RDEK Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

Transcription

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY
REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
VOLUME 1
Update - May 2003
Prepared By
Regional District of East Kootenay
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ~ ........................... i
SECTION 1:
GOALS ............................................................................................................................. 1
SECTION 2:
POLICIES ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Reduce ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Reuse .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Recycle ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Recovery ............................................................................................................................................. 6
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
Central Subregion
VOLUME2
APPENDICES
CENTRAL SUBREGION
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix Ill
Appendix IV
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 1095)
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 incorporation 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 recommendations of the following studies prepared for the Elk Valley Subregional Refuse Disposal Steering Committee 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
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
•
Approval
•
Appendices
•
an administrative structure to oversee, monitor and implement the plan; and
- Associated Costs - costs associated with programs described in Sections 3 and 4
- Public Participation
Volume 2
o
Appendices
o
Central Subregion
•
•
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
waste reduction,
reuse of materials,
recycling,
energy and material recovery,
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.
Page 1
SECTION 2:
2.1
POLICIES
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.
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.
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.
Page 5
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.
Page 6
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.
Page 7
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
Central Subregion - Includes the Cities of Cranbrook and Kimberley and
2.5.13.1
Electoral Areas "8", "C" and "E".
The Central Subregion has developed a subregional landfill and staffed
2.5.13.2
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.
The Central Subregion has developed and operates the subregional
2.5.13.3
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.
Page 8
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
The Elk Valley Subregion includes the City of Fernie, Districts of Sparwood
2.5.15.1
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.
Page 10
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:
3.1
IMPLEMENTATION
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.
Page 14
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.
Page 15
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.
Page 16
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.
Page 17
3.3
RECYCLING
3.3.1
Columbia Valley and Central Subregions
3.3.1.1
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.
3.3.1.2
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.
Page 18
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
3.3.2.1
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.
3.3.2.2
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.
Page 19
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.
Page 20
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
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.
3.5.1.2
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.
3.5.1.3
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.
3.5.1.4
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.
· Page 22
3.5.2.2
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.
3.5.2.3
Upon the reaching of this trigger, the RDEK will undertake a process to
identify a new residual management facility to service the Subregion.
3.5.2.4
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.
3.5.2.5
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
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.
3.5.3.2
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
3.5.3.3
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.
Page 23
3.6
CLOSURE PLANS
'l
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.
Page 24
SECTION 4:
4.1
ADMINISTRATION
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.
Page 25
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4.3
material bans,
user fee schedules,
effectiveness of education and promotion programs,
the annual solid waste management budget,
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.
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.
Page 26
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
Page 27
\
ocr oszooJ
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$PM w~st~ mMMemrent plan as requited by the W<Js:t.?
Manageme.i# ;i9t (WMA).
.
..
In acQQrdaneewithS.ection 18; Su:b~sec.tion {7) o.fi.heWMA y~;iw;~pHc! w&s,te
management plan S-ections 11 2 ano :3 (Le. pages 1 to. 27) dated May .2002 'is :appro.ved.
)
Attached is an action plan reached by mufuai agr..eero~nJ·outlining strategies to nis.oJve
outstanding 'issues :Wid achieve outooines that wi.ll meetthe objectives·ohoth the
minJstry tilld the Regional District ofE~Wf Koqtenay•
.cc:
Eric Bonhari:J,; D.iteetor, ~unicipal :Engineering Se.rvices, NH;~WS
Attaclrrhent
~hiit~
C$ft:t~ ·····~OYlj
..........W"b
.. ._. .. .
~
;fl~!Utton #;
ftllnistryofWafer,Land
and Air Pt.otecllon
Otffc~;~
ortha.Minister
M!i-lll!:ig.Add.fe~:
p~rli~ri1ent·B~11dlngs
ViCtoria 80 V8!/1X4
r
'
\W2024
""'*"'
•
J
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
at.
On or before December
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~
ftahsfer s.tatibn.
qffne.
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 $Xisting was:te tran-sfer faoilitie:s. It is understood that lhe City' of t=''ernie, i:ls the"
permitho1der, is responsible tor the :op!:!rc;~tion qflh~ l$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 a str;;itegy for the treatr.m~r;it and disposal of
blosoUds. shJdg;e, $epta~e. ?rid holdln_g tahk effluent within fh:e regional distrJct.
or
1
.. ·-···-·-·············-·--··--·-.··-~-~--------------------..,.,....,......,
\
Bio.solids, sluClg~. septage .and holding tat.iKefflliH!lnt lre·atmt=J.nl and disposal fadlities
maybe 'incorporated into -regional solid waste fa:OUitie.s and landfills or Lnto~.centr-alfze.d
comp.ostJn:g f~cHIJies In accordance With the,Organic Matt~r Recycling Reglliafion ii!hd
guio~n¢$ :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$$, tecoveryordisposal
options .are nQt viable, s.ubJe.c;t to <:~me.nomE'lnto( the .exlsfing ope.rafioh·al C!:lrtifi~te,
Rbi;K In the Qolumbfa Valley:s~ubregiofl wlll.pevelop_ -~ mar.sMJiing ~t~~ ~t:lhe Canal Flats
transfer statiM site 'for OW w.a$.tJ:lsJo sEHVi¢e· ¢£iMI Fiats and surrounding an~G\. wUh·
desig.o·ate·ct -r:na.teri<J:Is lP: tl$ tr.anMerted io the Columbia Valley Subregion:.Landfr!L
Design;;~teq c!!?~\1 Wood W9Ste may be open b.urned on a p~riodJG t>as·is
aU~pproved
tlm,e$ .at fh$,.Canal Flats. transfer,statio:n mar,shalling ar.ea in accordance with -the
Opi;!rational Certificate. Whl;ln i?.s.qed or?& -appr<N~d in writing by the Regional Waste
Manager prior to. th·e l$$.!JgnG~r :Ot th~- Operational G~rtificate. ·
ano
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$halling :atea ·to sai'V1ce Jh_e ~lk V~lley mwnlg)p~:~lfties .and ~DEKEtectoral Area
"A', Des1gnated.:cilean woGd W?§te ma.y be open butl:'le:d O"rl a periodlc ba.sis and 'at
appto.ve.d· time.$ 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. eontractor 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
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
$t;ibmJ~~i61i
VaHey.
