Metro Vancouver Regional District · 2014-08-20 · AGENDA GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE...
Transcript of Metro Vancouver Regional District · 2014-08-20 · AGENDA GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE...
-
AGENDA
GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Friday, July 18, 2008 9:00 a.m.
2nd Floor Boardroom
4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia
Please advise Kelly Weilbacher at (604) 432-6250 if you are unable to attend.
Chair Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Kim Capri, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby
Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner, J. Carline*
* Non-voting member.
-
This page left blank intentionally.
-
July 9, 2008
NOTICE TO THE GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE
DISTRICT BOARD You are requested to attend a Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
A G E N D A A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. July 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 18, 2008 as circulated.
B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
1. June 27, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held June 27, 2008 as circulated.
C. DELEGATIONS
No items presented.
D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.
E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1. WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORTS 1.1 Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation
Program Results Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results dated June 12, 2008 for information.
Section A 1
SDD - 1
-
1.2 Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results dated June 12, 2008 for information.
1.3 GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2007 Financial Results Waste Management Committee and Finance Committee Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated June 13, 2008 titled “GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2007 Financial Results”.
1.4 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 16th Avenue and 52nd
Street, Corporation of Delta Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the area located west of 52nd Street along 16th Avenue in the Corporation of Delta as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 36 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 16th Avenue and 52nd Street, Corporation of Delta”.
1.5 Powell River Regional District - Waste Disposal Agreement Renewal
Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board authorize the Commissioner to: a) Renew the existing GVS&DD/Powell River Regional District Agreement for
Waste Disposal at Cache Creek under the existing terms and conditions for a one year term expiring December 31, 2009, subject to the necessary approvals being obtained by the Powell River Regional District from the Thompson Nicola Regional District and the Village of Cache Creek; and
b) Carry out any amendments to other agreements as necessary to effect the above.
1.6 Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plans Reference Panels: Amendment
to the Terms of Reference Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board amend the Terms of Reference for the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plans Reference Panels to extend their mandate until the draft plans are submitted to the Metro Vancouver Board for final approval.
1.7 Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Planning
Waste Management Committee Recommendations: That the Board direct staff to issue a non-binding call for an Expressions of Interest (EOI) inquiring as to the current availability of existing solid waste disposal/ processing options in the United States, and to carry out public consultation on the options identified as a result. That the Board approve the distribution of the attached letter to all member municipalities in order to seek out their interest in supplying information on potential areas or sites which they would make available and where waste-to-energy could be integrated into existing land use or proposed land development, giving particular attention to the available synergies of coupling to existing or proposed district energy systems.
SDD - 2
-
F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA
No items presented. H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
No items presented.
I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item the basis must be included below. Staff Recommendation: That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for July 18, 2008 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) and 90 (1) (g) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter
being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the
board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district;”
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district.”
K. ADJOURNMENT Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of July 18, 2008.
SDD - 3
-
This page left blank intentionally.
SDD - 4
-
MINUTES
SDD - 5
-
This page left blank intentionally.
SDD - 6
-
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, June 27, 2008 Page 1 of 3
GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held at 9:11 a.m. on Friday, June 27, 2008 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Kim Capri, Vancouver Alternate Director George Chow, Vancouver for Suzanne Anton Alternate Director Mike Clay, Port Moody for Joe Trasolini Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Judy Forster. White Rock Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Alternate Director Judy Higginbotham, Surrey for Dianne Watts Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Alternate Director Dan Johnston, Burnaby for Derek Corrigan Alternate Director Mel Kositsky, Langley
Township for Kurt Alberts
Alternate Director Barrie Lynch, Coquitlam for Maxine Wilson
Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver (arrived at
9:11 a.m.) Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver
District Director Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner Johnny Carline*
MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver
Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby
STAFF PRESENT: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department
Marla Minichiello, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. June 27, 2008 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 27, 2008 as circulated.
CARRIED * Non-voting member.
SDD - 7
SECTION B 1
-
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, June 27, 2008 Page 2 of 3
B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
1. May 23, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held May 23, 2008 as circulated.
CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS
No items presented.
D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
9:11 a.m.
Director Sullivan arrived at the meeting
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendation contained in the following items presented in the June 27, 2008 GVS&DD Consent Agenda: 1.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2008
CARRIED The item and recommendation referred to above is as follows: 1.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2008
Report dated June 18, 2008 from Kelly Weilbacher, Assistant to the Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department, providing for information Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2008”. Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated June 18, 2008, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2008”.
Adopted on Consent
F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items presented.
G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT
AGENDA No items presented.
H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.
SDD - 8
-
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, June 27, 2008 Page 3 of 3
I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for June 27, 2008 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or
improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”
CARRIED
K. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of June 27, 2008.
CARRIED (Time: 9:11 a.m)
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary
Lois E. Jackson, Chair
004639084 FINAL
SDD - 9
-
This page left blank intentionally.
SDD - 10
-
CONSENT AGENDA
SDD - 11
-
This page left blank intentionally.
SDD - 12
-
004641666
Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: July 9, 2008
To: Waste Management Committee From: Marie Griggs, Public Involvement Division Manager Engineering and Construction Department Date: June 12, 2008 Subject: Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation
Program Results
Recommendation: That the Board receive the report titled Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results dated June 12, 2008 for information. 1. PURPOSE This report summarizes the consultation program and the input received on the proposed strategies for updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) between March 6 and May 30, 2008. The LWMP was concurrently reviewed with the strategies for updating the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) under the framework of the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI). This approach is consistent with the concurrent review in 2005 of the Drinking Water Management Plan, Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Parks and Greenways Plan. Consultation results for the SWMP are the subject of a separate report contained in this agenda. Sections 2.1 to 2.3 outline the overall consultation program for both plans. References to some specific LWMP activities are contained in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.5. A summary of the input received on the LWMP is contained in Section 2.4. 2. CONTEXT On February 29, 2008 the GVS&DD Board approved a consultation program to review strategies contained in two discussion documents for updating the Liquid and Solid Waste Management Plans. The documents presented key issues, opportunities, and actions to improve upon the existing plans. This initial phase of consultation on the plans fulfills Metro Vancouver’s commitment to consult with residents and its member municipalities on major initiatives and plans. In addition, in order to meet Provincial regulatory requirements for updating these plans a summary of the recently completed process on the strategies and all future consultation activities on the draft plans will be submitted to the Province for review.
