municipal solid waste (msw) options€¦ · municipal solid waste (msw) options: integrating...

MMuunniicciippaall SSoolliidd WWaassttee

((MMSSWW)) OOppttiioonnss::

IInntteeggrraattiinngg OOrrggaanniiccss MMaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd RReessiidduuaall TTrreeaattmmeenntt//DDiissppoossaall

AApprriill 22000066

Technical Report Coordinator: Michael Cant TSH Engineers Architects and Planners

Workshop supported by

Environment Environnement Canada Canada

Natural Resources Ressources naturellesCanada Canada

Municipal Waste Integration Network / Recycling Council of Alberta

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) OPTIONS: INTEGRATING ORGANICS MANAGEMENT AND RESIDUAL TREATMENT / DISPOSAL April 2006

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) OPTIONS: INTEGRATING ORGANICS MANAGEMENT AND RESIDUAL TREATMENT/DISPOSAL

The Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA) encourages the use, adoption and copying of this publication for non-commercial use with appropriate credit given to MWIN and RCA. Although reasonable care has been used in preparing this publication, neither the publisher nor the contributors or writers can accept any liability for any consequences arising from the use thereof or information therein. The publication is available on MWIN’s website (www.mwin.org) and RCA’s website (www.recycle.ab.ca). This publication was undertaken with financial support from the Government of Canada provided through Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The members of the technical project team included:

Project Management

Michael Cant - Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited

Subject Specialists

Composting: Paul van der Werf - 2cg Inc. Anaerobic Digestion: Maria Kelleher - Kelleher Environmental

Thermal Treatment: David Merriman - MacViro Consultants and Konrad Fitchner - Gartner Lee Limited

Bioreactor and Sanitary Landfill: Neil MacDonald - CH2M Hill

Municipal Waste Integration Network / Recycling Council of Alberta Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................... viii PREFACE ......................................................................................................................x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. xi 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................1 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................2 1.3 REPORT FORMAT ......................................................................................................................3 1.4 WORKSHOPS..............................................................................................................................3

2 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 MUNICIPAL SIZES.......................................................................................................................4 2.2 RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA ............................................................................4 2.3 2.3 RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION ...............................................................................6 2.4 WASTE QUANTITY PROJECTIONS...........................................................................................7 2.5 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................7 2.6 ORGANICS DIVERSION .............................................................................................................8 2.7 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MSW MANAGEMENT OPTIONS............................................10

3 SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS AND MIXED WASTE COMPOSTING.........12 3.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW........................................................................................... 12 3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE COMPOSTING PROCESS ..................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Pre-Processing ............................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Composting ..................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3 Post-Processing.............................................................................................................. 14

3.3 COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................15 3.3.1 Non-Reactor Composting Technologies......................................................................... 16 3.3.2 Reactor (In-vessel) Composting Technologies............................................................... 18

3.4 APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATORY PERSPECTIVES ................................21 3.5 WASTE STREAM QUANTITIES................................................................................................21 3.6 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS - SSO AND MIXED WASTE ..........................................23

3.6.1 Capital and Operating Costs - SSO................................................................................25 3.6.2 Capital and Operating Costs – Mixed Wastes................................................................26 3.6.3 Selection of Appropriate Technology Type by Community.............................................27

3.7 SOCIAL IMPACTS .....................................................................................................................29 3.7.1 Social Acceptability .........................................................................................................29 3.7.2 Footprint and Land Use ..................................................................................................30 3.7.3 Employment ....................................................................................................................30 3.7.4 Nuisance Impacts ...........................................................................................................31 3.7.5 Traffic ..............................................................................................................................31

3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................32 3.8.1 Renewable Energy..........................................................................................................32 3.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions ....................................................................................32 3.8.3 Other Emissions..............................................................................................................33

3.9 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................35 3.9.1 SSO................................................................................................................................. 35 3.9.2 Mixed Waste ................................................................................................................... 36

3.10 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................37

i


4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION - SSO AND MIXED WASTE........................................38 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW...........................................................................................38 4.2 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS.....................................................38 4.3 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY PROCESSING STEPS ..................................................45 4.4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION DESIGN OPTIONS .........................................................................46

4.4.1 Single and Two Stage Digestion Systems...................................................................... 47 4.4.2 Wet Versus Dry Anaerobic Digestion System Designs .................................................. 50 4.4.3 Thermophilic Versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Systems Designs ...................... 51

4.5 ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES................................52 4.5.1 Biogas Production........................................................................................................... 52 4.5.2 Biogas Treatment and Energy Production...................................................................... 56 4.5.3 Typical Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Plants ........................... 57

4.6 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES.........................................59 4.6.1 Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO

(Source Separated Organics) ......................................................................................... 60 4.6.2 Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Mixed Waste ................. 61

4.7 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES................................................62 4.7.1 Social Acceptability ......................................................................................................... 63 4.7.2 Footprint and Land Use .................................................................................................. 63 4.7.3 Employment .................................................................................................................... 64 4.7.4 Nuisance Impacts ........................................................................................................... 65 4.7.5 Traffic .............................................................................................................................. 66

4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES .............................66 4.8.1 Renewable Energy.......................................................................................................... 66 4.8.2 Emissions of Acid Gases, Smog Precursors, Heavy Metals and Other Contaminants

of Concern....................................................................................................................... 69 4.9 APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES .......................70 4.10 SUMMARY OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY FEATURES AND EFFECTS ................71 4.11 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................72 4.12 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................73

5 DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: SANITARY LANDFILL .......................75 5.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW...........................................................................................75

5.1.1 Technology Description .................................................................................................. 75 5.1.2 General Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................. 80

5.2 EVALUATION.............................................................................................................................80 5.2.1 Waste Quantities and Composition ................................................................................ 80 5.2.2 Sanitary Landfill Facilities ............................................................................................... 88

5.3 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................88 5.3.1 Land Area Consumption ................................................................................................. 88 5.3.2 Landfill Airspace Consumption ....................................................................................... 89 5.3.3 Water............................................................................................................................... 90 5.3.4 Air .................................................................................................................................... 91

5.4 RENEWABLE ENERGY.............................................................................................................93 5.4.1 Energy Generation/Consumption ................................................................................... 93

5.5 SOCIAL ......................................................................................................................................94 5.5.1 Public Acceptance .......................................................................................................... 94 5.5.2 Siting Challenges ............................................................................................................ 94

5.6 ODOUR ......................................................................................................................................94 5.7 TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................................................95 5.8 OTHER IMPACTS......................................................................................................................95 5.9 COSTS .......................................................................................................................................95

ii


5.10 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................98

6 DISPOSAL TREATMENT EVALUATION: BIOREACTOR LANDFILL..................99 6.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW...........................................................................................99

6.1.1 Technology Description .................................................................................................. 99 6.1.2 General Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................... 102

6.2 EVALUATION...........................................................................................................................102 6.2.1 Waste Quantities and Composition ..............................................................................102 6.2.2 Bioreactor Landfill Facilities ..........................................................................................108

6.3 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................110 6.3.1 Land Area Consumption ...............................................................................................110 6.3.2 Bioreactor Landfill Airspace Consumption....................................................................110 6.3.3 Water.............................................................................................................................111 6.3.4 Air ..................................................................................................................................113

6.4 RENEWABLE ENERGY...........................................................................................................115 6.4.1 Energy Generation/Consumption .................................................................................115

6.5 SOCIAL ....................................................................................................................................117 6.5.1 Public Acceptance ........................................................................................................117 6.5.2 Siting Challenges ..........................................................................................................117

6.6 ODOUR ....................................................................................................................................117 6.7 TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................................................117 6.8 OTHER IMPACTS....................................................................................................................118 6.9 COSTS .....................................................................................................................................118 6.10 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................121

7 DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: THERMAL TREATMENT..................123 7.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW.........................................................................................123 7.2 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES .....................................................................................123

7.2.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................123 7.2.2 Established Technologies .............................................................................................126 7.2.3 New and Emerging Technologies.................................................................................136

7.3 APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.............................146 7.4 WASTE STREAMS ..................................................................................................................147

7.4.1 Quantities ......................................................................................................................147 7.4.2 Composition ..................................................................................................................149

7.5 COSTS .....................................................................................................................................151 7.5.1 Availability of Cost Information and Viability of Thermal Treatment Processes ...........151 7.5.2 Estimates for Typical Facilities......................................................................................151

7.6 SOCIAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................155 7.6.1 Social Acceptability .......................................................................................................155 7.6.2 Footprint and Land Use ................................................................................................155 7.6.3 Employment ..................................................................................................................156 7.6.4 Nuisance Effects ...........................................................................................................156 7.6.5 Traffic ............................................................................................................................156

7.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS........................................................................................157 7.7.1 Renewable Energy........................................................................................................157 7.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction..........................................................................158 7.7.3 Other Emissions............................................................................................................159

7.8 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................161

iii


8 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ...........................................................................162 8.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA BY POPULATION SIZE........................................162 8.2 OVERALL SUMMARY .............................................................................................................162

8.2.1 Source Separated Organics (SSO) and Mixed Waste Composting .............................162 8.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion......................................................................................................164 8.2.3 Sanitary Landfill.............................................................................................................165 8.2.4 Bioreactor Landfill .........................................................................................................165 8.2.5 Thermal Treatment .......................................................................................................166

8.3 NEXT STEPS ...........................................................................................................................167 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Waste Composition Appendix B – Overview of Canadian Approval Requirements by Province Appendix C – Survey Tables Appendix D – Compost Facility Costs Appendix E – Summary of Landfill and Bioreactor Unit Costs Appendix F – Municipal Waste Incinerators Emission Limits Comparison Summary Appendix G – 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 GHG Emissions Calculations LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 – Canadian Municipal Sizes ...................................................................................... 4 Table 2.2 – Residential Waste Generation in Canada (2002)................................................... 5 Table 2.3 – Municipal Information ............................................................................................. 6 Table 2.4 – Baseline Waste Quantities (tonnes) ....................................................................... 7 Table 2.5 – Organics Diverted and Residual Treatment ........................................................... 9 Table 2.6 – Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................ 10 Table 3.1 – Waste Quantities for Population of 20,000........................................................... 22 Table 3.2 – Waste Quantities for Populations of 80,000 ......................................................... 22 Table 3.3 – Waste Quantities for Population of 200,000......................................................... 23 Table 3.4 – Summary of Capital Costs for Composting Technologies.................................... 24 Table 3.5 – Summary of Operating Costs for Composting Technologies ............................... 24 Table 3.6 – Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs.................................. 25 Table 3.7 – Summary of Operating Costs ............................................................................... 26 Table 3.8 – Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs.................................. 26 Table 3.9 – Summary of Operating Costs ............................................................................... 27 Table 3.10 – Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size (SSO) ......... 28 Table 3.11 – Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size

(Mixed Waste) ...................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.12 – Estimated Site Size for Selected Communities .................................................... 30 Table 3.13 – Estimate of Employee Requirements per Municipality Size ................................. 31 Table 3.14 – Compost Facility Daily Traffic Impacts ................................................................. 32 Table 3.15 – Estimate of Net GHG Emissions for Composting SSO and Mixed Waste............ 33 Table 3.16 – Acid Gas Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared

to Landfilling ......................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.17 – Toxic Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared to Landfilling34

iv


Table 3.18 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through SSO Composting Program .................................................................... 35

Table 3.19 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through Mixed Waste Composting Program ....................................................... 36

Table 4.1 – Tonnage to Anerobic Digestion for Different Scenarios ....................................... 38 Table 4.2 – Communities in United States Investigating Anaerobic Digestion for MSW......... 41 Table 4.3 – Companies Processing SSO and Mixed Waste in Anaerobic Digesters

in Europe in 2003 ................................................................................................. 42 Table 4.4 – Existing and Planned Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO and

Mixed Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................... 44 Table 4.5 – Advantages and Disadvantages of One Stage Versus Two Stage

Anaerobic Digestion System Designs .................................................................. 49 Table 4.6 – Advantages And Disadvantages of Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion

System Designs ................................................................................................... 51 Table 4.7 – Composition of Biogas from BTA Digesters ......................................................... 52 Table 4.8 – Composition of SSO and Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Sent to Anaerobic

Digestion For Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 .................................. 54 Table 4.9 – Comparative Biogas Yield From Different Msw Materials (Barlaz)....................... 55 Table 4.10 – Comparative Yields of Different MSW Feedstocks in Anaerobic

Digestion Systems................................................................................................ 56 Table 4.11 – Reported Energy Production, Internal Energy Use and Energy Available

for Export at Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities........................................... 58 Table 4.12 – Potential Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 And 200,000 ........................................... 59 Table 4.13 – Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process

Source Separated Organics (SSO) ...................................................................... 60 Table 4.14 – Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Mixed Waste ....... 62 Table 4.15 – Reported Land Requirements for Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities.......... 64 Table 4.16 – Approximate Space Requirement for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 ........................................... 64 Table 4.17 – Approximate Staffing Requirements for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 ........................................... 65 Table 4.18 – Anaerobic Digestion Facility Daily Traffic Impacts ............................................... 66 Table 4.19 – Potential “Green” and Renewable Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic

Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 ............ 67 Table 4.20 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion

Including and Excluding Carbon Sinks................................................................. 67 Table 4.21 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion

Compared to Landfill ............................................................................................ 68 Table 4.22 – GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario ..................... 68 Table 4.23 – Emissions Comparison Between Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Processes ... 69 Table 4.24 – Summary of Anaerobic Digestion of Source Separated Organics (SSO)

and Mixed Waste (MW)........................................................................................ 71 Table 5.1 – Examples of Landfills in Canada .......................................................................... 79 Table 5.2 – Initial Waste Compositions ................................................................................... 82 Table 5.3 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 20,000 .............................................................. 83 Table 5.4 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 80,000 .............................................................. 84 Table 5.5 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 200,000 ............................................................ 86 Table 5.6 – Hypothetical Sanitary Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste Management

Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions................................................... 87 Table 5.7 – Land Area Consumption Requirements ............................................................... 89

v


Table 5.8 – Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years)...................................................................... 89 Table 5.9 – Landfill Leachate Summary (m3/tonne Waste Disposed) ..................................... 90 Table 5.10 – Landfill Gas Summary (m3/tonne Waste Disposed) ............................................ 92 Table 5.11 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (tonnes eCO2/tonne waste disposed)..... 93 Table 5.12 – Renewable Energy Summary (kW-hr/tonne waste disposed) .............................. 94 Table 5.13 – Traffic Summary ................................................................................................... 95 Table 5.14 – Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions............................................................... 96 Table 5.15 – Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed)................................ 97 Table 6.1 – Examples of Bioreactor Landfills in Canada....................................................... 101 Table 6.2 – Initial Waste Compositions ................................................................................. 104 Table 6.3 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 20,000 ............................................................ 105 Table 6.4 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 80,000 ............................................................ 106 Table 6.5 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 200,000 .......................................................... 107 Table 6.6 – Hypothetical Bioreactor Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste

Management Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions........................... 109 Table 6.7 – Land Area Consumption Requirements ............................................................. 110 Table 6.8 – Bioreactor Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years) .................................................. 111 Table 6.9 – Bioreactor Landfill Water Consumption Summary ............................................. 111 Table 6.10 – Bioreactor Landfill Leachate Summary .............................................................. 112 Table 6.11 – Bioreactor Landfill Gas Summary (m/tonne Waste Disposed) ........................... 114 Table 6.12 – Bioreactor Landfill Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary

(tonnes eCO2/tonne waste disposed)................................................................. 115 Table 6.13 – Bioreactor Landfill Renewable Energy Summary (kW-hr/tonne waste disposed)116 Table 6.14 – Traffic Summary ................................................................................................. 117 Table 6.15 – Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions............................................................. 119 Table 6.16 – Bioreactor Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed) ............ 120 Table 7.1 – Summary of Representative Facilities................................................................ 142 Table 7.2 – Waste Quantities for Population of 20,000......................................................... 147 Table 7.3 – Waste Quantities for Population of 80,000......................................................... 148 Table 7.4 – Waste Quantities for Population of 200,000....................................................... 148 Table 7.5 – Residual Waste Composition and Energy Content ............................................ 150 Table 7.6 – Batch Process Starved Air Incinerator Financial Analysis.................................. 152 Table 7.7 – Semi-Continuous Starved Air (or Multiple Stage) Incinerator Financial Analysis153 Table 7.8 – Mass Burn Financial Analysis ............................................................................ 154 Table 7.9 – Thermal Treatment Facility Site Size ................................................................. 155 Table 7.10 – Thermal Treatment Facility Labour Requirements ............................................. 156 Table 7.11 – Thermal Treatment Facility Daily Traffic Impacts ............................................... 156 Table 7.12 – Renewable Energy Produced From Thermal Treatment Facilities..................... 158 Table 7.13 – Residual Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Without Carbon Sequestration 159 Table 7.14 – GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario ................... 159 Table 7.15 – Emissions Comparison Between Combustion and Landfill Process .................. 160 Table 8.1 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 20,000 Population ...................................... 169 Table 8.2 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 80,000 Population ...................................... 173 Table 8.3 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 200,000 Population .................................... 177

vi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – Residential Waste Flow .......................................................................................... 1 Figure 3.1 – Mass Balance of Composting Process ................................................................. 13 Figure 4.1 – Typical Schematic for Anaerobic Digestion Plant ................................................. 39 Figure 4.2 – Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion ................................................................. 45 Figure 4.3 – Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Variations .................................................... 47 Figure 4.4 – Process Schematic for One Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design .............. 48 Figure 4.5 – Process Flow Chart for Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design ............. 49 Figure 5.1 – Range of Principal Technical Elements of a Landfill............................................. 75 Figure 7.1 – Summary of Principal Elements of Thermal Treatment Process ........................ 125

vii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3Rs Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

AD Anaerobic Digestion

APC Air Pollution Control

BNQ Le Bureau de normalisation du Quebec

BTA (Patented Process)

C&D Construction and Demolition

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CH4 Methane

C:N Carbon/Nitrogen

EC Environment Canada

eCO2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

EU European Union

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities

FFA Federal Fertilizers Act

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GMF Green Municipal Funds (Administered by FCM)

GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District

H2S Hydrogen Sulphide

HSW Household Special Wastes

IC Industry Canada

IC&I Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

IMUS Integrated Manure System

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IWM Integrated Waste Management

kW-hr kilowatt hour

MWC Mixed Waste Composting

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MW Mixed Waste (Unsorted MSW)

MWIN Municipal Waste Integrated Network

NG Natural Gas

NRCan Natural Resources Canada

viii


PGP Plasma Gasification Process

PRRS Plasma Resources Recovery System

psi pounds per square inch

RCA Recycling Council of Alberta

RDF Refuse-derived Fuel

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SCC Standards Council of Canada

SRF Solid Recovered Fuel

SSO Source Separated Organics

STDC Sustainable Technology Development Canada

TEAM Technology Early Action Measures (Program under NRCan, IC and EC)

tpd tonnes per day

TPY or t/y tonnes per year

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VSS Volatile Suspended Solids

WTE Waste to Energy

ix


PREFACE

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal will assist municipalities in moving their integrated waste management systems to the “next level” in order to further conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, produce energy, lessen dependence on landfills and improve social acceptability. The report provides evaluations of the following Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal options:

• composting; • anaerobic digestion; • sanitary landfill. • bioreactor landfill; and • thermal treatment;

The indicators used in the evaluations included: environmental, social, economic, energy and greenhouse gases. The community sizes evaluated included populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000. The study was completed under the leadership of the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA) with funding support from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). A Steering Committee was established to assist with the development of the project and included:

• Alain David, Environment Canada; • Barry Friesen, Regional Municipality of Niagara; • Bob Kenney, Nova Scotia Environment and Labour, • Pam Russell, County of Northumberland; • Raymond Gaudart, Kootenay Boundary Regional District; • Ross Boutilier, City of Edmonton; • Susan Antler, Composting Council of Canada; • Molly Morse, Environment Canada; • Sebnem Madrali, Natural Resources Canada; • Dennis Jackson, Environment Canada; and • Jody Barclay, Natural Resources Canada

MWIN and RCA thank all contributors to the project and welcome any questions or comments you may have on the report.

Sincerely,

Maryanne Hill Christina Seidel Executive Director Executive Director MWIN RCA

x


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background According to Statistics Canada1, over 30.4 million tonnes of waste was generated in Canada in 2002. This translates into 971 kg/person. Households accounted for 39% of this total, with the remainder generated in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector (IC&I) and the construction, renovation and demolition sector (C&D). In Canada, in 2002 households generated 12 million tonnes of waste or 382 kg/person or represented an increase of approximately 5% over 2000. Of the 12 million tonnes of residential waste generated in Canadian households, 2.5 million tonnes were diverted with 9.5 million tonnes being disposed of in landfills or thermal treatment processes. The amount disposed equalled 301 kg/person or an increase of approximately 2% over 2000. The amount of household waste diverted through recycling and composting in 2002 represented 81 kg/person and a 1.3% increase from 2000. Canada needs to improve the amount of residential waste that is diverted. In the late 1980’s, federal, provincial and municipal governments agreed to a target of 50% reduction in waste by weight per person by the year 2000. While a few communities have reached this goal; as a country we still dispose of more than 78% of our waste. There are a broad range of waste management technologies available to point the way and serve as a basis from which to build an integrated solid waste management system that can achieve greater diversion. This report, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal, builds on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Guide, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities (March 2004) by examining the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations for:


It comes at a time when many communities across Canada are developing MSW Management Plans as a means to determine how to cost-effectively reduce environmental impacts and conserve landfill capacity. Communities are realizing that in order to meet current and future MSW targets, they must think beyond their existing waste diversion programs and find innovative ways to recognize their

1 Statistics Canada, 2004, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government sectors, 2002,

Catalogue No. 16F0023X1E, Ottawa.

xi


waste as a resource. To this end, many communities are turning to organics management programs to reduce their reliance on residual treatment/disposal technologies. This project was carried out by the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and the Recycling Council of Alberta with support from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The results of the report were presented at two workshops, one in Mississauga, Ontario in February and one in Calgary, Alberta in March 2006. Objectives The MSW Options Report explores different MSW management options for three community sizes: 20,000, 80,000 and 200,0000. It caters to a similar audience as the FCM Guide and is intended to bring a greater understanding on the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations of MSW management. In addition, the report aims to demonstrate the interrelationships between the management of organics and residuals. It is intended to build knowledge and share information on existing waste diversion and organics management options and emerging residual treatment technology options with a focus on energy recovery and GHG emission reductions. Overall, the focus of this report is to assist municipalities with taking their integrated solid waste management systems to the “next level” in order to further conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, produce energy, lessen dependence on landfills and improve social acceptability. Source Separated Organics (SSO) And Mixed Waste Composting This section of the report provides a description and evaluation of composting and examines both source separated organics (SSO) and mixed waste composting. Source separated organics refers to the separation of materials suitable for composting from the solid waste at the course of generation (e.g., household). Mixed waste composting refers to the manual or mechanical removal of recyclable material from the waste, including compost. It consists of an overview of the composting process and a general description of available technologies which include:

• non-reactor – windrow; and – aerated static pile;

• reactor

– enclosed channel; and – container / tunnel.

The various tonnages of available organic wastes, based on population figures of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 are quantified in terms of tonnage. The section then provides an evaluation of SSO and mixed waste composting in terms of environmental, social, financial and greenhouse gas impacts.

xii


The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through an SSO program, based on the 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 population figures:

• facility throughput ranges from 3,000 to 30,800 tonnes; • total operating cost ranges between $100,000 and $1,480,000; • footprint size requirements vary between 0.23 ha and 2.3 ha; • quality of processed organics is high; • potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and • average public acceptability with negative social impact from odours.

In general SSO composting has a positive impact as it removes wastes from the disposal stream and produces a beneficial product which can be reintroduced into the soil. In general, it is found that all composting technologies can be used for incoming tonnages. The selection of a suitable composting technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts. The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage potential negative social and environmental impacts – and deciding if these can be passively managed (i.e., typical in non-reactor type composting systems) or need to be actively managed (i.e., typical in reactor type composting systems). The key determiner of technologies will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. Therefore in areas with access to remote sites, a non-reactor based system can be contemplated and developed. In heavily populated areas this is more challenging and therefore, a reactor based system will likely be selected. For the communities selected the 20,000 and possibly the 80,000 person population can choose from all available technologies and can seriously consider the use of a non-reactor type composting system. The 200,000 person population is unlikely to have remote locations in which to build a non-reactor style facility and unless it has access to a remote site some distance away it will likely opt for a reactor style composting facility. In terms of costs, this means that smaller communities have the potential to develop a SSO program on a cost effective basis through the selection of a non-reactor composting technology. For larger communities, the costs will likely be higher but they will have the tax base to support this type of development. The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through a mixed waste composting program based on 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 populations:

• facility throughput ranges from 6,000 to 60,000 tonnes; • total operating cost ranges between $249,000 and $3,462,000; • footprint size requirements varies between 0.45 ha and 4.5 ha; • quality of processed organics can be defined as low-medium; • potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and • average public acceptability.

xiii


Mixed waste composting is uncommon. It is difficult to produce a compost product which will meet regulatory requirements. The resultant residual material will likely be relatively benign for landfilling as compared to raw organic waste. The composted mixed waste may be useful as a source of fuel for thermal treatment. It is found that reactor (i.e., in-vessel) composting technologies should be used for mixed waste composting. This minimizes the opportunity for smaller communities to undertake this type of composting due to costs. For larger communities (i.e., 200,000) the actual selection of a technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis undertaken that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts. The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage these potential negative environmental and social impacts. The key determiner of technology will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. Anaerobic Digestion – SSO and Mixed Waste This section of the report describes and evaluates the processing of SSO (source separated organics) and mixed waste in anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digestion is a naturally occurring biological process that uses microbes to break down organic material in the absence of oxygen. In engineered anaerobic digesters, the digestion of organic waste takes place in a special reactor, or enclosed chamber, where critical environmental conditions such as moisture content, temperature and pH levels can be controlled to maximize gas generation and waste decomposition rates. One of the by-products generated during the digestion process is biogas, which consists of mostly methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is the same as natural gas. The benefit of an anaerobic digestion process is that it is a net generator of energy. The excess energy produced by the anaerobic digestion facility, which is not required for in-plant operations, can be sold off-site in the form of heat, steam or electricity. Anaerobic digestion is used in Europe for processing of both SSO and mixed waste. However, very little operational experience with this technology is available in Canada to date, although two plants are in place in Toronto and Newmarket. Anaerobic digestion technology works well at scales of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/year of SSO in Europe. Larger plants have been constructed in the last two years, but have not operated for an extended period of time to date. Favourable renewable energy policies and the relatively high costs of landfilling in Europe make the economics of anaerobic digestion of SSO and mixed waste much more favourable than in Canada. Preliminary estimates indicate that anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (source separated or mixed) will have a net cost of $111/tonne to $282/tonne for facilities that would process waste streams generated by communities with populations ranging from 20,000 to 200,000. Anaerobic digestion experiences significant economies of scale, with an estimated net cost of $68/tonne for anaerobic digestion facilities which would process 100,000 tonnes/year; this size of facility would serve a population of 800,000 to 1.1 million.

xiv


Anaerobic digestion has a significant benefit from a greenhouse gas point of view. It produces methane from the degradation of organic waste in a controlled environment. The methane can be used to displace fossil fuels. In addition, it avoids the production of this methane over a much longer period in a landfill, where its maximum energy potential would not be realized. The social impacts of anaerobic digestion are considered similar to those of composting, and are less significant that those of thermal processing or landfilling. The energy benefits of anaerobic digestion are smaller than those of thermally processing the same amount of material. Key features of anaerobic digestion are summarized below.

