UBC Undergraduate Research

Waste solutions for Metro Vancouver Lam, Clement 2010

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Ho_Anthony_etal_EOSC448E_Apr_2010_Waste_Solutions.pdf
Ho_Anthony_etal_EOSC448E_Apr_2010_Waste_Solutions.pdf [ 2.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0074559.json
JSON-LD: 1.0074559+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0074559.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0074559+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0074559+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0074559+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0074559.ris

Full Text

           To the residents of Metro Vancouver with hopes for a greener city         "We are forced to choose, for the processes we have initiated in our lifetime cannot continue in the lifetime of our children... The choice before us is urgent and important: it can neither be postponed nor ignored."  Ervin László Philosopher of Science, pianist, prominent author  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | i  Table of Contents  Executive Summary p. ii About the Authors p. v Acknowledgements p. vi  1. Introduction p. 1 2. Background: Waste Treatment Options p. 2 2.1. Landfilling p. 2 2.2. Waste-to-Energy p. 4 2.3. Composting p. 6 2.4. Recycling p. 8 3. Scenarios: Methodology p. 10 3.1. Description of Scenarios p. 10 3.2. Integrated Solid Waste Management Model (ISWM) p. 14 3.3. Framework for Analyzing ISWM Results p. 15 4. Discussion of ISWM Results p. 16 4.1. Atmospheric Effects and Climate Change p. 16 4.2. Water Quality p. 18 4.3. Human Health p. 20 4.4. Land Disruption and Other Socio-Economic Issues p. 21 5. Limitations and Further Research p. 22 6. The “Waste Management Solution” p. 23 7. Achieving Waste Reduction and Diversion p. 24 8. Conclusion p. 26 References p. 27  Appendix A: Abbreviations  p. A-1 Appendix B: Sensitivity Analysis of Waste Collection p. A-2 Appendix C: Scenarios p. A-3  Table of Contents  ii | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Executive Summary   Metro Vancouver presently generates about 3.4 million tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) per year. As Metro Vancouver’s population continues to increase, it is predicted that more MSW will be produced (GVRD, 2004). Waste management technologies cause a wide range of consequences, including the release of pollutants which can be damaging to human health and to the environment. These include greenhouse gases (GHGs), dioxins and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The purpose of this study is to determine the best waste management strategy for the Metro Vancouver area taking into consideration the facilities that are already in place, economic effects, health effects, and ecological effects. This study is relevant at this time as Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of devising a new solid waste management plan. It is essential that we are able to determine the best approach in which to treat our waste environmentally, while still remaining conscious of the health of our population and the restrictions due to existing infrastructure.  The objectives of our study are: 1. To develop an understanding of existing waste management practices in Metro Vancouver. 2. To develop a set of realistic scenarios based on our understanding of waste management practices in Metro Vancouver, which will allow investigation into environmental consequences due to various waste management approaches. 3. To project the above scenarios from 2010 to 2020, using available data from present practices and reasonable assumptions for unknown quantities. 4. To examine the full range of environmental, human health and socio-economic consequences of the developed scenarios in a quantitative framework using the Integrated Solid Waste Management model created at the University of Waterloo. 5. To recommend a waste management strategy that would be beneficial for Metro Vancouver for use in the near future based on the model output. Executive Summary ry Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | iii  To analyze the full range of possible environmental, human health and socio-economic effects due to different waste treatment options in Metro Vancouver, we developed four waste management scenarios. The four scenarios are: Scenario 1 – status quo (base scenario); Scenario 2 – Zero Waste Challenge (Metro Vancouver’s current waste management plan); Scenario 3 – Waste Reduction; and Scenario 4 – Waste Reduction and Diversion. The last two scenarios were developed for this study.  Table 1: Summary of Impacts by Scenario, relative to Scenario 1   Atmosphere Water Quality Human Health Land Disruption Scenario 1 Scenario 2 – + – – + Scenario 3 + + + + Scenario 4 + + + + + + + +  + denotes an improvement over Scenario 1 ++ denotes a significant improvement over Scenario 1 – denotes a deterioration over Scenario 1 – – denotes a significant deterioration over Scenario 1  The Integrated Solid Waste Management model, maintained by the University of Waterloo, provides quantitative assessments of the amounts of pollutants generated by various waste management processes. Using this model, we assessed these four scenarios by comparing their effects on the atmosphere, water quality, human health and land disruption. We also compared the socio-economic consequences of the four scenarios. Table 1 above summarizes these effects. Of the four scenarios examined, we found that Scenario 4, which includes increases in both waste reduction and diversion, is undoubtedly the most ideal waste management solution in Metro Vancouver. This scenario results in the fewest negative impacts on the environment and on human health without the need to install new WTE facilities. It is important to note that Scenario 4 represents a win-win scenario in that no trade-off between focusing on GHG reduction and minimizing human health impacts is required. This “solution scenario” suggests that neither increases in waste reduction nor diversion alone is sufficient. The best plan of action must include increases in both waste reduction and diversion. This scenario is fully Executive Summa  iv | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  attainable through an increased focus on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Pay-As-You- Throw (PAYT), waste sorting and other recycling/composting initiatives programs. Waste management is a vital issue in Metro Vancouver. Stringent policies at both the municipal and provincial levels must be implemented to ensure that waste reduction and diversion targets are followed. If we wish to maintain our level of well-being in Metro Vancouver, a superior waste solution must be adopted. We are individuals sustained by environment. We must sustain the environment that sustains us.  Executive Summary Executive Summary Downtown Vancouver skyline. Photo courtesy of Jessica MacDonald, 2010.  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | v  About the Authors  This study is a capstone project for an Environmental Science Directed Studies course in the University of British Columbia (UBC).  The project team consists of seven senior Science students from a range of academic backgrounds and interests.  The topic of study was determined and developed wholly by the students, with guidance from two supervisors: Drs. Steyn and Ivanochko from the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, UBC. The primary goals of the project include selecting a topic of study relating to environmental sciences, corresponding with the relevant experts and stakeholders, and presenting our research results to the public.   Anthony Ho is a graduating UBC student pursuing a B.Sc. in Environmental Sciences and a B.A. in Political Science. His field of interest includes the analysis of the creation and implementation of sustainable environmental policy. He is enrolled in the LL.B./MPA concurrent degrees program at the University of Victoria, which will begin this September.  Jessica MacDonald is a graduating UBC Environmental Sciences student. Her interests include environmental psychology, marine pollution and fisheries science. She is currently a research assistant with the “Sea Around Us” project at UBC, and plans to continue her education in an area on the interface between environment and society.  Clement Lam is a graduating UBC student pursuing a degree in Integrated Sciences.  His integrations include topics from physiology, ecology, and environmental sciences to investigate how atmospheric and marine environmental pollutants affect human biological systems.  His passions include aviation, and exploring and confronting challenges in developing nations.  A fourth-year UBC Environmental Sciences student, Monika Dean has always had a fascination with waste production and reduction; she has been working in the waste management industry for the past 6 years. Currently focusing on the study of ecology and plant systems at UBC, she hopes to continue exploring her curiosity in sustainable management of natural resources.  Joseph Lai is a graduating student from the Environmental Sciences program at UBC, with a focus on environmental chemistry. He is interested in human health ramifications of atmospheric and aquatic pollution, and plans to pursue further studies in public and environmental health.   Nan Lu is a graduating UBC Environmental Sciences student. She wishes to pursue further studies in atmosphere dynamics, meteorology and weather forecast modelling. At present, she is working in the School of Environmental Health laboratory as a student research assistant.   Nari Sim is a graduating UBC Environmental Sciences student. Her interests include climate change and environmental geochemistry, specifically the chemical analysis of water column and sedimentary marine environments involving trace metal analyses. She is enrolled in the M.Sc. program at UBC, which will commence this September.    About the Authors  vi | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Acknowledgements  The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following people and organizations for their tremendous help throughout this study:  • Dr. Douw Steyn, Professor, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, The University of British Columbia • Dr. Tara Ivanochko, Instructor, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, The University of British Columbia • Dr. Murray Haight, Director, School of Planning, Faculty of Environmental Studies, The University of Waterloo • Patricia Ross, City Councillor, City of Abbotsford • Nicole Steglich, Landfill and Transfer Operations, Vancouver Landfill • Burnaby Waste-to-Energy Facility, Covanta Energy • Nancy Grenier, Belkorp Industries Inc. • Dr. Michael Brauer, Professor, School of Environmental Health & Department of Medicine & Atmospheric Science Programme, College for Interdisciplinary Studies & Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia • Monica Kosmak, Garbage Critic • Collin Swift & Amanda Gorchinski, Plasco Energy Group • Mairi Welman, Director of Communications, The Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC) • Aleteia Greenwood, UBC Library, The University of British Columbia • Carol Delafranier, Senior Engineer and Contracted Services, Metro Vancouver • and many others who graciously provided their time and expertise to this project  The authors would also like to acknowledge and thank the following organizations, whose generous funding made this project possible:  • Science Undergraduate Society (SUS), The University of British Columbia • Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences (EOS), The University of British Columbia   Acknowledgements  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 1  1. Introduction  Waste has historically been a challenge to society. In developing countries, waste management is reduced to what the community can afford (usually not very much). Waste is mostly a big-city problem and complications start with waste collection and continue with open dumps, open burning, and incinerators in the middle of towns (UNEP, 2009). The town of Kamikatsu, located in Tokusima, Japan, is regarded as being at the global forefront in sustainable waste management practices. With increasing encouragement from local government to sort waste and separate recyclable goods, Kamikatsu sets high environmental standards for their waste management with an achieved 2004 recycling rate of 76% (Sakata, 2007). In Canada, populations are distributed more sparsely in comparison to other nations around the world, yet waste management remains a colossal challenge.  Metro Vancouver presently generates about 3.4 million tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) per year. As Metro Vancouver’s population continues to increase, it is predicted that more MSW will be produced (GVRD, 2004). Waste management technologies cause a wide range of consequences, including the release of pollutants which can be damaging to human health and to the environment. These include greenhouse gases (GHGs), dioxins and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  The objectives of our study are: 1. To develop an understanding of existing waste management practices in Metro Vancouver. 2. To develop a set of realistic scenarios based on our understanding of waste management practices in Metro Vancouver, which will allow investigation into environmental consequences due to various waste management approaches. 3. To project the above scenarios from 2010 to 2020, using available data from present practices and reasonable assumptions for unknown quantities. 4. To examine the full range of environmental, human health and socio-economic consequences of the developed scenarios in a quantitative framework using the Integrated Solid Waste Management model created at the University of Waterloo. 5. To recommend a waste management strategy that would be beneficial for Metro Vancouver for use in the near future based on the model output.  To analyze the full range of possible environmental, human health and socio-economic effects due to different waste treatment options in Metro Vancouver, we developed four waste management scenarios. The first scenario that will be examined is “status quo”. In this scenario, we will project the trend of MSW production in Metro Vancouver assuming there will be no change to current trends in waste production or management policies. The second scenario that will be investigated is “Zero Waste Challenge”, which is the waste management scenario proposed by Metro Vancouver. In this scenario, we will project the trend of MSW production assuming Metro Vancouver accomplishes its plan to increase MSW diversion from landfills and waste-to- energy facilities (WTEF).  While the projected trends of total MSW production will be identical in the first and second scenarios, the proportions of MSW going into the various waste treatment facilities will be different. The third scenario that will be explored is “Waste Reduction”. In this scenario, we will project the trend of MSW production assuming waste production per capita will decline. Since Metro Vancouver has not set a waste management plan for per capita waste reduction, we will produce a plausible waste reduction scenario for Metro Vancouver. Finally, we will investigate a fourth scenario called “Waste Reduction and Diversion.”  In this scenario, we will set a per capita waste reduction target while increasing MSW diversion.  The Integrated Solid Waste Management model, created at the University of Waterloo, provides quantitative assessments of the amounts of pollutants generated by various waste management processes. Using this model, we will assess the scenarios by comparing their effects on the atmosphere, water quality, human health and land disruption. We will also compare the socio-economic consequences of the four scenarios.  The purpose of this study is to determine the best waste management strategy for the Metro Vancouver area taking into consideration the facilities that are already in place, economic effects, health effects, and ecological effects. This study is relevant at this time as Metro Vancouver is currently in the process of devising a new solid waste management plan. It is essential that we are able to determine the best approach through which we treat our waste in an environmentally-sound manner, while still remaining conscious of the health of our population and the restrictions due to existing infrastructure. Introduction  2 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  2. Background: Waste Treatment Options 2.1. Landfilling  Landfilling of garbage is the oldest form of waste disposal, which involves the burial of waste materials. Modern landfills are not just a site for abandoning unwanted wastes, but involve careful operation management. Complex monitoring systems are maintained to ensure minimal impact on the surrounding environment while recovering energy from the landfill by-product, methane gas.  Among the landfill by-products, landfill gas (LFG) and leachate often raise environmental concerns. Waste materials received at the landfill contain rich organic matter, which can be digested by microorganisms. Landfill gas is produced from organic matter in the waste material through anaerobic respiration. Leachate is the liquid produced in the landfill waste materials through precipitation and degradation processes.  Once waste is unloaded into a landfill, it is degraded by aerobic bacteria, resulting in carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) and heat (Abushammala, 2009). Heat further enhances decomposition of waste, and the water produced will add to leachate volume. Most importantly, CO2 increases the acidity of leachate by forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) when dissolved in water.  The solubility of toxic heavy metals increases with rising solution acidity. If the pH in leachate continually decreases, the rate at which heavy metals, such as lead or mercury, are absorbed into the leachate increases. During the decomposition process, carbohydrates, proteins and lipids in waste are converted into CO2, hydrogen gas (H2), ammonia (NH3), and organic acids, from which anaerobic bacteria further degrade into methane (CH4) and CO2. Moreover, there are other microorganisms that directly convert H2 and CO2 into CH4 and H2O (Abushammala, 2009). To minimize the runoff of toxicants, most landfills are subject to leachate collection and treatment systems which maintain the low acidity (high pH) of the leachate (Abushammala, 2009).  Currently, the two landfills servicing Metro Vancouver region, the Vancouver landfill and Cache Creek landfill, are receiving 76% of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste, while the remaining waste is transported to the WTE facility in Burnaby (Transfer and Landfill, 2008). The Vancouver landfill located in Delta has been in operation since 1967. It receives over 1.2 million tonnes of waste material annually, including municipal solid waste (MSW), and demolition, land-clearing and construction (DLC) waste from Metro Vancouver (Transfer and Landfill, 2008). The Cache Creek Landfill, which has been in operation since 1989, is located within the municipality of Cache Creek. The landfill is currently operated by Wastech Services Ltd., a subdivision of Belkorp Industries Ltd., and receives approximately 500,000 tonnes of MSW per year. Metro Vancouver has recently reached an agreement with Belkorp to extend the lifespan of the Cache Creek Landfill by 40 years as it was approaching capacity and set to close in 2010 (Belkorp, 2008).  