Section E 1.1
SDD - 13
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008 Page 2 of 9
004641666
Following receipt of the draft Liquid and Solid Waste Management Plans by the Waste Management Committee and GVS&DD Board, Metro Vancouver will initiate a further consultation process on those draft documents. The following sections provide an overview of the results of the concurrent consultation program on the strategies to update both the LWMP and the SWMP. 2.1 Objectives The LWMP and SWMP strategy consultation program was implemented with the following objectives:
• inform Metro Vancouver residents about the issues and options under review within the LWMP and SWMP, and the links among plans under the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI)
• inform member municipalities, public and key interest groups about the opportunity to comment on the goals, and strategies for the plans
• provide a variety of methods for submitting comments • document and summarize all input for consideration in developing the draft LWMP
and SWMP, and • provide a summary of input and activities in a consultation report.
2.2 Program Overview The consultation program was structured to encourage residents, municipal elected officials and their staff, First Nations, business representatives, and interest groups to participate and provide input. The deadline for input on the strategies was originally May 23, but was extended to May 30, 2008 to accommodate participants following the ninth public meeting which was added at the request of Delta Council. While consultation with other government agencies was initiated during this consultation period it did not form a significant component of the process. It is expected that once the draft plans are ready for consultation, more substantial input will be forthcoming from other government agencies and jurisdictions. The next section of this report provides further details regarding individual program components. 2.3 Components 2.3.1 Public Meetings Nine public meetings attended by approximately 350 participants were held throughout the region between April 8 and May 21, 2008 to gather input on the LWMP and SWMP strategies. Participants at the meetings included residents, political representatives, and representatives of business, community, environmental and recreational organizations, and students and academics. At these evening meetings opening remarks were made by an elected official from the host municipality, followed by a two-part agenda with presentations on both the LWMP and the SWMP. Each presentation was followed by opportunities for public questions and input using the feedback form as a discussion guide. At the end of each meeting a member of Metro Vancouver’s Waste Management Committee made closing remarks and summarized
SDD - 14
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008
Page 3 of 9
004641666
some of the key issues and comments raised. The dates and locations of the meeting series are summarized in the table in Section 2.3.2. 2.3.2 Municipal Consultation The municipal consultation program for the LWMP and SWMP consisted of workshops for elected officials and their staff held during the day on the same date and for the most part at the same venue as the public meetings, and meetings with technical subcommittees. Approximately 100 municipal representatives attended the workshops. At the initiation of the consultation program correspondence was sent to Mayors and Councils of member municipalities informing them about the public meeting schedule and the opportunity to provide input via the municipal workshops. Information was also sent separately to members of the Regional Administrators Advisory Committee (RAAC), Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) and their liquid and solid waste sub-committees, and municipal waste reduction coordinators. In addition to the municipal workshops, presentations were made separately to councils and a series of technical sub-committee meetings took place. Several of the meetings took place outside this consultation reporting period; however they have been listed here to document the work of the committees. The following is a summary of the meeting activities in 2008:
• Presentations on the LWMP and SWMP to City of Langley Council (April 7), New Westminster Council (April 7)
• REAC briefed on the potential actions and commitments contained in the strategy documents (February 8, March 7, April 4, May 23, June 20)
• REAC Liquid Waste Sub-committee provided input on the draft LWMP (January 17, February 21, April 3, May 6, May 15, June 3, June 19)
• Sewerage Area Technical Committees: Vancouver (February 14, April 4); Fraser (February 26, April 9); North Shore (February 27, April 2)
• Meeting with New Westminster technical staff (April 29). The following chart summarizes the public meeting and municipal workshop series: Public Meetings and Municipal Workshops Locations/Geographic Areas Note: Italics denote meeting location
Date (2008)
North Delta, North Surrey April 8 Richmond, Tsawwassen, Ladner April 15 Burnaby, New Westminster April 17 City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver,
West Vancouver, Lions Bay, Bowen Island April 22
Vancouver, Electoral Area A April 23 Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra April 29 Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows April 30 Langley City/Langley Township, South Surrey, White Rock May 6 Delta May 21
2.3.3 Reference Panels
SDD - 15
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008 Page 4 of 9
004641666
Two Reference Panels were formed with the approval of the Waste Management Committee and GVS&DD Board to provide additional input during the consultation process for the LWMP and SWMP strategy and draft plan reviews. Each panel includes nine (9) representatives residing or working in Metro Vancouver, with three individuals in each of the following categories: residents or representatives of non-governmental organizations; technical experts in the field of liquid waste and solid waste management or related fields; and representatives of industry that can provide input into the practical impacts of implementing each of the management plans. Three meetings (May 8, 14 and 29) of each panel took place for members to receive presentations on aspects of the strategies and to discuss the information in more detail. At two of the meetings the panels met together briefly to discuss linkages between the plans and to share their perspectives on waste management. At the May 29th meeting, each panel selected their representatives to speak to the Waste Management Committee as per the approved Terms of Reference. Representatives will speak to the Committee on July 9 as invited delegations to provide feedback on the strategies. Due to the extended timeframe for consultation on the draft plans, it is recommended in another report in this agenda that the consultation period in the Terms of Reference be amended from “April to June 2008” to a statement that indicates completion of consultation on the draft plans. 2.3.4 First Nations During this consultation period letters were sent to affected First Nations bands and councils offering to provide presentations or other appropriate opportunities for receiving input on the LWMP and SWMP strategies. These letters were followed up by phone calls and registered letters. One presentation was made at a meeting with the Tsawwassen First Nation. 2.3.5 Additional Consultation Activities Additional consultation activities during this phase included a presentation at a meeting of the Medical Health Officers (MHOs) on April 7, 2008 regarding both the LWMP and SWMP strategies. The MHOs were also informed through correspondence about the public meetings and municipal workshops, and were invited to provide feedback on the strategies. Discussions on the LWMP also occurred at the following meetings in 2008:
• Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (technical committee mandated under the LWMP) (March 13);
• Environmental Monitoring Committee (technical committee mandated under the LWMP) (January 17, February 21, April 17, June 19);
• Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) – Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) (March 11, April 15);
• Ministry of Environment, Surrey office (to provide updates on progress to develop both plans) (March 18, April 28, June 13).
