are to be implemented for the Columbia Valley

Subregion at the following costs:

Program Component Annual

Cost One Time

Cost

1. Backyard Composting - including administration, $ 5

,000

________ §.!2r.§9.~L_£i§.!EJ_g~_!i2.~ .. ~J:l.Q_~_9y_f?.r,:!L~J.Q_g ______________________________ ···--- -·----··----····-·-··--·-····· ·--···-··--·-·---·-----

2. Business Waste Audit/Recycling Directory 4,000 $ 2,000

3. Woodwaste Diversion/Disposal 50,000

4. Engineering Study and Operations Plans 25,000.


(Note: In addition to these programs, it is intended that in tendering landfill operation, the

contractor will be given "salvage rights" to increase the reuse component of the

plan.)


The Columbia Valley Subregion may allocate up to $100,000 annually toward recycling

programs.

o~uyo \/

2.1.4 Cost Summary

Based on the preceding, the estimated annual cost for the Solid Waste Management

Plan for the Columbia Valley Subregion is as follows:

RE)duce/Reuse Recycle Residual Management (including Debt Retirement Costs)



$ 59,000 100,000 616 000

$ 775.000

All costs associated costs associated with implementation of the Columbia Valley

Subregion Solid Waste Management Plan will be shared by the District of lnvermere,

Village of Radium Hot Springs, and Electoral Areas "F" and "G", based on Bylaw Nos.

1162 and 1095.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs- Appendix I Page vi

ASSOCIATED COSTS

COLUMBIA VALLEY SUBREGION



-~-?.-~~~-§~~--~~~-~-~Y .. ~~~_!?-~!.~-~----·· --------~-~-~~~~~9.Qg ________ , ---·--········· .----- ..................... -------~2!Q9.g~.9.QQ ....... .. RURAL DUMPS (CANAL FLATS) $ 25,000 25,000 E'N'GI'N_E:.E:'R"'N'8 ...... ___ .. ___ .. ___ .. ___ ......... _ .. ___ .................................................... _. ___ .. ___ ........................................................................................................................ o .................. . ,...OTAL $1,025,000 $ 0 $1,025,000 *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES- NEW FACILITIES

COLUMBIA VALLEY LANDFILL

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

GRANT NET TOTAL

$ 0

RURAL TRANSFER STATIONS $ 91,485 $ 30,000 61,485 ,-.-~.-·-·---·--·-········--·--·-.. ·-·~-----·----·----·----·-·----·--····-"·--·---~--"-·-·····---···----· ···--··-.. ~---------···-·-···------·····-·····-········ ··-· ... ·--··-·-·---·······---···--·-.. ·-~-·-······--~---··· ·----.. ---·-··-···---·----·····-··-------·-···--·-··---··· SEPTIC WASTES to be determined 0

ENGINEERING 0

TOTAL $ 91,485 . $ 30,000 $ 61A85



CAPITAL COSTS- TOTAL $ 86,485

LANDFILL OPERATIONS $ 360,000 •-••o•• .. --·--~-----·•'"'h•<-o••••-''-'''"•~·-·~-•oP0~----••••••~------~---.. -,. .... , __ ,,_,~---•"'"""""""0-' ·-"""""""""" __ ,_,,.,~--.. ..--.......... ,,.,_,.,,,.,.,., .. ,.,,., '""""""" ____ .. ,~ ..... _b""'"""'"'"'""'"" ___ """""'"'"-'""""'-"'"'_" ___ ,, . .,,,..,,_,.,_,.,.,.,,.,.,

TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS 160,000 ..... _ ............. __________ ., .. , .... _ ...... ,_, _______ ,., _____ , ............. _______________ , ______ , __ , ........... _______ ,,_, ....... -............................................... -........... _ ............... ___ .. ,. ____ , ................. _ ............. ,_ .... , ....... -............. , __ , __ ,,._ .. ________ .. __ ,__ .. ,_~---·"-'"""""""

SEPTIC WASTES 5,000 .. , . .,,, __ ,,_.,.,,..,,._,,..,.,.,.--•-·--•"""'"b'"'_'_"•"-'"'""''""-""-"'' __ ,,.,.,.,_, ___ ,_.,,_,.,.,..,,.,.,. -·--·---~---""'b"--•"'""-""-""-'"'"""-""- ,,_,..,,,..,_,~.,--·"""~~'"'~~·-.,-·~-'"'~-~--· "'~'~""""""_'_""'""•_,__.,.,_.,~--·-w~ ....

ADMINISTRATION 85,000

TOTAL $ 86,485 $ 0 $ 775,000

COST ALLOCATION

ANNUAL COSTS POPULATION 100% $11000

(2001) ASSESSMENT $/YR!CAPITA ASSESSMENT """""'-'"'-""'-""""-'"·---'""''"""'""4"""""" ,.,,. __ ,.,,n,.W"'""""-"-""'""_'_"_'"'"--"""-""" ---"'"''""'""""'"'"'-""-''--"-""'"'"""""""""' .,__.,,.,,._,.,,.,..,,.,..,.,,,. __ , . .,.,,.,,., .. -, .... .,.,_.,.,_,.,._ .. _ """'-~""'"""'""""'"'"'-""'""'""'""'"''"""''"'""""""-

$775,000.00 8,136 $1,379,785,685 $95.26 $0.56

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs -Appendix I

* Final costs to be determinec when closure plans are approved. Debt payment have not been included in operational expenditures.

Page vii

3.1 ELK VALLEY SUBREGION PLAN COSTS


The following costs are associated with reduce/reuse programs outlined in Section 3 of

this Plan:

Program Component

1. Education/Media Campaign

2. Business Waste Audit

Annual Cost

$ 3,000

2,000

3. Composting/Woodwaste Diversion 30,000

4. Tipping Fee/Variable Rate/User Pay Analysis


One Time Cost


3.1.2.1 The City of Fernie may allocate a maximum of $75,000 per year toward recycling

programs.

3.1.2.2

3.1.2.3

3.1.2.4

The District of Sparwood may allocate a maximum of $50,000 per year toward recy

cling programs.

The District of Elkford may allocate a maximum of $25,000 per year toward recycling

programs.

Electoral Area "A" may allocate a maximum of $5,000.00 per year toward recycling

programs.

. 3.1.3 Cost Summary

The total costs associated with programs outlined in the Solid Waste Management Plan

for the Elk Valley Subregion are summarized below:

Reduce/Reuse Recycle Residual Management (including Debt Retirement Costs)


RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan

$ 35,000 . 155,000

827,800

$ 1.017.800

Associated Costs - Appendix f Page ix


All costs associated with implementation of the Elk Valley Subregion Solid Waste

Management Plan will be shared by the City of Fernie, Districts of Sparwood and Elkford,

and Electoral Area "A", based on Bylaw No. 1204.

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs- Appendix I Page x

ASSOCIATED COSTS




ELKFORD $ 90,000 $ 10,000 $ 100,000 --~·········-~-----~-----·····--~---------------·-----·-·····--~---- --------------------.. ···-··------... --.. ---···--------·---······--·---- ····--··--·-····-·-·-.. ·····-·-----·-·····--·---·-···------···-···· .. -··--·-·- -----------~---·•'-'"""---······-···-----.. ····-·-··-·····-····-·-··--FERNIE 140,000 15,000 155,000

·-·-··········--------···-···-···-·--·-----------~--.. ------·-· ----·········----.. ·-···---·-··--·--.. ...---··---······-···-····-····-···--"······ ----------~---------------.. ···----------·······--······-------·-· ~-------------------·-·-·-·-···---·~··---·········~-~·-""-·-·~~--. SPARWOOD 110,000 20,000 130,000

...... ., .... _,, ..... .,,.,,._,,_,~--~--.. ~-""'•"""'-"'"~"'-"'""' _____ ., '''""-----"~'''""'""" _____ .. .,,,,.,,,.,, .................. ~,.,,. .. .,_,,,,.,,,., - .... ,_,_, _________ .,.,.,,.,.,,.,,_~.,----"'"'"-"'""-'""""-"" •'"""""'"'"-M''"""-""•"""--•-·"'""'"'"--·-·--·--""""'""""

RDEK 35,000 5,000 40,000 --·-·--··-----·--............... - .............. ________________ , __ ., ___________ .. _,.,_ .. _, _____ .............. _. _________ ,_ .. ___ .. -.. -................ .._. .................................................... _, __ .,_ ................. ··-----.-----------....... ~-................. ~-·-·-...... _ ............ ,.. ___ _ ENGINEERING included included 0

TOTAL $ 375,000 $ 50,000 $ 425,000 *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES .. NEW FACILITIES

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

GRANT NET TOTAL

L§~~FORD $ 800,000 $ 800,000

/!~.§~~-!.~ ........ ··-· --·--·-·---·- -·-- ·-·--. -- "" "" ----~~~~Q~~0-~- ·-- ·- ----- ...... --- ··-· "" ------~~~~g~g9g. --SPARWOOD 1,500,000 1,500,000

WILDLIFE MITIGATION 50,000 50,000

SEPTIC WASTES 50,000 50,000 ................. ~---·----· .. ···--·--··-·------··"--"-----··-------·---·--·------· .. ·-- .... -...... -------· ---·-·-....... _ ..... ~·----.. ~·-·----·---............ _ ............ ___ .. ~_-,_ .. ,_ ......... ____ ........ _............... .. ........... ~ ......... --...... ~----.............. -~ .. ··-·----ENGINEERING included 0

TOTAL $ 4,000,000 $ 0 $ 4,000,000 *



CAPITAL COSTS- TOTAL $ 4,000,000 $ 310,000 $ 310,000

TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS 582,500

3 R'S 190,000

SEPTIC WASTES 5,000 ..... - ........ ___________ ,_., .... ·-·-·-··---.. --......... ,_.,_ ........... -.~----·· .. --------·-----..... ---~··-·--·- ....... _ .. ____ .,., .......... ,_,_.., __ ,__, __ ......... -.... - ... -. .. ...... --...... ---·--·-----.................. -~·-· .. -·-·- ...... - .... _.,_..,.. ____ , _______ , __ ...... ----·--.... _.

ADMINISTRATION 85,000

TOTAL $ 4,000,000 $ 310,000 $1,172,500

COST ALLOCATION

POPULATION 100% $11000 ANNUAL COSTS (2001) ASSESSMENT $/YRICAPITA ASSESSMENT

!·-···················-···---·········--··--··-·-················ ·-·····-·-·········-····--···-······-·-·-·····-··········-··· ·----····-·-······-··---·····---···--····--· ············-···-····--·-····-··-·······--······-·····--····-·· -·······-········-····-·-···-····-····--··-····--· $1,172,500.00 13,399 $1,140,518,986 $87.51 $1.03

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs- Appendix I

*Costs are estimated.

Page xi

4.1 SUMMARY OF COSTS

A summary of the estimated costs for the total plan as previously defined are as follows:

Subregion ••-••••~•oo•M-~~------·--•-••O·-·--•h"0'•--0hooo ''"-····-·-·-·-···-··---.. --·······-·--··-~- --~-·---·~-...--~-·--······-----··-··-····-······-·-·· Total

Central Columbia Valley Elk Valley

Reduce/Reuse $ 240,000 $ 59,000 $ 35,000 $ 334,000

Recycle 400,000 100,000 155,000 655,000

Residual Man. 1,640,000 531,000 742,800 2,913,800

Subtotal $ 2,280,000 $ 690,000 $ 932,800 $ 3,902,800 ·--·--···-···-···~--.. ------·-···-······-··-··-·--··· ·-·-··---·-·····-····-··---.. --·-··-···-··--·-- ·--·~·····-·-·--·-·--·----······-·-·--·-----~-···-· ..... ----··---·--·····--·-·-·-····-.. -· .. -·--··-... ··· ________ .. ____ .. , ______ , ..... -----··-.. ·--·--·----·

Administration 120,000 85,000 85,000 290,000

TOTAL $ 2,400,000 $ 775,000 $ 1,017,800 $ 4,192,800

RDEK- Solid Waste Management Plan Associated Costs- Appendix I Page xiii

)

.. IREt310NAL DlSTRICTOFEASTKOOTENAY

til r~'~?.->.

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX A ) Public lnP,ut

1. General

Public Input meetings were held to review both the Stage I and Stage II planning information

as required by the Waste Management planning process.

2. Publicizing

Publicizing of the· meetings consisted of adve~isement in the following· papers for both Stage

I & II meetings:

-The Free Press

-Valley Echo

- Elk Valley Minor

~ Kootenay Advertiser

- The Daily Bulletin

Fernie

lnvermere

Sparwood

Cranbrook and Rural

Cranbrook and Kimberly

- The Daily Townsman Cranbrook and Kimberly

- East Kootenay Weekly General Coverage

In addition both advertisements and/or public service announcements were placed on local radio

stations in _ Cranbrook, the Elk Valley and the Columbia .Valley and inte~iews with local radio

stations 'Nere arranged in Golden· (Columbia Vall~y) and Fernie (Elk Valley) •.

Posters advertising the meetings were also posted for the meetings.

- . -- -·--~ ...•

As it was deemed that a second meeting in Cranbrook was necessary to specifically discuss the issue

of the Cranbrook landfill this was advertised in the Cranbrook paper and by sending out notices to

approximately 150 people living in the area of the landfill.

3. Discussion Guide and Questionnaire

A discussion guide and questionnaire were prepared for each of the Stage I and Stage II meetings.

1

The discussion guides were written to both provide the public with general knowledge of Solid Waste

issues but also the knowledge of specific options being considered and in the case of Stage 11, co,

estimates of these options,

The questionnaires were prepared to gauge public opinion based on the discussion guide, the

information presented at the public meetings and include a four responses alternative varying from

support of a partirular item to rejectiqn.

These questionnaires were received at the meetings and through subsequent mail ins and the results

were tabulated. In total85 questionnaires were received from the Stage. I meetings and 45 form the

Stage II.

These results are summarized in both the Stage I and Stage II reports and were relied upon to shape

the plan.

4. Public Meetings

Stage I

Windermere Sparwood Cranbrook

Stage II

Date location Approximately Number of AttendeeS· ·

August 14/91 Windermere Community Hall 40 October 10/91 Black Nugget Inn 40 October 8/91 Town and Country Inn 35

,:· ..

Date location Approximate Number of Attendees

Windermere May 21/92 Windermere Elementary School 1 0 Sparwood May 19/92 Black Nugget Inn 30 Cranbrook May 20/92 Town and Country Inn 25-Cranbrook july 28/92 Town and Country Inn 13--

The public meetings consisted of an open house format for the first half of the meeting followed by

a public meeting program consisting of a presentation of the material followed by a discussion

period.

2

•• ~

J j

I I

/

• :~ .:~:~--. /;(/ ./ ::

_,.

0 n 0 ~ ~,·-:.:r:;~;O ·:~~·;·"""'"'"''

.-- ;;..) "_/ ....... ·/' i--_: -..._:•· l..-';~C ....

/

DEVELOPING THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Solid waste must be managed to protect public health and the environment. In light of this, the

Waste Management Amendment Act (Bill 58) was passed on August 10, 1989 giving Regional

Districts the authority to develop regional solid waste management plans; On September 13, 1989

Cabinet endorsed the Municipal Solid and Biomedical Waste Management Strategy that calls for

reducing by SO% by the year 2000 the amount of waste requiring disposal. The essentials of the

_strategy are the "5 R's". of solid waste management: reduce, reuse, recycle, recovery, and residual

management, with the preferred methods first.

• • l1.

The Ministry of Environment requires that the public be involved in developing the plan and that the

plan be developed in three stages: :.

Stage 1 involves describing the existing solid waste management system and identifying a range of

solid waste management options. Stage 2 involves analyzing these options in detail to select a

recommended approach. Stage 3 involves preparing the final Plan, including an implementation

schedule and method to monitor the Plan's effectiveness. Final approval of the Plan will come from

the Ministry of the Environment.

All three stages involve the review and participation of the public, the advisory committees, and the

Regional Board. At this time, the Regional District is in Stage II.

- 1 -

THE 5 R'S DEFINED

Reduce means decreasing the volume, weight or toxicity of materials that is thrown away.

Reuse means the repeated use. of P product in the same form but not necessarily for the same

purpose.

Recyding is at-the-source (residence, business, or induStry) separation ()f products from the solid

waste stream that are no longer usable in their presel)t form, and the use of their material content

in the manufacture of new products; this indudes composting.

Recovery means redaiming recyclable components or energy from the post<allection waste stream

by incineration or another method other than com posting. The option of indneration was eliminated

during Phase I of the Planning Process.

Residual management means disposing, in an environmentally safe manner, of the solid wastes

remaining after undertaking the previous four R's.

The Ministry of Environment requires that the public be involved in developing the Plan and that the ' '

Plan be developed in three stages. This document summarizes the analysis that ·has been

undertaken for Stage II of tpe Regional Solid Waste Management· Plan .. : .

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES

The Regional District has formed advisory committees composed of citizens and politicians who

represent various interests in our community. Three Local Solid Waste Advisory Committees

(lSWAC) were set up, chosen from interested local citizens in each of the three sub-regions of the

Regional District. The Technical Solid Waste Advisory Committee is composed of representatives

of the planning and waste management staff of the RDEK member municipalities, and

representatives of the Provincial Government.

- 2- l

) WHAT HAPPENS NEXTI

We hope you will participate in the public input session this month and complete the attached

questionnaire. Your comments and ideas will be reviewed in preparing the plan's Stage II report and

in selection of the various components, that will form the final Regional Solid Waste Management

Plan.·

The remainder of this guide is divided into sections covering each of the four R's being considered

in Stage II, Reduce, Reuse, Recycling and Residual management (Recovery by incineration having

been eliminate<J). The information contained in this guide provides a description of the possible

options to consider for each R and preliminary cost of each alternative.

After reading the guide we would request you fill out the attached questionnaire relating to these

issues. Your complete response will affect how the ~ional District will handle your solid waste in

the future.

REDUCE

The options derived from the Stage I process to be considered in Stage II include:

I· • . . .

Political. lobbying of the ser:~ior governments. .. Developing of strategies to reduce waste in the Regional District's and Municipal Offices.

o Developing of StrCiltegies to encourage bu.$iriess to reduce wastes.·

e Education processes.

@ Implementation of tipping fees and/or variable disposal rates.

To implement a program of reduction is different than implementation of a recycling or landfilling

operation. The purpose of reduction programs is to change peoples' way of thinking about what

they throw away. As a result, the ability to measure cost/benefit of implementation of a reduction

program is not possible to assess at this time.

Success· of a reduction program can only be measured after establishing a firm baseline of the

amount of waste being produced and measuring the change in that amount over an extended period

of time.

- ':t -

The most practical method of establishing reduction programs is to hire a staff person directed by

the Board or a committee of the Board whose function it would be to review and adjudicate what

programs should be implemented.

The cost of a full-time staff person, plus the additional costs associated with committee meetings,

are estimated at $100,000/year.

A listing of some possible programs, projected costs and possible reduction rates if applicable, is

provided as follows:

PROGRAM PROJfCTED POlENTIAl COST DMRSION

Political Activities $10,000 -local Government • Waste Reduction . -Waste Reduction in Businesses

- Self Audit Manual $8,000 lnaiVidual businesses up to 50% (to allow businesses to self assess wastes)

Education

- Environmental Incentive Programs $1 0,000 to $80,000 -(granting programs) .

- Grasscycling $5,000 Up to 10% during lawn mowing (encourage peopl.e to keep clippings on lawns) season .. . ..

. Direct~ of Services·. . "' . ,. .....

" (Where can you rent or repair) $2,500 to $3,500 .

- Media Campaign $11,000/newsletter .

- Master Composter Programs $35,000, plus sale of Up to 1 0% of waste stream (composter education program) composter at $45 each

Tipping fees and Variable Rate Charges

. Tipping Fees $50,000/site plus staff costs up to 10% (charging at landfills) of up to $42,000/year

. Variable Disposal Rate $35,000 to $60,000 to up to 20% Cpay as you throw away) analyze and set-up

As can be seen, there is quite a range in the possible programs. It is suggested that the Regional

District could hire a coordinator, set-up a committee and assign a budget dedicated each year to this

program. The amount dedicated could range as high as $400,000/year including staff personnel.

- 4-

REUSE

In the Stage I process of the Solid Waste Management Plan options were defined for the Regional

District to consider in this stage of the plan. these included:

• Encouragement of the Government to institute a province-wide program for containers

similar to that used ·for pop and beer bottles.

,l Sponsor programs whereby other materials are intercepted for reuse. These programs

include:

public education;

facilities enabling the reuse of materials;

waste exchanges.

Much of a Reuse program would integrate into a Reduction program and would overlap the

compqnents in the ·Reduction program.

The unique programs which could be considered would be:

' "s~JVaging at Disposai"Facilities

· -(orderly organization to allow proper salvaging)

Materials Exchange

_Capital Cost $40,000/site ... ·.

~.rnual Cost $10,000/year

Reduction Potential up to So/o of waste stream

Staff time estimated at $5,000/year

(inventory of businesses that can utilize other wastes)

As previously defined, the Reuse options would be best implemented as part of an overall

Reduce/Reuse program.

- 5 •

\

RECYCLING

In the Stage I process a number of possible options were considered for evaluation at Stage II of the

plan.

All recycling programs consist of three basic elements: collection of recyclable materials, processing

these materials so they may be sold, and transporting materials from the collecti()n point to the

processing point and then to market.

The following six recycling options address how specific components of the Regional Di~trict's waste

stream could be collected, transported to a processing centre and processed:

Option A-

Option B-

Option C-

Unstaffed collection stations for residentially generated recyclables;

Staffed collection stations for residentially generated recyclables;

Curbside collection in Cranbrook and Kimberley; unstaffed collecti<?n stations

in remaining areas for residentially generated recyclables;

Option 0 - White goods and ferrous metals collection at iandfiils and transfer stati9ns;

.·•.

Option E- Backyard composting.

Options A 1, A2 an~ B describe three alternatives for collecting recyclables generated in residences.

The option selected by the Regional District will provide the frame work for District-wide recycling

program. The Regional District could choose all or none of Options C, D, and E, but if chosen, the

options would be combined with either Option A1, A2 or B.

The analysis of these recycling options includes an evaluation of collection, processing the cost of

transportation to markets, as well as projected revenues from sale of recyclables.

- 6 -

The outcome of this analysis is summarized as follows:

.. '

CHOOSE 1 OF 3 NET PROGRAM COST %DIVERSION COST/TON

($/yr) (low market value)

A.1 Residential, unstaffed drop $250,000 1.6 $440

off

A.2 Residential, staffed centres $318,000 1.8 $490

and unstaffed sites

B. Curbside collection, $388,100 3.7 $295

Cranbrook & Kimberley

ADD ON OPTIONS

,.. Commercial rurbside ...... $103,300 3.3· $90

collection (6 centres)

D. White goods and ferrous $52,000 0.8 $185

metals

. ~ ... • ' ....... ~ ...... . . "!, ;) ......... "

E. Backyard composting Included in reduction ., ....

3.1 -.

program

RECOVERY

As a result of the Stage I process, recovery by incineration was eliminated as an option to be

considered in Stage II. For comparative purposes the findings of the Stage I report covering recovery

are summarized as follows:

Kimberley /Cranbrook 90 tonne/day incinerator $5.0M $70/ton

Fernie/Sparwood 40 tonne/day incinerator $3.5 M $100/ton

Windermere Area 20 tonne/day incinerator $2.5 M $150/ton

RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

The options developed in Stage I were based on retaining the existing landfills at Windermere,

Kimberley and Cranbrook operation, adding new landfills to serve the Elk Valley and the Elko--Baynes

Lake area, and closing small rural landfills and the landfills now serving Fernie, Sparwood and

Elkford. The options evaluated are summarized ·as follows:

i) Three Landfills ii) Four Landfills

• Windermere • Windermere

• Cranbrook Area • Cranbrook . .

~ Elk Valley · Kimberley .... •

0 Elk Valley

iii) Four Landfi~ls iV) Five Landfills ... ,. . ..

• Windermere • Windermere

• Cranbrook Area • Cranbrook

• Elk Valley e Kimberley

• Area B e Elk Valley

e Area B

The Canal flats landfill will be evaluated to determine if it is more feasible to continue operation as

a landfill or replace it with a transfer station and haul wastes to Windermere.

Our analyses initially evaluated the costs of these alternatives to determine which of these four

options is considered the most attractive.

• 8 •

') The summary of the analysis of the four options is presented on Table 1.

As can be seen, the cost difference between Options 1. and 2 is very small and probably within the

sensitivity range of our cost estimates. As a result of this and the added benefits of having four

landfills over three for public acceptance and added capacity, it is suggested that Option 2 - 4

landfills is the preferred option.

On this basis one further evaluation of transfer system was undertaken. The systems evaluated

included Transtor Systems, Container Systems and Haul All and a combination of all three. The

results of this evaluation are summarized in Table 2.

The conclusion of this analysis is that Option 1 a combination of Transtor systems and extension

of the container system in the Columbia VaHey would be most economical.

An option which the Regional District may wish to consider would be a container haul system but

with lesser service for fernie or Elkford. This option assumes hauling by municipal collection

vehicles to a new landfill located near Sparwood and is therefore a lowering of service to both

Elkford and Fernie.

Based on the four landfill options and the Option 1 Tr.anstor/Container transfer system, an overall

·summary of total ~idual Management_ Program Costs are pr.esente9. in Ta~le. ~··: ·- , ... ·\e

- 9 -

\

TABLE 1 RESIDUAl MANAGEMENT OPTIONS SELECTION OF REGIONAl lANDFILL SITES

OPTION TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST

1 3 landfills o Windermere $1,650,000 o Cranbrook o Sparwood 1 B

2 4 landfills o Windermere $1,675,000 o Cranbrook o Kimberley o Sparwood 1 B

3 4 landfills o Windermere $1,760,000 o Cranbrook o SparWood . 1 B o Baynes lake

4 5 landfills o Windermere $1,760,000 o Cranbrook o Kimberley o Sparwood 1 B o Baynes lake 1 D

_J_ABLE 2 ., : ~

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS SELECTION Of TRANSFER SYSTEM

OPTION TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST

1 Elk Valley: Transtor $375,575 Cranbrook Area: Transtor Columbia Valley: Container

2 Container Haul $483,565

3 Elk Valley: Transtor $451A75 Cranbrook: Haul All Columbia: Haul All

4 Container Haul, no transfer $341,000 stations at Fernie or Elkford

- 10-

. . "

TABLE 3

REGIOIW. DISTRICT OF EAST IC001'1EW\Y

SlJ'IIIIWtY OF (I)TIOI14S MD PROGRM COSTS

RESIDWI.L IW8AGB!iEtiT OPTIOIS

PROGRAMS & OPTlm.IS PROGIItAM CAPITAL DEBT

s RETIRBEJrr

S/YR

Base Programs:

landfill closures 835,000 117,000

Transfer systems 1,960,000 274,000

LandfiLls 1,240,000 174,000

$/Total 4,035,000 565,000

Optional Programs:

\.leighscales 300,000 42,000

Hazardous waste 75,000 11,000

Waste wood grinding 0 0

Septage facilities 100,000 14,000 . $/Total 475,000 ·. 67,000

Total 4,510,000 632,000

Comparative 1991 Cost

......

i

~

AJGUU. OPERATIIOIII TOTAl ADUAl aJST Ul4IT COST AMTICIPATED DIVERSION

MD Mi~ $/YR S/t X t.MSTE

~ t

(Diet of Rewnue) S/Yr r· f.

I I

l } ! '

- 117,000

194,000 468,000

864,000 1,038,000

1,058,000 1,623,000 46.50

106,000 148,000 4.25 see reduce

90,000 106,000 7,500 0.04

70,000 70,000 53 5.0

16,000 30,000 11 7.9

287,000 354,000 '

1,345,000 1,977,000 excluding o/h

1,120,000 excluding o/h t I i ! '

THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

In order to carry the plan into it's final form, it is necessary to make final decisions on what options

are best for the Regional District of East Kootenay.

A short summary of the findings of the Stage II analysis are therefore presented as follows:

Reduce

Program Costs up to $400,000/year

Approximately $18/year/household

Reuse

Salvaging $15,000/year

Materials exchange $5,000/year

· Recydirig

High End $542,000/year

Low End $250;200/year ·

Approximately $11 to $25 /year /household

Residual Management

$1,977,000/year (excluding o/h)

Approximate cost of $90/year/household

Existing costs $1,120,000/year Oncluding o/h)

Possible diversion in excess of 30%

Up to 5o/o diversion

Potential diversion 10.9%

Potential diversion 1.6o/o

Includes 13% diversion

By filling out the attached questionnaire and discussing your thoughts with the personnel in

atte~dance at the public meetings, you will have a voice in the preparation of a Regional Solid Waste

Management Plan for East· Kootenay.

• 12.

REGDONAL DISTRICT OIF EAST KOOTENAY

SOUO WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Properly managing solid waste protects our quality of life. The following recommendations are

possible ways the RDEK could act to manage our Solid waste in an environmentally sound manner.