• Organic biodegradable waste is broken down without oxygen (anaerobic) to produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, water and digestate, which is composted.

• Can divert all or most organic materials and biodegradables – food, garden waste, some papers.

• Applicable to 40% to 50% of the municipal waste stream • Plants with capacitates of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/yr work well in Europe. There is little

track record for larger plants currently in operation. • Diverts organic waste from landfill, minimizing generation of acidic leachate and

methane. • Generates methane under controlled conditions. Biogas can be used as an energy

source, displacing other sources of power. • Net energy generator, with 50% (wet plants) to 80% (dry plants) available for export • Anaerobic digesters require less space than composting facilities to process the same

tonnage. The small footprint is one of the advantages of the technology. • Employment requirements are modest, with a requirement for about 6-9 staff for a facility

to process 25,000 tonnes/year. • Nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods) and

odours (controlled by bio-filters, but occasional releases expected). • Green and renewable energy benefits are positive attributes • Costs decrease dramatically towards 50,000 tonnes/yr. • Greatest economies of scale are experienced at a digestion plant size of

100,000 tonnes/yr (mixed waste from population of 800,000 or source separated waste from population of 1.1 million).

• Methods to digest mixed waste effectively are currently being explored. • Need cost-effective technology development for small communities.

xv


Sanitary Landfill Increasing wide-spread adoption of waste minimization practices and the evolution of progressively more sustainable waste management technologies, will contribute to a trend away from the historical necessity for disposal of wastes. However, given the current status of waste generation and waste management policies, practices and technologies, there remains a need for technologies to allow disposal of residual waste materials. This section of the report evaluates and describes the current status of typical sanitary landfill technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on sanitary landfills.

While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, the preceding evaluation shows that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from sanitary landfill disposal is practiced:

• Increased effective operating lifespan of sanitary landfills serving the community; • Minor increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at sanitary landfills serving

the community; • Notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from sanitary

landfills serving the community; • Reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at sanitary landfills serving

the community; • Reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to sanitary landfills serving the

community; and, • Small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving

the community. Bioreactor Landfill This section of the report evaluates and describes the current status of the bioreactor landfill as an emerging waste treatment technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on bioreactor landfills. The bioreactor landfill is a new technology evolved from contemporary landfill design that is being developed in response to public demand for innovation to achieve more sustainable approaches to waste disposal. Bioreactor treatment of solid wastes involves design, construction and operation of a landfill cell that is specifically engineered to enhance the decomposition of wastes through careful manipulation of conditions within the site. In essence, bioreactor technology provides a method of processing or treating wastes within the confines of a tightly controlled landfill cell.

xvi


While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, it is concluded that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from bioreactor landfill disposal is practiced:

• increased effective operating lifespan of the bioreactor landfill serving the community; • increased consumption of water for contribution to a bioreactor landfill serving

the community; • increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at a bioreactor landfill serving the

community; • notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from a bioreactor

landfill serving the community; • reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at a bioreactor landfill

serving the community; • reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to a bioreactor landfill serving the

community; and, • small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving

the community. Evaluation results of bioreactor landfills are in strong parallel to those of the sanitary landfill in the context of the effects of organic waste management activities, it interesting to note the following in comparison of the two types of landfills:

• The unit land area consumption of bioreactor landfills is 17 to 22% less than that of sanitary landfills of equivalent disposal capacity. This is due to the significantly higher in-situ waste density that is achieved in bioreactors.

• The unit leachate generation rates for bioreactor landfills are significantly less than those of the corresponding sanitary landfills. While seemingly counterintuitive, this result arises from the significantly shorter timeframes that leachate management is required at bioreactor landfills and is also influenced by the smaller unit surface area footprint of bioreactors.

• The unit gas generation rates at bioreactor landfills are significantly more than those at sanitary landfills, while the unit emission rates are significantly less (assuming gas collection at both types of sites). This relationship is also evident in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. This is due to the higher rates of gas recovery that are evident at bioreactor landfills and the shorter gas generating period focussed earlier in the facility’s lifespan.

• The potential for renewable energy recovery at bioreactor landfills is significantly better than at equivalent sized sanitary landfills equipped with gas collection systems. This is also due to the higher rates of gas recovery that are evident at bioreactor landfills and the shorter gas generating period focussed earlier in the facility’s lifespan.

• Unit costs for disposal of waste in medium to large size bioreactors are less than those for disposal of waste in equivalently sized sanitary landfills. The primary influencing factors for this are the increased airspace utilization and shorter post-closure management period of bioreactor landfills as compared to sanitary landfills.

xvii


Thermal Treatment This section of the report provides a description and evaluation of the thermal treatment disposal option. Thermal treatment can be applied to the residual waste stream remaining after recycling and composting to recover renewable energy. The section provides a description of the various thermal treatment technologies and approval requirements for these technologies are discussed. The various waste streams including both quantities and composition within the scope of the study are identified and considered. An evaluation of the available thermal treatment options in terms of costs, social impacts and environmental impacts is provided. Managing waste via thermal technologies involves high temperature processing of waste materials to reduce the quantity of material requiring disposal; stabilize the material requiring disposal; and recover energy and potentially, material resources. The key findings from this analysis are as follows:

• Thermal processes significantly reduce the amount of material requiring landfill disposal. Typically, 90% by volume and 70-75% by weight.

• Thermal processes provide the opportunity to recover renewable energy from waste materials. Typically, 450 to 500 kWh of electricity per tonne of waste processed. If a suitable heat load is available, an equivalent amount of heat can be recovered in addition to the electricity.

• Given the size of communities considered in this study, starved air or multi-stage incinerators are likely the most appropriate thermal treatment technology. For the smallest communities, batch process systems are likely the most appropriate.

• New and emerging technologies such as plasma gasification are generally not yet commercially available or proven on a full scale.

• Thermal treatment is a costly waste treatment alternative and comparable to anaerobic digestion. It is more costly than landfill disposal. Generally, larger facilities are less costly on a per tonne basis. Any municipalities considering thermal treatment should consider partnering with neighbouring municipalities in order to build a large facility and obtain cost savings through economies of scale.

• Three alternative waste management systems considered: Baseline – after removal of recyclables, all residual waste proceeds to thermal processing; Source Separated Organics – in addition to recyclables, source separated organics are diverted from the baseline stream and the remaining residuals are thermally processed; and Mixed Waste – the baseline stream is composted or digested and the remaining residuals are thermally processed. These alternative systems generate significantly different quantities of materials requiring disposal from a given size of municipality. On the other hand, there is relatively little difference in the energy content of material resulting from these three alternative systems.

• Thermal treatment facilities can be sited, as a compatible land use, in an industrial area. This significantly reduces the social impact associated with siting these types of facilities.

• People tend to be concerned about the air emissions from thermal treatment facilities. With the utilization of start-of-the-art air pollution control technology, these emissions are

xviii


far lower than they were historically and far lower than from many other industrial facilities.

• Depending upon the assumption made with respect to waste composition and the ability of a landfill to sequester carbon, thermal treatment can serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill.

• Thermal treatment generates more emissions of air contaminants compared to landfill. On the other hand, landfill generates more contaminants to water than thermal treatment.

Next Steps A key part of the project was the delivery of two workshops (one in Mississauga, Ontario on February 23, 2006 and one in Calgary, Alberta on March 2, 2006). The workshops had two objectives:

• share information with participants on leading edge, non-traditional residual municipal solid waste options, including consideration of environmental impacts, energy recovery, greenhouse gas emissions, social and environmental impacts; and

• seek advice on the applicability of the technological options at the municipal level; in particular, any barriers, potential opportunities and information gats.

Approximately 100 people attended the two workshops, representing urban and municipal interests, were presented with highlights of five technology options including composting, anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment, sanitary landfill and enhanced treatment landfill. Participants then assessed the degree of community interest in the adoption of the technology, identified barriers that might need to be addressed in making the decision to adopt the technology and offered suggestions to overcome the barriers. The participants identified organics management and residual treatment activities the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or organizations could support and these included:

• research and development supported by awareness and education; • leadership in research, education, communication and regulation is required at the

federal and provincial government levels; • use regulatory tools to influence research, development and implementation of new

technologies; • simplify siting/approvals regulations and adopt favourable/supportive policies; • providing funding/financial incentives for waste reduction, GHG reduction and particular

technologies; and • conduct research and development and demonstration of the technologies.

MWIN and RCA encourage the federal and provincial governments to support the activities suggested by the participants.

xix


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background According to Statistics Canada2, over 30.4 million tonnes of waste was generated in Canada in 2002. This translates into 971 kg/person. Households accounted for 39% of this total, with the remainder generated in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector (IC&I) and the construction, renovation and demolition sector (C&D). In Canada, in 2002, households generated 12 million tonnes of waste or 382 kg/person or represented an increase of approximately 5% over 2000. Of the 12 million tonnes of residential waste generated in Canadian households, 2.5 million tonnes were diverted with 9.5 million tonnes being disposed of in landfills or thermal treatment processes. The amount disposed amounted to 301 kg/person or an increase of approximately 2% over 2000. The amount of household waste diverted through recycling and composting in 2002 represented 81 kg/person and a 1.3% increase from 2000. The general flow of MSW in Canada is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Residential Waste Flow

Canada needs to improve the amount of residential waste that is diverted. In the late 1980s, federal, provincial and municipal governments agreed to a target of 50% reduction in waste by weight per person from 1998 levels by the year 2000. While a few communities have reached this goal; as a country we still dispose of more than 78% of our waste. The responsibility for waste management largely rests at the municipal level. There are a broad range of waste management technologies available to point the way and serve as a basis from which to build an integrated waste management system that can achieve greater diversion. The difficulty for municipal leaders is sorting through the options and deciding on the best course of action for their communities.

2 Statistics Canada, 2004, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government sectors, 2002,

Catalogue No. 16F0023X1E, Ottawa.

1


With this in mind, the Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities3 was released in 2004. The project was carried out with the leadership of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) with significant funding and supportive direction on content from Environment Canada (EC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and the Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change. The FCM Guide and accompanying Workbook provide an overview of integrated solid waste and resource management information, policies, and technologies. The primary audience for the FCM tools were solid waste managers, particularly in smaller communities, which tend to have fewer staff and experts available in the waste field. This report, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal, builds on the FCM Guide by examining the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations for:


It comes at a time when many communities across Canada are developing MSW Management Plans as a means to determine how to cost-effectively reduce environmental impacts and conserve landfill capacity. Communities are realizing that in order to meet current and future MSW targets, they must think beyond their existing waste diversion programs and find innovative ways to recognize their waste as a resource. To this end, many communities are turning to organics management programs to reduce their reliance on residual treatment/disposal technologies. 1.2 Goals and Objectives The MSW Options Report explores different MSW management options for three community sizes: 20,000, 80,000 and 200,0000. It caters to a similar audience as the FCM Guide and is intended to bring a greater understanding on the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations of MSW management. In addition, the report aims to demonstrate the interrelationships between the management of organics and residuals. It is intended to build knowledge and share information on existing waste diversion and organics management options and emerging residual treatment technology options with a focus on energy recovery and GHG emission reductions. This work was lead by the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and the Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA), with funding and guidance being provided by Environment Canada (EC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The report attempts to provide municipalities with the information and tools necessary to achieve a higher level of environmental quality in the area of MSW management, which will in

3 Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities,

March 2004.

2


turn enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, preserve our natural environment, and advance our long-term competitiveness - improving Canadians’ quality of life. It is our vision for Canada to have developed a family of waste-derived bioenergy technologies that provide publicly accepted, sustainable solutions to waste management. To achieve this vision, society must recognize the value of waste as a biomass feedstock and not as something to be discarded. Sustainable technologies must be developed to convert wastes to energy in an environmentally sound and economically attractive manner. Overall, the focus of this report is to assist municipalities with taking their integrated waste management systems to the “next level” in order to further conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, produce energy, lessen dependence on landfills and improve social acceptability. 1.3 Report Format The report is divided into the following sections:

• Section 2 - Study Assumptions; • Section 3 - Source Separated Organics and Mixed Waste Composting; • Section 4 - Source Separated Organics and Mixed Waste Processing Using • Anaerobic Digestion; • Section 5 - Sanitary Landfill; • Section 6 - Bioreactor Landfill; • Section 7 - Thermal Treatment; • Section 8 - Summary

In Section 2, the assumptions used by each of the technologies are outlined to provide the basis of each evaluation. In sections 3 through 7, each of the five technologies is assessed using the study assumptions outlined in Section 2. Finally, Section 8 provides an overall summary of the findings of the five technologies. 1.4 Workshops The findings of this report were presented in two workshops; one in Toronto on February 23, 2006 and the other in Calgary on March 2, 2006. The input received from the participants in these workshops is summarized in a separate report. A copy of the report can be downloaded from the following websites:

www.mwin.org www.recycle.ab.ca

3

http://www.mwin.org

http://www.recycle.ab.ca


2 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS

A number of assumptions were made at the beginning the study to focus the technology evaluations. The assumptions made are outlined in this section. 2.1 Municipal Sizes The intent was to concentrate the study on smaller to mid-sized municipalities in Canada. This was done to complement the work done in the FCM Solid Waste as a Resource Guide and recognize that the larger municipalities in Canada are more likely to have the in-house resources to investigate the different integrated waste management options. Information on municipal sizes was provided by Statistics Canada. Table 2.1 summarizes the municipal size breakdowns by population in Canada.

Table 2.1 – Canadian Municipal Sizes

Population Range Approximate Number

of Municipalities

5,0000 - 10,000 350

10,000 - 20,000 210

20,000 - 30,000 65

30,000 - 40,000 25

40,000 - 50,000 20

50,000 - 60,000 15

60,000 - 80,000 30

80,000 - 100,000 15

100,000 - 200,000 25

Over 200,000 20

Based on this information, and to complement the FCM Solid Waste as a Resource Guide, it was concluded to use the following population sizes:

• 20,000; • 80,000; and • 200,000.

2.2 Residential Waste Generation Data The study focuses on waste generated in households because municipalities only control the flow of residential waste in their jurisdictions. The residential waste generation data used was provided by Statistics Canada and is derived from the Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government Sectors 2002. This information is summarized in Table 2.2.

4


Table 2.2 – Residential Waste Generation in Canada (2002)

Province/Territory Population Residential Disposal (tonnes)

Disposal (kg/capita)

Residential Diversion (tonnes)

Diversion (kg/capita)

Residential Generation (tonnes)

Generation (kg/capita)

Residential Diversion Rate

Newfoundland and Labrador

519,270 216,218 416 15,073 29 231,291 445 7%

Prince Edward Island 136,998

Nova Scotia 934,392 169,469 182 82,363 88 252,012 270 33%

New Brunswick 750,183 203,506 271 52,685 70 256,190 342 21%

Quebec4 7,443,491 2,876,000 386 595,000 80 3,471,000 466 17%

Ontario 12,096,627 3,438,408 284 949,830 79 4,388,239 363 22%

Manitoba 1,155,492 412,612 357 81,923 71 494,535 428 17%

Saskatchewan 995,490 278,692 280 42,376 43 321,069 323 13%

Alberta 3,114,390 866,398 278 293,300 94 1,159,697 372 25%

British Columbia 4,114,981 936,774 228 417,403 101 1,354,177 329 31%

Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories and Nunavut5

111,297

Canada 31,361,611 9,455,204 301 2,553,134 81 12,008,338 382 21.3%

4 These data are derived from a survey administered by RECYC-QUÉBEC, which is a public corporation charged with promoting reduction, reuse and recycling in Quebec’s

waste. To make these data comparable with other provincial data, some waste quantities generated by the construction, renovation and demolition sector have been removed from the RECYC-QUÉBEC totals.

5 Statistics Canada withheld data under the Statistics Act.

5


As shown in Table 2.2, the average residential waste generation for Canada in 2002 was 382 kg/person. Of this total, 301 kg/person (78.7%) was disposed and 81 kg/person (21.3%) was diverted. For the purpose of the evaluations, a residential disposal rate of 300 kg/person was used to define the baseline quantity of waste material available for each of the three populations evaluated. 2.3 Residential Waste Composition The composition of the residential waste stream needed to be determined in order to define the amount of organics that could be removed through a source separated organics composting program and a mixed waste composting program. Waste composition data from three municipalities were used. Table 2.3 summarizes the characteristics of the three municipalities.

Table 2.3 – Municipal Information

Municipality North Glengarry, Ontario

Sudbury, Ontario Calgary, Alberta

Population 10,589 85,000 880,000

Settings Rural Urban/Rural Urban

Households Mostly Single Family 4,000

Mostly Single Family 37,400

Two-Thirds Single Family 330,000

The composition data was broken down into the following general categories:

• paper fibres; • plastics; • metals; • glass; • household special waste; • compostables; and • other waste materials.

A detailed breakdown of the material categories and sub-categories can be found in Appendix A.The waste composition by sub-category were then averaged for the three municipalities. The waste generation rate of 300 kg/person was multiplied by the population to arrive at a total waste quantity. The total waste quantity was then multiplied by the percentage composition to arrive at the quantity for the sub-category and category in the waste stream. This formed the baseline waste scenario for each of the populations. Table 2.4 outlines the baseline waste quantities for each population.

6


Table 2.4 – Baseline Waste Quantities6 (tonnes)

Population Material

20,000 80,000 200,000

Paper Fibres 1,721 6,886 17,217

Plastics 467 1,869 4,672

Metals 219 875 2,188

Glass 319 1,276 3,189

Household Special Waste 48 192 479

Compostables 2,264 9,056 22,638

Other Waste Materials 958 3,834 9,584

Total Tonnes 5,996 23,988 59,967 These tonnages were used in the evaluation as the baseline waste quantity. 2.4 Waste Quantity Projections The planning horizon used in the study was 2005 to 2025. In order to project residential waste quantities over the 20 year period from the baseline year, the following assumptions were used:

• 1.5% population growth per year; • 300 kg/capita residential generation rate constant over the 20 year period; and • 81 kg/capita residential diversion rate constant over the 20 year period.

In the case of the sanitary and bioreactor landfill evaluations, it was decided that the baseline would be increased by 100%. This decision was made to recognize that existing municipal landfills in Canada receive IC&I and C&D waste as part of their normal operations. 2.5 Financial Assumptions In the evaluation of technologies, the following financial assumptions were made:

• 20 year amortization period for building and equipment; • annual finance rate of 7%; and • inflation rate of 3%.

Additional financial assumptions used for the technologies are noted in each report chapter.

6 The baseline assumes that 21.3% of the overall generation is removed through recycling at source.

7


2.6 Organics Diversion Before the thermal, sanitary landfill and bioreactor landfill evaluations could be compiled, the amount of organics that would be removed had to be defined.

This was done for both a source separated organics (SSO) program and a mixed waste processing program. Source separate organics refers to the separation of materials suitable for composting from the solid waste at the source of generation (e.g., household). Mixed waste composting refers to the manual or mechanical removal of recyclable material from the waste, including compost.

The waste composition data from Appendix A was used and the total tonnages generated were multiplied by an estimated capture rate for each sub-category that applied. Table 2.5 outlines the amount of organics material estimated to be removed and the residual waste left for disposal for the baseline year. It is recognized that additional efforts need to be made in Canada to capture dry recyclables at the curb before they make it into the waste stream. For the purposes of this study, the 2002 diversion numbers have been used. The 21.3% figure could be increased with greater participation and recovery rates for the material currently diverted.

8


Table 2.5 – Organics Diverted and Residual Treatment

20,000 80,000 200,000

Source Separated Organics

Mixed Waste Processing


Mixed Waste Processing


Mixed Waste Processing Material

SSO Diverted

Residual Treatment

Organics Diverted

Residual Treatment

SSO Diverted

Residual Treatment

Organics Diverted

Residual Treatment

SSO Diverted

Residual Treatment

Organics Diverted

Residual Treatment

Paper Fibres 232 1,489 842 880 886 6,000 3,124 3,763 2,342 14,893 8,421 8,797

Plastics 0 467 47 420 0 1,869 189 1,679 0 4,672 474 4,198

Metals 0 219 85 134 0 875 341 534 0 2,188 852 1,335

Glass 0 319 159 159 0 1,276 638 638 0 3,189 1,595 1,595

HSW 0 48 18 30 0 192 73 118 0 479 183 296

Compostables 1,613 651 1,132 1,132 6,452 2,604 4,528 4,528 16,129 6,509 11,319 11,319

Other Waste Materials 0 958 187 771 0 3,834 748 3,086 0 9,584 1,870 7,714

Totals 1,845 4,153 2,471 3,527 7,338 16,168 9,641 13,865 18,453 41,534 24,714 32,273

9


2.7 Evaluation Criteria for MSW Management Options The following criteria were used in the evaluation of the five MSW management options:

• environmental; • social; • economic; and • renewable energy and greenhouse gases.

Table 2.6 outlines the evaluation criteria used for each of the technologies.

Table 2.6 – Evaluation Criteria

General Facility Throughput

Major Design Features

Commercial Status in Canada

Approvals Required

Environmental Footprint

Landfill Airspace

Potential Environmental Impacts

Quality of Processed Organics

Energy Recovery

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Social Public Acceptability

Siting Challenges

Land Use Conflicts

Employment

Dust

Noise

Traffic

Odour

Economic Capital Costs

Operating Costs

Cost per tonne

10


The scope of the evaluation was focussed on each technology. It is noted that not all sub-indicators applied to all technologies and therefore only those that applied were evaluated. For the social indicators, a qualitative explanation of the technology’s impact on the indicator was provided. This was done because the evaluations were not site specific but technology specific. For the GHG evaluation, a number of different tools are available to assist with calculating GHG impacts. These include:

• integrated waste management model (IWM)7; • emission factors estimates from 2005 ICF work for Environment Canada and Natural

Resources Canada; and • Scholl-Canyon model.

The most appropriate tool for each technology was used in the evaluation. The result being that an “apples to apples” comparison was difficult to make between technologies.

7 IWM model developed by CSR and EPIC.

11


3 SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS AND MIXED WASTE COMPOSTING

3.1 Introduction and Overview This section provides a description and evaluation of the composting option and examines both source separated organics (SSO) and mixed waste composting. This section begins with an overview of the composting process and a general description of available technologies. The various tonnages of available organic wastes are quantified in terms of tonnage. The section then provides an evaluation of SSO and mixed waste composting in terms of environmental, social, financial and greenhouse gas impacts. 3.2 Overview of the Composting Process Composting is a controlled aerobic microbiological process (i.e., bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes) that decomposes organic waste. Given the appropriate level of nutrients, oxygen, moisture and particle size this process produces heat, water, carbon dioxide and if the process is effected properly, a stable (i.e., will not continue to breakdown rapidly) compost containing no pathogens nor viable weed seeds. During high rate composting (also referred to as active phase), when microorganisms are decomposing the most accessible constituents of the compostable waste stream, the process temperatures increase. Temperatures up to 70°C are not uncommon, although typically efforts are made to maintain temperatures above 55°C but below 60-65°C. These high temperatures kill human and plant pathogens in the incoming feedstock. Composting guidelines prescribe minimum temperature-time regimes (which vary depending on the composting technology) to facilitate the reduction of pathogens. The compost process will result in variable requirements for water addition. This is dependent on the starting moisture content of the SSO or mixed wastes, intensity of the composting process (i.e., higher temperatures can result in greater evaporation of water and need to add water) and whether composting is occurring indoors or outdoors. After high rate composting the microorganisms are left with less accessible constituents of the waste stream to decompose. This results in a reduction of microbial populations and a simultaneous reduction, over time, of process temperatures. This is referred to as the curing process. This is an essential part of the composting process and important in terms of compost stability and maturity. The length of the curing process is a function of end-use. Compost that is used for lower end uses, such as reclamation or remediation, will require a much shorter curing period than composts that will be used for higher end uses such as home gardens. The main potential environmental nuisances that can be generated during the composting process are odour and, to a lesser extent, leachate. The generation of odour is largely a function of the management of the composting process and the feedstocks (materials) being composted. Some odours will be produced during the composting process. A key feature of some technologies is the ability to abate odours. Leachate can be controlled via collection. Leachate can in some cases be re-circulated into the composting system or directed to a wastewater treatment plant for treatment. Leachate generation will be greater in an outdoor non-reactor system than in a reactor (i.e., in-vessel) system.