2.3.6 Supporting Communication Activities The following activities supported the consultation program and encouraged public participation and input:
SDD - 16
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008
Page 5 of 9
004641666
• placement of advertisements in local community and ethnic newspapers with details of the times and locations of the public meetings and other opportunities to provide input
• distribution of public meeting invitation flyers to individuals and organizations on the LWMP and SWMP databases via email and mail (approximately 1,400)
• materials posted on the Metro Vancouver Web site and links to member municipality web sites: advertisements, copies of the strategy documents, information about the Reference Panels, communication materials, on-line survey and feedback form
• posters/rack cards provided at six Metro Vancouver transfer stations • posters placed at three local Earth Day events, EPIC 2008 (Sustainable Living Expo) • receipt of correspondence via fax, email, letter or feedback forms • media relations support.
Deadlines for receipt of input for both strategy documents were included in all communication activities supporting the consultation process. 2.4 Consultation Input A summary of issues and comments raised on the LWMP strategies through public meetings and correspondence, municipal workshops, and Reference Panel meetings, and Metro Vancouver’s responses to the input is contained in Attachments 1-3. It should be noted that the LWMP Reference Panel reviewed the issues and comments summarizing their meetings prior to the table being finalized. Metro Vancouver received 63 feedback forms, 16 pieces of correspondence (email/fax/letter) and verbal input on the LWMP during the public meetings. Documentation of all written input and communication activities entitled Consultation on the Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan – Report on Activities and Feedback March 6 – May 30, 2008 (Volume 1 and Volume 2) is available in from the Metro Vancouver Information Centre by calling 604-432-6200. Portions of this document may also be viewed at www.metrovancouver.org/managementplans. The following sections provide an overview of key themes arising from input received during this phase of consultation on the LWMP. The Waste Management Committee will receive a separate report from the LWMP Reference Panel on the results of their deliberations. 2.4.1 Public Meetings and Correspondence The following common themes regarding the strategies to update the LWMP emerged during the public meetings and through correspondence: Strengthen the source control program: Several participants highlighted the need for increased public education regarding the impacts of particular substances on the sewer system and environment. Other respondents supported increased education for industrial dischargers and implementing more Codes of Practice. Many participants were concerned that there is insufficient monitoring and enforcement of the Sewer Use Bylaw and suggested more resources should be made available. While some participants preferred hefty fines for noncompliance, others suggested that incentives for compliance with the Sewer Use Bylaw would be more effective. Support for Drinking Water Management Plan water conservation measures:
SDD - 17
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008 Page 6 of 9
004641666
Several participants noted the need to increase public education programs regarding water conservation and promotion of water-saving fixtures such as low flush toilets and low flow showers to reduce liquid waste volumes at source. Although it is outside the direct scope of the LWMP, the benefits and drawbacks of water metering were also frequently discussed. Support for stormwater/rainwater management practices: Participants strongly supported the adoption of a variety of stormwater/rainwater management techniques by residents and businesses across the region including permeable paving, roof gardens, rain barrels, and bioswales. It was suggested that Metro Vancouver could provide education and support for these practices and publish a list of best management practices. Some support for materials and energy recovery opportunities: Participants were supportive of materials and energy recovery opportunities provided a full cost-benefit analysis of options is completed and available for review prior to implementation. Sewer heat recovery, biodiesel/biogas production and methane capture were identified as options for exploration. Respondents also encouraged Metro Vancouver to explore opportunities for partnership and integration with other systems for the purpose of revenue generation. Support for greywater systems: Some participants recommended providing more public information about greywater use, and exploring opportunities for system development. Barriers to residential system implementation were also discussed. Accelerate the schedules for sewer separation: Some participants were concerned that the timeline for sewer separation is too long and several supported a tax increase to accelerate the current schedule. Some participants suggested that the cost for an accelerated timeline should be borne by users in the areas still requiring separation while others suggested that alternatives to direct taxation such as private-public partnerships be explored. Upgrading liquid waste treatment to secondary in Vancouver and on the North Shore is widely supported although more information is required in order to provide feedback on whether to accelerate or change the current timelines: Several respondents indicated support for an increase to secondary treatment for the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants as soon as possible, with many favouring completion of both upgrades by 2020. Other participants wanted more information such as the costs and benefits associated with different level of treatments, and the impacts of costs on taxpayers, municipalities and the region as a whole in order to provide feedback on whether the current schedule for upgrade of each plant should be changed. Respondents also queried whether Metro Vancouver would receive financial assistance from senior governments to complete the upgrades, and whether new technologies were being reviewed for potential environmental and financial benefits. Several participants queried long-term plans to manage the increased biosolids that will result from upgrades to secondary treatment. 2.4.2 Municipal Workshops The following section summarizes common themes regarding the strategies to update the LWMP that emerged from the municipal workshops. In addition to these workshops, input was received from municipal technical staff and some agencies on the strategies and draft
SDD - 18
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008
Page 7 of 9
004641666
plan. The dates of those meetings have been noted in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.5 of this report. A comprehensive evaluation of the financial implications of the proposals in the strategy document in conjunction with other regional spending priorities is essential: Numerous participants in the workshops indicated that the cost implications of the strategies needed to be provided in more detail in order for municipalities to support the directions in the plan. Secondly, the costs and the impact on the taxpayers needed to be analyzed in concert with other regional priorities such as water treatment, solid waste management and transportation infrastructure. The timeline for updating the management plan is too ambitious: At several of the workshops participants indicated that the timeframe for updating the plan was too ambitious considering the interest in reviewing cost implications and other impacts of some of the potential actions suggested for municipalities in the strategies. Cooperative efforts between Metro Vancouver and member municipalities to strengthen source control supported: Clarification regarding Metro Vancouver’s approach to enforcement of source control was requested by numerous participants. Further information was requested on existing Metro Vancouver Codes of Practice and others that are expected to be implemented in the future. A municipal ticketing system was suggested as an option for strengthening source