Which approaches do you favour?

By checking the appropriate box, please indicate how you feel about each proposed

recommendation.

1 = Strongly agree 2 =Agree 3 = Dmgree 4 = Strongly Disagree

What town or city do you live in (or if you do not live in town, which town or city are you nearest}?

_; .. 1> .. <i

REDUCE AND REUSE

The RDEK should initiate a source reduction and reuse program as it's highest priority in a Solid Waste Management Plan.

The RDEK should promote reduction legislation at the Provincial and Federal levels.

The RDEK should institute public education programs to achieve reduction and reuse in the solid waste stream.

Please check one:

Agree - Disagree

1 2 3 4

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

I would respond to public education programs about reduction and reuse of my waste.

I presently compost the majority of my garden/food wastes.

If available, I would enrole in a composter training program.

Making people pay more for throwing away more is a good system.

If people had to· pay to use a landfill I would expect more litter.

The cost of a reduction program can range significantly.

We are suggesting up to $400,000 per year or approximately $18 per year per household.

·'·

I would support~ paying $ per year so RDEK can undertake a reduction/retJse program.

0 $0-5 0 $5-10 0 $10- 15

- 2-

Agree --- Disagree 1 2 3 4

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

RECYCLE

The RDEK shouid initiate a recycling program as it's highest priority in a solid waste management plan.

I would prefer a recycling program that includes:

- drop boxes throughout the Regional District;

- staffed drop-off centres throughout the Regional District;

- I would support collection of businesses recyclables;

- I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods.

1 RECOVERY

I agree that con~ruction of incinerators be eliminated as an option to be considered.

RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT ••• , ·:"P

·~

I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary L:a.ndfills. . .

I would be comfortable using a transfer station instead of my local landfill.

I would be comfortable with the strategy of hauling waste from rural areas to centralized regional landfills.

I would support and use a household hazardous waste collection system.

Agree -··-···-· Disagree 1 2 3 4

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Agree ·········-····- Disagree 1 2 3 4

I have a septic tank and therefore expect to use a septic sludge facility at some point.

If a wood grinding facility was provided at transfer stations or landfill would you:

a) bring wood waste to such a facility;

b) use chipped wood from such a facility for mulch

or home composting;

The maximum total amount for a complete Waste Management Plan could range as high as $2,919,000 per year or on the average approximately $135 per household per year.

I would support paying $ per year for a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for RDEK.

0 $100- 110 0 $110- 120 0 $120- 130

1!1 ••

0 0 0

0 0 o·

0 0 0

0 $130- 140

Please return this questionnaire at the end of the Public Meeting; or to your local solid waste advisory committee member; or drop it off at your nearest municipal office; or mail it to the SubRegional office (P.O. Box 249, Windermere, B.C., VOB 2l0) or to Mr. Wayne McNamar, Administrator at the Regional District office (19 a 24th Avenue South, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 3H8).

Your comments would be greatly appreciated if received by May 29, 1992.

- 4 -

0

0

0

.r~,., ~~.,.,,....;tz,l~/i>-W ......... .,.,__ ... ,..., .... ,,,,,,., •' ., •' ••• ,••·~••••'••·•' ' •

) Additional comments: ------------------:--

Thank you for completing this questionnaire ..

/·

Area

Efkford

Sparwood

Fernie

TOTALS

REGIONAl DISTRICT EAST KOOTENAY

SOUO WASTE MANAGEMENT PlAN

Added Cost for Haulage From Area A to Area

t/yr Added Distance (km) t/km

1700 64 109,000

2600 64 166,000

3840 10 38,400

8140 . 313,400

In addition we would have to build a transfer station serving Sparwood.

Approximate Cost

Annual Cost

$ 140,000

$ 20,000/yr

TOTAL ADDITIONAl COST

.....

;.

·.'- .. J .

-~

Added Cost $ jyr

$ 100,000

150,000

35,000

$ 285,000

$ 20,000

$ 305,000/yr

SPARWOOO May 19, 1992

Public Input Meeting Comments

landfill:

Taxation:

Recycling:

Sp~rwood Golf Course planning expansion of additional nine holes south of existing course which has potential conflict with proposed landfill site.

Concern raised about visibility at proposed location.

Concern raised about bears, operation, fencing and carcass disposal at proposed and existing landfills.

Option. 4 - no transfer station in fernie and Elkford received some positive response.

Preference for per capita taxation was raised.

Questions were raised concerning the validity of the cost/tonne for recycling option.

Coundl Meeting Comments

Reduce/Reuse:

Recycling:

Residual:

Note raised that B.C. Hydro through energy program is encouraging throwing away of old appliances.

limited repair facilities are available in Sparwood.

lipping fees - concerns raised abou~ iittering.

Concerns raised that variable rate st~cture would penalize large families.

Concerns raised about marketing.

Composting - concerns raised about attracting rats.

Concerns raised about possible landfill locations.

Requested cost estimate of transferring refuse to Area B.

\ CRANBROOK May 20, 1992

Advisory Committee and Public Meeting Comments

Suggestion was raised that an overall meeting of all committees and interested parties may be appropriate.

All of the reduce, reuse, recycle option could be implemented for the cost of a package of cigarettes/household/ month.

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Comments

Tipping Fees:

User Fees:

Cranbrook landfill:

Recycling:

T_ire Disposal:

.... ...

Concerns raised that littering could result.

Cranbrook is presently transforming the means of charging for Solid Waste in to a utility system.

Cranbrook examined tag or bag system and decided to eliminate it as an option.

Concerns raised about opposition from surrounding landowners and the Ministry of Environment suggested th~t : thi~ may require a separate notification or public meeting process.

Suggestion was made that recycling drop off could be located at major stores and staffed by store personnel.

A point was raised that an incentive program for tire shipping does not allow shiP.ping to Alberta.· . . · . ·.··' : · · ·

... •· ... .

WINDERMERE May 21, 1992

Public Advisory and Public Meeting Comments

Reduce/Reuse:

Recycling:

Residual:

Discussion held concerning car body reuse.

Support expressed for shipping of wood waste and centralized composting.

Supportive of legislative reduction.

RDEK encouraged to take over recycling.

location of recycling depots critical to increase convenience for drop off.

Diversion of hazardous waste most important.

. .

REGIONAL DISTRICT EAST KOOTENAY

QUESTIONNAIRE SUMivlARY- SPARWOOD AREA

QUESTION WEIGHTED AVERAGE RESPONSE

REDUCE AND REUSE






If available, I would enrol in a com poster training program~ ,


If people had to pa~ to use a la11dfill I would expect more litter.

The.cost of q, reduction program CC!n range.significantly •. We are· suggesting up·fo $-400,000.per year or approximately $18 per year per household. I would support paying $_ per year so RDEK can undertake a reduction/reuse program (1 • $0-5, 2-.$5-10, 3- $10-15,.4- $15-20).

RECYCLE

The RDEK should initiate a recycling program as it's highest priority in a solid waste management plan.

I would prefer a recycling program that includes: drop boxes throughout the Regional District; staffed drop-off centres throughout the Regional District; I would support collection of businesses recydables; I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods;

1

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.8

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.0

3.0

1.6

1.7 1.9 1.5 1.6


RECOVERY

I agree that construction of incinerators be eliminated as an option to be considered.

RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary landfills.


I would be comfortable with the strategy of hauling waste from rural areas to centralized regional landfilts.


I have a septic tank and therefore expect to use a septic sludge facility at some point. ·

·If a wood grinding facility was provided at transfer stations or landfill would you: a) bring wood waste to such a facility; b) use chipped wood from such a facility for mulch or

hom_e composting. ..

.... •• • &:.. "" • ~ ••• ·.-,

The maximum total amount for a complete Waste Management Plan could range as high as $2,919,000 per year or on the average approximately $135 per household per year. I would support paying $_ per year for a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for RDEK (1- $10D-110, 2-$110-120,3-$120-130, 4- $130-140).

2

1.6

1.4

2.1

2.0

1.3

2.7

2.0

2.0

' .

2.4

·. I COMMENTS

I feel that there is a lot of discrepancies in these figures, for one they show only an additional cost of $25,000 to operate the Kimberly dump. I asked them about this and was told because of Kimberly's population base it was-cheaper to leave the dumps at Kimberly and Cranbrook alone, but Sparwood, Fernie and Elkford should truck their garbage to a central location. I feel that the Regional District should stay out of the garbage business all together and not burden Sparwood, Fernie and Elkford with these additional costs.

Many of the statistics in your technical memoranda do not represent the true costs of either recycling or landfilling and are very misleading. The cost per tonne to recycle has been calculated under a different process than that of the cost per tonne to landfill, therefore, your attempt to compare costs is not valid. You have not taken in to account diversion credits for recycling, or income from a tipping fee. Also, by extending the lifetime of the new landfill, recycling can cut new landfill costs by 25-50%. In twenty years this could mean a savings of a million dollars for the Sparwood landfill alone. We are in the process of commenting on your technical memoranda in detail, and will send you our evaluation report in the near future.

Costs should be assessed on per capita or per household basis.

Hazardous waste- at least those of general use.in the average household should be addressed even at a level where 2 or 3 times a year an opportunity to dispose of these items in a safe manner to the env_ironment ·exists. Existing landfills not required should be converted to City run compost centres. Compost could be given away or sold for fertilizer etc.

landfill sites. need very close mqnitoring, not only by the dump supervisor but by the .Ministry of EnVIro~ment on .a ·regular basis.. The public needs to know who to contact if the laq:dfi.ll is not ope~ted'"safely4 ·r would. not leave garbage .disposal entirely to free enterprise - they have no interest in the public welfare.

We are willing to pay to educate the public to reduce and reuse. The government must put the pressure on manufacturers as far as packaging. Our major concern is that the money is wisely spent. Hazardous wastes have not been handled well to date. This should be a priority. "

Stricter guidelines on operating Sanitary Landfills needed especially in rural areas.

If people had to pay for the use of a landfill, it would perhaps result in more litter for the first few months - until people got used to the idea. Need safeguards against this happening.

The best way to get people to think about reducing and recycling would be to make the solid waste management plan a high priority.

Businesses should pay part of the cost of recycling their garbage.

3

COMMENTS CONT'D

A tipping fee would lessen the amount of money each household would have to pay for a complete Waste Management Plan.

•• I>

I agree that incinerators be eliminated as an option to be considered, except if sites in Elk Valley are marginal for landfill operation due to the water table etc., then I think it becomes a real option regardless of costs.

...• -6~ • ~-•• ,

·~·

4

·\

.... ·~-..

I /;:'.;J ('rvf7' ;yt~S 91'":"/ ? ??/7,5

([?J-··v·"YJ !7.-t. '..) ..f"~· tv</ _;;) //'!".?·~ ....=-' ,..,. ~ //.-1-

_> 2/?CJ7P// .;-"!:re;{.!..t -:/Ofp'V/ :i/.71.:/0 7/:">n_~f{',?.,l/ I _f. . .>lOJ-/ ,.J. 7_.:.":11'1 ~~?.f(7'

_;;g o_.t.. .>c,....U. a~v Yc/t7~f b.' fV!.? .> / P'?;:YP" -_:;;ts;Y.n,.,.,) ;:'?<7;/ o~--~1M3/f./c?(.S' ;;;'P,..d ,_.,~.? /;71(2

,-.·p~f'/Vtt(;:/X..£1 _:>;rro_t,"'t...J ,fP 0.7t;TI,.t"'V.P0." /V.'9·?0 ,f/YH i/_~t/ -/.::<;N !'•'{., ,r-~;,t1:'W/"' L"? .,..!.t.'~a~...; (J.?."v~t·'v:.' /"W/t,t./1'11 ...J;~,t/.s -

:7 ?-t::'C,.,r-r? ('<:'t"ft'1.::..1't-/.:t :;> .. v~J'"><.:? lr,~"~-' .IJ·..,,¥.?1/ _;?,.,!// 07/"t.fPJI'cl r..'v f.J....vpv/i-:!,?~7 -

.5-:::J/7?1"'/1 ,...;_.t.&".:c-~<"3'c' Oflltf' fZ/?..S/7 ~tv.Pi':/YI'P;J 'Z/179 J'VP f,£?//"'W/ o;~?~;;>A·, ..... ::>e CJ'U·'I>n') :?,.,, JYi"~l_.,!.cr.??tJ/..<r.'p::J ~'..?(!.-v,7 ff/.tVtr'1 ;ji/e:c..t..$.? rv? 1 7?? 11..>

(].1"1' /?P-/ -,;;~g NI"'J ..P_t. .1,f (JOO:J (# ,_-'1 .?.n~tf()cf ~ ;7?7t//) ,..¥7~ ?.H~ JVI'#...tli'V/ }7_..?1'> -

(

_),

,,

REGIONAl DISTRICT fAST KOOTENAY

QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY - WINDERMERE AREA


REDUCE AND REUSE


The RDEK should promote reduction legislation at the Provincial and Federal Levels.




If available, I would enrol in a composter training program.

Making people pay more for throwing away more .is a good system.

If people had to pay t«? use J· landfill I would expect more litter.

The cost of a reduction program van range significantly. ~ .. · We are suggesting up to $400,000 per year or approximately' $18 per year per household. I would support paying $_ per year so RDEK can undertake a reduction/reuse program (1 - $0-5, 2- $5-10, 3- $10-15, 4- $15-20).

RECYCLE


I would prefer a recycling program that includes: drop boxes throughout the Regional District; staffed drop-off centres throughout the Regional District; I would support collection of businesses recyclables; I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods;

1

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.8

3.8

1.4

1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4

·.


RECOVERY

I agree that construction of incinerators be eliminated as an option to be considered.

RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary landfills.




I have a septic tank and therefore expect to use a septic sludge - facility at some point. ·

If a wood grinding facility was provided at transfer stations or landfill would you: a) bring wood waste to such a facility; b) use chipped wood from such a facility for mulch or

home.compost!ng. - ·_ . .... . . , . .. . ' ...

The m~imum tot~l amount'for'a cumpiete_~as~ ·~~mag_~ment ~~~!1. · could range as high as $2,919,000 per. year or on the average . approximately $135 per household p.er year. I would s·~:~pport paying $.__ per year for a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for RDEK (1- $100..110, 2- $110..120, 3- $120&130, 4- $130-140).

.·

2

1.8

1.3

1.6

1.8

1.2

1.4

1.2

1.6

2.7

COMMENTS

In the rural area I am from, the most visible and most difficult waste management problem is that of junk cars. These are left on rental lots or in alleys or towed over to our property. I have asked the Conservation Officer to charge offenders in recent cases but the problem remains that for a resident of Edgewater disposing of a car body, it costs $1 Q0-.150 to have it towed to the Windermere site. I would like a regular sweep every 1 0 years or so, a sweep which would include the Edgewater District. ·

I fully support a Hazardous Waste collection/exchange and Wood waste processing at these landfill sites. I would encourage the RDEK to lobby for legislated reduction of waste. I feel education programs cold be very effective in many forms. I hope that the convenience of recycling depots can be improved. Bin locations should be as available as possible for example; Windermere Thriftway, lnv., IGA (or other location), Radium, Fairmont, etc. Convenience plays a key factor in participating. I am very positive about this process and I look forward to its implementation. · ·

I feel very positive about the focus of this questionnaire. I very strongly support waste reduction by recycling and by increased premiums for waste disposal based on amount. (This may encourage producers to use recyclable materials and to decrease the amount of packaging.) · I am however concerned as to the public reactions to this (i.e., incinerating at home, dumping outside of landfills etc.) I also . support the use of increased manpower for the sorting and administration of recycling sites. ·

3

.. ' '

. ~

Regional District of East Kootenay 19 - 24th Avenue South Cranbrook, B.C. VlC 3H8

Date:

Re: A ~rogram to Remove Junk Cars from Edgewater

Dear Sir:

"There is a·need for a "junk car clean-up" for Edgewater. In alleys, on vacant lots and on rental property there are dilapidated vehicles many of which have no owner any longer and their disposal by having them towed all the way to the car crusher yard at Windemere would be a unfair expense for any private taxpayer, even if it were his or her responsibility.

One neighbour found that trucking a derelict car to Windemere would cost $100 plus loading costs, this for a vehicle on a vacant lot next door, and· a vehicle· the lot's owners did nof ~wn ~r put ~here. .

Having the car .. crus·her come up··· here would require· about 1500 cars in the valley, 80 gathered at one spot, before the crusher would be brought in. This could take

11 years.

1) "Howeyer, we have asked to take ··one or more of our .vehicles"ov'er at th·e· end of the old mill dump more or less ··~ut of s:ig.ht. sinc~··the 'ia'lld·o_wner: can~·~·t.-:t.a'ke, responsibili-ty for the p~bblam, we are dependin~·~n y~a~ ·Kelp to have these vehicl~s finally disposed of." . '' . -2) Or, "We ·a~e -supportive of the move t·o initiate a "Junk Car Clean-up" for Edgewater."

Invermere and Wilmer have started cleaning up their dumps with assistance from various government and corporate sources, we need a program which would be suitable for Edgewater.

Could the utilities department support a clean-up in the Edgewater area and have these junkers removed to the yard at Windemere?

Yours truly,

REGIONAL DISTRICT EAST KOOTENAY

QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY- CRANBROOK AREA

QUESTION WEIGHTID AVERAGE RESPONSE

REDUCE AND REUSE






If available, I would enrol in a composter training program.


If people had to pay to use a landfill I would expect more litter.

The cost of a reduction program ca~ range significantly. We are suggesting up to $400,000 per year or approximately $18 per year per household. I would support paying $_ per year so RDEK can undertake a reduction/reuse program (1 - $0-5, 2- $5-10, 3- $10-15, 4- $15-20). .

RECYCLE


I would prefer a recycling program that includes: drop boxes throughout the Regional District; staffed drop-off centres throughout the Regional District; I would support collection of businesses recyclables;

. I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods; Blue Box. ·

1

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.1

2.4

1.3

1.7

1.7

3.6

2.0

1.7 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0

~ ... , i i

WEIGHTED AVERAGE RESPONSE

RECOVERY

I agree that construction of incinerators be eliminated as an option to be considered. ·

RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT

i support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary Landfills.




I have a septic tank·and therefore expect to use a septic sludge faciiity at some point.

If a wood grinding facility.was provided at transfer stations or landfill would you: a) bring wood waste to such a facility; . b) use chipped wood from such a facility.for mule~ or

· home co~posti~g. · ·- · · . The maximum total amountfor a cotnpiete Wa~·te Manage~eii(Pian'"' · could range as high as $2,919,000 per year or on the average . approximately $135 per household per year. I would support paying $_ per year for a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for RDEK (1 - $100-110, 2- $110-120, 3-$120-130, 4- $130-140).

2

2.7

1.9

2.0

2.0

1.1

2.5

1.3

1.8

3.0

COMMENTS

'\..

I believe the most important point in the report is that at SO% reduction. This is a good start and if education is stressed even more can be reduced. Blue Box programs should be initiated in all major areas. I don't believe that hauling wastes to central landfill sites is an environmentally sound way of ensuring safe landfills. Massive amounts of petrol will be used for this when educating people who use rural landfills can accomplish safe garbage disposal. The RDEK should focus on the reduction of waste in the public, business and industrial sectors proportionally relative to how much waste these sectors produce, not according to which is most politically expedient.

I am against charging at dump sites as I'm afraid of very disgusting yards. I believe many people would just let "junk" sit rather than pay. I like the way the City of Cranbrook picks up "major debris in yards" each spring.

No more time to consider options. let us move on. Have some actions, please. You were given mandate August 10, 1989. It will soon be August 10, 1992.

Good presentation and accompanying documents. Well handled by the presenters, good questions and answers. Too bad people here didn't show more of an interest and join in the discussion.

You're right by saying that education is a main key. legislation is fine, but without education, is useless - all you end up with is confused and potentially angry people. I'm from out of province, a recent new arrival to the area. Where I come from, the 5 R's have been in effect for over a year, and people have taken to it with a passion. The most re<;ent positive move was the setting up of a recycling depot in the town -operated by the local lions Club - they take absolutely everything (except toxic . wastes), and are finding tl'}arkets for the various materials province-wide. Of course, they don't take co~post materials, but local schools there are encouraging students to educate their parents! Toxic wastes are disposed of in most communities at a yearly toxic waste roundup. Noreen, an oil company, sponsors and hosts over 20 roundups in the province yearly. The lack of interest and participation at this particular meeting indicates to me at least that more education is definitely needed. How? Media, Schools, local government participation and interest. Where was the m~~ .

3

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EASTKOOTEfvAY

u I

Final

APPENDIX II

FILE NO. Ohh 607 006

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT rliiEMORANDUM

TO: Steve Mcinnis, Manager of Utilities and Solid Waste

FROM: Ange Wagstaff, Clerk II

DATE: March 20, 2000

SUBJECT: SWMP Public Meeting Advertising

Newspaper advertising for public meetings for the draft Solid Waste Management Plan was as follows:

Central Subregion

East Kootenay Weekly Daily Bulletin Daily Townsman Kootenay Advertiser

Columbia Valley Subregion

Kootenay Advertiser Valley Echo

Elk Valley Subregion

Kootenay Advertiser Free Press

Ange Wagstaff

February 23 February 25

· February 25, March 3 March 3, 6

March 6, 27 March 8, 29

March 20 March 23

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

TO: Stephen Mcinnis

FROM: Loree Duczek

DATE: March 21, 2000

SUBJECT: Radio Coverage of Public Meetings

FILE NO.

The radio station has provided excellent coverage of our meetings to date. Two versions of the story are written each time, and each version runs a maximum of 3 times a day on each station.

Stories involving the public meetings ran:

February 27 February 28 March 6 March 8

6 times 2 times 6 times 6 times

'With meetings scheduled to run in the Elk Valley next week, there will likely be more coverage provided by the radio station in the days to come. · · · · ·

Loree

FILE NO. Ohh 607 006 Ohh 607 006-CS Ohh 607 006-CV Ohh 607 006-EV

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

TO: Lee"Ann Crane, Administrator

FROM: Steve Mcinnis, Manager of Utilities and Solid Waste

DATE: April 4, 2000

SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Plan

Background

The RDEK held a final round of public meetings on the draft Solid Waste Management Plan to receive public comment, prior to sending the Plan to the Minister of Environment before the April 30 deadline.

Discussion

:Public meetings were held in the following communities to receive public comment on the draft Plan.

Location Date No. Attending

Was a February 29 9 Marysville March 1 4 Cranbrook March 7 27 Baynes Lake March 8 17 Windermere March 14 12 Radium March 15 3 Canal Flats March 16 0 Elkford March 28 12 Sparwood March 29 13 Fernie March 30 38 Fairmont April1 5

Total public participation was 140, which included local municipal staff and elected officials .

. .. ... ... ./2

-2-

The level of participation indicates the general satisfaction to the decisions being made on the solid waste management system with the exception of some key issues.

The main topics of discussion were

• the extension/operation of the Columbia Valley Landfill, • trench burning at the Central Landfill as a Plan amendment, • the location of the Fernie Transfer Site, e the location of the Central Landfill, • how the public will access the new transfer sites in the Elk Valley, • more information about recycling, • general lack of knowledge of the existing facilities and goals of solid waste management, • when the facilities will be open, e userfees, • . general operational comments and questions.

The Key Recommendations, comments and responses to the questions raised, meeting minutes and copies of the letters received are attached. The summary of the comments include the comments received by written submission.

Recommendations

1. That the Key Recommendations as approved, be incorporated into the Regional District of East Kootenay Solid Waste Management Plan and the Chairperson and Administrator be authorized to sign the Plan and forward it to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks by April 30, 2000.

2. That the RDEK apply to the Regional Waste Manager, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, for a Plan Amendment to include trench burning at the Central Subregion Landfill as an option for disposal of clean wood waste.

~~ Stephen Mclnriis Manager of Utilities and Solid Waste

SM/aw

)

Solid Waste Management Plan

Key Recommendations

General Recommendations

e That the RDEK provide better education and information for the public on how to properly use the solid waste facilities and their options on disposing or recycling materials.

Cl) That the RDEK work in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, other government agencies and local community groups and private land owners on strategies and education to minimize illegal dumping.

• That User Fees be reviewed on an ongoing basis to address changing waste diversion targets and materials.

e That materials accepted at subregional solid waste facilities be reviewed on an ongoing basis to address waste diversion targets and materials.

e That the RDEK may limit the hours at transfer stations or landfills to address proper disposal of materials and budget limitations.

Columbia Valley Subregion

• That the Columbia Valley Subregion undertake an investigation of residual management options, i.e. new landfill, transfer system, etc., for the Columbia Valley in the year 2002. ·

• That the Columbia Valley Subregion review the proposed footprint extension of the Columbia Valley Subregion Landfill to address visibility and the life of the extension, and to review this at public meetings.

• That the Columbia Valley Subregion consider instituting curbside collection in Windermere and other higher density areas to decrease traffic and litter on the access roads to the solid waste facilities.

• That the Columbia Valley Subregion seek approval from BC Environment on the · Operational Plan, as prepared by Sperling Hansen in 1999 to include:

• alternate daily cover; • weigh scales, if tonnage dictates; e bear fencing; • aggressive waste diversion; and • public education.

e That the Columbia Valley Subregion incorporate the open burning of clean wood waste at the Canal Flats Marshalling Area.

Central Subregion

G That the Central Subregion open burn clean wood waste at the Wasa and Tie Lake transfer sites.

o That the Central Subregion trench burn clean wood waste, per conditions to be determined in the Operational Certificate for the Central Landfill.

Elk Valley Subregion

o That the Elk Valley Subregion review operating hours of solid waste facilities to address the concerns of people working shifts.

e That the Elk Valley Subregion open burn clean wood waste at the Sparwood Landfill/Transfer Site.

• That the Elk VaHey Subregion utilize any existing landfill space for the disposal of designated clean wastes i.e. aggregate, concrete, until such time as the areas are full. · ·

o That the Elk Valley Subregion utilize the Sparwood Landfill as a central marshalling area for designated materials such as wood waste, clean aggregates, etc.

Draft Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

Public Meetings

\\. ,s· .

April2000

I

Regional Solid Waste Management Plan- Public Meetings Comments Compilation

CENTRAL SUBREGION

Aprii2000

. The comments in the Central Subregion varied greatly and focused on specific operational concerns, most of which are addressed in the Plan already. In addition, there was a separate presentation on the Plan amendment for trench burning. :

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

1. We would like access to chips.

Public access to the wood chips produced from our wood grinding will have to be assessed on an ongoing basis from the issue of quality control and insuring that the chips, if and when they are, released, do not contain contaminants that would be dangerous to the public. This is stated in,.the Plan. . .

2. What is clean wood waste? I need more information.

The definiUon of clean wood waste - the public needs more infonnation on this issue. We need to release. ongoing information, mail-outs or post information at the transfer sites that accept clean wood waste on the exact nature of the material that we have to have or we may have to man the sites on a periodic basis or restrict the access to the sites to the public and ensure that its sorted correctly.

We would like the opportunity to do some scavenging- a lot of peopl~ recycle in that way.

The Regional District is concerned about uncontrolled scavenging at our manned sites from the : point of liability with the public injuring themselves in collecting material. We will have various recycling agreements with certified. recyclers such as on propane tanks or washers and dryers that would have the material completely removed from the site and not come back and we willbe setting up the free stores at the Cranbrook and Kimberley sites. We woul(f have to discuss these issues for the transfer sites in the Elk Val!ey and the Columbia Valley ··

4. Is it possible to have a specific day for pick up of yard and garden waste (better cooperation . with municipalities)?

The Regional District will have further talks with municipalities on specific days for yard and garden clean up and better public education and infonnation on how the public can deal with yard and garden waste themselves. In the Central Subregion, there is no tipping fee on those materials that come to the site clean to encourage the public to bring the yard and garden waste to our transfer sites for c9mposting in a clean state.

5. I think the transfer stations are really well run now. Everything seems to be simmering down here, seems to be working well.

6. The residents of Fort Steele are working with the Ministry of Environment on the Operational Certificate. I want to know why the RDEK refuses to attend those meetings and meet with Fort Steele residents. ·

The RDEK has stated previously that there are existing avenues for any member of the public to discuss issues with the RDEK, being the elected officials, staff and the Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee.

' .

Regional Solid Waste Management Plan - Public Meetings Comments Compilation

Aprii2000

7. I request any reference to septic waste be removed. References to composting too- the smell would be offensive, especially with the park.

In regards to septic waste, the Regional District is undertaking and has applied for a government grant to undertake a study on how to deal most cost effectively with our septic and holding tank effluent. We know from the tight soils at the landfill that traditional exfiltration treatment would be difficult. · In regards to composting, it has been stated previously in the Operational Plan that composting will take place on the site to assist us with the ongoing closure of the Central site and to enhance the onsite soils with the compost material.