Both landfills have implemented several environmental protection programs. First, there are water quality monitoring programs that analyze water samples taken from monitoring wells at different depths and at different proximities to the landfill site. Up to 40 parameters are tested, including pH, concentration of dissolved lead and arsenic, all of which may have significant impacts on the environment (Transfer and Landfill, 2008).  There are also leachate collection systems that gather contaminated water permeating through the waste. The collected leachate may contain high levels of heavy metals and dissolved organic matter. The two landfills have different leachate treatment systems. At the Vancouver Landfill, leachate is transported from the pump station to the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (Transfer and Landfill, 2008). The Cache Creek Landfill has a closed treatment system on site. The leachate is redistributed onto the top of the landfill to help accelerate the decomposition of waste materials (Cache Creek, 2009). The reuse of leachate is economically beneficial, although this process causes the accumulation of toxicants over time (Christensen, 1992).  Lastly, there are landfill gas treatment programs. Both landfills minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) released to the atmosphere by using landfill gas capturing systems; however, captured gas is treated differently at the two landfills. Vancouver Landfill captures 82% of landfill gas, which is used to provide heat and water for the nearby administration building, and the rest is flared. On the other hand, the Cache Creek Landfill flares all collected landfill gas. However, a plan to recover at least 70% of energy from landfill gas by 2014 has been proposed (Cache Creek, 2009). Background: Waste Treatment Options Background: Waste Treatment Options  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 3  2.1.1. Atmospheric Impacts of Landfilling  Landfills impact the atmosphere due to emission of landfill gas. Generally, 50–60% of landfill gas is methane (CH4), 30–40% is carbon dioxide (CO2), and the remainder consists of trace amounts of other gases, such as hydrogen sulphide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (City of Vancouver, 2009).  CO2 and CH4 are well-known GHGs (City of Vancouver, 2009). The released CH4 is more detrimental than CO2 as the former has more than 20 times the global warming potential of the latter. Heavy metals present in the landfill can also be released into the atmosphere in gaseous forms when landfill gas is flared. A study on two Florida landfills suggests that mercury (Hg) vapour emissions, ranging from approximately 6 to 2,400 ng/hr, are detected from the LFG flaring system (Lindberg, 1999). However, since the majority of landfill gas is composed of GHGs, landfills are generally considered to be important factors influencing global climate change in the MSW management system (City of Vancouver, 2009).  A study of GHG emissions from the Vancouver Landfill measured that the landfill currently releases approximately 382 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2e) per tonne of MSW, but if more recycling and composting programs are implemented to reduce the amount of organic materials in the waste stream, GHG emissions could decrease to 243 kg CO2e per tonne of MSW (City of Vancouver, 2009).  2.1.2. Biological, Hydrological, and Pedological Effects of Landfilling  Plant species which originally occupied the landfill area have been displaced by the landfill due to its requirement of a large amount of land.  Accordingly, the Vancouver Landfill stacks the solid waste, in order to minimize sprawl. Animals are also impacted by landfills. The food scraps in the waste attract a variety of animals. Highly mobile species, such as seagulls and eagles, can spread bacteria and pathogens from landfills to residential areas. To address this problem, the Vancouver Landfill has introduced a bird control program using raptors: introducing only one hawk can expel thousands of seagulls. However, there is no report of a bird control program in use at the Cache Creek Landfill (City of Vancouver, 2003).  Quantifying hydrological and pedological impacts of landfills are very difficult and contain high levels of uncertainty, due to the complexity of environmental pathways and the persistence of pollutants in the landfill area (Rabl et al. 2008). Landfill leachate generally contains toxic heavy metals, such as chromium, copper, cadmium, lead and mercury, all of which can cause poisoning, illness and death in humans (Manahan, 2004). Currently, those heavy metals exist in trace amounts in landfill leachate – ranging from one to ten parts per trillion (ppt). However, even though heavy metals are insoluble under neutral pH, they still exist in very low concentrations and pose a threat to the nearby environment. Heavy metals have high toxicity, even in trace amounts.  Due to the biological hazard of toxicants, many studies have investigated cases involving the leakage of significant amounts of landfill leachate. However, the worst-case scenario in these studies shows that the impact of the leachate leakage is negligible, compared to the existing contamination from sources other than landfills (Rabl et al. 2008).  2.1.3. Environmental Health Impacts of Landfilling  Most landfill sites are isolated from residential areas. The majority of landfill gas consists of CH4 and CO2, which are not known to cause respiratory illness in humans. So, it is very difficult to identify whether respiratory diseases near landfills are caused by landfill gas or from other sources. For that reason, there are no confirmed cases of respiratory disease caused by landfill gases.  Manahan (2004) describes how landfill leachate can directly impact human health. Leachate often contains toxic heavy metals, such as cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb), which can cause various human health effects if significant amounts of leachate were leaked from the landfill site and infiltrated into the nearby groundwater system. For example, if Cd were released from the leachate into the water table, it could cause serious poisoning effects. Once a significant amount of Cd is introduced into a living organism, it accumulates in enzymes and can cause heart disease, cancer and diabetes. In addition, Pb also could cause acute poisoning of kidney, liver and brain, resulting in central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction, or mental retardation in children. Lastly, mercury (Hg) leaches from batteries, broken thermometers, lawn fungicides, amalgam tooth fillings and pharmaceuticals. Hg in its liquid state is not very hazardous; however, when dissolved in water where anaerobic bacteria are present, it is hazardous because it forms methylated Background: Waste Treatment Options  4 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  species that are very volatile and extremely soluble. Human ingestion of contaminated fish or drinking water containing soluble species of Hg can result in poisoning, loss of hearing, tooth loss and death.  Leaching of these heavy metals depends on the pH of the solute and whether they have infiltrated the water table in surrounding areas. The leaching rate of heavy metals is relatively low under neutral conditions and high under acidic (low pH) conditions (Xiaoli et al., 2007). If the landfill system controls the acidity of infiltrating water or has a good buffer system, the leaching of heavy metals can be minimized.  2.1.4. Socio-Economic Impacts and Policy Implications of Landfilling  Landfills are also known to have social impacts on surrounding residents and property values. A study of Toronto landfills suggests that the potential factors affecting the residents living in proximity to landfills included unwanted noise from increased traffic and landfill operations, displeasing odours, and the destruction of the natural landscape (Lim, 2007).  Moreover, in recent years, to maximize the economic benefits and also convenience of MSW disposal, there has been a shift from small-scale landfills to large landfills in general.  However, large regional landfills affect the surrounding land values much more than small-scale landfills. Property values near landfills have been shown to decreases at a rate of 4.12% per mile of distance from the landfill (Lim, 2007). Therefore, more careful considerations may be required for future expansions of current landfills and for the planning of additional large scale landfills.  Moving wastes to a location out of sight does not mean that they have disappeared. Waste materials in landfills raise further concerns, such as potential leachate infiltration and large GHG emissions.  Landfills could also dramatically alter the soil composition and disturb local animal and plant species. To maintain minimal impact on the surrounding environment, landfills require both careful structural design and sustainable management strategies.  2.2. Waste-to-Energy (WTE)  Waste incineration is a treatment option that has been used for centuries to decrease waste volume and eradicate living pathogens.  With land and energy at a premium in many industrialized countries, recovering energy from waste at a WTE facility rather than merely incinerating has become a more attractive proposition. Unlike pure incineration, WTE technologies capture the heat generated from burning waste and generate electricity through a steam turbine.  In Metro Vancouver, the Burnaby WTE facility began incinerating waste more than 20 years ago, and currently processes about 24% of the region’s waste (GVRD, 2008). The facility was upgraded to recover energy from waste in 2003 (GVRD, 2007). The facility burns waste at a temperature of about 1000°C, operates 24 hours a day for up to 363 days a year, excluding interruptions for maintenance and inspections. It can process a maximum of 285,000 tonnes of MSW per year (GVRD, 2007).  2.2.1. Atmospheric Impacts of WTE  The production of energy from waste is not without its concerns.  One major concern is heavy metals such as lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg).  These metals usually exit the facility in the form of fine particulates as part of smokestack emissions (Morris, 2009b).  Even with sophisticated particulate-capturing infrastructure or a fully closed system, metals cannot be converted to useful energy and becomes part of the bottom ash, discussed below.  Of the atmospheric pollutants associated with the waste incineration process, dioxins are most associated with waste incineration due to the fact that dioxins are products of combustion of hydrocarbons, most notably polyhalogenated compounds that contain a large proportion of chlorine such as PVC (Kulkarni, 2008).  The emission levels of highly toxic species of dioxins from a WTE facility are regulated federally and checked once every quarter, although the facility administration is aware of when samples are taken for examination ahead of time (Burnaby WTE facility, personal communication, 2009).  Incinerators today emit amounts of dioxins well below regulated levels, although they still constitute a significant portion of dioxin exposure to the general public (Inoue, 2009; Morris, 2009b).  Dioxins are persistent and can bioaccumulate in organic tissues.  The combined effects of direct atmospheric exposure and consumption could have measurable human health effects (Kulkarni, 2008).  Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and NOx, important urban smog precursors, are also produced by combustion of hydrocarbons.  In the Lower Fraser Background: Waste Treatment Options  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 5  Valley (LFV), the mesoscale meteorological patterns sometimes cause these precursors to linger within the valley for long periods of time, creating smog that is damaging to ecosystems and human health alike (McKendry, 2010).  However, WTE facilities tend to be very weak sources of these smog precursors compared to emissions from vehicles (Brauer, personal communication, 2010).  Carbon dioxide is the product of complete combustion of carbon compounds, and as such is the major component of incinerator emissions.  Although CO2 emissions are non-toxic, it has climate change implications and therefore many studies have been done to estimate the carbon budget of incinerating waste compared to other forms of disposal.  There are wide-ranging estimates regarding whether WTE facilities are carbon-emitting or carbon-absorbing when life-cycle analyses are examined.  Astrup (2009) claims that WTE is highly carbon-absorbing, when the high-efficiency (60-85%) district heating along with energy savings from the use of bottom ash as construction material are considered.  Morris (2009b), however, found that the WTE process to be carbon- emitting based on equivalent electricity generation from a natural gas power plant, mostly as a result of burning petrochemicals.  The CO2 budget of WTE facilities is based on many factors, such as waste composition, waste transportation, operation of facility (presence of district heating, power needed to maintain incinerator, etc.), treatment of bottom ash, and construction – the latter being a key component to CO2 savings, according to Astrup (2009).  Particulate matter (PM), or aerosols, are small particles of solid or liquid suspended in the atmosphere.  They have been shown to adversely affect mortality and morbidity rates, and may play a role in development of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases (Dockery, 1994).  As many of these particles are relatively large in size, WTE facilities with bag filters successfully capture the vast majority of the PM before it is emitted (Inoue, 2009).  However, recent studies have illuminated possible health impacts of nanoparticulates, which are difficult to measure in the atmosphere (McKendry, 2010)  Acidic gases, such as those formed from sulphates and nitrates, are also produced in combustion. However, chimney scrubbers in modern WTE facilities effectively remove them and facilities are insignificant sources of acidic gases in the atmosphere (Astrup, 2009). 2.2.2. Bottom Ash and Fly Ash  Ash resulting from the incineration of waste comes in two forms: bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash is composed of larger, heavier blocks of burnt material that stay at the bottom of the incinerating chamber. Fly ash is finer and can become airborne, but can be captured by bag filters before the exhaust exits the facility.  These materials are generally landfilled, although some of the ash from the Burnaby WTE facility has been used in road paving and low-strength construction material in low leachate concern areas, such as controlled industrial sites and landfills (Naganathan, 2009; GVRD, 2007).Bottom ash is also used in road paving in low leachate concern areas, such as controlled industrial sites and landfills (GVRD, 2007).  Bottom ash is often overlooked when determining the environmental impacts of WTE facilities. However, it is due to this oversight that there are little data on the behaviour of the ash (leaching, chemical transformations etc.) over time.  A study of heavy metal leaching of bottom ash from road-paving found that it is not a great concern during the initial three months; however, the ash continues to undergo chemical alterations, such as carbonation, after 10 years (De Windt, 2009).  This carbonation process can increase the pH of surrounding soils and waters.  The above problems of heavy metal leaching and increasing soil alkalinity are corrected by acid treatment, although complexation methods are becoming more commonly used (Fedje, 2010).  2.2.3. Environmental Health Impacts of WTE  The main health concern related to WTE is the release of bioaccumulative toxins, such as dioxins and heavy metals, and particulate matter (PM). Generally, a WTE facility does not pose as great a health concern as, for example, traffic emissions (Brauer, personal communication, 2010).  Roberts and Chen (2006) estimated that the emissions of a waste incinerator could pose a 1-in-4 million risk of death per year for a population within a radius of 5.5 km.  However, the health impact is not negligible, as the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency recently reiterated (HPA, 2009).  Various studies have linked proximity to incineration facilities to elevated rates of reproductive deficiency, oesophageal cancer and cardio-pulmonary problems, although none could claim a direct causation (Porta, 2009).  In order to better understand the impacts of installing a new WTE facility in the LFV and elsewhere, exposure assessments should be Background: Waste Treatment Options  6 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  performed as part of a complete health risk assessment to avoid any potential health threats.  2.2.4. Policy Implications of WTE  The recent reassigning of WTE as a source of “green” energy by the B.C. provincial government has changed the political landscape of WTE.  WTE facilities are now subject to the same government financial and political support as wind or solar power.  Although that is the case, the government still recommends careful consideration before implementing this form of waste treatment, citing community concerns and the need by WTE facilities for steady waste flows as potential roadblocks (CEA, 2008).  WTE reduces the volume of landfilled material by about 80%, and creates energy from otherwise landfilled materials. These considerations make WTE a politically attractive option.  However, one must take into consideration the additional atmospheric pollution and the remaining issue of toxic ash after burning.  The potential burden on public health in the LFV, and the need for a constant stream of waste, are the main reasons why WTE facilities face opposition by residents where the installation of these facilities is proposed.  2.3. Composting  Composting is a common waste treatment option for biodegradable waste (Boldrin et al., 2009).  In this process, organic matter is broken down by microbes, which ingest and excrete the waste.  Originally, composting was quite undeveloped and primitive in Metro Vancouver.  It was voluntarily conducted in black, plastic bins at individual buildings and residences (UBC In Vessel Composting Facility, personal communication, 2009).  The lack of an effective management system for these bins resulted in problems such as strong odours and rodent infestation.  Today, composting has evolved into a mainstream waste treatment option.  There are more than 2000 facilities for household organic waste materials in operation around Europe (Boldrin et al., 2009).  Composting is also utilized abundantly in developing countries, where waste usually has a high content of wet organic materials.  The majority of waste that is composted in Metro Vancouver consists of yard and garden waste.   There are several major options for composting: • Pile and Churn – A slow process in which organic material is consolidated and rotated by machinery, commonly resulting in odour and rodents. • Backyard Composting – Conducted at individual residences in simple wooden composters or plastic bins. • Windrow Composting – Different feedstocks added to windrows. • Anaerobic In-vessel Machine – A slow process in which methane is generated. • Aerobic In-vessel Composting Machine – Material sits for two weeks in machine and another one to two months outside before it becomes usable soil, with wood chips being added continuously to the mixture.  The machine operates at between 50 to 70°C.  Air is pumped into the machine to facilitate aerobic activity if an insufficient amount of air is detected.  This process is difficult to expand to a municipal scale.  Currently, in Metro Vancouver, composting occurs at several major sites.  