·
Item 1...,. Syiaws to Mlnfmize: Wildlife Conflicts
RDEK ana member monicip:aiJt!e.& wiil p;;~rtn~r with to~ Mfnl~(cy· ofWafer Land· and Air
Pr:0tectlon an.d othet:§tc;~keh_ptder$ 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
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
$ 3,000
200,000
Education/Promotion
25,000
$
Estimated Total Annual Cost
1.1.2
------·---------····
5,000
3. Woodwaste Diversion
4.
One Time
Cost
Annual Cost
240,000
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:
1.1.4
Reduce/Reuse
Recycle
Residual Management (including Debt Retirement Costs)
$
$ 2,400,000
240,000
400,000
1,760,000
Plan Cost Appropriation
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.
Associated Costs - Appendix I
Page i
ASSOCIATED COSTS
CENTRAL SUBREGION
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES- CLOSURE COSTS
CLOSURE
CRANBROOK
$
KIMBERLEY
...--......... ..-·-·-·-·-·····--··
RURAL DUMPS
----·-···-------·-·---·---·--·--····--·····-..-·---..-·-----· _____ .... .. _____
ENGINEERING
TOTAL
$
~-----~-····--·--~---~------
~.--
1,030,000
1,720,000
220,000
--·-···-·--·····---··-··"···-·-·-----·h•···-~-----.---
, , ,.
CAPITAL
MONITORING WELLS
.,,,,,
$ 50,000
25,000
...····--·--··· ·--··---··---------··--···-·---..
50,000
$ 1,080,000
1,745,000
...................... ··--·······-··----------.................._.,...,.._____,_,__.._____ _
270,000
..·-··--·..--··-···-·"' ________..............................-.............---··-----···--·---··-- ····-·---··-····-··---·--··--··-··-. ···---····-------····--··--·-·included
________
,~···"-----
2,970,000
EXPENDITURES~
$ 125,000
CRANBROOK
KIMBERLEY
.. --···---..---·-----..
..
LANDFILL
RURAL TRANSFER STATIONS
SEPTIC WASTES
ENGINEERING
TOTAL
-----~-----·-···-·-·-·---- --.-·--···------~---··-···-··--
$ 3,095,000
*
be determine
when closure
plans are
approved.
Debt paymer
have not bee
included in
operational
expenditures
NEW FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
-------~···-··-
..
---------·~ ·~-
* Final costs to
TOTAL
GRANT
NET TOTAL
$ 1,221,600
$ 1,221,600
889,545
-··-·····---·-···--·----..
1,136,021
1,339,207
$
240,000
889,545
..
1,136,021
1,099,207
$
240,000
427,952
$ 4,774,325
~~······---·-··-·-···-·· ·-----~---·-·-····-····-····-·--······-··---··-···-·--······· ----~--·----···-····--···· ··---~-·-·--·-·····-·
to be determined
427,952
$ 5,014,325
OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES
DEBT RETIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS- TOTAL
$ 4,774,325
$ 406,000
$ 406,000
,....,,,.,.,.. -...,,,.._,, ____.,__,, ...,,_..,.,_..__
LANDFILL
OPERATIONS
$ 449,000
....-...
..
.. -·--·-..-...........-..... .. ____.......- ... ..··-·-····"· ...... ....................__,_..................--------...........------·-----·---....___ ..__ .......... ..__ _
TRANSFER
STATION
OPERATIONS
$
765,000
......_,...,.......
..
..--....
.............
_____
__
--..
..-....._............ ..... -.... _____
.. __ __ ___ ____.. ........... ____ ................... ----·-·---·-·------..-·..··-....
3 R'S
$ 640,000
SEPTIC WASTES
$
20,000
-·---·--------·-----. ...........
..- ... ..-·--·-··----------.............................
·------.............--....-..
....._____________ _____ .........................._.. ___ ..... ............
ADMINISTRATION
$ 120,000
TOTAL
$ 4,774,325
$ 406,000
$ 2,400,000
.,..,__,,,....,,,,_,,_,.,......,,,,,_,-..,-.,..,...,, ....,.....--•••-·---···--••·--·-•-·•·--•••-•••••----·-·---••·U••·-•'• __,,,_,__..__,,,.,,.,,,,_,,,......,..,,,,,___...
-·~···-·--······~-······-···~
~·--·--
----··-~-·-·····--··
···-~·-~---········----~--~-·-········-······--···--·
-~----·---·.------------"--"··---·
-.~--
,_,_,
,. ...,......., ____ """'"""·••·--""•'-'""''"-""""""'""'"""-'"~"'''"'-"'"'-''''""'"''..,""~"'-'"'""-"•'"""""'"'""-'~
--~-
_,_,._..,,
-~
., ,
~-
,.,_,,_. ,_,....,
,,~-··-•-·•--••·•
"~""'~---•-·•-·""""""""-~~_,,.