RECYCLING SERVICES:

8. Out here there is no place for plastic other than the garbage.

The Regional District has had previous discussions with the local plastic recycler, but at this point in time it is too expensive to provide services at all our solid waste sHes and transfer stations to collect the plastics other than milk jugs that can go in the current yellow bin program. This will be reassessed on an ongoing basis to see if this situation changes in the future. Until th.en, the public can take their plastic material directly to Plaz/Tech.

9. There is no place to put glass.

Again the Regional District has had conversation with our current recycler, Canadian Waste, who provide glass recycling, to put out more bins but right now the only available /ocaf!flm is to take it the Canadian Waste facility on Theatre Road. ·

10. Wouldn't it be cost effective to have separate bins and have people separate it themselves?

The Regional District is assessing through our recycling survey whether the public wishes to have segregated bins or not. If that is the case, we wil/ then work our next proposal call for recycling services to include that operation. The Regional District wif! :.contact. the Product Stewardship Program to encourage them to put out more than one location for the collection of those products collected under their program. It is also intended to offer them locations at our transfer stations to collect their materials and to marshal them at an appropriate facility run by them.

11. Used Solvents: The current system is inconvenient, it can't be that much more expensive to have more than one location (maybe in the City Yard in Fernie or somewhere). Also, the size restriction on the pails is limiting. We deal with 15-18 litre pails.

(See 10) .,

12. Couldn't Parks use the pallets for their campsites (to cut down on wood waste problem at landfill}?

The Regional District is seeking alternative uses for the pallets we collect at our transfer station facilities. Once user fees come in on those types of products, we may see a decrease on those type of items being received and that the producers may find their own means to ship them back to the!r point of origin or reuse them.


B. It would be nice to have a place for firewood at the transfer stations for people to use.

April 2000

Alternate disposal methods or recycling methods for wood waste is an ongoing issue with this Regional Dis_trict and other regional districts. The RDEK is working with the Minister of Environment and local officials to find as may ways to divert this from the waste stream as possible including the possible use of fire wood. This may have to be reviewed with the Ministry of Environment and the proper controls would have to be in place to ensure that we weren't handing out products that shouldn't be burned.

14. We need better identification of what is acceptable.

The Regional District has recently hired our new Public Education Coordinator a.nd the goal of this program is to get a consistent message out to the pubfjc on how to better access the solid waste facilities and how to help ourselves to keep costs down.

15. We need guidance on recycling. We'd do it if we knew how to do the right thing.

Again, the Regional District through our Public Education Coordinator is targeting to get a consistent ongoing message out to the public on all issues of solid waste including recycling.

16. There are lots of bins with cardboard in them. There's an education factor ... look there are gold bins ev~rywhere.

The Regional District is working with its-contracted recycler to ensure that the. message put on their gold bins is appropriate and all products that are acceptable are clearly labeled on the bins.

:. Meetings like ·these are broad based. It might be wise to hold a meeting specifically on recycling .

.Through our Public Education Coordinator there wi/1 be ongoing meetings on more specific items .. such as recycling in the future.

18. After visiting the landfill site and talking to some of the District staff, we feel the site Is extremely well thought out and professionally done. With regards to recycling, there should be a BIG sign so it's obvious what can be recycled. I would prefer several bins so I can sort there, rather than one. Pictures might also be helpful on individual bins- but a number of pictures on gold bins would still be too confusing. I would be willing to pay for curbside pick up (blue box) if the costs were hidden in my tax calculation, and amounted to $5 or less a month. Maybe a 1% increase if the amount went to so"lid wastellandfill curbside recycling.

Thank you for the comment on the landfill site. In regards to the blue box program, this is generally a municipal iss.ue but we will have ongoing discussions with all the municipalities about blue box programs ~md perhaps incorporating into our recycling contract if the municipalities wish to do that.

19. I feel the RDEK needs to make recycling opportunities equal for all businesses involved in recycling or trying to divert recyclables from the waste stream. ·

The RDEK is reassessing its recycling service needs and looking toward drafting a new Terms of Reference before entering into another long-term agreement.

Regional Solid Wa?te Management Plan- Public Meetings Comments Compilation

OPEN BURNING:

,. ~

April 2000

20. If they allow fo.re$t management to have huge burns for one to two weeks, why not alfow open burning for a:. day or so?

21. We live in a forestry area. There are all kinds of slash burns, most are bigger than what you are talking about. There is no question from a cost-effective point of view, this (open burning at rural sites) is the way to go.

22. If the Ministry supports sl~sh burns, why not bend for you.

23. COMMENTS FROM BAYNES LAKE ON OPEN BURNING: I'm ail for it. Two thumbs up. I'll light it. I'll watch it. ·


April 2000

PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TRENCH BURNING- CENTRAL LANDFILL

Comments on trench burning and open burning varied widely from full support to strong objections .. The concerns with trench burning at the Central site were that the Minister had approved the site with no burning and with the general operation of the trench burner from noise to smoke. .

Information was reiayed to the public that the trench burning would be a short time duration with the proper venting conditions and only in the early spring and late fall, so as not to disrupt the tourist season. The Regional District would have to review its segregation of wood waste to meet the Ministry of Environment's approval so that we weren't burning products that were not appropriate. The public was a/so told that the trench burning was a means of last resort, if we could find m~ other reasonable and cost effective means to dispose of our wood waste. These other options include grinding and composting, incorporating into the site for moisture and dust control, and to access the cogeneration plant.

It was a/so stated that the RDEK was presenting this as an amendment to the Plan and we were following the public process as directed by the Ministry of Environment.

The following is a summary of comments on trench burning

24.

25.

27.

28.

The Minister approved no burning.

I haven't known people that live rurally that would be comfortable with trench burning in their area. We are your neighbors. Out of respect for your neighbors, I request that you do not trench burn, that you don't even apply for it. If you only need it as a last resort, let's see how creative you can be.

I ask you not to bring it out to the rural people. If you need to do it, do it at the transfer station in Cranbrook where the bulk of the waste comes from instead of hauling it. If you need to burn,·: and I don't think you should, do it in the city. ·

I think the only problem with the proposed amendment is the possibility of dense smoke around where people are living. Other than that, try to make it burn as hot as possible.

There would be a polfution difference with trench burning, particularly for those people who live down wind.

29. First you said there would be a five"kilometre buffer zone between the residents, then you bring in this landfill, now you want to trench burn to be able to dispose of waste. You want to develop a sewer field too don't you?

30. We are victims here. Every one of our senses is being affected. Ravens, dust, beeping noises, the grinder, the compactor. Now smoke. It's cruel, it's inhumane. Maybe that's just because I am there.

31. October 1998, it states right here no burning condition. You are doing the same thing on this, trying to get in the back door. People down below will smell the smoke, it's not fair, it's not one bit fair the way you are doing it. · ·

32. It's a little like David and Goliath. You have a history of changing the rules. You changed the soil criteria, you changed the access road (which helped you and impacted us). There is a rule in place of no burning. The people of Fort Steele are asking you to please play by the rules, no burning please. (Accompanied by a written submission from Tom Quirk)

,, Concerns over additional noise, smell, dust.

Regional Solid Was.te Management Plan- Public Meetings Comments Compilation

Aprii2000

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The RDEK can 9pply under the Solid Waste Management Plan Criteria, for an amendment to approved portions of the Plan. The Ministry of Environment will then consider the submission for approval.

Trench burning is being pursued as one of the options to the disposal of wood. Other options in.c!ude:

• composting, 0 dust and moisture control, • supplying wood to ihe CFI cogeneration facility, o wood diversion activities such as recycling wood pallets, • public access to clean wood chips or clean wood, and o free store.

r

It is a/so expected that the implementation of user fees will reduce the amount of pallets handled at. the fuc~& ·

If approved, the RDEK will undertake trench burning at the Central Landfill site only in the early spring and the fall. To coincide with spring and fall open burning season. No burning will take place while fire bans are in effect. It is felt that if burning of clean combustible wood waste is done during these seasons of high op(m burning, that smoke will not be an issue.

• Trench burning produces Jess smoke as it burns at a higher temperature. • Short intensive burns will greatly reduce the burning time required. ·

The trench bur:ning approval would be subject to the. proper sorting of combustibles to be burnt outlined in the final Operational Certificate and proper venting conditions. ·: ·

Operating hours for burning would be subject to the Noise Bylaw #1396.


Apri12000

/;oLUMB/A VALLEY SUBREGION

There were no. specific concerns raised on the overall components of the Plan, although better education was again a comment.

The general concems were the extending of the life of the Landfill beyond the previously stated 2000/2001. Objections ranged from the continued raven noise and litter problem as well as visibility from the golf course and that the site might be turned into a transfer station if the landfill is closed. There were also comments of support to extend the life of the landfill. :


34. From the 18th green you could throw a stone into the dump according to Option 3. We own the goff course. We bought property and built a house here. We've invested money based on estimates given earlier that suggested in 2001-2002 that would be it. I am disappointed beca~se' we made an investment with knowledge and then you change the plan. ·

35. I am really disappointed. I am living camped out with the ravens, dealing with the noise and the dust. You make an assumption to proceed as the Plan states and then it changes. .

36. The landfill was here before we built. I'd be opposed to 2018. I will give you five more years. This is going to affect us. Let's bite the bullet.

37. We are tired of picking up garbage while out for a walk, most of this can be blamed on the number of uncovered trucks that go to the dump. There is no supervision regarding the covering of loads and the refuse is appalling. This is as much a point of contention as the actual dump site.

38. If the site is closed, where will the transfer station be? If you still put the transfer station there, .· you haven't gotten away from the problem. If this did become a transfer station we are really' getting hung. ·

39. Why can't you do both .. .look at options and start the site selection process.

40. In site selection, would you look at opening negotiations with the First Nations?

41. I look at the landfill as a resource. I think we should get the most out of it that we can. It will give us lead time to find another site and other solutions. There's a lot we can do with the existing site.

42. There's not one option I recommend. Bring that to the Board.

43. You say things are changing, well I think the environment around the site has changed too. There are more environmental and recreational things in place because of what was said In 93, 94, 95. These changes got instigated because of the plan, and now you are changing the plan. I am against."it.

44. I am concerned with plans to extend the life of the landfill and have several comments I would like read into the record:

)

(a) Water quality - it has been addressed somewhat, but there is still potential for impacts. · ·

(b) Sewage- at some time it will affect the water table.

(c) Site pollution- has been addressed somewhat with the autos.

(d) Noise pollution - this has gotten worse since 1994 (when I first raised these concerns). Noise affects our business. We can hear the loaders going all winter

. long.

(e) Elevated site- would increase the noise problem.


April2000

(f) Odors - on a hot day with a south wind, you'll get the smell. Increased activity means it is inevitable we'll get it. Some people already do.

(g) Increase in traffic.

(h) Much larger trucks hauling- this leaves constant waste. We have to clear 700 feet of frontage. Since user fees came in, I've made complaints because I've picked n up. A number of times I have stopped them on my property. This is a concern for us and I would like to se~ it addressed.

{i) Bear problems- Windermere Creek is a natural bear corridor. No matter what the options are, we would like to see a fence go in with tarping.

45. When the lnvermere site was closed, Windermere made sense. Now there are businesses, golf courses, properties and houses. Many of the lots are for sale and if this expansion goes through, kiss those lots goodbye because they will have no value.

46. It is a matter of fairness to me. In the Valley Echo in 1998 it said "the process to find a ·new landfill site is set to begin soon." People read that and acted accordingly. They make investments, plans for their lives, and it doesn't seem fair to me you can go ahead and change it. We are fewer in number and I guess you are giving consideration to the whole va!Iey ... is that it?

47. Generally, I am in favour of the extension. From my standpoint, I would be in favour of the extension, but many creative solutions should be implemented to lessen the immediate landowners concerns ... planting, berming, etc. :

48. The owner of the Elkhorn Ranch does not want the landfill life extended.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Landfill Extension

The RDEK sent out notices by registered mail to all of the adjac[?nt property owners (27) within one kilometre of the landfill. Five of the property owners attended the meetings.

The RDEK is assessing options to extend the life for the effici(3ntuse otour existing landfill and to defer the major capital expenditures on closure of the existing site and developing a new landfill.

Having seen the development costs of the system in both the Central and Elk Valley Subregions, the Columbia Vaffey Subregion recognizes the importance of maximizing the use of current facilities. Pursuing diversion activities and site management options that could extend the life of the landfill beyond the previously expected life of 200112002.

Road Clo~.ure

The RDEK previously pursued the road closure in 1995196 to extend the life of the landfill, but because of closure conditions from the Ministry of Highways ·and Transportation, i.e. build the new road to nowhere, this was dropped.

Now that we have a better understanding of the cost implication of closing and developing a new site and the waste diversion options available that will extend the life of the landfill, we are pursuing the road closure again.

The proposed road closure was reviewed with adjacent property owners and the Ministry <Transportation and Highways and all agreed that the road should be closed as no one wanted accesstolandsthroughthemndfil[

0


Landfill Footprint

Apri/2000

The RDEK is not extending the boundaries of the existing footprint. It wishes to close the road rightof-way and u.se that space to increase the life of the landfill.

Landfill Visibility

The RDEK will review the design options to minimize the visibility of the site.

Utter Control

The RDEK will be enforcing to a greater extent, the covered load policy and inqreasing our public education program to get more public cooperation. It will also review operations to·decrease traffic to the site.

Noise

The RDEK can review the operation and the level of back-up alarms to decrease the noise level. ' .

Bear Control

If the RDEK undertakes an alternative daily cover, the requirement of bear fencing will have to be · investigated with BC Environment. Along with that there will also be bear awareness information for the proper storage of solid waste. ·

The eliminating oflandfil!sldumps as a food source has not been an issue where it has been done in the Central and Columbia Valley Subregioh but it is important to educate the public on this c~ange.

Water Quality

The RDEK has been sampling on a routine basis for the past several years, with no indication of·. leachate. These results are also reviewed by BC Environment.

Septage Disposal :

The RDEK has submitted a study grant application to review our 'septage and holding tank disposal methods, including incorporating into existing treatment facilities. We do see some advantage of having access to bio-so/ids for composting.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

49. A major component is missing- Education. You don't even charge for ya~d and garden waste.



April2000

The Elk Valley. Subregion meetings generally focused on user fees, access to the sites and the location of the Fernie Transfer Station.


50. Sparwood residents should continue to have all of the services that residents need at our· transfer station (existing landfill), along with additional ones brought about. by the plan. We have wood, compost, tires, car bodies, white goods, etc. We use auto ·hulks as an incentive for metal recyclers to take all metals at no cost, the plan should allow for this in Sparwood, to avoid the costs of paying for removal of white goods.

51. I am opposed to the locating of the Fernie Transfer Station in or near the Ghostrider Industrial Park. I also oppose locating the site along or near Hwy 3 East to the eastern side of Hosmer. I believe. the transfer station should be located at the old Fernie Dump site.

52. You don't have a clear decision on where it will be in Fernie, but you do have a clear decision on where it will be. in Sparwood. It seems to make more sense to have a bigger site in Sparwood. You already have to dump it there anyway.

53. Sparwood is good. Fernie should be encouraged to share costs ofSparwood site and educate the community about moving loads safety to Sparwood. Community accessed bins.:paid for as part of any collection service would help keep garbage offth~ highways. ·~

54. Does the RDEK have any concern ·about how close to residents these transfer.'sJations go?

55. The one in Cranbrook is built in a hole compared to this one. This is not sittint_f1on top of a hole; : it's just not right.

56. As far as environmental concerns, what about the fish? You gotta consider that. 1/3 of that area is surrounded by fish bearing streams. What about shallow water wells. You're gonna get '·'· seepage out of those sites, no matter how good they are. ·

57. What about smell, flies, dogs, rats, mosquitos, stink, and birds. This will be right .next to our business, and I know they don't smell nice. ·

58. It sounds like Sparwood and Elkford have a great location, so there is no reason Fernie couldn't have a great location that wouldn't bother anyone.

59. [Eikford] I like it by a road where everyone can see it. That's why I li~ed the Rankin site. Everyone can see it. That's where it should be. You don't have to maintain roads either.

60. Well, the hours are important. There are guys working on 4~and-4 that can't get there on their days off. That is something to think about. ·

61. Here people just throw their garbage in the wood pile.

62. You would get more [cooperation] if people got paid. In the old days the wrecker would pay you. Even if it was just a couple of bucks.

63. Who will operate these sites?

64. JIIegal dumping -It's everywhere. Just go up a road. Fording coal dumps all the time. You just have to go to the river. You see it everyday.

65. Is there going to be a bu~n ban. People in the rural areas will be choked if they can't burn and I want to know if that will happen.


Apri12000

oG. It is my view, and I believe many others, that burning wood waste is an acceptable method of management in this area. Current permits allow this and it should be included in the plan. This should change when/if there is an economical alternative in the future. .

67. I have a question about hauling garbage and having to pay a tipping fee. Every year we go into a fake on horseback and come out with garbage. If we have to pay ... each year we prob~bly go to 4, 5, 6 lakes and we always bring out a packhorse full of garbage.

68. We aren't charging for municipal solid waste anyway are we?

· RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Transfer Site Operation

Who will be operating the transfer sites still has to be finalized. The RDEK is requesting discussions with the municipalities on their preference on who will operate the sites. The optfo.ns are the municipal staff, or contract staff administered by the municipalities or the RDEK.

Transfer Sites

The siting of the transfer stations is up to the municipalities as they are the largest producers of solid waste and it is best to locate them near the source;

The RDEK is proceeding with the development of the Elkford and .§parwood transfer sites and will construct the Fernie site when the location is finalized. ·

One Fernie!SpaJWood Transfer Site

The amalgamation of the Fernie and Sparwood sites would require another round of public meetings and would likely delay the construction of all of the :sites at least one year.

The decision to have three transfer sites was to provide a level of seNice to all residents of the Elk Valley to ensure that waste was disposed of in the proper facilities and avoid illegal dumping. CFI has made it quite clear that any increase in illegal dumping would mean closing down public access to their lands.

Transfer Station Operation

The RDEK has not had any complaints in regards to odour coming from the sites in Cranbrook and Kimberley, which have been in operation since July 1999.

Illegal Dumping/User Fees

The Regional District is working with BC Environment ConseNation Officers to investigate reported illegal dumping.and to educate the public on the proper disposa/.of waste.

There will be separate public meetings to discuss proposed user fees for the Elk Valley Subregion.

Draft Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

Public Meetings

I n

April2000

Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Public Meetings Wasa Community Hall- February 29, 2000

Steve opened the meeting with a review of the long process and efforts in getting the components of the plan in place. We are now in the position to tal<e this back to the public. We have 10 meetings in 10 communities and the purpose is to gather public feedback on the draft of the ·plan. This isn't your only opportunity to comment, this is a three week process and you can forward comments or call the office at any time during the next three weeks.

He reviewed the items up on the display boards, giving a snapshot of the plan. Steve said he also wanted to discuss the plan amendment- currently the central landfill site is the only part of the plan approved. The board wants the opportunity to trench bum as a last resort only.

He asked if there were any questions. · NONE

Steve covered a brief history, explained the previously suggested site for the Central Subregion (CSR), and Elk Valley. He tafl(ed about the Provincial Government extension on the submission of the plan (was supposed to be in late 1995).

In 1997 a copy was submitted with Site #2 (CSR) and the Rankin site in the Elk Valley. Governmental concerns over process led to the Harrison Report. He then explained the independent governmental process.

The review in the Elk Valley in"1998 was supposed to be a three month process; but turned into almost a year.

The Central Subregion Landfill is only permitted to take refuse from CSR. So, we've incorporated all the components in the plan in the Elk Valley to include the Mulfng of Elk Valley waste fo Lethbridge.

He explained that we have gone full circle in essence since the last round of public consultations. Five years later we're trying to bring regional components back together. We are focusing, where we can undertaking regional activities, we will.

General Changes:

Steve then reviewed the general changes point by point

The old draft had plans for landfills, including the closing of rural dumps, and that has all taken place.

He talked about the PMAC.

Specific Changes for the Central Subregion.:

We are undergoing drafting of closure plans on both the Cranbrook and Kimberley sites. There will be more public meetings on those after the Ministry of Environment, RDEK staff and Board, and cities involved have reviewed the information. ·

Personally, Steve has seen the education component as a weak spot in the past, and the RDEK is taking steps to address that concern through the hiring of the Public Education Coordinator.

Steve then asked the floor whether they wanted him to detail the other two subregions, or whether anyone had any questions about them before moving forward.

Arlene Ridge -Where is the Windermere landfill located?

Steve described the location a few kilometers off the highway near the golf course.

Arlene Ridge,..... Same place it's been for the past 20 years? Don't you need a new site?

Steve - We don't know: The footprint of the landfill has not changect with what I feel is basic diversion, that site still has seven years, pardon me, until 2003 with the potential of seven years with even a minimal effort.

Arlene Ridge -Is there a site selection process beginning up there? They can take a while, and they are better done not under pressure.

Steve -the comments gathered during these meetings will be taken back to the Board and they will make that decision.

Arlene Ridge- Wouldn't it be wise to do both? Will that go to the Board?

Steve, that comment will, Yes. As far as whether both will be undertaken, that decision will be with the Board.

Skip Fennessy -Is that the site across from the golfcourse in the best gravel pit in the world? It's absolutely bizarre, that's the best gravel pit in the world.

Steve- that is where the site is, and I don't want to revisit a, decision of 20 years ago: That's where the site is.

Goals

Steve carried on with general discussion on goals. He talked about the difficulty in gathering exact data on recycling and diversion totals.

He informed the crowd that he would be meeting with the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Lands tomorrow to work on a strategy on illegal dumping region wide. We've stated in the plan that's what we'll do. We are also hoping to learn from other areas- the Columbia Valley for example. They've had user fees for fNe years and have not noticed a big illegal dumping problem.

Costs

Steve talked about the costs shared by community. You can see how under the proposed budget of 2.4 million (this year 2.2 million), you can see the basic split of how each subregion contributes. The average on the bottom is exactly that- it will vary depending on residential, business, commercial, etc.

You can see comparisons with the other regions. I am not going to go through every line, you can interrupt as we go along if you have any questions, or you can contact me at the office.

The Elk Valley isn't operational yet so this is just a projected total. But, you can see this is a whacking increase in 7 years. In the Central Subregion alone, solid waste was 5-hundred thousand 7 years ago. From that to 2.2 million is a major jump. It should be noted that 5-hundred thousand dollar total doesn't include Kimberley and Cranbrook landfills ... so it's not quite an equal comparison, but it still represents over 100% increase.

Steve covered a brief description of marshalling areas, the User Fee Schedule. He noted we are gearing up for the public education campaign beginning April 1st where there will be three months no charge, 3 months 50% charge, and then the full 100% rate after that (October). User fees will be in effect at the Central Subregion, Cranbrook and Kimberley Transfer Stations, and are not planned for the rural transfer stations at this point.

Most of you are aware of what happened during the civic strike. We will have to monitor closely what is happening at the rural sites and bring that back to the board.

Jack Walkley - How would you charge at the rural sites?

Steve - we may have to consider limited access or continuous access to the bins. When you have chargeable items, you have specific opening days to deal with ;t

Jack Walkley- Wouldn't a scale be involved?

Steve - No, it would be volume based.

Steve wrapped it up by saying that's the plan. We encourage you to take it home and read it. There's lots of infonnation involved. In the 4 Yz years I've been here, there's been a real shift to waste diversion to make sure we don't bury the waste. It's easier to manage waste in smaller sites, and our success can only go up with waste diversion efforts. We still have challenges. Concrete and mixed construction waste, getting people involved in recycling on a voluntary basis; etc.

Outside of Cranbrook and Kimberley'"" No charges then?

Steve-No

What about burning?

Steve - I'm getting to that. The Board is asking tor an amendment to the plan, but I want to make sure that discussion is separate from the discussion on the plan.

Jack Walkley- On the user fee schedule, what about banned goods? Steve cun-ently, commercial cardboard, hazardous wastes, waste oil and waste oil filters are banned goods.

Jack Walkley - So the fine is like a fine not just permission by paying?

Steve- Yes.

Jack Walkley= Uncovered/unsecured loads. Police don't enforce that kind of thing, how will you ·enforce it? At the gate?

Steve- the person coming in would be charged at the gate. Under the highways act the police have the option to enforce highways regulations, but at the landfill they are stopped at the gate coming in.

John Smith - Do you intend to have someone at the site? (Wasa)

Steve - No, not at this time

John Smith - Sounds like it might be tough.

Steve - well we aren't going to ignore the issue. There could be an increase in expenses tor transportation costs because of increased use or dumping at the rural sites. The board would have to make that decision. I don't think anyone wants to deal with it. That is really up to the public. Now we clean up the sites, they sometimes get a little out of hand, but then· we get comments and get out there. One of the big concerns is food waste- bear/human conflict potential. Sometimes people leave a bin door open a bear gets in there, and it's a real shocker for the next person who pulls up and finds a bear in the bin.

John Smith -In terms of previous history on sites with user fees vs. no user fees, do you know if they have any experiences or problems with trucks driving out?

Steve - Yes. They are experiencing that now in Fernie. Some people have been hauling from Fernie to Tie Lake site. You have to assess the magnitude ofthe problem. /fit's not that big of a deal, we'll deal with it. If it is big, that's another story.

Suzanne Ashmore -Are there any other ways to deal with it like rural watch?

Steve - the Board is concerned with maintaining access to the sites, and also about costt!.

Barry- We havfJ to accept we are part of the management chain. Generally Wasa is a pretty good site. We need to have responsibility for managing our site. Whether we tonnalize a neighborhood watch, education programs to talk to neighbors, I think we don't want to have it manned. It's a great idea if we fonnalize it.

Suzanne Ashmore -One thing about Wasa is there is a fair amount of scavenging~ ·~lot ·of people recycle in that way. But no scavenging at the central landfill? · ·· .c-M~>

Steve - We have an obligation from a liability sense. I'm not in favor of manning sites if it doesn't come up. The way we've been managing the sites for the past tour years seems to be effective.

When do user fees go in?

Steve- Aprilt..July 3phase 1, July 4-0ctober 151 phase 2, October 2 on. At the User fee meetings, we didn't see any real up front presence from General Contractors who stand to be impacted the most.

Jack Walkley -If Parkland school gets tom down, there could be a huge expense there.

Steve - if they want to segregate their wood waste, they save 50% right there.

Jack - No wood in that building.

Steve again stressed the comments don't have to be limited to tonight. He talked about the fact we are in the process of reassessing the recycling contract. There has been a one year extension. The Recycling swvey is here. It will give us a start on redrafting those documents.

Is there anything else on the current plan? No response

PLAN AMENDMENT

The next aspect is the plan amendment. The Board wants to pursue the option as a last resort of trench burning at the landfill clean wood waste. The Ministry of Environment stated we have to advertise that we need to s.eek public comment as an amendment to the pli:m. We have done it in the past at rural sites and in Windermere with varying degrees of success. It's expensive.

We currently grind wood waste, are segregating green wood waste (composting to enhance soils and line areas for storage), and construction wood waste is set aside for chipping.

We had our first meeting with CFI on what wood they'd be capable of taking. It's one of many options.

Are you segregating reserve wood from other?

Steve- Yes.

What do you do with it?

Steve - We have to bury it. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Look at tires. Something new comes up every day. We hare talking about specific woods here .... dry, clean wood waste. Painted wood is a separate issue.

Suzanne Ashmore -Is public allowed to come out and pick up chips? Hydro was chipping trees three years ago and they never did drop off any to me. Do you allow the public to have chips for their gardens?

Steve - it depends on a number of things. If the expectation is that you'll get landscape bark out of it, it's not what you'll get. That is an option outlined in the plan, but I am reluctant from a liability aspect with regards to things like nails. · The green waste we reuse tor compost, landfill continuous closure, we'll mix it in our compost then. It we have excess, there may be an option.

Suzanne Ashmore - Up to this point have you asked the public?

Steve-No·

It's interesting because Hydro said they were bothering them all day and I was wondering if Cranbrook/Kimberley, the larger populations had been considered.

Steve - Every time we want to create a specific product there is a cost in doing that for quality control. All green waste is chipped into one pile, co-mingling and compost. A major component of wood waste (25-40% is non green) is pallets. Perfectly good pallets. We are working with private recyclers to cut off the wood before it gets to the transfer stations or landfills. It will be a chargeable item.

More discussion on CFI Co-Gen opportunities.

Arlene Ridge - Explain what you mean by last resort.

Steve - when there is no other viable option.

So, it's a subjective viewpoint of viable at the moment. You always have a chance of storing it or chipping it

Steve - well there are some concerns about large volumes, and large combustibles.

Of it being burned?

Steve - burning is a last resort We don't want to bury it Frankly, we don't have all the answers because we haven't tried it.

Barry- we have to watch hypocrisy. We are major proponents of range burning. That wood waste is no different than the wood waste we're dealing with here. It's okay if environment benefits, but here we have a big build up of solid waste. She couldn't an.swer (Environment Minister) when I brought this issue up with her. She was shocked. They are planning to burn 5-thousand acres a year. That's big smoke, way big smoke.