12


Compost is primarily a soil conditioner; that is, it can enhance the quality of soil. Compost may also have varying levels of plant nutrients, although it is not classed as a fertilizer per se. There are various methods of composting. From the perspective of residential organic waste there is backyard composting and centralized composting. Backyard composting involves diverting food scraps and yard trimmings into a composting container. Materials are added, mixed, and watered from time-to-time. A compost product will be produced that can be used in home gardens. Because backyard composting systems are typically small (i.e., < 1 m3) they often do not attain pathogen reducing temperatures. Also, depending on the degree of maintenance, it can take several months to years to produce compost in a backyard composter. A centralized composting facility receives organic wastes from curbside collection or depot programs. It is able to handle high tonnages of wastes. The wastes are prepared for composting, composted with the end products prepared for market. The composting process can result in the reduction of mass by up to 50% and volume by 80%. Figure 3.1 shows the approximate mass balance of the composting process.

Figure 3.1 – Mass Balance of Composting Process

Centralized composting is a manufacturing process. The end products produced will be a reflection of incoming feedstocks. It has been clearly and consistently demonstrated, given our existing regulatory regime that the composting of source separated organics (SSO) wastes leads to the development of better quality composts than those produced from mixed wastes. That being said the composting of mixed wastes may result in the production of an end-product that is more environmentally benign from a disposal perspective or that may be a suitable source of fuel for thermal treatment. Although the inputs and outputs are different both SSO and mixed waste composting share many common elements in terms of processing and technologies. Composting typically includes three major components:

• pre-processing; • composting; and • post-processing.

Their function is described briefly below.

13


3.2.1 Pre-Processing Pre-processing involves turning SSO or mixed waste into a suitable, refined feedstock, ready for introduction to the composting process. Pre-processing operations can include the following activities:

• debagging; • manual inspection; • manual and/or mechanical removal of recyclables and/or wastes; • particle size reduction; • screening; • addition of amendments (e.g., bulking agents such as wood chips); and • mixing.

The extent of pre-processing is a function of the feedstock and the composting technology used. Incoming SSO waste typically requires less upfront removal of recyclables and/or wastes. In general mixed wastes will require more pre-processing than SSO. This can be both capital and labour intensive. The composting of SSO will typically also require the addition of some type of amendments. Incoming mixed waste typically requires more upfront removal of recyclables and/or wastes. Depending on the end goal the composting of mixed wastes may or may not require the addition of amendments. It should be noted that one of the challenges in designing an organics diversion system is to decide whether the advantages of collection systems that result in a higher capture rate but produce a more-contaminated waste stream are worth the much higher pre-processing cost of removing those contaminants at the facility. 3.2.2 Composting Once the pre-processing stage is complete, the waste is ready to be composted. There are many composting technologies and vendors available, all of which can work in a range of applications and scales. All systems are designed to accomplish the same thing: provide an environment that optimizes aerobic microbiological decomposition. The outputs will depend on the feedstock inputs and may include a high quality compost or lower quality products. There are two main classes and four main types of centralized composting technologies. These are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3. 3.2.3 Post-Processing Post-processing activities involves preparing the end-product from the composting operation for market. Post-processing activities may include:

• drying; • manual and/or mechanical removal of recyclables and/or wastes; • screening; • blending; and • bagging.

14


Post-processing requirements will depend on end-market requirements, and the degree to which contaminants are still present after pre-processing. Most post-processing operations include screening the compost to homogenize it and remove oversize materials. Given generally-stringent compost quality standards in Canada, it has been learned that it is more effective to try and remove most contaminants during the pre-processing stage rather than the post-processing stage if one wishes to produce saleable products. In general it is easier to produce saleable products emanating from SSO than mixed waste. Compost that meets regulatory requirements is often sold in bulk from the composting facility. It is also often blended with other soil components or peat to produce growing media and other products. In some cases bulk or blended products are bagged and marketed in the retail sector. The sale of the final product can be an important source of revenue although it should be noted tipping fees for incoming wastes are important to defray if not pay for capital and operating costs. Compost produced in Canada is generally subject to regulation by provincial governments. While details differ, most of these standards require that attention be paid to:

• the levels of 11 heavy metals and PCB’s in the end product; • the presence of visible contaminating materials such as glass, plastic or pieces of metal; • proof that the compost has experienced sufficient temperatures for a sufficient time to

achieve ‘pathogen reduction’ — the significant elimination of weed seeds and plant and animal pathogenic organisms; and

• the final stability of the product, since unstable compost is actually harmful to plants. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also regulate compost offered for sale in Canada, through the Federal Fertilizers Act (FFA), when compost is marketed in such a way that specific claims are made regarding its utility in plant growth. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has also worked to establish national guidelines for compost quality, for reference in those provinces which have yet to establish their own standards. In addition, Le Bureau de normalisation du Québec (BNQ), a member of the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), has developed national, voluntary industry standards for compost quality. Compost which meets this standard will be able to bear a BNQ label as an indication of its quality. 3.3 Composting Technologies Some of the information provided in this description of technologies is drawn directly from the 2004 FCM Publication, “Review of Waste Technologies, Solid Waste as a Resource” (FCM 2004). Where appropriate, the text from the FCM Publication has been edited and updated to provide the most current information.

15


3.3.1 Non-Reactor Composting Technologies These are technologies where composting takes place in the open or outdoors. Non-reactor systems tend to utilize public-domain technology, albeit sometimes with the aid of specialized equipment provided by various vendors. Although not unheard of, mixed wastes are typically not composted in non-reactor composting technologies during primary composting. Non-reactor systems are used for secondary composting.

Windrow Outdoor, turned-windrow composting is by far the most widely-used system for centralized composting in North America. Windrow composting can deal with a wide variety of organic wastes at almost any operating scale. Windrow composting has been successfully operated in the range of 5 tonnes/day to 100 tonnes/day (1,000 tonnes/year to 25,000 tonnes/year), while large mechanized windrow operations may go up to 100,000 tonnes/year. In a residential context windrow composting sites are typically used to process leaf and yard wastes. They can also be used to process materials collected by SSO programs, although this practice is less common and requires an experienced operator to avoid potential odour problems. The term windrow refers to a pile of material that is characterized by a generally-triangular cross-section and a length that may vary significantly depending on available space. Commonly, windrows are between two and four metres in height and three to six metres in width. Windrow composting generally takes place outdoors on a paved (e.g., concrete, asphalt) or unpaved surface such as a compacted clay pad. Windrows are moved or ‘turned’, usually by some type of mobile heavy equipment such as a pay loader or specialized windrow turner. This is done to aerate the material, to reduce particle size, to blend it, and often to gradually move it through a processing area. The frequency of turning may range from several times daily to once a month, depending on a wide range of factors (such as type of organic material). Most regulatory regimes require that the material be fully turned at least five times during the process, but much higher numbers of turns are not uncommon. Equipment capacities and sizes must be co-ordinated with feedstock volume and the range of pile dimensions. Regular turning of the material can result in a finished, stable (fully degraded) product in about 3 months, though some facilities choose to take much longer, and save operating costs as a result. A finished product can typically be produced in 3-12 months. If windrows are constructed indoors then it becomes an enclosed windrow system. Additional aeration (i.e., mechanical) may be provided at these types of facilities. Off-gases generated as a result of the composting process may be collected and treated using a biofilter (i.e., a variety of porous organic materials including a formulation of all or some of the following: wood chips, peat, compost).

16


Process monitoring tends to focus on the collection of temperature data. In some cases oxygen and other process data is collected. Depending on the facility size process monitoring takes place daily to weekly. Often simple and rugged hand-held instruments are used. A properly managed turned windrow composting facility does not produce a greater odour impact than more capital-intensive, enclosed facilities. The solution to odour problems is to ensure that experienced facility design and management expertise are used, and that on-site staff are well trained in the biochemistry of composting and trouble-shooting solutions when problems arise. When properly managed, these systems work very well. However, there have been a number of cases in Canada where windrow facilities have failed due to poor or inconsistent operation. Placing piles out-of-doors exposes them to precipitation, which results in runoff management requirements. Any runoff created must be collected and possibly treated. Leachate can be added to windrows to increase its moisture content. To avoid problems with runoff, piles can be placed under a roof, although this adds to the capital costs of the facility, and can make it more difficult to move material around the facility. Given their low demand for capital equipment, and low operating costs, windrow systems are widely recognized as the lowest-cost composting approach available. Windrow composting has rather large land requirements if more than modest quantities of organic materials are processed. Windrow composting is a non-proprietary technology which is most viable in rural sites or areas with large buffer zones. The greatest advantage of turned-windrow composting is its flexibility. Many facilities are able to dramatically vary windrow size, turning frequency and how space at the site is used, to accommodate wide fluctuations in incoming waste tonnages and composition. A related characteristic is that wastes can be added part-way through the process when needed. For instance, if an unusual surge of one type of waste arrives at a windrow composting facility, the excess can be added to existing windrows already in process while the balance of the new material can be used to form new windrows. Food wastes, for instance, are commonly added to a windrow more than once as it is constructed. Finally it should be noted that many channel and container/tunnel composting systems (see Section 3.3.2) use windrow (or aerated static-pile) to cure and complete the compost. Windrow composting is not common for the composting of SSO in Canada but could be a system used by smaller communities. It is not typically used to process mixed wastes. Aerated Static-Pile Aerated static-pile composting appears in many ways to be similar to windrow composting. The only important difference is that by definition, the windrows or piles are not turned, but remain stationary for most of the composting process. Instead of aerating the piles by physically turning them, fresh air is either allowed to passively migrate into the pile, or is forced in (or out) with fans. For both systems, windrows are built on pads or platforms. Routinely, the piles are monitored for temperature and oxygen.

17


In an actively-aerated system, a fan (or air supply blower) either forces air into the pile or draws air out of it. The air is circulated through the pile through a diffuser (a pipe with holes to allow distribution of air). The fans are controlled by a timer or a temperature feedback system similar to a home thermostat. Air circulation in the compost piles provides the needed oxygen for the composting microbes and also prevents excessive heat build-up in the pile. Removing excess heat and water vapour cools the pile to maintain optimum temperatures for microbial activity. A controlled air supply enables construction of large piles, which decreases the need for land as compost stays in one place and does not need to be moved around the site. Odours from the exhaust air can be substantial. Biofilters are generally used to remove odours. When the composting process is nearly complete, the piles are broken up for the first time since their construction. The compost is then taken through a series of post-processing steps, possibly including turned-windrow composting for further stabilization of the product. Aerated static pile composting systems have been used successfully for SSO, leaf and yard waste, biosolids, and industrial composting. Advantages of aerated static-pile composting compared to turned-windrow composting include the management of odorous materials in an undisturbed mass, until such time as they have stabilized. This is one reason that it has been popular in the processing of sewage biosolids (in the US, but not so common in Canada). The infrastructure necessary to provide for forced aeration requires higher capital costs although staffing needs are lower as the compost piles do not need turning. Unlike turned-windrow composting, the fact that the compost mass is never disturbed after being formed into a pile means that the mix and ratio of waste feedstocks must be correct right from the start, a feature that prevents this approach from readily coping with fluctuations in waste composition. A finished product can typically be produced in 3-18 months. The capital costs can be lower than for windrow composting if no supplemental aeration is provided. The operating costs are relatively low. Aerated static pile composting is less common than windrow composting of SSO. It may have some potential for smaller communities. It is not typically used to process mixed wastes.

3.3.2 Reactor (In-vessel) Composting Technologies

These encompass enclosed channel and tunnel/container systems. They are commonly referred to as “in-vessel” systems. Reactor systems tend to be available only from vendors of proprietary technologies.

Common elements of Reactor Composting Technologies include:

• some type of building(s) to house elements which may include: feedstock preparation (i.e., segregation, shredding/grinding, mixing), composting and curing;

• composting takes place indoors or in fully sealed vessels; • residence times of organic waste varies from 3-28 days;

18


• some level of automated data collection for temperature (e.g., thermocouples, programmable logic controller, desk-top computer) and in some cases other parameters such as oxygen, relative humidity etc.;

• air handling system to force air through composting waste and remove off-gases for treatment;

• treatment of off-gases typically occurs in a biofilter although other scrubbing methods are also sometimes used; and

• after residence time has been completed composting material must be taken to a curing area for further processing. This curing area can be indoors or outdoors.

Reactor systems are typically used for the primary composting of mixed wastes. The most common technology is the container/tunnel style. Specific technologies include a rotating drum which on a continuous flow basis facilitates composting and additional debagging (over and above pre-processing). Container systems also appear to be quite common.

Enclosed Channel Channels are partially sealed vessels. Enclosed channel composting takes place in a horizontal silo like channel consisting of two long parallel concrete walls generally, 1-2 m in height, 3-5 m in width and 30 m+ long. A facility can have a number of channels. A variant of this type of composting is wide-bed composting, where the width of the channel is close to the width of a building. Each channel has a distinct input and output end and functions as a continuous flow system rather than a batch system. Material is placed in the input end by a piece of mobile equipment. Mixing of organic waste is provided with a specialized automated turner that typically straddles the concrete walled channels on rails or wheels. It starts its processing at the output end, discharging compost, and moves towards and completes its cycle at the input end of the channel. As the turner makes repeated passes down the channel over time, it gradually moves the mass of waste from the input end to the output end of the channel. Additional aeration is provided via a mechanical aeration system. A typical retention time is 7-28 days. These systems typically employ automated temperature gathering equipment (e.g., thermocouples, programmable logic controller, desk-top computer). These systems typically include a mechanical off-gas removal system and odour abatement infrastructure (e.g., biofilter).

The system is designed such that the primary composting process is largely completed by the time that the waste is discharged from the end of the channel. After discharge from the channel compost is cured in a separate area, often employing a windrow type technology. The length of curing time is a function of compost end-use. Channel composting systems are currently in operation in Canada accepting a wide range of annual tonnage. Since wastes can only be added once (i.e., at input end) it is important to develop a good recipe. Although costs vary among different technologies, enclosed channel systems are generally less costly than container/tunnel systems.

19


Channel composting systems have been used to compost SSO with a reasonable success level and in some cases mixed wastes. It may be a good solution for medium to large communities.

Container/Tunnel Container/tunnel composting systems are fully sealed vessels in which the composting environment is tightly controlled and so should be able to process compost at the shortest amount of time possible. Container systems are mobile and resemble closed top roll-off containers. They are typically made from metal with the interior made from corrosion resistant metals. There are generally a number of containers at a facility. They are modular and additional containers can be added relatively easily. Tunnel systems are fixed in place, typically in a building. They are typically made from concrete or corrosion resistant metals. They in some cases originated and share features of composting tunnels used by the mushroom growing industry. There are generally a number of tunnels at a facility. They are modular and additional tunnels can be added relatively easily. A subset of tunnels include long, cylindrical, rotating drums often called digesters. Waste moves in a continuous flow fashion from an input to an output end. A combination of mobile equipment and other mechanisms (e.g., conveyors) are used to feed raw waste into the container/tunnel and remove uncured compost from the container/tunnel. There is usually no mechanical agitation of material while it is in the container or tunnel. A few container/tunnel technologies operate in a continuous flow system as described above (e.g., digester). Agitation is provided through the rotating of a drum. Some other systems include an agitation step mid-way through the process. As there is often no or very little mechanical agitation, all systems feature a relatively sophisticated air handling system to inject air into the composting mass and remove composting off gases for treatment. Some systems have the ability to add supplemental moisture into the container or tunnel.

These systems typically employ sophisticated automated temperature gathering equipment (e.g., thermocouples, programmable logic controller, desk-top computer). All systems will include a monitoring system for temperature and in some cases oxygen. Odours are more easily managed in these systems, since primary composting occurs in a sealed container or tunnel. These systems typically include a superior mechanical off-gas removal system. Exhaust air is removed from the container or tunnel and typically passes through a biofilter and/or other odour scrubbers. The typical residence time in a container or tunnel is from 3-28 days. At the end of the primary composting process, the container is disconnected from the air and monitoring systems, emptied, and then made available for another cycle.

20


Compost is cured using either a windrow or aerated static pile system. The length of curing time is a function of compost end use. A finished product can be made in 2 - 6 months. One critical advantage is that all operations are totally enclosed, limiting contact with the organic material, thus minimizing occupational health and safety concerns. This tends to be the most capital-intensive of the approach available. A critical advantage of these systems is that they take up less space and may be viable where others are not. They also tend to be the most expensive system. Container/tunnel composting systems have been used to compost SSO and mixed wastes with a reasonable success level. It may be a good solution for medium to large communities.

3.4 Approvals Requirements and Regulatory Perspectives There are varied approvals requirements across the country. Appendix B presents an overview of approvals requirements by province and territory. It includes web-links to obtain more specific information. Approvals may be required for:

• waste processing/disposal site; • air emission approvals (typically for reactor-based systems); and • leachate discharge.

Typically some type of Certificate of Approval or similar is required. Some jurisdictions (e.g., British Columbia, Alberta) allow what is known as Permit-by-Rule for composting facilities under 20,000 tonnes/year. A set of regulatory requirements must be followed and the regulatory agency must be notified prior to opening a compost facility. 3.5 Waste Stream Quantities Two waste management system scenarios are being examined in this report:

• Composting of Source Separated Organics (SSO); and • Composting of Mixed Waste.

The processing of the residual waste through sanitary bioreactor landfilling or thermal treatment is contemplated in other chapters. Table 3.1 to Table 3.3 indicate the waste quantities for each of the three population sizes, under the three waste processing scenarios. Waste quantities change between population sizes, but within each scenario the composition stays constant regardless of population.

21


For the SSO composting it is assumed that 5% of incoming SSO is residue which must be disposed by landfilling or thermal treatment. For instance in Table 3.1, 1,845 tonnes are available for composting – approximately 90 tonnes of this SSO will end up as residue. For mixed waste composting it is assumed that 58% ends up as residue after composting.

Table 3.1 – Waste Quantities for Population of 20,000

Baseline Source Separated Organics Mixed Waste

Material Residual

Treatment SSO

Diverted Residual

Treatment Organics Diverted

Residual Treatment

Tonnes

Paper Fibres 1,721 232 1,489 842 880

Plastics 467 0 467 47 420

Metals 219 0 219 85 134

Glass 319 0 319 159 159

Household Special Wastes

48 0 48 18 30

Compostables 2,264 1,613 651 1,132 1,132

Other Waste Materials 958 0 958 187 771

Total Tonnes 5,996 1,845 4,151 2,470 3,526

Table 3.2 – Waste Quantities for Populations of 80,000


Material Residual

Treatment SSO

Diverted Residual


Residual Treatment

Tonnes

Paper Fibres 6,886 886 6,000 3,124 3,763

Plastics 1,869 0 1,869 189 1,679

Metals 875 0 875 341 534

Glass 1,276 0 1,276 638 639


192 0 192 73 118

Compostables 9,056 6,452 2,604 4,528 4,528

Other Waste Materials 3,834 0 3,834 748 3,086

22


Total Tonnes 23,988 7,338 16,650 9,641 14,347



Material Residual

Treatment SSO

Diverted Residual


Residual Treatment

Tonnes

Paper Fibres 17,217 2,324 14,893 8,421 8,797

Plastics 4,672 0 4,672 474 4,198

Metals 2,188 0 2,188 852 1,335

Glass 3,189 0 3,189 1,595 1,595


479 0 479 183 296

Compostables 22,638 16,129 6,509 11,319 11,319

Other Waste Materials 9,584 0 9,584 1,870 7,714

Total Tonnes 59,967 18,453 41,514 24,714 35,254

3.6 Capital and Operating Costs - SSO and Mixed Waste A survey was conducted of Canadian and American composting facilities. The intent was to focus on facilities that composted SSO and mixed wastes as well as obtaining information for all technology types. The research was completed by contacting 33 facilities. Information was received from 28 of the facilities. Information sought included:

• technology type; • general facility information; • capital and operating costs; • social impacts; and • environmental impacts.

Appendix C summarizes the results of the overall results of the survey. Appendix D breaks out costing information and provides some cost analysis. The results of the survey were used to assist in determining the best approach for SSO mixed waste composting for the various community sizes being evaluated. The capital and operating cost data obtained in the survey was used to assist in the development of a cost model that estimates capital and operating costs to build and operate

23


SSO and mixed waste composting infrastructure for selected community sizes (20,000, 80,000 and 200,000). Reference values were developed for capital and operating costs and used as a starting point. They were applied to the appropriate tonnages of SSO and mixed wastes in two separate iterations of the model. For simplicity, reference costs were applied in the same fashion for SSO and mixed waste and to all community sizes. It should be noted that it is challenging to obtain comprehensive and comparable cost data from different facilities. The values used in calculations are indicative rather than absolute. Capital costs obtained during the survey were divided by their respective facility capacities to generate a cost/tonne capacity (Appendix D). For instance, if a facility that had a capacity of 5,000 tonnes per year and cost $2,000,000 then the capital per tonne capacity would be $400. Where sufficient information was available a reference capital cost, approximately midway between the low and high $/tonne was selected. Where insufficient data was available an estimated reference cost was used. A summary of capital costs, expressed on a $/processing tonne basis, is depicted in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 – Summary of Capital Costs for Composting Technologies

Low High Reference Cost Technology

$/tonne Capacity Comment

Windrow — — $75 Estimate

Aerated Static Pile — — $150 Estimate, Includes Forced Aeration

Enclosed Channel $200 $400 $300 Based On Data From 5 Facilities

Container/Tunnel $300 $1,000 $550 Based On Data From 11 Facilities

These capital cost estimates were applied to the SSO and mixed waste tonnage estimates generated for selected community sizes. To facilitate a review of operating costs, a reference cost, approximately midway between the low and high operating costs, gathered during the survey, was selected for further calculations and is depicted in Table 3.5. These estimates include amortized capital costs.

Table 3.5 – Summary of Operating Costs for Composting Technologies

Low High Reference Cost Technology

$/tonne Capacity Comment

Windrow — — $40 Estimate

Aerated Static Pile — — $40 Estimate, Includes Forced Aeration

Enclosed Channel $38 $70 $70 Based On Data From 5 Facilities

Container/Tunnel $40 $140 $100 Based On Data From 11 Facilities

24


To develop stand alone estimated operating costs estimated amortized capital costs were subtracted from these reference costs in the model. 3.6.1 Capital and Operating Costs – SSO The following assumptions were made:

• facility capacity based on SSO tonnage plus amendments from Year 1; • 40% of final composting mix are amendments (i.e., for every 60 tonnes SSO add

40 tonnes amendment); • amendments are delivered to site at no cost; • buildings and equipment are amortized over 20 years (i.e., planning window); • assumes estimated capital costs can be applied equally across all tonnages

(i.e., no economies of scale); and • no value was given to outgoing compost (conservative).

Table 3.6 summarizes the capital costs of each community size to construct a composting facility using each of the four technologies. Costs are expressed on a total and amortized basis.

Table 3.6 – Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs

2005 Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

SSO (tonnes) 2005 1,850 7,300 18,500.00

Amendment (%) 40 40 40

Total 2005 (tonnes) 3,083 12,166 30,833

Capital (Total)

Windrow $231,250 $912,500 $2,312,500

Aerated Static Pile $462,500 $1,825,000 $4,625,000

Enclosed Channel $925,000 $3,650,000 $9,250,000

Container/Tunnel $1,695,833 $6,691,667 $16,958,333

Amortization Period (yr) 20 20 20

Capital (amortized) $/yr Windrow $21,828 $86,134 $218,284

Aerated Static Pile $43,657 $172,267 $436,567

Enclosed Channel $87,313 $344,534 $873,135

Container/Tunnel $160,075 $631,646 $1,600,747

Capital (amortized) 2005 $/tonne/yr Windrow $7 $7 $7

Aerated Static Pile $14 $14 $14

Enclosed Channel $28 $28 $28

Container/Tunnel $52 $52 $52

25


The amortized capital cost varies from $7 - $52/tonne. Table 3.7 depicts the estimated annual operating costs. They were calculated by subtracting the amortized capital cost per tonne from the reference operating cost/tonne.

Table 3.7 – Summary of Operating Costs

Operating Costs $/yr Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

Windrow $101,505 $400,533 $1,015,050

Aerated Static Pile $79,677 $314,400 $796,766

Enclosed Channel $128,520 $507,132 $1,285,199

Container/Tunnel $148,259 $585,021 $1,482,587

The capital plus operating costs to process SSO was estimated to cost between $40 and $160/tonne/year. 3.6.2 Capital and Operating Costs – Mixed Wastes The following assumptions were made:

• facility capacity based on mixed waste tonnage + amendments from Year 1; • 0% of final composting mix are amendments (i.e., for every 100 tonnes SSO add

0 tonnes amendment) (this can vary); • amendments (if required) are delivered to site at no cost; • buildings and equipment are amortized over 20 years (i.e., planning window); • assumes estimated capital costs can be applied equally across all tonnages • assumes 20% premium in pre-processing and post-processing costs relative to SSO

composting; and • no value was given to outgoing compost (conservative)

Table 3.8 summarizes the capital costs of each community size to construct a composting facility using each of the four technologies. Costs are expressed on a total and amortized basis.

