CAREERS   l  MEDIA ROOM   l  CONTACT US
Metro Vancouver Logo Skip navigation links
About Us
Boards
Services
Planning
Outreach
 
 
Home Email page Print Share this page Increase text size Decrease text size
 
 
Goal 1: Minimize Waste Generation
Goal 2: Maximize Reuse, Recycling and Material Recovery
Goal 3: Recover Energy from the Waste Stream after Material Recycling
Goal 4: Dispose of all remaining waste in landfill after material recycling and energy recovery
Consultation
Frequently Asked Questions
Resources
Reports

Frequently Asked Questions 
The FAQs were developed as a public resource for the ISWRMP public consultation period between April 9th, 2010 and July 14th, 2010. All responses to the FAQs therefore reference the April 2010 draft version of the ISWRMP.

Expand All | Collapse All
Why have we settled on 70% for the waste diversion rate – shouldn’t we reduce, reuse and recycle all of our waste?
Metro Vancouver’s approach to waste management is based on reducing the amount of garbage requiring disposal to the greatest extent practical – the Zero Waste Challenge. An interim diversion rate of 70% by 2015 reflects the best results achieved worldwide – in Austria, at 70%. Canada’s nation-wide diversion rate currently stands at 22%, while Metro Vancouver diverts 55%.

...

Metro Vancouver currently has a waste diversion rate of 55%, which is far better than the 22% Canada-wide average (Statistics Canada, 2006). The Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan establishes a diversion target of 70%. That target was endorsed by the Board in May 2009 following extensive public consultation on the proposed Zero Waste Challenge actions required to meet it. To date, no major Canadian city has achieved a diversion rate of 70% or more (Skumatz, 2007). In fact, Metro Vancouver’s current and targeted levels are similar to the best recycling rates in Europe, with Austria at 70%, followed by Germany at 65%, the Netherlands at 60%, Belgium at 59% and Sweden at 48% (Eurostat, 2010).

While the region’s waste reduction strategy will aim for the highest diversion rates practical, Metro Vancouver has a legal obligation to handle any waste remaining after diversion, and there are limitations on what can practically be recycled. These include composite materials (products constructed with different materials); difficult to recycle materials such as textiles, leather, or personal hygiene products; and materials with limited recycling value such as glass and some plastics. In addition, the recycling industry itself generates waste from contaminated materials that cannot be recycled, e.g. plastics recycling produces a residue of 20% of the incoming volume.

Despite the best diversion programs and practices, experience shows that not everyone will participate, and of those that do participate, not everyone will diligently recycle every item possible. As part of its waste reduction strategy, Metro Vancouver is investing time and resources into encouraging behaviour change, one of the key factors that will ultimately determine the region’s diversion rate. However, even if 80% of the population recycles 80% of the time, the region would only achieve a 64% recycling rate.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a waste diversion strategy designed to integrate the environmental costs associated with goods throughout their life cycles. It is a concept to hold producers liable for the management of their products and its packaging at end of life. The success of EPR programs in diverting waste materials from disposal is dependent upon the number of materials or products targeted through mandated EPR programs, how many exemptions are allowed, and ultimately how many consumers utilize the program. While Metro Vancouver is committed to working with provincial and federal authorities to increase the products and materials covered by EPR programs, the actual implementation of the programs is beyond the region’s jurisdiction.

Even with 70% waste diversion in Metro Vancouver, there will still be over one million tonnes of garbage that will require disposal. Population projections indicate that the population of this region will grow from 2.2 million people in 2006 to surpass 3.4 million by 2040 (Draft Regional Growth Strategy, 2009). While the per capita waste requiring disposal may decline due to waste reduction and recycling efforts, the rapidly increasing population means we must still deal with a significant amount of waste each year.

San Francisco is a good example of a city that has an aggressive waste diversion program but still has a significant amount of waste after diversion to deal with. In 2007, with a huge push from all the stakeholders in the city, San Francisco achieved a 69% diversion rate but still had 732,120 tonnes left for disposal (Skumatz, 2007). While Metro Vancouver and San Francisco have developed and continue to develop waste diversion programs, trends indicate that populations will continue to rise and consumption per capita is on the rise as well.

To achieve its 70% diversion target, Metro Vancouver has developed specific actions through workshops with municipalities, the public, stakeholders, the Waste Management Committee and through public consultation. The set of actions are outlined in the Metro Vancouver’s Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan, a provincially mandated document that includes a major municipal commitment that requires the extensive expansion of current municipal programs.

Upon approval by the Ministry of Environment, the Plan will become a regulatory document to which Metro Vancouver will be held accountable for reaching its stated targets. Failure to reach the targets will result in Metro Vancouver and member municipalities being out of compliance with the Plan.

In 2006, the City of Toronto set a target to achieve 70% diversion by 2010. Despite setting this aggressive goal, Toronto will have achieved a diversion rate in the low 50’s by 2010. A Toronto Councillor has described the attempt to get to 70% as a noble effort but that the goal was unachievable and therefore, politically questionable (Toronto Star, 2009).

To achieve diversion rates beyond 70% will require significant changes to the global economy. This will include increased emphasis internationally on implementing principles of design for the environment, and progress towards a zero waste economy – changes which are outside of Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction and direct control.


 Statistics Canada.Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors. 2006.

 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. 2007 North American Waste Management Systems Comparison Study: Outstanding Communities and Programs in North America and Beyond. December 2007.

 Metro Vancouver. Draft Regional Growth Strategy. November 2009.

link arrow Metro Vancouver. Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). April 2010.

 Eurostat. News Release: Municipal Waste: Half a Ton of Municipal Waste Generated Per Person in the EU27 in 2007. Almost 40% of this Waste was Recycled or Composted. March 19, 2010.

 Spears, John. Toronto Star Article: City will miss its Ambitious Recycling Goal. October 20, 2009.
How much do we spend in our efforts to reduce the amount of waste going to disposal versus the amount spent on disposal – and wouldn’t a greater commitment to zero waste be a better solution?
The Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan proposes a 42% increase in expenditures on recycling activities, and a 39% decrease in expenditures on disposal. More money will be spent on recycling than disposal, reflecting our priority and commitment to zero waste.

Despite commitments to zero waste, no major metropolitan centre in the world has surpassed 70% diversion – so there will be waste remaining that needs to be disposed for the foreseeable future. It is Metro Vancouver’s responsibility to manage this waste. It would be irresponsible to assume this waste will not exist if we simply allocated more funding to recycling and away from disposal.

...

As outlined in Table 1, within Metro Vancouver, net expenditures associated with recycling activities is currently estimated to be $190 million annually. This reflects the cost paid to contractors for collection, transportation, and processing of recyclable materials. Following implementation of actions within this proposed Plan, regional recycling net expenditures are projected to increase by 42% to $270 million annually – an increase of $80 million each year. The increase in economic activity will result in an increase of the regional diversion rate from the current 55% to 70% - a 27% increase. The cost increase of 42% producing a 27% increase in recycling reflects diminishing returns with respect to recycling materials with lower value, or more expensive processes and infrastructure. This trend of diminishing returns is anticipated to continue as the 70% diversion target is approached since the remaining materials become more challenging and costly to recycle.

Table 1 Regional Waste Management – Net Expenditures

Funding for management of the waste remaining after recycling is provided by residents and businesses to solid waste collectors (municipalities, or private sector contractors) either through municipal taxes or through direct contracts with the private sector collectors.

Within Metro Vancouver, net expenditures associated with solid waste disposal are estimated to be $360 million annually. This reflects the cost for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste remaining after recycling. Following implementation of actions within this Plan, regional solid waste disposal net expenditures are projected to decrease by 39% to $220 million annually – a decrease of $140 million each year. This decrease is due to the reduction in waste quantities, and increased revenues from energy recovery through actions outlined in Goal 3 of the proposed Plan.