Skip Fennessy -This is close to a big tourist area, namely Fort Steele.

Barry -I'm a tourist area.

Arlene Ridge -Are we talking once a week, once a year, once a month, what?

Steve -At a set time under proper conditions.

Arlene Ridge - it's not environmentally sound

Skip Fennessy- The minister approved no burning

Steve - You're right The Board is applying for an amendment to that Even land clearing applies. If you have land clearing, the minute you move the pile to the landfill it becomes waste. It can,'t be open burned, and the Board isn't sanctioning open .burning. But, if you leave that pile on your land, you can bum it. ·· · ...

Suzanne Ashmore -In Cranbrook don't fhey have a day to pick up grass and garden:"•\ waste?

Steve- they do have a spring clean up where they pick up all kinds of waste

Suzanne Ashmore -It would be interesting to find out what they pick up. It should be suggested to people. Maybe they could have a chipper on the back and they could make a deal with people to give their yard waste back as chips for their gardens.

Steve - the suggestion of working with a municipality on a specific day for yard and garden waste in spring is a good suggestion.

Suzanne Ashmore- to recycle chips?

Steve -we tried chipping at the transfer station. It is very expensive as opposed to using a tub grinder. But I think working with the municipality for green waste round up is a good suggestion. It's a good suggestion, wewi/1 work with both cities.

Suzanne Ashmore- Seems once it gets to the landfill its harder to deal with.

Steve - our goal is not to have it get into the waste stream. I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneur found a way to start a business.

Fred Achenbach - Couldn't you extend the recycling to malls? The cans must be low visibility, you don't see them anywhere but at the hotel.

Steve -it comes back to public cooperation. Were developing a communication plan to deliver an ongoing consistent message to keep waste out of the waste stream.

Barry -What's our history on trench burning?

Steve - When the venting index is correct, one per yea~; continuous bum if permitted. Tie Lake example we burned 12-thousand cubic metres.

Barry- So it's not done in the height of summer? And you still have to meet all th~ other environmental regulations?

Steve- Yes we do .. We have to have standby equipment, 24 hours of good venting with another 24 hour window, proper wind conditions, quality control issues.

Jack Walkley- What's being burned?

· Steve - Green wood is not going in. Clean wood waste only.

Arlene Ridge - I haven't known people that live rurally that would be comfortable with trench burning in their area; We are your neighbors .. Out of respect for your neighbors, I request you do not trench burn, that you don't even apply for it If you only need it as.~ . last resort, let's see how creative you can be.

John Smith -What I see is such diverse waste in wood. Somebody takes garbage, their old garage, stumps, everything.

Steve -If it's contaminated, it's waste· and is buried. An old garage with tar paper,· it's buried. It's not clean wood waste.

John Smith - Really?

Steve - this is a big education component for the public. That's why we have the three month education phase.

John Smith- in Wasa how do they bury it? They have no trench.

Steve - we have to haul it away and bury it.

John Smith -That's what I've constituted wood waste.

Steve - that is mixed demolition waste

John Smith -So what is clean wood waste? If I chop a tree down?

Steve - yes. We may have to re-took at our marshalling areas. Maybe we need an area for green waste, clean wood waste, and demolition wood waste so we can deal with it That is a good point, your perception of wood waste.

John Smith -We generate 2-3 bags of chips per week. Does that constitute dumping it all over indiscriminately?

Steve- It's no problem if you dump it, just don't dump it in the bags. That happens all the time with pine needles and such People bag them, and we don't want them left with the bags. If you don't want to segregate from your household waste, you mix the two and it all goes on the floor. ·

Steve- one more thing, we did want to bring up. It is not in the plan, but the Ministry of . Environment asked if we were asking the public. So we are asking. Open burning of clean wood waste at the rural sites (like Wasa and Tie Lake).

What restrictions would there be?

Steve - it would be in the spring or fall, and all the requirements would have to be met.

John Smith - If they allow forest management to have huge burns for 1-2 weeks, why not allow it for a day or so?

· Steve - I see some quality control problems. If we have to man a site, it's a question of whether we should just sort and haul it. I stress it's not in the plan, it's been raised by the Ministry of Environment. · ·

Barry- what is the difference between bringing it to the landfill, burning it in your yard, and range management? We are all over the map here. Really, it's an issue.

Steve - it's a dogs breakfast

Barry- Now you have a Ministry with a whole set of regulations. All the regions that Steve has talked to have the same problem with wood waste. It's a problem in Canada. Look across the fence. Guys are clearing all their trees for a hay field and burning it. I think we can't by hypocritical. This Ministry has to look at what they do. We all know there are problems. It's a bit of dilemma. The Ministry recognizes there are problems too, there's no one answer.

Arlene Ridge -If you're planning on burning wood waste and it's so environmentally acceptable, why haul it? Why not do it at the transfer station?

Steve- one reason is that there isn't room as a storage facility.

Arlene Ridge ~ Well burn it more often. The truth is it's not safe for air pollution for the population of Cranbrook.

Steve - that is a big concern in the Okanagan in the area of Greenway, huge issues of air · quality. You're correct.

Arlene Ridge - I ask you not to bring it out to the rural people. If you need to do it, do it at the transfer station in Cranbrook where the bulk of the waste comes from instead of hauling it.

Barry- Actually Arlene, most of the wood waste is rural.

Arlene Ridge -You are incorrect. Rural residents haul to dump.

Barry- look at our site here. There's a lot of wood waste left here. Right Steve?

Steve - yes, sometimes there is.

Arlene Ridge -If you need to burn, and I don't think you should, burn in the city. Then there are no hauling problems, and !-don't think it will pass.

What are pine needles?

Steve - explained the problem they present

Maybe a possibility to have pine needles segregated in a different area?

Steve -yes, we need a big sign with an arrow pointing'right into the bin. Again, it comes back to getting a consistent message out to the public.

Meeting adjourned 8:26pm

Questions: .

MEETING NOTES- SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARYSVILLE ELEMENTARY- MARCH 01,2000

Is there a place for firewood at the transfer stations? It would be nice to have that kind of area for people interested.

Are there plans to develop a reuse centre?

Why not put on the user fee schedule "take to scrap yard or recycler" for items you don1t accept?

Comments:

Heather Mackenzie: We need better identification of what plastics are acceptable.

Colin Mackenzie: I think the only problem with your proposed amendment is the possibility of dense smoke around where people are living. Other than that~ try to make it burn as hot as possible. A smart way would be to build a temporary oven or furnace around it.

We need guidance on recycling. We1d do it if we knew how to do the right thing.

Heather Mackenzie: I think the transfer stations are run really well right now.

Heather Mackenzie: How do you account for the low turnout? The government should recognize quality over quantity.· If you've got go.od·suggestions; that should count.'

Steve talked about the expectation of having different attendance levels in lnvennere!Windermere due to lhe issue Of extending the life of the landfilL·. They tried. to extend the boundaries of the landfill previously, but were shot down. The landfill will have the same footprint, but will be extended by diverting and changing 'the road right of way, arid filling in over the top of the old one.

Other options are alienating land or costly transfer/transportation systems.

Steve isn't sure what turn out will be like in the Elk Valley

Heather Mackenzie - Everything seems to be simmering down here, seems to be working well.

Heather Mackenzie -Are you sorting garbage in the transfer station?

Steve - No, just recyc/ables.

Heather Mackenzie - I still think there must be some way of getting a recycling plant. Rather than shipping our recyclables somewhere, have it shipped here and do something with it.

Steve - we would need more volumes

There was discussion on other options/ideas with regards to recycling venture opportunities in the area. Steve summed it up by saying we limit our activities to diversion and residual management and are leaving the rest to entrepreneurs.

Meeting adjourned: 8:04pm

Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Public Meeting Heritage Inn, Cranbrook - March 07, 2000

Steve opened the meeting by saying the comments aren't limited to one night, this is a three week process.

He talked about the appendix section of the document and their importance with regards to the history. of the plan. ·

He emphasized that as we've gone through redrafts of the plan, we've looked at areas where we can cooperate to capitalize on things like economics. Steve also mentioned separate meetings will be held on the closure of the Cranbrook and Kimberley landfills.

He noted the major changes for the Elk Valley (new transfer station and transportation system with waste being hauled to Lethbridge, along with the completed portion of the Elk Valley component in the pl~:m) and the Columbia Valley (now looking at extending life of the existing landfill).

He talked about being able to draw some conclusions from the study done in the Columbia Valley. We are diverting about 40% of the waste, which is a pretty good number. Obviously, the venture is worthwhile even though it is so costly.

Under the product stewardship program, the public needs to know where to take those materials,

User fees and better diversion have allowed us to extend the life of the Columbia Valley landfill. It's worked very well.

The last item, Steve has tried to keep separate •. · This is with regards. to the plan amendment. The only part of the plan approved is the site of the .Central Subregion landfill. Trench burning is a means of accelerating by forced air. Only specific woods go in there .. clean wood waste. Some previous meetings have raised the issue of open burning at the rural sites (of clean wood waste only). Steve stressed this is only one of the ways to deal with wood waste. It is a very expensive undertaking.

Rob Paulson -It's noisy, my ears are still ringing from it

Reusable pallets also make up a large component of the wood waste. These are recyclable. Crestbrook still doesn't have a good handle on quality control issues, but they will get back to the RDEK once they do.l

Rob Paulson -What's been done in the past? Trench burning, open burning, a combo?

Steve- a combination. We had a successful trench bum at the Tie Lake site in 1998 and also the Cranbrook landfill used to trench burn.

Rob Paulson- So you wouldn't be burning 365 days a year?

Steve - No, only under proper conditions in the spring or late fall.

Rob Paulson -What was the closest residence to the Tie Lake site?

200-300 metres.

Rob Paulson -Were they happy? Did they have any comments?

Steve -: None directly to me. They did go out and look at the site when it was being done, but no comments were made directly to me.

Rob Paulson -Are there any other trench burns in the province? Why?

Steve -Not that I am aware of. There are open bums. You'd have to ask the province why, I can't speculate on that. We saw trench burning as a way to deal with the situation in a clean, fast manner.

Rob Paulson -Is it on par with grinding? There would be a pollution difference especially for those people who live down wind.

Steve ., I don't disagree smoke is a concern.

Arlene Ridge -First you said there would be a 5km buffer zone between residences, then you bring in this landfill. Now you want trench burning to be able to dispose of waste. You want to develop a sewer field too don't you? ·

Steve -Sewer is difficult because of the soils. We have applied to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for a study grant on how we can deal with effluent disposal.

Arlene Ridge - For the landfill?

Steve- No, for everywhere. The Ell< Valley is actually leading the charge on this. We want to see what options we have, whether municipalities could maybe be involved. Takes UP../?. huge area. . , · ,,.,,,,,·;,

Rob Paulson - But the soil conditions aren't ideal? When they opened up the waste:,ieu, 60-70% of the material was inappropriate. Now it's catching them. They want to put a septic field out. It's just their maverick style of things. You opted not to put the landfill in other areas where people weren't affected. It's too close to the public now, just as when you opted to go in the gravel pit with the waste cell. You created a greater problem for yourself. Our lives have been made a living hell. It's inhumane. ·

Arlene Ridge -It got shut down in Cranbrook, why can't we get the same respect?

Rob Paulson -We're victims here. Every one of our senses is being affected. Ravens, dust, beeping noises, the grinder, the compactor. Now smoke. It's cruel, inhumane. Maybe that's just because I'm there.

Skip Fennessy- October 98, it states right here no burning condition. You're doing the same thing on this, trying to get in the back door. People down below will smell the smoke, it's not fair. It's not one bit fair the way you're doing it.

Steve - This is part of a plan amendment, which is part of due process. The Board wanted to be able to explore this option. One of the positions the Board has is with regards to. open burning still being allowed, range land improvements, etc. There is a parallel to these kinds of undertakings and trench burning. The Ministry allows us to undertake this process, this is the process.

Arlene Ridge- It's a little like David and Goliath. You have a history of changing the rules. You changed the soil criteria, you changed the access road (helped you, impacted us). There is a rule in place of no burning. The people of Fort Steele are asking you to please play by the rules, no burning please. I have a letter I would like to submit (handed in to Loree). I was listening to CBC about horrendous results from the landfills. You're talking abouta gravel pit, wastewifl ooze down into the river, down the road. Any more impact with fires is not by the rules. This whole thing is not by the rules.

Rob Paulson- My well is 1400 metres from the waste cell and 40 feet down. You people refused to test my water and we're the closest ones to it!

Steve - We will be testing all the wells again. We are working with the Ministry of Environment to determine how to do that to finalize the next round of tests.

Rob Paulson- So the case isn't closed then?

Steve - No, the next round is being considered.

Barbara Haigh - Is the Government prepared to buy out these people?

Rob Paulson -Are they going to replace livers and kidneys? We are guinea pigs here. I can't understand why there has to be a dump 1 km in our case, less than 1 km.

Steve - This meeting is on the plan as a whole. 1 can comment on the Windermere example ...

Rob Paulson -all of those residents were there, the soil conditions aren't the same.

Arlene Ridge - you know the residents of Fort Steele are working with the Ministry of Environment on the Operational Certificate';"' I Want .to know why the RDEK refuses to attend those meetings and meetwithFort Steele residents.',·

Mike Kartasheff- Basically the Board is meeting with the PMA C. This is a separate group. They went to meetings with the Ministry ofEnvironment, and it's my understanding not much progress is being made.

Arlene Ridge - We don't have a representative on the PMAC.

Mike Kartasheff- one of the PMAC members lives at Fort Steele

Arlene -That is not a representative of us. They don't meet with us, don't talk to us.

Rob Paulson -We are victims

Arlene Ridge- it's a matter of respect You've moved into our community. Why doesn't the MOE have a problem c()ming in? There will be no progress, things will be railroaded through.

Mike Kartasheff -I don't think that is a fair comment, but I will take it up with the Board. It's the best I can do.

Steve went over Visionary Recycling's questions. 1. Yes, the Columbia Valley is far and away C}head 2. Enforced? Opeh to definition. We recently hired a Public Education Coordinator. We

would rather seek public cooperation, rather than through compliance. Although, we have hired a bylaw enforcement officer (in progress too)

3. Cardboard- we are drafting a communication plan, and part of it is for the commercial sector. It can't be delivered to the landfill or transfer station sites.

Bowmar- Friends of mine in business didn't know an ordinance is in place. Cardboard is getting into the landfill. Also, we are hoping the hauler Canadian Waste , we are asking them not to put it in green bins.

Steve- when you said "didn't know' that is one of our biggest problems.

Bowmar - But this ban has been installed for five years.

Steve -I'll be the first to admit the education portion of the plan hasn't been very good. We plan to improve that.

Bowmar -The City of Cranbrook has huge amounts of household cardboard generated. Are you talking to them?

Steve - It was reviewed. We are seeking the public's cooperation. Focussed on volunteer recycling through bins or your program.

Bowmar -Over the holidays I find lots of boxes the City still picks up. Education factor .. .look there are gold bins everywhere.

Steve - make no mistake, the Public Education Coordinator works for the Regional DisYtict, but the municipalities are a part of that. There is no differentiation. We are also focussing on waste diversion.

Bowmar ...;. In wood waste .. .I am very interested in com posting. Is there a possibility if we ·. could do something from the public/private end, it can be composted. Are you interested in something like that? ·

Steve- Absolutely. We are in the infancy stages of our composting program. If we see an opportunity tor private people or entrepreneurs to play a role, we may consider that.

Armanda Taillefer- When you came here tonight did you not envision this kind of conversation?

Steve- Yes

Armanda -I am totally incensed. These people are not being taken care of. I want to know how come when something like this happens; these people aren't taken care of. Sounds great, educating people. This is not acceptable I need you to know. If people knew what was happening here tonight. •• amendment, is this the first time?

Barbara Haigh - No, it's been 3 or 4 years. They don't listen to us, they choose what they want to do.

Armanda- This is just getting to me. There are three kids here and the attention isn't on testing their water, excuse me? (to Paulson family, when was water tested? He answered with the rest, but at the last meeting with Gary .•.• she cut in "when was it last tested?" June) When do yo.u plan to test their water again?

Steve - I've asked the Ministry to pick a date.

Armanda - If their water is contaminated by our progress, and is ordained unsuitable, will you bail these people out? I leave here disturbed. I came here supporting this whole thing, and I am very upset.

Skip -1 don't know how many people know the holding ponds have been leaking for 30 years and that water is underneath this landfill. Water from the Spray Irrigation is in one hole that rose 26 metres. That water has to go down into this Valley and into those people's wells.

Armand a -At the next meeting will these people have answers?

Steve - the Board makes those decisions, I don't. These comments will go to the Board April efh.

Armanda -I'm telling you, I sat here for an hour and you people make it out like everything is fine ...

Barbara Haigh ..,.. Anyone who travels out the Highway toward Fort Steele, this whole section .is a gravel pit. The gravel pit on the left every year has 6--8 feet of water in it. The dump is tower than that. Their (Paulson's water) is 45 feet down.

Steve - we have the water test results ifyou'd like:

Rob Paulson- With regards to cost/tonnage?

Steve - I can't quote the numbers off the top of my head. A lot of what we planned as we got fartherinto it, there.are more costs.

Rob Paulson -There was an alternative to do what the Elk Valley did. Ship where they shipped. The numbers show 30-40% cheaper costs into the Elk Valley. There was never an intention to address cost and cost savings.

Steve -there are a couple of issues there. The landfill at that time was operated by Kedon who were having pf;Jrmitting problems. If we shipped our refuse elsewhere, we would only be saving a portion on the operating portion of the landfill.

Rob Pa~;~lson - Isn't that what the Elk Valley is against, why not us?

Steve -the Central Subregion was uncomfortable dealing with waste outside of the jurisdiction. The elected members felt this was best.

Arlene Ridge -So because the RDEK was uncomfortable, we put a dump right next to people.

Skip -They'll see the dump from Fort Steele.

Haigh- We can see the dust already.

comment- Instead you put people's fives in jeopardy ..• it's a bit much

Margaret Miller (Fort Steele Campground)- WiU we hear that noise or smell that smoke?

Steve -those are very valid concerns, especially during your operating season. We should work hard to avoid that.

Margaret Miller- As far as wells go, the campground will be open iri another month or two.

Discussion then moved to the extension of the recycling contract to Canadian Waste. There. was a question from the floor (Skyway Dist) about how many options there are to review the contract year by year. Steve explained that before we get into another long term contract situation, we feel it is important to get public feedback. Do they want curbside, better defined depots, glass recycling, etc. ·

Skyway -In 3.2 when you are talking about funds for purchasing what are you saying?

Steve - the Board is open to proposals from many sectors. Currently Canadian Waste (Laidlaw previously) is the sole recipient of the diversion credit. Non profit organizations are able to pursue other opportunities through Eco Action 2000. The Board wants to hear other options that will save us money and offer a better level of service. We want to make sure the next one will better serve the public.

Will they have additional means to deal just with recycling?

Steve - we have a communication plan, there are storefront opportunities, open houses in malls, etc.

. .

Meetings like this are broad based, it might be wise to hold a meeting specifically ori -recycling. ·

Joe Eitzenburger Jr. - How close are we to the 50 percent reduction? Any figures?

Steve -.Maybe the Ministry of Environment knows more specifically. It is difficult to quantify. First we need to quantify what waste is (newspapers, cars, old clothes). From the Columbia Valley Subregion survey, it looks like about 40%. It is important to· work diligently to keep waste out of the waste stream.

Joe - I have previously reviewed jurisdictions with 63 percent reduction. Would you be interested in that?

Steve- that is a pretty big number. You want to look at waste diversion to save landfill space.

Joe-How?

Steve - Proposals from the public go to the board, we are working with municipalities ... .wet waste pickup vs dry waste pick up.

Joe- To what degree do you influence municipal policy?

Steve - we have very good cooperation. We are really in our infancy stages., We will be ·s · exploring more detailed diversion opportunUies. To date we have been more focussed on the plan.

Joe - Do you have any incentive programs?

Steve - We do have a system in place, User Fees are coming on line in the Central Subregion.

Joe - Furthering this, they have also implemented co-generation through recovery of methane and it works super good.

Steve- Well, you have to look at moisture and volume of waste.

Joe - Would that be interesting? State a contractor at methane recovery?

Steve - I have doubts technically.

Is there any way for businesses to get diversion costs (ie/ private/public partnership) for what they keep out of the landfill.

Steve- that is a valid concern. We will take it to the board, but I can't say Yes or No.

Arlene - I am concerned with the Central Subregion landfill section mentioning "septic tank sludge on site". Is it not clear the soils are not suitable for that? Why are you keeping that line in the plan? The plan allows you to put it in. ·

Steve - We don't want to be lett without the option of consolidating.

Arlene - I request any reference to septic waste be removed

Steve - What about composting?

Arlene - I would prefer neither one. The smell would be offensive, especially because you have a neighborhood park.

Question -I don't understand why trench burning is so expensive.

Steve - we have to ensure qualify control is in place, there has to be personnel on site 24 hours a day, with excavators, staff, etc. Aside from the trench burning, you have to haul the residual waste to the proper disposal site.

There wouldn't be much residual though.

Margaret Miller- What do you do with roofing shingles?

Steve - They are landfllled. Asbestos is treated differently. It's poly wrapped in three layers separately, then buried.

Margaret - so it's not burned?

Steve - no nothing like that is, only clean wood waste.

Arlene -I am opposed to burning, opposed anywhere. But if you have to burn, why not do it at the site in Cranbrook? The truth is the people wouldn't accept it.

Any cooperation with Tembec on the co-gen plant?

Steve - We currently have two challenges with that: metal in wood waste, and qualify control.

Potentially it could be a source of revenue supplying them. At the end of the day, a decision could be made on cost?

Steve -I don't think so. The Board is very aware and sensitive of this issue.

The Board wants trench burning in its Operation Certificate? What is the Board's view on ~ .

Steve - They want to pursue this as an option. We've been waiting for CFI and Tembec, but they are just getting started.

Joe - Trench burning is one option of many. Others like, chipping, leaves you with. a volumetric problem. I would love access to the chips.

Steve - We have stated in the plans we may do that. There is some concern about liability issues and quality control.

Joe -Who would have to be addressed to get some?

Steve - give me a call.

Armanda -When you start charging fees, those who refuse, use the roadsides. Do you have any plans tc deal with that? That's scary to me.

Steve - we are working with the MOE through the CO's. We would like to have the MOP come in. The CO's will be investigating working with community programs to see.

Armanda - So it is in the works, it hasn't been ignored?

Steve - NO. We have also talked to other Regional Districts. There is always a blip. But, there is also illegal dumping going on right now.

Armanda - Do you address this in the budget?

Steve - there are a Jot of jurisdictional responsibilities. We are not the only ones.

Armanda- but we'll be policing this effectively?

Steve - We will make our best effort. If we're not doing a good job, the public will tell us. Other Regional Districts have been successful. ·

You go look on the mountains in Coquitlam, you see the effects and no one cleans up.

Joe - Under any waste, reduction, reuse, recycle. Under the current plan, there is not much in the way of reduction. What about opening the landfill site for public access?

Steve - we will be constructing free stores this year. When we get into a manned situation, we have an obligation to ensure public scavenging is done in safe manner.

Joe- You shouldn't use the term scavenging.

Question - Can you describe contaminated soil?

Steve - Hydrocarbons, oils, gasses, etc. We are working with the MOE. If they are a special waste, that's not accepted. We can take contaminated soils that have been farmed and tested.

Raymond Lawrence - Is there a certain percentage?

Steve - Anything contaminated with metals, pesticides, etc. If its below the special waste standard

Raymond -Who does the test? There is no real policing of what goes to the landfill? Is there a guy here locafly that does it?

Steve- Yes. That is all he does. Generally the test results are provided. We need his okay.

Is there criteria? A certain amount of tonnage without the certificate?

There is a cutoff volume of oil for example. If under that amount, if over that amount it has to be cleaned up and treated as a contaminated site under special waste requirements. There are no volume restrictions.

Raymond Lawrence -If someone is doing construction, bringing in tons, is there a certificate so they aren't bringing in tons of contaminated soil?

Joe - Once delivered to the landfill, it's stored, so it increases volumetric?

Joe -Any decision on dealing with hydro carbon contaminated soil? There is equipment on the market now?

Steve - are you talking on site or off?

Joe- Contractors maybe. Are youinterestedin having a contractor come in and deal with ili~ .

Joe - Could you extend your permit to 120 years. Maybe with more diversion?

Armanda - How long do you anticipate the landfill will be open?

Steve - 60 years

Joe - Cranbrook was supposed to be longer too.

Steve- the Columbia Valley User Fees and better diversion have increased the life of the landfill there.

Arlene -When is the last date you are accepting comments?

Steve - April o:fd

MEETING ADJOURNED.

\ Solid Waste Management Plan Public Meeting Baynes Lake Community Hall - March 08, 2000

Steve opened the meeting by reviewing the purpose of the meetings (to review the entire aspect of the plan). He talked about the length of the process (10-12 years by some accounts, 7-10 by others).

He reviewed a brief history of subregionalization ,etc and talked about the previous site.

He stressed the site and only the Central Subregion site has been given approval.

He summarized the rest of the package. Most important is the cost- cost allocation by area. Split out by the numberrequisitioned from taxes, and at the bottom of the table is the total annual budget and tax burden. There is also a projection forthe Elk Valley once it is up and running.

Steve mentioned some of the different components of the plan. A major expense is the closure of the Cranbrook/Kimberley/rural landfills in accordance to the provincial criteria for such. Trucking in a metre of clay to cap off old landfills is a key component in that cost figure.

We are talking about some very large numbers. We are working with the province to see if we can bring those numbers down any. There will be separate plans for the Cranbrook and Kimbeney · sites. Currently, it is 5 times the cost of the way it was done in the past. The Regional District must operate in accordance with provincial legislation: Steve thinks we have goodJacilities, and one qf the best landfills in the province given the dry conditions and soils. · ··

The User Fees schedules don't apply out here, and there is no plan currently to institute fees at rural sites (repeated this twice). · · ·

He encouraged the audience to review the package and rthe draft plan. Any additional comments or questions can be phoned in, written and sent it. This is not a one shot deal, it's a three week process.

Question- If you collect $4 on every tire, does it go into general revenue?

Steve- We see not a nickel of the provincial environmental levy fund.

Don't you think you should be protesting? In Alberta it doesn't go into general revenue.

Steve- it doesn't go into general revenue. It goes to the Environmental Levy fund a/located by the province. It is not necessarily restricted to just tires alone.

On the subject of tires and batteries, what happens to the cost?

Stevf! - I just mentioned that.

So a guy has a tire, then pays?

Steve -you will pay $8; He then illustrated the Columbia Valley example.

The tire shops won't take the tires, they charge $8.

Steve - I suggest you leave it with them. They have the haulers set up.

People won't pay the $8 and will throw them all over

Steve - Well, I am not sure if this has changed recently or what The other significant change in this area is that Tytech may be approved to receive tires and get access to that fund. Nothing against Tytech, I wish them all the best, but there could be a boomerang effeCt. The guys that used to haul our tires picked up their money on the hauling. Now we have to pay on the labour for the pickup. That is another reason we don't want people to bring them to us.

Comment- So what, are you suggesting we throw them in the lake?

Steve - No, take them to the tire shop, or the transfer station. !/legal dumping is an issue. ·we are beginning to create strategies. Usually we see a blip for 3~6 months. But, eventually, people get tired of sorting through their garbage to make sure there is nothing identifying in there, they geftired of looking for a remote place to dump their garbage, and they don't want to spend the gas money it takes to get there. Other Regional Districts charge tor everything, we're not charging for Municipal Solid Waste, .

I guess we'll go across the line to buy tires. You will force us out of the country.

Steve - Uke I say, we have no access to those funds. If we have to work with tire shops to decrease costs, then we may try to do that.

What is stopping people from throwing it in the bin?

Steve -nothing. It is not illegal to bury them yet. Tires don't degrade, they take up a whole lot of space and we want to keep them out. It's not a good use. They don't compacL.[fyou want to get rid of them, throw them in the tire pile. · · iS\~:;:,

Comment - In Ontario their tire pile burned.

Steve- We don't have million dollar tire piles here. We have talked to Tytech. They can process 2-31oads ottire trailers a day. That's good for the Regional District because we can dispose of it. Like P/aztech ... even though it is expensive, at least ~e have that facility here.

In a small town in Manitoba, they had these containers, individually segregated containers. Their site was clean as a whistle. I can't remember how often it got dumped. Now out here, there is no place for plastic, other than into the garbage.

Steve - milk jugs can go in the gold bins. ·

There's also no place for glass

Steve- right now it is difficult. It is all sorted by hand, so we can't accept glass in mixe·d bins.

People are doing that (recycling glass).

Steve - we want to know from the public what they want to see, what they are willing to pay for. 500-600 thousand/year

Wouldn't it be cost effective to have separate bins and people separate it themselves?