controls. A coordinated effort between Metro Vancouver and municipalities was supported to reduce the overall environmental impact of the liquid waste discharges. Determining the most appropriate delivery mechanism for Bylaw enforcement required further study and discussion. The need for outreach to educate residents and businesses about impacts on the environment and infrastructure from contaminants in the system was emphasized. Municipalities continue to support water conservation measures: Benefits of reducing liquid waste volumes through water conservation measures were discussed and supported by participants. It was recognized that conservation programs such as water metering and sprinkling restrictions were primarily the responsibility of individual municipalities. The cost implications of improving sewer asset management programs are significant: While most participants understood the rationale for improving the condition and increasing the inspection of municipal sewer assets, the associated cost burden of the actions in the strategies were considered significant. Participants expressed an interest in investigating such mechanisms as a funding reserve for the replacement of assets, or a declining rate structure such that as municipalities make sewer improvements, their rates would decline. Implementing wet weather cost allocations needs further review and discussion: Changing from cost allocations based on dry weather to cost allocations based on wet weather was seen as penalizing by municipalities which continue to invest in eliminating combined sewers and by municipalities that need to invest in their sewer systems to improve them. It was suggested that it would be better to provide incentives. Comments were mixed on whether wet weather allocations would be more equitable across the region or specific to each sewerage area. Managing the condition of sewer connections on private property is currently a significant challenge:
SDD - 19
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008 Page 8 of 9
004641666
While the cost and operational impacts of leaky private sewers on the municipal and regional sewer systems was acknowledged, the municipal participants indicated that they were unclear regarding what options are available to impose repair of sewer connections on private property. Metro Vancouver indicated that other jurisdictions have enacted bylaws to require inspections and repair of private sewer connections when buildings are sold as a means reducing cost impacts to municipal sewers. Participants agreed that this area required further investigation and discussion. Support for continued work on stormwater management, some municipalities may not meet the deadline for completion of their plans: Some participants expressed concerns about their ability to meet the current 2014 completion date for Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMPs) due to time and financial constraints. In addition, mechanisms for including innovative stormwater practices in development plans were supported. It was suggested that Metro Vancouver continue to work with municipalities to facilitate the establishment of performance criteria for site-level rainwater management systems. Business cases for specific materials and energy recovery opportunities are required before their implementation: Municipalities are supportive of energy and material recovery if cost-benefit analysis is undertaken before committing to any specific option. Additional information would aid the development of municipal water reuse opportunities: Participants asked questions regarding the availability of new technologies for greywater use and if there were barriers associated with its acceptance by local health authorities. There was support for Metro Vancouver and municipalities working with senior governments regarding amendments to plumbing codes to enable water reuse in a number of commercial applications and potentially in households. Clarification regarding the rationale for potential timing of secondary treatment for Vancouver and North Shore Sewerage Areas is needed: Participants requested scientific documentation supporting the rationale for selecting a preferred timing scenario over another. Some participants requested clarification on the rationale that would have the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) take priority over the Vancouver (Iona) WWTP. Some participants stated that if a site is secured for the North Shore, Metro Vancouver should begin planning for that site as soon as possible. Participants noted that actions in the plan with assigned dates will become legal requirements if approved by the Minister of Environment. Cost implications of the secondary treatment upgrades for municipalities and ratepayers need to be further defined: A detailed risk analysis of the different options for timing of the secondary treatment upgrades was requested. Some participants asked Metro Vancouver to lobby senior government for cost-sharing of the secondary treatment facilities. Caution was expressed that Metro Vancouver should not pursue timing the upgrades on a schedule that does not match the interests of potential senior government funding partners. More details regarding the per household tax impacts of the secondary upgrades were requested in the context of other significant regional costs including drinking water treatment, transportation, solid waste management and other infrastructure upgrades. 3. ALTERNATIVES None provided.
SDD - 20
-
Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee – July 9, 2008
Page 9 of 9
004641666
CONCLUSION In February, 2008 the Waste Management Committee and GVS&DD Board approved proceeding with a consultation program to support the concurrent review of the strategies for updating the Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plans. This report outlines the components of the consultation program which occurred between March and May of 2008 for both plans, and then details the specific activities and feedback that pertain to the LWMP. The consultation process provided opportunities for residents, member municipalities, First Nations, interest groups, and businesses to provide input on the draft strategies in preparation for developing the draft management plans. Attachments: 1. Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) Strategy Consultation – Public Input: Issues,
Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated June 12, 2008. 2. Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) Strategy Consultation – Municipal Input: Issues,
Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated June 12, 2008. 3. Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) Strategy Consultation – LWMP Reference Panel:
Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated June 12, 2008.
SDD - 21
-
This page left blank intentionally.
SDD - 22
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP)
Str
ateg
y C
onsu
ltatio
n Pu
blic
Inpu
t Is
sues
, Com
men
ts a
nd M
etro
Van
couv
er R
espo
nses
– J
une
12, 2
008
Atta
chm
ent 1
Sour
ce
Issu
e/C
omm
ent
Met
ro V
anco
uver
(MV)
Res
pons
e 1.
Liq
uid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t App
roac
h 1
Is th
e re
view
of t
he p
revi
ous
plan
on
the
web
site
? Th
e ex
istin
g pl
an is
ava
ilabl
e on
the
MV
web
site
. 2
Is M
etro
Van
couv
er re
view
ing
2002
– 2
005,
how
will
it b
e re
porte
d up
on?
Bie
nnia
l pro
gres
s re
ports
are
ava
ilabl
e.
3 Is
the
defin
ition
of g
reyw
ater
as
“non
-haz
ardo
us
was
tew
ater
” cor
rect
? If
prop
erly
trea
ted,
gre
ywat
er c
an b
e no
n-ha
zard
ous
was
tew
ater
. 4
Has
Met
ro V
anco
uver
con
side
red
usin
g gr
eyw
ater
at t
he
hous
ehol
d sc
ale
(irrig
atio
n et
c.)?
Th
ere
is a
lot o
f int
eres
t in
this
are
a in
term
s of
mul
ti-fa
mily
bui
ldin
gs. T
here
are
pilo
t pro
ject
s in
this
regi
on a
nd
acro
ss C
anad
a w
orki
ng o
n th
is.
Bar
riers
incl
ude
acce
ptan
ce b
y he
alth
aut
horit
ies
and
havi
ng a
sys
tem
in
plac
e th
at in
clud
es in
spec
tion,
and
long
term
mai
nten
ance
to
ens
ure
corr
ect f
unct
iona
lity.
5
How
is “t
ertia
ry tr
eatm
ent”
defin
ed?
Any
trea
tmen
t bey
ond
seco
ndar
y. It
is o
ften
impl
emen
ted
as a
nut
rient
rem
oval
pro
cess
that
is u
sed
to p
rote
ct th
e en
viro
nmen
t fro
m a
lgal
blo
oms
whi
ch a
re ty
pica
l for
lake
s.