Table 3.8 – Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs

2005 Population 20,000 80,000 200,000 Mixed Waste (tonnes) 2005 6,000 24,000 60,000

Amendment (%) 0 0 0

Total 2005 (tonnes) 6,000 24,000 60,000Capital (total) Windrow $540,000 $2,160,000 $5,400,000

Aerated Static Pile $1,080,000 $4,320,000 $10,800,000

Enclosed Channel $2,160,000 $8,640,000 $21,600,000

26


2005 Population 20,000 80,000 200,000 Container/Tunnel $3,960,000 $15,840,000 $39,600,000

Amortization Period (yr) 20 20 20

Capital (Amortized) $/yr Windrow $50,972 $203,889 $509,722

Aerated Static Pile $101,944 $407,777 $1,019,444

Enclosed Channel $203,889 $815,555 $2,038,887

Container/Tunnel $373,796 $1,495,184 $3,737,960

Capital (Amortized) 2005 $/tonne/yr Windrow $8 $8 $8

Aerated Static Pile $17 $17 $17

Enclosed Channel $34 $34 $34

Container/Tunnel $62 $62 $62

The amortized capital costs varies from $8 - $62/tonne/year.

Table 3.9 estimates the annual operating costs. There were calculated by subtracting the amortized capital cost per tonne from the reference operating cost/tonne. The cost/tonne ranges from $33–$58.

Table 3.9 – Summary of Operating Costs

Operating Costs $/year Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

Windrow $249,028 $996,111 $2,490,278

Aerated Static Pile $198,056 $792,223 $1,980,556

Enclosed Channel $306,111 $1,224,445 $3,061,113

Container/Tunnel $346,204 $1,394,816 $3,462,040

The capital plus operating costs to process mixed waste was estimated to cost between $50 and $1,201 tonne/year. 3.6.3 Selection of Appropriate Technology Type by Community In theory one could construct and operate a compost facility for SSO using any of the technologies for each community size contemplated. For instance there are examples of composting facilities with relatively low annual tonnage (e.g., 5,000 or less) that utilize container/tunnel technology. Similarly, there are examples of composting facilities with relatively high annual tonnage (25,000 tonnes or greater) that utilize windrow technology. In practice there appear to be few composting facilities that use the aerated static pile technology.

27


There is typically an upward push with level of technology sophistication that can be positively correlated with the annual tonnage of organic waste processed. This also results in an increased cost. What is being paid for is the optimization of the composting process and the ability to contain and abate nuisances, in particular odour. The composting of SSO is more common than the composting of mixed waste. It is a product based process and relies on high quality feedstocks. In Canada there are approximately four mixed waste composting facilities. In the United States there are at least 20 mixed waste composting facilities. Because Canada has relatively strict regulatory requirements with regard to compost quality (e.g., metals) the trend is to compost SSO rather than mixed waste. The survey revealed that smaller communities selected across the spectrum of technologies. Larger communities tended to use enclosed channel or container/tunnel technologies. It is recognized by smaller and larger communities that these in-vessel technologies can facilitate high rate composting and can, if operated properly, abate any potential nuisances and in particular odour. That being said it is prudent for smaller communities to explore simpler non-reactor technologies for composting to minimize costs. Table 3.10 depicts the types of technologies municipalities could consider if they wish to develop a residential SSO composting program.

Table 3.10 – Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size (SSO)

Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

Windrow Y Y

Aerated Static Pile Y

Channel Y Y Y

Container/Tunnel Y Y Y

In theory one could construct and operate a compost facility for mixed waste using any of the technologies for each community size contemplated. However, there are very few mixed waste facilities in Canada and certainly none for the smaller community sizes (20,000 and 80,000). The survey revealed that composting of mixed waste is uncommon in Canada. This is largely because it does not result in the production of a compost product that meets acceptable regulatory standards. The three surveyed facilities that did undertake mixed waste composting were within larger communities – two used it for product manufacture and one used it for stabilizing wastes prior to landfilling. In Canada, mixed waste composting appears much more suited to a partially stabilized end product that can be landfilled or used as a fuel source for thermal treatment. In any event, it is reasonable to assume that mixed waste composting cannot take place in a non-reactor based system. The mixed waste after pre-processing will still likely be quite contaminated. This has an impact on processing and other issues such as litter. As is typically the case now, this type of composting is undertaken in a reactor system. Table 3.11 depicts the types of technologies municipalities could consider if they wish to develop a residential mixed waste composting program.

28


Table 3.11 – Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size (Mixed Waste)

Community Size (2005) 20,000 80,000 200,000

Windrow

Aerated Static Pile

Channel Y Y Y

Container/Tunnel Y Y Y

In reality it is not prudent for smaller communities to explore mixed waste composting because of the higher costs associated with reactor (i.e., in-vessel) composting systems and the uncertainty with regard to the quality of compost that may be produced. Larger communities (e.g., 200,000) could consider mixed waste composting but would have to determine what type of product they would like to produce (i.e., a compost product, landfill waste or fuel product).

3.7 Social Impacts 3.7.1 Social Acceptability From a social perspective, the composting of SSO removes this waste from the disposal waste stream and should result in the production of good quality compost. The composting of mixed waste does not have this same benefit because it is unlikely to result in the production of a compost that meets regulatory requirements. However, the partially stabilized end product may offer some benefit in a landfill (relative to untreated waste) and could be used as a fuel source for thermal treatment. There can be siting challenges with setting up a SSO or mixed waste composting facility – just as there are for other pieces of waste management infrastructure. However, siting challenges have been created by poor site selection and/or facility operators who have not operated their facilities properly resulting in significant source of off-site odour. This speaks to the need to conduct a rigorous site selection process to ensure that composting facilities are built in appropriate locations. Odour issues have crossed all technological stripes and speak to the relatively new development of composting, both technologically and operationally, as a tool for managing wastes in significant quantities. Centralized SSO composting has a reasonable level of social acceptability as a process but a lower local threshold of acceptability if a facility is to be built in a specific area. This speaks to the need to provide clear information and opportunities for the general public to let their opinions be heard. Acceptability is influenced primarily by the site selected, management group involved and the type of technology selected to undertake composting. There is less public familiarity with mixed waste composting because there are few facilities in Canada. Its social acceptability will likely be less than for SSO if its primary purpose is to

29


produce a compost product. If the intent is stabilize the waste prior to landfilling or to produce a fuel for thermal treatment its social acceptability may be improved.

3.7.2 Footprint and Land Use While it is true that high rate composting takes up less space with reactor versus non-reactor composting technologies, the size of a composting facility is impacted by factors including site turnover (i.e., how often same space is used annually). As part of the compost facility survey, the facility size (including curing areas, buffers) was divided by the processing capacity to determine how many square metres are required per tonne of processing capacity. Not surprisingly this analysis revealed that there was a relationship between annual capacity and the facility area although there was considerable variability. A rough average space requirement of 0.75 m²/tonne processing capacity was calculated. This would mean that for 1,000 tonnes of capacity one would need a facility of 750 m². The space requirement is a function of site turnover (i.e., many facilities turnover composting space a number of times per year). This estimate likely underestimates space requirements for smaller facilities. Table 3.12 depicts estimated site sizes for the various communities. It should be noted that actual facility size is highly site specific and can vary considerably. This calculation represents a rough guide at best.

Table 3.12 – Estimated Site Size for Selected Communities

Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

SSO

Approximate tonnage 3,083 12,167 30,833

Estimated Site Size (ha) 0.23 0.91 2.3

Mixed Waste

Approximate tonnage (2025) 6,000 24,000 60,000

Estimated Site Size (ha) 0.45 1.8 4.5

There is the potential for land-use conflicts (e.g., agricultural land) when developing SSO or mixed waste composting infrastructure. A compost facility does not require high quality land. They are best developed at locations of existing waste management infrastructure (e.g., landfill), industrially zoned land (with appropriate set backs built into design) or non prime agricultural rural lands. To minimize land-use conflicts it is prudent to undertake a rigorous site selection process. 3.7.3 Employment The employment opportunities are estimated to range in the neighbourhood of 0.1-0.4 employees per 1,000 tonnes processed, with that ratio decreasing as the annual incoming tonnage increases. Table 3.13 depicts an estimate of the numbers of employees that would be required at a composting facility for the different population sizes.

30


Table 3.13 – Estimate of Employee Requirements per Municipality Size

Population 20,000 80,000 200,000 SSO Annual Estimated Tonnage 3,083 12,167 30,833

Estimated Employees 1-2 2-4 3-6

Mixed Waste Annual Estimated Tonnage 6,000 24,000 60,000

Estimated Employees 1-3 4-8 6-12

3.7.4 Nuisance Impacts There a number of potential nuisances that can be generated from composting SSO and mixed waste including dust, noise, traffic, odour, vermin, litter. The most significant of these potential nuisances is odour. It should be stated quite clearly that all composting processes generate odour. Composting is an aerobic biological process that occurs in the presence of oxygen. In the absence of sufficient oxygen anaerobic pockets can develop and spread, leading to the generation of odorous off-gases. The management of odours is a balancing act between ensuring the process remains largely aerobic and through the management of odorous off-gases that are generated. Odorous off-gases can be managed through dispersion (non-reactor systems) or odour abatement equipment such as biofilters (typically part of reactor systems). The social impact of SSO and mixed waste composting can be minimized by applying a special focus to the minimization and management of odour generation. Other potential nuisances are similar to those that may be generated at other waste management infrastructure and other industrial applications. The social impact of these potential nuisances can be managed through advance planning and sound management. 3.7.5 Traffic The traffic impacts from SSO or mixed waste compost facilities are a function of the quantity of material delivered to the facility and the size of the trucks employed. Table 3.14 illustrates the estimated number of trucks associated with various sized facilities. If a composting facility is properly sited then the impact due to traffic should be minimal.

31


Table 3.14 – Compost Facility Daily Traffic Impacts

Population Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes)

Range of Daily Quantity (Tonnes)

Number of 10 Tonne Packer Trucks

Per Day

Number of 30 tonne Transfer Trailors Per Day

20,000 1,850 – 6,000 7 – 23 1 – 3 <1

80,000 7,300 – 24,000 28 – 92 3 – 9 1 – 3

200,000 18,500 – 60,000 71 – 230 7 – 23 4-8

Based on 5 days/week; does not include amendments. 3.8 Environmental Impacts This section is largely adapted from FCM, 2004. One of the most positive environmental impacts of SSO composting is that it ensures that organic waste is diverted from landfill. This has a number of important, positive impacts:

• organic waste in landfill generates an acidic leachate as it decomposes anaerobically. This acidic environment precipitates metals from landfilled waste into the leachate, resulting in an acidic, metal-laden leachate which must be treated prior to discharge; and

• organic waste generates methane gas in landfills as it decomposes. In well engineered landfills, this gas is collected and in some cases recovered for energy. However, in many Canadian landfills the value of this gas is lost as it is flared, and, in other cases it simply escapes to the atmosphere as methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas (21 times more powerful than CO2). Diversion of the organic waste from landfill reduces this negative environmental impact.

The other positive environmental impact of composting is that it produces a compost material which can be spread on soil to add some nutrient value, but more significantly, to add carbon and structure back into the soil. Mixed waste composting could result in similar benefits, although as discussed previously, it is unlikely that good quality compost will be produced. Specific benefits are described in the following sections: 3.8.1 Renewable Energy Composting does not result in the direct production of renewable energy. Mixed waste composting could result in the production of a fuel that could be used for thermal treatment. Thermal treatment is discussion in Section 7 of this report. 3.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions When waste is placed in a landfill, the degradable materials are converted to methane, which has 21 times the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide. Composting removes this waste from the landfill and results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

32


The emission factors calculated in a study performed by ICF Consulting for Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada titled “Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 Update” (ICF, 2005) were used. The study provided emission factor data and estimated that the Net Carbon Flux Tonne eCO2/tonne is 0.270 tonnes/tonne organic waste. Table 3.15 provides an estimate of GHG net emissions due to composting.

Table 3.15 – Estimate of Net GHG Emissions for Composting SSO and Mixed Waste

Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

SSO

Approximate Cumulative Tonnage 1 3,083 12,167 30,833

Net Carbon Flux Tonne eCO2

(832) (3,285) (8,325)

Mixed Waste

Approximate Cumulative Tonnage 2 2,471 9,641 24,714

Net Carbon Flux Tonne eCO2

(533) (2,066) (5,330)

1 Includes amendments. 2 Tonnes composted.

In smaller communities with non-engineered landfills the GHG reductions, as it relates to composting, should be much greater because no methane is captured. 3.8.3 Other Emissions As part of the FCM, 2004 study, the EPIC/CSR IWM (Integrated Waste Management) model was used to determine the environmental impacts of composting versus landfilling the same waste. A high end engineered landfill design with a leachate collection system, a landfill gas recovery system and a gas-to-energy conversion system was assumed for the analysis. The results of this analysis as it pertains to Other Emissions are presented in qualitative form collectively for SSO and mixed waste composting. For mixed waste composting it is assumed that the waste is removed from the landfill stream. Impacts of using the resultant product (i.e., residue) as a fuel for thermal treatment are not contemplated here. Table 3.16 presents a qualitative overview of estimated acid gas emissions resulting from composting versus landfilling the same waste. Landfilling results in a reduction in SOx and HCl emissions (through energy offsets). The higher composting emissions result from the transportation of the residue from the composting process to a nearby landfill. Landfilling produces more VOCs and similar particulate matter (PM) as composting.

33


Table 3.16 – Acid Gas Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared to Landfilling

Acid Gas Emission Highly Engineered Landfill (kg)

Composting (kg)

Acid Gases NOx Higher Lower

SOx Lower Higher

HCl Lower Higher

Smog Precursors: PM Similar Similar

VOCs Higher Lower

Table 3.17 presents the estimated toxic emissions of composting compared to landfilling waste. Both air and water emissions were considered. There are more air emissions (Pb, Hg, Cd) associated with composting as compared to landfilling. However, landfilling generates more dioxins. Landfilling results in greater water emissions of Hg, Cd, BOD and dioxin. Pb (lead) water emissions are higher for composting.

Table 3.17 – Toxic Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared to Landfilling

Acid Gas Emission Highly Engineered Landfill Composting Air Pb (kg) Lower Higher

Hg (kg) Lower Higher

Cd (kg) Lower Higher

Dioxins (TEQ) (g) Higher Negligible

Water Pb (kg) Lower Higher

Hg (kg) Higher Negligible

Cd (kg) Higher Lower

BOD (kg) Higher Lower

Dioxins (TEQ) (mg) Higher Lower

34


3.9 Summary 3.9.1 SSO Table 3.18 depicts a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through an SSO program.

Table 3.18 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through SSO Composting Program

Population 20,000 200,000

Facility Throughput (tonnes) 3,083 12,166 30,833

Total Capital Cost ($1000s) 231-1,695 912-6,691 2,312-16,958

Total Operating Cost ($1000s) 101-148 400-585 1,015-1,482

Cost/Tonne annualized ($) 40-100 40-100 40-100

Footprint Size (ha) >0.23 0.91 2.3

Zoning Requirements Varies Varies Varies

Approvals Required Varies Varies Varies

GHG Emissions Low Low Low


High High High


Lower than Landfill Lower than Landfill Lower than Landfill

Public Acceptability Medium Medium Medium

Energy Recovery Potential NA NA NA


See Section 4.2 See Section 4.2 See Section 4.2

Potential Social Impacts Positive: Employment

Negative: Odour

followed by leachate, dust, traffic litter and

noise

Positive: Employment

Negative: Odour


noise


Negative: Odour followed by leachate, dust, traffic litter and

noise

80,000

In general SSO composting has a positive impact because it is removing wastes from the disposal stream. It produces a beneficial product which can be reintroduced into the soil. In general, all composting technologies can be used for incoming tonnages. The actual selection of a technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis undertaken that evaluates

35


the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts. The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage potential negative social and environmental impacts – and deciding if these can be passively managed (i.e., typical in non-reactor systems) or need to be actively managed (i.e., typical in reactor systems). The key determiner of technology will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. Therefore in areas with access to remote sites, a non-reactor based system can be contemplated and developed. In heavily populated areas this is more challenging and therefore, a reactor based system will likely be selected. For the communities selected the 20,000 and possibly the 80,000 person population can choose from all available technologies and can seriously consider the use of a non-reactor type composting system. The 200,000 person population is unlikely to have remote locations in which to build a non-reactor style facility and unless it has access to a remote site some distance away it will likely opt for a reactor style composting facility. In terms of costs, this means that smaller communities have the potential to develop a SSO program on a cost effective basis through the selection of a non-reactor composting technology. For larger communities, the costs will likely be higher but they will have the tax base to support this type of development. 3.9.2 Mixed Waste Table 3.19 depicts a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through a mixed waste program.

Table 3.19 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through Mixed Waste Composting Program

Population

20,000 80,000 200,000

Facility Throughput (tonnes) 6,000 24,000 60,000

Total Capital Cost ($1000s) 540 - 3,960 2,160 - 15,840 5,400 - 39,600

Total Operating Cost ($1000s) 249 - 346 996 - 1,384 2,490 - 3,462

Cost/Tonne annualized ($) 50 - 120 50 - 120 50 - 120

Footprint Size (ha) >0.45 1.8 4.5

Zoning Requirements Varies Varies Varies

Approvals Required Varies Varies Varies

GHG Emissions Low Low Low


Low-Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium

36


Population

20,000 80,000 200,000 Potential Environmental Impacts

Lower than Landfill Lower than Landfill Lower than Landfill

Public Acceptability Low-Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium

Energy Recovery Potential NA NA NA


See Section 4.2. See Section 4.2. See Section 4.2.

Potential Social Impacts


Negative: Odour


noise


Negative: Odour


noise


Negative: Odour


noise

Mixed waste composting is uncommon. It is difficult to produce a compost product which will meet regulatory requirements. The resultant residual material will likely be relatively benign for landfilling as compared to raw organic waste. The composted mixed waste may be useful as a source of fuel for thermal treatment. In general, reactor (i.e., in-vessel) composting technologies should be used for mixed waste composting. This minimizes the opportunity for smaller communities to undertake this type of composting due to costs. For larger communities (i.e., 200,000) the actual selection of a technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis undertaken that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts. The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage these potential negative environmental and social impacts. The key determiner of technology will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. 3.10 References FCM, 2004. Review of Waste Technologies, Solid Waste as a Resource ICF Consulting. 2005. Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emission. 2005 Update Final Reports. Report submitted to Environment Canada.

37


4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION - SSO AND MIXED WASTE

4.1 Introduction and Overview This section describes and evaluates the processing of SSO (source separated organics) and mixed waste in anaerobic digesters. Because the digestion process is identical for both waste streams, and the main differences are related to technical and energy issues such as pre-processing equipment, energy balance, gas production and residue rates, the text deals with processing of both streams in the same section. Where differences in approach are involved, these are noted. A glossary of terms is available at the end of this section. The tonnage of waste which will be processed at the SSO anaerobic digestion facility and the mixed waste processing facility is presented in Table 4.1 for the different scenarios.

Table 4.1 – Tonnage to Anerobic Digestion for Different Scenarios

Community Size (Population)

Tonnage To Anaerobic Digestion in Source Separated Organics (SSO)

Scenario

Tonnage to Mixed Waste Digestion in Mixed Waste

Processing Scenario 20,000 1,845 2,470

80,000 7,338 9,641

200,000 18,453 24,714

4.2 Technology Background and Current Status

Background to Anaerobic Digestion Technology Anaerobic digestion is a naturally occurring biological process that uses microbes to break down organic material in the absence of oxygen. In engineered anaerobic digesters, the digestion of organic waste takes place in a special reactor, or enclosed chamber, where critical environmental conditions such as moisture content, temperature and pH levels can be controlled to maximize gas generation and waste decomposition rates. One of the by-products generated during the digestion process is biogas, which consists of mostly methane (ranging from 55% to 70%) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane is the same as natural gas. In an engineered anaerobic digestion system, the breakdown of organic materials to produce methane gas occurs in 2-3 weeks, compared to decades under anaerobic conditions in a landfill. The benefit of an anaerobic digestion process is that it is a net generator of energy. The excess energy produced by the anaerobic digestion facility, which is not required for in-plant operations, can be sold off-site in the form of heat, steam or electricity. The level of biogas produced depends on several key factors including the process design, the volatile solids in the feedstock (which varies depending on the composition of the feedstock) and the carbon/nitrogen (C:N) ratio.8 A typical schematic of an anaerobic digestion facility is shown on Figure 4.1.

8 Hackett, Colin and Williams, Robert. September 2004. Evaluation of Conversion Technology Processes and Products. Prepared

for the California Integrated Waste Management Board

38


Figure 4.1 – Typical Schematic for Anaerobic Digestion Plant9

9 Taken from Section 4, Solid Waste as a Resource; Guide for Sustainable Communities, Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, March 2004

Weigh Scales

Excess Wastewater Treatment to

Remove N, P, BOD

Digestate Post-

Processing

Dewater Digestate

Anaerobic Digester(s)

Pre-processing

Recyclables to Market

Waste In

Biogas Cleaning

Biogas to Energy

Residue to Landfill or

Incineration


Incineration

Tipping Floor

Curing at Aerobic Composter


Incineration

Post processing

Compost to Market

39


Locations Where Anaerobic Digestion Currently Used There are over 100,000 wastewater treatment plants around the world using anaerobic digestion to process biosolids from wastewater treatment operations. More recently, anaerobic digestion systems have been used to treat other biosolids, such as animal manures. Low tech anaerobic digesters are used at a household and community level in many developing countries, such as China and India, to generate heating and cooking fuel. Anaerobic digestion has only been considered for treatment of municipal solid waste (SSO and mixed waste) in the last 10-20 years. The production of excess energy, and a secure market price for “green energy” from renewable resources, in particular in Europe and California, has resulted in a significantly increased interest in anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in the last 10 years. Status of Anaerobic Digestion of MSW in Canada The use of anaerobic digestion technology to treat MSW has been slow to penetrate the North American market, mostly because of high costs compared to other options. The two operating anaerobic digestion plants that process municipal waste in North America are located in the Toronto area: • the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility is located at the City of Toronto Dufferin

Transfer Station in north-west Toronto, and uses BTA technology (a wet-digestion, German technology);

• the HRL anaerobic digestion facility in Newmarket, Ontario has the capacity to process up to 150,000 tonnes/year of source separated organics and also some mixed waste loads. The facility uses BTA technology (a wet digestion process from Germany).

A third, two-stage anaerobic digestion facility was constructed in Guelph, Ontario in the late 1990’s, but is closed at this time. There are no commercial anaerobic digestion facilities operating in the United States that process municipal solid waste or source separated organic waste. One pilot anaerobic digestion facility is under construction at UC Davis in California, with a capacity to treat 3 tonnes/day. Status of Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste in the US Co-digestion of municipal solid waste with biosolids was attempted by some communities in the US in the 1980’s (Pompano Beach and Walt Disney World, Florida, Hawaii and University of Berkley, California), but none lead to full scale programs. There is a renewed interest in anaerobic digestion of MSW in a number of US communities, because of the energy benefits, and a significant focus on renewable energy sources.

40


The City of Greensboro, North Carolina conducted a pilot project in the year 2000 to process 30,000 tons per year of yard waste using anaerobic digestion technology. The yard waste comprised of leaves, grass clippings, plant material and branches. The anaerobic digestion system was designed by Duke Engineering & Services, which invested two-thirds of the required capital, with the City investing the remaining one-third. The team intended to turn the pilot into a full scale system and to show that anaerobic digestion was viable for garden waste. The pilot was not successful and the plant was eventually dismantled.10 The system encountered many problems including difficulty maintaining the necessary heat in the reactor to optimize biogas generation; the lignocellulosic material failed to break down and removal of plastic bag pieces in the feedstock created problems. This operating experience illustrates the sensitivity of anaerobic digestion to incoming feedstocks and the need to add sufficient food and paper to the digester to ensure high gas production to make the anaerobic digestion facility energy self sufficient. A number of large communities in the United States have recently entered into agreements to process SSO waste using anaerobic digestion technology. Others are in negotiations with anaerobic digestion suppliers or have undertaken feasibility studies examining anaerobic technology among a range of other “Conversion” technologies to treat municipal waste. In many cases, the anaerobic digestion technology vendor has secured financing for the project, subject to agreements on delivery of feedstock to the anaerobic digestion plant by the municipality, and an agreement that the anaerobic digestion vendor will produce a secure stream of “green energy” at an agreed purchase price. One of the attractions of anaerobic digestion in particular is the ability for cities to show that they are making efforts to reach renewable energy targets through promotion and support of anaerobic digestion projects. However, to date, none of these projects has successfully operated at full scale for any length of time. Some recent examples are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – Communities in United States Investigating Anaerobic Digestion for MSW

Community Status

City of Los Angeles, California Entered into an agreement with BioConverter, United States to construct an anaerobic digestion plant to process 3,000 t/d (780,000 t/y) of green waste

City of Lancaster, California Were in negotiations with BioConverter to construct an anaerobic digestion plant to process 200 t/d (52,000t/y) of green waste.

City of Seattle, Washington Evaluated 26 food waste anaerobic digestion technologies to determine the feasibility of implementing a facility capable of processing up to 50,000 t/y of food waste

Santa Barbara County, California

Anaerobic digestion is one of a number of conversion technologies evaluated to process municipal solid waste

Linn County, Iowa A study was conducted to analyze the feasibility of anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes

10 Conversation with Ms. Covington, Director of Environment, City of Greensboro, North Carolina on December 4,

2004.