Steve - I agree, maybe that is a good way to do it. Maybe it would be more cost effective. We need to pick our poison. We did look at plastic bins only, but the cost of the bin rental · worked out to like a thousand dollars a ton. We just couldn't do that. Plastic in the landfill takes up minimal space.

5!! ,.

What about used solvents?

Steve - The products stewardship program is operational. They hire contractors to take that in. Right now it is Plaztech.

It is kind of inconvenient in the middle of the week.

Steve- we can't do it all. The PSP is funded by those industries. It was approved by and should be enforced by the province.

We always have to go there after hours because-we come in from the Valley. Then~ would be an advantage to having more facilities. I can't see it being more expensive in the City Yard in Fernie or somewhere like that, just having a metal bin or something.

Steve -I am glad you are taking them in. I guess you need facilities. We are looking to hear about what people need and what oppottunities there may be.

If there aren't opportunities that stuff will wind up in the landfill.

Steve - That's what we want to keep out. We need more infonnation getting out to the public. That is why we hired a Public Education Coordinator. We need to help with getting Info oUt on Household Hazardous Roundup ..

Used solvents- They only take gallon pails. We bring 15-18 litre pails. Now we have to put in old paint cans, hammer them ,shut, etc. It is an inconvenience.

Steve- we will take it back to theProvincial Stewardship people, I can't speak for them, but it might be a shipping issue.

What happens to it from there?

Steve - it is taken to recycling facilities.

Heath siee -It's a heck of an improvement over what we used to have. One solution is to educate people to refuse excess packaging. We need three layers of packaging in many of the materials we buy today. That is probably where the solution lies. The bottom line is to educate the public.

Mike Kartasheff- On this paint business ... you used to be ableto exchange paint J don't know if they still do that. I'm not sure.

Steve - the gentleman that ran that business previously offe((:td to take household hazardous waste. It is something we have to follow up on. If we can collect, transpolt, maybe he can process.

The focus moved on to the Trench Burning Issue. It is a very expensive option. We want your comments on whether you agree or disagree. We are proposing to bum clean wood waste only. We also want your input on whether you would support open burning of clean wood waste at the rural sites.

How about chipping it?

Steve - We could do that, but we aren't sure what to do with the chips. We campo$! the green wood waste.

Randy Raey -We live in a forestry area. There are all kinds of slash burns, most times the, burns you are talking about involve significantly less wood. There is no question from a cost effective point of view open burning would be the way to go. Look at what happened at Baynes Lak~ when that fire happened at New Years.

Steve - Well, the trench burn at Tie Lake cost us 50-thousand dollars.

Why does it cost that much for matches?

Steve - there are all sorts of regulations from staff to equipment and manning.

How do we cooperate, shut our eyes?

You've got a problem you will have for a while. The marshalling areas will get stuff because of user fees and such. The wood waste isn't separated properly and that's a problem.

Steve- what is your suggestion?

Hal - in 3-6 months we will have to man sites, especially ones with marshalling areas. That's where you need to focus. MOE won't let you burn unless it's clean wood waste.

Steve - No, if we'll burn, it has to be clean wood waste. There are strict quality control issues. Steve then talked about the impact of the strike on the transfer stations. Maybe we will have to man them, monitor them, not close them.

Down in Grasmere we have to haul wood waste. Are we supposed to haul it all the way to Tie Lake?

Steve - we would like you to.

The odd person can't bum, a lot of it has nails in it. So, we trail nails all the way to Tie Lake. Why not burn it in Grasmere?

Steve- the funny thing about wood is if you move it off site, it is considered waste. I hear your concerns about level of service and distance. If it is a small quantity, throw it in the bin.

What about the cost ofthis garbage problem? Hauling it all over the country ••• where does the money come from?

Steve - the taxpayers

If it keeps going the way it is, people won't have to have the money to pay for groceries because of the garbage.

Steve- right now, it is $82/year on one hundred thousand dollars in assessment. I think that is cost effective right now. It works out to less than $10 a month. We know it's a Jot of money. We need the public to meet us half way.

What about slash burning lumber every year? Look at the pollution created there compared to how little you would produce. If the Ministry supports that, why can't they bend a little for you?

Steve - that is our argument with the province

Someone has to stand up to those people. For example, you can't take gravel from a river bed, but when the river runs brown what then?

Steve - I would encourage you to contact the Ministry of Environment directly. We are also talking to CFI/Tembec directly to explore every option for co-gen with them. We are just starting our conversation there.

Hal- Don't you think there'd be the same quality control issues with trench burning, landfill, co-gen? We're talking burning only.

Steve -you have to look at all the options. If it is too costly, maybe we just have to bury it. If it is at a rural station, maybe we just have to chip it and transfer it. If we have to put ct package together to help tell the public how to help, maybe we'll have to look at that. It costs 15~20 thousand dollars a year to keep those sites clean.

r"m wondering what this 50 thousand dollars for wildlife mitigation?

Steve - That is in the Elk Valley. It was a separate process the province mandated we undertake to assess impacts on wildlife. This wasn't done in the Central Subregion. We had some exercises in the Elk Valley Subregion. When the Ministry rejected the Rankin site, they undertook their own process.

Steve - We are interested in gath&ring your comments on open burning.

I'm all for itl

Two thumbs up!

I'll light it!

.I'll watch it!

Steve - what about trench burning, is there any concern with that?

They won't let you open burn?

Steve - No, and the board made the commitment to trench burning only.

**No Negative Comments***

Steve - the pile at 7ie Lake is a two year pile. We had a pile that size in 6 months at the Central Subregion Landfill, including a significant amount of pallets.

Heath Slee -Would you suggest pallets make up the most?

Steve - No, we have no stats to back that up

Some manufacturers pay for pallets.

Hal -the biggest thing there is that they are often oddball ones ••. not uniform in size.

Couldn't the parks use the pallets, cut them up and use them at campsites?

Steve - that is a good suggestion

What about landfills at the mines? Why don't you just drop it in there?

Steve- we have a landfill open now. The Elk Valley explored that. There is an issue of waste leachatf!; and it is not a cost effective solution. They'd have to treat leachate.

Why not have E-teams out at the sites?

Steve '"7 we have done that to varying degrees of success. There are also liability issues, and other considerations with young people trying to cany forth that message.

The kidscould write down licence plates.

Steve - the Board wants to get the public's support through education, not enforcement. The Eteams take a lot of supeNision. Now with the Public Education Coordinator, we can take advantage of that.

March 6, 2000

«Name1» «Name2» «Address»

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY •

19 - 24th Avenue South CRANBROOK, BC VlC 3H8

250-489-2791 o FAX 250-489-3498

• Subregional O£fice

Box 249, WINDERMERE, BC VOB 2LO 250-342-0063 • FAX 250-342-0064

· File: Ohh 607 006

sent bY REGISTERED MAIL

Re: Solid Waste Management Plan Public Meetings

The Regional District of East Kootenay is holding public meetings on the draft Solid Waste Management Plan.

The purpose of these meetings· is to. review the changes to the 1995 draft Plan with the community, and receive comments on the final draft of the Plan prior to submitting it to the Ministry of Environment for approval.

One of the significant changes for the Columbia Valley Subregion is the option of extending the life of the landfill in Windermere. ·

There are various options that can be undertaken for extendin·g the life of the landfill from 5 to 20 years, Extending the life of the landfill does not mean extending the boundaries.

The 1995 draft Solid Waste Management Plan projected that the landfill had another 5 years of life, or to 2000/2001, before it would be full. Through more diligent waste diversion, the life of the landfill is now expected to last until at least 2003/2004.

Attached is the executive summary of the engineering study by Sperling Hansen Associates on the three optio~~ for extending the life of the landfill.

.. ....... .12

MUNICIPALITIES CITIES: ·cranbrook, Rornie; Kimberley; DISTRICTS: Elkford, lnvennere, Sparwood; VILLAGE: Radium Hot Springs

ELECTORAL AREAS . 11 A w Elkford Rural, Elk Valley, Romie Rural, Flathead, Hosmer, Sparwood Rural, W?st Fernie; "BN Baynes' lake, Elko, Galloway, Grasmere, )affray,· . -

Newgate, Rosen Lake, Tie lake; •cw Bull River, Cranbrook Rural, Fort Steele, Mayook, Monroe lake, Moyie, Wardner, Wycliffe; *E" Kimberley Rural, Meadowflrook, . ' .

The public meetings will be held in the Columbia Valley Subregion on the following dates:

Tuesday, March 14, 2000 Windermere Community Hall, 4726 North Street, Windermere Wednesday, March 15, 2000 Radium Senior Citizens Hall, 4863 Stanley Street, Radium Thursday, March 16, 20QO Canal Flats Community Hall, 8911 Dunn Street, C~nal Flats

All sessions 6:30pm 7:00pm

Open House Public Meeting

I would encourage you to participate in any or all of the public meetings scheduled for the Columbia Valley to review this option and to have your comments received.

Sincerely,

te '·· ·en Mcinnis, AScT Manager of Utilities and Solid Waste

SM:aw

pc . Director Cullen, Electoral Area "Fn Director Trescher, Electoral Area "G" District of lnvermere Village of Radium Terry Head, Utilities Working Foreman Loree Duczek, Public Education Coordinator

. . ---~-

i5159TI.l +

~~DERSON, MONTY:

WINDERMERE BC VOB 2LO

ELKHORN RANCH L TO


FONTAINE, ARCHJLLE

CALGARY AB T2V ON4

ELKHORN RANCH L TO



CRANBROOK BC V1 C 3H8

ANDERSON, THOMA$ ANDERSON, CLARA

WINDERMERE BC YOB 2LO

ELKHORN RANCH L TO


CROWN PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS VICTORIA BC V8V 1X4

MILLER, DONALD MILLER, REBECCA :

INVERMERE BC VOA 1KO

SPENCE, KENNETH · SPENCE, CATHERINE


HOFFMAN, DELBERT HOFFMAN, BEVERLEY

INVERMERE BC VOA 1 KO

WILFLEY HOLDINGS L TO


MACDONALD, SCOTT . SCHAEFER, ASTRID


VORVIK HOLDINGS L TO

VICTORIA BC V8N 4H5

BENJAMIN, DELBERT HOFFMAN, BEVERLEY


RAVEN, HERMAN RAVEN, ANNE


MALLEIT, KENNETH W. · MALLETT, TERESA A.

wiNDERMERE BC VOB 2LO

THORNE, ROBERT THORNE, DIANNE

'


STANFORD, ROSERTA STANFORD, RODERICK

WINDERMERE BC VOB 2LO.

AL TWASSER, ARLIE ALTWASSER, DARLENE

WEYBURN SK S4H 1 J6

. +

HOFFMAN, DELBERT HOFFMAN, .BEVERLEY


A VEl

WINDERMERE VALLEY GOLF, COURSE LTD


SIEBRASSE, DALTON SIEBRASSE, MARGARET

CALGARY AB T2X 1 P3

EDMONTON AB T5N 2MY'~·;

SIMMONDS, 'ERIC SIMMONDS, EDNA


CALLAGHAN, GEOFFREY CALLAGHAN, LUCINDA ·

INVERMERE BC VOA 1 KO

BARCK,RUNE BARCK,LINDSAY


Solid Waste Management Plan Public Meeting Windermere Community Hall- March 14, 2000

Page 1 of9

Steve opened the meeting by covering the reasons for holding it, and his plans to review the Agenda package. He stressed there would be a focus on the Windermere landfill extension issue and others we want to get comment on.

He emphasized comments are not limited to tonight. The goal is to have comments in to take to the Board on April sth and 61

h for their comments and approval prior to sending the plan off for final approval sometime in mid April.

We will cut to the chase a bit tonight because the landfill is probably the main issue. If you want copies of color maps, we can provide them to you.

Steve reviewed the brief history, hitting several of the key points. He talked about the changes, and the way the pendulum has swung back the other direction to allow for consolidation and district emphasis. He went briefly through the changes for each subregion.

In the Columbia Valley, the new draft refers to the possible extension of t.he Windermere landfill. The comments received will go to the Board. We can't answer all the questions, but we'd like to take those to the Board and getthose i~sue~ back to you.

He covered the waste stream composition, Cost Allocation (the number on the bottom is probably of the most interest shows the average tax burden to support the system in your area).

. . . In the Columbia Valley Subn:~gjon; you are far ahead· of the other two in closing your rural sites and putting in transfer stations. You:were fortunate'tO have .a landfilt(Windermere) with some life left in it. The others had to be closed as they were out of room, :and were facing jurisdictional issues.

In the Associated costs, Canal Flats includes the final cover, etc. Steve went over the separate three R components.

There has been a significant increase in the past seven years. In that time, the Columbia Valley has had a relatively steady cost allocation because you closed the rural sites, and things haven't changed much (aside from increase diversion efforts). Cranbrook had significant capital expenditures, and a similar situation will be happening in the Elk Valley to operate the transfer stations and truck the waste.

The cost summary of the landfill site selection- you haven't experienced that in the Columbia Valley. Steve reviewed the costs incurred by the Central and Elk Valley Subregions. The Elk Valley numbers don't include the last round of public consultations that were undertaken by the MOE.

Summary of costs - primarily road construction costs and scales internally at the Windermere landfill site. He encouraged those present to read these over and give him a call if they have any questions.

A significant component of our waste is wood waste. Our suspicion is that the Columbia Valley generates a larger portion of wood waste than do the other subregions, although the Elk Valley may be catching up somewhat with the construction there. In addition the Columbia Valley has to deal with additional summer traffic both due to summer residents, and traffic from the park and recreation.

Page 2 of 9

Steve then stated he wanted to go through the illustrations on the board at the back to make sure we are clear and go through each. He showed the landfill as it currently sits, and the roadway in . question. The option we are presenting tonight is the closure of the road right of way and the dedication of_ a new right of way. That is the only way this landfill can be extended.

We currently have applications in with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and Ministry of Lands (gazetting road through Crown land).

If that were to go ahead, there are several options to extend the fife of the landfill. The key . component is extending the footprint and increasing the active area. The other component is how well we divert waste (compost, recycling of paper, yellow bins, and wood demolition/construction waste segregated out). Steve feels 63% diversion may be overly optimistic, a more likely target : may be 40-50% ... which would extend the life to anywhere from 2006-2010/11-2015.

As the toe moves out, the elevation increases.· The planned method is to have a working benn adjacent to the active side. We could grass it, perhaps tree it. Maybe add more trees to address the visibility issue.

Scott MacDonald- That road is closed now?

Steve-No

Scott MacDonald - No one's using it? How are private landowners getting in?

Steve - There is an easement

Scott- That is ours, what about the others~

Steve- Under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways guidelines, it is an exttem&/1,1:<· expensive road to build because of the grade. One of the conditions of the closure at't/irattime : was that we would have to gazette out and build/pave a road. The Board of the day said no, they had a problem with that. As we got more and more into. Solid Waste, Columbia Valley!';~ officials said "Jets have a second look" after what was happening in the Central Subregion and Elk Valley Subregion. Sperling Hanson was the contractor contracted to lay out options without extending the boundaries otthe landfill. ·

Where would it be? Isn't that Herman Ravens house?

Steve - No, through crown land. Adjacent crown land.

Are you actively building?

Steve - !Nhat the province said last time ...

I don't think anyone would be in favour of a paved road back there.

Steve - a gazetted road provides legal access to properties. If we want to close this road, we have to provide a legal alternative. That is the process we are in right now and focussing on.

So there is no access from those properties?

Scott- the easement we have on our private property.

You mentioned if you do this, there would be a berm, grass, etc.?

Page 3 of9

Steve - Well, we will be working with the Ministry of Environment. Trees can cause a concern because of roots, etc. and the potential for compromising the caps.

Couldn't you devise a root barrier?

We'd love to explore many options. He then cited the Central Subregion example

It would be on the setback anyway? Grasses and shrubs wilf do little to knock down the noise.

Doug WiffJey • From the 18th green you could throw a stone into the dump according to Option 3. We own the golf course. We bought property and built a house here. We've invested money based on estimates given earlier that suggested in 2001 .. 2002 that would be it. I am disappointed because we made an investment with knowledge and then you change the plan.

Steve- Diversion has been key in extending the life of the landfill so far. We didn't know the costs we were faced with and the alternatives (finding a new site, closing this one). That is · why we are presenting these options.

Will it not cost you sooner or later?

What happened to the money you previosly budgetted, the 1-hundred thousand dollars according to the Valley Echo?

Steve - some of that went toward operationalissues and legal issues.

I am just really disappointed. I am living camped.'out with the ravens, dealing with the noise ; .and dust. You make an assumption·to proceed·as-the:plans state, then it changes.

Steve- in 1995 those were the projections. Now we see what that will cost and the Board wants to look at whether there are other options.

Have you even started looking for a new site?

Steve -In 1993 there was some preliminary work done. The target is crown land and when you look at it, there isn't a lot to pick from. So that is another reason. If this expansion doesn't go through, we will have to get on that.

Carol Stanford - The landfill was here before we built I'd be opposed to 2018. I will give you five more years. God knows where it'll go. It's the same problem with the municipal waste system/sewer. This is going to affect us •. .let's bite the bullet.

If the site is closed, where will the transfer station be? If you still put the transfer station there, you haven't gone away from the problem. I know Edgewater is off the highway, but if this one will be on this location for Windermere/lnvermere ... where else could we put the transfer station?

Steve - I can tell you what we've done in other places. Cranbrook is in the zoned industrial park, Kimberley is in an undisturbed area of their old landfill. In Fernie we are looking at an area in the industrial park, right now Sparwood is at their landfill, and Elkford is adjacent to their industrial park on crown land. It has to be cost effective. No matter where itls located, there will be one major transfer station.

Page4 of9

You say things are changing. Well, I think the environment around the site has changed too. There are more environmental and recreational things in place because of what was ·· · said in 93/94/95. These changes got instigated because of the plan, and now you are changing the plan. I am against it. Let's not change the plan. Too many people have invested their lives into projects based on the previous plan. Certainly I have to live up to'" the plan you present.

Scott Macdonald -cost issues •.. the cost of doing business for the regional district has increased significantly. This cost would be borne by all the taxpayers; whereas, this . expansion would be borne by the golf course, the residents, our businesses. I think that is unfair. Certainly there would be hundreds of thousands involved in citing a new spot. Bringing the dump to the side of the road isn't going to do anybody any good. We ttave a bed and breakfast, we are in the process of expanding. I don't think I would if I knew this · .. was going to happen. This changes our whole position to advertise to people ••.. come see the landfill. ·

I have a letter I wrote in 1994 and I would like to read it out to have several points put into record:

I am concerned with plans to extend the life of the landfill

1. Water quality- (has been addressed to some point) but there is still a potential for 1. Sewage - at some time it will affect the water table 2. Site pollution - has been addressed somewhat with the autos 3. Noise pollution -this has gotten worse since 94. Increased noise affects our business,

we can hear the loaders all winter long 4. Elevated site- W<?Uid increase the noise problem 5. Odors -on a hot day with a south wind, you'll get the smell. Increased activity m~s

it's inevitable we'll get it. Some people already do >, '>:::if:t.:= 6. Increase in traffic ·· ···r:s2 ·

7. Much larger trucks hauling- this leaves constant waste. We have to clear 700 feet of frontage. Since user fees came in, Pve made complaints because I've picked it up. A>: number of times I have stopped them on my property. This is a concern for us and I would like to see it addressed. (Terry Head spoke up to explain that if someone is turned away from the gate at the landfill, the operators call him right away and he starts looking for them at the transfer stations, etc.).

8. Bear problems- Windermere Creek is a natural bear corridor. No matter what the options are, we would like to see a fence go in with tarping.

When the lnvermere site was closed, Windermere made sense. Now, there are businesses, golf courses, properties, and houses. Many of the lots are for sale and if this expansion goes through, kiss those lots goodbye because they will have no value.

I feel for the people who've bought lots, they come out here expecting one thing

Mick Eldstrom - I look at the landfill as a resource. I think we should get the most out of it as we can. It will give us lead time to find a new site/other solutions. There is lots we can do with the existing site. We can reduce the organic matter that is a threat to water, bears and birds.

Bring to the regional district not one I recommend

Steve - whatever we do, it might not be 1, 2, or 3. Maybe we have to work with this look at·· screening, slope back. These numbers we will have to develop and get those to you again. With regards to the ground water issue, we have the report. Although the soils aren't what the MOE dictates, we've got a depth to the water table of 40 metres. The Ministry criteria is 1.5

Page 5 of9

metres, we've got 40. I feel confident water quality won't be a concern down the road. It recommends additional drilling and monitoring regardless. And we'll have to consider thatO

Things have changed .. .the way we run our sites has changed, the environmental requirements have changed. We have to bring to the public QWhat are the options?" Do we look for new ones, keep the existing one, or ship the refuse out. If this doesn't fly, we need to find an option.

Gerry Wilkie- It strikes me there should be a more creative solution. It might accomm.odate some of your concerns from a social sense. I would think there are all kinds of solutions, they may be costly.

Not quite sure, you talk about reducing the solid stream. Most of it is based on volunteerism.

Steve - talked about the different items like on tires and auto hulks.

Where do they go?

Steve - some go to Canal Flats

Carol Stanford - I agree with some of Mick's concerns, but we don't need lead time to develop a site.

Education- a major component is missing. You don't even charge for yard and garden waste.

Steve - Well, I think user;teesgo. a long; way to help divert waste. They also create a problem. In the Central Subregionwe aren't chargingforYard and Garden waste. People generate a significant amount. Foicomposting; we just started that.

Teny- Until we got that person on site it was impossible. Now we have that and an area is set up.

Maybe you don't have enough people.

Steve -I am the first to admit we haven't done a great job with Public Education, that's why we've hired our Public Education Coordinator. We have seen the value in education and will be accentuating more.

Mick - Could you comment on the length of time it took to find a landfill in the Central?

Steve - at feast ten years.

It seems like it is inevitable. Why not start now?

Mr. Kraayvanger-ls there any limit to what people can bring to the site in terms of the number of bags? There are a number of bags on our street. Surely there must be a limit. In some places you have a limit and then you have to put tags on ~xtra bags and pay for that.

Steve - one of the things in the Central Subregion is no charge for yard and garden waste, Y2 charge for clean wood waste to encourage separation. One way to get people t6 cooperate is hit them in the pocket, especially for new construction wood waste.

In fnvermere there is a three bag limit.

Page 6 of9

What about clean lawn waste?

Steve- if you don't mix it, compostable.

Rod Stanford - I'm of two minds. I am in construction, I haul recyclable materials and I probably spend two hours a week doing it. I don't mind, but I look around and see that we are choking in our own garbage. It's a fairly unsightly area and user fees will make people pile it in their yards. Could we open up the landfill and say "lets make this look better".

Steve - It is not an easy solution. There is a concern over appearance, and property appearance from the outside.

It goes a long way here

Steve - the Board wants the Public Education Coordinator to get the message out to show them how to help themselves. At the same time, we are hiring a bylaw enforcement offlcer, which would include unsightly premises.

Rod Stanford - I agree we need a bylaw enforcement officer to run around. The locals who collect the money won't issue fines.

Steve - a big component is the Public Education, but the RDEK can't shy away from illegal activity. We have held a meeting with the Ministry of Environment to discuss an illegal dumping strategy. We are hoping to have volunteers and members of the KEY program in the Central Subregion helping out. We need to develop those programs. There is nothing easy· about solid waste. '

Mr. Kraayvanger- Could you have four days a ye~r where you could bring in anythingfwith no fees? ·

Steve - well, we are trying to divert waste on the one hand.

It has to go somewhere.

Marilyn Kraayvanger- We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Are there examples of where they've been able to mitigate some of the concerns at landfill sites so these people won't be so disturbed?

Steve - there are some very well run landfills, and some poorly run landfills. I believe this site is well run, but we can always improve. We are always open to comments. There is no one solution.. It is a landfill and there are certain things that have to happen. We talked about wood waste - when talking about the cost of solid waste, solutions become more economical (like transferring the clean waste to Skookumchuck). -

How long will the new landfill last?

Steve -it depends on how big, how high, and the permit process. In the Central Subregion it is a 60-year landfill with 75 hectares based on Central Subregion waste only.

Scott Macdonald - Can the debt cost be spread out over 60 years? It's not actually that expensive. I guess that is subjective.

Marilyn- Why when it's closed, did i just hear that right, it's automatic a transfer station will go in there?

\ i

Page 7 of 9

Steve - No. The Central Subregion is going through closure plans, and will have to go to the public for discussion. That has yet to happen.

Carol Stanford -Why does it cost so much to close a landfill?

Hauling costs to bring in suitable material for the clay cap. We are working with the Ministry of Environment. The criteria for closure is based on province wide, there may be locai considerations. The clay cap is intended to keep moisture out of the landfill.

Rod Stanford - If this did become a transfer station like Edgewater ...• if the dump is extended in the worst case scenario, then the transfer station comes in, we're reallY. gettting hung here .•. the nuisance of vehicles and debris.

Steve -If that transfer station scenario happened, it would look like the Cranbrook transfer station. It is a very busy area. It would be more of that nature than Edgewater's. (Aside: would be six acres).

Would it be put back on site?

Steve - visibility would be an issue. Because it is a closed in structure, waste stays in there. There could be benns and trees.

Mick Eldstrom - Have you been able to figure out a per ton cost on the landfill?

Steve - I don't have any exact figures off the top of my head. It works out to $38 per ton for just the landfill. The transfer stations are a fixed cost, then trucking and transport is an additional cost We spepd.abouf;2.4mil/jona:md,we;do;.abo_U(25~thousand tons, so that works out to about $100/ton. "·· · ·

Gerry Wilkie- Occasionally I have seen a crushing machine here for old vehicles.

Steve -I don't know if there is a program

Gary Lawrence- There was years ago;

Steve - We deal with it on our own now.

Terry- We did do one year in I think 94 they came through communities

Mick - The crusher was last fall

Steve - Richmond Steel did do one province wide sweep

Mick -Why are white goods separated from the scrap metal? Why charge more, $1 0?

Steve - we would prefer you take them to the scrap metal yard. We are trying to work with BC Hydro, to encourage that.

Steve opened the floor up to specific comments. He asked whether or not there is any flexibility to looking at other permutations on the existing landfill. Do you need more info?

It is a matter offairness to me. In the Valley Echo in 1998 it said "the process to find a new landfill site is set to begin soon". People read that and acted accordingly. They make

Page 8 of 9

investments, plans for their lives, and it doesn't seem fair you can go ahead and change it. We are fewer in number and I guess you are giving consideration to the whole Valley ••. is that it?

Steve - Partly, but all comments have to be weighed by the Board. We have to consider economic, social, logistical implications.

Is it fair we bear the brunt of the costs? We made decisions based on this plan. In 97 or 98 you were talking about a site selection process. ·

Steve -Those are valuable comments,/ can't dispute them. There has been a big learning· curve after what happened in the Central Subregion and the Elk Valley Subregion. The board is concerned ... do we have other options?

This is a bad one. That has to be done anyway.

Steve - Tthfs Is pure speculation on my part I think If we get a site selection process going in the Columbia Valley, it is going to be extremely difficult.

Rod Standford - In site selection would you look at opening negotiations with first nations? Maybe lease out in the long term?

Steve - it is an option

Rod Stanford -With afl the gulleys, valleys, etc. There has to be somewhere not affected by water.

If we were to truck to Lethbridge, to me, that is just stupid. In the bigger picture, environmental costs of creating trucks, fuel, tires, highway costs, were doing something wrong.

Steve- We had a site in the Elk Valley, and it didn't get approved. Early on they decided there would be no landfill in the Elk Valley and looked at other options. (Discussion ensued on the make up ofthatcommittee).

Mr. Kraayvanger- Wouldn't it be better to start looking now? You have to take the bull by the horns. Maybe it's time. I know it is a disgusting process, but it has to be done.

Steve- Whether to find a site ....

Scott Macdonald -Really, 360-thousand dollars in the Central Subregion is peanuts. It will only get worse.

Marilyn l<raayvanger- What does an office have to do to start this process? Can we ask you to do that?

Steve - That comment will be taken to the Board.

Mick Eldstrom - Can you elaborate on the tax implications in the Central Subregion?

Steve- things have gone up 140-150% in general, shared by subregions. I can't comment on specific municipal costs.

Page 9 of9

' ; Gary Lawrence - It is important to realize for 20~27 years, we've been working with the Regional District to improve in general. Historically, it has been underfunded, but it is past due. Needed to bring up the standards. The Regional District has done a good job in improving t~e system. Costs ••• all things come at a cost.

Steve - if you look at the Central Subregion, the Columbia Valley Subregion would be similar.

Doug Wilfiey - Drawn by subregion, there also might be less people to golf, less visitors, and less spinoffs.

Steve - there was an argument on both sides on the impacts on land values and there isn't any one issue (in the Central Subregion).

Doug Wilfley -I would like to see that. I just can't imagine it not affecting me.

Steve asked whether or not there were any other comments. He stressed comments are not limited to tonight.