_~-·--"'
,.,.~.,,.,,.
.,,_.,,,.
,_,.,.,.
~.--
-------~---------
••·•-••••·---••·•-••••••--~--•••-•·-•--··•-·-··-·"""""'-
,.,,,_,.,.,
~
..,.,...,,.,.. ,_,_~,,..,
---~-----"---·---
,_,,,
,.,
'"""-""'""""'-''"'"'''~"'•"~•-
,
,,,,.,
,,
..-·-••••"""""'""""'"'"
,,,
,
,
,.,
,,,_,________ ,.,,_.,.. ,.,.,.n~--·-"""-"'""-·
,
-~----·-·---·-·------·--·-·-··--
COST ALLOCATION
POPULATION
100%
ANNUAL COSTS
(2001)
ASSESSMENT
__ __ ..·-------"-"•"""'""'"-··--- ...............,_,_,_____, .....,..____, _____ ,__, ......... ______,,,________ ... ............._,____.........
,,_,
,_,
,~--
$2,400,000.00
~
34,829
~·--·--
$2,217,232,893
$/YRICAPITA
....................................-----·-------..-----·-...........
$68.91
$11000
ASSESSMENT
...,.,.
____,._,,_,,__________
$1.08
,,,.,,,.,
___.................
Associated Costs- Appendix I
Page iii
2.1
COLUMBIA VALLEY SUBREGION PLAN COSTS
2.1.1
The following Reduce/Reuse programs are to be implemented for the Columbia Valley
Subregion at the following costs:
Program Component
1. Backyard Composting - including administration,
Annual
Cost
$
,
5 000
One Time
Cost
________ §.!2r.§9.~L_£i§.!EJ_g~_!i2.~ . ~J:l.Q_~_9y_f?.r,:!L~J.Q_g______________________________ ···--- -·----··----····-·-··--·-····· ·--···-··--·-·---·----2. Business Waste Audit/Recycling Directory
3. Woodwaste Diversion/Disposal
4,000
(Note:
2,000
50,000
25,000.
4. Engineering Study and Operations Plans
$
$ 59,000
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.)
2.1.2
Recycling Programs
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:
2.1.5
RE)duce/Reuse
Recycle
$
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.
Page vi
ASSOCIATED COSTS
COLUMBIA VALLEY SUBREGION
MONITORING
WELLS
CLOSURE
-~-?.-~~~-§~~--~~~-~-~Y. ~~~_!?-~!.~-~----·· --------~-~-~~~~~9.Qg________,---·--·········
* Final costs to
TOTAL
.----- ..................... -------~2!Q9.g~.9.QQ ........
o. . . . . . . . . .
RURAL
DUMPS
(CANAL FLATS)
E'N'GI'N_E:.E:'
R"'N'8. . . ___
. ___. ___. ___........._. ___ . . . . . . . . $. . . . . . .25,000
. . . . . . . . . . . _.___. _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000
.........
$1,025,000
,...OTAL
$
0
$1,025,000 *
be determinec
when closure
plans are
approved.
Debt payment
have not been
included in
operational
expenditures.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES- NEW FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
GRANT
NET TOTAL
COLUMBIA VALLEY LANDFILL
$
RURAL TRANSFER STATIONS
..
,-.-~.-·-·---·--·-········--·--·- ·-·~-----·----·----·----·-·----·--····-"·--·---~--"-·-·····---···----·
SEPTIC WASTES
···--··-..
$
91,485
$ 30,000
~---------···-·-···------·····-·····-········
··-·...·--··-·-·---·······---···--·-..
0
61,485
·-~-·-······--~---···
·----..---·-··-···---·----·····-··-------·-···--·-··---···
0
to be determined
ENGINEERING
0
$
TOTAL
91,485
. $ 30,000
$
61A85
DEBT RETIRE
$
SEPTIC WASTES
..,..,,, __ ,,_.,.,,..,,._,,..,.,.,.--•-·--•"""'"b'"'_'_"•"-'"'""''""-""-"''__ ,,.,.,.,_, ___ ,_.,,_,.,.,..,,.,.,.
-·--·---~---""'b"--•"'""-""-""-'"'"""-""-
,,_,..,,,..,_,~.,--·"""~~'"'~~·-.,-·~-'"'~-~--·
$
86,485
$
0
$
"
"
"
"
"
5,000
85,000
775,000
"'~'~""""""_'_""'""•_,__.,.,_.,~--·-w~
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL
,__
"
, __ ,,._
"
-
'
STATION
OPERATIONS
.....TRANSFER
_.............__________.,..,.... ...... ,_,_______
,., _____ ,............. _______________ , ______ , __ , ........... _______ ,,_, .......- ............................................... ........... _
............... ___..,.____,................._.............,_....,.......- ............. ,
_
360,000
160,000
__ ..________
..__ ..
..... _b""'"""'"'"'""'"" ___ """""'"'"-'""""'-"'"'_"___,,..,,,..,,_,.,_,.,.,.,,.,.,
-
,~
"
....--..........,,.,_,.,,,.,.,.,..,.,,., '""""""" _ _ _ _ ..
·
,_,,.,~--
-
·-""""""""""__
-
,,_,~---•"'"""""""0-'
-
..-,.....,__
~
--·--~-----·•'"'h•<-o••••-''-'''"•~·-·~-•oP0~----••••••~------~---
_
LANDFILL OPERATIONS
•-••o••..
86,485
,
$
ANNUAL COSTS
....
