Updated costs for landfill closure plans caused some concern among Powell River Regional District directors at a recent board meeting.
The solid waste management plan, which is still awaiting approval from the provincial minister of environment, states the regional district and City of Powell River will jointly develop closure plans for two former dumps and an incinerator site as part of implementing the plan.
The regional district’s 2013 budget included $60,000 to develop two closure plans, for the former municipal airport landfill and the former municipal incinerator/waste transfer site.
In April, the board directed staff to submit two applications to the provincial Brownfield Renewal Funding Program to assist with the cost of developing the plans. Staff contacted an environmental consultant to prepare the applications and discovered the costs for each plan are much greater than the estimates. The plan for the airport site is estimated to cost about $140,000, while the cost for the waste transfer site is between $130,000 and $180,000. If the Brownfield applications are successful, the grant would cover 85 per cent of the cost, up to $70,000, for an estimated cost of $172,700 for the regional district.
Linda Greenan, manager of financial services, told the board the recommendation is to amend the 2013 budget to include the updated costs of the closure plans, with the funds coming from the waste management reserve. “What that will do then is, we’ll have to amend the 2014-2017 budget to get other funding for the possible construction of the composting facility,” she said.
Colin Palmer, board chair and Area C director, balked at the cost and pointed out it was just for a plan, not to actually do the cleanup.
Greenan explained that at the former incinerator site, 10, 10-metre holes would have to be drilled. “That’s where the cost comes in, drilling and testing all of these holes in the lab,” she said. “They need the results of all of the soil samples to actually make a plan.”
At the airport site, 30-metre holes have to be drilled, she added. “It’s quite significant, the holes that they need to test,” she said. “It’s quite extensive.”
Palmer said he thought the closure plan involved obtaining all the records from city hall to make an analysis of everything that had ever been put there. “These are city sites, they’re not regional sites, so the question is, are we going to be paying for what the city should be paying for?” he asked.
Area B Director Stan Gisborne said he agreed with Palmer. “The rural residents paid for disposal at those sites,” he said. “It then becomes the responsibility of the owner of the site, not anybody else.”
Director Maggie Hatha-way, a city representative on the board, said elected officials should debate the issue at a government-to-government meeting. “It is one of the big issues that needs to be straightened out,” she said.
Area A Director Patrick Brabazon said the regional district is responsible for developing the closure plans. “To develop a plan which we will hand to the owner of the property, we need to know what’s there,” he said. “We’ll spend some money, we’ll establish what is in a particular site and we will hand the plan over to the owner of the property...and we all know who the owner of the property is.”
Palmer stressed that the city has to decide the end use of the sites for the plans to be complete.
With Gisborne voting in opposition, the rest of the directors passed a motion directing staff to amend the budget to allow for the costs of both closure plans, whether or not the grant applications are successful.