Gerry Wilkie- Comment Generally I am in favour of the extension. From my standpoint, I would be in favour of the extension, but many creative solutions should be implemented to lessen the immediate landowners concerns. Planting, berming, etc.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEETING DISTRICT OF ELKFORD BANQUET HALL ~MARCH 28, 2000

Steve opened the meeting with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting. He stated the comments are not limited to tonight (anyone with comments can call us, fax us, drop comments off at the District office).

He outlined a brief history, including a review of the old rural site system, bear problems, etc . .' He talked about subregionalization and what that entails. On a sidenote. he explained the Regional District is currently in negotiations with the new Alberta landfill owner (City of Lethbridge) and is working on a trucking/disposal contract with Kedon (former owner). ·

He explained the elected officials are not happy with the length of the process. and that he is wanting to get this plan done and submitted to the Ministry of Environment. He emphasized he was happy to see those present at the meeting, although he admitted some surprise by the turnout.

Steve talked about the PMAC, and explained they would be overseeing future meetings on User Fees for the Elk Valley. They will take all the comments on User Fees. then make recommendations to the Board. Recently, they went through this process in the Central Subregion. It will be forthcoming. He suspects it wilf be inevitable here in the Elk Valley.

You're talking user fees. Tires are $8, and at the store they're $4 already.

Steve- You bet. We don't see a nickel of that. In the Columbia Valley for example, we don't get any lfres any more. People leave them at the tire. shop. We would like to keep our inventory to a minimum.

Wood waste -Why can't I burn mine in·.my back .yard'?

Steve - if you don't bring it here, you don't pay. We will have separate meetings on the User Fees. I would prefer not to get bogged down on it tonight, but there will be other meetings on that because it is a sensitive issue.

Steve then reviewed the changes in the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Elk Valley Subregion. He talked about previous concern about closing off the landfills and cutting off the food source for bears. He added that in the rural areas, this hasn't been a problem. If the bears don't find the food source, they move on. The main focus in the section is the creation of transfer stations and the trucking of waste. He explained that the Columbia Valley generates two times as much waste as they should for their permanent populations (they generate 12 instead of 6) because of tourism. A similar situation could soon affect Fernie and the other communities of the Elk Valley.

Steve moved on to a review of the goals. He talked about wood grinding across the district, and the potential cost savings in being able to do that kind of thing. He mentioned there are some technical issues, like monitoring of wells on closed landfills.

He then moved on to costs. When you break it down. in the Central Subregion on an average assessment they pay $0.82 per thousand. In the Columbia Valley it's $0.59/thousand (although he suspects that will change in the next 3 years as they have to undertake some changes), and in the Elk Valley it will be about $0."83/thousand.

Looking at the Elk Valley Subregion Associated Costs chard, Steve talked briefly about the 3R program, the projected operating cost for transfer stations and administrative costs. In the Central Subregion to close the landfills in Cranbrook and Kimberley according to Ministry of Environment regulations, it will cost $1.1 million in Cranbrook and $1.7 million in Kimberley. The costs listed here do not determine closure costs. There will be separate meetings on that process. Infrastructure Systems Limited has the contract for the construction of the transfer stations and will be drafting closure plans as well. The Elk Valley Subregion break down on costs doesn't include the other Ministry costs incurred in the last round of the process.

Steve then reviewed briefly the movement of waste, and how we hope to move waste in the Elk Valley Subregion. Going to the landfill in Lethbridge will be essentially mixed waste. To Storage/Composting will be clean wood waste, land clearing, yard and garden. Wood wa~e is our biggest challenge. Also, soils, gravel and concrete will have to be addressed here. We will need to find ways to use and reuse these materials. When you are looking at $32/ton in shipping, you want to avoid excess. He explained we will take metal, with dryers etc., at the transfer stations. The recyclables will then be picked up.

Right now the metal markets are extremely depressed, so we can get rid of it now. ThOse are the challenges we faee in moving recyclables. We have been fortunate to date in that it has cost us very little ... just hauling.

He moved on to discussion about the non-acceptable items. The Provincial Stewardship Program has plans approved for the province. The environmental fees we pay go to those programs. For paints, pesticides, etc in Cranbrook they go to Plaztech. We have to get the province more on side to get those facilities up here. If this contractor wants to come up here and put in a bunker, we'llprovide space (it indicates so in the plan). If the province approves these plans, they should be enforcing them, not the taxpayer. The Ministry of Env.ironment has to get them to produce disposal facilities and opportunities. : : cc'~;:>~~:: .

On User Fees- we are phasing them in in the Central Subregion. The Columbia Valley h~§£t1ad them for 5 years. The City of Fernie's current User Fee Schedule is also provided to give everyone an idea of what they are currently charging.

Once again, wood waste is our biggest challenge.

Steve asked if there were any questions.

If you pay $4 at the garage and then have to pay $8, how come none of that goes into a hazardous waste fund. Does it go in general revenue?

Steve - What the province tells me is that all the money goes into an environmental fund, which funds numerous projects (stream rehabilitation, E-Teams, hauling of tires). We don't have access to those funds. The senior bureaucrat with the program feels it has not been a success, and could've been managed better. Not to repeat, but when we started charging in the Columbia Valley, we stopped getting tires.

The facilities that we have in Cranbrook are unique. Plaztech deals with all grades of plastic, Tytech has just started up again and has been approved as a certified tire recycler. Prior to this time, we had to ship our tires to the coast. There is some good and some bad to that. The haulers used to eat the labour for loading the loads because they got paid by the distance hauled. Now, they won't be hauling as far, so we might have to eat some of that cost. In the long term, though I believe it is a good thing.

1 The problem is that we can only use that shredded material for certain things •.. not beside streams and stuff.

Steve - Apparently, all the shredded material is going to China right now.

Have you talked to grinders about grinding and removing nails. They sell it in Iethbridge for bedding.

Steve- As long as we don't have a concern with liability. That is one of the biggest concerns with the products we develop, and then provide for the public.

Yeah, cause there's lots of nails in that stuff.

Steve - Well, the grinder does an excellent job. I was quite impressed in the Central Subregion.

He then moved on to discussion about the project plan for the Elk Valley. The goal is to have Sparwood and Elkford operational in the fall of this year. In Elkford we are looking at crown land just outside the Industrial Park. Apparently, though, it is prime moose land. We will be awarding the supply of steel for all three.

As long as it's in the district, it's not too bad. On district land, you 're taking away from the wildlife anyway.

Steve - Well, we are trying to keep it as close to other developments as possible.

I like it by a road where everyone can see it. That's why. I liked the Rankin site. Everyone can see it. .That's where itshould be, you don~thave;to maintain roads~

That's what's bad here. Guys ar:e:.on 4and 4.and;·5.and.2. There's lots of stuff dumped because ofthe hours. What if.l wanted to have a piece of wood or something? Do J have to pay or what?

Steve - we will be setting up free stores this year in the Central Subregion. It will be up to the public. It's too costly to go in and sort everything out. The goods will have to be in working order.

Here people just dump garbage in the wood pile

Steve - We will have a quick tum around at the free store. We have deals with private contractors who come in and recycle goods. We have a fellow who comes in from Kelowna to refurbish propane tanks, and we have a guy who does ovens (he has to take the whole oven and then take what's left to the metal recycler ... not back to us).

You would get more if people got paid. In the old days the wrecker would pay you. Even if it was just a couple of dollars. Now you just dump em off.

Steve - We are working with BC Hydro on getting their fridge program up and running again.

The dump is full of fridges, stoves, stuff like that.

Steve - Freon is a big problem. In the Central, you pay $30 unless you come in with a proper stamp saying the freon has been removed.

Some people just cut the fines then

Steve - Tthe message is, don't cut the fines. Unless there is that sticker, you still have to pay.

Well, I heard freon is a big black market item. They are selling it for big bucks.

Steve - We use a guy from Fruitvale. He is very reliable. He comes in every two months or so, and he has some amazing stories about offers he's had.

It goes overseas.

Steve - I don't know where it goes.

Tipping fees ... do they check and then you pay?

Steve - we wi/1 have occasional spot checks. There is a large public education component, the money is just a monetary slap on the wrist. If the load is wood with metal, they pay double. Also loads have to be covered or they pay double. · ·

Yeah, you see that Jots.

How big of a chunk of land would you need?

Steve- We've taken a big section. The challenge is that it is a small community. When we move loads, it has to be worthwhile, so we want to have the room to have some storage.

. . . . Up here with the double incomes, if the fridge and stove don't match the new decor;;.tJ:iey just toss them out · -· ,,zft~}K

; ) ~i{1;,?.~; .

Steve - Well, then they'll pay $30. All of that money goes to pay for Solid Waste in the Elk Valley. It may not even move out of the district. It stays here. ·r

Who is hired to man this?

Steve -I will be posing that question to the Board next week. We've had various ideas. We need input from the communities themselves. There are concerns here about local employment and job protection. In the Central Subregion, it is contracted out.

Is it even worth having someone here?

Steve - We are providing a service and access and costs are important considerations. It will have to be manned. You will be taking your waste to Lethbridge. If it is unmanned, and the truck got to Lethbridge landfill with paint, pesticides, motor oil, it would be rejected. It ha~ to be manned to meet the requirements.

In terms of recycling. The District has its own contract with Canadian Waste Services. lfthe District or any other community wants to fold in with us, that is fine. But, it would have to be at their request. There is probably good service here. If you have never been to the landfill, you won't notice the change.

Is there a limit on bag pick up?

Steve -As I said earlier, there will be separate meetings on that. Because the less that is hauled, the better there will likely be a bag limit. It might be something like $1 more per bag.

l Will it cost more than now?

Steve - I am not sure what you are asking. But if you are asking if going from a landfill that is essentially unmanned to a fully manned transfer station trucking waste .... yes. In the Central Subregion it took 10 years to find a site, $1 million dollars, and $500, 000 to operate it because of the new regulations on soils, monitoring wells, segregation. There is no cheap answer to dealing with waste.

Yeah. You go up the road 20 miles. It's real simple. It's everywhere. Fording Coal dumps · all the time. You just have to go to the river. You see it everyday.

Steve - Well, anyone who dumps illegally should be taken to task. We pull names aod numbers from garbage. It amazes me what people throw out. At our sites, we have the authority to take people to court with a $2,000 fine. We are working with the CO's on illegal dumping, public education and pressuring individuals if we can. It comes down to public education ... don't crap in your backyard.

Why don't we use old mine pits?

Steve -it's too expensive.

Why?

Steve - you would need lioers, there are leachate concerns, you have to treat water that comes in contact with waste ...

It was in there at one time .though. .

Steve - They have lo~ked at-it1n other places. ln Toronto, they haul their waste by train to an old plt by Timmins Ontario: There are such huge volumes~ it makes it affordable. When you are dealing with less, it's too .expensive. A Jot of Lower Mainland communities are using Cache Creek, but it turns out the site there isn't lasting as long as they thought. They haul up garbage, and haul back chips. The chipping plant is right next to the landfill. They just dump the garbage and rinse out the trucks. Tipping fees there range from $40-$100/ton. They charge for everything. ·

What aboutthe mines dumping materials all over the place. We can't use any of it.

We have drop off sites up there, but sometimes accidents happen.

There is not enough volume here. Local guys pay to get it shipped out.

If they sell oil they have to have containers.

Steve - the province isn't enforcing it. It's a joke.

We are paying an environmental fee on it. We're paying for it, and we shouldn't have to pay again.

Steve - we need public pressure to change it. We need to squawk about it. When someone catches someone pouring anti-freeze down the storm drain, it should be reported. When someone says they'll do something, they should.

MEETING ADJOURNED- 7:57PM

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEETING SPARWOOD UNITED MINE WORKER'S HALL- MARCH 29,2000

Steve opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the purpose of the meeting. He explained that the goal is to wrap up what has been a lengthy process and get a copy in to the Minister that will be approved.

He stressed the comments would not be limited to tonight, buf asked that they be in by April 3rd to give us time to compile the data.

He reviewed a brief history of the plan, going through the specifics for both the Elk Valley and Central Subregions as highlighted in the agenda package. We are now in the final round of public consulations on the meetings. Steve covered how this draft of the plan differs from the previous one -focussing particularly on the Elk Valley Subregion.

He didn't go through the goals individually, but explained some brief highlights. The focus is still on waste diversion. He talked briefly about User Fees.

Geri Rathel- is the Valley going to be on a burn ban now?

~teve - I have no idea. Seasonal or outright?

Outright. There was an ad in the paper before. Are we going to be allowed to continue to burn, or will this be a provincial poHcy once the solid waste management plan comes in?

Steve·- /have to clarity; .. bum ban-els or others? We'll be discussing that a little later on

Burning grass, barrels; trees;everything;:The ruraLpopulation will be choked if they can't burn, and i want to know if thatwill happen.

Gary Lawrence - We discourage the use of burn barrels to burn garbage. Agricultural or land clearing are exempt.

There are a lot ofthings that go in burn barrels that you can't take in ... cardboard, plastic.

Gary- We do discourage the open burning or barrel burning of garbage.

Is that a Regional District function to discuss burning?

Danny Dwyer- So does that mean we won't be able to get permits?

. Steve - open burning regulations are still in effect. The Regional Plan has nothing to do with that.

Gary lawrence -we discourage the burning of garbage, and the only time we get involved is if it happens all the time. We don't have the staff to monitor it all the time ... but don't put that in the paper!

Don't mean to be rude, but I don't have my hearing aid in, and I can hear about one in every four of your words. So I a·m just going to take this information and read it at home.

Steve reviewed the waste stream display infonnation, before moving on to the costs. Here, he focussed on the Elk Valley Subregion. The projected costs are subject to variables like trucking prices, and commodity prices. This is probably a good base to start.

Does this include all the hauling costs to Iethbridge?

Steve- Yes. This represents the average burden to taxpayers (pointing out chart). In the Columbia Valley, they will have significant cost increases down the road. They have anywhere from 5 to, depending on what they do, 10-15 years left in their landfill. In terms of capital expenditures, these are the numbers from the 1991 plan. They are the only numbers we have. They have no basis in reality, and I caution you these numbers will change. To. bring a comparison into play, the projected closure costs for the Cranbrook landfill is $1 million, Kimberley's is $1. 7 million. ·

The Ministry of Environment has the ability to vary criteria (soil conditions, moisture conditions) due to local considerations. We will be undergoing a similar process prior to the closure of the landfills in the Elk Valley.

Steve then moved on to the capital expenditures. They are all based on previous costs, and we have yet to tender the construction of the transfer stations. Given the demand for construction in the Elk Valley, we will likely be paying a premium for those contracts.

Steve mentioned when looking at the cost summary that the 2"ct round of consultation with regards to site selection is not included. '"' ·

He explained the transfer station would be a two bay building, not 3 bay like Cranbrook. As we get farther into the process, Sparwood makes a lot of sense as a central marshalling area, especially for wood waste. We will be asking the public here and getting feedback on burning to deal with wood waste in Sparwood. We are also talking with CFI to explore using the CoG en facility, but that is just one option at this point. " ..

. •' .;.:~ ... ' .. ;

There is no one answer. If you wait six months, markets change and a whole different sef:O.fissues come up. We are fortunate to have the Cogen plant as a possibility. We are aiso fortunate to have the tire recycler Tytech in Cranbrook and PJaztech, who recycle plastics. ··;'<~iF·

Geri Rothe! - Burning would be a lastresort right? Our preference would be to do as much chipping and grinding as we can but still have that as a last option. . ·

Steve - We will take direction from the public and the Board. It is not in the plan draft at this time. As we get further in, it becomes apparent that we need it as an option. We are taken all comments back to the Board for review. There are some hauling challenges with CFI. They have said they have a formula for subsidizing. We don't know yet if that will be viable or acceptable. "

Geri -I am talking about on site. Would we do it as a last resort?

Steve - It depends how the Board chooses to present that in the final draft There is an option for burning, or as a last resort.

If there's any additional footprint left in the landfill, we would use it for dumping aggregates. Those particular items will have to be reviewed with the Ministry of Environment, but all the · wet waste (household) will be shipped. I am referring to things like excess fill, concrete, demolition waste. I am not saying construction waste.

There has been some discussion with some people earlier tonight about tires. In the Columbia Valley Subregion we started charging for the tires, and now we don't get them. Keep them out of local government's concerns.

Steve moved on to talk about waste diversion activities. He explained there will be a composting program here and at everyone of the sites. Some of the items in the Central Subregion we have individual contractors for. Stoves are taken off site to be refurbished, and have to be taken by that individual to the metal recycler. The gentleman who looks after our propane tanks comes from Kelowna. He takes all the tanks under his agreement

Steve briefly reviewed the User Fees Schedules for the Columbia Valley and Central Subregion (explaining the phase in process). He also touched briefly on the Fernie rates, saying they were based on the Columbia Valley model, but with bag limits. They pay for everything.

He mentioned trench burning is not an issue at this point in time in the Elk Valley, pointing out the literature on trench burning applied to the Central Subregion, where they are making application to have trench burning as a last resort. He explained that the Central Landfill site was approved with a condition of no burning.

Steve mentioned again that comments should be in by April 3rd to give us time to compile them.

Geri Rothe I -the Canadian Waste bins are terrible. The rotation of the bins don't always work for people. It is an ongoing thing -they aren't convenient in winter time, they don't bother unpacking. There need to be other sites at the south end oftheVafley.

The valley should be on one recycling system so we can build on this. r don't know how, but we need to build on this;

Steve- We have extended Canadian Waste's contract by one year so we can look at the needs of the residents and the preference of the municipalities. Fernie has just signed a five year contract. Other municipalities can-toldJn:with us .at their request. If they want to fold in, that is fine. If not,, it's fine·too.,

Geri- Now that we have a bin on the Lower Elk Valley. road, does that mean we could lose it? .

Steve- Not for the next year anyway. There is some confusion about what is acceptable, who has access to the bins. We need to, and will be gathering info :before we get our new contractor worked out. ·

We want to have it somewhere handy

Steve- Some people don't get it in the bin. That is a big issue now. We are having problems with some bins on private commercial property.

The small slot ones are a problem in some locations. The big door ones ... do they end up with more garbage?

Steve - No, not according to Canadian Waste.

Geri Rothe! -We definitely have to do more education. We have to look at the different ways to reach and inform people. That is going to make a difference.

Steve - I am taking a Communication Plan to the Board next week for feedback and comment.

Geri Rothe! -I also feel stronger all the time that there is a wildlife situation and we need to be sensitive to that. We should re-look at composting, and when Shelley did her waste minimization report, look at what she said. We should take a look at the recommendations that are there. It think there is misinformation as far as I'm concerned at this time. The truth is, if you are com posting, you're attracting bears.

Steve - If we get into community com posting, we are anxious to use those materials to augment our soils, Whether we'd have to put in fencing, or what is something we'd have to look at. In terms of quality control on home com posters, yes, there are concems.

The Elk Valley has to seriously took at what kinds of Solid Waste Management Bylaws will be put into place (bear bylaws). It's a possibility. It's not the easiest thing on eartf) for us to do. It's not so bad for residents, but the tourists who think a bag of garbage at the end of the driveway will disappear. It will be dragged away by a bear. We've gotta bite em and bite em hard.

Steve - We have started conversations with the Ministry of Environment on illegal dumping. We need cooperation with education, bear awareness is part of that. We have had that direction before that bear awareness should be part of our message.

I have a question about hauling garbage and having to pay a tipping fee. Every year we go into a lakeon horseback and come out with garbage. Lots of garbage. lfwe have to pay .... each year we ~robably go to 4, 5, 6 lakes and we always bring out a packhorse fu II of garbage.

Steve - the Columbia Valley Subregion was ahead of its time. It is a matter of communication. If yotf made prior arrangements, any fee would likely be waived.

Geri -We're not charging for municipal solid waste anyway are we?

Steve - I think that has to have consideration

Danny Dwyer- Does the Regional District have any waste bylaw for Area 'A' at this time?

Steve- not regulatory. Tipping fees would have to be put in (regulatory)

Here cardboard is banned - not just commercial

Steve - Well, the Elk Valley is farther ahead than any other area. We will be holding separate meetings on the user fees issue.

Geri Rothel- Will we entertain charging for municipal solid waste?

Danny Dwyer - I think so

Geri Rothe!- Why

Danny Dv\ryer- Because it costs to dispose of it. The actual amount was never set, but the idea has been there all the time.

So if someone shows up with 1-2 bags, how will you measure it?

Additional tags are extra. They pay nothing now at the landfill, but it was always a plan.

What about if we have % bag - will we pay the same as the 2 bag people?

Steve -I don't know. That is a separate issue.

We have to haul it now. Before we had a choice, we could just bring it ourselves.

Geri Rothe I -we are just asking for trouble if we start charging for municipal solid waste. 1 can tell you that right now.

Steve - I think certainly-there are options tor minimum bag numbers. In Fernie they have a three bag limit

Cal -At the dump in Fernie they have that limit too. We don't. Ours is at the curbside.

Steve - ln. Sparwood there is a two bag limit, and in Elktord none. I am not aware of any illegal dumping issues.

Danny Dwyer- some people move in and don't care

Steve - Well, there still will be some. That is tor future meetings and direction from the Board.

Gary- How they are operating the· ·central Subregion seems to work well. They aren't seeing problems like they· are in Golden where they are trying to fund their entire system on tipping fees alone. Using fees as an incentive to recycle and not as a deterrent to using the system · seems to be working well.

steve- there are some different challenges in the Elk Valley. The 140 kilometre hauling distance is just one of them.

Geri - Another challenge is the level of service .

Steve - I said that was just one of the challenges.

Danny Dwyer- You have to close the loop somehow. If you have a bag limit in town, but open the landfill, you do nothing to encourage the reduction ofwaste.

Well the hours are important. There are guys working 4 on 4 that can't get there on their days off. That is something to think about

Steve -In the Central Subregion, we are open 7 days a week. We will be reviewing this issue with the Board. We will have a good handle when it is busy, and when it is not. We still have to work with the municipalities (Cranbrook has pick up five days a week because of its size). We have to look at it again.

Well, we have a problem when we work 4 and 4. We can't always get there. If I come to town 1 day a week ... if I were off Sunday am. I might sleep til the afternoon, then I can't get in. Monday and Tuesday it's closed. If I go shopping in the Pass on Tuesday, I am not going to go into town on Wednesday just to go to the dump.

Cal - Well, those will have to be discussed.

Geri -Are we talking about user fees at the next meeting.

MEETING ADJOURNED 8:10PM

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC MEETING FERNIE COMMUNITY CENTRE- MARCH 30, 2000

Steve opened the meeting with an introduction on the purpose of the meeting, handling of waste and disposal, and a review of the agenda package.

He explained this has been a long process, and reviewed a brief history following along the. agenda outline. He then moved on to the changes in the plan, explaining who comprises the PMAC (volunteers who monitor advancement of the plan and the approved portions ofthe plan). He also covered some highlights for the transfer stations.

Speaking specifically about the changes in the Elk Valley Subregion, he detailed the development of the new transfer stations combined with the hauling of waste to Alberta. We are currently undergoing closure plans, and the plan is to close the Sparwood, Fernie, and Elkford landfills once the new transfer stations are open. He touched briefly on the expanded residual management policies.

Steve reviewed a brief summary of the goals, mentioning the complete list is in the draft plan. He touched on the plan to introduce a user pay tipping fee structure, and the development of a 20 year plan. ··

He moved on to the graphics on the waste stream and the general make up of waste.

Cost Allocations: He explained the charts illustrated a break down of the projected share of funding for ~ach municipality and electoral. district and the planned average impact on assessment to fund this system~. He talked .about .the break.; down for the Central Subregion and Columbia Valley Subregion, and said. the rateJn-the ElkValley·is·-planned to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $0.83 or $0.84 per thousand~ · ·

He then moved to the individual components, skipping to the Elk Valley page in the agenda package. He talked about the closure costs and cautioned that the numbers on the chart were costs identified by Stanley's report in 91/95. We have a draft for the Cranbrook and Kimberley sites based on Ministry of Environment criteria. Cranbrook will cost about $1 million, while Kimberley will be closer to $1.7 million. So, the costs on the graph for the Elk Valley are expected to rise significantly. ·

Steve then covered the budget costs for the Elkford, Fernie, and Sparwood sites. He talked about wildlife mitigation and studies on septic waste (expecting to close exfiltration site in Hosmer once we can coordinate to have it accepted iri a municipal system). Other components in these figures are education, composting and wood diversion.

A big issue is dealing with wood waste. That is a major component whether you are hauling 10 km or 140 km from your transfer station.

He reminded the crowd that closure costs are not in there yet, and that these figures translate into the burden reviewed earlier.

If some of these numbers are so old, how can they be included?

steve - We haven't got any numbers to report to update them. We are drafting closure plans. I can't give you any numbers here tonight, I don't have them, but we estimate they will be significantly higher.

How much of a percentage change? 1 00%

Steve- That could be. I can't say exactly. I can say it will likely be a large number, but until the closure plans are completed, we don't know. The draft is drawn .up according to Ministry of Environment criteria, and I stress the word criteria. They can relax some criteria given local considerations. In Cranbrook and Kimberley the majority of the cost comes from the .1 metre clay cap that is required to cap off that landfill. Half the cost goes to haul the material in.

What was the estimated cost in Kimberley?

Steve- way under. $150,000.

So it could be anywhere from •...

Steve - Yes. It will likely be a significant number .... finding clay, hauling it in, grading the site.

On the construction costs for Fernie, Elkford, Sparwood - are those costs 5 year old estimates too?

Steve ..;.. No. Cranbrook had other additional costs because we had to purchase the land, subdivide it, undertake road improvements, water and storm improvements. In those cases, it was approximately one million for the sites.

.. He talked about the planned movement of waste. Right now the plan is to establish Sparwood as a central marshalling site. They have some life left in their landfill. With the current use, they have l~s~ than a y~ar, but if we deal with just aggregate (waste soil, concrete, etc) wep~.Ut;{fl.W~ that exrstmg footpnnt for that purpose. We would take wood waste to the Sparwood srJe:~!~p., Wrth the existing landfill, we feel it is an appropriate site. · .. ,,,)"'··

:.:: ,:; ;~:7~J~i:r.

In Fernie, the curbside collection, individual haulers or large bulk items (inside the city or from the electoral area) would go to the transfer-station. At Cranbrook and Kimberley, they have · designated areas for yard and garden waste, and clean wood waste. In the Elk Valley, we , would want to compost and chip the wood waste at the landfill site. Nqt at any sites except Sparwood.

We will need further discussion on dealing with land clearing. As soon as it leaves the site, it becomes waste. If it is dealt with on the land, it is open to the open burning regulations and permits.

Because of the hauling distance to the Lethbridge landfill, the focus is on waste diversion.-

We will be stockpiling and moving recyclables on a regular basis. We have identified in the Elk Valley the need for the Product Stewardship Program to supply that service with a bunker to accept those materials (pesticides, paints, etc) and move off site on a routine basis

We have a number of recycling agreements. Propane cylinders- we are about to sign a contract to have those tanks taken off site where they would all be collected. We have an agreement in Cranbrook and Kimberley and will work toward one here on white goods recycling. We have one person particularly interested in refurbishing old stoves. The deal is they get taken off site and he doesn't bring them back. -

Freon is a different issue. We have to remove that freon. We currently have a good contractor that services us on a regular basis. Then we can deal with the goods.

\ When you look at what we do not accept (chart on agenda), it is mentioned there will be no auto hulks. I learned fast night that the auto hulks are the "honey" for the recyclers. The markets are very depressed for metals right now and right now its very difficult. The recyclers may need the auto hulks to make it worth their while to take the other metal goods. We will need further comment on this issue.

Where is the Fernie transfer station going?

Steve -Right now a piece of BC Hydro land in the Industrial Park is being considered .. We have asked the individual municipalities to identify those sites. It is not a done deal. There were two other sites under consideration: the existing landfill, and the other side ofthe highway from Ghostrider. The City of Fernie wanted {o look for another option. So,. we are proceeding with the construction of the Elkford and Sparwood sites. We will proceed with Fernie when this issue has been put to bed. Right now, it is in the hands of the City of Fernie.

You talk about wood waste and auto hulks. All of it has to go to Sparwood anyway? Is Elkfo~d in the same boat?

Steve - For homeowners, for yard and garden waste, there may be a 50 yard bin set up at the transfer station. .. Once it is filled, then it would be hauled away. For those in the construction industry, with 40-50 yard bins would haul directly.

Why not have a larger complex in Sparwood? Wouldn't you be better off to have the whole works in a central area to service both, rather than handling the waste twice?

Steve - one of the main issues is level of service and concern that not all the waste will be making it to the centtalsife·{th'aUtmigfitend:uponbackrOads, whatever). The process that was. undertaken by fife Ministry ofEnvironfnent wasinade:; up· of a 20 member committee that went through a long process· and, they. recommended·{ and it was accepted by the Board and the three communities) 3 transfer stations. In the Central Subregion we restrict access to pick up trucks and smaller. Everything else goes to the landfill. Let me tell you, the landfill is a boring place. There's not a whole Jot of traffic. Mostly it is just commercial, tandem, 50 yarders and transfer trucks. The transfer stations are fairly busy with residential traffic. ·

Would some be burned?

