Incinerator issue flares up again in Sapperton

Late last week, word leaked out about a new proposal for a waste-to-energy incinerator in Sapperton — the third or fourth proposal in recent memory (we’ve kind of lost track — this incinerator thing is kind of like an undead zombie that can’t be killed).

Needless to say, the residents of Sapperton and elsewhere in the city are expressing renewed concern and there are more questions than answers at this point.

You can read about the proposal here, and we understand city council is receiving the proposal at a meeting today.

Companies are certainly well within their right to submit proposals to the city. However, more than one person has pointed out that the wording of the proponent’s cover letter to the city suggests that the city may have solicited the proposal in some way.

Once again, consistent with the position we’ve taken in previous postings on this topic, the Mayor needs to come clean on his waste-to-energy dreams for the city.

Was this proposal sought out by the city? How does all of this factor into the UBE?

And given the fact that extensive consultations need to take place for any waste-to-energy proposal, what impact does this proposal have on the tight timelines connected to the federal government funding for the UBE?

The questions are certainly many but the answers are few and this has lead to an intense level of distrust around the whole issue. So stay tuned for more as this seemingly unending incinerator saga continues to unfold.

7 thoughts on “Incinerator issue flares up again in Sapperton

  1. I’m with you guys on this one.

    Although this is not explicitly garbage incineration, it is a process to convert fossil carbon (plastics) to oil, which will presumably be burned to make power. We need to question whether a fossil-fuel thermal plant is an acceptable way to make electricity in our City, and whether it is a sustainable way to manage the plastic garbage problem.

    What concerns me most if that it appears Harvest is asking the City to issue a “letter of support” for a grant application, yet we have had no public discussion of this project so far, never mind Environmental impacts Assessment. Any approval, as tacit as it may be, would be very premature.

    Watch this file, folks!.

  2. Where to start.
    Wasn’t it exactly three years ago that Sapperton found itself fighting this same fight? We weren’t keen on burning the region’s garbage then and we’re not much more excited about burning the region’s construction waste now. What if the burned wood waste includes plastics, lead painted wood, wood treated with arsenic and copper and other hazardous materials?
    A concern we voiced then and have to reiterate now is if it were to be built then it has to be continually fed and at what cost? Is there enough wood waste to supply all the proposed projects including ones at SFU, UBC, etc.?
    Why build such a facility just below a residential area and a regional hospital?
    The MSRA has been asking for years to have E.8th Avenue and E. Columbia Street removed as truck routes in order to improve air quality and neighbourhod livability. What pressures would this put on Translink to have these streets remain truck routes, continued diesel particulate and now dioxins too.
    The mind boggles.

  3. There are a whole range of issues here. The first two comments have dealt with some of them.
    The theme that has become central to this issue, however, is the Mayor’s secret agenda around this issue. The last time this came up, the Mayor was quoted as saying he had no idea what the GVRD (now Metro Vancouver) was up to.
    Meanwhile, we had people at the GVRD stating that the Mayor was the driving force at in camera meetings to deliver a WTE site onto Braid lands.
    Wayneocchio strikes again.

  4. 300,000 metric tons per year. At 6 tons per truck, that’s 125 trucks in and 125 trucks out, each day, every day of the year.

    Suck on those exhaust pipes!!!

  5. If we’re looking to increase the amount of renewable energy flowing through the city’s electrical grid, why not look at installing turbines in the river. Turbines could even be built into the support structures for any new Patullo Bridge. The Fraser is one of the great rivers of the world and it runs right past our front doors. There’s renewable energy there to be harnessed and it would be completely clean, emission free energy unlike the thermal combustion process being proposed.

  6. Wow even the Record Newspaper came out with an Editorial opposed to the manner in which the expansion of this recycling facility was handled.
    The Record, which could more easily pass as an in-house NDP-Labor publication, still managed to heap praise on the city.
    The other paper seemed to be quiet on the issue.
    It is amazing what the huge city advertising contract will accomplish, if it is used as a tool to keep newspaper content in line.
    What a kick in the teeth to residents this process has been, especially to those in Sapperton.
    What a litany of lies and deceit has been attached to this issue over the years.

  7. Hang on to your collective hats on this one more to come. Harvest apparently does not even have a business licence. How could a company without a business licence get an appointment with Mayor and Council then get support for federal funding to the tune of $5.5Millions! Did the Mayor play a part in this set up? He is on record supporting this very same idea over a year ago. I remember when WW was elected almost 10 years ago he promised open municipal gov’t. With the UBE, Patullo and his role as a board member on Translink we seem to get little advance information, why?
    Lets hope the residents of New Westminster and Sapperton extinguish the flames on this proposal. I know it will be important the residents of Quayside.

Leave a Reply to P@J Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>