41


Co-Digestion of SSO or Mixed Waste with Animal Manures or Biosolids Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, Sustainable Technology Development Canada (STDC) and Federation of Canadian Municipalities provide funding to digestion and co-digestion of animal manures with other biomass and biosolids in Canada. It is possible to co-digested MSW or SSO with animal manures and biosolids from wastewater treatment plants. This practice is common in Europe, but there are no co-digestion facilities in North America. The City of Lethbridge is currently evaluating the viability of added food waste from local businesses to the digesters at the wastewater treatment plant to boost gas production. Anaerobic Digestion of SSO and MSW in Europe Virtually all examples of anaerobic digestion facilities treating SSO or municipal solid waste are located in Europe. Anaerobic digestion plants processing SSO and mixed waste have been constructed primarily in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland. High capacity systems to treat mixed municipal solid waste have been introduced recently in Spain, Portugal and Italy. Japan also has some anaerobic digestion facilities. In Europe, many communities co-digest municipal solid waste with animal manures or biosolids from wastewater treatment facilities. Digestion of farm manures (and generation of energy) is common in Europe, where there are more space constraints for processing of animal manures, and due to nutrient management and other regulations, more stringent requirements are in place for stabilization and management of farm manures prior to release into the environment. Table 4.3 shows key anaerobic digestion companies processing SSO or mixed waste feedstock in Europe in 2003.

Table 4.3 – Companies Processing SSO and Mixed Waste in Anaerobic Digesters in Europe in 200311

Company Technology Number of Plants

Total Capacity (tpy)

Linde-KCA, Switzerland BRV 2012 992,500

Valgora International, France Valgora 11 884,400

OWS, Belgium Dranco 7 165,000

Kompogas, Switzerland Kompogas 19 274,000

Citec Environmental, Finland Wassa 1113 288,500

It was estimated that in 1999 that European anaerobic digestion plants processed about one million tons/year of mixed MSW or SSO in 53 plants. Figures for 2004 suggest that

11 EurObserv’ER, August 2004 and DRANCO information 12 The Linde figure includes AD facilities processing animal liquid manure; therefore, the number of plants cited do not

match those provided in this report which deal only with those facilities processing biowaste. 13 Three of the facilities are demonstration plants or in the conceptual stages, which were not included.

42


107 anaerobic digestion plants are being constructed or processing the organic fraction of municipal solid waste operate worldwide. Most (95%) of these are located in Europe.14 Table 4.4 presents the number of anaerobic digestion facilities in existence at this time which process residential SSO or mixed municipal solid waste. There are 13 anaerobic digestion technology vendors of significance in the global market at this time, with a number of facilities in operation. Numerous newer anaerobic digestion technologies, vendors and approaches have entered the market recently, and this trend is expected to continue with the increased interest in renewable energy. Many of the facilities currently in operation, particularly those with operational experience of more than a year or two, have capacities smaller than 20,000 tonnes per year, although there is a trend to build larger anaerobic digestion facilities because of economies of scale. Table 4.4 presents information for wet and dry anaerobic digestion technologies separately. Wet digestion is more suitable for mixed waste streams, if removal of plastic is important, but requires more energy for in-plant needs. Dry anaerobic digestion technologies are well suited to processing SSO as well as mixed waste, and generally produce more energy for export. The table shows that there are 74 anaerobic digestion facilities in operation, mostly in Europe, which process SSO or mixed waste. An additional 28 are under construction, and negotiations are underway to construct additional facilities. In two cases, the vendors do not have full scale facilities in operation at this time, but are negotiating construction of five separate facilities. Of the 74 existing facilities:

• 28 are in Germany; • 12 are in Switzerland; • 7 are in Spain; • Austria and Italy each have 5; • Japan and France each have 4; • Belgium and the Netherlands each have 3; • Canada has two operating, and a third which is currently closed; • Finland, Sweden, Denmark15, Libya, Korea, Israel and Portugal each have one.

14 Cragg, Robert. Anaerobic Digestion: Can It Be Successfully Applied to MSW Management? Recycling Association

of Minnesota and Solid Waste Association of North America 9th Annual Fall Conference, Fall 2004. 15 May be closed.

43


Table 4.4 – Existing and Planned Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO and Mixed Municipal Solid Waste

Facilities Processing Residential Waste Capacity

(Number of Facilities in Full Operation Only) Technology Total No. <20,000

(tpy) 20,000 to

50,000 (tpy)

50,000 to 100,000

(tpy)

>100,000 (tpy)

Dry Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Kompogas

(Kompogas, Switzerland) 19 Full 8 Part

15 4 0 0

Dranco (Organic Waste Systems, Belgium)

7 Full 6 Part

3 3 1 0

Linde (Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH,

Germany)

4 Full 1 Part

1 3 0 0

Biopercolat (Wehrle-Werk, Germany)

1 Full 1 Part

1 0 0 0

ISKA (U-plus Umweltservice AG,

Germany)

1 Full 3 Part

0 1 0 0

Valorga (Valorga, France)

10 Full 3part

1 2 4 3

Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facilities APS

(Onsite Power Systems, United States)

0 Full 3 Neg.

0 0 0 0

ArrowBio (Arrow Ecology Ltd, Israel)

1 Full 0 0 1 0

BTA (Biotechnische Abfallverwer-tund

GmbH, Germany)

13 Full 2 Part

4 6 2 1

Waasa (Citec Environmental, Finland)

8 Full

5 1 1 1

Linde (Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH,

Germany)

6 Full 5 Part

1 2 2 1

BioConverter (Bioconverter, United States)

0 Full 2 Neg.

0 0 0 0

Entec (Environment Technology GmbH,

Austria) 4 Full 2 1 0 1

Total 74 Full 28 Part 5 Neg.

33 23 11 7

Full = Full Operation Part = Under Construction Neg = Under Negotiations

44


4.3 Anaerobic Digestion Facility Processing Steps Most anaerobic digestion technologies use a similar approach to processing organic waste or mixed municipal waste; the difference is that mixed waste digestion requires additional front end processing steps to make the mixed waste stream suitable for digestion. The general approach to digestion of SSO and mixed municipal waste is illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Anaerobic Digestion Process

MSW

kitchen and garden wastefeedstock

Source separatedorganic waste and

garden waste

mechanicalseparation

Mixing or Pulping orHydrolysis

Digestion

Digestate

Dewatering

Biogas

Energy- electricity

- steam- heat

AnaerobicDigestion Process

excess energy forsale

Sale

Disposal

Recyclables

Residual

WastewaterTreatment

Composting

Figure 4.2 – Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion

Pre-processing: The organic feedstock is processed through a range of equipment to reduce the size of the material and remove contaminants. Pre-processing (i.e., processing prior to the digester) may involve the use of a sieve, trommel screen, chopper, magnet and/or other device to remove contaminants such as stones, metal, glass and plastic from the feedstock prior to the mixing stage. An anaerobic digestion plant which processes SSO has a relatively simple front end processing system, as minimal contamination removal is required. Where mixed waste is digested, front end processing is more complex, because more contamination needs to be removed. The front end is often designed to remover recyclables also. Mixing: In the mixing stage, the feedstock is mixed with heated water or steam to increase the moisture content and the temperature of the waste to be processed. A starter innoculum is added to initiate microbial activity at the mixing stage. The water is heated using biogas from the digestion process. Mixing with the warm water or steam raises the temperature of the waste to be processed in order to increase the rate of microbial reaction and therefore the extent of organic material degradation within the

45


anaerobic digestion reactor. The innoculum is supplied from either the digested waste stream from the anaerobic digestion reactor or from the wastewater produced during de-watering. Digestion: The waste is then fed into the anaerobic digestion reactor. After a digestion period which is usually 14 to 21 days, the anaerobic digestion reactor produces a material which is dewatered to produce a relatively solid residue (referred to as digestate) and biogas. Energy Production: An anaerobic digestion plant generates sufficient biogas to meet in-plant energy needs as well as to export energy to other users. Excess energy can be sold in the form of electricity, steam or heat. The ideal location for an anaerobic digester is where there is a large heat load or steam load user adjacent to the anaerobic digestion plant. There are a number of examples of this arrangement in Europe, but the Canadian anaerobic digestion facilities in place at this time are not located near industrial heat loads. Dewatering of Anaerobic Digestion Reactor Contents: The solid product that is produced by the digester is de-watered using centrifuges, belt filter presses or other dewatering equipment. The liquid from the dewatering process is directed to the wastewater treatment system, or is discharged directly to on-site sewers. Where the digester is co-located with a landfill, the landfill wastewater treatment system can be used. Some wastewater from the dewatering process is re-introduced back into the earlier digestion steps. Digestate: The solid produced by dewatering is referred to as digestate. The digestate has a moisture content of about 50% (i.e., contains about 50% solids) and is usually composted (cured), generally off-site, to achieve additional biological stabilization prior to marketing as a compost product. Some European anaerobic digestion facilities allow farmers to land-apply digestate without further stabilization. Composting for final curing of digestate can be carried out on-site, or the digestate is more frequently trucked off-site to a separate facility. Some European facilities cure digestate on-site. Generally these sites are located where the composting operation was the original intent of the site, and the digester was added at a later stage to provide additional capacity, so that the composting and digestion are co-located. The Dufferin Organics Processing Facility in Toronto trucks digestate to the All-Treat Farms site in Arthur, Ontario for final curing.

4.4 Anaerobic Digestion Design Options There are three fundamental design decisions which need to be made when choosing an anaerobic digester to process municipal SSO or mixed waste. Designs are either one or two stage, are either wet or dry, and operate in either thermophilic or mesophilic environments. The three key variations on anaerobic digestion facility design are therefore:

• Single Stage versus Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion Systems; • Wet versus Dry Anaerobic Digestion Systems; and • Thermophilic versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Systems.

Various permutations and combinations of these three process variables are used by different anaerobic digestion technology vendors. The possible combinations are shown in Figure 4.3 and are discussed briefly in the following text, as each have somewhat different environmental,

46


energy and economic implications. The dry, one stage, thermophilic design will be used for the economic analysis.

One StageProduction

Wet Process

Mesophilic Process

Thermophilic Process

Dry Process

Mesophilic Process


Two StageProduction

Wet Process

Mesophilic Process


Dry Process

Mesophilic Process


Figure 4.3 – Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Variations

Many anaerobic digestion technologies are available that claim to process municipal organic waste, either as separately collected residential organic waste (including food waste and garden waste) or as a mixed waste following source separation of some recyclables. Depending on the feedstock and operating restrictions (e.g., energy and water requirements), some technologies may be better suited to processing SSO than others. 4.4.1 Single and Two Stage Digestion Systems The production of biogas from organic waste in an anaerobic environment involves two separate biological processes; acidification and methanogenesis. In one stage anaerobic digestion systems, both of these biological reactions take place at the same time in a single enclosed reactor. Two stage systems provide a separate reactor for the acidification step and the methane production process. Single Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Designs - European plants that process household organic waste are mostly one-stage systems. The predominance of one-stage systems is due to the technology’s relatively simple design compared to two stage or multi-stage systems, less frequent technical failures and lower capital costs16. The production rate of biogas seems to be comparable to two stage or multi-stage systems. Figure 4.4 shows a process schematic for a single stage anaerobic digestion facility.

16 Vandevivere. P. et. Al. 1999. Types of Anaerobic Digesters for Solid Wastes.

47


Hydrolysis(breakdown of complex organic matter into

sugars and amino acids)

Acidogenesis(material reduced to simple acids)

Acetogenesis(further breakdown of material into acetate,

CO2 and H2)

Methanogenesis(formation of methane and CO2)

HYDROLYSIS and DIGESTER STAGE

Adapted from Ostrem, 2004 and Erickson, 2004

Single Stage AD Process

Figure 4.4 – Process Schematic for One Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Designs – Two stage AD systems have been used for processing biosolids in wastewater treatment plants for over 50 years, to optimize the environment for “acid forming” and “methane forming” bacteria. The key advantage of a two stage anaerobic digestion process is that the different processes can occur under different preferred pH conditions. The hydrolysis stage occurs best under acidic conditions (below 5 pH)17. Under these conditions, the methanogenic bacteria (methane formers) would die since they need to live in pH conditions above 6.0, with optimum pH conditions between 7.0 to 7.2 pH18. The theory behind two-stage processes is that optimizing each process will lead to higher gas yield and breakdown of organic matter. However, experience to date with MSW systems is that the additional costs of the extra tankage can not be justified in terms of the higher gas yield, therefore some companies who experimented with two stage systems in the past have reverted to one stage, or prefer one stage systems. Figure 4.5 shows a process schematic for a two-stage anaerobic digestion process.

17 Ostrem, Karena. May 2004. Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic Fraction of Municipal

Solid Wastes. Columbia University. 18 Vermer, Shefali. May 2002. Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes. Columbia

University.

48


Two Stage AD Process

First StageHYDROLYSIS STAGE

Hydrolysis(breakdown of complex organic matter into

sugars and amino acids)

Acidogenesis(material reduced to simple acids)

Acetogenesis(further breakdown of material into acetate,

CO2 and H2)

Adapted from Ostrem, 2004 and Erickson, 2004

Second StageDIGESTER STAGE

Methanogenesis(formation of methane and CO2)

Figure 4.5 – Process Flow Chart for Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design

Trade-Offs Between One Stage versus Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion Systems The advantages and disadvantages of one versus two stage anaerobic digestion systems are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 – Advantages and Disadvantages of One Stage Versus Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion System Designs

One Stage Anaerobic Digestion Systems Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion Systems Advantages • Lower capital cost • Easier to operate • Less technical failures

Advantages • Potentially higher gas yields • More breakdown of biodegradable

material under optimal conditions

Disadvantages • Conditions for two stages are not optimized • May lead to somewhat lower biogas yields

Disadvantages • Higher cost • More technical complexity • More technical failures

49


4.4.2 Wet Versus Dry Anaerobic Digestion System Designs The choice of a wet or dry anaerobic digestion system design has a significant impact on the energy balance of the anaerobic digestion facility, as the wet system has a larger internal plant energy load and has less energy available for export. A wet facility requires much more water than a dry system. However, the wet system is useful for removing large amounts of plastic from incoming material. Each is described below. The City of Toronto chose a wet (BTA) system design for the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility, as this provided the flexibility to permit plastic bags in the Toronto Green Bin program. Wet Anaerobic Digestion System – A “wet” AD system is designed to process a dilute organic slurry with 10-15% total solids (85% to 90% moisture content). The slurry fed to the digesters has the consistency of soup. This wet slurry is created by adding approximately 1 m; of water to each tonne of incoming waste. Wet anaerobic digestion system designs have been adapted from wastewater treatment plant designs, and have had to overcome a number of challenges to treat municipal solid waste. The production of a wet slurry from SSO or mixed MSW can result in the loss of volatile organics, the part of the organic waste which is required to produce biogas and energy. Short circuiting can also cause a loss of volatile solids. A wet slurry inside the digestion reactor will tend to separate into layers of material, with a floating layer of scum at the top of the reactor. This can prevent proper mixing, while the heaviest particles will settle to the bottom where they can cause damage to the reactor’s pumps19. One of the challenges associated with single stage wet anaerobic digestion systems is that the slurry inside the reactor requires frequent mixing in order to reduce the chance of over-acidification, causing a drop in pH and the potential death of the methanogenic (methane producing) bacteria. A study by Iowa Department of Natural Resources concluded that “In general, the wet single-step systems are not very well suited for digesting the organic fraction of municipal solid waste alone. Besides the accumulation of sand and stone sediments in the reactor and a formation of plastic films, a fibrous material has a tendency to form strings that wind around the continuously stirred tank reactor stirrer”.20 Wet systems used to process municipal organic waste have tended to be used in combination with more dilute feedstocks such as animal manures or wastewater treatment biosolids in co-digestion systems. This approach is popular in some municipalities in Europe, as it addresses two processing needs at the same time with the same technology. Approximately 50 of the 90 wet systems in Europe co-digest the MSW with manure.21 Dry Anaerobic Digestion Systems - Dry anaerobic digestion systems use considerably less water than wet systems; they mix approximately 0.3 m; of water to each tonne of incoming waste to produce an organic slurry of 20-40% total solids content (60% to 80% moisture content). Because of the requirement to heat smaller amounts of water, and carry out less

19 Vandevivere. P. et. Al. 1999. Types of Anaerobic Digesters for Solid Wastes. 20 R.W. Beck. June 2004. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study: Final Report. Prepared for the Bluestem Solid

Waste Agency and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 21 R.W. Beck. June 2004. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study: Final Report. Prepared for the Bluestem Solid

Waste Agency and Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

50


dewatering after digestion, dry anaerobic digestion designs have lower energy requirements for in-plant needs than wet anaerobic digestion system designs. This in turn leads to more energy available for export. Many dry anaerobic digestion systems use plug flow reactor designs. This approach helps to maintain a balanced organic load inside the anaerobic digestion reactor by adding partially fermented slurry into the anaerobic digestion reactor while fully digested residue is extracted. One of the advantages of the single stage dry anaerobic digestion system design is that it can more readily handle contaminants (i.e., stones, glass, plastic, metals) in the digester compared to wet anaerobic digestion systems.

Trade-Offs Between Wet Anaerobic Digestion and Dry Anaerobic Digestion Designs Trade offs between wet and dry anaerobic digestion designs are presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 – Advantages And Disadvantages of Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion System Designs

Dry Anaerobic Digestion Systems Wet Anaerobic Digestion Systems Advantages • Less energy requirements. • More energy available for export.

Advantages • Can remove plastic from incoming

waste stream. • More suited for co-digestion with

animal manures or biosolids.

Disadvantages • Cannot handle high plastic content in

incoming waste.

Disadvantages • Higher water requirements. • Higher energy needs to heat and

pump water. • Higher energy needs to dewater

digester contents. • Loss of volatile solids and

potentially lower gas yields.

4.4.3 Thermophilic Versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Systems Designs Two operating temperature ranges (mesophilic or thermophilic) are typically used in anaerobic digestion system designs. These have implications for odours and energy generation. Mesophilic Process – A mesophilic anaerobic digestion process operates within a temperature range of 30°C to 35°C (86°F to 95°F), and at an optimal temperature of about 35°C (95°F). The advantage of the mesophilic process is that the bacteria are more robust and more adaptable to changing environmental conditions22.

22 Ostrem, Karena. May 2004. Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic Fraction of Municipal

Solid Wastes. Columbia University.

51


Thermophilic Process – A thermophilic anaerobic digestion reactor operates at an optimal temperature of about 55°C (130°F) and must be maintained at a temperature ranging from 50°C to 65°C (122°F to 140°F) for most effective performance23. The main advantage associated with a thermophilic reactor is that higher temperatures can yield a superior rate of biogas production in a shorter period of time. Tradeoffs Between Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion System Designs – The trade-offs are typically related to the risk of odour from thermophilic designs versus the additional gas yield. 4.5 Energy Production from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Anaerobic digestion facilities produce biogas through the breakdown of organic material. Some of this biogas is needed for in-plant uses, but most (60% to 80% depending on the anaerobic digestion facility design) is available for export as heat, or as electricity. The potential for energy production, as well as the small footprint needed for anaerobic digestion facilities are the two main reasons for an increased interest in this technology in recent years. This section discusses the key factors which impact on the energy production and export potential of anaerobic digestion facilities processing both SSO and mixed waste. 4.5.1 Biogas Production Production of biogas from an anaerobic digestion process will vary depending on:

• The anaerobic digestion process design chosen which impacts on the extent to which volatile solids in the waste are converted to biogas. This in turn depends on retention times and reaction temperature, etc.

• The volatile solids (VS) content of the feedstock which depends on the composition of the waste sent to the digester.

Typical biogas composition from the anaerobic digestion of source separated food waste is provided in Table 4.7 and is based on the experience of BTA in Europe and at the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility in City of Toronto24.

Table 4.7 – Composition of Biogas from BTA Digesters

Biogas Composition Average Minimum Maximum

Methane Vol. % 65 52 70

Carbon dioxide Vol. % 35 30 48

Hydrogen sulphide ppm 925 50 1,800

Total chlorine mg/m3 0.6 0.02 1.2

Total fluorine mg/m3 < 0.1 <0.03 0.2

23 Ibid 24 Source: Seattle Final TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 4: Biogas Markets, February 2003

52


The composition of the material sent to the anaerobic digester affects residue rates (and therefore costs) and also gas production rates (and therefore the net energy balance of the facility). The composition of waste assumed for the three scenarios and the tonnages of different materials involved in the assessment presented in this section are presented in Table 4.8.

53


Table 4.8 – Composition of SSO and Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Sent to Anaerobic Digestion For Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000

Population 20,000 Population 80,000 Population 200,000 Material Source Separated

Organics Mixed Waste Source Separated

Organics Mixed Waste Source Separated

Organics Mixed Waste

SSO to Anaerobic Digestion (tonnes)

Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)

Mixed Waste to

Anaerobic Digestion (tonnes)

Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)


Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)

Mixed Waste to


Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)


Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)

Mixed Waste to


Waste to Residual

Treatment (tonnes)

Paper Fibres 232 1,489 842 880 886 6,000 3,124 3,763 2,324 14,893 8,421 8,797

Plastics 0 467 47 420 0 1,869 189 1,679 0 4,672 474 4,198

Metals 0 219 85 134 0 875 341 534 0 2,188 852 1,335

Glass 0 319 159 159 0 1,276 638 639 0 3,189 1,595 1,595


0 48 18 30 0 192 73 118 0 479 183 296

Compostables (food and garden wastes)

1613 651 1,132 1,132 6,452 2,604 4,528 4,528 16,129 6,509 11,319 11,319

Other Waste Materials

0 958 187 771 0 3,834 748 3,086 0 9,584 1,870 7,714

Total Tonnes 1,845 4,151 2,470 3,526 7,338 16,168 9,641 13,865 18,453 41,514 24,714 35,254

54


Theoretical gas production rates for different materials are presented in Table 4.9. This information comes from bench-scale studies carried out by Barlaz for the USEPA25. This is the only information available at this time on the comparative gas generation rates from different materials under anaerobic conditions.

Table 4.9 – Comparative Biogas Yield From Different Msw Materials (Barlaz26)

Material Moisture (% wt)

Biogas Yield m3/kg of Material

Feed*

Biogas Yield ft3/lb of Material

Feed Paper

Newspaper 0.061 0.98

Cardboard/Boxboard 0.125 1.89

Telephone Directories

0.061 0.98

Office Paper 0.178 2.85

Mixed Paper

10

0.112 1.80

Kitchen Waste

Food 70 0.113 1.82

Yard Waste

Grass 0.034 0.55

Leaves 60

0.023 0.37

Brush 40 0.067 1.08

Other organic 0.101 1.62

Sources: ICF, 2005 and update and Hackett & Williams, 2004 The table shows that each material has a different natural moisture content (before it enters the digester), and yields a different amount of biogas through the digestion process. Moisture added to the digester simply optimizes conditions for the microbes which break down the material in an anaerobic environment. The amount of biogas produced by each material depends on the percentage of volatile solids (biodegradable portion) available in each material. Gas production values shown in Table 4.9 assume a methane yield of 0.22 m/kg (3.52 f3/lb) of VSS (Volatile Suspended Solids).

25 CF Consulting. 2001 and 2005 Update. Determination of the Input of Waste Management Activities on

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Report submitted to Environment Canada. 26 Barlatz, (1997). Biodegradative Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory Scale Landfills.

M.A Barlaz, EPA 600/R-97-071.1997

55


Table 4.9 is most useful for showing the comparative biogas yield from different materials under the same degradation conditions. It shows that the comparative gas yield (from most to least) is:

• office paper, mixed paper, cardboard and boxboard; • food; • telephone directories and newspaper; • brush; • grass, and • leaves.

Grass and leaves are the materials which yield the least biogas per tonne of input to the digester. Open windrow composting is the technology typically used to process grass and leaves, and municipalities generally focus on anaerobic digestion for treatment of food waste and biosolids. Where they are added to a digestion process, a certain amount of paper and food waste is necessary to increase the biogas yield to a reasonable and economic level. Table 4.10 shows reported biogas yields from different MSW feedstocks in anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe.

Table 4.10 – Comparative Yields of Different MSW Feedstocks in Anaerobic Digestion Systems

Input Digestion Nm3CH4/ raw ton

Biogas (m3/t)

Biogas (ft3/t)

Food Waste + Garden Waste 50-60 80-90 2,800-3,200

Food Waste + Low Level of Cardboard 65-75 104-112 3,700-4,000

Food Waste + Cardboard + Garden Waste 65-75 104-112 2,700-4,000

Food Waste + Cardboard 75-85 112-136 4,000-4,800

Mixed Waste 75-90 112-144 4,000-5,100

The table shows that the biogas yield is low where garden waste is part of the mix, but increases as more paper and food is added to the digester. Quoted gas production rates vary, and are presented in more detail later in this text. The Dufferin Organics Processing Facility in City of Toronto reports a biogas production rate of 159 m3/tonne, whereas some European vendors quote rates of 85 m3/tonne for single stage digestion systems and 95 m3/tonne for two stage systems. 4.5.2 Biogas Treatment and Energy Production Biogas from an anaerobic digester can be used as a substitute for natural gas, either in boilers producing hot water and steam for industrial processes, in combined heat and power (CHP) applications to generate electricity, as well as heat, as a pure natural gas substitute (high-graded for insertion into the natural gas supply), or for more exotic uses such as fuelling a fleet of vehicles or as a fuel for fuel cells.

56


Where biogas is used in a boiler, minimal treatment and compression is required, as the boiler is much less sensitive to sulphide and moisture levels in the biogas, and also can operate at a much lower input gas pressure. Where biogas is used for onsite co-generation, a generator of the type used in landfill gas and wastewater treatment plant applications is appropriate, as these generators are designed for digester and landfill gas, and are less sensitive to moisture and sulphides. Compression equipment would be required to boost the gas pressure to the level required by the generator. Biogas can be used as a fuel for vehicles, but significant upgrading is required to produce:

• a higher calorific value; • a consistent gas quality; • no enhancement of corrosion due to high levels of hydrogen sulphide, ammonia

and water; and • a gas without any mechanically damaging particles.