Steve -just at the Sparwood site. That is something we want feedback on. Currently they have an open burning permit. Wood waste is difficult to deal with. In the Central Subregion, we are going through a process to be allowed to .trench burn because the Ministry of Environment approved the site with a condition of no burning. Trench burning would be used as a last resort, when there are no other means that are economical and efficient.

It will probably be the same scenario here. We are talking with CFI in the hopes that they will be able to deal with a significant portion of the wood waste. But we will have to rely on the public. If it isn't clean wood, it's garbage. If it is contaminated, we can't do anything with it. The only option being presented tonight is to have a site at the Sparwood site only for this purpose.

How long will you have the septic system at Hosmer?

Steve -As soon as I can close them. We can't close them until we have a suitable a/termitive. We have requested funding to do a study on what to do with septic and holding ponds across the district. In the Central Subregion, we Intended to have a new exfiltration · · basin (and close Wasa and Elko), but the soils are too tight. We decided in the Elk Valley that we will incorporate in with the sewage treatment facilities.

Is it written in stone that there will be 3 transfer stations with no options?

Steve- That has been accepted by the Board. That issue was wrestled with for a IQng time ... whether to have one central site or three separate sites. Someone may have a better memory than I do, but one big issue at the time was level of service. If the public is used to driving 2-3 km and now they have to drive 35-40km to get to the site, that will impact on the level of service. It was a key criteria for the Ministry of Environment too.

The proposed construction schedule In the agenda package lays out the plan for Sparwood and Elkford. When Fernie's site selection process Is finished, we will proceed there.

Landfill site selection costs. The Elk Valley Subregion does not include the cost of the separate Ministry process. There is a bit of a difference in the Columbia Valley Subregion in that, depeYJding on how they proceed, they could have between 5 and 20 years life left in the Windermere landfill site.

Where's Sparwood's going?

steve """ their landfill site

Is there any reason the City of Fernie can't use Sparwood?

Steve- other than it's not part of the recommendations, no.

It's not too small .•. ?

Steve - No. It is a matter of how frequently you move loads out.

Is there a reason you aren't using the current landfill?

Steve - you will have to ask the City of Fernie that.

So, could Fernie choose to use the Sparwood one, and then Elkford could be on its own?

Steve - I am taking a proposal to the Board to buy steel next week. In addition, there would be construction issues if that decision was made to back up or a decision was made ...

It seems a good approach to back it up and go in the right direction instead of the wrong direction. What would the machinations be to getting it right?

Steve - one of the other concerns with delaying the process is that the landfills are filling up fast.

You don't have a clear decision on where it will be in Fernie, but you do have a clear decision on where it will be in Sparwood. It seems to make more sense to have a bigger site in Sparwood. You already have to dump it there anyway.

wm the City be having a meeting that we will be invited to?

Evelyn Cutts - indicated yes. Then asked Steve to elaborate on the issue of trucking the waste so far to Sparwood (why that is a concern).

Steve - once again, it comes back to the levels of service, increasing traffic. There is a concern that for the long distance self haulers, there will be litter on the highways and perhaps the waste won't even make it to the transfer station site. Illegal dumping is a big issue. ·

So your concern is around bags of household garbage or commercial?

Steve -A combination. We already have a problem with unsecured loads in the Central and Columbia Valley Subregions. We have found the transfer station system there has led to better cooperation, cheaper operations, and it's worked very well overall. Again, though, level of seiltice. · ·

l.f the transfer station is built in Sparwood based on the 3 transfer station system, then down the road Fernie decides they want to use Sparwood, would it need to be bigger?

Steve:- Yes

So financially, you are spending one and a half million dollars for -this. That would cover considerable hauling charges. If you have 3 sites, you have 3 sets of employees. lfyou have one site, you have one set of employees with one set of rules. The cost of trucking garbage isn't thatbad ••. you are moving it twice anyways.

Steve- the large mate,ria/ we :don'twanNo haveoto move twice.

Well you could make a lot.of trips-to Sparwood withouthaving to build a transfer station in town.

Steve - we are kind of into a process now. It will be difficult

If you're looking at buying a building already, once you buy it, you are stuck with it, no matter what

Steve - we haven't bought the building yet.

Well you said you'll be doing it in what, a yveek or something? That's not a lot of time.

How big will the transfer station be?

Steve -About 20m X 20m. As you can see from the pictures ...

How high will the building be?

Steve - I don't have those exact measurements, but at least 10-15 metres high.

From fill line?

Steve - from the ground where the public access is.

What is the distance from Sparwood and Elkford transfer stations?

Steve .:.. the Sparwood transfer station will be at the landfill site, we are looking at a site in the South end of the Elkford Industrial Park.

Doe$ the RDEK have any concern about how close to residents these transfer stations go?

Steve - there is a process here ....

So, the ~DEK doesn't care where they go?

Steve - we recognize there are issues here. In Cranbrook there was concern because the site is kitty corner to the Chamber of Commerce building, there were others as we fl ...

Ya, buUhe one in Cranbrook is built in a hole compared to this one. This is not sitting on top of a hole, it's just not right.

If this is being dealt with by the Regional District, why isn't the option of Regional Distri.ct land being explored instead of in the city?

Steve - the City of Fernie is in the Regional District. This was a 3, · 4, · 5 year process locating the landfills or dealing with the decision to put in a transfer station. From a point of view or service levels, it makes sense to locate the site closest to the largest generators so they · have to go the least distance.

So it's not a final decision that it's in the City of Fernie? Could the City say the best: spot is outside city limits. Would the RDEK look at that? · '· · o;,m~i1'v

Steve - the Board would look at that.

What about environmental concerns?

Shallow water wells. You're gonna get seepage out of those sites, no matter how good they are.

......

Steve - the Cranbrook site has high water tables, sometimes above surface, but we've taken steps, and there haven't been any environmental concerns.

Does anybody have residential wells? I don't think so.

Steve - there are some wells for the businesses there ...

As far as no environmental concerns, what about fish bearing streams, you gotta consider that. 1/3 of that area is surrounded by fish bearing streams.

What about smell, flies, mosquitos, rats, dogs, stink, birds? This will be right next door to our business, and I know they don't smell nice.

Steve- the one at Cranbrook hasn't been an issue. In Kimberley, the nearest place is 200 metres away and I haven't had any complaints on odour.

\

r There are no homes around Cranbrook. How far is the nearest residence from Kimberley?

Steve - 200 metres.

How about 33 feet?

How is the smell? Are there air conditioning dealies, ventilation?

Steve - there are exhaust fans, mainly to deal with the exhaust from vehicles to satisfy WCB concerns. I am not suggesting it smells like roses. This is a solid waste transfer station.

In the winter I can see it would be not so bad, in the summer when it is warm inside the metal building ••••

Steve - I am just saying to date ...

You wouldn't want one close to your house .

. Steve - again, take that up with the City.

What is the problem with the City dump?

Steve - I would prefer the City deal with that. That is their process. Council had previously identified the old piece across from the highway.

Cost..,. annual operating .cost Is it expected that the fees will cover the annual·cost? Will there be an increase in taxes? How?, Just the·City~s taxes?

Steve- everybody;; taxes will be affectecftin ihe seivioe area. Tipping fees will involve separate public meetings.

What will the increase in taxes be? Do you have an idea?

Steve (pointing out the cost allocation graph in agenda) - ifthe entire region is funded, that is the tax implication there. $0. 83/thousand. This impacts everyone. We are currently working out a deal with the hauler tor this subregion. It is a very good deal. $32/l is the expected rate ... that is an extremely good price.

If there was some way to join in, the costs would drop.

Steve - The operating costs might drop, but the cost to the individual would increase, and there would be cost to the City.

I can't see it. The truck;s gotta go that way, then the other way.

Steve - There are regional costs and city costs. The transfer stations are regional concern when the waste is delivered.

If this is a really good deal, this $32, one the guy comes and finds out he can't make any money, what then?

Steve - Well, that is a subjective question. I don't have a crystal ba/J. What the communities are looking for in the Elk Valley is a 10 year deal. Their proposal is: with a 10 year · · extension, cost of living increases based on Alberta indexes. We are dealing with an out of province company, so we have to use those tenns. We are drafting a contract around their proposal. There will be guarantees, petfonnance bonds, that kind of thing.

I know, but I think it will always go up. Anything like amalgamation to cut costs can only be a positive step.

What about the tire situation. I gather they should be coming in to pick up the tires that the $4 we pay goes to. Is there any way of getting them in monthly or 6-monthly rather than a year or two year basis?

Steve - when you are talking about transfer stations, I think you are correct.

I'm thinking of the service stations that don't have storage space and have tires piled up all over.

Steve - there is a bit of a change on the tire front. Tytech is now a certified tire recycler ; eligible for the funds. It's been difficult to haulers out here. I guess there is a lot of internal politics. With the way the markets are now, especially Asian markets, the processors can't get enough tires. It's cyclical. We have met with Tytech. There is one quirk. The tire haulers get paid by the ton mile, so the longer the haul, the more money they make. The

. shorter the haul, the less money they make. So we may have to. top that up, but we aie trying to bring attention to that. ···. · · ,. :r:f\"V

. . 1:-~~l~';.'

This is a provincial program, and we don't have any access to those tires. We will be charging $8 and up. What it has done in the Columbia Valley is the tires stay in the shop. They don't even come out to the landfill, and we aren't finding big tire piles in the woods. It is Tytech's intention to cycle out quickly. They need the rubber with this market. ·

Steve asked for any further comments. Encouraged people to fill out the comments sheets, or contact us. The comments aren't limited to tonight, but should be in by the 3rd of April to give us time to compile everything and prepare for the Board.

Should we contact the City if we want another site besides this one?

Can we hear from the City?

Evelyn stood. She explained the current council was left with two options they didn't like. She emphasized they are aware that they only get to make this decision once, and they want to make it right. If you know of a site, or a better one, we need to hear about it. She said the reason they don't want to pursue the old landfill is because of cost effective reasons. She doesn't know if the other site directly across the highway would be any more satisfactory to the people opposed to the BC Hydro site.

Wouldn't you have the same problem with the river? What is wrong with the old dump?

Evelyn - Cost and future use

Like the golf course?

Evelyn - that is one.

What about the city yards?

Evelyn·- my first option was to join with Sparwood. To me, it makes sense. Steve eloquently explained why we can't do that I still don't understand. I got told Fernie's ski hill development impacted Sparwood and that there could be garbage in the forest. None of us want garbage in the forest. I never got a stiaight answer

How is the waste management plan zoned? Heavy, light, medium or what?

Dave K -I would have to look.

When you put the concrete plant in the middle of town, why not put this next to it?

Dave - we don't own the land.

We have a copy of the zoning, and the landfill site is not on there.

Dave - this is not a landfill, it is a transfer station

There are height requirements. What's the zoning if the waste management plan is zoned?

What about the amount of land you need?

Steve.- 4-6 acres

You talked about seepagE;~, I thought there=Wotddbe.no seepage~ Doesn'~ matter if you go from one side to the other, there are creeks,:on both,·side·s;·

I don't think it's fair in any residential area.

Why can't the City of Fernie drag its feet? lnsist on using Sparwood?

Evelyn - oh, we have been dragging our feet. Ask Steve!

Steve - there would be an added cost

That doesn't mean you just plunk it anywhere. People are doing it already (hauling to Sparwood).

There is no question moving the transfer station to Sparwood vvould mean you would need education of the public. But there is no reason that couldn't happen.

The ski hill is growing and they are going to need to do something about their garbage problem. Something with their garbage. Maybe get a big bin or something.

Steve -there is a process we have to go through. The last process took a year or more to identify and recommend 3 sifes. If there was consideration to amalgamate, there would be another public process. Part of it is that you have partners, and there must be a certain consensus. The whole process would be delayed by 2 years. I am not saying that is good, bad, or indifferent. But you are running out of room, some have 6 months left, or 1 year ot less. I am saying there are implications. It's not like you can say "let's move to Sparwood!" It doesn't happen quite like that.

You are talking about if it's here that's it So two years to me is a short amount of time when you are looking at no chance of changing.

Steve - it affects your partners in this region. There has to be a solution, and how your partners react would also have to be dealt with by the Board.

How about down by the sewer plant on Cokato Road? There you'd have power and trees. You could put a building in and no one would see it. There'd be access.

How large an area does· the transfer station service?

Steve - Cranbrook seNes 15-thousand in the City and 5-8 thousand from the surrovnding area.

As far as the Regional District, what is the distance?

Steve - they come from as far away as Moyie.

It seems like overkill to have two stations if we serve 10 kilometres one way and Sparwood serves 10 kilometres one way. That doesn't seem cost effective or logical.

Is there never a case when the Ministry of Environment will push things through because time is of the essence.

Steve- not in my experience. It's been difficult to have the Ministry move anything through quickly. But they won't make a decision for the community. The community makes the dec{sion itself.

Has the City approached the new developer at the landfill site to see if we can whrl&'O.ut a partnership to keep a down scale transfer station at the present site?

Evelyn - You mean Elk River Developments?. No, we haven't yet.

Could it be moved further down coal creek. Maybe two miles furt~er down?

Evelyn -1 don't know

How much room is there beside the pool?

Evelyn - Probably lots!

What are the reasons for moving it besides future considerations?

Evelyn - Cost. Council wanted a more cost effective option.

It has to be reclaimed anyway. It's all contaminated. It seems that there would be increased cost in moving it from the existing location.

Is there a cost savings over the current landfill site? Sparwood did it.

Steve - well, it depends on what you're looking at. For one thing, Sparwood had a portion of undisturbed land at their site.

We have a Iotta undisturbed land.

Steve - I'm not saying it's impossible. There are some foundation issues.

Well, if they're talking about building a golf course on it, there's no difference.

Evelyn_ -I don't know that they're building the golf course on it

What would be more cost effective?

Eveiyn -I admit, I'm as neglectful maybe as all of you. l wasn't at those meetings for 10 years, my husband was on the committee, then quit in frustration. We are not rushing into making this decision. ·

Well, as long as you aren't rushing

What are you being told makes it more cost effective?

Is the City concerned with the cost to Sparwood?

I don't think because it is easy to build somewhere, it's worth making a decision on.

Evelyn - I can't comment on the cost of Canadian Waste's hauling.

Well the big hauler has to come to haul anyway

This is not the big hauler- it's Canadian Waste, not Kedon

. We will pay less for the building, so it will even out

Dave- Over the long term, -youwill pay more :because transportation costs are always increasing. The buildlngis aJixed-cost;:,

- . . . ' ' - . . .

Evelyn -I will ask Geri Rothe/ to explain the process.

Geri - I will talk about the level of service in the 3 transfer stations. When the process started, there was a block of people that feltthis valley is not big enough to support one more landfill site. So, we've had the small site outside of Sparwood that serviced rural residents closed for 4 years, · and had the three serving the communities of the Valley. There were a group of people on the committee that felt this Valley couldn't support another site, and I was one of them. This all fell into place with the option to haul to the Pincher Creek landfill. The Regional Distrtct said "we can't do that". But, garbage is a commodity and there are landfill systems that operate on that. They are shopping for garbage. So, we ended up being courted by two: Pincher Creek and Lethbridge. And, we were in the position of bring the cost down, not up.

When it came to transfer stations, the Ministry of Environment wanted 4. Most people felt 1 would be sufficient. Then it came to the level of service, which was a thing with the Ministry of · Environment.

Part of the committee was industry. We have an ongoing problems with illegal dumping in the Valley. Even though there are a lot of us tied to the land and that care about the cotters, this is still a problem. CFI is the largest prtvate iandholder in this Valley. They have significant problems with illegal dumping, When we got down to arguing about the number of transfer stations, CFI told us if we dropped the level of service and there was increased dumping, they would close the lands to recreational opportunities. Think about how that could affect recreational opportunities. We appreciate that Crestbrook gives us that opportunity. Given that, the committee felt the level of service should be right up there, and yes, accommodate the lazy people. If there is a strong enough feeling, we would look at it. We did get concessions. 3 instead of 4.

It sounds like Elkford and Sparwood have great locations. So there is no reason Fernie couldn't have a great location that wouldn't bother anyone.

Geri- i've been vocal about how this impacts people. We talked about it, and felt it was a community issue. The municipalities traditionally have operated the landfills, we trust that. Area A hasn't been a part of those discussions. We have to honour that. They accept that responsibility. Unless we get asked, we will honour that. Talk to the City of Fernie.

If Crestbrook wants to have a 3rd site so bad, they should be willing to give land.

Geri- I felt it was pretty daunting because our recreational opportunities are near and dear to our hearts. We want that relationship to stay a good one. We appreciate Crestbrook.

How's it going to change illegal dumping? Is education and letting people know why you are making this decision not important?

Geri- Yes, you are absolutely right. We've done a bad job so far.

Steve - Loree is brand new this January. We know we've done a bad job. The public wants to do the right thing, they just need to know how to do it. The reality is we have to deal with our waste. There have to be other options.

Geri- There are all sotts of things we should be doing. We need to do the 3 R's, that will help. That sort of thing. Getting involved. That's a bit of a review of the process. · This has been happening for some time. ~ ·

How can you say that?. A lot of us only heard about this meeting at 5 o'clock toda:Ytl~fi>~) .

I understand we need all kinds of avenues to reach people. For the 1% of peopleWh'&P' refuse, we will be looking at bylaws with enforcement.

Peter- Transfer stations don't have anywhere near the impact that landfills do.

Do you live beside one? How would you like to live across the street from one? ··"~

We went and looked at the Cranbrook transfer station and I agree it is a well run site. I still don't think it's the same thing. It's not near houses.

It's right off the highway too. If we are promoting tourism, let's clean up our entrances, not this kind of thing.

Steve - There are certain positive aspects to having them visible for the public. Where you hide them, there are problems too. In rural Alberta, they are right beside the highway.

Are they in subdivisions?

Steve - No, I recognize your position here is somewhat different.

Are batteries kept inside?

Steve - If not, they are kept in some kind of containers.

) So, if one breaks and someone right beside the site gets contaminated, what happens then?

Steve-:- there are requirements and regulations ...

Well, let's stop it before it happens.

If this has to be, and Fernie gets to identify the site, and if it's next to impossible to have less, why not put 2 sites in Sparwood. Fernie can use theirs, and Sparwood can use . theirs. ·

There has to be a better site than the one we are talking about.

Steve- we are here tonight to get comments. The City of Fernie has a challenge, and they have to make the right decision. That is why we have made the decision to proceed with the other two. They are continuing. This one has yet to be dealt with, and when the decision is made, we will progress.

What are our options at the community level?

Steve - take your comments directly to the City, and pass your comments along to us. We will take them to the Board.

What is the deadline for making decisions?

Evelyn - We've already missed both. Steve will bring forward a proposal next week for buying the buildings for Sparwood and Elkford. The other representatives up the Valfey·and from around the ·region make the. decisienon whem.to take that .

. ··What is the process for decision making. in•Fernie? Who decides? Do we get a vote on it?

Evelyn - Fernie City Council

Any site has to be approved by the Ministry of Environment?

Steve - No. The Ministry of Environment leaves it to the City unless you choose to get them involved.

fn your opinion, what we are pressing for ••. is it past time?

Steve - No. I am saying there are implications to the time Jines

You'll take this back- show that people suggest going froin 3 down to 2.

Steve - Those comments will be recorded. I am saying it would be V('Jry difficult.

Why are we wasting our time then?

Steve- We've been talking to communities across the Regional District. This is meeting 10 of 11. We've been in Sparwood and Efkford earlier this week, and held previously meetings in the Central and Columbia Valley.

' '

So you're gonna stick that right beside the highway? I think that's just great. I think it's crap.

Steve - the purpose of the meeting was to go through the Solid Waste Management Plan. One otthe big issues here is obviously the transfer stations.

You're ordering three buildings, you're gonna put them up anyway, cause you'll put it up once we find a site. Why are we even talking to you.... ·

Steve - Review of the entire plan. That is the purpose of the meeting. If there are parts that you are not satisfied with, then we need to hear about them.

We're ten years too fate. There's already been a process. . . .

Steve -:- Are there any other questions? If you have ~ny comments, you can talk to us, drop them off at the. City and they'll get them to us, or contact us.

MEETING ADJOURNED: 8:36PM

Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

Comments

-A '--::lil:7 "'-" J1LA A. 'f a.:.t A.JY I APR 0 4 2000

REGIONAL DISTHic·r OF EAST KOOTENAY f

My first suggestion is to not take forever to put the plan into effect being that this is the year 2000

and this area has been lacking in direction. Next I would like to here that City of Cranbrook is

going to support this plan for solid waste. The city has given little support towards this and it will

not work if the city has no plans to help. I see all these houses throwing away bags of garbage

V~>'hen most of this stuff could be recycled. But no one will change if the city does not change.

How can you expect people to start recycling ifthe city garbage will pick up newspapet,

cardboard, and other material that could be recycled. This message should change.

Name

Address----------------

----~,==~· I ~--E~:EIY£~ .

·'I MAR ~ 7 2000 E(,:J1:.9rrLmJ~ll=!nter ~·~~. . , ... "'~ IJrSTRl


I ( .F Ef\ST KOOTENAY ....... ~1 HE ON Li WffSIE: ouR tiov7£:H·oL-1) GENERATeS

{_ Be7tve-s L-1 1Tt=R- WE P1cr- uP ALoNG o...:>f?.. f<.voAv Stv~) /'5 noct:-Y I V--J6t::t?y rn&-re:Rtt-IA-L- PIZ-ovvct:D wttc--N

' .1 VSE PtcJ<:. & SHoVEL & Gf!-P!VeL- 5ct<.EEN ry:; SEP,....

A-P-frcE G;oop 5o t 1.- Fr<-ot(\ f<oc.~s cfu We::eo5 A? ft

f{)EfrNS to CiZEft/E. r~ll LE 5o I I.- I tJ wITt C-H To ~--ovJ

VE.Ge.rA-8Le-; .• f to p-w loNNt. 15 loo 6-'f.PENSt\J·t:: FofltrcRcL-11TI-JE.L-1 5M171-t.- f/rnouNT T Pf<.ovuc£/flBouT j-to'/) Name f}fT(C_ 'I~ CtrL-D El<- ( feR- Y67tf<. _/

-Address /'l '7 C£2-tTNBf<.-oo/L N IJ-z- I Pe-rc.- J/<lP

' /YlttY {76. IT Cou L-0 f3-e. ~ (Fe£() ~ fY)5vV

\

Name


·<~.K.C

/*cDs IV iil-CY4C/AVr::!.

~ ~ZJ~2tAV - ~«/..1""e'#.5'/ &:r ~r.D ..-4 .,----

Address ---~-=:___-./':_~_0_~-~-~_'f"--'------

. . ... ·. ·'


Comments

Mer \fiSttitij 1te (ard-fiU ::Mb and faJbbg :In oo('(lec of--fbe__ Q1stnCt :staf£ ~

:(kf :ttc -1tle is extrc~ {! ldl ±hot!Jbt ou.t ord ptxessC>haltJ dcne.

Wttb reprds fu recvcl1f29,±trre :SbDtJid be a · ~ :sz5h ·:so t±5 .. vbv/ous

whcrl can tx te.C\Jdtd. l WDu!d preh :=tvera.l bins .:5D l am :srxt · -tan':r r ...

ta.tW than one. Ptdvres m&rr oJst> be hefpf(J I ru ·tnchvtduaJ bt'as-Jvt- · P1.ctvas on -fht ~d bins tAJOtJ!rJ :s-tiLI be, foo Coafl.JSJQ:J . l wouJd ,

~ WllltQ9 it> fXJ:1f6r curbsdtrplck if> cblue:hl() t£ m Q)Sfs W~ htcfden - -t>

Name f?:J3rrtJrd lawrenee. . Address (eomments CD~Jv~ !?J ,r:hcne--1-o. LDtx!?ei>.)

1n m~ -fzt)( catculatWn/ ar0 am~ +o. //5o or JR..ss;mO . ~be 1"/o tncnia;;e tf +he CtYr"OUnf went -1-o ::rol1d LAJ06te/fardfiLI

1ndude) Curbstde. recyclih~ A

' . ~

. . . Fort Steele Residents

Fort Steele, BC VOB 1NO

March 6, 2000

Regional District East Kootenay 19-24th Ave South Cranbrook, BC V1C 3H8

~ . - .

· .... . ··-.... ~~· •'. r-.. .. ------_.._....._,.._~,~~ ~·

.1§·~: ,~ . .. ~ "~ "T:.rv. D •• ,r l~ ~ ~..4.

MAR.., 7 2000

REG;;":;·; ;'L DiSTRICT OJ= EAST KOQI§NA D

ReiProposed·Amendments to the Solid Waste Management Plan· Regarding Trench Burning at t'1;e Central Sub~regional Landfill. ·

Dear Board Members, ~ •' .

As I am sure you are aware, the Central Subregional Landfill site location and approval to subject to the following condition (as outlined in a.le~ter from the Minister ofEhvironment on Oct 5th, 1998): · · · ·

"There shall be no burning of waste at the site." .

