Abbotsford Dave F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
H.04 Councillors City of Councillors Bruce Beck Lynne Harris Christine Caldwell Abbotsford Dave F. Loewen Simon Gibson Mayor Patricia Ross Moe Gill George F. Ferguson John G. Smith April 9, 2008 File No. 5510-04 TVPE DEPT 6 Mayor and Council Corporation of Delta ^MMENT 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2 Dear Mayor and Council: Re: Metro Vancouver's plans to build up to Six Waste-to-Energy Plants Abbotsford City Council, at its meeting of March 31, 2008, considered a report on the potential for six Waste-to-Energy plants to be sited in the Lower Mainland as part of Metro Vancouver's solid waste management program. Council approved the recommendation of the report to distribute it to the other municipalities in the Lower Mainland. The report authored by Councillor Patricia Ross is attached for your information. The City of Abbotsford is concerned with both the process to examine this alternative to regional solid waste management and the potential negative impacts on human health, the environment and the regional economy, among other things. The City believes that there should be much more investigation in this regard and hopes that your Council will also concur. If you require further information regarding the attached information, please contact Councillor Patricia Ross at (604)864-5500 at gross i abbotsford ca . Enclosure c. Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment and Minister responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities Honourable John van Dongen, Acting Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations Honourable Michael de Jong, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Mr. John Les, MLA, Chilliwack-Sumas Mayor and Council of Metro Vancouver Municipalities Mayor and Council of Fraser Valley Regional District Municipalities Metro Vancouver Board Fraser Valley Regional District Board ASO 32315 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford, BC V2T 1W7 a^- Telephone: 604-864-5500 Email: mayort'erguson@abbotsford. ca Facsimile: 604-853-1934 www.abbotsford.ca COUNCIL REPORT ABBOTSFORD March 26, 2008 Executive Committee To: Mayor and Council From: Councillor Patricia Ross Subject: Metro Vancouver's plans to build up to Six Waste to Energy Plants RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the attached Report, dated March 26, 2008, from Councillor Ross, regarding Metro Vancouver' received; s plans to build up to Six Waste to Energy Plants, be THAT Council and/or the Fraser Valley Regional District request to be on the panel at the Metro Vancouver Council of Council meetings and public information meetings; and 3. THAT a copy of this report and the related Council resolution be forwarded, as information, to lower mainland municipalities to provide a balanced prospective. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to provide an update and further recommendation to Council regarding Metro Vancouver's plans to build up to six Waste to Energy (WTE) plants in the lower mainland. In addition, I wanted to provide information for Councillors so they will be prepared should they choose to attend the Council of Council meetings or public meetings. As has already been discussed, these plants have the potential to significantly deteriorate the air quality in the Fraser Valley of BC due to our geographic and meteorological challenges which are quite unique in North America. We have a mountainous region shaped like a funnel. The valley narrows from the west to the east restricting both air movement and pollutant dispersion. Pollutants originating in the west and south are often pushed into the upper parts of the Valley, where they become trapped by the wall of mountains, often for very long periods of time. So we must be extremely cautious about adding any additional point sources of pollution. Keep in mind we are not talking about just one incinerator but up to six in one airshed, which is highly unusual if not altogether unheard of, and should be examined very seriously. On April 19, 2008, Metro Vancouver will be holding a Council of Council meeting regarding options for dealing with the region's waste. They have extended that invitation to all Fraser Valley political representatives. In addition, there will be several public meetings throughout the lower mainland. In all the literature that has been distributed to date, I am becoming increasingly concerned that so far all information presented is quite favorable to the WTE option and does not present the potential concerns or negative effects. I feel that it is important for Page 2 of 4 Fraser Valley representatives to be up front and express our concerns sooner rather than later. It is also extremely important for the decision makers in Metro Vancouver to hear these concerns so that they can make a more informed decision. It is not clear to me that they are getting the other side of this issue. In addition, one of my greatest concerns is the process. To date, it seems WTE incineration is the favoured option and the decision has been made to move toward that with little or no meaningful consultation with either member municipalities or the Fraser Valley Regional District. It appears that the consultation process now before us is to be favoring WTE as a foregone conclusion rather than a discussion as to whether it should occur at all in this sensitive airshed. In other jurisdictions, proponents of WTE have convinced local authorities to bypass the Environmental Review process with claims of it being "green technology," which later appeared to be untrue according to Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and GreenAction for Health and Environmental Justice. The process needs to be clarified. Will there be a public provincial Ministry of Environment approval process? If this energy is to be sold on the open grid, will there be a public process pertaining to that? The burden of proof should rest with those proposing these facilities demonstrating that there will be no serious negative impacts on public health, the environment or the economy. It should not be the responsibility of the potentially impacted communities to prove that it will be harmful. The following are counter arguments to the information being distributed by those in favour of WTE. Proponents of WTE made many claims and I want to determine if they are accurate. In attempting to gather information on WTE, I had a long conversation with 2 representatives of Sierra Club, who specialize in solid waste issues. The other source was a joint paper produced by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAZA) and GreenAction for Health & Environmental Justice (attached). Following are the proponents' contentions. The response provides counterpoints. Contention: This is not incineration. Response: Yes, it is essentially incineration. Because of its negative connotation, it is now referred to as thermal, plasma, gasification or pyrolysis. But these are just different kinds of technology for incineration. Granted though, incineration today can be far less polluting than the technologies of many years ago. But the question still remains as to whether it can possibly be made innocuous enough to be appropriate for this particular air shed. From what information exists so far, it appears that it cannot. It is important that the information comes from independent sources and not solely from the proponents. It will also be important, if not critical, to evaluate each proposal on a site by site basis and consider the current challenges of the airshed. Contention: We can solve our energy needs at the same time we are solving our waste issues. Response: These technologies require a great deal of energy to operate, and some facilities have consumed more energy to operate than could be produced. Energy savings from waste prevention and recycling is likely greater than the energy produced in these disposal facilities. Contention : There will be zero emissions. Response: The only people attempting to say this are proponents of WTE and there is no evidence to back this claim. Apparently, some technologies may be able to achieve Page 3 of 4 zero emissions up to a certain part in the process (questionable), but not all the way through. Also, often the publicized emissions ignore breakdowns (which appear to be frequent), start-ups and shut-downs, which will raise the emission levels significantly. Contention : Any emissions will be offset by getting the trucks off the road that are currently taking the waste to the interior of BC. Response: This is not the case. These trucks are bringing mushroom manure and wood waste from the interior down to the lower mainland and will continue to do so. They will simply be going back empty, which is less efficient. Also, we have been advised these trucks have recently been retrofitted and achieved a 90% reduction in emissions. Contention : Emissions from WTE compare favorably to coal and oil. Response: One should not compare it to the worst, but rather in a sensitive air shed such as ours, compare it to the best and WTE does not compare favorably to natural gas. Contention : The favored plant so far, Plasco Energy, has a successful track record already in Ottawa. Response: It has only been in operation since October 24, 2007 as a demonstration/pilot project facility, then only accepting municipal solid waste full scale since January 24, 2008, so it is yet to be seen whether it is successful. For a population of Metro Vancouver's, which is over 2 million people, this is a significant consideration and has not been proven successful on a long term basis for a population this large. Contention : We should deal with our own waste in our own back yard. Response: Firstly, with WTE, Metro Vancouver would still be exporting its waste, only it will be in the form of air pollution instead of it being hauled away by trucks.