REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
DATE: March 12, 2018 Report No. EPW-18-019
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Jeff Miller, Director of Engineering and Public Works
SUBJECT:
Title
Integrated Resource Management Strategy
End
ESSENTIAL QUESTION:
Does Council wish to add to the 2018-2022 Financial Plan a line item for review and business case for integrated resource management for the solid waste, kitchen scraps and yard/garden waste streams?
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the COTW receive Staff Report EPW-18-019 for information, provide any additional direction to staff as the COTW considers advisable, and direct staff to issue a short term Request for Proposals for the operation of the yard and garden waste transfer station and processing of the waste stream.
Body
BACKGROUND:
In early 2018, the Capital Regional District Board made the decision not to pursue an integrated waste management (IRM) philosophy with respect to the waste streams (solid waste, kitchen scraps, yard and garden waste, and waste water treatment residuals).
These streams would continue to be treated separately. On February 26, 2018, a notice of motion was introduced at Council that the Township should investigate the possibility that an IRM strategy could be implemented for the Township’s waste streams (solid waste, kitchen scraps, and yard/garden waste). This notice of motion received endorsement from all of Council.
The management of these waste streams is as follows:
Solid Waste
• Collection is carried out by the Township.
• Material is delivered to the Hartland Landfill by the Township.
• Material is deposited and managed at Hartland Landfill by the CRD.
Kitchen Scraps
• Collection is carried out by the Township.
• Material is delivered to the Hartland Landfill by the Township.
• Material is deposited and managed by the CRD.
• Currently this waste stream is shipped to a facility for conversion for waste to energy.
Yard and Garden Waste
• The Township provides a transfer station.
• Transfer station operation and processing of waste stream is carried out by Contractor.
• Residents are responsible for material to be delivered to the transfer station.
All three streams are funded for and managed as operational line items within the Financial Plan by the Engineering and Public Works Department.
ISSUES:
The current philosophy for the management of these three waste streams is based on the composition of the waste stream and end use. These streams are fairly independent of each other. The move to IRM philosophy would see the management of these three streams combined so that treatment would be done in a common manner. Based on the notice of motion, the new management philosophy would be carried out by gasification technology.
This change in philosophy represents a significant investment in funds for the Township. In order to ensure that the Township will be expending its funds in a prudent manner, a review of the current operating methodologies and proposed methodology needs to be undertaken.
This review would review items such as:
• Cost of current operating methodologies;
• Impact on collection methodologies for proposed new methodology;
• Public or private ownership with respect to gasification technology operation;
• Review of current volumes in each waste stream to determine availability of feed stock for the new methodology;
• Determining a potential size of a treatment facility;
• Cost of land acquisition for treatment facility;
• Determining the requirements for preparation of waste streams for utilization in gasification technology;
• Determining Ministry of Environment’s position on the Township’s implementation of this philosophy and impact on regional waste management plan;
• Determining what regulatory requirements must be met by the Township in order to move to this new methodology;
• Carrying out a high level review of gasification technology to determine order of magnitude costs;
• Determining life cycle costing for the proposed methodology; and
• Comparison of the costing of the proposed methodology versus the current methodology.
This review would be setup in a manner that the consultant retained to carry out the above scope of work would also provide technical expertise to the Township for the procurement and implementation of the new methodology. With this requirement, if a firm was awarded this scope of work, they would be excluded from providing a tender/proposal for procurement and implementation of the new methodology. By structuring the review in this manner, the Township will be able to access technology experts who can objectively review the new methodology and the work carried out in the review.
There are two options for this work. They are:
1. Status Quo
2. Release a Request for Proposals to carry out a review.
Status Quo
Under this option, the methodologies currently being utilized will continue. The costs associated with the methodologies will remain consistent within the operational budget.
Release a Request for Proposals to carry out a review
Under this option, staff would write a request for proposals to carry out the review. The scope of work will mirror the information detailed in the issues section. It is staff estimation that the cost associated with this Request for Proposals would most likely range in magnitude from $100,000 to $150,000.
If this option was the direction given, staff would also carry out a Request for Proposals call for the yard and garden waste operation. The time that the review would take along with budgeting for further actions would be significant. A short term contract (three years with two one-year extensions) could be written in order to provide stability to the operation and location while additional work on IRM was carried out.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That the COTW receive Staff Report No. EPW-18-019 for information, provide any additional direction to staff as the COTW considers advisable, and direct staff to prepare a report for Council’s consideration.
2. That the COTW provide alternative direction to staff.
3. That the COTW request further information from staff.