This option is not common, although it is used in one facility in Switzerland to produce fuel for the dual-fuel car and truck fleet. The methane contained in biogas can also be used to power fuel cells, thereby producing a pure “green energy” source. 4.5.3 Typical Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Plants It is difficult to estimate ahead of time the energy which will be produced by each new anaerobic digester, as it takes some time for the process to establish itself and operate smoothly. The best guide is to review information from full scale anaerobic digestion facilities which have been in operation for some time. However, it is often a challenge to identify comparative information from different facilities and processes. Biogas production rates vary from one vendor to another, and also depend on the feedstock to the plant (SSO, paper, food, etc). One anaerobic digestion vendor uses a rough rule of thumb that biogas production is 100 m3/tonne (3,500 f3/ton) of SSO input, and up to 150 m3/tonne (5300 ft3/ton) if there is a high food waste content. Table 4.11 summarizes available information from existing anaerobic digestion facilities which report their energy production and in-house energy needs.

57


Table 4.11 – Reported Energy Production, Internal Energy Use and Energy Available for Export at Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Plant Location Capacity Reported Biogas

Production

Total Energy Production

Energy Used in Anaerobic

Digestion Facility

Energy Exported or Available for

Export Passau Hellersberg

39,000 tpy 4,000 ft3/t (115 m3/t)

1.6 million kWhr/year

7.5 million kWhr/year (856kW)

Kaiserslautern, Germany

20,000 tpy grey waste

5,600 ft3/t (158 m3/t)

0.7 million kWhr 4.5 million kWhr/year (513kW)

Aarberg, Switzerland

13,500 tpy garden waste

Steam: 1120 MWhr generated

Steam: 719 MWhr used internally; Electricity: 520MWhrs electricity used in the plant

Steam: 401 MWhrs sold to next door customer Electricity: 2400 MWhrs sold (274kW)

Lemgo, Germany

40,000 tpy (dry thermo-philic)

3,600 ft3/t (102 m3/t)

6,000,000 kWh Not available Not available

Radeberg, Germany

56,000 tpy (wet)

88 million ft3 per year (2.5 million m3/year

Electricity production 760kW

Vagron/ Groningen, Netherlands

230,000 tpy 1,500 ft3/t (42 m3/t)

Energy - 48,000 MWh/year (35% electricity, 55% heat)

Pinerolo, Italy

30,000 tpy Energy - 30,000 MWh/year (35% electricity, 55% heat)

Finland 15,000 tpy Energy - 9,000 MWh/year (30% electricity, 60% heat)

Friesland, Netherlands

90,000 tpy Energy - 50,000 MWh/year (35% electricity, 55% heat)

Kil, Sweden

3,000 tpy Energy – 2,000 MWh/year (100% electricity)

58


Table 4.12 presents a ballpark estimate of the potential energy available for export from anaerobic digestion facilities processing SSO and mixed waste from three differently sized communities.

Table 4.12 – Potential Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 And 200,000

Population Serviced

Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes) Range of Energy Available for Export

20,000 1,845 (SSO) to 2,371 (MSW) 47kW to 65kW

80,000 7,338 (SSO) to 9,641 (MSW) 235kW to 325kW

200,000 18,453 (SSO) to 24,714 (MSW) 470kW to 650kW

4.6 Economic Impacts of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Given that only three digesters have been constructed in Canada to date, and that the scale of these facilities was larger than any of the units considered in this analysis, the costs should be considered “ballpark” only. One of the limitations of the economic analysis of anaerobic digestion for this study is that there is very limited information available on the costs of existing anaerobic digestion facilities, virtually all located in Europe. European vendors contacted for this study were not willing to provide budget estimates (they do not want to waste time developing estimates unless an actual RFP has been issued and a facility will be constructed as a result). In general, there are significant economies of scale associated with anaerobic digestion facilities. The quantities of material generated by the smaller sized municipalities considered in this study are generally too small to justify the very high cost of anaerobic digestion. Part of this cost is related to the fact that biogas is generated by anaerobic digestion, and therefore explosion proof buildings and facilities and gas handling equipment is required. For this reason, anaerobic digestion is significantly more expensive than composting for the same tonnage, although it takes up much less space. Anaerobic digestion may not be a very practical alternative for very small remote communities, because of the skill level (training with gas handling and potentially explosive situations) and the dedicated time required to run digesters. It would possibly make sense where co-digestion with wastewater treatment residuals or animal manures is being considered. However, this is not likely in small or remote Canadian communities at this time, because wastewater treatment biosolids are generally managed in lagoons. Anaerobic digestion of biosolids is not generally the practice in small communities, and is usually practiced only where a large wastewater treatment plant is involved. Municipalities interested in anaerobic digestion should consider joining together with neighbouring municipalities in order to generate the required economies of scale.

59


Anaerobic Digester cost estimates for both SSO and mixed waste are based on the following assumptions:

• biogas production of 110 m3/tonne for SSO and 130 m3/tonne for mixed waste (because of increased amounts of fine paper);

• composting of digestate at $25/tonne; • no revenue from heat sales; • revenue of 6 cents/kWhr for green, renewable power (based on similar prices paid in

Prince Edward Island at this time), • disposal of residue at $30/tonne.

4.6.1 Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO

(Source Separated Organics) Table 4.13 presents estimates of the costs of anaerobic digestion facilities to process SSO for different size communities. Costs for a 100,000 tonne/year unit are shown in the table to illustrate the economies of scale for larger anaerobic digestion facilities.

Table 4.13 – Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Source Separated Organics (SSO)

Population 20,000

Population 80,000

Population 200,000

Population 800,000

Annual Input Quantity to Facility (tonnes)

2,000 tpy 7,500 tpy 18,500 tpy 100,000 tpy

Capital Cost ($) $3,000,000 $7,000,000 $12,000,000 $32,000,000 Capital Financing ($/year)

Annual Capital Charge ($/year) $291,000/y $643,000/y $1,100,000/y $3,020,000/y

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ($/year)

O&M Costs ($/year) 205,000 450,000 770,000 2,115,000

Off Site Curing27 and Residue Disposal28 ($30/t)

34,000 128,000 315,000 1,700,000

Total O&M Cost ($/year) $239,000 $578,000 $1,085,000 $3,815,000

Gross Annual Cost ($/year) 530,000 1,200,000 2,200,000 7,300,000 Electricity Revenues (6 cent/kwhr)

14,000 53,000 130,000 700,000

Heat Revenues (assume zero) 0 0 0 0

Net Facility Costs ($/year) 515,000 1,170,000 2,060,000 6,134,000

Cost per Input Tonne ($/year) $257 $156 $111 $68

27 Assume 56,000 tonnes digestate 28 Assume 10,000 tonnes from digestion operations (additional from curing operation included in composting tip fee)

60


Table 4.13 shows estimated processing costs ranging from $257 per input tonne for a small facility, to $68/input tonne for a facility of 100,000 capacity (for a city of 800,000 population). This cost differential illustrates the significant economies of scale associated with anaerobic digestion. The only Canadian facility for which cost information is available is the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility in the City of Toronto. The facility began processing SSO in September, 2002 with the implementation of the City of Toronto Green Bin program (now rolled out to 500,000 households and 20,000 businesses). The facility is designed to process 100 tonnes per day (25,000 tonnes per year of SSO) and has been operating close to design capacity. The facility processed 16,293 tonnes of SSO from May to December, 2004, at an average rate of 95 tonnes per day. Operating costs (excluding the cost of amortized capital) for that facility are estimated at about $139/tonne of input, consisting of $112/tonne paid to the operator plus $27 per input tonne paid by the City for hydro and residue disposal. Amortized capital is reportedly an additional $50 per input tonne for a total cost of about $190 per input tonne. However, as with most anaerobic digestion facilities, it is hard to compare the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility costs with other facilities because it is an “apples to oranges” comparison. The Dufferin Organics Processing Facility was located within an existing City of Toronto transfer station site, and therefore saved some costs which would be incurred if an anaerobic digester was constructed on a Greenfield site (i.e., a site which has to be developed specifically for the digester, with no other infrastructure in place). 4.6.2 Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Mixed Waste Table 4.14 shows the costs for anaerobic digestion facilities processing mixed waste in communities of different sizes. The costs are very similar to those shown for SSO processing for the same size community, even though the tonnages involved are about 50% more. This is because of a number of “swings and roundabouts” tradeoffs between the SSO and mixed waste anaerobic digestion designs. The up front processing equipment is more expensive for a mixed waste processing facility, but a smaller amount of material goes to the digester, thereby saving digester costs. Biogas production per tonne is higher, but because of the smaller tonnage going to the digester, the net biogas production between the two approaches only differs by 10%. The quality of the finished digestate, which is ultimately converted to compost, is more of a challenge for mixed waste digestion, as there is more contamination in the incoming feedstream which needs to be removed to produce a finished compost of acceptable quality (aesthetic as well as chemical).

61


Table 4.14 – Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Mixed Waste

Population 20,000

Population 80,000

Population 200,000

Population 800,000

Annual Input Quantity to Facility (tonnes)

2,470 10,000 24,700 100,000

Capital Cost ($)

Total Capital Cost ($) 3,300,000 7,300,000 12,600,000 34,000,000

Capital Financing ($)

Annual Capital Charge ($/year) 310,000 690,000 1,180,000 3,210,000

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ($/year) O&M costs ($/year) 231,000 511,000 880,000 2,380,000

Off Site Curing29 and Residue Disposal30 ($/year, asssuming 30/t curing and disposal cost)

37,000 140,000 345,000 1,855,000

Total O&M Cost ($/year) 270,000 650,000 1,220,000 4,235,000

Gross Annual Cost ($/year) 580,000 1,340,000 2,400,000 7,445,000Electricity Revenues (6 cent/kwhr) ($/year)

13,000 49,000 121,000 656,000

Heat Revenues (assume zero) 0 0 0 0

Net Facility Costs ($/year) 565,000 1,291,000 2,280,000 6,790,000

Cost per Input Tonne (Mixed Waste) $282 $172 $123 $68Cost Per Input Tonne (SSO) $257 $156 $111 $68

The comparative costs of anaerobic digestion of only SSO are shown on the last line of Table 4.14for comparison with the mixed waste costs. Table 4.14 shows that the relative costs of treatingMSW and SSO by anaerobic digestion both follow the same trend, decreasing per input tonne as the size of the processing facility increases, until a capacity of about 100,000 tonnes per year is reached. However, the cost is less per tonne of input for mixed waste than for SSO. However, the overall cost for a community of a given size is greater for mixed waste digestion than for SSO digestion, as the tonnage handled by the digestion facility is larger for mixed waste than for SSO, for the same population size. Within integrated waste management planning, the mixed waste processing facility would need to be sized for a much higher tonnage than the SSO processing facility, therefore the net costs to the municipality would be much higher. 4.7 Social Impacts of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities There is likely to be no difference between the social acceptability of anaerobic digestion facilities processing an equivalent tonnage of SSO and mixed waste, therefore comments in this section apply to both approaches.

29 Assume 56,000 tonnes digestate 30 Assume 10,000 tonnes from digestion operations (additional from curing operation included in composting tip fee

62


4.7.1 Social Acceptability The social acceptability of anaerobic digestion has not really been tested to any significant degree in Canada to date. Certainly the fact that anaerobic digestion facilities produce “green power” or could be used to produce novel products such as fuel for the municipal fleet is likely to be a big selling point for many communities on a go-forward basis. In Europe, where anaerobic digestion facilities are more common, they are very well accepted by the community. However, they are often located in rural, agricultural areas, where the occasional odour emission from the digester is not noticeable, because the odours of animal manures and other farm operations are acceptable. In general, anaerobic digestion is likely to be more acceptable than a greenfield landfill site or a thermal treatment facility. The social acceptability of an anaerobic digestion facility is likely to be similar to the social acceptability of an enclosed composting operation. Anaerobic digestion is a compatible land use for an industrial area, a wastewater treatment facility or other solid waste management facility such as a transfer site, composter landfill, thermal facility or MRF or preferably a rural/agricultural area, given that there may be occasional odour issues. 4.7.2 Footprint and Land Use One of the big advantages of anaerobic digestion is the very small footprint required for the primary digestion operation, which is an advantage for urban settings. There are many advantages to co-locating an anaerobic digester at a wastewater treatment plant or a landfill/transfer operation, in order to share facilities such as a weigh scale and wastewater treatment and possibly gas storage facilities. Anaerobic digestion requires two main operations:

• pre-processing and digestion of waste at the anaerobic digestion facility, and • curing of digestate on or off-site (usually off site).

The area required for an anaerobic digestion facility varies with the size of the facility, but is generally a small requirement. Curing of digestate in open windrow composting requires additional space. The usual practice is to ship digestate off site for curing at a commercial or other composting facility. Typically, a site of 3 ha to 5 ha is sufficient to meet anaerobic digestion processing needs. Reported land area requirements for different anaerobic digestion vendors are presented in the following tables.

63


Table 4.15 – Reported Land Requirements for Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities

Facility Annual Throughput (t/y) Area

Buchen, Germany - Demonstration

30,000 Area – 1 acre (4,000 m2)

Building – 0.3 acres (1,200 m2) Buchan, Germany - Expansion

165,000 Area – 3.5 acres (14,000 m2)

Building – 2.3 acres (9,500 m2) Hellbronn, Germany

80,000 Area – 2 acres (8,400 m2)

Building – 1.3 acres (5,400 m2) Proposed Facility in Sydney, Australia

175,000 Area – 7.4 acres (30,000 m2)

Building – not available Tilburg, Netherlands

52,000 4 acres

(16,000 m2)

Amiens, France 93,000 8.3 acres

(33,600 m2)

Barcelona, Spain 240,000 17.3 acres (70,000 m2)

There is limited Canadian information to draw on regarding typical site sizes for anaerobic digestion facilities. The Dufferin Organics Processing Facility is co-located and shares a number of infrastructure components with the existing transfer operations. The HRL facility in Newmarket is located on a 4 acre site. An additional 10 acres was purchased for composting of digestate in a vertical aerobic design. Based on available data, the footprint requirements for three anaerobic digestion facility sizes are presented in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16 – Approximate Space Requirement for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000

Population Serviced Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes) Space Requirements

20,000 1,845 (SSO) to 2,371 (MW) 15,000 m2 (1.5 ha)

80,000 7,338 (SSO) to 9,641 (MW) 18,000 m2 (1.8 ha)

200,000 18,453 (SSO) to 24,714 (MW) 20,000 m2 (2 ha)

4.7.3 Employment The direct employment generated by anaerobic digestion facilities is relatively small as the technology is highly automated. If the digestion facility is co-located at a landfill or wastewater treatment plant, existing staff can handle most of the labour requirements, and would have skills and training suited to management of a digestion facility. Anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe operate at capacities of 20,000 tonnes per year with three (3) full time staff, particularly when co-located at a landfill or composting operation.

64


Staffing estimates developed for a 100,000 tonne/year digester operating 3 shifts/day in Sacramento, California indicate that a co-located facility would need a staff of 12-13. The anaerobic digestion facility staff would include a plant manager, a marketing manager (which could be shared with the plant manager function, depending on the circumstances), 1 lab technician, 3 process control operators (1/shift, but basically needed 24/7, unless the function can be shared at other facilities such as a landfill), one maintenance technician, and 6 general labourers (2/shift). In addition, the digestate would be sent for additional curing to a composting facility where additional staff would be employed. In addition to the on-going direct labour requirement, signification employment would be generated during the construction of these capital intensive facilities. Table 4.17 presents estimates of staffing requirements for three sizes of anaerobic digestion facilities. These are approximate guides only, and would vary depending on whether the anaerobic digestion facilities are co-located with a composting site, MRF, thermal processing facility, transfer station or landfill.

Table 4.17 – Approximate Staffing Requirements for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000

Population Serviced Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes) Staffing Requirements

(FTE’s) 20,000 1,845 (SSO) to 2,371 (MSW) 5

80,000 7,338 (SSO) to 9,641 (MSW) 7

200,000 18,453 (SSO) to 24,714 (MSW) 9

4.7.4 Nuisance Impacts Nuisance impacts include dust, noise, odour, vermin and litter. Off-site, these impacts are negligible from a well run anaerobic digestion facility as unloading operations are generally enclosed with the tipping area being operated under negative pressure (air sucked into the building and discharged through the biofilter where odours are scrubbed through ion exchange processes). However, anaerobic digestion is a very sensitive biological process, and there are likely to be occasional process upsets, regardless of how experienced the operating staff are. These are often caused when a load of material sent to the digester contains waste to which the microbes are not well acclimatized. Upsets can generally be brought under control after a few days. Off-site odours at the Newmarket HRL facility have caused disruption to the local community. Odours complaints have been minimal at the Dufferin Street organics processing facility, and cannot be easily attributed to the digester because of a number other waste management operations on site. The difference between the two facilities (and a lesson for future anaerobic digestion facility siting) is that the Dufferin digester is located in an industrial area, whereas the Newmarket facility is located in a commercial area with offices (the local OPP office) on the adjacent property.

65


4.7.5 Traffic The traffic impacts from the anaerobic digestion facility are a function of the quantity of material delivered to the facility and the size of the trucks employed. Where the anaerobic digestion facility is co-located with other operations such as a landfill or transfer station, the additional traffic is not very noticeable. Table 4.18 illustrates the estimated number of trucks associated with various sized facilities. The estimates presented in the table show the number of trucks involved if all curbside SSO and mixed waste is collected in 10-tonne packer trucks and is delivered directly to the anaerobic digestion facility. The table also shows the traffic impacts if the material is consolidated at a transfer facility and transported to the anaerobic digestion facility by 30-tonne tractor trailer.

Table 4.18 – Anaerobic Digestion Facility Daily Traffic Impacts

Population Serviced

Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes)

Range of Daily Quantity (Tonnes) 5 d/week, 52 w/yr

Number of 10 Tonne Packer

Trucks Per Day

Number of 30 tonne Transfer

Trailers Per Day 20,000 1,845 to 2,371 7 to 9 t/d 1 per day 1 every week

80,000 7,338 to 9,641 28 to 37 t/d 3-4 per day 1 per day; 6 per week

200,000 18,453 to 24,714 71 to 95 t/d 7-10 per day 3 per day

4.8 Environmental Effects of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities 4.8.1 Renewable Energy Anaerobic digestion of waste yields energy in the form of heat, electricity, or both heat and electricity via cogeneration. In all jurisdictions in Europe, biogas generated by anaerobic digestion facilities treating municipal solid waste is considered renewable and green energy. In fact, European jurisdictions are very anxious to use anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste where viable, to contribute to various renewable energy targets. In the US and Canada, energy from anaerobic digestion of waste is considered both “green” and “renewable”, and in the US in particular, energy generated from processing of municipal solid waste is considered biomass-generated energy. The amount of energy that can be recovered from municipal solid waste via anaerobic digestion is small, and much less than the amount which can be recovered from the same waste through thermal processing. If there is a suitable heat load demand near or adjacent to the anaerobic digestion facility, overall energy conversion efficiencies (the use of energy generated through processing of the municipal solid waste in the anaerobic digester) can double through cogeneration – generating both heat and electricity from the biogas created in the digester. The potential green energy exported by three sizes of anaerobic digestion facility is presented in Table 4.19.

66


Table 4.19 – Potential “Green” and Renewable Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000

Population Serviced Range of Annual Quantity (Tonnes) Range of Renewable Energy

Available for Export 20,000 1,845 (SSO) to 2,371 (MW) 47kW to 65kW

80,000 7,338 (SSO) to 9,641 (MW) 235kW to 325kW

200,000 18,453 (SSO) to 24,714 (MW) 470kW to 650kW

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.20 presents the emission factors calculated by ICF Consulting under contract to Environment Canada for anaerobic digestion of materials (with and without carbon sinks).

Table 4.20 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion Including and Excluding Carbon Sinks

Material Anaerobic Digestion

Emission Factor with Carbon Sinks (eCO2/tonne)

Anaerobic Digestion Emission Factor Excluding Carbon Sinks

(eCO2/tonne) Newsprint (0.49) (0.38)

Fine Paper (0.34) (0.22)

Cardboard (0.32) (0.20)

Other Paper (0.23) (0.12)

Food Scraps (0.01) 0.02

Yard Trimmings (0.15) (0.04)

(ICF, October 2005) When biodegradable materials (paper, food and garden waste) are placed in a landfill, the anaerobic conditions in the landfill convert these materials to landfill gas (60% methane, 40% CO2). Methane is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas (GHG) than carbon dioxide. In a conventional landfill with a greenhouse gas collection and utilization system, only about 60% of the methane generated over the life of the site is captured. The balance of the methane is emitted to the atmosphere. In smaller landfill sites, all of the landfill gas is emitted to the atmosphere. Engineered anaerobic digesters create a similar environment to a landfill, but under more highly controlled conditions where the biological breakdown is much quicker. However, complete biological stabilization of biodegradable materials does not occur in the digester, and the digestate needs additional curing in a composting facility. GHG impacts of anaerobic digestion were estimated by ICF in 200531, and take all of these factors into account. The IPCC protocol (which has been adopted by Canada) does not count “biogenic” CO2 emissions as being GHG emissions. The rationale is that biodegradation of these materials would have happened anyway, and they are not causing a net increase of GHG to the atmosphere. GHG estimates only count the carbon dioxide from the non-renewable portion of

31 Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Report to

Environment Canada by ICF Consulting Ltd. 2005 Update

67


the waste stream towards GHG emissions. In the case of anaerobic digestion, the non-renewable portion of the waste stream passes through the process as residue. All of the material which goes to the anaerobic digester is biodegradable, and therefore falls into the category of waste from which CO2 emissions are not counted in GHG estimates. However, this biodegradable material would contribute to GHG emissions if it creates methane, which is a much more powerful and damaging GHG than CO2. Table 4.21 shows the net emission factors calculated for anaerobic digestion of waste compared to landfilling of the same waste in a well engineered landfill with landfill gas recovery, with and without consideration of carbon sinks. In the table, the values shown in parentheses mean that the anaerobic digestion facility has resulted in a GHG reduction or savings.

Table 4.21 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion Compared to Landfill

Anaerobic Digestion Emission Factors Compared to Landfill

Including Carbon Sinks

Anaerobic Digestion Emission Factors Compared to Landfill

Excluding Carbon Sinks Material

tonnes eCO2/tonne waste Newsprint 0.72 (0.34)

Fine Paper (1.52) (1.69)

Cardboard (0.6) (1.42)

Other Paper (0.95) (1.44)

Food Scraps (0.9) (0.98)

Yard Trimmings 0.18 (0.42)

Based on the above factors, the net emissions for each scenario were calculated. These emissions are summarized in the Table 4.22.

Table 4.22 – GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario

Tonnage Net GHG Emissions from Anaerobic Digestion of SSO

Net GHG Impacts of Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Waste

Population SSO Mixed Waste

With (including) Carbon

Sequestration

Without Carbon

Sequestration With Carbon

Sequestration Without Carbon

Sequestration 20,000 1,845 2,471 (897) (1,791) (650) (1,817)

80,000 7,338 9,641 (3,632) (7,161) (2,837) (7,237)

200,000 18,453 24,714 (8,972) (17,913) (6,499) (18,173)

68


4.8.3 Emissions of Acid Gases, Smog Precursors, Heavy Metals and Other Contaminants of Concern

Emissions such as acid gases, smog precursors, heavy metals and organics (to both air and water) are of more interest to local residents than GHG, as they impact on local air quality and the local environment. The IWM model32 was used to compare emissions from 18,454 tonnes of SSO sent to anaerobic digestion, compared to the emissions resulting from sending the same material to landfill. For MSW, the IWM model was used to compare emissions from 24,714 tonnes of MSW sent to anaerobic digestion compared to sending the same material to landfill. Results are presented in Table 4.23.

Table 4.23 – Emissions Comparison Between Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Processes

Emission Anaerobic Digestion of SSO Compared to Landfilling

Anaerobic Digestion of MSW Compared to Landfilling

Acid Gases NOx Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

SOx Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

HCl Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

Smog Precursors NOx Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

PM Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

VOCs Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

Heavy Metals and Organics Air

Pb Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

Hg No data available No data available

Cd Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

Dioxins (TEQ) Non detectable Non detectable

Water

Pb No difference (waste mgt sys)

Lower (lifecycle inventory) Lower than landfill

Hg No difference Lower than landfill

Cd Lower than landfill Lower than landfill

BOD Higher than landfill Lower than landfill

Dioxins (TEQ) No data No data For all IWM model runs, both waste management system inventories (which focus more on local impacts) and life cycle inventory results were considered. In general the results for both cases follow the same trends and indicate that anaerobic digestion of SSO and mixed waste has lower net environmental impacts than landfilling the same amount of waste.

32 Integrated Waste Management Model for Municipalities (http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/)

69


4.9 Approvals Requirements For Anaerobic Digestion Facilities There is virtually no experience in Canada (outside Ontario) regarding approvals for anaerobic digestion facilities which would process municipal waste. The types of approvals which might be required by anaerobic digestion facilities, as these become more common, may include some of the following:

• Approval of a Waste Disposal Site; • Approval of a Wastewater Treatment System; • Approval of a biogas combustion engine generator set; and • Air emission approvals related to the combustion of biogas.

Approvals related to the sites where digestate is composted are addressed in the composting section. The City of Toronto carried out an assessment of anaerobic digestion for facilities to process 100,000 t/y and 200,000 t/y of both SSO and mixed waste, with funding from FCM and the support of Enwave (the City district heating corporation) in 2002. At that time it was concluded that a 200,000 t/year facility would require an individual Environmental Assessment (a very cumbersome and expensive process in Ontario at this time), as the residue from the anaerobic digestion facility would exceed the cut-off of 200 t/y below which a site is not considered a waste disposal site. If greater than 200 t/day of residue requiring disposal is generated, the “undertaking” is classified as a waste disposal facility, and an individual EA is triggered. The Dufferin Organics Processing Facility required an amendment to the existing EPA (Ontario Environmental Protection Act) Part V approval for a waste processing/transfer site to include anaerobic digestion as an acceptable activity at the site. A new Ontario EPA Section 9 permit for air emissions (odour) was required. A municipal site plan approval and a building permit were also required. Various other certificates were issued to the anaerobic digestion facility post construction. Approvals requirements for waste processing facility sites vary by province and territory across Canada, therefore Ontario requirements may not apply province by province. A possible approval of the wastewater discharge into the local sewer may be required, depending on the location. If the wastewater treatment plant is a stand alone facility, different approvals may be required in different parts of the country. Anaerobic digestion produces biogas, which is explosive and must be handled properly; therefore approvals typically given to landfill gas facilities are likely to be required. Where energy is produced by burning the biogas on site (to generate heat/steam or electricity), air emissions are similar to those from any engine generator set, and are subject to similar approval requirements as would apply to landfill gas energy conversion technologies. Should anaerobic digestion facilities be classified as similar to thermal processing facilities, then approvals similar to those for thermal facilities (discussed in Section 7) may apply.