The system costs for both recycling and disposal are also expressed in Table 1 on a per-capita basis. The per-capita cost for recycling will be higher than disposal, reflecting the greater quantities of recyclable materials. However, pricing will be established to ensure a financial incentive to encourage recycling and waste diversion.

The costs identified in Table 1 reflect expenditures based upon the actions identified in the proposed Plan which includes additional waste-to-energy capacity provided within the region. Alternately, if waste-to-energy capacity is provided out-of-region, net costs are anticipated to increase by $1.5 billion dollars over 35 years, or $43 million annually compared to the proposed plan. Similarly, if out-of-region landfill capacity is pursued, net costs are anticipated to increase by $1.5 billion over the same time frame, or $43 million annually compared to the proposed plan. While export of waste from Metro Vancouver to the United States is not supported by the Minister of Environment, costs for this alternative are anticipated to be comparable to those presented for out-of-region landfill.

While Table 1 identifies the net regional expenditures on waste management, it does not account for the regional economy associated with recycling and disposal. There is considerable economic activity that takes place in the process of recycling the collected materials into new goods as an alternative to virgin feedstocks. Although difficult to estimate, the economy associated with remanufacturing recycled materials into new products exceeds the costs for collection, transportation and processing. Net expenditures associated with disposal more closely reflect the entire disposal economy since there is little economic activity that occurs following disposal. While proposed Plan places much greater emphasis on waste reduction and recycling, and shifts regional net expenditures in alignment with this emphasis, there is an even greater shift in the overall regional economy from disposal to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, the regional economy for waste reduction and recycling far exceeds that for waste disposal and therefore, is reflective of the priority placed upon waste reduction, reuse and recycling as outlined in this Plan.


link arrow Metro Vancouver. Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). April 2010.
Why isn’t Metro Vancouver doing more to reduce packaging, for example, and seeking ways to make manufacturers responsible for their garbage?
Metro Vancouver continues to work with senior levels of government in advocating for a reduction in packaging and for acceleration of programs designed to effectively manage materials through product stewardship programs. These issues require action at the provincial, national and international levels and cannot be solved solely at a regional scale.

...

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, also called ‘Take-Back’ or product stewardship programs, put the responsibility on industry to manage certain products at the ends of their useful lives. These programs are mandated through provincial legislation. Metro Vancouver recognizes that the region has a role to advocate for EPR programs; however, the legal authority for implementing and enforcing them is with senior levels of government.) The Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan includes a commitment to work with the Provincial Government to accelerate EPR programs and to work with the Federal Government on national guidelines ( ISWRMP, 2010).

Regardless of the method, experience shows that no EPR program is able to recover all of the products it targets. Products and packaging ultimately end up in the hands of consumers and their cooperation is needed for an EPR program to succeed. For example, the beverage container deposit refund system is the most well-established (40 years), best-known and most aggressively promoted of all the EPR programs in B.C. with a large network of retailer and depot take-back locations. With financial incentives, public education and convenient infrastructure, the beverage container program captures approximately 80% of the containers sold – the rest are disposed (Encorp Pacific, 2008). ). Most EPR programs perform at a significantly lower level; some recover as little as 10 % of their targeted materials.

Although EPR programs can shift responsibility for waste management away from municipalities to manufacturers, they don’t necessarily result in a significant reduction in materials managed. EPR programs may someday be extended to cover almost all manufactured goods and packaging materials, but capturing all of the material they target is unfortunately not a current reality.

In 2006 Metro Vancouver commissioned a study titled “Review of Extended Producer Responsibility Program Implementation in Greater Vancouver” to review, from a local government perspective, how EPR programs have been implemented in the GVRD. The study assessed the effectiveness of the implementation of EPR programs in Greater Vancouver from a local government perspective and highlighted successes and identified issues, particularly those associated with the implementation of the principle of full producer responsibility. The study also provided a list of products and product categories for further consideration as candidates in existing or new programs under the Recycling Regulation (Gartner Lee, 2006).

In 2007 Metro Vancouver, working with Gartner Lee Limited, developed “Prioritizing Products for Future Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs”. This report established evaluation criteria and provided a high level assessment of a comprehensive list of products to assist in identifying potential candidates for EPR programs in the near future. The report was shared with interested parties including the BC Ministry of Environment (Gartner Lee, 2007).


link arrow Metro Vancouver. Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). April 2010.

link arrow Encorp Pacific (Canada). Annual Report. 2008.

link arrow Gartner Lee Ltd. Review of Extended Producer Responsibility Program Implementation in Greater Vancouver. Prepared for Metro Vancouver. 2006.

link arrow Gartner Lee Ltd. Prioritizing Products for Future Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs. Prepared for Metro Vancouver. 2007.

Wouldn’t building a waste-to-energy facility compete with Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge goals? Wouldn’t we be committed to supplying the facility with a large amount of waste to make it economical?
Our commitment is to diverting waste from disposal in the first place, and experiences in Metro Vancouver (recycling in the region has increased since the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby began operating in 1988) and elsewhere point to better than average recycling rates in communities with waste-to-energy facilities. After achieving world-class rates of diversion, a growing population means that more than one million tonnes of waste will still need to be managed. Nevertheless, proposed new waste-to-energy capacity in the Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan is limited to 500,000 tonnes per year.

...

First and foremost Metro Vancouver is committed to establishing and promoting waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs. Since initiating the Zero Waste Challenge, Metro Vancouver has prioritized minimizing waste generation and maximizing reuse, recycling and material recovery as the top two goals in the Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWMRP, 2010). Metro Vancouver and member municipalities are strong supporters of waste diversion and regard all Zero Waste Challenge initiatives as paramount. Work has already begun to provide food waste composting and increase waste diversion from commercial sources. Metro Vancouver currently has a waste diversion rate of 55%, which is far better than the 22% Canada-wide average.

Recycling is very much a part of an integrated waste management system regardless of which new disposal facility is chosen. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, the current waste diversion trend in Europe (where there are more than 400 waste-to-energy facilities) indicates that countries with a higher percentage of waste going to waste-to-energy facilities also have higher recycling rates (AECOM, 2010). Germany, a European leader in waste diversion, emphasises “Waste prevention has priority over recovery and disposal. Nevertheless, the use of waste for energy recovery is an indispensable element of sustainable waste management” (German Federal Environment Agency, 2008).

Figure 1: Recycling and Thermal Treatment Rates in the EU (Eurostat, 2009)

According to the US EPA, the national recycling rate in the U.S. is 32%. A 2008 study titled "A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert" by Dr. Berenyi of Government Advisory Associates, Inc. reviewed recycling rates in U.S. communities that also use waste-to-energy. The data from this research indicates that “recycling and waste-to-energy are compatible waste management strategies, which are part of an integrated waste management approach in many communities across the United States” (Berenyi, 2008).

Metro Vancouver currently has a waste diversion rate of 55%, which is far better than the 22% Canada-wide average. To ensure that new waste-to-energy capacity will not undermine efforts to increase the diversion rate to 70% by 2015 and then go beyond that level to the extent practical, any new waste-to-energy capacity would be sized such that it would not exceed the amount of waste requiring disposal after recycling. The Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan states that Metro Vancouver would “monitor trends in waste reduction, recycling and waste flows and implement additional waste-to-energy capacity if, and only if, justified on the basis of these trends.” The region would also “scale any additional waste-to-energy capacity so that total waste-to-energy capacity in the region does not exceed the most probable minimum waste flow projected over the economic life of those facilities”.

In addition, current Metro Vancouver data does not support the contention that waste-to-energy and waste reduction are incompatible. Metro Vancouver already has a waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby, and waste diversion has continued to increase since the waste-to-energy facility began operation in 1988.

Data since 1994 shows a marked increase in waste generation due in large part to the increase in population (Figure 2). This has been accompanied by an increase in the quantity of materials recycled while the quantity of waste requiring disposal has remained virtually constant. Increasing the regional waste diversion rate to 70% or higher will still leave significant quantities of waste requiring management.