6 E
duca
tion
is c
ritic
al to
the
succ
ess
of a
n up
date
d LW
MP
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
7
Met
ro V
anco
uver
stil
l has
a lo
ng w
ay to
go
to a
hav
e a
truly
effe
ctiv
e Li
quid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t Pro
gram
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
8
Pub
lic
Wor
ksho
ps
Exe
rcis
e th
e pr
ecau
tiona
ry p
rinci
ple
whe
n it
com
es to
m
anag
ing
liqui
d w
aste
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
9 P
rovi
de d
irect
ives
for
busi
ness
and
hom
eow
ners
abo
ut
prod
ucts
that
are
goi
ng d
own
drai
ns a
s w
ell a
s th
eir
effe
cts
(pub
lic e
duca
tion)
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
Mat
eria
ls a
re a
vaila
ble.
10
Hig
her l
evel
s of
gov
ernm
ent s
houl
d be
lobb
ied
to b
an
dang
erou
s pr
oduc
ts w
hich
cou
ld g
o in
to s
ewer
s.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
11
Mov
es s
houl
d be
mad
e to
ada
pt a
nd a
ppro
ve
prog
ress
ive
build
ing
tech
niqu
es s
uch
as c
ompo
stin
g to
ilets
, gre
ywat
er re
cycl
ing,
rain
wat
er c
iste
rns
and
barr
els,
bio
swal
es a
nd p
erm
eabl
e pa
ving
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
12
Mun
icip
aliti
es s
houl
d on
ly x
eris
cape
thei
r gar
dens
, whi
le
enco
urag
ing
resi
dent
s to
do
the
sam
e.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
13
Hum
an h
ealth
and
env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
sho
uld
be
prio
ritie
s in
the
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent A
ppro
ach.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
Th
ese
are
MV
’s p
riorit
ies.
14
Pub
lic F
eedb
ack
Form
s P
ublic
Fee
dbac
k Fo
rms
The
prio
ritie
s of
the
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
mus
t be
dec
ided
upo
n ba
sed
on th
e im
pact
eac
h op
tion
has
on
the
impr
ovem
ent i
n liq
uid
man
agem
ent.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
SDD - 23
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 2
of 3
0
So
urce
Is
sue/
Com
men
t M
etro
Van
couv
er (M
V) R
espo
nse
15
Cap
italiz
e on
Van
couv
er’s
nat
ural
adv
anta
ges.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
16
A
ll si
x ar
eas
of li
quid
was
te m
anag
emen
t nee
d to
be
addr
esse
d in
ord
er to
impr
ove
the
envi
ronm
ent a
nd
heal
th s
tand
ards
in M
etro
Van
couv
er.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
17
Mak
e pu
blic
edu
catio
n a
prio
rity
in re
gard
to li
quid
was
te.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
18
Dam
the
Fras
er R
iver
at H
ells
Gat
e. T
his
wou
ld e
nsur
e th
e Lo
wer
Mai
nlan
d w
aste
sup
ply,
ele
ctric
pow
er, f
lood
co
ntro
l and
enh
ance
sal
mon
mig
ratio
n.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
19
Con
side
r usi
ng “z
eew
eed”
to c
reat
e a
sew
er s
ludg
e co
ncen
tratio
n an
d ge
nera
te c
ash
flow
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
20
Con
duct
mor
e re
sear
ch b
efor
e th
e pl
ans
for u
pdat
ing
are
final
ized
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
21
Dis
clos
e th
e fu
ll co
st o
f dis
char
ge.
This
is b
eing
dev
elop
ed.
22
Iden
tify
and
publ
ish
the
top
12 m
ost e
ffici
ent l
iqui
d an
d so
lid w
aste
faci
litie
s w
orld
wid
e to
pro
vide
a p
oint
of
com
paris
on.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
23
Pro
vide
an
idea
of t
he tr
ue c
osts
and
oth
er e
xist
ing
optio
ns b
efor
e th
e pu
blic
can
be
expe
cted
to d
ecid
e.
This
is b
eing
dev
elop
ed.
24
Mov
e aw
ay fr
om c
entra
lized
meg
a w
ater
trea
tmen
t pla
nts
and
mor
e to
war
ds d
ecen
traliz
ed tr
eatm
ent s
yste
ms
for
the
purp
ose
of jo
b cr
eatio
n.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
25
Mak
e re
sour
ce re
cove
ry fr
om w
aste
(was
tew
ater
for
heat
ing
etc.
) a p
riorit
y.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
26
Mak
e m
inim
al p
ollu
tion
(e.g
. Ter
tiary
trea
tmen
t of l
iqui
d w
aste
) a p
riorit
y.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
27
Exp
end
effo
rt on
out
reac
h pr
ogra
ms
rega
rdin
g liq
uid
was
te m
anag
emen
t. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
28
The
deve
lopm
ent o
f a re
gion
al “r
epor
t car
d” e
very
two
year
s on
Liq
uid
Was
te M
anag
emen
t wou
ld b
e he
lpfu
l. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
A
bie
nnia
l pro
gres
s re
port
is c
urre
ntly
pre
pare
d.
29
Be
will
ing
to tr
y ne
w a
nd s
mal
ler s
cale
sol
utio
ns to
liqu
id
was
te m
anag
emen
t ins
tead
of f
ocus
ing
on th
e sa
me
big
solu
tions
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
30
Pub
lic
Cor
resp
onde
nce
It w
ould
be
mor
e us
eful
to s
ee th
e co
st e
stim
ate
grap
h ex
tend
ed a
noth
er 2
0 ye
ars.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
SDD - 24
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 3
of 3
0
Sour
ce
Issu
e/C
omm
ent
Met
ro V
anco
uver
(MV)
Res
pons
e 2.
Liq
uid
Was
te R
educ
tion
31
Whe
re c
an th
e pu
blic
lear
n m
ore
abou
t prio
rity
actio
ns fo
r st
reng
then
ing
sour
ce c
ontro
l?
Ther
e is
info
rmat
ion
on th
e M
etro
Van
couv
er w
ebsi
te a
nd
on th
e w
ebsi
tes
of m
any
indi
vidu
al m
unic
ipal
ities
. Als
o,
Met
ro V
anco
uver
has
a s
choo
ls e
duca
tion
prog
ram
to
teac
h ch
ildre
n an
d te
ache
rs a
bout
thin
gs to
avo
id p
uttin
g do
wn
the
drai
n.