COST ALLOCATION
ANNUAL COSTS
"""""'-'"'-""'-""""-'"·---'""''"""'""4""""""
$775,000.00
POPULATION
(2001)
100%
ASSESSMENT
$/YR!CAPITA
,.,,. __ ,.,,n,.W"'""""-"-""'""_'_"_'"'"--"""-""" ---"'"''""'""""'"'"'-""-''--"-""'"'"""""""""' .,__.,,.,,._,.,,.,..,,.,..,.,,,.__ ,. .,.,,.,,., ..-,.....,.,_.,.,_,.,._.. _
8,136
$1,379,785,685
$95.26
$11000
ASSESSMENT
"""'-~""'"""'""""'"'"'-""'""'""'""'"''"""''"'""""""-
$0.56
Associated Costs -Appendix I
Page vii
3.1
ELK VALLEY SUBREGION PLAN COSTS
3.1.1
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
3. Composting/Woodwaste Diversion
Annual
Cost
$
One Time
Cost
3,000
2,000
30,000
4. Tipping Fee/Variable Rate/User Pay Analysis
3.1.2
$ 35,000
Recycling Programs
3.1.2.1
The City of Fernie may allocate a maximum of $75,000 per year toward recycling
programs.
3.1.2.2
The District of Sparwood may allocate a maximum of $50,000 per year toward recycling programs.
3.1.2.3
The District of Elkford may allocate a maximum of $25,000 per year toward recycling
programs.
3.1.2.4
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
$
35,000
. 155,000
827,800
$
1.017.800
Associated Costs - Appendix f
Page ix
3.1.4
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.
Page x
ASSOCIATED COSTS
CLOSURE
ELKFORD
FERNIE
$
--~·········-~-----~-----·····--~---------------·-----·-·····--~----
·-·-··········--------···-···-···-·--·-----------~--
.,,.,,._,,_,~--~--
..
90,000
140,000
~-""'•"""'-"'"~"'-"'""'
_____ .,
,
TOTAL
$ 10,000
15,000
$ 100,000
. ····-·-··-·····-····-·-··-155,000
--------------------..···-··------...--.. ---···--------·---······--·---- ····--··--·-····-·-·-..·····-·-----·-·····--·---·-···------···-····.. -··--·-·-
..------·-· ----·········----..·-···---·-··--·--.. ...---··---······-···-····-····-···--"······
SPARWOOD
RDEK ...............- ..............________________ __
--·-·--··-----·-ENGINEERING
.......,.... _,, .....
MONITORING WELLS
.,
----------~---------------
110,000
35,000
___________.._,.,_.._, _____ .............._. _________,_..___ ..-..-................
'''""-----"~'''""'"""
_____ ...,,,,.,,,.,,..................
~,.,,.
.._.
$
TOTAL
~-------------------·-·-·-·-···---·~··---·········~-~·-""-·-·~~--.
20,000
130,000
5,000 _,__.,_................. ··-----.-----------....... .................
40,000......_............ ____
....................................................
...,_,,,,.,,,., - ....,_,_, _________
included
..···----------·······--······-------·-·
-----------~---·•'-'"""---······-···-----
.,.,.,,.,.,,.,,_~.,----"'"'"-"'""-'""""-""
•'"""""'"'"-M''"""-""•"""--•-·"'""'"'"--·-·--·--""""'""""
~-
375,000
,..
~-·-·-
included
0
$ 425,000 *
$ 50,000
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES .. NEW FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
L§~~FORD
/!~.§~~-!.~........
SPARWOOD
$
NET TOTAL
800,000
··-· --·--·-·---·- -·-- ·-·--. -- " "" ----~~~~Q~~0-~·-1,500,000
$
SEPTIC..···--·--··-·------··"--"-----··-------·---·--·------·
WASTES
..·-ENGINEERING
~---·----·
.... - ......
1,500,000
50,000
-------· ---·-·-......._..... 50,000
..
............_ ............___..
~·----
~·-·----·---
800,000
·- ----- ...... --- ··-· "" ------~~~~g~g9g. --
50,000
WILDLIFE MITIGATION
.................
GRANT
~_-,_
..
,_.........____........ _............... ............. .........--......
~
50,000
~----
..............
-~
$ 4,000,000
TOTAL
..··-·----
0
included
0
$
$ 4,000,000
*
*Costs are
estimated.
$ 4,000,000
TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS
3 R'S
.....SEPTIC
- ........ ___________ WASTES
....·-·-·-··---.. --.........,_.,_...........
..--------·----- .....
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL
,_.,
-.~----··
---~··-·--·-
DEBT RETIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
$ 310,000
$ 310,000
582,500
190,000
......._..____.,.,..........,_,_..,__ ,__, __.........-....- ...-.
$ 4,000,000
........--......---·--·-----..................
-~·-·
$ 310,000
5,000
.. -·-·- ......- ...._.,_..,.. ____ _______
, __ ......----·--.... _.
,
85,000
$1,172,500
COST ALLOCATION
ANNUAL COSTS
POPULATION
(2001)
100%
ASSESSMENT
$/YRICAPITA
$11000
ASSESSMENT
!·-···················-···---·········--··--··-·-················ ·-·····-·-·········-····--···-······-·-·-·····-··········-··· ·----····-·-······-··---·····---···--····--· ············-···-····--·-····-··-·······--······-·····--····-·· -·······-········-····-·-···-····-····--··-····--·
$1,172,500.00
13,399
$1,140,518,986
$87.51
$1.03
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
Central
Reduce/Reuse
$
Recycle
Residual Man.