Figure 2: Total Population, Waste Generation, Disposal and Recycling (Metro Vancouver, 2010)

According to the German Federal Environment Agency, the use of disposal technology to manage waste does not influence the public’s consumption habits. The same quantity of waste disposed in a waste-to-energy facility or landfill would have arisen without expanding disposal capacity. Efficient recycling of and energy recovery from waste not avoided in manufacturing and consumption is important for environmental protection (German Federal Environment Agency, 2008).


link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009.

link arrow Metro Vancouver. Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). April 2010

link arrow Eurostat. News Release: Municipal Waste: Half a Ton of Municipal Waste Generated Per Person in the EU27 in 2007. Almost 40% of this Waste was Recycled or Composted. March 9, 2009

link arrow Berenyi, E.B. A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in Concert. 2008.

link arrow German Federal Environment Agency (UBA). Waste Incineration and Waste Prevention: Not a Contradiction in Terms. July 2008. Accessed on April 13, 2010.

Isn’t waste-to-energy harmful to the environment and to human health?
Modern, well-managed waste-to-energy facilities are acknowledged by scientific authorities around the world as safe for the environment and for human health. Metro Vancouver has operated the waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby for more than 20 years without negative impacts.

...

Independent studies and scientific evidence from health and environment authorities have concluded that emissions from modern well-managed waste-to-energy facilities are not a health concern. This is because stringent environmental regulations have resulted in increasingly lower emissions through:

  • Controlled, high temperature destruction of toxics;
  • Advanced emissions control systems to capture contaminants; and
  • Continuous monitoring of emissions.

The U.K. Health Protection Agency recently stated “Studies published in the scientific literature showing health effects in populations living around incinerators have, in general, been conducted around older incinerators with less stringent emission standards and cannot be directly extrapolated with any reliability to modern incinerators” (U.K. Health Protection Agency, 2010). Upon having examined the suggested links between emissions from waste-to-energy facilities and health, the U.K. Health Protection Agency concluded that “any potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since any possible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public health around modern, well managed municipal solid waste incinerators are not recommended.” This follows the comprehensive review by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of various municipal solid waste management activities in the United Kingdom. DEFRA found that emissions from WTE were lower than those from domestic heating or cooking and that there was no epidemiologic link between waste-to-energy and cancer or respiratory disease (Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2004).

A 2000 study into the health aspects of incineration by the American National Research Council concluded that emissions from well-operated modern facilities were expected to contribute little to environmental concentrations of toxic pollutants or to human health risks. The report noted that the substantial reductions occurred as a result of the US EPA introducing stricter environmental regulatory standards (National Research Council, 2000)) and waste-to-energy facilities implementing more advanced air pollution control technology to comply with these standards. The decrease in emissions from U.S. waste-to-energy facilities is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Reductions in Emissions from U.S. WTE Facilities (US EPA, 2009)

In Canada, a growing body of research on the health effects of the new generation of waste-to-energy facilities has come to the same conclusion. The Durham Region in Ontario retained Jacques Whitford Ltd. to conduct a study titled: “Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities” in conjunction with the Durham/York Residual Waste Study. The report concluded that a modern waste-to-energy facility that employs the Maximum Achievable Pollution Control Technology (MACT), a US EPA standard, would not significantly increase contaminant levels in the environment. This technology, coupled with a recommended surveillance methodology of continuous and periodic stack testing of chemical emissions, is the most prevalent method of ensuring public and environmental health protection for waste-to-energy projects. The report further concluded that no correlation exists between chemical concentrations in ambient air and stack emissions from facilities that employ modern pollution control technology and that there would be no impacts to soil and vegetation quality(Jacques Whitford, 2009). Health Canada states that “If incinerators are equipped with proper pollution control systems (activated charcoal beds, spray dry scrubbing, etc.), the health risks of incineration are very low” (Health Canada, 2004).

The Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland (FOES) has determined that a municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facility is not an important source of pollution in Switzerland. The FOES also reports that using waste-to-energy facilities for power generation has reduced total air pollution by avoiding the emissions from other power producing facilities in the country (Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland, 2010).

According to an article in BC Local News published April 30, 2010, B.C. provincial health officer Dr. Perry Kendall said he has no concerns about Metro's waste-to-energy strategy. "There are technologies that can remove any of the health risks," Kendall said. "If you're doing it right, you shouldn't be getting anything harmful. You're getting water vapour and carbon dioxide. Anything else can be scrubbed out, gasified and buried" (BC Local News, 2010).

The Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby (page 17) was developed on the basis that the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize any environmental impacts. The same policy would apply to a new waste-to-energy facility in the region. Environmental performance is continually monitored and improvements are implemented to ensure the existing facility stays at the forefront of environmental performance. Since beginning operation in 1988, the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby has:

  • Implemented a carbon injection system to remove mercury from emissions;
  • Implemented an ammonia injection system for NOx abatement;
  • Installed the WES-PHix patented stabilization system to treat fly ash;
  • Implemented zero liquid discharge;
  • Obtained ISO 14001 certification, an independently audited International Standard that requires ongoing continuous environmental improvement of the facility; and
  • Implemented a continuous emissions monitoring system to increase the ability to control the operation and emissions from the facility.

The emissions monitoring programs implemented for the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility in Burnaby were originally recommended by technical committees which included representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Metropolitan Board of Health, and the GVRD (Metro Vancouver). The Minister of Environment then appointed a Technical Review Committee to assess and evaluate the environmental monitoring program that had been implemented. The Technical Review Committee also included representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Metropolitan Board of Health, and the GVRD. This Committee appointed a Soil and Vegetation Sub-Committee to oversee the assessment of the soil and vegetation monitoring program.

GVRD staff in association with the Soil and Vegetation Sub-Committee wrote the 1992 report “Burnaby Incinerator: Summary of Soil and Vegetation Monitoring Data” expressly for the Technical Review Committee’s consideration. The report presents a comparison of the pre-construction and post-operation soil characteristics at the waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby. The report analysed the data for individual trace elements in soils and vegetation, and PAH in soil and vegetation around the waste-to-energy facility. It noted that the concentrations of the majority of parameters had decreased over the study period. Those parameters that did not consistently decrease did not exhibit any trends (some sampling sites and depths increased, some decreased). Generally, those parameters that did not consistently decrease over the study period did decrease in the final year of study. There was also no correlation between the levels of metals observed in the soils and vegetation study and the ambient air monitoring program. The conclusion reached after further analysis of the data was that “there is no visible trend that correlates levels of trace element concentrations with emissions from the GVRD incinerator in Burnaby” (GVRD, 1992).

The Technical Review Committee approved the 1992 report which was then forwarded to the (GVRD) Solid Waste Committee for information. The multi-agency committee appointed by the Minister of Environment approved the report that concluded: “To date there is no evidence to indicate that incinerator emissions have had any measurable adverse impact on soil and vegetation trace elements or PAH levels at the representative monitoring sites used in this sampling program”, with no further recommendation for ongoing soil and vegetation monitoring.

The measured emissions of contaminants including, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, metals including mercury, cadmium, and lead, dioxin/furans, and carbon monoxide at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby are well below the allowable standard and in most cases negligible. Figure 2 below presents the historical emission monitoring results for these parameters and the associated regulatory levels.