32
Wha
t are
Met
ro V
anco
uver
’s p
lans
for e
xten
ding
sou
rce
cont
rol e
duca
tion
for i
ndiv
idua
l hom
eow
ners
? M
V h
as a
pro
gram
but
enc
oura
ges
feed
back
on
how
it
coul
d be
exp
ande
d.
33
Add
ress
the
fact
that
peo
ple
need
a g
reat
er
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
prod
ucts
they
use
and
pro
vide
them
w
ith le
ss to
xic
alte
rnat
ives
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
34
Look
at w
ays
to c
hang
e th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t whi
le
educ
atin
g th
e pu
blic
on
how
exp
ensi
ve th
is li
fest
yle
is.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
35
Is p
erm
eabl
e pa
ving
bei
ng lo
oked
at o
r tes
ted
by M
etro
V
anco
uver
? U
nder
the
curr
ent L
WM
P th
ere
is a
sto
rmw
ater
in
tera
genc
y gr
oup
that
spe
nt ti
me
in th
e fir
st fi
ve y
ears
re
sear
chin
g an
d lo
okin
g at
bes
t pra
ctic
es, i
nclu
ding
pe
rmea
ble
pave
men
ts a
nd h
ow th
ey c
an b
e ap
plie
d.
Thes
e ar
e be
ing
cons
ider
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d by
som
e m
unic
ipal
ities
in th
eir s
torm
wat
er m
anag
emen
t pla
ns.
36
How
will
Met
ro V
anco
uver
add
ress
trea
ted
wat
er b
eing
us
ed fo
r pur
pose
s su
ch a
s la
wn
wat
erin
g?
MV
is s
uppo
rtive
of w
ater
re-u
se/re
cycl
ing
and
prog
ram
s su
ch a
s ra
in b
arre
ls th
at h
elp
offs
et u
se o
f drin
king
wat
er.
37
Wha
t has
Met
ro V
anco
uver
don
e to
redu
ce th
e am
ount
of
chem
ical
s go
ing
dow
n dr
ains
? M
V re
gula
tes
disc
harg
e of
cer
tain
che
mic
als
unde
r the
S
ewer
Use
Byl
aw a
nd c
oord
inat
es e
duca
tion
and
outre
ach
prog
ram
s fo
r bus
ines
ses
and
resi
dent
s.
38
Doe
s M
etro
Van
couv
er g
auge
the
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n th
e am
ount
of c
onta
min
ants
in 1
992
and
now
? M
V e
valu
ates
con
tam
inan
t tre
nds
and
deve
lops
initi
ativ
es
for c
onta
min
ant r
educ
tion
acco
rdin
gly.
39
Is
Met
ro V
anco
uver
ask
ing
all b
usin
esse
s w
hat t
hey
are
doin
g w
ith th
eir l
iqui
d w
aste
and
wha
t will
be
foun
d in
th
eir p
lant
s?
MV
regu
late
s an
d m
onito
rs ta
rget
ed la
rge
disc
harg
es.
40
Inte
nsify
sou
rce
cont
rol t
o en
sure
the
publ
ic u
nder
stan
ds
that
wha
t the
y pu
t dow
n th
e dr
ain
has
an im
pact
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
41
Ado
pt b
road
er e
duca
tion
prac
tices
for t
he m
anag
emen
t of
liqui
d w
aste
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
42
Ado
pt s
trong
er a
nd b
road
er c
odes
of p
ract
ice
for t
he
man
agem
ent o
f liq
uid
was
te.
Cod
es o
f Pra
ctic
es a
re c
ontin
ually
dev
elop
ed a
nd
impl
emen
ted
as re
quire
d.
43
Pub
lic
Wor
ksho
ps
Rei
nfor
ce th
at w
ater
is a
com
mod
ity.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
SDD - 25
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 4
of 3
0
Sour
ce
Issu
e/C
omm
ent
Met
ro V
anco
uver
(MV)
Res
pons
e 44
M
eter
ing
of li
quid
was
te s
houl
d be
impl
emen
ted
for a
ll ne
w a
nd re
nova
ted
build
ings
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
45
Ban
gar
bura
tors
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
46
Th
ere
shou
ld b
e re
gula
r mon
itorin
g of
con
tam
inan
ts a
t va
ryin
g lo
catio
ns in
the
sew
er s
truct
ure
so th
at re
gula
tion
brea
ches
can
be
trace
d ba
ck to
the
sour
ce.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
47
If M
etro
Van
couv
er im
plem
ents
wat
er m
eter
ing,
cos
ts
shou
ld b
e le
ss if
less
of t
he re
sour
ce is
use
d.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
48
Som
e bu
sine
sses
are
pol
lutin
g be
caus
e th
ey a
re
unaw
are,
une
duca
ted
on th
e is
sue
of li
quid
was
te, a
nd
do n
ot k
now
who
to tu
rn to
for h
elp.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
49
Som
e bu
sine
sses
/gro
ups
do th
ings
whi
ch th
ey s
houl
d no
t, du
e to
lack
of e
nfor
cem
ent.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
50
Bus
ines
ses
don’
t hav
e th
e re
sour
ces
to h
andl
e ne
w ru
les
and
regu
latio
ns, t
hey
need
hel
p.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
51
Focu
s on
edu
catio
n ra
ther
than
wat
er m
eter
ing;
wat
er
met
erin
g is
too
expe
nsiv
e.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
52
New
dev
elop
men
t mus
t bea
r the
full
cost
of t
he w
aste
it
crea
tes.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
53
Can
was
te w
ater
be
clea
ned
or fi
ltere
d en
ough
to b
e us
ed a
gain
? Y
es, b
ut it
is e
xpen
sive
.
54
Pub
lic F
eedb
ack
Form
s
Sew
age
shou
ld b
e vi
ewed
as
a re
sour
ce.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
55
Cha
rge
resi
denc
es a
nd b
usin
esse
s fo
r the
am
ount
of
treat
ed w
ater
that
is u
sed.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
56
Impl
emen
t a s
econ
d pi
pe fo
r gar
bura
tors
so
that
was
te
can
be u
sed
for c
ompo
st a
nd n
ot e
nd u
p in
the
sew
age
syst
em.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
57
Focu
s on
gre
ywat
er d
iver
sion
and
re-u
se in
ord
er to
de
crea
se li
quid
was
te.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
58
Pub
lic
Cor
resp
onde
nce
Sup
ply
gran
ts to
indi
vidu
als
who
are
will
ing
to s
et-u
p an
d us
e sm
all s
cale
gre
ywat
er s
yste
ms.