The Residents of Fort Steele expect th$t condition to be followedand are opp0sed to any burning at the landfilL

Yours truh f\

~~~ Tom Quirk for Fort Steele Residents

· c<;:- Williar:n,Andrew~, B.a~(i~t~t::and Solicitor,:,.North.VaRcbuve·r. ·• . ···· , : •• ? • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • •

, ·:. . '• .. -· ··-- .···

.. ·

. :·.

... ;.:.,

·· ..

. . . ..

•. I .

: .. :~

.·.··········~·············.·. . :". _--~~---· ""."'.·. -~ISlOMAlW·· ~e;c'(eliN~

; ..... -.. ··

. ; .

. ·. ':.· ..

•• J•' :-

·.- .·. i:t ]f;' !~~J~l~ir~1' _,._:·-·: . . Jfl:~ ~'i'(j . .:.4- '~/ .NJ...:J ..a \! Jt.:..t lti

Que_stio_~~.to_Re~~ual.Dis0ct:~z~ast .. Kooteh~ y ..... ·;. < · ·< ·. --~ · .. :· : -.· _- · .. -. · ... · · · · Qn RegiOnal Sohd W:;tste Managem~ntPlan ·. MAH•.;,_ 7.-~0uO ·

.. ·.:·.·

. . . . . . : . . : ...... ... . . . ..... ~ ...

.. . . . ·. ..r.j.:,.:,:.,,.,"'.~-·n(L·.o<;.;;T· RIC ...... ·. : .. • .. :.- . --.... ... nt::~;,~lf' .. ;'i'>!.P~ f,)y -, , .d .

. _:. . . . . . . _:·. . OF···EASTXO.OTENAY

1~-- I~ this th~ ·ptari th~~ ~lll.go into:~ffect ir:i~~tea~~.-no' obje~tion~·?· · . . . . . ... . .. ' .·· .. · .· . :. . . ·: .... · .· . . . ·.·· .. ·· .. • .... · ... ·. . .-· ; . ·• .. ·. '·

., . . ... . . .- .

: 2 ... Jii~e· pi~ is. ~dpptexi will if6.e enforced?.: ~ . .. . . . '. _.._: ... .·. ·. ,.··. : _·;·.·< . . .

·• 3 When will tli~ ~rdbo~dor~cObe ~,;t:6~~d,. and ~ ih~r~ a b~no~ ~6oatddttlie r~~~¥ . . ... ·. : /. .· ... . .· ··.>:· >.:_::"''··_ .. _··~-·: ·,::_ ,·.:··•.·:·· ... _/. __ .·.·:,: :. __ ':_;_.',:·.-~: .. ·,:<:·,:._,.:_.'' :·>:.- :._ .. _.,.· .. ::.:~\:_:f:F,~,-,"' .~: .. ·. ··- .. 4 · Waste Reduction ha:s .been stated as a top priority, in: Section I: · Goals b'ullitt number-12,. please·explain what this b+.GanS-'

• . . • . : . . • . • • •. : • • . ·. . . . • . .; •·• • •• . . . . ·. :~ • . : .• ·..: .• • ~- .... , .• : ; ~· .·.!.; ' : ... · ...... • .. · . . ~

·. 5 •. =%~t~~0Iio~ ., 1. L( mufood ~;st~('f~Ste ~i~6verW~t~) h~~tlPd~'rktn~,j~~ ~~~i~~d~qnarid' '. · .. •· ···

· .6 )~j;J{~~~~~:~1~~~~~;sa~~fual~eED~fsJ~~~~i~f~~~~~;;J~¥~fu{iW'~:~i~,~0:.,.,·: . .... 7 .. s~~~o:~:~; Recycie ~;3.~~·-:··\yh~f~i~~:tJti-~ ~~~:-.· :. -_-<- ... · /. .·.:.·-::>~:·:·:··. .:.:_."~· · .. ·. :: , . ,- · <: ;: . , · ·· .:-'. · .... :·

8. . . Sec~on ~3 : ~:e~ Fe~s ~d\~~abl~ Raf~·tii¥~~s : ... ·-~:·~~~~i.'~~. ~~~~~~;e ~a~t~~e~~c~ib~. th~re.inJ~ ·b~-~n ~i~c~~ti~e,: Wil~---· <:·. · ·-~: . . .

· · : . the RD:$K ~om~ ·an: avocat of .bag li~ts ~d. ·~~courage·mliiiidp~itie$ tp .loqk stroiigiy'ilt.,redu_cing liousehoid "'.ast.e? '."' 0':~ · .. _:,: :' _"· ..

:·_ :~ .. · .. se·c~-on 3 ;--~~~:.e · .... ·. :3 ·.2 .. 2· ~a~eyard ~omp;~ti~g ~ ~: . ~as~d· ~~--~h~ti~· ~tated in~~ ·~e~~~n, ·.ho~ so;li -~~.:-~~-~Ek b~~~\': ... :_.. to ·s~_ek a co.mill.~rcial com poSting \lent!Jre, ~~Will tipptngfee's adqress thiii type of_W.ast~: .A:Jso are -y~~ $.a)dng that fb,e ...... .

· .. RPER would prefe;r: their oW.U. Qomposting facility instead .of a privat~·v~nture! .. · .- :. -. · ' , · · · . ·: . . ·. : · . . . ~ . . . •. . . ·. . . . . ; . . . .. .. . ' . . .. . : . . .-.. . ·.' . · ...

· .. ·.

· .. : .. ·:.

···. ·. . . . ·~

._ .... ·.

. . . : _ ... :· .·: ::', .

. : .. ~ . . . ... -:' .. : ..

. . . . ,: .. ~ . .

; . ·:

. ·· ... · -·: .. . . . ~- ..

·. . ~ .. : .. ·. ~ -~

>. · .. · ·.·

: _ _;.

.... ·

. .

. . . ; ..

... · '·:.

· ..... ··

. ..· . .. . . ·t.' _ .... ~... -~ ·:~; .. . • .·. ·. _·_ ··:··.-··

'•;

... ::

.· .. •. :.:·': . . ·.- . . ~- '" . . ... '-<-~ ··.· ~ .. -: ·: . .. . .

· ....... . . ~ ~; ..... :-.. ' ·. ·: ...

. .. ··.: ~ ·.. . .. ·.

.. ..;:_.· · ....

. , ...

.. ··· '.-:· . . . .

.; ... · .. _,-· .. ··:· ..

.-.

. . . . ... · ·-: ·.::··

·:" : •\ ·, . ~ . .· .. < . ·:-:· • .. ;, . :

.. . : ~ .

. . ; .· : . ·. · .... ·: . . :· . . : . : • ··. ! :.::. ·:.

: ... · .. •'

~ . . . • .. ~ .'

. ,. ·· . .. ·.' . · .....

. :' -~ . -~ ··: ... . . ..

... '· ... >-~ .. ··.;.

,. .· .. ·· ........... ··.-.. ~ . ·:._:· .... -

.: .

... :.;· ...

-··· .··.· .

Cranbrook, B.C. V1C6X7 March 11, 2000

Dear Mr. Mcinnis

RECEll!Efil MA~ 1 4 2000 f

REGIONAL-DISTRICT I OF EAST KOOTENAy l

I take exception to the interview you gave the Townsman regarding the waste site meeting on March 7. I was at that meeting and the first half of it was not just · . about listening to residents near the dump. It was about issues that have not been addressed. It was about the fact that leachate is a real problem and you have a dump in a.very large gravel pit. It was about real people with real concerns and by

. your interview you.negate their questions as just bitching about a dump near by. It was about the fact that permission was giv~n for the site on condition there would . be no burning. It was about the noise of the machines that can be heard two kilometers away. · . It is about the dangers inherent in having a dump on a hill in a gravel pit. I understand you have a job to do, selling .this project, but the people.you are; ''blowing off" have a real concern. I think you do yourself and the regionah!W~~a a disservice you your patronizing attitude and «let's sell this no matter what" ·manner that comes across by your biased (in my opinion) reporting of the meeting ..

Sincerely, .

. £)~, ~araHaigh

cc Cranbrook Daily Townsman

Cranbrook B.C .. VIC 6X7 March 9 ,. 2000

East Kootenay Regional Board 19 24thAve Cranbrook B.C.

Channan of the Board:

Enclosed please :find a copy ofthe letter I have sent to the Mlnistry of the Environment. 1 find it incomprehensible that I should have to write such

. a .letter:.

Thank you for your'.time'in:this:matter;and:I.Jiope;yoiJ will also do your . best to rectifiy a potentially horrendous situation as quickly as possible.

Sincerely, . . .

4=#<;Jt Barbara Haigh.

. . -,

Cranbrook, B .. C. VlC6X7 March 9, 2000

Minister of the Environment Legislature Building Victoria, B.C.

Dear Ms. Sawicky

RECEIVED MAR 1 5/200'0


I attended a meeting in Cranbrook on Tuesday evening to become more informed about the Crqnbrook dumpsite. I could not believe some of the things I discovered - The regional board, in its infinite wisdom, and with Ministry permission, has built the dump on a hill in a huge gravel pit. - The water table in the area rises to within fifteen feet of the smface. - The C.P.R. has sink holes in the area monitoring the city sewage lagoons and the water in the holes has risen forty six feet in the past few years. - The ·law used to be that a dump site could not be created within five kilometers of private property but was changed to one kilometer. The new site is within one kilometer of private property by road, but in a straight line it is less. - In the same area there is an old gravel pit where one can see how high the water table is. -Acros~ the highway from the waste site is a large field where in summer cattle range. In the winter and right now there are anywhere :from fifty to a hundred elk foraging there. -The well which supports the ranch is only forty five feet deep and is· in that field. -Children live on that ranch. -The city was given at least two viable alternatives to this dmnp. Fernie sends it's waste to a site in Alberta (that has soil suitable to withstand this kind of toxicity) at a cost lower than we pay. Cranbrookwas:given that opportunity. There was another site, with better soil, proposect in this region. -Fort Steele Campsite is directly below the dumpsite and any leachate will directly affect them. -Old shingles are buried in the earth. Anyone who has ever poured water on tar knows that tar leaches out. -The latest proposal is that there be a burning trench and to that end the Regional Board is going to seek •' provincial approval. Pemtission for the site was given with the llllderstanding there would be no burning. .

With of all the information available concerning leachate and how toxic it is, I cannot believe this kind of project has been allowed to happen and I request that your ntinistry live up to it's mandate of protecting our environment and lives.

I applaud the strides that British Columbia is making with recycling and waste reduction and I know tl1at you ·wm see fit to rectifY this situation. I realize several million dollars have been spent to create this monstrosity, but it was created without due consideration of all the facts, and people, animals, and the environment will suffer if this is allowed to continue.

Yours sincyrely, Barbara Haigh: /)

4~1~' cc Erda Walsh MLA Kootenay Riding

Ross Priest, Mayor Cranbrook East Kootenay' Regional Board Cranbrook Daiiy Townsman

MAR 1· 4 2000

REGID' . \ t D\STR\CT OF EAt~_IENAY

STEPHEN MciNNIS, ASci MANAGER OF UTILITJES AND SOLID WASTE c/0 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY, BOX249 c

WINDERMERE,B.C. VOB2LO.

,: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

WINDERMERE,B.C. VOB2LO MARCH 14,2000.

WE THE UNDERSIGNED LIVE AT I 751 WINDERMERE LOOP ROAD AND ARE ATTENDING THE MEETING . .

TO DISCUSS THE LONGER LIFE OF THE DUMP SITE. WE REALIZE IT IS EXPENSIVE TO SET UP A NEW SITE

BUT THAT THEEXISTING SITE HAS BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH. WE ARE IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING TilE

EXISTING SITE UNTIL 2005 WHICH SHOULD GIVE SUFFICJENT TIME TO FIND A NEW SITE. WE ARE TIRED

e OF PICKING UP GARBAGE WHILE OUT FOR A WALK, MOST OF THIS CAN BE BLAMED ON THE

" NUMBER OF UNCOVERED TRUCKS THAT GO TO THE DUMP. THERE IS NO SUPERVISION REGARDING

~t THE COVERING OF LOADS AND THE REFUSE IS APPALLING. TillS IS AS MUCH A POINT OF CON-

e TENTION AS THE ACTUAL DUMP SITE. HOWEVER, WE REALIZED WE KNEW THE DUMP WAS

e THERE WHEN WE BUILT.

YOURS,

... •.

EDGEWATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT P.O. Box 164

EDGEWATER, British Columbia VOA 1EO.

~v( 1-/ ~

/} A . ~/ 14. c RECEIVED f '-"L/ ~ J .f-.f...e; G V'Vl ~ 1/L-<-) . ' MAR23 lJMMj

~!h. , J:;; ::( U<>clc · ~ !;_-h /, .;';; r . ~~m;;~~ DJI)TRn;i' i . · lf j · L- ~~J«<OT'E'NAY

. (- /1-?se:.. 11 :2rA ~ s:· c~r;_~~r: u1c 1n f)e_/ 9~ :

;f-r .7/-- ~~ 15 ~ !b-e-•/.,7 17~ F/0 ~,I r( fj,r.._cf..,, '; -(,( ~.c:l c:&c4- <'>~ ; ~~ >lr ,-{'w-e~ (ju--r ( J ~ /£ I( 12 tf?"k ~ 7;-;;: ~I ;__ (" 0

p{ #f..._e/-75 11_ .n::; ~~--- ~.= ''""' .

5 ~r / ~~;; (' Y/~J /J.e-(1"-- ~ 7--'~e__ 7/tL- ~r/L/.e/#1.-~.C ~~ -/-err( Ji'/-~ /o-r 6-}

In; ?<..<;' 1/P s-;;'1?/e...~ y~ ~' fr r~L /k. 1/tY~(" vf uu-.r;::.e , ;5- 't~ y---,/~

tve tl-7'< ti~J ;/ltd' ~ . .f?.tJ-:?k 4J. ~~ . ~~ cry fr · /-:.e ~· ,~f-v~~ ~<-..._

Jl<- '/~d. w~r( fr-«'~ 'jr>---r" 1',.,_ ;y-\.:,_~1

(u- ~Jl [,(._)~ ~~~ J~ k~ C 4.-: K /!«e. ,_hr-j ,i1_ lfl~:/, .

§i~e_~~7 /'}?c& tv d_ ~ ~ .... \ ~ 1~17 \

Regional District of East Kootenay, 19-24 Ave. South, CRANBROOK, B.C. VIC 3H8

March 21.2000

RE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

RECEIVED HA.R 2 & zoao:

I ~GIONAL DISTRICT i . EAST KOOTENAy_)

In regard to the above proposal, my husband and I wish to register our displeasure at the idea of extending the life of the Windermere Landfill Site. We are very disappointed and feel that we have been mislead, as we were under the understanding that this site would be phased out by th·e year 2000/2001. The purchase of our property was affected by this understanding, and we feel that it has a major effect·on the value of our property.

We have had a number of concerns regarding the landfill site, one of which is the fact ttlaf the bears ·have be.en able to forag,e in the area; and also;Ahat our property is a. qumpsite for refuse picked up by ravens and dr9pped inthe area·;::We were. willing-to· tolerate ttits· for a space of time .without complaint. I'm sure'lhatyou.can understand··our disappointment at tfie thought ofan extension of time for this sit~. · l·

Thanking you for your kindness in forwarding the proposed plan to us.

We were unable to attend tf)e meetings·due'to other committments;

Yours sincerely,

Clara Anderson.

WINDERMERE, B.C. VOB2LO

Mailing address:

March 30, 2000

Regional District of East Kootenay 19- 24th Avenue South Cranbrook, BC VIC 3H8

Attention: Stephen D. Mcinnis, A. Sc. T. Manager of Utilities & Solid Waste

Dear Stephen,

I am writing this letter as a follow-up to the meeting! attended on Tuesday, March 14, 2000, regarding the futtJre of the Windermere landfill. ·

You will recall. that my primary concern was changing the landfill closing d?te from the 2003/2004 estimate; These dates were widely publicized and were relatively in sync with the dates put forward in the original SoUq\;waste . · Management Plan. My concern was how fair this is to people who have made decisions to change fu:'ejf. .. ~~es based on the original dates. The people who decided to retire to the Windermere Loop Rd. from Prince de6rge-'and froin Calgary; the young families who decided to sell their homes in Invermere and Calgary and move to Windermere Loop R,d.; and the people who decided to make the Windennere Loop Rd. their permanent vacation address.

Sure, we have empty lots on our golf course that are for sale and that will probably have to be re-valued, that·does not concern us, that is only money. What does concern us is people being lead to believe one thing because of an existing plan and published articles in the Valley Echo, who subsequently changing their lives and the nature of the area around the landfill based on that belief, only to have the plan radically altered.

The process of fmding a new dump site is not going to get any easier or cheaper. Lets get on with it. I think any reasonable person would agree that the cost of fmding a new landfill and closing the existing one are inevitable costs that, when consider over the life of the new landfill, are relatively insignificant.

Please be fair to the citizens of the Windermere Loop Rd. area and stick with the original plan.

INVERMERE, BRITISH COLUMBIA VOA 1 KO • TELEPHONE: (250) 342-3004 • FAX: (250) 342-0119

I···I arch 28 .. 200C(

Stephen Ncii!l1i3 .. AScT !'·:I t~JtC~.g:e r of U~ili tie;:: et.nd f.tllid Y.lo:;.ste Rt;giom..I Disttict of East K.ooten:;:y 19- 2:4th .. e ... 'ile. s Grartbmok .. BC 1l1C~ ~~HB

APR _. 4 2000


·"'~;:; per our con~rer.::<;~.,ioro o.t trJ.e "rlind erme re C~omJil1J.:nit:l Hall onl'·'I arch 14, 2000, I "'ltou.ld like to express om- OJ•POsitiort to t!1e expar~::rit•rt of t:be \~;riode:onere landfill sHe a::-: outlined in Op~ion 2: BJui ():ption :3 of tJ'le draft ~~olid "tN:x:ote H :j}.l::..gerr1e.nt Plan.

Cqxc m;3in pob:"tt.s of npposttion are list.ed in t,he enclosed letter t.o Da>ro Butler R.P.F., senior L:ii.ld Officer .. I'tlinisti:Y of Em:irorrment .. L;;.xui;:: :md.ParJ:;s .. d{l.te•i Au.gu.;;:-:t 9,1994 :;:t •1 time when ::.. 50 8.C rt;. exp::u.L;:":i.O~l "\>las being con;:: ide red,

"'VJ"rile "Qre u.nderst:md t.he '\\~C~.terqu•:..lity iS;:nJ.e 11::iS:be·erdCn:tked~·ifLtccand d•Jesn ~seem to r•msent a large pmblerr:t .. man;l of the other issue:::- dc.-c:oncem u.s .. c.h:ie!1y, s:i.g:.ht pollution~ noise pollution ftl"td t.he lJ:itplea:::ant odors.

8J(JHT POLLUTION If either Option 2: or Option :3 Bre •idOpt.ed .. bling:ing: t.he t..cench to within 72 meters or46 l:Jleters off the road re;::pec:ti-.rel:Y~· 1-r.ill definatelyincrease ex:po::-:n.re 1lJ m•1d tJt'l.ffie and golf eouJse p;itmns. >:,yhile it "Ql::J3 stited at the meeting t.h::t.t land:::'t!.:q:dng ~ro1.:\ld ta}~ Jdace to .fride tbe 'bem:t::1 .. prestU)J.ably it v.1ro.uld take a few·reasorl3 for trees and shl.1J.bs to gro'?.r ;;.nd fill in. Ew none or ~llJ ~.~art: of h;:~.Vlilg our clientel exposed to E!JL ex_p;:..nded site couM ho:tve 8. de -.,r;~z,t;~.ti:ng effect on our buz.iite ;:..:: .

N()JHE POLLUTI.ON If either OJ•tion2 or ()Jttierrl::; are adoptt:d .. as the Idt mm<'es do"Y.r.ct t.he slope to'V.rard the ro::t.1i .. the existing sire will :;.c:t as a 30 meter ampl'rit.heat.er pmjec:ting the heavy machlner;.l noise west .. nor-th111B st UJ' tct~irard us. Ottc guests search tt:~ out for o r.u· peace 8.11.d q u.fu t Thi.:.: t:-: W. 1-e::t:;<on .. o.t ~:n"\::;.t. expen;::e .. th:~.t "hre h•,.Ye ~p~.1;ed •.nu· c:abilw 50 meters tc• 1 DO meters o.part frmn each other.

UNPLEASANT ODORS As t.t!B dom:irumt '??irui h!. t.!l!J o;,•·:~Jley i3 fror.f! thB :301J.t1'!J •my increase in the size of t.he landfill w'ill i:t"Lcrea.se the di::tance the odors -r..:ill tra.,lel. For thls rea.~:.n .. I al:::1:. question the u.se of a1 t.e:rm:t. te r. o·.,rerz, i.e. tarpiitg:. I e ;:m 't. im:;:gine :how effEH.::ti,ie odor .:::ontml .::an t•e maintained with a tali• system.

There i3 one other Bl'B a of con:: em v;,•"e wuuld like ~J add1-ess. Sil.1ce ptu"Cha::1il.1g: om· property irt 1992 .. 'lite J1;3."le lJeen closely foUJ1tirLg the progress of the "Hil!.1iermere LB.ndfill Site. 'l{ e :r.~..;.. .. re Bl'l.ra~:.-~.:: 'been led to 'believ.,.e it 'filM t.·L its t1lilight ye3Is. In 1994 'Y.ie 'r.1rere told tk~t since t'be proposed 50 acre exr,ansion 'i1~-as not to pmceed~ an expected 5 yBa.rs rem·~ined at the site. Accordingly .. in 1996 'Ire u.nden.?ertt 3rt exparwion 0r1d t•lJ.ilt 2 ne"'ll c:1biiLS.

.Since 1996, the Board of Directors of tire RDEK .has beer1 quoted mtmerous times in the Valley Echo stating that the process h•~.d begun 1D find a ne-..::r site arvi t.he present site 'r<roul1i be outgro"\'tfL "\'ritJJ.ifl5 .Years. Again, w.i.t.h t!J.is in nrind, this ~~~inter 11re hav-e exp::.,nded B.nd tn .. tilt i: new c atdns.

If., in 1996 it w·:;.s :;.pl):;.rent to u.s tJ'.~.at the l::.,ndfill h:;,d the Jn)ssibilit;i' to reJnainlmtil potentially 202~:, it is ver} likely -..::.;oe would have held off on om exp::.,r~.;:ion arLd looked at :;11other location. Although I realize 2:3 more .Years of u& is milil~ely .. '7ile feel e~.ren 10 or 15.•1ddi1.ioiF3.l )"El•Hs 1-lill :3.d1ter:.Xll.Y :;ifect om 'tn.wine::.::.

On tl'J.is ;:::;.me point, the f::t.c·t th::t.t pu.bli&.1.ed re.port.s st:tted the existing z:.ite -..::.rou.ld tu;! closed in the near futtut! .. vm feel teniole foro r.rx m::my ne 'li.'neig;hbm:tr.s "h"ho hi!l.ve built bea tr.ti.ful h.omes along the golf ccnxc.::e. Y-Te cdm feel for the "\~lililey f•:t.mily who h~.v-e p:;.id the deYelopment co3t:: for the lot:: no"lir for s:t.le 8.long hole # 18. If_ the exp8mion goe;:: 8he8.d '\>lith e it.he r Option 2: or 0 ption :::: .. one c;;.n ;::u.r.rn.ire t1'1e re mB.irring lot;:: '?rill go 1JI13old.

In clo::Ung .. I don't 1".rru·1t to lea1.re the i:mpre&.ion 10.re're upset that due to greater di~.rerzion .. tl'1e. exiBti.ng: site is outl:hring the migin::d estimates. V·le c:in all be f!8.ppy fJ.8.Mts ere slo"?liY ·· eh,.nging. 01.1r objection is1irith art expa:t~.;:ion. ':

Scott :;Jl.d Ast.lid 1···I:3.c:Dom1d ',;';lindenr~e re Creek Bed ru·1d B re &:.fast Ca 'bins 165Ei 'Ninde nne re Loop RoE~. d.

Vlinderrne lt! .. .EI G VOB 2LO

.,

Dl3.\re Bu.t~r R .P .F. Senior Land Officer !'>·I inistt;.~ 0 f Enviromnent Lands A:itd Par:Y..s 828A B ak.er St. Cranbrook .. B.c. VlC 1.~

Dear Mr. Butler,

Re: proposal by RDEK t.o expand lroldfill at W'inde:rrf..ere

A1J,g. 9,1994.

Ass. nearby land and tn.tsine~ O"?.'.ner .. I am very conce:c.ned with th.e proposal tD expartd tJ1e -~Ninde mwre l::mdfill t-ite by 50 ~.c res . .Ny '\\oife ~1t.d I omt and opero. te "Ninde:rrr.te re Greek Bed&. Breakfast situated at 165Ci ~·.Vmdermere Loop Rd.( Lot.l ,D .L 's 19 & 7154 , Plro1.5506) , consisting of 107 8J::!!""es. Our objections ·are e.s follo~ts:

1. Y.lA TER QUALITY All rezidents €!long 'Nindennere Loop Rd. dDJ.W their domestic \irater f:rom ~rells. There i3 great potentia-l for a deterioration in "?.ra~er q'IJ..3Jit.y 'l{rith em expansion in lh.ndfil18.ctivities . Rs:~r se\ire'"~:e , pumped from septic tanks , will at some point affect the m ter tattle .

2. SIGHT POLLUTION The existing f;:~cility·, especw.n:.v the pile of aba.rtdoned au.tomobiles .. is elree.dy 0.n. ur~Sightly m.ess. Expa.nsion 8.long the 1i.dge of L. 4619 WOlJJ.d increase the dun1p's eexposu.re to road traffic ~md golf ccnxcse pa.trorlS. Currently, t.crurtsts are d:ro:~."lt. to t.he e1-e8. 1D view l".JlOUll.l»im e.nd forests .. not. huge piles of gr8.ve 1, .fre8.'V7 machinery and ab&.ndoned ca.rs.

3. NOISE POLLUTION Most of om clientele are dra'?T.Cl by tl're q 1Jiet ~.nd ~:n:e:cLity '?le can. offer -with om property. Should the exp;9nsion ta.Jr..e pl~J.ce , tl".te increase in noise levels will directly affect our b1.1 .. <d.ness . VIe c1.1ne nt.ly can t.~ea.r the loa.ders all winter long , but t.h.is is dulled 3oni.e ,.11.1 t d Uling the. t1u.sy 5tJJJ1Di.er seaXJn by the.le .ave3 on tl'w .J..cee s . 'ill e are 'ii"Drried that elevating the site to the proposed ridge vould tnc:rea.se noire levels significantly.

4. UNPLEASANT OD 0 R S 0 n a hot da.y .. with a :;))Uth wind , it is n.ow possi. ble t.o smell th~ existing site as far nort.h as the V?.ilfley hou.se . With an expansion to tl're p:t1::'1posed lidge · .. it is inevitable t.h8.t. odm-s ~till reach our pror,erty .

5. INCREASED TRAFFIC OH VliHDERMERE LOOP RD. Aniru;rea3e indumpi.ng iiill also bring an increase in traffic on o1Jr i"I:Jt~.d . Mu.c1'1 of this treffiG is large tm.cr..s or pkh.-u.ps f!lltlling domestic and comtructi.on 'W"'8.St.e • Hot only do t]'J.e::}; \reb.kles increa.se damage to the road su:cfet.ce .. but it al3o m.ea.ns I muzt spend a significant a.mmmt of time e~.ch ~reek clM.ring ow 700 ft. of front.e.ge of g1J.rba.g:e 8.nd cortBtru.ction rrJf.t.terie.ls which hav-e blo':\7Il off of these t.ru.cks .

6. BEAR PE'OBLEl\'I S \~>linde:cmere GreeJ~ is a natu.ral conidor for bear trr:t.f!ic int.o trill: \"B.Jley according to L:9.ny Ha.lv"'rson of .Kootenay Ns.tiorull furk. Bem Jwve 11.lre1.1.dy bee ome some 11.ma t of a nuisance at the s.i te . The solution i3 an electric fe nee Sl.UTourtdil~.g the perimeter . >:Nhile it is Uitlike ly r.he mon..ey is a. vail. able 1D fero:: e the existir~ sl te , it is even less likely an expanded site wo1.udt1e fenced .The proposed site would be 8. Lrrger attraction to migratil)g bears .

In conclwion .. vhen t.h.e Inwnnere dl..UY!p site was closed sorne y"ei3.:CZ ago a.nd t.he T0linderme :re site expanded .. it made some S':l:tL..~ to locate it ·~rhe:ce it is . It vle.s a ru.:ro.l.i3re e. \\r:it.h 6 hou.ses nearby .e11d a he.y field oc.ros::: the m~.1i . In the follo~.rirtg ye8.:cs ~ t.h...e field bee 0011e a. su.cce s:;f'ltl gol{ course .. n:tarcnt.ev h01..1...e:e s .l"J£t ... re bee rt added and 8re _proposeg , tu"ld our ou.sines:; has r.t8.ii.ed to ,Prosper . ..,rle feel $.ddirl€f. 50 aJ~res to the existir~g sit.e a.M. n1akil1..g this a regionallB.ndfill site ~,ill achre rsley affect tt.tis economic growth ..

Sincerely,

Scott MacDonald Astrid Schaefer ~~~lindennere C1~ek Bed & Breal>f:9.St. 1658 '\~7indennere Loop Rd. I

'\'ilindenne re .. B.C. VOB 2LO 342-0356

2.5.12.2 If you delete the words "at Lethbridge", you leave your future options. open. Lethbridge is by far the best option today and will likely be so in the future, however we do not have a crystal ball:

2.5.12.7 Replace the words "new sub regionallandfilf' with transfer stations. 2.5.12.8 As it is, this clause may as well not exist. I am not suggesting changes however I believe that bylaws already exist in each of the three municipalities now and of course the bylaw content varies. I am not familiar with Electoral Area "A". The RDEK will need to develop a bylaw for Area A that addresses the issues important to that area and it should be coordinated with the neighboring municipal bylaws. 3.5.4.1 If you replace the words "the Lethbridge Regional Landfill' with "an authorized refuse disposal facility". · Appendix I 3.1.3 The total for recycling should add up to $155,000. Appendix I Operational Expenditures The total for recycling should add up to $155,000 and the summary TOTAL should be increased $5,000. The TOTAL on the last page would also change. General

• It is my view; and I believe many others; .that burning wood waste is an acceptable method of management in this area. Current permits allow this and it should be included in the plan. This should change when/if there is an economical alternative in the future.

$ What tools does the RDEK have to enforce rules at a transfer station? How do you set fines, tipping fee rates, bans, illegal dumping or· littering fines ~etc. I assume a bylaw is required.

e There has been far too much focus on the paper part of The Plan, let's get on with some substance.

e LETS GET ON WITH IT! SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEYf

There are other issues that must be addressed, including: 0 Sparwood should continue to have all of the services that residents need at our

transfer station (existing landfill), along with additional ones brought about by the plan. We have, wood, compost, tires, car bodies, whitegoods etc. We use auto hulks as an incentive for metal recyclers to take all metals at no cost, the plan should allow for this in the Sparwood, to avoid the costs of paying for removal of whitegoods .

e Ownership of transfer station site? We need to maintain access and use of the sludge pits.

• Who Operates the site? Danny Dwyer, Technical Planning Coordinator/ Approving Officer,

District of Sparwood, P.O. Box 520, 136 Spruce Avenue, Sparwood, B.C., Canada, VOB 2GO Phone: (250)425-6271, Fax: (250)425-7277 E-mail: < mailto:[email protected]> WebSite: <http://www.sparwood. be. ca>

' Comments j

.- Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

/(t..4N~ ove NE./912 fhJ l( s l:?A-5T trJ {li& 8115-teR/J s 10 6-

DF Hc?s rvi t:R. , / $GL! ef/IE 77t-e TR4/'J~·pe,.e '?TitTto;V

9t-louLp 'te- '-<Jc.A-·re.h /4-1 7tfE o'--IJ FeR /\fiG Duwz p

<; rte

Name · ~cT;\J Ke-;vJVG.b y Address . . '9-et<?tvl C . £?. C .-

. ---·· ···-··. ~- ···- ··-----,-~ ---. ·----.----·· - - .. ·. ,. . ..... '

.. · __ .,.

··-.· ...

Comments

. . . . ~ --. .- .,_

·: ~- · .Regiori~l Solid Waste Management Plan· • ·

Name /K! /) / {!_ tk-U 4 - "

Address ---"~--=-=-·~-------''---------

·._ :· ~- ·. . . .


Comments

Name

.... . ,

' ... ·

Documents

REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN...The RDEK will, on request, provide staff to assist businesses in conducting waste audits. 2.1.3 The RDEK and member municipalities will implement