Table 2: Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility Summary of Air Emissions 1998 - 2009 (Metro Vancouver WTEF Performance Data - page 17)

 


link arrow British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). “Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes”. London: 2004.

link arrow UK Health Protection Agency (HPA). “The Impacts on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators – Advice from the Health Protection Agency”. Documents of the Health Protection Agency – Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. February 2010.

link arrow Health Canada. “Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment Vol. 4 – Health Impacts by Industry Sector”. November 2004.

link arrow Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland (FOES) letter to Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver Seeks Confined Airshed Information. March 5, 2010.

link arrow US EPA, Valdez, Heather. “Waste-to-Energy”. Presentation for the BC Clean Air Forum. Richmond March 2009.

link arrow Jacques Whitford. Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities. February 2009.

link arrow BC Local News, “Burning questions” April 30, 2010.

link arrow National Research Council (NRC). “Waste Incineration & Public Health”. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 2000.

link arrow Metro Vancouver's Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby - Performance Data (page 17).

link arrow Metro Vancouver. Burnaby Incinerator: Summary of Soil and Vegetation Monitoring Data. 1992

Won’t the additional emissions from waste-to-energy make a poor situation even worse in the unique Lower Fraser Valley Airshed? Didn’t Metro Vancouver oppose Sumas 2 for these reasons?
All management of garbage, regardless of the process, results in some air quality impacts. That said, waste management practices contribute less than one percent to the air contaminants in the Lower Fraser Valley, a level that will decline under the Draft Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan. Modelling indicates that there is no discernible difference in air quality between the various options (landfilling, waste-to-energy, etc.) under consideration. Metro opposed the Sumas 2 project as it would have resulted in an incremental increase in emissions with no benefit to Canada and Canadians.

...

The Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) project was originally proposed in 1999 as a 660 MW combined cycle power plant to be located in Sumas, Washington - less than one kilometre from the Canada-U.S. border. The project was approved by the Washington State Governor in 2004, but faced opposition from a number of Canadian agencies, including the GVRD Board. Ultimately, the permit to construct the proposed transmission line from the Canada-U.S. border to an Abbotsford, B.C. substation was denied by the National Energy Board in 2004 (National Energy Board, 2004), and the denial was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2005 (Federal Court of Appeal, 2005). There is no comparison between the SE2 plant and new waste-to-energy facilities. Analysis showed that SE2 would result in a net increase in emissions as well as health impacts to the region. As such, SE2 was viewed as contrary to Metro Vancouver’s goals to improve the air quality in the airshed – goals which would be achieved by continuing to reduce harmful air emissions from all possible sources and avoiding the introduction of unnecessary emission sources to the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed. SE2 was an unnecessary, incremental source of air contaminants that would offer no benefits to Canadians – only negative impacts.

In contrast, if we accept that a growing population of over 2 million residents in the region will continue to generate waste that needs to be disposed for the foreseeable future, even as we increase waste diversion to 70% and beyond, then waste management emissions are necessary and unavoidable to replace existing waste disposal facilities. Moreover, if waste-to-energy is selected as the method of waste disposal, the analysis from AECOM Canada Ltd.’s report on the “Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver” shows that net waste management emissions in the future can be lower when energy is generated to displace fossil fuel use, e.g. district heating replaces natural gas use in the region (AECOM, 2009).

Current waste management emissions in the region are associated with the Vancouver Landfill in Delta, closed landfills throughout the region, the waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby, transfer stations and truck emissions from hauling waste. Refer to Figure 1 below for a summary of 2005 emissions in the airshed, which shows that waste management contributes from 0.1% to 1.2% of the total emissions in the airshed.

Figure 1: Contribution of PM2.5 Emissions to the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed (Metro Vancouver, 2007)

Future waste management emissions are comparable to present day and are very low relative to total emissions in the airshed.

The total waste management emissions are equivalent to:

  • The NOx and SOx emissions of about one cruise ship travelling the Vancouver to Alaska run;
  • 1% of the overall total of ammonia emissions in the FVRD in 2020 (most of which are from agricultural activities);
  • Only 0.7% of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces in the region.

Given these low levels, air quality modelling shows no discernible ambient air quality difference between waste-to-energy and landfilling (or where they are located(RWDI Air Inc, 2009).

In 2009, AECOM reviewed eight combinations of waste management options for Metro Vancouver for the management of waste after recycling. The comparative analysis included options such as in-region and out-of-region landfilling, in-region waste-to-energy (existing and new), and use of mechanical biological treatment with the product going to either a cement kiln, refuse derived fuel or to a local landfill.

These eight scenarios were then compared using an accepted air quality model, CMAQ (Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model) that has been applied in the Pacific Northwest on many occasions to compare air quality impacts of different policy options,. The following figures compare projected regional ozone and PM2.5 levels for the eight different scenarios and also compare them to the present day situation. The modelling indicates that there is no discernible difference in ambient levels of ozone or fine particulate matter between the eight waste management scenarios outlined by AECOM. This is to be expected given the small contribution of waste management to overall emissions in the airshed, and the even smaller differences between the different waste management options.

Figure 2: Regional Ozone Levels for 2020 Scenarios Compared to 2005 (RWDI Air Inc., 2009)

Figure 3: Regional PM2.5 Levels for 2020 Scenarios Compared to 2005 (RWDI Air Inc., 2009)

The situation in the Lower Fraser Valley airshed is not poor. Through two Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) adopted in 1994 and 2005, supported by comprehensive monitoring and assessment of emissions sources, we have seen significant improvements. Metro Vancouver is committed to continuing to be cautious in the management of this shared airshed and the AQMP commits to a principle of continuous improvement. Continuous improvement does not mean never allowing new sources of emissions. It must be acknowledged that some new sources of emissions are necessary and unavoidable, and can be acceptable if they are appropriately managed and provide a benefit to the region and its airshed. Emissions from new waste-to-energy plants are not an incremental increase; but rather, with system-wide improvements and the implementation of district energy opportunities, the net effect is a decrease in emissions compared to present day waste management. This supports the principle of continuous improvement.

Europe has a number of airsheds similar to the Lower Fraser Valley. In particular, the Federal Department of the Environment in Switzerland has identified 30 state-of-the-art municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facilities located mainly in densely populated valleys of the country. Their experience has shown that state-of-the-art waste-to-energy facilities are “not a really important source of pollution.” All waste-to-energy facilities in Switzerland recover energy and in most cases reduce the total emissions to the region. In the case of the Thun Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI), which processes 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, there was no influence found on particulate matter (PM10), dust deposition, heavy metals in dust or deposition of heavy metals from the facility on the airshed. Emissions in the region from traffic, small industries, and households factored more heavily than those from the waste-to-energy facility. In fact, the main source of dioxins in Switzerland is “uncontrolled burning of waste in households (open fires or in stoves or chimneys)” (Federal Department of the Environment in Switzerland, 2010).


link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009.

link arrow Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland (FOES) letter to Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver Seeks Confined Airshed Information. March 5, 2010. 

link arrow National Energy Board, news release NEB Denies An Application From Sumas Energy 2, Inc. To Construct An International Power Line In Abbotsford, B.C., March 2004 National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision - Sumas Energy 2, Inc. EH-1-2000, March 2004.

link arrow Federal Court of Appeal, Sumas Energy 2 Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2005 FCA 377 (CanLII), November 2005.

link arrow RWDI Air Inc. CMAQ Modelling of Possible Solid Waste Management Scenarios. June 2009.

link arrow Metro Vancouver. 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast. December 2007.

At a time when we are trying to decrease greenhouse gases that cause global warming, why are we adding a new source?
Metro Vancouver’s top priority is to reduce waste – increasing waste diversion from 55% to 70% will result in significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

With the remaining waste, Metro Vancouver proposes to replace the Cache Creek Landfill (scheduled for closure) with a new waste-to-energy facility, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions. A waste-to-energy facility can achieve lower greenhouse gas emissions than a landfill because it recovers metals for recycling and generates energy to replace fossil fuels as a source of heat and electricity. In contrast, a landfill recovers much less energy and produces methane which is 21 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at warming the planet.

...