M
V c
anno
t pro
vide
gra
nts
for p
rivat
e sy
stem
s.
2.1
Impr
ovin
g th
e Se
wer
Use
Byl
aw (S
ourc
e C
ontr
ol)
59
Pub
lic
Wor
ksho
ps
App
ly th
e m
ultip
le d
isci
plin
e ap
proa
ch o
f New
Yor
k,
whe
re c
onta
min
ants
wer
e re
duce
d by
95%
at p
lant
s th
at
oper
ate
on a
slu
dge
proc
ess.
If w
e ar
e us
ing
a tri
ckle
pr
oces
s th
at m
eans
that
tonn
es o
f pol
luta
nts
are
bein
g
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
SDD - 26
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 5
of 3
0
So
urce
Is
sue/
Com
men
t M
etro
Van
couv
er (M
V) R
espo
nse
pum
ped
into
the
Fras
er R
iver
: nee
d to
get
this
und
er
cont
rol.
60
Pro
vide
ince
ntiv
es, s
uch
as c
ertif
icat
ion
and
reco
gniti
on,
for b
usin
esse
s w
ith g
ood
beha
viou
r. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
61
Focu
s on
pub
lic o
utre
ach
in o
rder
to s
treng
then
sou
rce
cont
rol.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
62
Pro
vide
info
rmat
ion
to th
e pu
blic
rega
rdin
g w
hat w
orks
in
othe
r mun
icip
aliti
es a
nd h
ow th
ese
prac
tices
cou
ld b
e ap
plic
able
in M
etro
Van
couv
er.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
63
Wou
ld M
etro
Van
couv
er c
onsi
der p
ayin
g fo
r toi
lets
and
sh
ower
s as
a c
heap
er u
pgra
de p
roce
ss?
Ther
e ar
e m
any
mun
icip
aliti
es th
at h
ave
reba
te
prog
ram
s fo
r toi
lets
. 64
Is
the
curr
ent s
yste
m a
dequ
ate
for o
ur p
opul
atio
n or
are
w
e go
ing
to re
ach
capa
city
? Th
e w
aste
wat
er s
yste
ms
have
bee
n bu
ilt to
kee
p pa
ce
with
the
regi
on a
s it
grow
s an
d th
ey c
ontin
ue to
as
MV
m
oves
from
2 to
3 m
illio
n pe
ople
- pa
rticu
larly
inte
rcep
tor
sew
ers
whi
ch a
re b
uilt
for 5
0-pl
us y
ears
. 65
H
as M
etro
Van
couv
er lo
oked
into
coo
rdin
atin
g re
gula
tions
with
hig
her l
evel
s of
gov
ernm
ent r
elat
ive
to
toxi
c cl
eani
ng a
gent
s?
For p
rodu
cts
asso
ciat
ed w
ith c
lean
ing,
MV
relie
s pr
imar
ily o
n th
e ro
le o
f fed
eral
gov
ernm
ent a
nd th
e E
nviro
nmen
tal P
rote
ctio
n A
ct, w
hich
exa
min
es
subs
tanc
es th
at a
re u
sed
in p
rodu
cts
in C
anad
a, a
nd
scie
ntifi
cally
det
erm
ines
whi
ch c
hem
ical
s ar
e su
itabl
e fo
r us
e in
this
cou
ntry
. 66
G
iven
the
fede
ral g
over
nmen
t’s re
luct
ance
in a
ddre
ssin
g en
viro
nmen
tal c
once
rns,
sho
uld
we
rely
on
the
[U.S
.] E
nviro
nmen
tal P
rote
ctio
n A
genc
y?
The
Can
adia
n E
nviro
nmen
tal P
rote
ctio
n A
ct’s
list
of
‘toxi
c ite
ms’
con
tinue
s to
gro
w. U
nder
the
exis
ting
plan
, M
V h
as a
n E
nviro
nmen
tal M
onito
ring
Com
mitt
ee w
hich
in
clud
es re
gula
tors
and
sci
entis
ts. O
ne o
f the
act
ions
in
the
plan
indi
cate
s th
at if
any
thin
g is
iden
tifie
d th
at s
houl
d be
con
side
red
by th
e fe
dera
l gov
ernm
ent f
or in
clus
ion
on
the
‘toxi
c lis
t,’ M
etro
Van
couv
er w
ill b
ring
it fo
rwar
d.
67
Pro
vide
mor
e sp
ecifi
c in
form
atio
n ab
out p
ollu
tant
s.
This
dat
a is
ava
ilabl
e.
68
Pro
vide
a s
umm
ary
of li
quid
sub
stan
ces
that
are
har
mfu
l an
d ho
w th
ey im
pact
the
envi
ronm
ent/w
ildlif
e.
This
dat
a is
ava
ilabl
e.
69
Can
sou
rce
cont
rol a
mou
nts
be e
nhan
ced
by b
ette
r en
forc
emen
t?
One
of t
he a
ctio
ns fo
cuse
s on
incr
ease
d m
onito
ring,
en
forc
emen
t and
pro
secu
tion.
70
Pub
lic
Wor
ksho
ps
Wha
t inc
entiv
es is
Met
ro V
anco
uver
offe
ring
to
enco
urag
e pe
ople
to b
e pr
oact
ive
agai
nst d
owns
tream
po
llutin
g?
MV
ope
rate
s a
fines
and
pen
altie
s sy
stem
for n
on-
dom
estic
dis
char
ge.
SDD - 27
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 6
of 3
0
So
urce
Is
sue/
Com
men
t M
etro
Van
couv
er (M
V) R
espo
nse
71
Wha
t kin
d of
regu
lato
ry e
nfor
cem
ent i
s ta
king
pla
ce
toda
y?
The
indu
strie
s ar
e pe
rmitt
ed s
o th
ere
is a
reco
rdin
g sy
stem
in p
lace
for m
onito
ring
and
audi
ting.
Met
ro
Van
couv
er a
nd th
e C
ity o
f Van
couv
er b
oth
do th
is.
72
Wha
t is
indu
stry
doi
ng in
rega
rd to
sou
rce
cont
rol r
elat
ive
to c
odes
of p
ract
ice
and
byla
w e
nfor
cem
ent?
M
V c
ontin
ually
eva
luat
es th
e di
scha
rge
from
indu
stry
to
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e.