Subtotal
·--·--···-···-···~--
$
240,000
TOTAL
59,000
$
35,000
$
334,000
100,000
155,000
655,000
1,640,000
531,000
742,800
2,913,800
932,800
$ 3,902,800
85,000
85,000
290,000
775,000
$ 1,017,800
$ 4,192,800
2,280,000
$
2,400,000
690,000
·--·~·····-·-·--·-·--·----······-·-·--·-----~-···-·
120,000
$
Elk Valley
Columbia Valley
$
Total
--·······-·--··-~- --~-·---·~-...--~-·--······-----··-··-····-······-·-··
400,000
. ------·-···-······-··-··-·--··· ·-·-··---·-·····-····-··---. --·-··-···-··--·--
Administration
''"-····-·-·-·-···-··---..
$
$
.....----··---·--·····--·-·-·-····-..-·. -·--··-...··· ________..____..,______, ..... -----··-..·--·--·----·
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
Fernie
-Valley Echo
lnvermere
- Elk Valley Minor
Sparwood
~ Kootenay Advertiser
Cranbrook and Rural
- The Daily Bulletin
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
J
support of a partirular item to rejectiqn.
j
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
Date
Windermere
Sparwood
Cranbrook
Approximately
Number of AttendeeS· ·
location
August 14/91 Windermere Community Hall
October 10/91 Black Nugget Inn
October 8/91 Town and Country Inn
Stage II
Windermere
Sparwood
Cranbrook
Cranbrook
,:·
40
40
35
..
Approximate
Number of Attendees
Date
location
May 21/92
May 19/92
May 20/92
july 28/92
Windermere Elementary School
Black Nugget Inn
Town and Country Inn
Town and Country Inn
10
30
2513--
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
00
n
•
:~ .:~:~--.
_,.
/;(/
./
::
~ ~,·-:.:r:;~;O ·:~~·;·"""'"'"''
.-- ;;..)
"_/. . . .·/' i--_:
-..._:•· l..-';~C . .
/
I
I
/
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
POlENTIAl
PROJfCTED
COST
DMRSION
.
-
$10,000
Political Activities
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
(granting programs) .
$1 0,000 to $80,000
-
Grasscycling
(encourage peopl.e to keep clippings on lawns)
$5,000
.
-
Direct~
of Services·.
.
(Where can you rent or repair)
"' "
.,.
Up to 10% during lawn mowing
season ..
...
.....
$2,500 to $3,500
.
.
Media Campaign
$11,000/newsletter
Master Composter Programs
(composter education program)
$35,000, plus sale of
composter at $45 each
Up to 10% of waste stream
Tipping Fees
(charging at landfills)
$50,000/site plus staff costs
of up to $42,000/year
up to 10%
Variable Disposal Rate
Cpay as you throw away)
$35,000 to $60,000 to
analyze and set-up
up to 20%
Tipping fees and Variable Rate Charges
.
.
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
_Capital Cost $40,000/site ... ·.
· -(orderly organization to allow proper salvaging)
~.rnual Cost $10,000/year
Reduction Potential up to So/o of waste stream
Materials Exchange
Staff time estimated at $5,000/year
(inventory of businesses that can utilize other wastes)
As previously defined, the Reuse options would be best implemented as part of an overall
Reduce/Reuse program.
-5•
RECYCLING
In the Stage I process a number of possible options were considered for evaluation at Stage II of the
plan.
All recycling programs consist of three basic elements: collection of recyclable materials, processing
these materials so they may be sold, and transporting materials from the collecti()n point to the
processing point and then to market.
The following six recycling options address how specific components of the Regional Di~trict's waste
stream could be collected, transported to a processing centre and processed:
Option A-
Unstaffed collection stations for residentially generated recyclables;
Option B-
Staffed collection stations for residentially generated recyclables;
Option C-
Curbside collection in Cranbrook and Kimberley; unstaffed collecti<?n stations
in remaining areas for residentially generated recyclables;
Option 0 -
White goods and ferrous metals collection at iandfiils and transfer stati9ns;
.·•.
Option E-
Backyard composting.
Options A 1, A2 an~ B describe three alternatives for collecting recyclables generated in residences.
The option selected by the Regional District will provide the frame work for District-wide recycling
program. The Regional District could choose all or none of Options C, D, and E, but if chosen, the
options would be combined with either Option A1, A2 or B.
The analysis of these recycling options includes an evaluation of collection, processing the cost of
transportation to markets, as well as projected revenues from sale of recyclables.
-6-
The outcome of this analysis is summarized as follows:
..
%DIVERSION
NET PROGRAM COST
($/yr)
CHOOSE 1 OF 3
A.1 Residential, unstaffed drop
'
COST/TON
(low market value)
$440
$250,000
1.6
$318,000
1.8
$490
3.7
$295
$103,300
3.3·
$90
$52,000
0.8
$185
off
A.2 Residential, staffed centres
and unstaffed sites
B.
$388,100
Curbside collection,
Cranbrook & Kimberley
ADD ON OPTIONS
,........
Commercial rurbside
collection (6 centres)
D.
White goods and ferrous
metals
.
E.
Backyard composting
...
~
•
"!,
;).........
'
Included in reduction
program
"
.,....
.......
.
~
......
..
3.1
-
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
$3.5 M
$100/ton
Windermere Area
$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)
iii)
ii)
Three Landfills
•
Windermere
•
Cranbrook Area
~
Elk Valley ·
Four Landfi~ls
,.
•
•
•
•
iV)
..
Four Landfills
•
•
•
Cranbrook
0
Elk Valley
Windermere
Kimberley
......