Municipal solid waste contains both fossil carbon and biogenic carbon. When handling these types of carbon, both a waste-to-energy facility and a landfill will produce emissions as carbon dioxide or methane. Carbon dioxide and methane in particular contribute to the greenhouse effect, resulting in global climate change. Fossil carbon refers to carbon that originates from ancient stores from the earth, e.g. coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Examples in the waste stream include plastics, synthetic fibers, and composite materials. Biogenic carbon is carbon created by plants or animals during ‘recent’ growth. Typically this refers to material such as wood, paper, plants, food waste, etc. In terms of greenhouse gas emission inventories or carbon accounting, the release of biogenic carbon as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not considered a net greenhouse gas emission. This is because this carbon is simply returning to the atmosphere from where it was recently removed. Biogenic materials release carbon dioxide whether they are combusted in a waste-to-energy facility or decay in a landfill. Placing these materials in a waste-to-energy facility doesn’t increase the amount of carbon dioxide released. However, biogenic carbon can create a net greenhouse gas emission if it is transformed into a more potent form such as methane in a landfill. Carbon that is being returned to the atmosphere in a more potent form than it was removed must be included in the accounting.

Waste-to-energy facilities with efficient energy generation including district heating displace fossil fuels used in the region for electricity and heating buildings. Avoiding the release of greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted from generating electricity and heat from fossil fuels reduces global greenhouse gas emissions. Although waste-to-energy does emit greenhouse gases, the avoided emissions from energy generation can be greater than the facility emissions. In addition, waste-to-energy facilities also avoid greenhouse gas emissions through metal recovery by separating ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling. The recovery of metals avoids the mining of virgin materials and the manufacturing of steel, thereby leading to significant upstream energy savings and additional avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.

In contrast, the decomposition of waste in landfills generates methane gas, which is 21 times more potent than the carbon dioxide emitted from a waste-to-energy facility. Some of the methane can be captured, but not all is collected due to delays in the installation of the gas collection system from initial waste placement and leaks in collection pipes, gas wells, and through the landfill cover. According to the US EPA, “It is difficult to quantify emissions with a high degree of certainty since emissions result from biological processes that can be difficult to predict, occur over multiple decades, and are distributed over a relatively large area covered by the landfill” (US EPA, 2009).

Some critics of waste-to-energy have produced misleading estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy by including CO2 emissions from the biogenic portion of waste. This practice is not consistent with the guidelines from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which state that The CO2 emissions from combustion of biomass materials (e.g., paper, food, and wood waste) contained in the waste are biogenic emissions and should not be included in national total emission estimates. However, if incineration of waste is used for energy purposes, both fossil and biogenic CO2 emissions should be estimated. Only fossil CO2 should be included in national emissions under Energy Sector while biogenic CO2 should be reported as an information item also in the Energy Sector” (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006).

In 2009, the US EPA Office of Research and Development issued a study comparing landfilling and waste-to-energy for electricity production. The analysis excluded the effect of avoided emissions when examining the range of conditions for waste-to-energy and landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE). The findings indicated that waste-to-energy is on average six to eleven times more efficient at recovering energy from waste than landfills and for even the most optimistic assumptions about landfill-gas-to-energy, net life-cycle environmental trade-offs is 2 to 6 times the amount of greenhouse gases compared to waste-to-energy (US EPA, 2009).

Based on her review of numerous life-cycle studies on solid waste management, Executive Director Dr. Rita Schenck of the Institute for Environmental Research & Education at the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment writes in her letter to Metro Vancouver: “Waste-to-energy solutions usually have quite good outcomes, because the emissions they cause offset the emissions that would have been caused if the energy had been made using conventional fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Modern waste to energy plants are highly regulated and typically have very few emissions, often less than a conventional gas turbine, for example. Landfill solutions usually have the worst outcomes, because the emissions from the landfill are substantially uncontrolled. This is the case even when methane capture systems are installed. These capture systems rarely achieve even 50% capture of gases. The studies I have seen where the landfill option seems attractive tend to have over-estimated methane capture and have set the system boundaries in non-conventional ways” (Institute for Environmental Research & Education, 2010).

The Solid Waste Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) states that: “WTE [waste-to-energy] is a proven, environmentally sound process that provides reliable electricity generation and sustainable disposal of post-recycling MSW.” “In fact, nation-wide use of the WTE technology can become one of the big contributors to America’s planned reduction in greenhouse gas emissions" (Solid Waste Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008). Furthermore, the US EPA reports that producing electricity using waste-to-energy has less environmental impact than almost every other source of electricity (US EPA, 2003) as shown in Figure 3 (US EPA, 2009). The Chief of EPA’s Energy Recovery Branch has stated that “If you want to have an impact on greenhouse gas mitigation, focus on MSW” because there’s nationally significant energy available from MSW combustion and “Even if you have >50% recycling, you still have a significant amount of energy to recover” (US EPA, 2009). The Center for the Study of Sustainable Use of Resources (SUR) at North Carolina State University has reported that in a comparison of alternative solid waste management practices, “…WTE is the most effective way in which to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste management". (Center for the Study of Sustainable Use of Resources, 2009)

Figure 1: Comparison of GHG emissions for LFGTE, WTE, and Conventional Electricity-Generating Technologies (US EPA 2009)

 

Given the small contribution of waste management to overall emissions in the airshed, air quality management efforts would be better focussed on major regional sources (vehicles and space heating), as strategized in Metro Vancouver’s Air Quality Management Plan. AECOM Canada Ltd. reports that that “GHG emissions from waste management activities are 3% of the GHG emissions produced in Canada and 5% of those produced in BC. 95% of the GHG associated with waste management in BC originates from landfills” (AECOM, 2009).


link arrow US EPA. Horinko, M, Holmstead, J. Letter to Maria Zannes, President of Integrated Waste Services Association. February 14, 2003. Accessed on March 12, 2009.

link arrow Center for the Study of Sustainable Use of Resources (SUR). “Summary of the LF-WTE Meeting on Climate Impacts of U.S. Waste Management Industry”. January 2009. Accessed on March 31, 2010.

link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009. Accessed on March 31, 2010.

link arrow US EPA. Is It Better to Bury or Burn Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?. Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Vol.43, No.6. 2009.

link arrow American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (Solid Waste Division). Waste-to-Energy: A Renewable Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste. Position Statement made by the Solid Waste Processing Division. No. 08-22, August 2008.

link arrow IPCC, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 5 Waste, 2006.

link arrow Institute for Environmental Research & Education of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (IERE) letter to Metro Vancouver. Comments on Results of Life-Cycle Assessments. Feb.17, 2010.

link arrow US EPA (R.Brandes) presentation The Need for Integrated Materials Management, 2009.

Shouldn’t we be concerned about nanoparticles and toxic emissions from waste-to-energy facilities?
Modern, well-managed waste-to-energy facilities (such as the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby) are not significant sources of air emissions – nanoparticles or other contaminants – according to both local experience and international authorities.

...

Modern and well-managed municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facilities are not significant sources of air emissions. The British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the German Ministry of the Environment (MOE), US EPA, and the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency (U.K. HPA) agree that modern waste-to-energy facilities emit low levels of contaminants, and have even achieved up to 99% reductions for compounds such as dioxins and mercury. For example, emissions from the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby fall well below Canada Wide Standards, which are the most stringent in the world for substances like dioxins and mercury (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2010).

Regarding emissions from waste-to-energy facilities, Health Canada reports that “Metals such as cadmium and chromium pose a low risk, as do mercury and lead. Metals are released by incinerators that are not equipped with proper scrubbers. Such cases, which were still common in Canada in the 1990s, are now the exception. Several underperforming incinerators have been closed, while others have undergone major modifications.” Furthermore, “If incinerators are equipped with proper pollution control systems (activated charcoal beds, spray dry scrubbing, etc.), the health risks of incineration are very low (Health Canada, 2004). Other countries report similarly low contaminant emissions from modern municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facilities. For example, in the UK 0.5% of dioxin emissions come from incineration of municipal solid waste and another 0.5% come from burning landfill gas (Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2004). The German Ministry of the Environment reports that dioxins from waste-to-energy is less than 1% of total dioxin emissions and is considered insignificant. For context, the German Ministry of Environment also reports that tiled stoves in private households in Germany emit 20 times more dioxins in the environment than waste-to-energy facilities (German Ministry of the Environment, 2005). Additionally, the use of MSW WTE facilities in Denmark "reduced the country’s energy costs and reliance on oil and gas, but also benefited the environment, diminishing the use of landfills and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The plants run so cleanly that many times more dioxin is now released from home fireplaces and backyard barbecues than from incineration" (New York Times, 2010). The US EPA has reported that the largest source of dioxins in the US is backyard burning, which releases almost 50 times as much dioxins as compared with all waste-to-energy facilities in the US (US EPA, 2009). The Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland (FOES) reports that the largest source of dioxins in Switzerland is “uncontrolled burning of waste in households (open fires or in stoves or chimneys)” (Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland, 2010). In the Metro Vancouver context, AECOM Canada Ltd. reports that for all the waste management scenarios analyzed the “contribution to overall emission levels in the LFV [Lower Fraser Valley] airshed is very small (1.2% or less)” (AECOM, 2009). Other sources of emissions in the Lower Mainland, such as those related to transportation are significant contributors of contaminants to the LFV airshed.