A notable amount of yard waste is composted in an open air pile and churn facility located in the middle of the Vancouver Landfill.  The soil generated from this facility is used to cover active sites at this landfill after they have been filled in (N. Steglich, personal communication, 2009).  At the Cache Creek Landfill, there is also a small designated area for the composting of yard related waste.  Similar to the Vancouver Landfill, soil generated is used for the closing phases of active sites (N. Grenier, personal communication, 2010).  The University of British Columbia runs its own smaller-scale Aerobic In-vessel Composter.  Five tonnes of compostable materials per day are processed at this facility, which is located on the Point Grey campus (UBC In-vessel Composting Facility, personal communication, 2009).  The main composting facility in Metro Vancouver is the Fraser Richmond Soil and Fibre Limited, which processes approximately 100,000 tonnes of yard waste for Metro Vancouver (CBC News, 2009).  In June 2009, Metro Vancouver signed a ten-year contract with that company to expand the yard waste program to include kitchen scraps from at least ten municipalities.  The kitchen scraps program allows for the composting of materials such as coffee grounds, grains, fruit and vegetable waste, soiled papers and meat.  The agreement accounted for an additional 50,000 tonnes of organic waste, which is about three percent of Metro Vancouver’s annual waste (CBC News, 2009). Since this is simply an agreement between Metro Background: Waste Treatment Options  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 7  Vancouver and the facility, it is not an official policy. Each municipality is responsible for curb-side collection of its own compostable material.  Port Coquitlam has been collecting curb-side compost since June 2008.  On March 4th, 2010, the City of Vancouver approved a plan for curb-side collection of compostable materials (Hodson, 2010).  Phase one of the new program will begin on Earth Day (April 22nd) 2010 and will divert about 6,100 tonnes of organic material from the Vancouver Landfill.  Residents will be able to add kitchen scraps to their yard trimmings bin, which will be collected once every two weeks.  The compost will be transported to and processed by the Fraser Richmond Soil and Fibre Limited (Hodson, 2010).  2.3.1.  Atmospheric Impacts of Composting  Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controlled composting processes are relatively minor, but should still be noted.  In a European study, two major composting methods were presented and discussed (Amlinger et al., 2007).  Emission trials were conducted for two series of backyard compost and for different feedstocks for windrow composting.  Emissions from backyard composting are rarely quantified.  The appearance of CH4, N2O, and NH3 shows a typical pattern during intensive rotting and maturation (Amlinger et al., 2007).  GHG emissions from composting can be further reduced by employing additional methods.  Composting contributes to emissions and reduces emissions concurrently (Boldrin et al., 2009). Composting generates emissions, but these emissions are significantly less than what would result if the waste were treated by another method.  GHGs from composting may originate from compositing facilities from the degradation of organic matter, and from the use of electricity and fuels by heavy machinery for turning the waste.  Additionally, compost can be used in place of inorganic fertilizers.  2.3.2. Biological, Hydrological, and Pedological Effects of Composting  Biological effects of composting are fairly limited, as composting is almost always conducted at closed, controlled sites.  However, strong odours can be emitted from the facilities and thus, rodents may be attracted to the area (UBC In-vessel Composting Facility, personal communication, 2009).  Composting rarely affects the hydrological and pedological environments due to the use of closed, controlled sites, which are carefully and strategically chosen.  However, in certain cases during the storage of organic materials or in open-air composting, chemicals may leach into the soil below and enter the water table.  This can be easily prevented by installing liners beneath the area.  Chemical leaching from composting occurs much less frequently compared to landfilling (UBC In-vessel Composting Facility, personal communication, 2009).  2.3.3. Environmental Health Impacts of Composting  Sorting and composting waste comes with many advantages.  However, MSW consisting mainly of yard and garden waste often contains various chemical and biological agents that may render compost harmful. Health risks may result from exposure to metals, persistent organic pollutants, organic dusts, bioaerosols, and microorganisms found in MSW compost.  Such contaminants may expose populations to health hazards, which can range from exposure to composting facility workers to the consumers of produce grown in contaminated soils (Domingo and Nadal, 2009).  To determine how composting affects health, one must also examine how the compost is utilized after production.  To reduce possible exposure to the by-products of composting, storage of compost in proximity to humans should be minimized as much as possible (M. Brauer, personal communication, 2010).  The compost must be tested for faecal coliforms prior to use. Control of the facilities should include measurements in both the compost and the air for bioaerosols, Gram-negative bacteria, and the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus to avoid these occupational hazards (Domingo and Nadal, 2009). Note that to date, the information referring to risks related to composting and to factors that produce those risks is scarce.  2.3.4. Socio-Economic Impacts and Policy Implications of Composting  Composting is quite labour intensive.  In the pile and churn technique, heavy machinery must be constantly utilized to move the material around.  To compost residential waste, either an additional truck must be deployed to collect the organic materials or the current recycling trucks must be refitted to collect organic materials along with recyclables.  For the in- vessel technique, staff must be employed full time to maintain and run the facility.  In small-scale Background: Waste Treatment Options  8 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  composting operations, only small trucks are used and thus, only a small amount of compost can be transported per trip.  It must be considered whether or not this effort is worth the energy expended. Residential organic waste is only three percent of MSW and composting this amount only minimally reduces atmospheric effects that would have been generated by other means of waste treatment.  A solid waste audit at the University of British Columbia confirmed that approximately 40% of waste generated at the university can be composted (UBC IVCF, personal communication, 2009).  This large percentage includes yard, garden, and paper waste.  In addition, compost bins in public areas are often poorly labelled and this results commonly in plastic contamination.  If there is a lot of contamination in one bin, that entire bin is rendered non-compostable, as there is often a lack of manpower to sort through the waste.  The amount of soil generated from composting is rarely sufficient for use in a community.  Thus, additional sources of soil are still required (UBC IVCF, personal communication, 2009).  Composting is more expensive than landfilling.  It costs approximately $300 per tonne to compost, compared to approximately $200 per tonne to send the identical amount to a landfill (UBC IVCF, personal communication, 2009). Although some cutlery is made to be compostable, current technology does not allow for complete composting of these items.  This may change in the future, as these compostable products are growing in popularity.  All in all, composting is quickly evolving into a more prominent option for treatment of biodegradable waste.  Composting is necessary for a waste solution that includes waste diversion.  At the two landfills that serve Metro Vancouver, the soil produced from composting of yard waste is utilized strategically to close active sites when they are filled. Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd. is the main composting facility that handles Metro Vancouver’s compostable waste, while the University of British Columbia also runs its own small-scale in-vessel facility. A new kitchen scraps program has been implemented to divert an additional amount of organic waste to Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd. for treatment.  The process of composting does result in emissions to the atmosphere, but these emissions are much less damaging than emissions from other waste treatment options.  Composting is conducted at controlled and carefully selected sites, resulting in few to no impacts on the water, soil and ecology of the area.  However, compost should be tested for various harmful chemical and biological agents prior to use in the community. Although composting may be more labour intensive and expensive that other treatment options, its benefits greatly outweigh its costs.  Therefore, composting is a crucial treatment option that should be utilized to its full potential.  2.4. Recycling  By processing post-consumer material which is no longer of value in its present form, recycling contributes to the manufacturing of new products without extracting virgin material (Sound Resource Management Group Inc., 2009). For example, under the recently implemented electronics Return-It program, medals for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games were created out of recycled copper from circuit boards. Also, indium from electronics can be captured and used to produce new cell phone screens (Encorp, 2010).  As a relatively new industry, much debate still centres around the best practices for separating and diverting dry recyclables from residual waste. Recycling collections that are cost- and convenience- competitive with waste collection are not available to all institutions, businesses and households. Consequently, small and medium-sized businesses, as well as residents of larger multi-family residences (MFRES) are frequently left unserviced by these collections. Diversion from waste that is self-motivated and hauled to disposal facilities is not significant compared to the amount that can be collected through universal recycling collection (Morris, 1996a).  Metro Vancouver recycles 55% of the solid waste produced by residents, amounting to approximately 1.8 million tonnes annually. However, there is still a need for improvement, as most waste received at the Cache Creek Landfill, the Vancouver Landfill and the Burnaby WTE facility is composed of recyclable materials, such as paper and plastic, and organic materials (Technology Resource Inc., 2008). The Blue Box recycling program currently in place in Metro Vancouver began in 1990 and now services over 100,000 households, collecting mixed containers and paper products. Partial sorting by residents prior to pick up drastically reduces contamination of the recovered materials, thus increasing the economical benefits that can be obtained from recovery.  Background: Waste Treatment Options  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 9  Extended producer responsibility (EPR), or product stewardship, has been in development over the last twenty years in British Columbia and accounted for the recovery of 122,413 tonnes of material in 2004. (GVRD, 2004).  Through the Ministry of Environment stewardship policy, all levels of government, industry and individuals have a role in material recycling.  The Ministry of Environment also provides incentives to increase environmentally conscious packaging and product design (Gardner Pinfold, 2008). Many local residents and waste analysts suggest a drastic shift to focus on EPR for further waste reduction (GVRD, 2004; Spiegelman and Sheehan, 2005). Products associated with EPR in B.C. currently include beverage containers, pharmeceuticals, electronics, tires, oil, oil filters, oil containers, paints, solvents, pesticides, gasoline, batteries, and cell phones (Encorp, 2010).  2.4.1. Atmospheric Impacts of Recycling  Recycling releases less greenhouse gases compared to WTE and landfilling. Manufacturing paper, plastics, glass and metal from recycled materials requires less energy than manufacturing these products from virgin materials since they have already been processed. It also eliminates the energy that would be expended in order to extract and transport the virgin materials.  For the combined MSW & DLC waste streams, diverting one tonne of discards to recycling or composting reduces GHGs by 1,152 kg of CO2e emissions, which includes a decrease in pollutants such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane and chlorofluorocarbons. Recycling and composting waste management strategies reduce the most GHGs, after industrial fuel (Sound Resource Management Group Inc., 2009).  With eight various product stewardship organizations at work in British Columbia, 73,000 tonnes of carbon equivalents have been prevented from entering the atmosphere. These product stewardship organizations also prevent 267,000 tonnes of CO2e from entering the atmosphere, with the majority being due to recycling of aluminum cans and tires. This is equivalent to removing 173,000 cars from the roads. (Gardner Pinfold, 2008).     2.4.2. Biological, Hydrological, and Pedological Effects of Recycling  The impacts of recycling on wildlife and their habitats are hard to determine based on the diversity of recycling programs available and where the recycling process occurs. Recycling in the combined MSW and DLC waste stream has an average 30 kg reduction of 2, 4-D equivalents (e2,4-D) per tonne of waste recycled. E2,4-D is the quantification of toxicity using herbicide as a baseline, which includes pollutants such as DDT, lead, mercury, zinc, vinyl chloride and others which can have negative effects on levels of ecosystem toxicity (Sound Resource Management Group Inc., 2009).  Product stewardship historically processed material on which disposal bans had been placed by provincial legislation, such as lead-acid batteries, paints, pesticides, and oil. These products are often corrosive, toxic and/or flammable, and the handling of these materials by employees trained in the EPR system reduces the likelihood of contamination to water and soils. (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2006; Gardner Pinfold, 2008).  As EPR and recycling programs conserve energy, hydroelectricity in B.C. is in less demand.  For example, recycling aluminum cans into new cans, which occurs within B.C., takes 95% less energy than extracting, processing and transporting virgin aluminum (Encorp 2010).  2.4.3. Environmental Health Impacts of Recycling  Environmental health is affected by recycling particulate matter, nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), mercury, lead, cadmium, toluene, as well as a variety of other pollutants measured in Toluene equivalents (eToluene).  eToluene is the indicator of human health impacts, which includes carcinogenic pollutants and those which may cause respiratory ailments. MSW recycling/composting reduces more eToluene than DLC recycling, mainly due to waste composition. The average tonne of MSW recyclables contains more materials with greater eToluene savings, including metals, plastic, paper and electronics. DLC recyclables, such as wood, have nearly neutral eToluene emissions. Recycling and composting are the only waste management methods that reduce eToluene emissions. (Sound Resource Management Group Inc., 2009).  Background: Waste Treatment Options  10 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  2.4.4. Socio-Economic Impacts and Policy Implications of Recycling  For most products, the energy savings produced by recycling is greater than the energy recovered by WTE facilities. Also, recycling waste materials conserves energy by replacing virgin raw material in manufacturing products with already processed materials, thereby reducing the need for acquisition of virgin materials from the natural environment (Morris, 1996a).  The implementation of EPR programs has economical benefits for cities since costs associated with hazardous material remediation, landfill development and landfill operation are reduced. Also, there is no cost to producers for extracting and processing virgin materials (Gardner Pinfold, 2008).  In addition to the avoided costs, a shift in responsibility of cost for waste management occurs as EPR is implemented. Local governments and general taxpayers no longer bear the burden of recycling fees, as eco-fees are placed on the consumers and go directly into the cost of recycling (Gardner Pinfold, 2008). These levies, paid by consumers, subsidize the cost of EPR so producers are not fully responsible. All parties play a role in the success of the program; producers will generally develop the plan to collect and recycle the material and provincial government will develop legislation, monitor the success and enforce adherence when necessary. Local governments provide facilities and inform the public, and retailers collect material and provide information when consumers return products (Encorp, 2010). Product stewardship, in this process, also contributes the equivalent of 2100 full-time jobs within the province of B.C.  Recycling can also have detrimental effects on waste generation, as it may cause a rebound effect, encouraging wasteful behaviour and increasing pollution. One way to counter against this is to set higher deposit fees, which may promote an overall reduction in consumption, and increase the amount of recycling on an individual scale (Smith, 1972).  Metro Vancouver’s recycling system is typical for the region but should be further developed to achieve the best possible practices. A waste management strategy that relies on reducing, reusing and recycling waste will conserve energy, produce fewer air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and will help solve the issue of increasing waste. In particular, EPR has the ability to drastically reduce MSW directed to landfills and WTE facilities, although municipalities historically have had less input on these programs than provincial governments and producers of goods. Recycling and composting are the only waste management options that have been found to prevent detrimental impacts for three main environmental concerns: climate change, ecosystem toxicity and human health. As such, resources from incineration or landfill research and development could be reallocated to recycling initiatives, education and promotion.  3. Scenarios: Methodology  The overall methodology of this study consists of three successive parts. First, using available historical data, we projected waste generation trends for Metro Vancouver until 2020 under four scenarios. Second, using our projected waste data from 2010 to 2020, we modeled the various chemical outputs of Metro Vancouver’s waste management system through the Integrated Solid Waste Management Model (ISWM), created and maintained by the University of Waterloo (http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/). Finally, we compared the ISWM model results across the four scenarios.  This study did not examine all possible waste streams. Only wastes in the residential (RES) and institutional-commercial-light industrial (ICI) sectors, collectively termed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) were analyzed. Hazardous wastes, and wastes generated from the demolition-land clearing-construction (DLC) sector and heavy industries were not studied.  