...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. ~··:
-9-
·-
,...
·\e
TABLE 1
RESIDUAl MANAGEMENT OPTIONS SELECTION OF REGIONAl lANDFILL SITES
OPTION
TOTAL ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COST
1
3 landfills
o Windermere
o Cranbrook
o Sparwood 1 B
$1,650,000
2
4 landfills
o
o
o
o
Windermere
Cranbrook
Kimberley
Sparwood 1 B
$1,675,000
3
4 landfills
o
o
o
o
Windermere
Cranbrook
SparWood . 1 B
Baynes lake
$1,760,000
4
5 landfills
o
o
o
o
o
Windermere
Cranbrook
Kimberley
Sparwood 1B
Baynes lake 1D
$1,760,000
_J_ABLE 2
., :
~
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
SELECTION Of TRANSFER SYSTEM
.
OPTION
1
Elk Valley:
Cranbrook Area:
Columbia Valley:
2
Container Haul
3
Elk Valley:
Cranbrook:
Columbia:
4
Container Haul, no transfer
stations at Fernie or Elkford
TOTAL ESTIMATED
ANNUAL COST
$375,575
Transtor
Transtor
Container
$483,565
Transtor
Haul All
Haul All
$451A75
$341,000
- 10-
.
"
TABLE
3
REGIOIW. DISTRICT OF EAST IC001'1EW\Y
SlJ'IIIIWtY OF (I)TIOI14S MD PROGRM COSTS
i
RESIDWI.L IW8AGB!iEtiT OPTIOIS
PROGRAMS & OPTlm.IS
~
PROGIItAM CAPITAL
DEBT
s
RETIRBEJrr
AJGUU. OPERATIIOIII
MD
Mi~
TOTAl ADUAl aJST
Ul4IT COST
AMTICIPATED DIVERSION
$/YR
S/t
X t.MSTE
~t
r·
I
(Diet of Rewnue) S/Yr
S/YR
f.
l
Base Programs:
I
landfill closures
Transfer systems
LandfiLls
835,000
1,960,000
1,240,000
$/Total
4,035,000
-
117,000
274,000
174,000
565,000
194,000
864,000
117,000
468,000
1,038,000
1,058,000
1,623,000
46.50
4.25
7,500
53
}
!
'
Optional Programs:
\.leighscales
300,000
Hazardous waste
Waste wood grinding
Septage facilities
75,000
0
100,000
$/Total
Total
Comparative 1991 Cost
475,000
4,510,000
.
·.
42,000
11,000
0
14,000
106,000
90,000
70,000
16,000
148,000
106,000
70,000
30,000
67,000
287,000
354,000
632,000
1,345,000
1,977,000
1,120,000
11
see reduce
0.04
5.0
7.9
'
excluding o/h
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
Possible diversion in excess of 30%
Program Costs up to $400,000/year
Approximately $18/year/household
Reuse
Salvaging $15,000/year
Up to 5o/o diversion
Materials exchange $5,000/year
· Recydirig
High End $542,000/year
Potential diversion 10.9%
Low End $250;200/year ·
Potential diversion 1.6o/o
Approximately $11 to $25 /year/household
Residual Management
$1,977,000/year (excluding o/h)
Includes 13% diversion
Approximate cost of $90/year/household
Existing costs $1,120,000/year Oncluding o/h)
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
3 = Dmgree
2 =Agree
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}?
Please check one:
Disagree
Agree _; ..1>
..<i
1
2
3
4
The RDEK should initiate a source reduction and
reuse program as it's highest priority in a
Solid Waste Management Plan.
0
0
0
0
The RDEK should promote reduction legislation
at the Provincial and Federal levels.
0
0
0
0
The RDEK should institute public education programs to
achieve reduction and reuse in the solid waste stream.
0
0
0
0
REDUCE AND REUSE
Agree - - - Disagree
1
2
3
4
reduction and reuse of my waste.
0
0
0
0
I presently compost the majority of my garden/food wastes.
0
0
0
0
If available, I would enrole in a composter training program.
0
0
0
0
Making people pay more for throwing away more is
a good system.
0
0
0
0
If people had to· pay to use a landfill I would expect
more litter.
0
0
0
0
I would respond to public education programs about
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
- 2-
$10- 15
Agree - · · - · · · - · Disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
- drop boxes throughout the Regional District;
0
0
0
0
- staffed drop-off centres throughout the Regional District;
0
0
0
0
- I would support collection of businesses recyclables;
0
0
0
0
- I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary L:a.ndfills.
0
0
0
0
I would be comfortable using a transfer station instead
of my local landfill.
0
0
0
0
I would be comfortable with the strategy of hauling waste from
rural areas to centralized regional landfills.
0
0
0
0
I would support and use a household hazardous waste
collection system.
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:
1
RECOVERY
I agree that con~ruction of incinerators be eliminated
as an option to be considered.
RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT
••• ,
·:"P
·~
..
Agree ·········-····- Disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
a) bring wood waste to such a facility;
0
0
o·
0
b) use chipped wood from such a facility for mulch
or home composting;
0
0
0
0
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:
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
$120- 130
0
0
$130- 140
1!1 ••
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 24th Avenue South, Cranbrook, B.C., V1C 3H8).
a
Your comments would be greatly appreciated if received by May 29, 1992.
-4-
.r~,.,
~~.,.,,....;tz,l~/i>-W ......... .,.,__ ...,..., ....,,,,,,.,
•'
., •'
•••
,••·~••••'••·•'
'
•
) Additional comments: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - -
Thank you for completing this questionnaire .