73
Will
Met
ro V
anco
uver
be
mak
ing
effo
rts to
ens
ure
that
pr
oduc
ts, s
uch
as c
lean
ing
prod
ucts
that
go
into
the
sew
er s
yste
m, a
re e
nviro
nmen
tally
saf
e?
Env
ironm
ent C
anad
a is
cha
rged
with
look
ing
at
chem
ical
s us
ed in
pro
duct
s so
ld in
Can
ada.
The
y m
ake
deci
sion
s re
gard
ing
whi
ch s
houl
d be
allo
wed
or b
anne
d.
74
If th
e up
date
s to
the
LWM
P a
re to
be
effe
ctiv
e, a
t som
e po
int t
he s
ourc
e of
the
prob
lem
s, in
dust
ry fo
r exa
mpl
e,
need
to ta
ke re
spon
sibi
lity.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
75
Wha
t is
Met
ro V
anco
uver
doi
ng o
n w
aste
man
agem
ent
enfo
rcem
ent?
Ref
eren
ced
an in
cide
nt o
f bar
rels
of o
il be
ing
dum
ped
into
sew
er s
yste
m in
Abb
otsf
ord
with
littl
e re
perc
ussi
on to
per
petra
tor.
MV
con
tinue
s to
mon
itor a
nd e
nfor
ce in
dust
rial
disc
harg
es to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce.
76
Wha
t is
incl
uded
in th
e in
itiat
ive
abou
t usi
ng d
ry c
lean
ing
solv
ents
and
find
ing
an a
ltern
ativ
e to
thei
r use
? A
Cod
e of
Pra
ctic
e is
in p
lace
for t
he d
ry c
lean
ing
sect
or.
77
Ther
e is
a la
ck o
f dep
ots
for l
acqu
ers,
thin
ners
, fue
ls a
nd
othe
r har
d ch
emic
als;
flus
hing
sho
uld
not b
e th
e so
lutio
n.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
78
Met
ro V
anco
uver
sho
uld
crea
te m
ore
“Eco
-Pol
ice.
’
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
79
Pub
lic
Wor
ksho
ps
Met
ro V
anco
uver
mus
t pre
ssur
e m
anuf
actu
rers
not
to
incl
ude
dang
erou
s ch
emic
als
in th
eir p
rodu
cts.
C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
80
Edu
catin
g th
e pu
blic
sho
uld
be a
prio
rity
in re
gard
to
sour
ce c
ontro
l. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
81
Sew
age
byla
w re
gula
tion
enfo
rcem
ent m
ust b
e ac
com
pani
ed b
y th
e cr
eatio
n of
sto
rm d
rain
byl
aws
and
mon
itorin
g or
it is
a s
impl
e m
atte
r of c
hang
ing
disc
harg
e pi
pe h
ook-
ups.
Mun
icip
aliti
es h
ave
byla
ws
regu
latin
g th
eir s
torm
sew
ers.
82
Fine
s fo
r bre
akin
g th
e by
law
mus
t be
high
eno
ugh
to b
e a
dete
rren
t. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
83
Reg
ulat
ions
mus
t be
enfo
rced
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
84
Be
clea
r abo
ut w
hat c
itize
ns s
houl
d do
with
was
te th
at
shou
ld n
ot g
o in
to th
e se
wer
s.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
85
Pub
lic F
eedb
ack
Form
s
Div
ert g
rey
wat
er fo
r filt
ratio
n an
d re
-use
at t
he s
ourc
e an
d by
resi
dent
s an
d bu
sine
sses
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
SDD - 28
-
Liqu
id W
aste
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(LW
MP
) Stra
tegy
Con
sulta
tion
Pub
lic In
put
Issu
es, C
omm
ents
and
Met
ro V
anco
uver
Res
pons
es –
Jun
e 12
, 200
8
Pag
e 7
of 3
0
So
urce
Is
sue/
Com
men
t M
etro
Van
couv
er (M
V) R
espo
nse
86
Pas
s by
law
s to
redu
ce a
t-the
-sou
rce
prob
lem
s .
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
87
Cre
ate
mod
els
for s
olut
ions
at t
he s
ourc
e .
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
88
New
liqu
id w
aste
trea
tmen
ts, t
o ta
ke p
lace
at t
he n
ew
and
exis
ting
sour
ce, s
houl
d be
pla
nned
.
Com
men
t not
ed, t
o be
eva
luat
ed w
ithin
pla
n pr
epar
atio
n.
2.2
Red
ucin
g Th
e A
mou
nt o
f Liq
uid
Was
te
Th
e im
pact
of t
he D
rinki
ng W
ater
Man
agem
ent P
lan’
s (D
WM
P) c
onse
rvat
ion
mea
sure
s
Red
ucin
g se
wag
e vo
lum
es w
ith s
ewer
mai
nten
ance
89
W
ould
Met
ro V
anco
uver
con
side
r a s
yste
m w
here
ho
uses
are
bui
lt w
ith m
eter
s fo
r wat
er c
omin
g in
and
out
, co
mpl
ete
with
gre
ywat
er fi
ltrat
ion
syst
ems
so g
reyw
ater
ca
n be
use
d by
that
hou
seho
ld?
Gre
y w
ater
sys
tem
s ar
e of
inte
rest
. B
arrie
rs in
clud
e st
anda
rds
for s
yste
ms
and
they
lack
regu
lato
ry a
nd
heal
th s
yste
ms.
The
re is
wor
k an
d ef
fort
goin
g in
to th
ese
syst
ems.
90
H
ow w
ill M
etro
Van
couv
er a
ddre
ss th
e di
ffere
nce
in
usag
e be
twee
n a
sing
le p
erso
n ho
useh
old
and
a m
ultip
le
pers
on h
ouse
hold
?
Out
side
MV
juris
dict
ion.
Thi
s is
a m
unic
ipal
re
spon
sibi
lity.
91
In s
uppo
rt of
pay
ing
for w
ater
con
sum
ptio
n; th
is w
ould
pr
omot
e pu
blic
aw
aren
ess
of u
sage
. C
omm
ent n
oted
, to
be e
valu
ated
with
in p
lan
prep
arat
ion.
92
Is M
etro
Van
couv
er c
onsi
derin
g di
verti
ng g
reyw
ater
for
cosm
etic
pur
pose
s su
ch a
s ga
rden
ing?
Th
ere
are
pilo
t pro
ject
s be
ing
done
on
a on
e-on