A recent scientific article in the Atmospheric Pollution Research Journal states that, “The incineration sector has undergone rapid technological development over the last 10 - 15 years, due to specific legislation applied to industry that has obliged several European countries to reduce toxic emissions from municipal waste incinerators (MWIs) (European Commission, 2006). However, the fine and ultrafine particle stack emission has not yet been fully characterized. Because of this, MWIs represent a rather interesting subject of investigation. In Western countries there is a strong debate on the emission of ultrafine particles at the stack of waste-to-energy plants, although MWIs surely represent only a minor source of anthropogenic aerosol emission compared to fossil fuel power plants and vehicle emissions (Airborne Particles Expert Group, 1999; EPA, 2000; Cass et al., 2000).” The article also goes on to say that according to their study, the fabric filters in a modern waste-to-energy facility are 99.995% efficient in terms of particle capture (Buonanno et al, 2010).

A study by the Institute for Applied Environmental Technologies at the University of Rapperswil (UMTEC) in Switzerland examined the effectiveness of different air pollution control systems to control fine and ultra fine particulates at waste-to-energy facilities in Switzerland. The study demonstrated on the basis of actual measurements at operating waste-to-energy facilities that electro filters followed by wet scrubbers could remove ultrafine particulates to levels at or below ambient conditions. Figure 4, shows the measured values of ambient air and cleaned flue gas from the KEZO Waste-to-Energy Facility. The red line represents ambient air particulate concentration in an urban setting, the yellow line is for a rural setting, and the blue line shows the measured values from the waste-to-energy stack (AECOM, 2009).

Figure 4: Ultra-fine Particulate Emissions at KEZO WTE Facility in Switzerland (AECOM, 2009)

In the review of the risk assessment for the proposed Durham waste-to-energy facility, an independent study for the region of Halton in Ontario prepared for the Medical Officer of Health stated that “it should be noted that these ultrafine and nanoparticles are emissions of concern from hazardous waste incineration, as opposed to municipal EFW facilities” (Smith, Dr. L.F., 2007). Similarly, the Chair of the European Union Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks and Europe’s top scientists who advise the European Commission on issues including nanotechnologies have determined that nanoparticulate matter from municipal waste-to-energy facilities is not a significant health concern (Bridges, 2009).


link arrow CCME - Review of Dioxins and Furans from Incineration In Support of a Canada-Wide Standard Review. Accessed March 19, 2010

link arrow Health Canada. “Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment Vol 4 – Health Impacts by Industry Sector”. November 2004.

link arrow British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). “Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes”. London: 2004.

link arrow German Ministry of the Environment: (Germany, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2005). Waste Incineration – A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Sprouting. Accessed October 26, 2008.

link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. “Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling”. June 2009. Accessed on March 31, 2010.

link arrow UK HPA - UK Health Protection Agency (HPA). “The Impacts on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators – Advice from the Health Protection Agency”. Documents of the Health Protection Agency – Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. February 2010.

link arrow Federal Office of the Environment of Switzerland (FOES). Letter to Susana Harder. March 5, 2010.

link arrow Buonnano et al. Atmospheric Pollution Research: Ultrafine particle apportionment and exposure assessment in respect of linear and point sources. Atmospheric Pollution Research 1 (2010) 36-43.

link arrow Smith, Lesbia F. Energy from Waste Facility in the Region of Durham, A Document Prepared for the Medical Health Officer of the Region of Durham. September 2007.

link arrow Bridges, Jim. “Waste Management Options: Public Health Considerations”. Metro Vancouver Council of Councils Meeting, 27 June 2009.

link arrow  View Jim Bridges presentation at the Council of Councils meeting, June 27, 2009.

link arrow US EPA, Valdez, Heather. “Waste-to-Energy”. Presentation for the BC Clean Air Forum. Richmond March 2009.

link arrow Rosenthal, Elisabeth. New York Times article: “Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags”. April 12, 2010.

Aren’t landfills the cheapest disposal option for residents?
While local landfills, such as the Vancouver Landfill located in Delta, can be relatively cost effective, remote, out-of-region landfills can be over twice the cost of local landfills due to transportation and other costs. In contrast to landfills, waste-to-energy facilities generate significant revenues through the sale of heat, electricity and recovered metals and can generate a net profit.

Independent financial analysis indicates that over 35 years, out-of-region landfilling would cost the region some $1.5 billion (or about $100,000 per day) while waste-to-energy would result in a net profit in the order of $20 million.

...

The net cost for out-of-region landfills is driven by fuel consumption, heavy equipment operation and labour, for both the long distance transportation and landfill operations. These three cost centres are projected to increase with inflation over time, resulting in continued escalation in the costs for landfilling. This results in an increasing long term cost trend for landfills.

The major costs for waste-to-energy are the capital construction and financing costs, which are offset by revenues from the sale of heat, electricity and recovered metals. While the construction costs will be fixed, one-time costs, the revenues are projected to increase over time with increasing energy rates. After debt retirement, waste-to-energy will return annual profits. The financial break-even point for waste-to-energy facilities is approximately 30 years, beyond which net profits will continue to increase. This analysis includes expenditures for facility refurbishment. It is important to note that facilities typically operate for 40 years or more. For example, the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility has an existing operations contract until 2025, at which time the facility will be 37 years old. Following an initial period of capital repayment, the long term cost trend for waste-to-energy is for increasing revenues and associated net profit.

Waste-to-energy or landfilling options can be financed either by Metro Vancouver or by the private sector. Public sector financing will result in higher initial capital costs which are offset by higher long term revenues. While there is greater variability associated with public sector financing, the long term costs under this financing structure are significantly lower. In contrast, private sector financing will result in lower initial costs, but higher long term costs. Private sector financing serves to smooth the cost curve out providing cost stability, but result in higher long term costs.

This financial analysis was conducted in 2009 by Dr. Marvin Shaffer, Professor of Economics at Simon Fraser University as part of AECOM Canada Ltd’s study “Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver”. Dr. Shaffer’s model results indicate that waste-to-energy has the potential to generate a net profit for the region and landfilling will cost in excess of one billion dollars.

As shown in Figure 5, the net cost for a 500,000 tonne per year facility over 35 years is a $20 million profit for an in-region waste-to-energy facility, $1.8 billion cost for an out-of-region refuse derived fuel plant, and $1.5 billion cost for an out-of-region landfill.

Figure 5: Total 35 Year Net Cost for Three Waste Management Options in Metro Vancouver (AECOM, 2009)


link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009. Accessed on March 31, 2010.
Doesn’t waste-to-energy create a large volume of ash containing toxins that still need to be landfilled anyway?
Bottom ash and fly ash are produced by the waste-to-energy process. Bottom ash is non-hazardous and is often recycled as a road construction material, or as landfill cover. Fly ash treated at the waste-to-energy facility is also non-hazardous and disposed in a landfill.

...