A set of tables and figures describing the four scenarios can be found in Appendix C.  3.1. Description of Scenarios  This study compares the effect of Metro Vancouver’s waste management policies across four waste generation scenarios: status quo (base scenario), Zero Waste Challenge (Metro Vancouver’s current waste management plan), Waste Reduction, and Waste Reduction and Diversion. The last two scenarios were developed for this study.     Scenarios: Methodology  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 11  3.1.1. Status Quo/Base Scenario (Scenario 1)  In this scenario, we projected the trends of MSW generation, disposal and recycling in Metro Vancouver assuming that current trends will continue unchanged. Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Annual Report published in 2004 contains the amount of MSW and DLC wastes disposed and recycled from 1995 to 2004. From these data, we calculated the diversion rate (amount recycled/amount generated) and the per capita waste generation rate (amount generated/population) for each year. We used the yearly values of population for Metro Vancouver available from B.C. Stats.  Although the data contained within the 2004 report are now six years old, that document still represents the most complete set of waste management data available for Metro Vancouver, so we used these data to construct our scenarios.  In order to project forward the total amount of waste generated by Metro Vancouver, we performed an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression on the total per capita waste generation rates (Fig. 1a). For this regression, we opted to discard the data point for 1995 because the large drop in the per capita waste generation rate from 1995 to 1996 created a statistically insignificant slope during OLS regression (Fig. 1b). We justified this particular data exclusion by noting that, according to the 2004 Annual Report, Metro Vancouver’s current waste management regime was established in 1995. As such, the per capita waste generation trend pre- and post-1995 should be considered different. Assuming the slope from the OLS continues from 2004 to 2020, we estimated the per capita waste generation rates from 2005 to 2020. Multiplying those generation rates by the projected population (given by B.C. Stats) yielded the total amount of waste generated by Metro Vancouver annually.  The amount of waste generated by the MSW sector itself was determined by performing an OLS regression on the annual MSW per capita waste generation rate as a function of that year’s total per capita waste generation rate. Since we had already projected the total per capita waste generation rate from above, we were then able to project the MSW per capita waste generation rate. As before, multiplying these MSW per capita generation rates by the projected population yielded the total amount of waste generated by Metro Vancouver per year.  The historical trend in diversion rates (proportion of waste recycled/composted instead of disposed into landfill or incinerated) allowed us to estimate the future trend in the amount of waste disposed compared to the amount of waste recycled. We performed an OLS regression on the diversion rates of MSW after a log-transformation of the time axis. Using the regression results, we projected forward the Figure 1: Ordinary-Least-Square Regression of Total Per Capita Waste Generation Rate a) without 1995, b) with 1995    When the year 1995 is included in the OLS regression (a), the OLS yielded y = 0.0072x -13.1, with a statistically insignificant slope (P ≈ 0.216). When the regression is performed for 1996-2004 only, the OLS yielded y = 0.0139x – 26.5, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.02). 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1995 1998 2001 2004 To nn es  P er  C ap it a 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 To nn es  P er  C ap it a Data Regression Upper 95% C.I. Lower 95% C.I. (b) (a) 95% C.I. Scenarios: Methodology  12 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  amounts of total waste and MSW that were disposed and recycled.  To determine the composition of disposed waste, we consulted the “Solid Waste Composition Study for Metro Vancouver” that was released in 2008 by Technology Resource Inc. and contained the results of three MSW composition studies done in 2001, 2004 and 2007. We performed OLS regressions on all waste categories, and found no statistically significant non- zero slopes except in organic waste. Two issues prompted us to ignore the trend in organic waste. Firstly, only three data points were available, so any trend line fitted through those points was questionable. Secondly, the slope for the organics would have projected a disposed waste composition of 50% organic waste by 2020, which, when considered along with the previous reasoning, makes the value of the slope in the percentage of organic waste questionable In this study, we have decided to use the mean percentage for each waste category, and we assumed that the relative percentages would remain constant over time for the duration of the study period.  Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Annual Report 2004 contained information on the composition of recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver from 1995 to 2004. There were clear trends for paper products and organic wastes, each tending towards an equilibrium value in a logarithmic fashion. We performed OLS regressions on these trends in order to project their trends for the duration of our study period. The trends in plastics, glass, ferrous metals, aluminum and other wastes were more erratic. For these waste categories, we took their mean proportions and assumed that these relative proportions stay constant for the duration of our study period, while their combined proportion would be the remainder from the proportions of paper products and organic wastes.  Since we did not have data on the proportions of the subcategories of paper, plastic and organic waste in the recycled waste stream, we assumed that their proportions were the same as those in the disposed waste stream.  According to Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Annual Report 2004, the proportions of disposed waste that were treated by Vancouver Landfill, Cache Creek Landfill and the Burnaby Waste- to-Energy (WTE) Facility in 2004 were 43%, 33% and 24% respectively in 2004. For Scenario 1, we assumed that the Burnaby WTE facility would receive 285,000 tonnes of total disposed waste annually because WTE facility requires a constant stream of waste, and the 2004 report indicated that currently the Burnaby WTE facility receives 285,000 tonnes of waste per year. We assumed that Vancouver Landfill and the Cache Creek Landfill would receive 57% and 43% of the remaining waste every year respectively (the proportions given in the 2004 report excluding the portion received by the WTE facility).  3.1.2. Zero Waste Challenge (Scenario 2)  In 2008, Metro Vancouver released its “Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan”, in which a 70% diversion target was set for 2015, dubbed the “Zero Waste Challenge”. In this scenario, we assumed that Metro Vancouver would reach its target of 70% waste diversion by 2015, and that thereafter Metro Vancouver would maintain the 70% diversion rate for the duration of the study period. We also assumed that Metro Vancouver would start from a 52% diversion rate in 2008 (from Scenario 1), and reach that 70% target linearly. Finally, we assumed that the trends in the per capita waste generation rate and population growth would be the same as those in Scenario 1. From these yearly diversion rates, we calculated the amounts of total waste recycled and disposed.  Between 2008 and 2020, the yearly differences between the projected total amounts of waste disposed in Scenario 1 and the projected total amounts of waste disposed in Scenario 2 were the amounts needed to be diverted in order to reach that particular year’s diversion rate target. Metro Vancouver termed this the “total capture”.  Metro Vancouver’s “Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies, and Actions” document released in March 2009 contained Metro Vancouver’s projected capture targets for 2015 for different waste categories. From these numbers, we calculated the capture targets for each of those waste categories as a proportion of the total capture. Using these proportions, we calculated the capture necessary to meet the diversion targets projected by our model for each of those waste categories by multiplying the total capture by their respective proportions. The appendices of the “Zero Waste Challenge” document showed that, except for wood waste (of which the capture target was a DLC sector target), the capture targets for all waste Scenarios: Methodology Scenarios: Methodology  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 13  categories were MSW sector targets. As such, we calculated the yearly Total MSW Capture by excluding the wood waste capture. Since, as noted above, we assumed that the yearly per capita waste generation rates in this scenario were the same as those in Scenario 1, adding the yearly Total MSW Capture to the total amount of recycled MSW in Scenario 1 for the corresponding year gave the annual total amount of recycled MSW in Scenario 2. Once this was done, we could calculate the total amounts of disposed MSW and the MSW diversion rates.  The proportion of paper, plastic, food and yard waste in disposed MSW was determined by subtracting the capture of each waste category from its corresponding amount disposed in Scenario 1. Similarly, the proportion of paper, plastic, food and yard waste in recycled MSW was determined by adding the capture of a waste category to its corresponding amount recycled in Scenario 1. We considered “E- waste and small appliances” a part of the “other wastes” category from Scenario 1. The trends in the proportions of glass, ferrous metals, aluminum and the various subcategories of paper and plastic wastes were assumed to be the same as those in Scenario 1.  Figure 10 of Metro Vancouver’s 2008 “Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan: Discussion Document” showed that, under the Zero Waste Challenge plan, the region expects to phase out the use of the Cache Creek Landfill by 2014, and redirect 50% of disposed waste to a new WTE facility. In accordance with this plan, we assumed that between 2010 and 2013 inclusive, the proportions of disposed waste that would be treated by the Vancouver Landfill, Cache Creek Landfill and the Burnaby WTE facility would be identical to those in Scenario 1. Then, between 2014 and 2020 inclusive, the Burnaby WTE facility would continue to treat 285,000 tonnes of total disposed waste, and that the Vancouver Landfill and the new WTE facility would receive 34% and 66% of the remaining waste respectively, as indicated by figure 10 presented in the 2008 Metro Vancouver document. We do recognize the fact that an extension in the life of the Cache Creek Landfill has been announced, but as there has yet to be any official change in Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge plan regarding the use of the Cache Creek Landfill, we have opted to build our scenarios according to the 2008 document.    3.1.3. Waste Reduction (Scenario 3)  In this study, we also wanted to examine the effect of actual waste reduction in terms of reducing the per capita waste generation rate over time instead of merely increasing the diversion rate. For this scenario, we assumed that the per capita waste generation rate would continuously decrease, while the trends in diversion rates, proportions of disposed and recycled wastes, and the proportions of disposed waste treated by the Vancouver Landfill, Cache Creek Landfill and the Burnaby WTE facility would be identical to those in Scenario 1.  We assumed that the effect of policy decisions that would alter business and consumer behaviour with respect to waste generation could be modelled by a logistic function. This assumption was supported by MSW generation data from Taiwan. According to Lu et al. (2006), between 1998 and 2002, the Republic of China (Taiwan) government initiated a rigorous waste diversion and reduction program. The program consisted of establishing numerous recycling sites, restricting the use of disposable dishes and plastic bags, mandating businesses and homes to participate in recycling programs, and introducing a volume-based collection fee system (a.k.a. “Pay-As-You-Throw” or Figure 2:  Per Capita Waste Generation in Taiwan    The effect of a rigorous waste diversion and reduction program in Taiwan was a decline in the per capita waste generation rate. The red line fits a logistic function to the data (r = 0.922, K = 0.365, SS = 0.00223). Source: Taiwan EPA. (2010). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste by All Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov.tw/en/statistics/c4010.pdf 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 kg /d ay Scenarios: Methodology  14 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  PAYT). As a result of these programs, the annual per capita waste generation rates in Taiwan declined logistically (Fig. 2).  For this study, we assumed that, starting in 2010, the total per capita generation rate would decline logistically to an equilibrium value. In Canada, the average per capita MSW generation rate was 0.4 tonnes/person in 2006, while the average of all OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries was 0.5 tonnes/person (OECD Factbook, 2009). According to our model projection from Scenario 1, Metro Vancouver would have an MSW generation rate of slightly more than 0.9 tonnes/person by 2009. We projected the decline in Metro Vancouver’s per capita MSW generation rate from 2010 to 2020 by setting the Canadian average as the carrying capacity K and an intrinsic growth rate r that would bring the generation rate down to the OECD average by 2020 (Fig. 3). Using the projected waste generation rates, we projected the total amounts of waste generated, disposed and recycled for our study period.  3.1.4. Waste Reduction and Diversion (Scenario 4)  Scenario 4 was a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3, wherein Metro Vancouver would continue to commit to achieving a 70% diversion rate by 2015, but also vigorously cut down per capita waste generation. For this scenario, we assumed that Metro Vancouver’s per capita waste generation rate would decline in the same manner as in Scenario 3, but that the diversion rate would increase in the same manner as Scenario 2. We also assumed that there would be no change to the current treatment of disposed waste, so that the proportions of disposed waste treated by the Vancouver Landfill, Cache Creek Landfill and the Burnaby WTE facility would be calculated in the same manner as in Scenario 1. All other assumptions pertaining to Scenarios 2 and 3, as described in Section 3, applied to this scenario.  3.2. Integrated Solid Waste Management Model (ISWM)  After building the four scenarios, we used the Integrated Solid Waste Management Model (ISWM) to determine the amount of pollutants that would be produced as a result of the MSW generated from 2010 to 2020. The ISWM is maintained by the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo. A detailed description of the model and its assumptions can be found in the user manual and the technical report available on model’s website (http://www.iwm- model.uwaterloo.ca/).  The ISWM estimates the environmental burdens of MSW from the moment that the waste is discarded to the moment that it has been processed by a recycling facility, composting facility, waste-to-energy facility, anaerobic digestion (AD) facility, or landfill. Since no MSW from Metro Vancouver is processed by AD facilities, the environmental burdens of AD were not considered. The ISWM also evaluates the environmental impacts of waste collection and waste transportation.  3.2.1. Waste Collection and Transportation  The ISWM required an input value for the total distance travelled by the waste collection fleet per year. Waste collection in Metro Vancouver is conducted by both the municipal waste collection fleet and commercial waste collection fleets. Residential waste and recycling is collected once weekly, and yard trimmings once biweekly. Since we did not have data on the actual total distance travelled per year by the entire waste collection fleet, we estimated this using a set of simplifying assumptions, starting with the estimate for waste collection: Figure 3:  Projection of Per Capita MSW Generation (Scenario 3)    For Scenario 3, we projected the decline in the per capita MSW generation rate using a logistic function, with K = 0.4 and r = 0.088. The value for K was the Canadian average per capita MSW generation rate in 2006, and the value of r was such that the generation rate reached the OECD average of 0.5 tonnes/person by 2020. 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 To nn es  P er  C ap it a Scenarios: Methodology  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 15  1) Any point on Metro Vancouver’s street grid that has a building must be visited by a waste collection truck once a week. Since the total distance of all the streets in Metro Vancouver is about 8,000 km, the fleet must travel at least that distance per week. We used the GIS database available at the Department of Geography, University of British Columbia to calculate the total street distance in Metro Vancouver. The shapefile of the street grid contains, inter alia, the unit numbers on either side of the street and the distance. Using ArcMap, we first eliminated all lines that did not contain unit numbers on either side from the shapefile, effectively taking out all highways, on-ramps, ferry routes, and other streets without buildings. Then we summed the distances of the remaining lines. 2) A collection truck goes down one side of the street to collect waste, and then turns around to collect from the other side, meaning that the above distance must be doubled to 16,000 km per week. 3) There are 52 weeks in one year, so the total distance travelled must be at least 832,000 km per year. 4) Any overlap in the routes of the municipal and commercial fleets, and differences in their operation were accounted for by rounding the above figure to 1,000,000 km per year.  Since there are no route overlaps for recycling waste collection, we used the rounded figure of 800,000 km per year for the recycling waste collection fleet. Finally, since yard trimmings were collected half as often as waste and recycling, we assumed that the yard trimmings collection fleet travelled 400,000 km per year.  The total distance travelled by the waste collection fleet per year is one of the major potential sources of uncertainty in our model. A sensitivity analysis of these distances shows that the effect on CO2e emission is low, while the effect on NOx, SOx and VOCs are more substantial (Appendix B).  In terms of waste transportation, we assumed that the distance between the transfer station and the WTE facility was 20 km, the distance between the transfer station and the Vancouver Landfill was 25 km, and the distance between the WTE facility and the Vancouver Landfill (the distance fly ash and bottom ash must be transported) was 25 km. These distances were estimated using Google Maps. 3.2.2. ISWM Parameters  For recycled waste, we set the ISWM to account for forest sequestration, which accounted for the greenhouse gases absorbed by forests that would have otherwise been logged if not for recycled waste.  We selected co-generation of steam and electricity for the WTE facility, and used the value included in the model for the amount of fly ash produced.  