/·
REGIONAl DISTRICT EAST KOOTENAY
SOUO WASTE MANAGEMENT PlAN
Added Cost for Haulage From Area A to Area
t/yr
Added Distance (km)
t/km
Added Cost $ jyr
Efkford
1700
64
109,000
$ 100,000
Sparwood
2600
64
166,000
150,000
Fernie
3840
10
38,400
35,000
TOTALS
8140
313,400
$ 285,000
Area
.
In addition we would have to build a transfer station serving Sparwood.
Approximate Cost
$ 140,000
Annual Cost
$ 20,000/yr
$ 20,000
$ 305,000/yr
TOTAL ADDITIONAl COST
..... ·.'- ..
J .
-~
;.
SPARWOOO
May 19, 1992
Public Input Meeting Comments
landfill:
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.
Taxation:
Preference for per capita taxation was raised.
Recycling:
Questions were raised concerning the validity of the cost/tonne for recycling
option.
Coundl Meeting Comments
Reduce/Reuse:
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.
Recycling:
Concerns raised about marketing.
Composting - concerns raised about attracting rats.
Residual:
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:
Concerns raised that littering could result.
User Fees:
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.
Cranbrook landfill:
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.
Recycling:
Suggestion was made that recycling drop off could be located at major stores
and staffed by store personnel.
T_ire Disposal:
A point was raised that an incentive program for tire shipping does not allow
shiP.ping to Alberta.· ..
· . ·.··' : · ·
·
.......
... •·
...
.
May 21, 1992
WINDERMERE
Public Advisory and Public Meeting Comments
Reduce/Reuse:
Discussion held concerning car body reuse.
Support expressed for shipping of wood waste and centralized composting.
Supportive of legislative reduction.
Recycling:
RDEK encouraged to take over recycling.
location of recycling depots critical to increase convenience for drop off.
Residual:
Diversion of hazardous waste most important.
REGIONAL DISTRICT EAST KOOTENAY
QUESTIONNAIRE SUMivlARY- SPARWOOD AREA
WEIGHTED AVERAGE RESPONSE
QUESTION
REDUCE AND REUSE
.
.
The RDEK should initiate a source reduction and reuse program
as it's highest priority in a Solid Waste Management Plan.
1.4
The RDEK should promote reduction legislation at the Provincial
and Federal levels.
1.3
The RDEK should institute public education programs to achieve
reduction and reuse in the solid waste stream.
1.3
I would respond to public education programs about reduction
and reuse of my waste.
1.8
2.7
If available, I would enrol in a com poster training program~ ,
2.5
Making people pay more for throwing away more is a good system.
2.4
If people had to pa~ to use a la11dfill I would expect more litter.
2.0
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).
3.0
RECYCLE
The RDEK should initiate a recycling program as it's highest
priority in a solid waste management plan.
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
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.6
QUESTION
RECOVERY
I agree that construction of incinerators be eliminated as
an option to be considered.
1.6
RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT
I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary landfills.
1.4
I would be comfortable using a transfer station instead of my
local landfill.
2.1
rural areas to centralized regional landfilts.
2.0
I would support and use a household hazardous waste collection
system.
1.3
I have a septic tank and therefore expect to use a septic sludge
facility at some point.
·
2.7
·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
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 2550%. 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 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~
•
~-••,
·~·
•• I>
·\
4
....
·~-..
I
/;:'.;J ('rvf7' ;yt~S 91'":"/
? ??/7,5
_> 2/?CJ7P//.;-"!:re;{.!..t -:/Ofp'V/
([?J-··v·"YJ !7.-t. '..) ..f"~· tv</
,.J. 7_.:.":11'1 ~~?.f(7'
_;;)//'!".?·~....=-'
,..,.~//.-1- :i/.71.:/0 7/:">n_~f{',?.,l/ I _f. . .>lOJ-/
_;;g o_.t.. .>c,....U. a~v Yc/t7 ~f b.' fV!.? .> / P'?;:YP" _:;;ts;Y.n,.,.,)
,-.·p~f'/Vtt(;:/X..£1
/.::<;N !'•'{.,
:7 ?-t::'C,.,r-r?
_:>;rro_t,"'t...J ,fP
,r-~;,t1:'W/"'
L"?
('<:'t"ft'1.::..1't-/.:t
.5-:::J/7?1"'/1
o;~?~;;>A·, .....
::>e
CJ'U·'I>n')
:?,.,,
0.7t;TI,.t"'V.P0."
.,..!.t.'~a~...;
/V.'9·?0
(J.?."v~t·'v:.'
:;> ..v~J'"><.:?
,...;_.t.&".:c-~<"3'c'
lr,~"~-'
,f/YH
i/_~t/
,_.,~.? /;71(2
-
...J;~,t/.s _;?,.,!//
07/"t.fPJI'cl
/"W/t,t./1'11
.IJ·..,,¥.?1/
~tv.Pi':/YI'P;J
Oflltf' fZ/?..S/7
JYi"~l_.,!.cr.??tJ/..<r.'p::J
;;;'P,..d
o~--~1M3/f./c?(.S'
;:'?<7;/
~'..?(!.-v,7
ff/.tVtr'1
r..'v
'Z/179 J'VP
;ji/e:c..t..$.? rv?
1
f.J....vpv/i-:!,?~7
-
f,£?//"'W/
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
QUESTION
REDUCE AND REUSE
,,
1.2
and Federal Levels.
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.7
If available, I would enrol in a composter training program.
1.8
Making people pay more for throwing away more .is a good system.