70


4.10 Summary of Anaerobic Digestion Facility Features and Effects Anaerobic digestion is used in Europe for processing of both SSO and mixed MSW. However, we have very little operational experience with this technology in Canada to date, although two plants are in place in Toronto and Newmarket. Anaerobic digestion technology works well at scales of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/year of SSO in Europe. Larger plants have been constructed in the last two years, but have not operated for an extended period of time to date. Favourable renewable energy policies and the relatively high costs of landfilling in Europe make the economics of anaerobic digestion of SSO and mixed waste much more favourable than in Canada. Preliminary estimates indicate that anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (source separated or mixed) will have a net cost of $111/tonne to $282/tonne for facilities that would process waste streams generated by communities with populations ranging from 20,000 to 200,000. Anaerobic digestion experiences significant economies of scale, with an estimated net cost of $68/tonne for anaerobic digestion facilities which would process 100,000 tonnes/year; this size of facility would serve a population of 800,000 to 1.1 million. Anaerobic digestion has a significant benefit from a greenhouse gas point of view. It produces methane from the degradation of organic waste in a controlled environment. The methane can be used to displace fossil fuels. In addition, it avoids the production of this methane over a much longer period in a landfill, where its maximum energy potential would not be realized. The social impacts of anaerobic digestion are considered similar to those of composting, and are less significant that those of thermal processing or landfilling. The energy benefits of anaerobic digestion are smaller than those of thermally processing the same amount of material. Key features of anaerobic digestion are summarized in Table 4.24.

Table 4.24 – Summary of Anaerobic Digestion of Source Separated Organics (SSO) and Mixed Waste (MW)

Factor Summary

Description Organic biodegradable waste is broken down without oxygen (anaerobic) to produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, water and digestate, which is composted.

General performance Can divert all or most organic materials and biodegradables – food, garden waste, some papers. Applicable to 40% to 50% of the municipal waste stream

Experience with Anaerobic Digestion Technology

Plants with capacitates of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/yr work well in Europe. There is little track record for larger plants currently in operation.

Environment Effects Diverts organic waste from landfill, minimizing generation of acidic leachate and methane. Generates methane under controlled conditions. Biogas can be used as an energy source, displacing other sources of power.

71


Factor Summary

Energy Implications Net energy generator, with 50% (wet plants) to 80% (dry plants) available for export

Social Effects Anaerobic digesters require less space than composting facilities to process the same tonnage. The small footprint is one of the advantages of the technology. Employment requirements are modest, with a requirement for about 6-9 staff for a facility to process 25,000 tonnes/year. Nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods) and odours (controlled by bio-filters, but occasional releases expected). Green and renewable energy benefits are positive attributes

Economic Effects and Costs

Costs decrease dramatically towards 50,000 tonnes/yr. Greatest economies of scale are experienced at a digestion plant size of 100,000 tonnes/yr (mixed waste from population of 800,000 or source separated waste from population of 1.1 million).

New and Emerging Technologies

Methods to digest mixed waste effectively are currently being explored. Need cost-effective technology development for small communities.

4.11 References

Balsam, John. October 2002. Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Wastes: Factors to Consider. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. Barlatz, (1997). Biodegradative Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory Scale Landfills. M.A Barlaz, EPA 600/R-97-071.1997 Barlaz (1998). Carbon Storage During Biodegradation of Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory Scale Landfills, Morton Barlaz. Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1998. Environmental Science and Technology Environmental Science and TechCragg, Robert. Anaerobic Digestion: Can It Be Successfully Applied to MSW Management? Recycling Association of Minnesota and Solid Waste Association of North America 9th Annual Fall Conference, Fall 2004. Erickson, Larry et. Al. August 2004. Anaerobic Digestion – Chapter 7 from Carcass Disposal: A Comprehensive Review. National Agricultural Biosecurity Centre Consortium. EurObserv’ER. August 2004. Biogas Energy Barometer. Hackett, Colin and Williams, Robert. September 2004. Evaluation of Conversion Technology Processes and Products. Prepared for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Haight, Murray. March 9, 2004. Technical Report: Integrated Solid Waste Management Model. School of Planning, University of Waterloo.

72


ICF Consulting. 2001. Determination of the Input of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Report submitted to Environment Canada. Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Model for Municipalities (http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/) Lynn, Matt. November 1999. “Life and Times of an Organics Recycling Company”. In Biocycle, vol. 40, pg. 34-39. Ostrem, Karena. May 2004. Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes. Columbia University. R.W. Beck. June 2004. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study: Final Report. Prepared for the Bluestem Solid Waste Agency and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Remade Scotland. November 2003. An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes. SRI International. October 1992. Data Summary of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives; Volume 1: Report Text. Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste: Final Report. Prepared by ICF. EPA 530-R-98-013. Vandevivere. P. et. Al. 1999. Types of Anaerobic Digesters for Solid Wastes. Wise, Donald L. 1983. Fuel Gas Developments. CRC Series in Bioenergy Systems. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Valorga International. 2004. Presentation made to the 10th World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion 2004. In Montreal, Canada, August 29th to September 2, 2004. Vermer, Shefali. May 2002. Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes. Columbia University.

4.12 Glossary of Terms

Biosolids – Also known as sewage sludge from primary or tertiary wastewater treatment. Biowaste – The organic fraction of the municipal waste stream, which includes food waste and/or green waste. Digestate – The solid organic residual removed at the end of anaerobic digestion process that can be turned into compost. Garden Refuse – The leaf and yard waste fraction of the municipal waste stream. Also known as green waste.

73

http://www.iwm-model.uwaterloo.ca/


Green Waste - The leaf and yard waste fraction of the municipal waste stream. Also known as garden refuse. Grey Waste – The residual waste remaining after the organic fraction and recyclables have been removed. MSW – Municipal solid waste – includes residential waste (e.g., single family and multi family) and IC&I waste (e.g., small, local businesses) that receive municipal waste collection services. SSO of MSW – Source separated organics of the municipal waste stream – includes organics collected from the residential waste stream (e.g., single family and multi-family) and the IC&I waste stream (e.g., small, local businesses) that receive municipal waste collection service

74


5 DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: SANITARY LANDFILL

5.1 Introduction and Overview Increasing wide-spread adoption of waste minimization practices and the evolution of progressively more sustainable waste management technologies, will contribute to a trend away from the historical necessity for disposal of wastes. However, given the current status of waste generation and waste management policies, practices and technologies, there remains a need for technologies to allow disposal of residual waste materials. The following evaluation describes the current status of typical sanitary landfill technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on sanitary landfills. 5.1.1 Technology Description

With appreciation, the following technology description has been excerpted from Section 6 of “Solid Waste as a Resource, Review of Waste Technologies”, published by The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, March 2004.

“A landfill is a facility in which solid wastes are disposed in a manner which limits their impact on the environment. Landfills consist of a complex system of interrelated components and sub-systems that act together to break down and stabilize disposed wastes over time. Due to the wide variation in the approaches that are undertaken for landfill disposal of wastes, for the purposes of description of the technology it is best to consider the continuum of the range of technical elements that make up a landfill (See Figure 5.1).”

DAILY/INTERIM COVER

LEACHATE RECIRCULATION

LEACHATE REMOVAL

GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM

COVER SYSTEM

WASTE LIFTS

ENERGYGENERATION

LANDFILL GAS BLOWER

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

• Natural Attenuation

• Leachate Containment

• Leachate Collection

LEACHATE INJECTIONSYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING

LANDFILL GAS FLARE

DAILY/INTERIM COVER


LEACHATE REMOVAL


COVER SYSTEM

WASTE LIFTS

ENERGYGENERATION

LANDFILL GAS BLOWER







LANDFILL GAS FLARE

DAILY/INTERIM COVER


LEACHATE REMOVAL


COVER SYSTEM

WASTE LIFTS

ENERGYGENERATION

LANDFILL GAS BLOWER







LANDFILL GAS FLARE

Figure 5.1 – Range of Principal Technical Elements of a Landfill

75


The following lists some of the key factors taken into consideration in the siting and design of contemporary non-hazardous waste landfills:

• site setting: geology, land use, local impact potential - groundwater, surface water, noise, traffic, dust, visual impacts, odour, air quality

• public consultation • hydrogeology and groundwater

protection: natural attenuation capacity • ecology • site design: disposal capacity, soils

balance, configuration, site infrastructure needs

• leachate containment and collection systems

• leachate treatment/disposal requirements

• stormwater management and landfill gas collection

• daily, interim cover materials • environmental monitoring and

performance • operational and maintenance protocols • health and safety • cap systems • closure and end-use • post-closure management.

Landfills cells are constructed either by excavation below ground surface or by construction of cell containment berms on the selected site. Once the cell is prepared in accordance with design requirements, wastes are placed and compacted into the landfill cell and are generally covered with soil or other alternative cover material at the end of each day of operation. The use of soil or other cover material serves to reduce windblown litter, limits odours and prevents scavenging and burrowing by animals and insects. Waste filling progresses in this manner until final grades are achieved. Groundwater protection priorities may be addressed by the natural attenuation characteristics of a site, use of leachate collection systems, and/or the use of leachate containment systems. Selection of an approach to groundwater protection is based on site-specific considerations and can involve detailed assessment of the hydrogeologic conditions at a given site, the potential for impacts, the anticipated contaminating lifespan of a site and the capability of the environment to effectively manage the anticipated impacts to an acceptable level. Site characteristics such as configuration (i.e., footprint area, base slopes), waste depths, landfill daily cover materials, cap design, etc. have a profound influence on groundwater protection at landfills. Natural attenuation is considered to be the inherent characteristic of a site and its geologic setting to dilute, disperse, degrade and adsorb contaminants in soils and groundwater. Most sites have some degree of natural attenuation capability. Given a suitable setting, natural attenuation may prove to be an acceptable primary method of ensuring groundwater protection or may be combined with other measures to provide the necessary level of protection. Leachate containment systems may consist of soil liners constructed from native and/or imported materials, synthetic membrane liners or composite liner systems utilizing both soil and synthetic liners. Leachate containment systems may be included in the design of a site to limit the flux of leachate from the wastes into the ground. Leachate collection systems are incorporated into some contemporary landfills to prevent build-up of liquid within the wastes. This assists with groundwater protection and prevents seepage of leachate from the above ground side slopes of the landfill surface to avoid potential surface water contamination as well as exposure of persons and animals to contaminants. Leachate collection systems can be designed and constructed in conjunction with development

76


of landfill cells or if suitable conditions exist, leachate collection systems may be installed after landfilling has taken place. Approaches for management of collected leachate include:

• off-site transport (via truck or sewer) to a suitable sewage treatment facility; • on-site treatment to meet acceptable discharge criteria; • leachate evaporation; and, • leachate recirculation.

Selection of the preferred leachate management approach is complex and must consider the anticipated range in variability of leachate quantities and characteristics as well as the technical feasibility of treatment (on-site & off-site), proximity and availability of suitable off-site treatment facilities, transportation costs, capital and operating costs for on-site treatment, and the regulatory context for leachate treatment and discharge. Similar to the technologies often applied to municipal wastewater treatment - biological (aerobic and anaerobic), physical and chemical methods are available for the treatment of landfill leachate. Leachate treatment technologies may include biological treatment, carbon adsorption, nitrification/denitrification, chlorination, ion exchange, chemical precipitation, biochemical treatment, pH adjustment, reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration. Use of engineered wetlands as an ecologically based treatment process is also gaining recognition as a potentially viable component of an overall treatment system. Determination of the exact processes required for effective leachate treatment is site-specific and typically requires detailed bench testing and pilot scale implementation to verify the suitability of the treatment system. Evaporation of leachate using landfill gas as a fuel is a leachate management approach that has been applied in some locations. Important considerations related to leachate evaporation include availability of sufficient gas supply, acceptability of emissions, management of waste sludge and the capital and operating costs of the technology relative to other options. Recirculation of leachate into the landfilled wastes has been applied as a liquid management technique for many years at a number of sites. Leachate recirculation has been demonstrated to enhance rates of waste stabilization, increase landfill settlement, increase landfill gas generation rates and provide some treatment effect on the leachate. Leachate recirculation has contributed to development of the bioreactor landfill which is discussed in more detail in Section 7.9 (ed. – incorporated as Section 6.1.1 herein). Landfill gas, composed primarily of methane, carbon dioxide and trace organic compounds, is produced by the decomposition of wastes placed in a landfill. At some sites, emissions of landfill gas to the atmosphere can raise concerns related to odours, air quality, and potential adverse health effects. Landfill gas is also a potent greenhouse gas contributing to global climate change. Migration of landfill gas into the soil surrounding a site has the potential to create safety and health concerns, particularly if allowed to accumulate at explosive concentrations within enclosed or low lying spaces. There are numerous methods to mitigate the potential impacts of landfill gas. Control of landfill gas emissions to the atmosphere, when required, is often accomplished by actively extracting landfill gas from the wastes. The collected gas is then combusted or utilized as an energy resource. Sub-surface migration of landfill gas can be mitigated through active collection or by other methods including passive venting of gas from below ground into the atmosphere. Care

77


must be taken when venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere to protect against local adverse effects such as odour or air quality impacts. Collection and flaring of landfill gas is effective in mitigating its potentially harmful effects. Utilization instead of flaring the landfill gas provides additional spin-off benefits. Primary among these is the potential to generate revenue at sites where landfill gas utilization is economically viable. This may defray some of the costs of operation and maintenance of a landfill site. There is a growing public awareness of energy conservation issues. Landfill gas, as a relatively clean burning fuel, can off-set consumption of other non-renewable resources whose production and use may be more detrimental to the environment. There have been numerous successful landfill gas utilization projects carried out in Canada and the United States. There are many technologies available for utilization of landfill gas. Options that are available include the following:

• generation of electricity; • space heating; • process heating; and, • production of pipeline quality gas.

Generation of electricity and heating applications are the most commonly selected landfill gas utilization options. The feasibility of landfill gas utilization is dependent upon the availability of markets; market pricing; and the costs of implementing landfill gas utilization at a particular site.

Research and development of emerging technologies - such as small scale generation of electricity using micro turbines, production of vehicle fuel derived from landfill gas, production of methanol from landfill gas and cryogenic processing of landfill gas into a compressed liquid fuel – offers promise for future landfill gas utilization ventures.

The primary impediments to landfill gas utilization have been related to the perception of risk due to a lack of knowledge of the potential resource, current low energy rates, the absence of a renewable energy industry in Canada and limitations on access to energy markets. This state of affairs in flux. It is envisioned that a growing public awareness of the value of renewable energy combined with progressive energy sector deregulation will contribute to overcoming some of the current obstacles.

Landfill capping systems are applied to isolate wastes from the environment when cells or portions of a landfill reach design final grades. As a fundamental component controlling the moisture content of the wastes, landfill caps can have a strong influence on the processes involved in decomposition and stabilization of the landfilled wastes over the long-term. Until only recently conventional approaches to landfill cap design were based primarily on minimizing the amount of moisture allowed to enter the wastes, thereby limiting the generation and build-up of leachate within the site. Moisture limiting caps are generally constructed from low permeability soil materials and/or synthetic membranes.

Landfill caps are one element that may be included in plans for closure of a landfill. Landfill closure plans, when implemented, can define the method of closure of a landfill and provide a basis for establishing end use of a site. End use plans incorporate requirements for site security as well as post-closure management, maintenance and monitoring. Many sites do not have formal end use programs, while at some Canadian landfills innovative end uses such as passive recreational and golf course development have been successfully applied.

78


The following lists a few examples of landfills in Canada.

Table 5.1 – Examples of Landfills in Canada

Site Name Site Owner Location Primary Site Features Conventional Landfills Robin Hood Bay

City of St. John’s

St. John’s, Newfoundland

• Partial leachate collection • Gas utilization – under

consideration Bestan Inc. Canadian

Waste Services

Magog, Quebec

• Natural soil containment • Leachate collection system • On-site leachate treatment • Landfill gas collection and heating

Trail Waste Management Facility

City of Ottawa

Nepean, Ontario

• Partial synthetic liner • Leachate collection system • Leachate recirculation • Landfill gas collection and flaring • Synthetic cap system

Mohawk Landfill

City of Brantford

Brantford, Ontario

• Partial leachate collection • Groundwater control system • LFG migration control system • LFG utilization pending

Hartland Landfill Site

Capital Regional District

Victoria, British Columbia

• Liner system • Leachate collection system • Landfill gas collection

Within the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the merit of an alternative approach to cap design that encourages infiltration of moisture into the landfill, thereby enhancing biodegradation and speeding the rate of decomposition and stabilization of the wastes. Moisture infiltration caps are generally constructed from high permeability sandy soils. Recognition of the influence of high moisture content on waste decomposition grew from the historic practice of recirculation of leachate into the wastes, which has been undertaken at some sites as a liquid management technique. Observations at leachate recirculation sites indicated that significantly increased rates of settlement and gas generation were realized. Subsequent studies have strengthened the understanding that leachate recirculation and addition of moisture to the wastes in a landfill enhances the biological decomposition process and may provide some leachate treatment effect potentially shortening the contaminating lifespan of a site. The evolution of leachate recirculation has led to a landfill design approach that is generally referred to as the bioreactor landfill. Bioreactor treatment of solid wastes involves design, construction and operation of a landfill cell that is specifically engineered to enhance the decomposition of wastes through careful manipulation of conditions within the site. In essence, bioreactor technology provides a method of processing or treating wastes within the confines of a tightly controlled landfill cell. Section 7.9 (ed. – incorporated as Section 7.2.1 herein) discusses bioreactor landfills in greater detail.”

79


5.1.2 General Regulatory Requirements With appreciation, the following description of regulatory requirements associated with waste disposal sites has been excerpted from Section 6 of “Solid Waste as a Resource, Review of Waste Technologies”, published by The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, March 2004. “Landfills established within the past 25 years have been permitted within a regulatory framework that did not address as many environmental issues or considerations as today’s framework. Current regulatory approaches pertaining to planning and siting of landfills vary across Canada, ranging from broad performance-based environmental protection regulations to regulations defining minimum standards for specific technical elements. In some jurisdictions, combinations of performance-based and prescriptive regulations are applied. Regulatory processes may also include alternative procedures or applications that vary dependent upon the site and/or site location. Municipal solid waste landfills receive a wide variety of non-hazardous wastes, dependent upon the context of the landfill within the overall waste management approach. There is a trend towards excluding or banning disposal of some materials. Disposal of liquid wastes is no longer acceptable at many sites due to concerns about possible increased leachate effects. Hazardous wastes are managed at specifically designed landfills, which are different from municipal landfills. In some areas, materials that can be dealt with by other means are banned from landfills. In communities where recycling is available, it is generally not acceptable to dispose of recyclables in landfills. Other examples: drywall, auto hulks, construction/demolition debris, organic wastes, and other materials dependent upon availability of alternative material management options. These bans generally aim to ensure that wastes are managed properly and that landfill disposal is reserved for materials that cannot be managed by other means.” 5.2 Evaluation The primary purpose of the evaluation methodology applied herein is to provide a relative comparison of the primary effects of organic waste management activities. While this evaluation makes use of commonly applied impact assessment tools, it must be recognized that this evaluation is generic in nature and cannot reasonably be considered or applied on a site-specific basis. 5.2.1 Waste Quantities and Composition The methodology for evaluating organic waste management activities included the development of hypothetical sanitary landfill facilities and assessment of the impacts on these hypothetical facilities resulting from the associated changes in the input waste disposal stream. A key consideration in this evaluation is definition of the impact that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on the quantity and composition of wastes and residuals that would be directed to sanitary landfills. To this end, three waste management scenarios were defined that result in landfill disposal of wastes including:

80


• Base case (BC) – waste generation, recycling and disposal based on recent national statistical information and waste composition derived from recent studies;

• Source separated organics (SSO) – the base case scenario with organic waste diversion and processing efforts applied; and,

• Mixed Waste – the base case scenario with mixed waste composting and anaerobic digestion applied.

These three waste management scenarios were considered in the context of three different sized communities having initial populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 persons each. Waste generation and composition data for the three community profiles were developed and are described and defined in detail elsewhere in this document. From the community-based waste generation and composition profiles, a summary of the anticipated initial waste composition and quantities directed to landfill disposal was derived as shown in Table 5.2. To reflect the widely applied practice of disposal of industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes along with residential (“black bag”) wastes at many sanitary landfills, it was assumed that 100% addition to the base case scenario would be added for industrial, institutional & commercial waste. This approach differs from assumptions regarding IC&I waste that have been applied for the waste processing technologies included in this evaluation to ensure that the landfill disposal scenarios are also reflective of current wide-spread practice and therefore provide an appropriate and equitable basis for comparison. As a simplifying assumption for the purposes of this evaluation, it was also assumed that the overall composition of the IC&I waste matched that of the base-case residential waste. The base case IC&I disposal amounts were held fixed for each of the community sizes in each of the organic waste management scenarios. For each of the community profiles, the initial waste composition and quantity profiles were projected over a 20 year service life of the sanitary landfill facility. As a simplifying assumption for this analysis, a population growth rate of 1.5% per year was applied. To aid in the subsequent assessment of landfill impacts, the wastes were also classified according to the associated decomposition characteristics as follows:

• Readily decomposable – Compostables, textiles, sanitary products; • Moderately decomposable – plastics, paper fibres, household special wastes,

building renovation materials, rubber, furniture, SSO residuals, other; and, • Low rate decomposability (i.e., inert materials) – metals, glass, white goods, electronics.

Table 5.3, Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 illustrate the landfill waste filling projections for the three community sizes based on this approach. From the three tables it can readily be seen that extension of landfill operating lifespan by reduction of the rate of waste disposal is one of the fundamental effects of organic waste management activities.