We assumed that all composting was done at an in-vessel composting facility. We recognize that while a significant portion of the composting in Metro Vancouver is backyard composting, the ISWM only provided the option of accounting for in-vessel or windrow composting. We decided to use the assumption of in-vessel composting because this method was most like the operation maintained at the Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd., which collects and composts yard trimmings and food scraps from Metro Vancouver.  According to the Vancouver Landfill Annual Report 2008, the Vancouver Landfill collects 70% of landfill gases (LFG) and directs 82% of these to beneficial use. Thus, for wastes processed by the Vancouver Landfill, we assumed a LFG recovery efficiency of 70%, and energy recovery efficiency of 82%. The Cache Creek Landfill currently performs no energy recovery of LFG, only flaring. However, the Cache Creek Landfill plans to recovery energy from LFG by 2014 (N. Grenier, personal communication, 2010). For the Cache Creek Landfill, we assumed landfill gas recovery efficiency of 70%, and no energy recovery until 2014, at which point energy recovery efficiency was 82%. According to Environment Canada, the annual precipitation was 1008 mm for the Vancouver Landfill, and 300 mm for the Cache Creek Landfill. We assumed that both landfills were lined, with a leachate collection efficiency of 90% (the default model settings). Finally, we set the ISWM to account for landfill sequestration, which accounted for the carbon sequestered by the landfill due to the incomplete decomposition of waste.  3.3. Framework for Analyzing ISWM Results  We compared the outputs of the ISWM across the four scenarios under broad themes: atmospheric effects, water quality, human health effects, and socio- economic effects. Atmospheric effects were divided further into three categories. Firstly, the potential effect on climate change was analyzed by comparing Scenarios: Methodology  16 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions across the four scenarios. Secondly, the effect on acidification was analyzed by comparing the NOx, SOx and HCl emissions. Thirdly, the environmental effect of urban smog was analyzed by comparing the emissions of NOx, PM10 and non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOCs), all of which are smog precursors.  The biochemical oxygen demands (BOD), CO2e, dissolved heavy metals, and HCl emissions across the four scenarios were compared in order to evaluate the effect on water quality.  The emissions of smog precursors were also analyzed in terms of their potential effects on human health. Other consequences to human health were also examined by comparing the emissions of heavy metals (Pb, Hg, Cd) and dioxins.  The socio-economic effects of the four scenarios were compared by examining the land disruption effect indicated by the amount of residual MSW left over for landfilling.  The emissions of smog precursors were also analyzed in terms of their potential effects on human health. Other consequences to human health were also examined by comparing the emissions of heavy metals (Pb, Hg, Cd) and dioxins.  The socio-economic effects of the four scenarios were compared by examining the land disruption effect indicated by the amount of residual MSW left over for landfilling.  4. Discussion of ISWM Results 4.1. Atmospheric Effects and Climate Change 4.1.1. Scenario 1: Status Quo  Of the four scenarios, Scenario 1 shows increase in the annual tonnage emitted (Fig. 4a), and releases the highest amount of total GHG (Fig. 4b). The emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) in Scenario 1 are relatively low, indicating that the status quo scenario will not amplify the acidification of the environment significantly (Fig. 5). Scenario 1 shows the highest amount of particulate matter of diameter ≤ 10µm (PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted since the majority of the waste is transported to the two landfills, which are significant producers of PM10 and VOCs (Fig. 6).  Lastly, Scenario 1 has the second highest annual emission of NOx (Fig. 6). PM10, VOCs and NOx are all urban smog precursors, so the status quo may contribute to increases in occurrences of smog and in GHG emissions contributing directly to the global climate change.  4.1.2. Scenario 2: Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge  In Scenario 2, the cumulative CO2e emissions are the second lowest due to diversion of waste from Figure 4:  CO2e Emission  a) yearly loading, b) cumulative loading    The left graph (a) shows the annual CO2e emission. The increases shown at 2014 in Scenarios 1 and 3 are due to the implementation of energy recovery at the Cache Creek Landfill. Since we have assumed that Cache Creek Landfill has been collecting LFG throughout the study period, the utilization of LFG for energy at 2014 causes further increases in CO2 production. Cumulatively, Scenario 1 produces the greatest amount of CO2e, while Scenario 4 produces the least. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 M ill io n To nn es 0 2 4 6 8 10 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 M ill io n To nn es Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results (b) (a) Discussion of ISWM Results  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 17  landfills to WTE facilities (Fig. 4b). However, huge increases of NOx, SOx, HCl emissions are associated with the additional WTE facility coming into operation in 2014 (Fig. 5).  All four scenarios have approximately the same annual SOx and HCl emissions before 2014, but after 2014, the SOx and HCl emitted in Scenario 2 are significantly greater than the amounts released in the other scenarios (Fig. 5). Conversely, PM10 and VOC emissions decrease after the introduction of the additional WTE facility (Fig. 6). Scenario 2 reduces GHG and smog precursor emissions at the expense of significant increases in the NOx, SOx, and HCl emissions. This poses a threat to human health and worsens the acidification effects to the environment.  4.1.3. Scenario 3: Waste Reduction  In Scenario 3, the cumulative CO2e emissions are lower than those in Scenario 1 due to the reduction of waste generated per capita, but it is still much higher than the emissions in Scenarios 2 and 4 (Fig. 4b). The increase in NOx emissions in 2014 can be explained by the implementation of the landfill gas energy recovery system at the Cache Creek Landfill, after which discharge of NOx decreases (Fig. 5).  The annual emissions of PM10 and VOCs all decline (Fig. 6). SOx and HCl emissions are consistently low compared to other scenarios (Fig. 6).  Cumulative CO2e emissions in Scenario 3 are second highest among all scenarios because, in this scenario, despite efforts to reduce per capita waste generation, the waste diversion rates per year are the same as those in Scenario 1, and landfilling is still being utilized as the major disposal method (Fig. 4b).  4.1.4. Scenario 4: Waste Reduction and Diversion  In Scenario 4, cumulative CO2e emissions are the lowest among the four scenarios because both waste reduction and diversion strategies are being implemented (Fig. 4b). Annual PM10 and VOCs emissions are the lowest and are both displaying a negative slope (Fig. 6). NOx, SOx and HCl emissions are all consistently low, so minimal impact on environmental acidification is maintained (Fig. 5). Therefore, Scenario 4 is the most favourable from an atmospheric perspective because it minimizes the emissions of GHG, smog precursors and acidification agents.    4.2. Water Quality 4.2.1. Scenario 1: Status Quo  In the status quo scenario, we found increasing amounts of CO2e emissions to the atmosphere due to increasing production of waste. Atmospheric Figure 5:  Acidification Indicators       NOx, SOx and HCl are indicators for acidification of the environment. In Scenario 2, the operation of a second WTE facility in 2014 drastically increases the production of these chemicals. In Scenarios 1 and 3, the implementation of energy recovery from LFG at the Cache Creek Landfill produces a temporary increase in NOx production, but a decrease in SOx production. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 To nn es  N O x 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 32 34 36 38 40 Tonnes SO x (Scen. 2) To nn es  S O x (S ce n.  1 ,3 ,4 ) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Tonnes H Cl (Scen. 2) To nn es  H Cl  (S ce n.  1 , 3 , 4 ) Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results  18 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  concentrations of HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg remained relatively constant over the study period since, in this scenario, there was no introduction of a new WTE facility, which is their main source. A slight increase in dissolved Cd and Hg is also noted due to the continued production of waste and increased input to landfills. BOD consistently increases, suggesting more anoxic conditions and detrimental effects on sensitive ecosystems, and is therefore a water quality concern (Fig. 7). 4.2.2. Scenario 2: Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge  In the Zero Waste Challenge scenario, we found decreasing amounts of CO2e emissions mainly due to the decreased use of landfills. Despite this decreasing trend, which mainly represents a decrease in methane, CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and hydrosphere will still occur. The emissions of HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg to the atmosphere remain relatively constant until 2014 after which they increase significantly and then continue to increase due to the utilization of the new WTE facility (Fig. 5 & 9). BOD and Cd, Hg and Pb concentrations in the water decrease slightly between the years 2010-2014 as a result of the goals of the Zero Waste Challenge, which include more effective use of the available recycling facilities (Fig. 7 & 8). There is also a severe drop in BOD as well as dissolved Pb, Cd, and Hg concentrations in 2014 since waste is being diverted away from landfills to the newly operational WTE facility, therefore decreasing the amount of contaminated runoff (Fig. 7 & 8). BOD continues to increase after 2014 due to the increasing generation of waste as a result of increasing population (Fig. 7).  4.2.3. Scenario 3: Waste Reduction  In the Waste Reduction scenario, we found decreasing concentrations of CO2e emissions from 2010-2014, and then a slight increase starting in 2014 Figure 6:  Urban Smog Precursors       For all three urban smog precursors, Scenario 4 consistently produces the least amount every year. Figure 7:  Biochemical Oxygen Demand    The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an indicator for water quality. A higher BOD represents poorer water quality. Scenario 1 performs the worst, while Scenario 4 consistently outperforms other scenarios. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 To nn es  N O x 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 To nn es  P M 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 To nn es  V O Cs Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 M ill io n kg Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 19  (Fig. 4). This would constitute a decrease in methane and carbon dioxide emissions, and would therefore represent decreasing acidification of water sources as less acidic precipitation would occur. There is also relatively constant HCl, Pb, Hg and Cd emissions to the atmosphere since the current WTE facility in Burnaby would remain operating at its full capacity (Fig. 5 & 9). We also note a decreasing concentration of Cd, Hg and Pb to water sources, due to diversion away from landfills (Fig. 8). This scenario also clearly shows a decreasing BOD (Fig. 7).  4.2.4. Scenario 4: Waste Reduction and Diversion  In the Waste Reduction and Diversion scenario, we found decreasing concentrations of CO2e emissions until 2014, after which it remained relatively constant (Fig. 4). This is due to the realization of the 70% diversion rate in 2014, and then the constancy of that diversion rate until the end of the study period. There are relatively consistent and low concentrations of HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg being released to the atmosphere (Fig. 5 & 9). There is also a significant and steady decrease in the amount of Pb, Cd and Hg that is present in the water runoff, as well as a decreasing BOD (Fig. 7 & 8). Since all of these indicators in this scenario are at the lowest concentrations among all of the scenarios, this scenario is clearly the most environmentally and human-health conscious scenario with regard to water quality.  4.3. Human Health 4.3.1. Scenario 1: Status Quo  The status quo scenario shows that several pollutants of concern to human health are emitted at a substantially higher rate than in the other three scenarios.  One of these pollutants is PM10, where the Figure 8:  Human Health Indicators (Water Emissions)      These four graphs show the production of heavy metals dissolved in water for all four scenarios. There is a net absorption of dissolved Pb in Scenario 2 due to the acid leaching process performed on the ash produced at WTE facilities. The status quo scenario performs the worst across all indicators. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 kg  P b 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 kg  C d 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 kg  H g 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 g D io xi n Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results  20 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  continued landfilling of an increasing stream of waste causes the annual emission to near double the values of those projected for the other scenarios (Fig. 6).  This increased landfilling also accounts for the much greater emission of dissolved heavy metals (Fig. 8). With markedly elevated VOC and NOx emissions, which are important precursors for urban smog, this scenario has potentially detrimental effects on human health (Fig. 6).  Despite the high emissions of urban smog precursors, Scenario 1 is the only scenario having a decreasing trend for heavy metal emissions in the atmosphere (Fig. 9). This is due to the fact that the growth in MSW production is projected to increase at a slower rate than total waste production. Since we assumed that the Burnaby WTE facility receives a fixed amount of total waste per year, the proportion of that waste being MSW decreases over the study period.  4.3.2. Scenario 2: Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge  The introduction of a new WTE facility in 2014 creates large increases in the annual atmospheric emissions of several pollutants (Fig. 9). Due to dispersion of particles within the atmosphere, they are more difficult to monitor and regulate than leachate, which can be contained and collected. This dispersive property is a major long-term public health issue, as heavy metals tend to bioaccumulate in the body resulting in detrimental health effects.  A feature of this scenario is the absorption of dissolved heavy metals.  For example, annual dissolved Figure 9:  Human Health Indicators (Air Emissions)     Emissions in atmospheric Pb, Cd and Hg are shown to increase in Scenarios 3 and 4, but decrease in scenario 1. This is due to the fact the major contributor to atmospheric emission of heavy metals is the WTE facility. We have assumed that the total amount of waste received by the Burnaby WTE facility to be constant. However, the growth in the per capita total waste generation rate is projected to be faster than the growth in the per capita MSW generation rate. This means that, as waste generation increases in Scenario 1, proportionately less MSW is received at the Burnaby WTE facility. Conversely, as waste generation declines in Scenarios 3 and 4, proportionately more MSW are received at the Burnaby WTE facility. 100 200 300 400 500 130 140 150 160 170 kg Pb (Scen. 2) kg  P b (S ce n.  1 , 3 , 4 ) 10 20 30 40 50 10 12 14 16 18 kf Cd (Scen. 2) kg  C d (S ce n.  1 , 3 , 4 ) 0 40 80 120 160 200 50 55 60 65 70 75 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 kg H g (Scen. 2) kg  H g (S ce n.  1 , 3 , 4 ) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 g D ioxins (Scen. 2) g D io xi ns  (S ce n.  1 , 3 , 4 ) Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 21  Pb levels become negative, implying a net absorption. This could be explained by the acid leaching process by which ash from incinerators are treated.  This process removes metals from the ash that would have otherwise been disposed at the landfill.  Based on these projections, WTE may result in less water contamination by heavy metals than leaching due waste disposal in landfills.  The new WTE facility also results in a decrease in PM10 and VOC levels.  This is likely due to the stack filters that efficiently capture these pollutants.  Though VOC levels initially decrease after the introduction of a new WTE facility, NOx levels increase greatly.  This has unpredictable consequences on the production of tropospheric ozone, an important urban smog gas, due to the relationship between tropospheric ozone and the NOx-to-VOC ratio in the atmosphere (NRC, 1991).  Despite the initial decrease in VOC, the new WTE facility may in fact induce more urban smog because of the increase in NOx emissions.  4.3.3. Scenario 3: Waste Reduction  Production of dissolved heavy metals in Scenario 3 is low, and indeed show a decreasing trend, due to decreased use of landfills (Fig. 8). However, for atmospheric pollutants in Scenario 3 show an increasing trend, mainly due to increased emissions from recycling activities (Fig. 9).  Dioxin emissions increase in Scenario 3 due to the opposite effect displayed in Scenario 1. As Metro Vancouver reduces waste production, the decrease in MSW production is projected to be slower than the decrease in total waste production. Since the Burnaby receives a fixed amount of total waste every year, the proportion of that waste being MSW increases over the study period, leading to greater dioxin production. Furthermore, dioxins are produced at the landfills, where energy recovery processes increase pollution.  For urban smog precursors, Scenario 3 has a decreasing trend for VOC. The same trend is found for NOx, except for an initial increase in 2014 as a result of the implementation of landfill gas energy recovery at the Cache Creek Landfill (Fig. 6).  However, the decreasing trend in NOx emissions continues after 2014.  4.3.4. Scenario 4: Waste Reduction and Diversion  Generally, Scenario 4 produces the lowest amount of toxic pollutants, except in atmospheric emissions of heavy metals (Fig. 9). Like Scenario 3, this can be attributed to an increase in recycling activity, which can be energy intensive and produce atmospheric pollutants.  Dioxin emissions initially show a decreasing trend, but begin to increase after 2014.  The initial trend can be explained by the reduction in the amount of MSW landfilled, leading to decreasing dioxin emissions. By 2014, the impact of dioxin emissions from the Burnaby WTE facility overtakes the offsetting effect from the landfills, as the WTE facility receives more MSW over time in the same manner described in Scenario 3 above. Finally, the trends in the production urban smog precursors also match with those in Scenario 3, albeit the amounts are lower (Fig. 6).  4.4. Land Disruption and Other Socio- Economic Issues 4.4.1. Scenario 1: Status Quo  In the first scenario, land disruption increases due to an increasing amount of MSW going to the landfills caused by an increasing population in Metro Vancouver.  When the Burnaby WTE facility is operating at full capacity, residual MSW must be disposed at landfill sites.  