1.7
If people had to pay
t«?
use
J· landfill I would expect more litter.
1.8
The cost of a reduction program van range significantly.
~.. ·
We are suggesting up to $400,000 per year or approximately' $18
so RDEK can undertake a reduction/reuse program (1 - $0-5,
3.8
2- $5-10, 3- $10-15, 4- $15-20).
RECYCLE
1.4
I would support collection of businesses recyclables;
I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods;
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.4
1
QUESTION
RECOVERY
1.8
RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT
I support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary landfills.
1.3
local landfill.
1.6
1.8
I would support and use a household hazardous waste collection
system.
1.2
I have a septic tank and therefore expect to use a septic sludge
·
1.4
- facility at some point.
·.
If a wood grinding facility was provided at transfer stations
a)
bring wood waste to such a facility;
b)
use chipped wood from such a facility for mulch or
home.compost!ng. - ·_
.
.,
.
..
.
'
...
1.2
.....
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
1.6
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 10 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
Date:
19 - 24th Avenue South
Cranbrook, B.C.
VlC 3H8
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, responsibility 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
WEIGHTID AVERAGE RESPONSE
QUESTION
REDUCE AND REUSE
1.1
and Federal levels.
1.3
1.1
1.1
2.4
If available, I would enrol in a composter training program.
1.3
Making people pay more for throwing away more is a good system.
1.7
If people had to pay to use a landfill I would expect more litter.
1.7
The cost of a reduction program ca~ range significantly.
We are suggesting up to $400,000 per year or approximately $18
so RDEK can undertake a reduction/reuse program (1 - $0-5,
2- $5-10, 3- $10-15, 4- $15-20).
.
3.6
RECYCLE
2.0
I would support collection of businesses recyclables;
. I would support recycling of ferrous and white goods;
Blue Box.
·
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.1
1.0
~
1
... ,
i
i
RECOVERY
·
2.7
RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT
i support stricter guidelines in operating Sanitary Landfills.
1.9
local landfill.
2.0
2.0
I would support and
system.
use a household hazardous waste collection
1.1
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
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
2.5
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
February 23
February 25
· February 25, March 3
March 3, 6
Kootenay Advertiser
Valley Echo
March 6, 27
March 8, 29
Kootenay Advertiser
Free Press
Ange Wagstaff
March 20
March 23
FILE NO.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO:
Stephen Mcinnis
FROM:
Loree Duczek
DATE:
March 21, 2000
SUBJECT:
Radio Coverage of Public Meetings
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
Was a
Marysville
Cranbrook
Baynes Lake
Windermere
Radium
Canal Flats
Elkford
Sparwood
Fernie
Fairmont
Date
February 29
March 1
March 7
March 8
March 14
March 15
March 16
March 28
March 29
March 30
April1
No. Attending
9
4
27
17
12
3
0
12
13
38
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
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
e
•
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,
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,
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
Cl)
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.
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.
•
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:
•
•
e
•
•
alternate daily cover;
weigh scales, if tonnage dictates;
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
o
That the Central Subregion open burn clean wood waste at the Wasa and Tie
Lake transfer sites.
That the Central Subregion trench burn clean wood waste, per conditions to be
determined in the Operational Certificate for the Central Landfill.
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·
.
I
April2000
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan- Public Meetings
Comments Compilation
Aprii2000
CENTRAL SUBREGION
. 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
7.
.
Aprii2000
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.
April 2000
It would be nice to have a place for firewood at the transfer stations for people to use.
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 $5 or less a month. Maybe a 1%
increase if the amount went to so"lid wastellandfill curbside recycling.
Thank you for the comment on the landfill site. In regards to the blue box program, this is generally a
municipal iss.ue but we will have ongoing discussions with all the municipalities about blue box
programs ~md perhaps incorporating into our recycling contract if the municipalities wish to do that.
19. I feel the RDEK needs to make recycling opportunities equal for all businesses involved in
recycling or trying to divert recyclables from the waste stream.
·
The RDEK is reassessing its recycling service needs and looking toward drafting a new Terms of
Reference before entering into another long-term agreement.
,.
Regional Solid Wa?te Management Plan- Public Meetings
~
April 2000
OPEN BURNING:
20.
If they allow fo.re$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.
sl~sh
22.
If the Ministry supports
23.
COMMENTS FROM BAYNES LAKE ON OPEN BURNING: I'm ail for it. Two thumbs up. I'll light it.
I'll watch it.
·
burns, why not bend for you.
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.
The Minister approved no burning.
25. 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.
·
27.
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.
28. 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
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:
•
0
•
o
•
o
composting,
dust and moisture control,
supplying wood to ihe CFI cogeneration facility,
wood diversion activities such as recycling wood pallets,
public access to clean wood chips or clean wood, and
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
and I would like to se~ it addressed.
us
{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
Apri/2000
Landfill Footprint
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?
1
55. The one in Cranbrook is built in a hole compared to this one. This is not sittint_f on 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
days off. That is something to think about. ·
61.
4~and-4
that can't get there on their
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.

RDEK Regional Solid Waste Management Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Tacky Toque Edition - Elkford Public Library

Solid Waste Services

Recycling Bloopers

T:\Working Site Plans\_Malls Site\Imperial Valley SP arch.dwg, 3/28

Introducing Envirosealed Windows from Vytex the industry`s most

INSIDE High Climbers

to PDF

Wednesday, March 20 6 to 8 p.m. Centerra Mirage Elementary

HHR group 2013 ltrhd - Valley of Fear and The Original Haunted