The bottom ash residue remaining after combustion has been shown to be a non-hazardous solid waste that can be safely landfilled or recycled as construction aggregate (Abbott et al., 2003). A study undertaken for Metro Vancouver in 2001 concluded that bottom ash can be used successfully as a structural fill material in the construction of roads (AMEC, 2001). Approximately 17% (by weight) of the waste processed at the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby becomes bottom ash. This bottom ash, which is regularly tested and consistently meets the Ministry of Environment’s classification for municipal solid waste, is used at the Vancouver Landfill in Delta as landfill cover and road construction aggregate.

Fly ash produced at the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby, approximately four percent (by weight) of the received waste, is chemically treated onsite to stabilize leachable lead. The treatment renders the ash safe for disposal in landfill. After treatment, each load is tested before hauling to disposal to ensure it complies with provincial municipal solid waste standards (BC Ministry of Evironment, 1997).

Given the 90% reduction in waste volume achieved through waste-to-energy, the life of a landfill can be significantly increased. In addition, landfill emissions are significantly reduced as waste-to-energy renders the ash inert by combusting the organic fraction that would otherwise generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide.


link arrow BC MoE Correspondence to Metro Vancouver. Protocol for WES-PHix Treated Fly Ash. September 8, 1997.

link arrow AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited. Evaluation of Incinerator Bottom Ash for Use in Road Construction. August 2001.

link arrow Abbott, John; Coleman, Peter; Howlett, Lucy; Wheeler, Pat. Environmental and Health Risks Associated with the Use of Processed Incinerator Bottom Ash in Road Construction, a report produced for BREWEB by AEA Technology Environment. October 2003.

Does Canada have stringent enough regulations on toxic chemicals to stop them from getting into the waste stream and burned at waste-to-energy facilities?
Canada is a leader in the control of toxic substances at their source and continues to enact regulations intended to remove toxic chemicals from the waste stream. In addition, the high temperatures in waste-to-energy processes effectively destroy or capture toxics that may remain. This is proved out by monitoring data from the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby.

...

Regarding source control of toxic substances, Canada is further along than the European Union (a recognized leader) in the assessment and implementation of instruments to manage risks for chemical substances. Canada, like the United States and European countries, has been evaluating and managing chemical substances for decades. However, Canada is the first country in the world to categorize the thousands of chemical substances in use before comprehensive environmental protection laws were created. The results mean that we are able focus our efforts on those substances suspected to have the most dangerous properties, and set priorities for further research on the ones we need to know more about (Environment Canada, 2010). The federal government is consistently enacting legislation to remove toxic chemicals from the waste stream (CEPA Environmental Registry Website, 2010). Canada is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants which is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of these toxic materials.

Removing toxic material from municipal solid waste is a priority for Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver has been working with the Province of British Columbia on Product Stewardship programs to ensure products at the end of their use are managed in an environmentally responsible way. Programs currently exist to remove beverage containers, household hazardous waste, paint, lead-acid batteries, tires, used oil, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and dental amalgam. The Ministry of Environment has committed to adding two new product categories every three years. Aside from beverage containers, Product Stewardship efforts to date have applied to materials with hazardous components and properties.

Unlike landfills, waste-to-energy facilities are capable of capturing toxic chemicals and under very high temperatures, destroying them. Twenty-two years of monitoring data from Metro Vancouver’s Waste-to-Energy Facility in Burnaby support the fact that the high temperature operation of a waste-to-energy facility and the advanced pollution control systems that are employed are effective in destroying or capturing toxic constituents present in the waste stream. According to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canada has the most stringent emissions criteria in the world for contaminants such as dioxins (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2007) and the waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby surpasses this criteria. The SYSAV facility in Malmo, Sweden illustrates how efficient modern WTE facilities are at capturing and destroying toxic constituents. The facility accepts waste from a heavy industrial area, yet emissions from this facility are very low and fall below stringent air quality guidelines (AECOM, 2009).

A 2000 study of “Waste Incineration & Public Health” by the American National Research Council (NRC) concluded that emissions from newer, well-operated facilities were expected to contribute little to environmental concentrations of toxic pollutants or to human health risks. The NRC also made a clear distinction between higher levels of emissions in facilities operating prior to the US EPA Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard and facilities with lower emissions that were developed following introduction of the standard (National Research Council, 2000). A 2003 letter from US EPA to the Integrated Waste Services Association states that “Upgrading of the emissions control system of large combustors to exceed the requirements of the Clean Air Act Section 129 standards is an impressive accomplishment” and that waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity with “less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity” (US EPA, 2003).

Modern and well-managed municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facilities are not significant sources of air emissions. Since the 1990’s, compared with other known sources of emissions, modern waste-to-energy facilities emit low levels of contaminants and have achieved up to 99% reductions for compounds such as dioxins and mercury (British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, German Ministry of the Environment ,US EPA,  United Kingdom Health Protection Agency.


link arrow CEPA Environmental Registry website. 

link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009.

link arrow US EPA. Horinko, M, Holmstead, J. Letter to Maria Zannes, President of Integrated Waste Services Association. February 14, 2003. Accessed on March 12, 2009.

link arrow US EPA (Wayland, Robert J). Waste-to-Energy A Regulatory Perspective. July 2009.

link arrow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. 2004.

link arrow Environment Canada, Canada's approach on chemical substances, accessed April 7, 2010.

link arrow Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Review of Dioxins and Furans from Incineration In Support of a Canada-Wide Standard Review. Accessed March 19, 2007

link arrow German Ministry of the Environment: Germany, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Waste Incineration – A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Sprouting. Accessed October 26, 2008.

link arrow Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators – Advice from the Health Protection Agency. Documents of the Health Protection Agency – Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. February 2010.

link arrow National Research Council (NRC). Executive Summary: Waste Incineration & Public Health. 2000.

The financial case assumes revenue from electrical and district heating sales – what if you don’t generate that revenue?
The Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby generates approximately $10 million each year in revenue from the sale of heat and electricity. Demands for expanded energy production locally provide a growing market that Metro Vancouver is confident can be served by additional waste-to-energy capacity in the region.

...

Waste-to-energy would not be an attractive disposal option for the region if there were no revenues from the sale of electricity and heat. Any new waste-to-energy facility will only be built in a location where it will be possible to sell the heat and electricity generated by the facility. Electricity generated by the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility located in Burnaby is sold to BC Hydro which has a growing need for energy and is expanding energy generation across British Columbia through purchase agreements.

As was the case with the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby, energy sales agreements would be established prior to plant construction to provide economic certainty.

District heating systems convey hot water or steam in insulated pipes from the waste-to-energy facility to nearby users. The hot water or steam is circulated in buildings or industrial applications for heat, thereby reducing or eliminating the need to produce heat through the combustion of fossil fuels. In addition to heat, district energy systems can also be configured to provide cooling. District energy systems are common in many urban centres including Metro Vancouver. The district heating system in New York City was established in 1882 and includes 160 kilometres of pipe, providing 3,000 megawatts of capacity to 1,800 customers (70% commercial buildings) (Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council,2008). The district energy network in Linköping, Sweden provides both heating and cooling spanning 500 kilometres in length. This network also supplies energy to an adjacent town, 28 kilometres away (Usitall, 2008). Several municipalities in Metro Vancouver are currently investigating their district energy options.

The Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby generates steam and electricity. The steam is sold to a paper recycling facility (equivalent to the heating requirements of 8,000 single family homes), while the electricity is sold to BC Hydro (enough to meet the electricity requirements of 13,000 single family homes). The combined revenue from these sales works out to over $10 million in annual revenue.

The long term financial models of waste management systems indicate that waste-to-energy will generate a net profit over a 35 year period for the region whereas landfilling will cost billions of dollars over the same period. Waste-to-energy or landfilling options can be financed by Metro Vancouver or by the private sector resulting in either higher initial capital costs, or higher long-term operating fees (AECOM, 2009).


link arrow BC Hydro. Clean Power Call. Accessed on March 31, 2010.

link arrow WTERC (Dr. N.J.Themelis) presentation Potential for WTE District Heating in Northern U.S. and Canada to CEWEP Presidium Meeting, June 2008.

link arrow Usitall presentation to Metro Vancouver. Waste-to-energy – The Swedish experience, March 2008.

link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009.