Landfill expansions will change the area resulting in poor aesthetics, leaching of pollutants into soil, contaminated runoff into groundwater and release of methane. However, Figure 10:  MSW Landfilled    The greatest amount of MSW is disposed at landfills in Scenario 1, while the least amount of MSW is disposed at landfills in Scenario 4.  Scenario 2 also shows decreasing use of landfilling due to MSW being treated increasingly at WTE facilities. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 M ill io n To nn es Scen1 Scen2 Scen3 Scen4 Discussion of ISWM Results  22 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  continuous landfill expansion maintains landfill related jobs for residents of the area.  4.4.2. Scenario 2: Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge  In the initial four years of projected amounts of annual MSW landfilled in this scenario, land disruption is steadily decreasing due to reducing amounts of MSW disposed at landfills (Fig. 10).  Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge diverts MSW away from the landfill sites to recycling and composting facilities. After the projected construction and completion of an additional WTE facility in Metro Vancouver in 2014, there is an immense decrease in the amount of MSW going to the landfills, as a large portion of MSW is channelled to the new WTE facility (Fig. 10).  However, the amount of MSW going to the landfills starts to steadily increase again almost immediately because the amount of MSW generated is increasing due in part to a rising population of residents.  There is no actual reduction in waste in Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge.  The construction of a new WTE facility affects the surrounding area.  The operation of this new facility produces notable amounts of atmospheric pollution, which negatively affect the surrounding area.  This would be especially detrimental if a WTE facility were to be constructed in the LFV because the unique topography of the valley creates a stagnant body of air, which traps atmospheric pollutants in the area.  Areas near WTE facilities bear the negative effects of waste generated from distant regions.  Land disruption is still occurring because the landfills are still utilized throughout this scenario.  The landfills are used even more after 2014 because both the Burnaby WTE facility and the new WTE facility have maximum capacities.  Once that is reached, all surplus MSW would go to landfills.  After 2014, even though the WTE facilities are running at capacity, more waste is still disposed at landfills because diversion rates are not high enough to compensate for the MSW generated by the increasing population.  This scenario results in the most land disruption due to the use of two WTE facilities and the concurrent use of landfills.  4.4.3. Scenario 3: Waste Reduction  In the Waste Reduction scenario, land disruption is steadily decreasing due to the reduction in the amount of MSW generated, resulting in less MSW disposed at landfills (Fig. 10).  Without the presence of a new WTE facility, there is a greater amount of MSW going to the landfills than in Scenario 2.  The reduction in per capita waste generation rate in this scenario is insufficient to produce a significant impact.  4.4.4. Scenario 4: Waste Reduction and Diversion  The Waste Reduction and Diversion scenario includes a more ambitious waste diversion plan than Scenario 3, as more MSW is diverted to recycling and composting facilities. This scenario results in the least amount of land disruption and the least amount of MSW disposed at landfills (Fig. 10). As a result of a change in focus to recycling, composting, and other green technologies, many additional “green” career opportunities will emerge.  5. Limitations and Further Research  The waste generation and treatment projections for Scenario 2 have been made based on the Zero Waste Challenge plan released by Metro Vancouver in March 2009. In its plan, Metro Vancouver anticipated the phasing-out of the Cache Creek Landfill by 2010 by disposing MSW at an interim landfill before a new WTE facility comes online in 2014. However, Wastech Services Ltd. – the managers of the Cache Creek Landfill – has recently received approval by the B.C. Ministry of Environment to annex seven hectares of adjacent land, effectively extending the life of the landfill by two years (Wastech, 2009). Wastech’s parent company, Belkorp Environmental Services Inc., has also applied for an extension of the Cache Creek Landfill that would increase its life by an additional 17 to 25 years. These recent developments should be incorporated into further research stemming from this study in order to reflect the updated trajectory of Metro Vancouver’s waste management system.  In this study, while we used the emission levels of various chemicals as indicators of environmental and human health impacts, the actual effects of these chemicals within this geographic region are difficult to predict. For example in Scenario 2, the effect of waste incineration on the atmosphere and human health may be even more serious than implied by our analysis.  According to a recent report by McKendry (2010), the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) is prone to poor air quality due to the complexity of its topography and air pollution chemistry. Air pollution is transported from Limitations and Further Research  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 23  western and central regions of the LFV and concentrated at the eastern regions. McKendry notes that most risk assessments for waste incinerators, even when assuming optimal operating conditions, raise health concerns due to the emissions of dioxins and nano-particles from these facilities. If Metro Vancouver decides to introduce a new WTE facility, further research must be conducted in order to determine a location that will create the fewest environmental and health hazards, given the uniqueness of the LFV airshed. Various factors must be considered, including distance from well-populated areas, distance from agriculturally-productive areas, and wind patterns. Since WTE facilities produce the greatest amounts of atmospheric pollutants, it is essential that this type of waste management facility not be established in an airshed sensitive to air quality changes.  This report is also limited by a lack of economic analysis of the various waste management scenarios. In order to determine the best waste management strategies for Metro Vancouver, an economic evaluation is required, including a cost-benefit analysis of switching to the different waste management practices outlined in the four scenarios from current waste management infrastructure.  Finally, for projecting waste management trends in Metro Vancouver, while we have tried to base our model assumptions on the best available public data, more accurate projections can be made by using more up-to-date data from Metro Vancouver.  6. The “Waste Management Solution”  Stemming from the discussion of ISWM results, we can summarize the multi-criteria analysis of the four scenarios, using Scenario 1 as the base scenario for our comparisons (Table 1). Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge plan (Scenario 2) shows improvement compared to the status quo in some areas, but performs poorly in others. The introduction of a new WTE facility in 2014 greatly reduces BOD, thus improving water quality. As more MSW is redirected from landfills to the new WTE facility, there will initially be less land disruption. However, the addition of a new WTE facility has grave impacts on the atmosphere. While less CO2e, PM10 and VOCs will be released than in Scenario 1, these reductions will be achieved at the expense of much greater emissions of NOx, SOx and HCl to the atmosphere. Also, large increases in the emissions of atmospheric heavy metals and dioxins will potentially pose serious risks to human health.  The Waste Reduction scenario (Scenario 3) out- performs Metro Vancouver’ Zero Waste Challenge plan. As with Scenario 2, this scenario shows improvements in water quality and reductions in land disruption compared to status quo. Reducing waste generation also leads to lower CO2e emissions than Scenario 1. While emissions of atmospheric heavy metals are higher in this scenario than in Scenario 1, this scenario displays fewer emissions of smog precursors, dioxins and dissolved heavy metals. The aggregate effect is an improvement in comparison to Scenario 1 in atmospheric and human health impacts.  Of the four scenarios examined, by far the most ideal scenario is the Waste Reduction and Diversion scenario (Scenario 4), which shows marked improvements over status quo in all categories. The reduction in the amount of waste disposed of at landfills, along with the increase in recycling and composting, leads to the greatest decrease in BOD and land disruption. The emissions of NOx, SOx and HCl are low in this scenario, and the emissions of CO2e, PM10 and VOCs are the lowest out of all the scenarios. Therefore, Scenario 4 has the least amount of Table 1: Summary of Impacts by Scenario, relative to Scenario 1   Atmosphere Water Quality Human Health Land Disruption Scenario 1 Scenario 2 – + – – + Scenario 3 + + + + Scenario 4 + + + + + + + +  + denotes an improvement over Scenario 1 ++ denotes a significant improvement over Scenario 1 – denotes a deterioration over Scenario 1 – – denotes a significant deterioration over Scenario 1 The “Waste Management Solution”  24 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  atmospheric impacts compared to the other scenarios. Moreover, this scenario produces low levels of dissolved heavy metals, and the least amount of dioxin and smog precursors of all scenarios, resulting in the fewest impacts to human health. It is important to note that Scenario 4 represents a win-win scenario in that no trade-off between focusing on GHG reduction and minimizing human health impacts is required. This “solution scenario” suggests that neither increases in waste reduction nor diversion alone is sufficient. The best plan of action must include increases in both waste reduction and diversion. It is clearly evident, from the projections of Scenario 4, that a favourable solution exists without the addition of a new WTE facility.  7. Achieving Waste Reduction and Diversion  In order to achieve the reduction in waste generation displayed in Scenario 4, the environmental and human health impacts of waste must be incorporated into the cognitive decision-making process of individuals and firms. The costs to ecosystems and human health must be internalized into the price structures within the market. There are two locales at which such internalization can occur: at the producer level and at the consumer level. The former leads to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach, while the latter leads to a “Pay-As- You-Throw” (PAYT) approach to waste reduction.  EPR, formerly known as Industry Product Stewardship, refers to the policy wherein the onus is placed upon producers to reduce the environmental impact of their products across the entire life-cycle (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2010). Government- sponsored programs to take back hazardous waste have been established in British Columbia since 1990. However, the first program in B.C. that truly satisfied the definition of product stewardship began in 1992 when the provincial government mandated all sellers of lubricating oil to take back used oil at no cost to the consumer (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2010). Since then, EPR programs in B.C. have both proliferated in number and diversified in scope.  In terms of demand-side management, many jurisdictions globally have implemented volume/ weight-based billing on wastes that households produce. This “Pay-As-You-Throw” (PAYT) system can be found in Europe, North America and Asia (Reichenbach, 2008; Skumatz, 2008; Su et al., 2010). At present, there are no PAYT programs in British Columbia.  The effectiveness of EPR and PAYT programs can be analyzed using a set of four evaluative criteria applicable to many public policies relating to sustainability (Table 2): environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, administrative feasibility and political feasibility (Jaccard, 2005).  EPR has enormous potential to decrease the environmental impact of our consumption and waste production. The Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC) lists five benefits of EPR programs (RCBC, 2005): • Reduction in overall pollution • Reduction in waste sent to landfills • Reduced use of hazardous materials in products • Increased recycled content of consumer products and more efficient use of natural resources • Integration of environmental management throughout the product life cycle  Economically, EPR is more efficient than government subsidies of waste management systems Table 2: Evaluating EPR and PAYT Systems   Environmental Effectiveness Economic Efficiency Administrative Feasibility Political Feasibility EPR Good Good Challenge Good PAYT Good-Moderate Good Good Challenge  Using a set of four evaluative criteria proposed by Jaccard (2005), two programs for waste reduction – EPR and PAYT – are assessed. While both types of programs are quite environmentally effective and economically efficient, these two programs represent a trade-off between administrative and political feasibility. Achieving Waste Reduction and Diversion  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 25  (B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, 2002). Under EPR, producers are each responsible for the environmental impacts that their products generate, allowing producers with different costs of action to financially optimize their waste reduction strategies. Also, a competitive market provides incentives for producers to innovate more effective and efficient ways to minimize the costs for the life-cycle management of their products.  In the context of the global drive towards establishing a GHG trading market, integrating an EPR program into GHG inventory calculations is not a trivial task, and would require more rigourous, quantitative accounting of the benefits of EPR in terms of GHG mitigation (Lenzen et al., 2006). Currently, many producers calculate their own GHG inventory, leading in many cases to double-counting. Establishing an overarching and independent regulatory body for quantifying the environmental benefits of EPR remains an administrative challenge.  Finally, EPR is becoming more and more acceptable both to producers and to consumers. Many trade and industry groups have embraced the concept of sustainability and producer responsibility. Given the general support for EPR programs by the electorate, implementing such programs is politically feasible.  PAYT has shown to be potentially very effective in reducing and diverting waste. In the United States, PAYT programs have diverted 4.6-8.3 million tonnes of MSW per year, which includes diversion to recycling, composting and source reduction (Skumatz, 2008). In Taiwan, after the introduction of a PAYT system in 1997, per capita waste generation declined 36% from 417 kg/person in 1997 to 243 kg/person in 2005 (Su et al., 2010). However, a study done on the weight-based billing system for household waste in Sweden showed that, while municipalities that have implemented PAYT collects on average 20% less waste than other municipalities, the variance across municipalities is high (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2010).  As with EPR programs, PAYT systems are much more economically efficient at producing a socially optimum waste generation rate than flat-rate systems. Unlike flat-rate systems, wherein the problems of “free-riders” – those whose high levels of waste generation are subsidized by others who generate less waste – can be prominent, a variable rate based on the weight or volume of waste produced results in a fairer, “polluter-pay” system (Bilitewski, 2008). Administratively, introducing a PAYT system in Metro Vancouver is not a difficult task. In essence, PAYT system bills household waste in the same way municipalities bill utilities (Bilitewski, 2008). PAYT represents only an extension of current practices in utilities billing.  The only foreseeable challenge to introducing a PAYT in Metro Vancouver is political feasibility. While many jurisdictions around the world have already implemented such a system, introducing any increase in rates that consumers must pay invariably leads to voter opposition. The political courage necessary to discuss PAYT by policy makers has yet to be found.  Since increases in both waste reduction and waste diversion are needed, strategies for promoting diversion must also be implemented. Sorting of waste must be an integral strategy for increasing waste diversion. At the domestic level, residents must be educated and empowered to properly sort the waste they generate. Wastes should be sent for treatment at the most appropriate, most optimal facility. As much compostable material as possible should be treated at composting facilities and as much recyclable materials as possible should be treated at recycling facilities. Materials that can be composted or recycled should not be disposed at the WTE facility or at the landfills. There is neither the money, nor the manpower for WTE facilities and landfills to sort through waste to remove compostable and recyclable materials. Sorting must be done by the residents of Metro Vancouver. Thus, an innovative and effective education program should be employed along with an efficient, practical, and simple system of sorting waste. This education program and sorting system must be applied to all residents, businesses, and industries.  Even with the implementation of EPR, PAYT and waste sorting programs, it is difficult to change individual behaviours regarding waste generation and disposal. The disposal of household waste is often considered to be related to habitual behaviour (Knussen, 2008). This type of behaviour is guided by automated cognitive processes, rather than preceded by elaborate reasoning. Habitual behaviour is triggered by a cognitive structure that is learned, stored in, and retrieved from memory when individuals perceive a particular situation. This demonstrates that habits refer to the way behavioural choices are made, and not to the frequency of behaviour (Steg, 2009). In order to design effective interventions to modify habitual behaviour that affects the environment, it is Conclusion and Recommendations Achieving Waste Reduction and Diversion  26 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  important to consider how habits are formed, reinforced and sustained.  Feedback can facilitate performance in several ways. It can provide information about the type and extent of errors so that they may be corrected. The motivational effect attributed to feedback is actually due to goal setting. If a person has no goal or no level of performance that they want to achieve, feedback is irrelevant as no change in behaviour would occur (Becker, 1978). The ability to compare one’s performance to set standards influences the amount of effort one exerts and therefore one’s performance (Becker, 1978). For example, assuming that residents set a goal, such as decreasing the amount of waste they generate by making use of recycling and/or composting strategies, but no feedback is provided in regards to the change that is being made, they would be unable to reassess the effort that is being exerted. Therefore, any successful policy must include a mechanism to provide feedback to the individuals in order to change habitual behaviour and decrease waste generation.  8. Conclusion  In this paper, we produced four scenarios of future trajectories of waste generation in Metro Vancouver. Of these scenarios, Scenario 4, which includes increases in both waste reduction and diversion, clearly displays improvements in the impacts on all of the following: atmosphere, water quality, human health, and land disruption. Of the four scenarios examined, Scenario 4 is undoubtedly the most ideal waste management solution in Metro Vancouver, resulting in the fewest negative impacts on the environment and on human health without the need to install a new WTE facility. It is important to note that Scenario 4 represents a win-win scenario in that no trade-off between focusing on GHG reduction and minimizing human health impacts is required. This “solution scenario” suggests that neither increases in waste reduction nor diversion alone is sufficient. The best plan of action must include increases in both waste reduction and diversion. This scenario is fully attainable through an increased focus on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT), waste sorting and other recycling/composting initiatives programs.  Waste management is a vital issue in Metro Vancouver. Stringent policies at both the municipal and provincial levels must be implemented to ensure that waste reduction and diversion targets are followed. If we wish to maintain our level of well-being in Metro Vancouver, a superior waste solution must be adopted. We are individuals sustained by environment. We must sustain the environment that sustains us.                                              Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusion Organic waste are composted via “pile and churn” at the Vancouver Landfill. A thermometer (orange, centre) measures the temperature of the pile’s interior, where microbial breakdown of organic material generates temperature of 40 – 50°C. Photo courtesy of Monika Dean, 2010.  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 27  References  Abushammala, M. F. M., Basri, N. E. A., & Kadhum, A. A. H. (2009). Review on Landfill Gas Emission the Atmosphere. European Journal of Scientific Research, 30(3), 427-436. Amlinger, F., Peyr, S., & Cuhls, C. (2008). Green House Gas Emissions from Composting and Mechanical Biological Treatment. Waste Management and Research, 26(1), 47-60. Astrup, T. (2009). Incineration and Co-Combustion of Waste: Accounting of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Contributions. Waste Management & Research, 27, 789-799 B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2006).  B.C. Municipal Solid Waste Tracking Report 2006. Victoria, B.C.: Canada Government Printing Office. B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2010). Product Stewardship in B.C. (History). Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/history/index.htm B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. (2002). British Columbia Industry Product Stewardship Business Plan. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/history/pdf/prodstew_plan.pdf Belcorp Environmental Inc., & Village of Cache Creek. (2008). Cache Creek Extension Project Description. Retrieved From http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p334/ 1220396390410_8e248a8d30d9d6a26942c1a44a90848dff52afa2078c.pdf Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint Effect of Feedback and Goal Setting on Performance: A Field Study of Residential Energy Conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 428-433. Bilitewski, B. (2008). Editorial: Pay-As-You-Throw – A Tool For Urban Waste Management. Waste Management, 28, 2759. Boldrin, A., Andersen, J. K., Moller, J., Christensen, T. H., & Favoino, E. (2009). Composting and Compost Utilization: Accounting of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Contributions. Waste Management and Research, 27(8), 800-812. British Columbia Recycling Council. (2005). EPR Overview: An Introduction to Extended Producer Responsibility. Retrieved from http://rcbc.bc.ca/files/u3/nm_070223_RCBC_EPR_Overview_Fact_sheet.pdf Cache Creek. (2009). 2008 Annual Report Cache Creek Landfill. Retrieved from http://www.cachecreekvillage.com/siteengine/activepage.asp?PagelD=17&SerchText=landfill CBC News. (2009). Metro Vancouver signs deal to compost kitchen scraps. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/25/bc-metro-curbside-composting.html Christensen, T. H., Cossu, R., &  Stegmann, R..(1992). Landfilling of Waste: leachate. London: Elsevier Ltd. City of Vancouver. (2008). Vancouver Landfill Annual Report 2008. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/ENGSVCS/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm City of Vancouver. (2009). Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste-to-Energy Facilities and the Vancouver Landfill. Retrieved From http://www.vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/pdf/ greenhouse%20Emmissions.pdf Community Energy Association. (2008). Powering Our Communities: Renewable Energy Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.communityenergy.bc.ca/sites/default/files/ Powering%20Our%20Communities.pdf CSR/EPIC. (2004). Integrated Solid Waste Management Tools: “Measuring the Environmental Impact of Waste Management Systems”. Retrieved from http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/ISWM_Manual_July04.pdf Dahlén, L. & Lagerkvist, A. (2010). Pay As You Throw: Strengths and Weaknesses of Weight-based Billing in Household Waste Collection Systems in Sweden. Waste Management, 30, 23-31. De Windt, L., Dabo, D.,  Badreddine, R., & Drouadaine, I. (2009). Ten-Year Chemical Evolution of Leachate and Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Bottom Ash Used in a Test Road Site. J Hazardous Materials, 172, 904- 913. Dockery, D. W., Pope, C. A., Xu, X. P., Spengler, J. D., Ware, J. H., Fay, M. E., Ferris, B. G. & Speizer, F. E. (1993). An Association Between Air-Pollution and Mortality in 6 United-States Cities. New England J Med, 329, 1753- 1759. Domingo, J. L. & Nadal, M. (2009). Domestic Waste Composting Facilities: A Review of Human Health Risks. Environment International, 35(2), 382-389. References  28 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Encorp Pacific (Canada). (2010). British Columbia’s Recycling Handbook: A Simple Guide to What Can Be Recycled Under B.C.’S Stewardship Programs. Burnaby, B.C.: Encorp Pacific (Canada). Fedje, K. K., Ekberg, C., Skarnemark, G., and Steenari, B. M. (2010). Removal of Hazardous Metals From MSW Fly Ash-An Evaluation of Ash Leaching Methods. J Hazardous Materials, 173, 310-317. Gardner Pinfold Consulting for B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2008). Economic Impacts of the B.C. Recycling Regulation. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/reports/pdf/ econ-impacts-recycle-reg.pdf Greater Vancouver Regional District. (2004). Solid Waste Management Annual Report 2004. Retrieved from http://public.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ SolidWasteManagementAnnualReport2004.pdf Greater Vancouver Regional District. (2007). Waste-to-Energy Facility [Brochure], pp.1-2. Haight, M. (2004). Technical Report: Integrated Solid Waste Management Model. Retrieved from http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/research/iwm/pdfs/tech_report_Mar9_2004.pdf Health Protection Agency (UK). (2009). The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators. Retrieved from http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1266228112244 Hodson, F. (2010, March 5-7). Council OK’s curbside composting. Metro, p. 2. Inoue, K., Yasuda, K. and Kawamoto, K. (2009). Report: Atmospheric Pollutants Discharged From Municipal Solid Waste Incineration and Gasification-melting Facilities in Japan. Waste Management & Research, 27, 617- 622. Jaccard, M. (2005). Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kulkarni, P. S., Crespo, J. G., & Afonso, C. A. M. (2008). Dioxins Sources and Current Remediation Technologies — A Review. Environment International, 34, 139-153. Knussen, C. & Yule, F. (2008). “I’m Not in the Habit of Recycling”: The Role of Habitual Behavior in the Disposal of Household Waste. Environment and Behaviour, 40, 683-702. Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F., & Wiedmann, T. (2006). Shared Producer and Consumer Responsibility - Theory and Practice. Ecological Economics, 61, 27-42. Lim, J.S., & Missios, P. (2007). Does Size Really Matter? Landfill Scale Impacts on Property Values. Applied Economics Letters, 14, 719-723. Lindberg, S. E. & Price, J. L. (1999). Airborne Emissions of Mercury from Municipal Landfill Operations: A Short- Term Measurement Study in Florida. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 49, 520-532. Lu, L. T., Hsiao, T. Y., Shang, N. C., Yu, Y. H., & Ma, H. W. (2006). MSW Management for Waste Minimization in Taiwan: The Last Two Decades. Waste Management, 26(6), 661-667. Manahan, E. (2004). Environmental Chemistry. Florida: CRS Press LLC.  pp: 169-188. McKendry, I. (2010). Air Quality in the Lower Fraser Valley and Waste to Energy Incineration - an Overview. Retrieved from http://www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob402/notes/W2Edocs/FVDreport.pdf. Metro Vancouver. (2008). Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan: Discussion Document. Retrieved from http://public.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ StrategyUpdatingSWMP.pdf  Metro Vancouver. (2009). Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies, and Actions. Retrieved from http://public.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ZWCManagementPlanMarch2009.pdf Morris, J. (1996a). Competition Between Recycling and Incineration. Retrieved from: http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Recycling-And-Incineration.htm Morris, J. (1996b). Recycling versus Incineration: An Energy Conservation Analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 47, 277-293. Naganathan, S., Abdul Razak, H., & Abdul Hamid, S.N. (2009). Performance Appraisal of Industrial Waste Incineration Bottom Ash as Controlled Low-Strength Material. J Hazardous Materials, 172, 862-867. National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Tropospheric Ozone. (1991). Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, pp. 163-165. OECD Factbook. (2009). Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. & Zoughaib, A. (2008). Environmental Impacts and Costs of Solid Waste: a Comparison of Landfill and Incineration. Waste Management and Research, 26, 147-162. References  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | 29  Reichenback, J. 2008. Status and Prospects of Pay-As-You-Throw in Europe – A Rreview of Pilot Research and Implementation Studies. Waste Management, 28, 2809-2814. Roberts, R.J. & Chen, M. (2006). Waste Incineration—How Big is the Health Risk? A Quantitative Method to Allow Comparison with Other Health Risks. J Public Health, 28, 261-266. Sakata, Y. (2007). A Choice Experiment of the Residential Preference of Waste Management Services- The Example of Kagoshima city, Japan. Waste Management, 27, 639-644. Schuster, H. (1999). Waste Incineration Plants in Austria with Data on Waste Management in Vienna. Retrieved from http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/waste/page/2864.aspx Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management Strategies with a Zero Waste Objective: Study of the Solid Waste Management System in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. Olympia, WA: Sound Resource Management Group, Inc. Spiegelman, H. & Sheehan, B. (2005). Unintended Consequences: Municipal Solid Waste and the Throwaway Society. Waste: The Social Context (pp. 702-713). Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence. Smith, V. L. (1972). Dynamics of Waste Accumulation: Disposal Versus Recycling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 86 (4), 600-616. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317. Skumatz, L. A. (2008). Pay As You Throw in the US: Implementation, Impacts, and Experience. Waste Management, 28, 2778-2785. Su, J. P., Hung, M. L., Chao, C. W., & Ma, H. W. (2010). Applying Multi-criteria Decision-making to Improve the Waste Reduction Policy in Taiwan. Waste Management and Research, 28, 20-28. Taiwan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2010). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste by All Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov.tw/en/statistics/c4010.pdf Technology Resource Inc. (2008). Solid Waste Composition Study for Metro Vancouver. North Vancouver, B.C. Transfer and Landfill Operation Branch, City of Vancouver Engineering Services. (2008) Vancouver Landfill 2008 Annual Report. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://vancouver.calenssvcs/solidwastellandfill/pdf/08OC Report.pdf UNEP/GRID-Arenal. (2009). Waste Management – Small is Beautiful. Retrieved from http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/waste/page/2864.aspx Wastech Services Ltd. (August 31, 2009). B.C. Ministry of Environment Approves Seven-Hectare Annex to the Cache Creek Landfill (Press Release). Retrieved from http://www.wastech.ca/PDF/Wastech_Annex_Release.pdf Xiaoli, C., Shimaoka, T., Xianyan, C., Qiang, G., & Youcai, Z. (2007). Characteristics and mobility of heavy metals in an MSW landfill: Implications in risk assessment and reclamation.  Journal of Hazardous Materials. 144(1- 2), 485-491.    References  A-1 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Appendices Appendix A: Abbreviations BOD:  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CH3)2Hg:  Methylated Mercury Compound (gas) CH3Hg+:  Methylated Mercury Compound CNS:  Central Nervous System CO2:  Carbon Dioxide CO2e:  Carbon Dioxide Equivalents DLC:  Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction Sector Waste EPR:  Extended Producer Responsibility FTEs:  Full-Time Equivalents GHG:  Greenhouse Gas GVRD:  Greater Vancouver Regional District (renamed to Metro Vancouver in 2008) H2:  Hydrogen Gas H2CO3:  Carbonic Acid H2O:  Water HCl:  Hydrochloric Acid ICI:  Institutional, Commercial, and Light-Industrial Sector Waste ISWM:  Integrated Solid Waste Management Model LFG: Landfill Gas LFV:  Lower Fraser Valley MFRES:  Multi-family residences MTCE:  Metric Tonnes of Carbon Equivalents MTCO2E:  Metric Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents MSW:  Municipal Solid Waste MV:  Metro Vancouver NH3:  Ammonia N2O:  Nitrous Oxides NOx:  Nitrogen Oxides OLS:  Ordinary Least Squares PCB:  Polychlorinate Biphenyl PM:  Particulate Matter RES:  Residential Sector Waste SOx:  Sulfur Oxides VOC:  Volatile Organic Compound WTE:  Waste-to-Energy ZWC:  Zero Waste Challenge - Metro Vancouver’s plan to divert waste  Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-2  Appendix B: Sensitivity Analysis of Waste Collection  One of the major potential sources of uncertainty in our model was the total distance travelled by the waste collection fleet per year. Lacking actual mileage data from all waste collection trucks in Metro Vancouver, we estimated the distance travelled by the fleet from the total distance of roads in Metro Vancouver (see Section 3.2.1.). We performed a sensitivity analysis on the effect of waste collection by re-running the model for the year 2020 in Scenario 1 with doubled the total distance travelled by the fleet. The effect on CO2e emission was low, while the effect on NOx, SOx and VOCs were more substantial.  Table B1:  Sensitivity Analysis of Waste Collection (Scenario 1, 2020)   Run #1 Run #2a % Difference CO2e Emission 904,635 tonnes 925,464 tonnes 2.3 NOx Emission 298 tonnes 346 tonnes 16.4 SOx Emission 32 tonnes 44 tonnes 38.4 VOC Emission 75 tonnes 97 tonnes 28.4  a. Runs #1 and #2 are identical except #2 assumes twice the total distance travelled by the waste collection fleet per year. Indicators not listed all had percent differences less than 2.0.  Appendices  A-3 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Appendix C: Scenarios   The following tables and figures describe the four scenarios that were constructed for this study:  Table C1:  Metro Vancouver Waste Streams (Historical) Table C2:  Metro Vancouver Waste Streams (Scenario 1 Projection) Table C3:  Metro Vancouver Waste Streams (Scenario 2 Projection) Table C4:  Metro Vancouver Waste Streams (Scenario 3 Projection) Table C5:  Metro Vancouver Waste Streams (Scenario 4 Projection) Figure C1:  Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on MSW Generation Rate as a Function of Total Waste Generation Rate Figure C2:  Per Capita Waste Generation Rates Figure C3:  Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on Diversion Rates Figure C4:  Diversion Rates in Metro Vancouver Figure C5:  Composition of Disposed MSW in Metro Vancouver Table C6:  Mean Composition of Disposed MSW in Metro Vancouver Figure C6:  Composition of Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver Figure C7:  Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on the Proportions of Paper and Organics in Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver Table C7:   Metro Vancouver's of Capture Targets for 2015  Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-4                                              To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te 19 94 17 97 99 2 48 00 00 62 00 00 11 00 00 0 0. 61 2 0. 56 4 19 95 18 51 80 6 12 00 00 0 42 00 00 16 20 00 0 0. 87 5 0. 25 9 33 00 00 58 00 00 91 00 00 0. 49 1 0. 63 7 15 30 00 0 10 00 00 0 25 30 00 0 1. 36 6 0. 39 5 19 96 19 06 50 6 10 80 00 0 45 00 00 15 30 00 0 0. 80 3 0. 29 4 26 00 00 60 00 00 86 00 00 0. 45 1 0. 69 8 13 40 00 0 10 50 00 0 23 90 00 0 1. 25 4 0. 43 9 19 97 19 58 60 2 11 20 00 0 55 00 00 16 70 00 0 0. 85 3 0. 32 9 32 00 00 56 00 00 88 00 00 0. 44 9 0. 63 6 14 40 00 0 11 10 00 0 25 50 00 0 1. 30 2 0. 43 5 19 98 19 92 89 0 10 60 00 0 60 00 00 16 60 00 0 0. 83 3 0. 36 1 28 00 00 63 00 00 91 00 00 0. 45 7 0. 69 2 13 40 00 0 12 30 00 0 25 70 00 0 1. 29 0 0. 47 9 19 99 20 25 42 4 11 00 00 0 58 00 00 16 80 00 0 0. 82 9 0. 34 5 35 00 00 54 00 00 89 00 00 0. 43 9 0. 60 7 14 50 00 0 11 20 00 0 25 70 00 0 1. 26 9 0. 43 6 20 00 20 57 69 2 10 30 00 0 65 00 00 16 80 00 0 0. 81 6 0. 38 7 44 00 00 52 00 00 96 00 00 0. 46 7 0. 54 2 14 70 00 0 11 70 00 0 26 40 00 0 1. 28 3 0. 44 3 20 01 20 92 90 2 10 50 00 0 63 00 00 16 80 00 0 0. 80 3 0. 37 5 38 00 00 76 00 00 11 40 00 0 0. 54 5 0. 66 7 14 30 00 0 13 90 00 0 28 20 00 0 1. 34 7 0. 49 3 20 02 21 13 05 3 10 30 00 0 80 00 00 18 30 00 0 0. 86 6 0. 43 7 40 00 00 65 00 00 10 50 00 0 0. 49 7 0. 61 9 14 30 00 0 14 50 00 0 28 80 00 0 1. 36 3 0. 50 3 20 03 21 30 98 0 10 60 00 0 78 00 00 18 40 00 0 0. 86 3 0. 42 4 30 00 00 62 00 00 92 00 00 0. 43 2 0. 67 4 13 60 00 0 14 00 00 0 27 60 00 0 1. 29 5 0. 50 7 20 04 21 47 27 3 11 00 00 0 88 00 00 19 80 00 0 0. 92 2 0. 44 4 35 00 00 70 00 00 10 50 00 0 0. 48 9 0. 66 7 14 50 00 0 15 80 00 0 30 30 00 0 1. 41 1 0. 52 1 Po pu la ti on  D at a So ur ce : B C St at s Ta bl e C1 : M et ro  V an co uv er  W as te  S tr ea m s (H is to ri ca l) Ye ar W as te  D at a So ur ce : G re at er  V an co uv er  R eg io na l D is tr ic t.  (2 00 4) . S ol id  W as te  M an ag em en t A nn ua l R ep or t 2 00 4.  R et ri ev ed  fr om  h tt p: // pu bl ic .m et ro va nc ou ve r. or g/ ab ou t/ pu bl ic at io ns /P ub lic at io ns /S ol id W as te M an ag em en tA nn ua lR ep or t2 00 4. pd f Po pu la ti on R es id en ti al  a nd  IC I W as te  (M SW ) D LC  W as te To ta l W as te Appendices  A-5 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver                                              To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te 20 05 21 73 53 8 10 80 00 0 83 60 00 19 20 00 0 0. 88 1 0. 43 6 39 70 00 69 20 00 10 90 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 63 5 14 80 00 0 15 30 00 0 30 00 00 0 1. 