Why do you keep presenting the case supporting waste-to-energy? Why are we not hearing the other side?
An independent analysis of options for managing the waste that remains after recycling, carried out on behalf of Metro Vancouver, considered a very broad range of processes – waste to energy, landfilling, the pre-treatment of waste, and combinations of all three technologies. That analysis has been discussed publicly at great length, and consultations with the public continue to provide opportunities for all information to be reviewed. This analysis and others by independent authorities clearly demonstrate that on the balance of issues, waste-to-energy is the best solution.

...

In July 2008, the Metro Vancouver Board requested staff to hire an independent consultant to study the characteristics and merits of landfilling, waste-to-energy and Mechanical Biological Treatment from the perspective of economics, environment and social impacts. AECOM Canada Ltd. performed this work and concluded that waste-to-energy was the most financially viable option with the lowest environmental impacts. The AECOM report cites the findings of independent health and environment authorities from around the world, as described in the following paragraphs.

In a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication, it was determined that on a life-cycle basis, greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy facilities are lower than those from the most aggressive attempts to capture energy from landfills (US EPA 2009). The Environment and Energy Study Institute states that “Converting MSW [municipal solid waste] to energy also has tremendous potential to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gases. According to a model developed by the EPA, each MWh of electricity generated through combustion of MSW results in a net negative CO2 footprint of 3636 lbs of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq). This translates to approximately 1 ton of carbon equivalent for each ton of MSW combusted” (Environment and Energy Study Institute, 2009).

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) advises that “WTE is a proven, environmentally sound process that provides reliable electricity generation and sustainable disposal of post-recycling MSW” (ASME, 2008). ASME continue to support waste-to-energy by stating that waste-to-energy technology can be one of the biggest contributors to America’s planned reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They go on to state that WTE provides clean, reliable energy while reducing dependence on fossil fuel, and complements recycling, reducing truck traffic and associated emissions and recovers and recycles metals, thereby reducing mining operations (ASME, 2008).

In terms of health risks, Health Canada has stated that “If incinerators are equipped with proper pollution control systems (activated charcoal beds, spray dry scrubbing, etc.) the health risks of incineration are very low” (Health Canada, 2004). Any new waste-to-energy facility built would be equipped with state-of-the-art pollution control systems.

The cost analysis performed by AECOM Canada Ltd. shows that over 35 years, the construction and operation of a new waste-to-energy facility within the region is $1.5 billion less expensive than a new out-of-region landfill, and $1.8 billion less than an out-of-region refuse derived fuel plant. The energy production value from waste-to-energy facilities is well established with hundreds of facilities generating power around the world. According to Rick Brandes of the US EPA, municipal solid waste is the only secondary material stream that contains sufficient potential energy to be a significant contributor of energy. The US EPA states that, “Even with greater than 50% recycling, you still have a significant amount of potential energy to recover” (US EPA, 2009).

Waste-to-energy facilities reduce base load fossil fuel generation of electricity by producing reliable energy around the clock. Worldwide, waste-to-energy facilities supply 20 million people with electricity, and 32 million people with heat. The Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Burnaby produces enough electricity for 13,000 homes and replaces fossil fuel sources through district heating equivalent to heating 8,000 homes. That’s with a regional diversion rate of 55% (AECOM, 2009).

Critics of waste-to-energy have brought forward alternative information that attempts to make the case that these facilities produce harmful emissions. However, the context and source of information used to rate the performance of waste-to-energy facilities must be examined. Typically, critics have used information from old, highly polluting incinerators that are no longer allowed in North America or Europe, and are not being considered as part of Metro Vancouver’s new Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan. The UK Health Protection Agency has stated that “Studies published in the scientific literature showing health effects in populations living around incinerators have, in general, been conducted around older incinerators with less stringent emissions standards and cannot be directly extrapolated with any reliable modern incinerators” (UK Health Protection Agency, 2010). The UK HPA has also published reviews of literature on waste-to-energy and health including the British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) report titled "Health Effects of Waste Incinerators". The UK HPA conducted a review of the information presented by the BSEM and concluded that "Having considered the BSEM report the HPA maintains its position that contemporary and effectively managed and regulated waste incineration processes contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air and that the emissions from such plants have little effect on health." (UK Health Protection Agency, 2006).


link arrow AECOM Canada Ltd. Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste after Recycling. June 2009.

link arrow American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Waste-to-Energy: A Renewable Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste. Position Statement made by the Solid Waste Processing Division. No. 08-22, August 2008.

link arrow US EPA. Is It Better to Bury or Burn Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?. Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. Vol.43, No.6. 2009.

link arrow Environment and Energy Study Institute (EESI). Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Feedstock. Issue Brief. July 2009.

link arrow Health Canada. Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment. Volume 4. November 2004.

link arrow US EPA (R.Brandes) presentation The Need for Integrated Materials Management, 2009.

link arrow UK HPA - UK Health Protection Agency (HPA). “The Impacts on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators – Advice from the Health Protection Agency”. Documents of the Health Protection Agency – Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. February 2010.

link arrow UK HPA. " HPA response to the British Society for Ecological Medicine report". 2006.

Isn’t there sufficient uncertainty regarding waste-to-energy to invoke the precautionary principle?
The best available scientific advice states the risks to human health and the environment from waste-to-energy is understood with sufficient confidence that there are no grounds for adopting the ‘precautionary principle’ to restrict the introduction of new waste-to-energy facilities.

...

The “precautionary principle” has at times been suggested as a decision making tool. As defined by the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) and the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), the precautionary principle is a “…political term. It defines the way to decide on prevention action if the scientific evidence is not clear enough for a reasonably accurate assessment of the risk. If the level of harm and likelihood of its occurrence are well enough known, then a precautionary principle is not needed because the harm can be calculated directly and the government or public can make evidence-based decisions” (NRPB, 2006). Health authorities have agreed that the health risks from modern well-run municipal solid waste waste-to-energy facilities are not a concern from a health perspective. Statements such as the one above from the UK Health Protection Agency and statements from the Health Protection Agency of Scotland below address the use of the precautionary principle in the waste-to-energy context:

“…it remains reasonable to conclude that any risk to human health associated with emissions from newer incinerators, operated within the current regulations, is very likely to be less than was the case previously. In view of this, the balance of evidence suggests that a more precautionary approach to either the location or the operation of incinerators is currently not recommended.”

“The present regulatory regime governing waste incineration processes already incorporates a “precautionary” approach and sets emission standards explicitly designed to limit human exposure to potentially harmful contaminants. The present system is therefore designed to protect human health. The evidence to date does not suggest that there is currently any need to adopt a more precautionary approach.” (Health Protection Scotland, 2009)

“The level of scientific uncertainty is not sufficient to justify adopting more extreme measures, nor is it sufficient to justify setting an arbitrary ‘safe’ distance between incinerators and human habitation or activity” (Health Protection Scotland, 2009).

The UK Health Protection Agency has stated: “As there is a body of scientific evidence strongly indicating that contemporary waste management practices including incineration, have at most, a minor effect on human health and the environment, there are no grounds for adopting the ‘precautionary principle’ to restrict the introduction of new incinerators” (UK Health Protection Agency, 2006).


link arrow National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). “In Terms of Risk: Report of a seminar to help define important terms used in communication about risk to the public”. 2004.

link arrow Health Protection Scotland. “Incineration of Waste and Reported Human Health Effects.” October 28, 2009.

link arrow Health Protection Scotland briefing note. “Incineration of Waste and Reported Human Health Effects.” October 28, 2009.

link arrow UK HPA. " HPA response to the British Society for Ecological Medicine report". 2006.
Back to top