38 2 0. 50 8 20 06 21 99 12 1 10 90 00 0 86 70 00 19 50 00 0 0. 88 9 0. 44 3 40 80 00 70 80 00 11 20 00 0 0. 50 7 0. 63 4 15 00 00 0 15 70 00 0 30 70 00 0 1. 39 6 0. 51 3 20 07 22 37 55 9 11 00 00 0 90 20 00 20 10 00 0 0. 89 6 0. 45 0 42 20 00 72 80 00 11 50 00 0 0. 51 4 0. 63 3 15 30 00 0 16 30 00 0 31 60 00 0 1. 41 0 0. 51 7 20 08 22 71 22 4 11 20 00 0 93 50 00 20 50 00 0 0. 90 4 0. 45 6 43 40 00 74 70 00 11 80 00 0 0. 52 0 0. 63 2 15 50 00 0 16 80 00 0 32 30 00 0 1. 42 4 0. 52 0 20 09 23 14 89 1 11 40 00 0 97 30 00 21 10 00 0 0. 91 1 0. 46 1 44 90 00 77 00 00 12 20 00 0 0. 52 7 0. 63 2 15 90 00 0 17 40 00 0 33 30 00 0 1. 43 8 0. 52 4 20 10 23 54 28 6 11 50 00 0 10 10 00 0 21 60 00 0 0. 91 9 0. 46 6 46 30 00 79 10 00 12 50 00 0 0. 53 3 0. 63 1 16 20 00 0 18 00 00 0 34 20 00 0 1. 45 2 0. 52 7 20 11 23 94 27 0 11 70 00 0 10 50 00 0 22 20 00 0 0. 92 6 0. 47 1 47 70 00 81 40 00 12 90 00 0 0. 53 9 0. 63 0 16 50 00 0 18 60 00 0 35 10 00 0 1. 46 6 0. 53 0 20 12 24 33 53 6 11 90 00 0 10 80 00 0 22 70 00 0 0. 93 4 0. 47 6 49 20 00 83 60 00 13 30 00 0 0. 54 6 0. 63 0 16 80 00 0 19 20 00 0 36 00 00 0 1. 48 0 0. 53 2 20 13 24 73 08 9 12 10 00 0 11 20 00 0 23 30 00 0 0. 94 2 0. 48 0 50 60 00 85 90 00 13 70 00 0 0. 55 2 0. 62 9 17 20 00 0 19 80 00 0 36 90 00 0 1. 49 4 0. 53 5 20 14 25 13 17 5 12 30 00 0 11 50 00 0 23 90 00 0 0. 94 9 0. 48 4 52 10 00 88 20 00 14 00 00 0 0. 55 8 0. 62 8 17 50 00 0 20 40 00 0 37 90 00 0 1. 50 7 0. 53 8 20 15 25 53 71 2 12 50 00 0 11 90 00 0 24 40 00 0 0. 95 7 0. 48 8 53 60 00 90 60 00 14 40 00 0 0. 56 5 0. 62 8 17 90 00 0 21 00 00 0 38 90 00 0 1. 52 1 0. 54 0 20 16 25 94 69 6 12 70 00 0 12 30 00 0 25 00 00 0 0. 96 4 0. 49 2 55 20 00 93 00 00 14 80 00 0 0. 57 1 0. 62 8 18 20 00 0 21 60 00 0 39 80 00 0 1. 53 5 0. 54 2 20 17 26 35 66 4 12 90 00 0 12 70 00 0 25 60 00 0 0. 97 2 0. 49 5 56 80 00 95 40 00 15 20 00 0 0. 57 7 0. 62 7 18 60 00 0 22 20 00 0 40 80 00 0 1. 54 9 0. 54 4 20 18 26 76 46 6 13 10 00 0 13 10 00 0 26 20 00 0 0. 97 9 0. 49 9 58 30 00 97 90 00 15 60 00 0 0. 58 4 0. 62 7 19 00 00 0 22 90 00 0 41 80 00 0 1. 56 3 0. 54 7 20 19 27 17 16 4 13 40 00 0 13 50 00 0 26 80 00 0 0. 98 7 0. 50 2 59 90 00 10 00 00 0 16 00 00 0 0. 59 0 0. 62 6 19 30 00 0 23 50 00 0 42 90 00 0 1. 57 7 0. 54 8 20 20 27 57 61 5 13 60 00 0 13 90 00 0 27 40 00 0 0. 99 4 0. 50 5 61 50 00 10 30 00 0 16 40 00 0 0. 59 7 0. 62 6 19 70 00 0 24 10 00 0 43 90 00 0 1. 59 1 0. 55 0 Ta bl e C2 : M et ro  V an co uv er  W as te  S tr ea m s (S ce na ri o 1 Pr oj ec ti on ) Po pu la ti on  D at a So ur ce : B C St at s Po pu la ti on R es id en ti al  a nd  IC I W as te  (M SW ) D LC  W as te To ta l W as te Ye ar Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-6                                              To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te 20 05 21 73 53 8 10 80 00 0 83 60 00 19 20 00 0 0. 88 1 0. 43 6 39 70 00 69 20 00 10 90 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 63 5 14 80 00 0 15 30 00 0 30 00 00 0 1. 38 2 0. 50 8 20 06 21 99 12 1 10 90 00 0 86 70 00 19 50 00 0 0. 88 9 0. 44 3 40 80 00 70 80 00 11 20 00 0 0. 50 7 0. 63 4 15 00 00 0 15 70 00 0 30 70 00 0 1. 39 6 0. 51 3 20 07 22 37 55 9 11 00 00 0 90 20 00 20 10 00 0 0. 89 6 0. 45 0 42 20 00 72 80 00 11 50 00 0 0. 51 4 0. 63 3 15 30 00 0 16 30 00 0 31 60 00 0 1. 41 0 0. 51 7 20 08 22 71 22 4 10 60 00 0 99 00 00 20 50 00 0 0. 90 4 0. 48 2 41 50 00 76 60 00 11 80 00 0 0. 52 0 0. 64 8 14 80 00 0 17 60 00 0 32 30 00 0 1. 42 4 0. 54 3 20 09 23 14 89 1 10 20 00 0 10 90 00 0 21 10 00 0 0. 91 1 0. 51 4 41 00 00 80 90 00 12 20 00 0 0. 52 7 0. 66 4 14 30 00 0 18 90 00 0 33 30 00 0 1. 43 8 0. 56 9 20 10 23 54 28 6 98 10 00 11 80 00 0 21 60 00 0 0. 91 9 0. 54 7 40 30 00 85 20 00 12 50 00 0 0. 53 3 0. 67 9 13 80 00 0 20 30 00 0 34 20 00 0 1. 45 2 0. 59 5 20 11 23 94 27 0 93 40 00 12 80 00 0 22 20 00 0 0. 92 6 0. 57 9 39 40 00 89 70 00 12 90 00 0 0. 53 9 0. 69 5 13 30 00 0 21 80 00 0 35 10 00 0 1. 46 6 0. 62 1 20 12 24 33 53 6 88 40 00 13 90 00 0 22 70 00 0 0. 93 4 0. 61 1 38 50 00 94 30 00 13 30 00 0 0. 54 6 0. 71 0 12 70 00 0 23 30 00 0 36 00 00 0 1. 48 0 0. 64 8 20 13 24 73 08 9 83 10 00 15 00 00 0 23 30 00 0 0. 94 2 0. 64 3 37 40 00 99 10 00 13 70 00 0 0. 55 2 0. 72 6 12 00 00 0 24 90 00 0 36 90 00 0 1. 49 4 0. 67 4 20 14 25 13 17 5 77 40 00 16 10 00 0 23 90 00 0 0. 94 9 0. 67 5 36 20 00 10 40 00 0 14 00 00 0 0. 55 8 0. 74 2 11 40 00 0 26 50 00 0 37 90 00 0 1. 50 7 0. 70 0 20 15 25 53 71 2 79 00 00 16 50 00 0 24 40 00 0 0. 95 7 0. 67 7 37 60 00 10 70 00 0 14 40 00 0 0. 56 5 0. 73 9 11 70 00 0 27 20 00 0 38 90 00 0 1. 52 1 0. 70 0 20 16 25 94 69 6 80 50 00 17 00 00 0 25 00 00 0 0. 96 4 0. 67 8 39 00 00 10 90 00 0 14 80 00 0 0. 57 1 0. 73 7 12 00 00 0 27 90 00 0 39 80 00 0 1. 53 5 0. 70 0 20 17 26 35 66 4 82 10 00 17 40 00 0 25 60 00 0 0. 97 2 0. 67 9 40 30 00 11 20 00 0 15 20 00 0 0. 57 7 0. 73 5 12 20 00 0 28 60 00 0 40 80 00 0 1. 54 9 0. 70 0 20 18 26 76 46 6 83 80 00 17 80 00 0 26 20 00 0 0. 97 9 0. 68 0 41 70 00 11 50 00 0 15 60 00 0 0. 58 4 0. 73 3 12 60 00 0 29 30 00 0 41 80 00 0 1. 56 3 0. 70 0 20 19 27 17 16 4 85 40 00 18 30 00 0 26 80 00 0 0. 98 7 0. 68 2 43 20 00 11 70 00 0 16 00 00 0 0. 59 0 0. 73 1 12 90 00 0 30 00 00 0 42 90 00 0 1. 57 7 0. 70 0 20 20 27 57 61 5 87 00 00 18 70 00 0 27 40 00 0 0. 99 4 0. 68 3 44 60 00 12 00 00 0 16 40 00 0 0. 59 7 0. 72 9 13 20 00 0 30 70 00 0 43 90 00 0 1. 59 1 0. 70 0 Po pu la ti on  D at a So ur ce : B C St at s Ta bl e C3 : M et ro  V an co uv er  W as te  S tr ea m s (S ce na ri o 2 Pr oj ec ti on ) Po p R es id en ti al  a nd  IC I W as te  (M SW ) D LC  W as te To ta l W as te Ye ar Appendices  A-7 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver                                    To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te 20 05 21 73 53 8 10 80 00 0 83 60 00 19 20 00 0 0. 88 1 0. 43 6 39 70 00 69 20 00 10 90 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 63 5 14 80 00 0 15 30 00 0 30 00 00 0 1. 38 2 0. 50 8 20 06 21 99 12 1 10 90 00 0 86 70 00 19 50 00 0 0. 88 9 0. 44 3 40 80 00 70 80 00 11 20 00 0 0. 50 7 0. 63 4 15 00 00 0 15 70 00 0 30 70 00 0 1. 39 6 0. 51 3 20 07 22 37 55 9 11 00 00 0 90 20 00 20 10 00 0 0. 89 6 0. 45 0 42 20 00 72 80 00 11 50 00 0 0. 51 4 0. 63 3 15 30 00 0 16 30 00 0 31 60 00 0 1. 41 0 0. 51 7 20 08 22 71 22 4 11 20 00 0 93 50 00 20 50 00 0 0. 90 4 0. 45 6 43 40 00 74 70 00 11 80 00 0 0. 52 0 0. 63 2 15 50 00 0 16 80 00 0 32 30 00 0 1. 42 4 0. 52 0 20 09 23 14 89 1 11 40 00 0 97 30 00 21 10 00 0 0. 91 1 0. 46 1 44 90 00 77 00 00 12 20 00 0 0. 52 7 0. 63 2 15 90 00 0 17 40 00 0 33 30 00 0 1. 43 8 0. 52 4 20 10 23 54 28 6 10 10 00 0 88 30 00 18 90 00 0 0. 80 5 0. 46 6 37 20 00 65 60 00 10 30 00 0 0. 43 6 0. 63 8 13 80 00 0 15 40 00 0 29 20 00 0 1. 24 1 0. 52 7 20 11 23 94 27 0 92 60 00 82 50 00 17 50 00 0 0. 73 2 0. 47 1 32 00 00 57 80 00 89 80 00 0. 37 5 0. 64 4 12 50 00 0 14 00 00 0 26 50 00 0 1. 10 7 0. 53 0 20 12 24 33 53 6 86 60 00 78 60 00 16 50 00 0 0. 67 8 0. 47 6 28 20 00 52 20 00 80 40 00 0. 33 0 0. 64 9 11 50 00 0 13 10 00 0 24 50 00 0 1. 00 9 0. 53 2 20 13 24 73 08 9 82 00 00 75 70 00 15 80 00 0 0. 63 8 0. 48 0 25 30 00 47 80 00 73 20 00 0. 29 6 0. 65 4 10 70 00 0 12 40 00 0 23 10 00 0 0. 93 4 0. 53 5 20 14 25 13 17 5 78 50 00 73 70 00 15 20 00 0 0. 60 6 0. 48 4 23 10 00 44 50 00 67 60 00 0. 26 9 0. 65 8 10 20 00 0 11 80 00 0 22 00 00 0 0. 87 5 0. 53 8 20 15 25 53 71 2 75 80 00 72 30 00 14 80 00 0 0. 58 0 0. 48 8 21 30 00 41 80 00 63 10 00 0. 24 7 0. 66 2 97 10 00 11 40 00 0 21 10 00 0 0. 82 7 0. 54 0 20 16 25 94 69 6 73 60 00 71 30 00 14 50 00 0 0. 55 8 0. 49 2 19 90 00 39 50 00 59 40 00 0. 22 9 0. 66 5 93 50 00 11 10 00 0 20 40 00 0 0. 78 7 0. 54 2 20 17 26 35 66 4 71 90 00 70 60 00 14 20 00 0 0. 54 0 0. 49 5 18 70 00 37 70 00 56 40 00 0. 21 4 0. 66 9 90 60 00 10 80 00 0 19 90 00 0 0. 75 4 0. 54 4 20 18 26 76 46 6 70 50 00 70 10 00 14 10 00 0 0. 52 5 0. 49 9 17 70 00 36 10 00 53 80 00 0. 20 1 0. 67 1 88 20 00 10 60 00 0 19 40 00 0 0. 72 6 0. 54 7 20 19 27 17 16 4 69 30 00 69 90 00 13 90 00 0 0. 51 2 0. 50 2 16 80 00 34 80 00 51 60 00 0. 19 0 0. 67 4 86 20 00 10 50 00 0 19 10 00 0 0. 70 2 0. 54 8 20 20 27 57 61 5 68 40 00 69 80 00 13 80 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 50 5 16 10 00 33 70 00 49 80 00 0. 18 1 0. 67 6 84 50 00 10 30 00 0 18 80 00 0 0. 68 2 0. 55 0 Po pu la ti on  D at a So ur ce : B C St at s Ta bl e C4 : M et ro  V an co uv er  W as te  S tr ea m s (S ce na ri o 3 Pr oj ec ti on ) Po pu la ti on R es id en ti al  a nd  IC I W as te  (M SW ) D LC  W as te To ta l W as te Ye ar Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-8                          To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te To ta l D is po se d (t on ne s) To ta l Re cy cl ed  (t on ne s) To ta l G en er at ed  (t on ne s) Pe r C ap it a G en er at io n Ra te  (t /p er ) D iv er si on  Ra te 20 05 21 73 53 8 10 80 00 0 83 60 00 19 20 00 0 0. 88 1 0. 43 6 39 70 00 69 20 00 10 90 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 63 5 14 80 00 0 15 30 00 0 30 00 00 0 1. 38 2 0. 50 8 20 06 21 99 12 1 10 90 00 0 86 70 00 19 50 00 0 0. 88 9 0. 44 3 40 80 00 70 80 00 11 20 00 0 0. 50 7 0. 63 4 15 00 00 0 15 70 00 0 30 70 00 0 1. 39 6 0. 51 3 20 07 22 37 55 9 11 00 00 0 90 20 00 20 10 00 0 0. 89 6 0. 45 0 42 20 00 72 80 00 11 50 00 0 0. 51 4 0. 63 3 15 30 00 0 16 30 00 0 31 60 00 0 1. 41 0 0. 51 7 20 08 22 71 22 4 10 60 00 0 99 00 00 20 50 00 0 0. 90 4 0. 48 2 41 50 00 76 60 00 11 80 00 0 0. 52 0 0. 64 8 14 80 00 0 17 60 00 0 32 30 00 0 1. 42 4 0. 54 3 20 09 23 14 89 1 10 20 00 0 10 90 00 0 21 10 00 0 0. 91 1 0. 51 4 41 00 00 80 90 00 12 20 00 0 0. 52 7 0. 66 4 14 30 00 0 18 90 00 0 33 30 00 0 1. 43 8 0. 56 9 20 10 23 54 28 6 86 20 00 10 30 00 0 18 90 00 0 0. 80 5 0. 54 5 32 00 00 70 70 00 10 30 00 0 0. 43 6 0. 68 8 11 80 00 0 17 40 00 0 29 20 00 0 1. 24 1 0. 59 5 20 11 23 94 27 0 74 60 00 10 10 00 0 17 50 00 0 0. 73 2 0. 57 4 25 70 00 64 10 00 89 80 00 0. 37 5 0. 71 4 10 00 00 0 16 50 00 0 26 50 00 0 1. 10 7 0. 62 1 20 12 24 33 53 6 65 60 00 10 00 00 0 16 50 00 0 0. 67 8 0. 60 3 20 90 00 59 50 00 80 40 00 0. 33 0 0. 74 0 86 50 00 15 90 00 0 24 50 00 0 1. 00 9 0. 64 8 20 13 24 73 08 9 58 30 00 99 50 00 15 80 00 0 0. 63 8 0. 63 1 17 10 00 56 10 00 73 20 00 0. 29 6 0. 76 7 75 30 00 15 60 00 0 23 10 00 0 0. 93 4 0. 67 4 20 14 25 13 17 5 52 10 00 10 00 00 0 15 20 00 0 0. 60 6 0. 65 8 13 90 00 53 70 00 67 60 00 0. 26 9 0. 79 4 65 90 00 15 40 00 0 22 00 00 0 0. 87 5 0. 70 0 20 15 25 53 71 2 50 70 00 97 30 00 14 80 00 0 0. 58 0 0. 65 7 12 60 00 50 50 00 63 10 00 0. 24 7 0. 80 0 63 30 00 14 80 00 0 21 10 00 0 0. 82 7 0. 70 0 20 16 25 94 69 6 49 70 00 95 20 00 14 50 00 0 0. 55 8 0. 65 7 11 60 00 47 90 00 59 40 00 0. 22 9 0. 80 6 61 30 00 14 30 00 0 20 40 00 0 0. 78 7 0. 70 0 20 17 26 35 66 4 49 00 00 93 50 00 14 20 00 0 0. 54 0 0. 65 6 10 70 00 45 70 00 56 40 00 0. 21 4 0. 81 0 59 60 00 13 90 00 0 19 90 00 0 0. 75 4 0. 70 0 20 18 26 76 46 6 48 30 00 92 20 00 14 10 00 0 0. 52 5 0. 65 6 10 00 00 43 80 00 53 80 00 0. 20 1 0. 81 5 58 30 00 13 60 00 0 19 40 00 0 0. 72 6 0. 70 0 20 19 27 17 16 4 47 90 00 91 30 00 13 90 00 0 0. 51 2 0. 65 6 93 70 0 42 30 00 51 60 00 0. 19 0 0. 81 9 57 20 00 13 40 00 0 19 10 00 0 0. 70 2 0. 70 0 20 20 27 57 61 5 47 50 00 90 60 00 13 80 00 0 0. 50 1 0. 65 6 88 60 0 40 90 00 49 80 00 0. 18 1 0. 82 2 56 40 00 13 20 00 0 18 80 00 0 0. 68 2 0. 70 0 Ta bl e C5 : M et ro  V an co uv er  W as te  S tr ea m s (S ce na ri o 4 Pr oj ec ti on ) Ye ar Po pu la ti on  D at a So ur ce : B C St at s Po pu la ti on R es id en ti al  a nd  IC I W as te  (M SW ) D LC  W as te To ta l W as te Appendices  A-9 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Figure C1: Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on MSW Generation Rate as a Function of Total Waste Generation Rate     The OLS regression yielded y = 0.542x + 0.131, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.014).            0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.3 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.4 1.42 Tonnes Per Capita (MSW) Tonnes Per Capita (Total) Data Regression Upper 95% C.I. Lower 95% C.I.95% C.I. Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-10  Figure C2: Per Capita Waste Generation Rates  (a) (b)     Scenarios 1 and 2 assume that the historical (1995-2004) trend in per capita waste generation will continue into the future. Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that waste generation per capita will decrease to the OECD 2006 average by 2020. The top graph (a) shows total per capita waste generation, while the bottom graph (b) shows only the MSW sector.      0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 To ta l W as te  G en er at io n (t on ne s pe r ca pi ta ) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 M SW  G en er at io n (t on ne s pe r ca pi ta ) Scen 1 & 2 Scen 3 & 4 OECD Avg 2006 Canadian Avg 2006 Historical Projected Projected Historical Appendices  A-11 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Figure C3: Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on Diversion Rates       (a) OLS regressions were performed on historical diversion rates after log transformation of the time axis. The top graph shows the regression on total diversion rates, which yielded y = 0.0487x + 0.392, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.001). The bottom graph shows the regression on MSW diversion rates, which yielded y = 0.0798x + 0.245, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.000011). (b) The graphs are presented in a linear time-scale.  0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 To ta l D iv er si on  R at e 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 To ta l D iv er si on  R at e 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 1 2 3 M SW  D iv er si on  R at e ln (Year-1994) 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 M SW  D iv er si on  R at e Data Regression Upper 95% C.I. Lower 95% C.I. (a) (b) 95% C.I. Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-12  Figure C4: Diversion Rates in Metro Vancouver  (a) (b)     Scenarios 1 and 3 assume that the historical (1995-2004) trend in diversion rates will continue into the future. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume that diversion rates will increase to 70% from 2008 to 2015, and be maintained at 70% until 2020. The top graph (a) shows total diversion rates, while the bottom graph (b) shows only the MSW sector.    0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 To ta l D iv er si on  R at e 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 M SW  D iv er si on  R at e Scen 1 & 3 Scen 2 & 4 Historical Projected Projected Historical Appendices  A-13 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Figure C5:  Composition of Disposed MSW in Metro Vancouver    Summary of three MSW composition studies. Aside from the growth in the proportion of organics, there are no significant trends in the relative proportions of waste products. Source: Technology Resource Inc. (2008). Solid Waste Composition Study for Metro Vancouver. North Vancouver, B.C.            0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2001 2004 2007 Percent of Total Organics Paper Plastics Other Wastes Ferrous Glass Aluminum Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-14  Table C6:  Mean Composition of Disposed MSW in Metro Vancouver  Paper     0.23   Newsprint 0.14   OCC 0.21   Phone Book 0.02   Boxboard 0.10   Mixed 0.53   Subtotal 1 Plastic     0.11   PET 0.16   HDPE 0.38   LLDPE 0.01   PP 0.07   PS 0.34   PVC 0.05   Subtotal 1 Organics     0.36   Food 0.16   Wood 0.52   Yard 0.32   Subtotal 1 Glass     0.02 Ferrous  0.03 Aluminum  0.01 Other     0.25 Total  1  Source: Technology Resource Inc. (2008). Solid Waste Composition Study for Metro Vancouver. North Vancouver, B.C.      Appendices  A-15 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Figure C6:  Composition of Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver  (a) (b)  Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver is dominated by paper products and organic wastes (a). The trends in both of these waste categories show that they are logarithmically reaching some equilibrium proportions. The trends in all other waste categories are more erratic (b). Source: Greater Vancouver Regional District. (2004). Solid Waste Management Annual Report 2004. Retrieved from http://public.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ SolidWasteManagementAnnualReport2004.pdf   0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Proportion of Total Recycled Paper Organics 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Proportion of Total Recycled Plastics Glass Ferrous Aluminum Other Wastes Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-16  Figure C7: Ordinary-Least-Square Regression on the Proportions of Paper and Organics in Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver       (a) OLS regressions were performed on the proportions of paper and organics in recycled MSW after log transformation of the time axis. The top graph shows the regression on the proportion of paper products, which yielded y = -0.0563x + 0.670, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.0005). The bottom graph shows the regression on the proportion of organic wastes, which yielded y = 0.0576x + 0.184, with a statistically significant slope (P ≈ 0.0001). (b) The graphs are presented in a linear time-scale.  0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 Pr op or ti on  o f P ap er 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 Pr op or ti on  o f P ap er 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 1 2 3 Pr op or ti on  o f O rg an ic s ln (Year - 1994) 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Pr op or ti on  o f O rg an ic s Data Regression Upper 95% C.I. Lower 95% C.I. (a) (b) 95% C.I. Appendices  A-17 | Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver  Figure C8:  Consolidated Compositions of Recycled MSW in Metro Vancouver    In our model, since there were no significant trends in the historical (1995-2004) proportions of plastics, glass, ferrous metals, aluminum and other wastes (together labeled as “Remainder” above), we assumed that their projected combined proportion was the remainder from the proportions of paper products and organic wastes. The relative proportions of wastes under this “Remainder” category were assumed to be their mean historical proportions (Fig. III.6). The projected trends in the proportion of paper and organics were given by OLS regressions (Fig. III.7).          0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Proportion of Total Recycled Paper Organics Remainder Historical Projected Appendices  Waste Solutions for Metro Vancouver | A-18  Table C7:  Metro Vancouver's Capture Targets for 2015  Paper and Paperboard Plastic Waste Yard Waste Food Waste Wood Waste (DLC) E-waste & Small Appliances Total Capture Capture (tonnes) 165000 30000 60000 170000 155000 20000 600000 Proportion of Total 0.28 0.05 0.10 0.28 0.26 0.03 1  Except for wood waste, all capture targets are for the MSW sector. Source: Metro Vancouver. (2009). Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies, and Actions. Retrieved from http://public.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ZWCManagementPlanMarch2009.pdf  Appendices                            

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 30 7
Republic of Korea 30 0
Canada 18 0
China 11 0
Germany 7 0
Palestine 2 0
Japan 2 0
Poland 2 0
Malaysia 2 0
New Zealand 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Seoul 22 0
Mountain View 17 0
Vancouver 13 0
Unknown 11 0
Beijing 11 0
Daejeon 8 0
Buffalo 4 0
Sunnyvale 3 5
Burlington 2 0
Surrey 2 0
Ramallah 2 0
Victoria 2 0
Tokyo 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items