81


Table 5.2 – Initial Waste Compositions

Base Case Scenarios - Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

SSO Scenarios - Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

Mixed Waste Scenarios - Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop 20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop 20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop

Waste Categories

Black Bag

IC&I33 Black Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33 Black

Bag IC&I33

Paper Fibres 1,724 1,724 6,407 6,407 17,237 17,237 1,491 1,724 5,520 6,407 14,913 17,237 882 1,724 3,282 6,407 8,817 17,237

Plastics 467 467 1,869 1,869 4,672 4,672 467 467 1,869 1,869 4,672 4,672 420 467 1,679 1,869 4,198 4,672

Metals 219 219 875 875 2,188 2,188 219 219 875 875 2,188 2,188 134 219 534 875 1,335 2,188

Glass 319 319 1,276 1,276 3,189 3,189 319 319 1,276 1,276 3,189 3,189 159 319 638 1,276 1,595 3,189


48 48 192 192 479 479 48 48 192 192 479 479 30 48 118 192 296 479

Compostables 2,264 2,264 9,055 9,055 22,638 22,638 651 2,264 2,604 9,055 6,509 22,638 1,132 2,264 4,528 9,055 11,319 22,638

Other Wastes 958 958 3,834 3,834 9,584 9,584 1,050 958 4,201 3,834 10,507 9,584 771 958 3,086 3,834 7,714 9,584

Total 5,999 5,999 23,506 23,506 59,987 59,987 4,245 5,999 16,535 23,506 42,457 59,987 3,527 5,999 13,865 23,506 35,273 59,987

Annual Facility Input Total 11,997 47,013 119,973 10,244 40,042 102,443 9,526 37,371 95,259

33 IC&I assumed to be 50% of base case for each population scenario. For simplicity, composition of IC&I assumed to match that of base case black bag waste. IC&I tonnages

from base case held fixed and applied to waste management scenarios

82


Table 5.3 – Breakdown of Waste Disposal – 20,000

Base Case Scenario SSO Scenario Mixed Waste Scenario Wastes to Disposal

(by Decomposition Characteristics) Wastes to Disposal


(by Decomposition Characteristics)

Year

Population

Readily Moderate Low Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total 2005 20,000 5,681 5,137 1,179 11,997 4,068 4,996 1,179 10,244 4,362 4,229 935 9,526 2006 20,300 5,767 5,214 1,197 12,177 4,129 5,071 1,197 10,398 4,428 4,292 949 9,669 2007 20,605 5,853 5,292 1,215 12,360 4,191 5,147 1,215 10,554 4,494 4,357 963 9,814 2008 20,914 5,941 5,371 1,233 12,545 4,254 5,224 1,233 10,712 4,562 4,422 977 9,961 2009 21,227 6,030 5,452 1,252 12,733 4,318 5,303 1,252 10,873 4,630 4,488 992 10,110 2010 21,546 6,120 5,534 1,271 12,924 4,383 5,382 1,271 11,036 4,700 4,556 1,007 10,262 2011 21,869 6,212 5,617 1,290 13,118 4,449 5,463 1,290 11,201 4,770 4,624 1,022 10,416 2012 22,197 6,305 5,701 1,309 13,315 4,515 5,545 1,309 11,369 4,842 4,693 1,037 10,572 2013 22,530 6,400 5,786 1,329 13,515 4,583 5,628 1,329 11,540 4,914 4,764 1,053 10,731 2014 22,868 6,496 5,873 1,348 13,718 4,652 5,713 1,348 11,713 4,988 4,835 1,069 10,892 2015 23,211 6,593 5,961 1,369 13,923 4,722 5,798 1,369 11,889 5,063 4,908 1,085 11,055 2016 23,559 6,692 6,051 1,389 14,132 4,792 5,885 1,389 12,067 5,139 4,981 1,101 11,221 2017 23,912 6,793 6,141 1,410 14,344 4,864 5,974 1,410 12,248 5,216 5,056 1,118 11,389 2018 24,271 6,895 6,234 1,431 14,559 4,937 6,063 1,431 12,432 5,294 5,132 1,134 11,560 2019 24,635 6,998 6,327 1,453 14,778 5,011 6,154 1,453 12,618 5,373 5,209 1,151 11,734 2020 25,005 7,103 6,422 1,474 14,999 5,087 6,246 1,474 12,807 5,454 1,169 11,910 2021 25,380 7,210 6,518 1,497 15,224 5,163 6,340 1,497 13,000 5,536 5,366 1,186 12,088 2022 25,760 7,318 6,616 1,519 15,453 5,240 6,435 1,519 13,195 5,619 5,447 1,204 12,2702023 26,147 7,427 6,715 1,542 15,685 5,319 6,532 1,542 13,392 5,703 5,528 1,222 12,4542024 26,539 7,539 6,816 1,565 15,920 5,399 6,630 1,565 13,593 5,789 5,611 1,240 12,6402025 26,937 7,652 6,918 1,588 16,159 5,480 6,729 1,588 13,797 5,876 5,696 1,259 12,8302026 27,341 139,026 125,695 28,860 293,580 5,562 6,830 1,612 14,004 5,964 5,781 1,278 13,0222027 27,751 5,645 6,933 1,636 14,214 6,053 5,868 1,297 13,2182028 28,168 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 20 5,730 7,037 1,661 14,427 6,144 5,956 1,316 13,4162029 28,590 6,236 6,045 1,336 13,617 2030 29,019 116,495 143,058 33,770 293,323

106,751 103,480 22,872 286,378Additional yr 0.02

Facility Lifespan (yrs) 23.0 Additional yr 0.52 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 24.5

5,287

Key Assumptions: Timeframe: 2005 to 202,5 Initial Population: 20,000, Annual Population Increase (%): 1.5

83



Base Scenario SSO Scenario Mixed Waste Scenario Year Population Wastes to Disposal



(by Decomposition Characteristics) Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total

2005 80,000 22,725 19,570 4,718 47,013 16,274 19,050 4,718 40,042 17,450 16,183 3,739 37,371

2006 81,200 23,066 19,863 4,788 47,718 16,518 19,336 4,788 40,642 17,712 16,425 3,795 37,932

2007 82,418 23,412 20,161 4,860 48,434 16,766 19,626 4,860 41,252 17,977 16,672 3,852 38,501

2008 83,654 23,763 20,464 4,933 49,160 17,017 19,920 4,933 41,871 18,247 16,922 3,910 39,078

2009 84,909 24,120 20,771 5,007 49,897 17,272 20,219 5,007 42,499 18,521 17,176 3,968 39,664

2010 86,183 24,482 21,082 5,082 50,646 17,532 20,523 5,082 43,136 18,798 17,433 4,028 40,259

2011 87,475 24,849 21,398 5,158 51,406 17,795 20,830 5,158 43,783 19,080 17,695 4,088 40,863

2012 88,788 25,222 21,719 5,236 52,177 18,061 21,143 5,236 44,440 19,367 17,960 4,149 41,476

2013 90,119 25,600 22,045 5,314 52,959 18,332 21,460 5,314 45,107 19,657 18,230 4,212 42,098

2014 91,471 25,984 22,376 5,394 53,754 18,607 21,782 5,394 45,783 19,952 18,503 4,275 42,730

2015 92,843 26,374 22,711 5,475 54,560 18,886 22,109 5,475 46,470 20,251 18,781 4,339 43,371

2016 94,236 26,769 23,052 5,557 55,378 19,170 22,440 5,557 47,167 20,555 19,062 4,404 44,021

2017 95,649 27,171 23,398 5,640 56,209 19,457 22,777 5,640 47,875 20,863 19,348 4,470 44,682

2018 97,084 27,578 23,749 5,725 57,052 19,749 23,119 5,725 48,593 21,176 19,639 4,537 45,352

2019 98,540 27,992 24,105 5,811 57,908 20,045 23,465 5,811 49,322 21,494 19,933 4,605 46,032

2020 100,019 28,412 24,467 5,898 58,777 20,346 23,817 5,898 50,061 21,816 20,232 4,674 46,723

101,519 28,838 24,834 5,986 59,658 20,651 24,175 50,812 22,144 20,536 4,744 47,424

2022 103,042 29,271 25,206 6,076 60,553 20,961 24,537 6,076 51,575 22,476 20,844 4,816 48,135

2023 104,587 29,710 25,584 6,167 61,462 21,275 24,905 6,167 52,348 22,813 21,156 4,888 48,857

2024 106,156 30,155 25,968 6,260 21,595 62,383 25,279 6,260 53,133 23,155 21,474 4,961 49,590

2025 107,748 30,608 26,358 6,354 63,319 25,658 53,930 21,796 21,919 6,354 23,502 5,036 50,334

2026 109,365 556,102 478,882 115,440 1,150,424 22,247 26,043 6,449 54,739 23,855 22,123 5,111 51,089

2027 111,005 22,581 26,434 6,546 55,560 24,213 22,454 5,188 51,855

2028 112,670 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 22,920 6,644 24, 5,266 20 26,830 56,394 576 22,791 52,633

2029 114,360 24,944 23,133 5,345 53,422

2030 135,079 116,076 465,978 545,477 1,146,535427,005 91,489

Additional yr 0.07

Facility Lifespan (yrs) 23.1 Additional yr 0.51

Facility Lifespan (yrs) 24.5

2021 5,986

395,999 1,123,491

84

Municipal Waste Integration Network / Recycling Council of Alberta Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal Key Assumptions: Timeframe: 2005 to 2025 Initial Population: 80,000 Annual Population Increase (%): 1.5

85



Base Scenario SSO Scenario Year Population Wastes to Disposal



(by Decomposition Characteristics) Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total

2005 200,000 56,813 51,366 11,794 119,973 40,685 49,965 11,794 102,443 43,624 42,288 9,347 95,259

2006 203,000 57,666 52,136 11,971 121,773 41,295 50,714 11,971 103,980 44,279 42,922 9,487 96,688

2007 206,045 58,531 52,918 12,150 123,599 41,914 51,475 12,150 105,540 44,943 43,566 9,629 98,138

2008 209,136 59,409 53,712 12,332 125,453 42,543 52,247 12,332 107,123 45,617 44,219 9,774 99,610

2009 212,273 60,300 54,518 12,517 127,335 43,181 53,031 12,517 108,730 46,301 44,883 9,920 101,105

2010 215,457 61,204 55,336 12,705 129,245 43,829 53,826 12,705 110,361 46,996 45,556 10,069 102,621

2011 218,689 62,122 56,166 12,896 131,184 44,486 54,634 12,896 112,016 47,701 46,239 10,220 104,160

2012 221,969 63,054 57,008 13,089 133,151 45,154 55,453 13,089 113,696 48,416 46,933 10,374 105,723

2013 225,299 64,000 57,863 13,286 135,149 45,831 56,285 13,286 115,402 49,143 47,637 10,529 107,309

2014 228,678 64,960 58,731 13,485 137,176 46,518 57,129 13,485 117,133 49,880 48,351 10,687 108,918

2015 232,108 65,934 59,612 110,552 13,687 139,234 47,216 57,986 13,687 118,890 50,628 49,077 10,847

2016 235,590 66,923 60,506 13,892 141,322 47,924 58,856 13,892 120,673 51,387 49,813 11,010 112,210

2017 239,124 67,927 61,414 14,101 143,442 48,643 59,739 122,483 11,175 14,101 52,158 50,560 113,894

2018 242,710 68,946 62,335 14,312 145,594 49,373 60,635 14,312 124,320 52,941 11,343 51,318 115,602

2019 246,351 69,980 63,270 14,527 147,777 50,114 61,544 14,527 126,185 53,735 52,088 11,513 117,336

2020 250,046 71,030 64,219 14,745 149,994 50,865 62,468 14,745 128,078 54,541 52,870 11,686 119,096

253,797 72,095 65,182 14,966 152,244 51,628 63,405 14,966 129,999 55,359 53,663 11,861 120,882

257,604 73,177 66,160 15,191 154,528 52,403 64,356 15,191 56,189 54,468 12,039 122,696

2023 261,468 74,275 67,153 15,418 156,846 53,189 65,321 15,418 133,928 57,032 55,285 12,220 124,536

2024 265,390 75,389 68,160 15,650 159,198 53,987 66,301 15,650 135,937 57,887 56,114 12,403 126,404

2025 269,371 76,519 69,182 15,884 161,586 54,796 12,589 67,295 15,884 137,976 58,756 56,955 128,300

2026 273,412 68,305 1,390,255 1,256,947 288,600 2,935,802 55,618 16,123 140,046 59,637 57,810 12,778 130,225

2027 277,513 56,453 132,178 69,329 16,365 142,147 60,532 58,677 12,969

2028 281,675 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 20 57,299 70,369 16,610 144,279 61,440 59,557 13,164 134,161

2029 285,901 62,361 60,450 13,361 136,173

2030 290,189 1,164,946 1,430,669 337,697 2,933,312 1,067,512 1,034,804 228,723 2,863,776

Additional yr 0.02

Facility Lifespan (yrs) 23.0 Additional yr 0.52

Facility Lifespan (yrs) 24.5

Mixed Waste Scenario

2021

2022 131,949

Key Assumptions: Timeframe: 2005 to 2025 Initial Population: 200,000 Annual Population Increase (%): 1.5

86


Table 5.6 – Hypothetical Sanitary Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions

Initial Community Service Population Parameter 20,000 80,000 200,000

Type of Site Natural Attenuation Engineered Containment Engineered Containment

Disposal capacity (t) 293,580 1,150,424 2,935,802

Minimum operating period (y) 20 20 20

Site location Rural Land Suburban Industrial Land Suburban Industrial Land

Site operating mode Part-time Full-time Full-time

Site configuration:

Depth of Waste (m) 6 10 10

Top Side Slopes (%) 25 25 25

Top Surface Slope (%) 5 5 5

Cell Sidewall Slope (%) 50 50 50

Cell Base Slope (%) 5 5 5

Perimeter Buffer Zone (m) 50 50 50

Daily Cover Material On-site soil On-site soil On-site soil

Waste: Cover Ratio 4:1

600 600 600

Leachate Containment and Collection

No Yes Yes

None Double composite geotextile

with geomembrane

Leachate Management None Off-site treatment Off-site treatment

Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring

No Yes Yes

Landfill Closure Cap Compacted clayey soil Compacted clayey soil Compacted clayey soil

Post-Closure Management Period (y)

50 50 50

4:1 4:1

Apparent Waste Density (kg/m3)

Base LinerDouble composite geotextile

with geomembrane

87


5.2.2 Sanitary Landfill Facilities The preceding waste disposal schedules for the base-case scenarios were used as the basis for developing the primary configuration and design requirements for three hypothetical sanitary landfills, as would be expected to be required to serve each of the communities.

It was judged that a sanitary landfill facility with an initial service population of 20,000 persons would be feasible primarily in the context of a natural attenuation site whereas the facilities serving the larger communities were assumed to be implemented using an engineered containment approach. Assumptions were made regarding facility infrastructure and operational considerations based on a generalized interpretation of common practice in the context of these two types of landfills.

Table 5.6 summarizes the key assumptions and parameters applied for each of the three community-based hypothetical sanitary landfills. It is recognized that in practice these key parameters and assumptions vary from site to site and it would not be possible to perform this evaluation in a manner that is universally representative of all facilities. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is felt that the key parameters and assumptions applied represent a large portion of current practices common at many small to medium sized sanitary landfill sites in Canada and provide a reasonable basis for comparison of the effects of organic waste management activities in the context of those types of sites.

It is recognized that the period of time required for post-closure management of a landfill is site-specific and can vary widely from facility to facility. It is important to note that a post-closure management period of 50 years has been assumed for sanitary landfills in this evaluation. This is significantly longer than has often been presumed in the past (i.e., approximately 30 years dependent upon site-specific conditions). The longer post-closure management period was assumed in this evaluation to be reflective of the long-term liabilities associated with landfill disposal. This is consistent with programs currently being implemented in many Canadian municipalities to identify and manage old or former landfills. It should be recognized that the method of evaluation of a single sanitary landfill serving a single defined community population base as presented herein does not reflect the current trend towards regionalization of many smaller landfills into fewer larger facilities which have large service areas containing many communities. Based on the key parameters and assumptions described above, an evaluation of fundamental environmental, energy, social and economic factors was performed for each of the hypothetical community-size based facilities under each of the waste management scenarios. 5.3 Key Environmental Considerations 5.3.1 Land Area Consumption The land area footprint required for the hypothetical landfill facilities was calculated based on the required disposal capacity, apparent waste density and the defined site configuration parameters identified previously. An allowance for a 50 metre lateral separation buffer zone surrounding the entire landfill waste footprint was included. Given that sanitary landfill facilities are often sited and designed based on a fixed waste disposal capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of waste diversion by organic waste

88


management activities would extend the operating lifespan of the hypothetical landfills that are the subject of this evaluation. Under this assumption, the land area consumption of a given landfill facility would not be impacted by the organic waste management activities. The following summarizes land area consumption required for each of the three community population-based facilities.

Table 5.7 – Land Area Consumption Requirements

Land Area Consumption Initial Community Population m² ha m²/tonne of Waste Disposed

20,000 84,149 8.4 0.287

80,000 181,800 18.21 0.158

200,000 344,138 34.4 0.117

The primary factor influencing the variation in the unit land area consumption values is the geometry of the facility configuration, with larger sites generally having a more efficient airspace-volume to footprint relationship. 5.3.2 Landfill Airspace Consumption As indicated above, landfill facilities are sited and designed based on a fixed disposal capacity. It is also held that the in-place density of compacted landfilled wastes is insensitive to diversion of portions of organic wastes. These factors determine that organic waste diversion activities do not directly impact the consumption of landfill airspace on a unit mass basis. As illustrated previously, organic waste diversion activities reduce the overall rate at which wastes are disposed in a landfill, thereby extending the operating period of a landfill facility. The following demonstrates the lifespan extension effect.

Table 5.8 – Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years)

Waste Management Scenario Community Population Base Case SSO Mixed Waste

25

80,000 20 23 25

23 25

20,000 20 23

200,000 20

Given the challenges associated with establishment of landfill sites and the significant economic value of landfill airspace, extension of landfill operating lifespan by even a few years is a notable benefit.

89


5.3.3 Water 5.3.3.1 Consumption With a few exceptions, sanitary landfill facilities do not generally require consumption of significant quantities of water as a result of the disposal of wastes. At some facilities dewatering activities are undertaken to address site-specific geotechnical and/or hydrogeologic conditions. Such site-specific cases are not considered to be representative of typical wide-spread practice and when used, dewatering is often combined with re-introduction of the collected water into some other location in the nearby environment, resulting in zero net consumption. 5.3.3.2 Wastewater Sanitary landfill sites generate leachate primarily as a result of the percolation of precipitation moisture through wastes. Sanitary landfills manage leachate either through the natural attenuation capacity of the local environment or through engineered leachate containment, collection and treatment systems. The quantity of leachate that is generated at sanitary landfill sites is influenced by local climatic conditions and physical site factors such as surface slopes, cap materials and surface cover materials. Modeling of leachate generation for the operating and post-closure period of the various landfill scenarios was undertaken as a component of this evaluation. The following summarizes the evaluation of leachate, expressed in terms of total quantity of leachate per tonne of waste disposed.

Table 5.9 – Landfill Leachate Summary (m3/tonne Waste Disposed)34

Waste Management Scenario Base Case SSO Mixed Waste Community

Population Leachate Discharge

Leachate Generation

Leachate Discharge

Leachate Generation

Leachate Discharge

20,000 4.27 4.27 4.38 4.38 4.44 4.44

80,000 2.69 — 2.76 — 2.79 —

200,000 2.16 — 2.21 —

Leachate Generation

2.24 —

In this evaluation it has been assumed that the smallest site is a natural attenuation site and therefore relies on discharge of all of the leachate generated into the environment where natural mechanisms serve to treat the contaminants in the leachate. For the two larger, sites it has been assumed that all of the leachate generated is contained, collected and treated to acceptable discharge quality prior to discharge to the environment.

The primary distinction in leachate generation quantities between the three waste management scenarios results from the additional leachate that would generated over the extended landfill operating lifespans that result from organic waste diversion activities.

34 Reflects total leachate quantities spanning the operating and post-closure periods of each facility.

90


From the above it can be seen that the larger sites generate less leachate per unit of waste disposed. This is primarily due to the more efficient relationship of waste-airspace to surface footprint that is inherent in the configuration of larger sites and the fact that leachate generation rates are strongly influenced by the size and condition of the surface of the landfill.

5.3.4 Air

Uncontrolled emissions to the air from landfill sites can contribute to odours, degradation of local air quality and contribution of greenhouse gases into the environment. Some Canadian jurisdictions have regulatory requirements relating to control of emissions from landfill sites. In general terms, landfill site emission controls are implemented at larger sites due to the greater potential for local impacts if emissions are left unmanaged.

For the purpose of this evaluation it has been assumed that the smaller community (20,000 persons) sanitary landfill site would not be equipped with emission controls while the larger facilities would include active landfill gas collection and flaring systems.

5.3.4.1 Overall Emissions Landfill gas is made up primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. A variety of other organic compounds may also be present in landfill gas at trace concentrations – typically at parts per million or less. The methane component of landfill gas is a potent greenhouse gas and is evaluated in Section 5.3.4.2. Certain trace compounds, when present may contribute to odour impacts and in some cases, air quality impacts. The incidence and concentrations of specific trace compounds in landfill gas are highly variable from Site to Site, at various locations within a given Site and on a temporal basis. As a general indicator of the potential air impacts, the following evaluation considers overall emissions of landfill gas. To evaluate the effect that organic waste diversion activities would have on landfill emissions, landfill gas generation modeling was performed using the widely accepted Scholl-Canyon model. The landfill gas generation modeling took into account the varying composition of the waste streams under the three waste management scenarios. To accomplish this, wastes directed to disposal were classified according to the associated decomposition characteristics as follows:



Landfill gas generation was then modeled for the various hypothetical sites and filling scenarios using input parameters appropriate for the three decomposition categories. It was assumed that sites equipped with landfill gas controls would achieve a recovery rate of 75%, which is in the range considered typical for a well-designed and operated landfill gas collection and flaring system. For sites without landfill gas controls, it was assumed that all landfill gas generated would eventually be emitted to the atmosphere. For all scenarios the quantities of landfill gas generated and emitted were calculated spanning the entire 70 year operating and post-closure management period. The following summarizes the evaluation of landfill gas generation and emissions, expressed in total quantity of landfill gas per tonne of waste disposed.

91


Table 5.10 – Landfill Gas Summary (m3/tonne Waste Disposed) 35

Waste Management Scenario Base Case Mixed Waste Community

Population Landfill Gas Emissions

Landfill Gas Generation

Landfill Gas Emissions

Landfill Gas Generation

Landfill Gas Emissions

20,000 4.27 4.27 4.38 4.38 4.44 4.44

80,000 2.69 — 2.76 — 2.79 —

200,000 2.16 — 2.21 — 2.24

SSO Landfill Gas Generation

—

It is noted that there is some variation in unit landfill gas generation under all scenarios based on community size. This is the result of variances in the waste composition profiles that are projected for the three different community sizes. This evaluation demonstrates that organic waste management activities have a noticeable effect on landfill gas generation with the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios reducing the unit gas generation in the ranges of 8 to 17% and 4 to 13%, respectively. The corresponding overall waste diversion rates for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios are 15% and 21%, respectively.

Examination of the unit landfill gas generation values relative to the unit landfill gas emission values comparing sites without active landfill gas controls (i.e., community of 20,000) to those having active landfill gas controls (i.e., communities of 80,000 and 200,000) demonstrates the significance of landfill gas controls on influencing emissions. The reduction in overall landfill gas emissions by implementation of active landfill gas controls is far greater than the corresponding emission reductions that would be achieved solely by alteration of the waste stream through organic waste management activities. It is also important to note that landfill gas emission reductions achieved through implementation of active landfill gas controls would be expected to be further enhanced by alteration of the waste stream through organic waste management activities. 5.3.4.2 Greenhouse Gases The methane component of landfill gas is a potent greenhouse gas when emitted to the atmosphere. Accepted greenhouse gas emission inventory procedures define that the carbon dioxide component of landfill gas is non-anthropogenic, and therefore is considered neutral in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The landfill gas evaluation presented in Section 5.3.4.1 was extended to calculate the unit greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfill methane emissions for each of the hypothetical sanitary landfills under the three waste management scenarios. The landfill gas model results in the previous section were adjusted to reflect the methane component of landfill gas and the global warming potential of methane being 21 times that of carbon dioxide. The following summarizes the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions, expressed by the total quantity of equivalent carbon dioxide (eCO2) per tonne of waste disposed.

35 Reflects total landfill gas quantities spanning the operating and post-closure periods of each facility.

92


Table 5.11 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (tonnes eCO2/tonne waste disposed)36


Population Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Mixed Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions

20,000 2.43 2.23 2.32

80,000 0.61 0.51 0.53

0.58


200,000 0.61 0.56

As would be expected, the results of the greenhouse gas emission evaluation parallel those of the landfill gas evaluation. The reduction in landfill related greenhouse gas emissions by implementation of active landfill gas controls is far greater than the corresponding reductions that would be achieved solely by alteration of the waste stream through organic waste management activities. It is also important to note that greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved through implementation of active landfill gas controls would be expected to be further enhanced by alteration of the waste stream through organic waste management activities. 5.4 Renewable Energy

5.4.1 Energy Generation/Consumption When collected, landfill gas represents a significant potential source of renewable energy. Proven technologies exist to harness the power of landfill gas. Generation of renewable energy from landfill gas also has the potential to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases due to avoidance of consumption of fossil fuels. To evaluate the impact of organic waste management activities on the potential for energy recovery from landfill gas, the following assumptions were applied:

• Energy recovery is feasible only at landfills equipped with landfill gas collection systems; • Energy generation potential is based on 75% of the average rate of landfill gas recovery

anticipated during a 20 year time-frame spanning the peak landfill generating period; • Average energy density of landfill gas = 1.68 kW/(m3/hr) • Energy facility operational availability = 95%

The following summarizes the renewable energy generation potential from recovered landfill gas, expressed in terms of kilowatt-hours per unit tonne of waste disposed.

36 Reflects total greenhouse gas quantities spanning the operating and post-closure periods of each facility.

93


Table 5.12 – Renewable Energy Summary (kW-hr/tonne waste disposed)


Population Renewable Energy Generation

Renewable Energy Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions

20,000 — — —

80,000 162 131 136

200,000 160 140 143

As may be expected, the evaluation of renewable energy recovery potential roughly parallels the results of the landfill gas generation evaluation, with organic waste management activities reducing gas (i.e., fuel) generation and hence impacting renewable energy recovery potential. It is noted that the fuel reduction relationship is not directly proportional due to the differing time frames considered in the gas generation and renewable energy evaluations. The potential for renewable energy recovery from landfill gas remains substantial and organic waste management activities would not be expected to have a significant impact on the overall feasibility of renewable energy recovery at most landfills where landfill gas collection is undertaken for emission control. 5.5 Social 5.5.1 Public Acceptance Evaluation of public acceptance is subjective and can only reasonably be considered on a qualitative basis. The public is generally resistant to local siting of all waste management facilities. In the context of sanitary landfills, opinions are strongly influenced by the occurrence of problems primarily at historic sites that were generally not subject to the current levels of oversight, management and regulation. 5.5.2 Siting Challenges There are significant challenges associated with the siting of any waste management facility. Specific factors such as surrounding land uses, proximity to sensitive receptors, protection of water resources and habitats must be taken into consideration in the process of establishing any waste management facility. 5.6 Odour Odour impacts are site-specific, subjective depending upon the receptor and related to emissions of landfill gas. The evaluation of overall landfill gas emissions presented in Section 5.3.4.1 provides the basis for a general indication of the potential for odour impacts as related to landfill gas emissions.

94


5.7 Traffic Traffic impacts at landfill sites are primarily related to the number of vehicle trips delivering waste to a given facility. The following traffic evaluation was prepared using assumed vehicle capacities of 10 tonnes of waste for packer trucks delivering waste to the smaller facility (i.e., 20,000 person community) and 30 tonnes for trailers delivering waste to the larger facilities (i.e., 80,000 and 200,000 tonnes).

Table 5.13 – Traffic Summary

Waste Management Scenario SSO Mixed Waste Community

Population Total Vehicle

Trips Vehicle Trips per Year

Vehicle Trips per Year


20,000 29,358 1,468 1,275 1,197

1,917 1,662 1,564

200,000 97,860 4,893 4,252 3,991

Base Case

80,000 38,347

From this it can be seen that the total number of vehicle trips is dependent on the waste disposal capacity of a facility. Organic waste management activities reduce the quantity of waste disposed in a facility on an annual basis, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips per year, while extending the number of years that the facility is in operation. 5.8 Other Impacts Current practices for siting, designing and operating sanitary landfill sites include measures to address potential local impacts such as:

• dust; • noise; • vermin; and • litter.

Quantitative assessment of these types of impacts is site-specific and as such is beyond the scope of this evaluation. In general terms it is postulated that the potential for the occurrence of these types of impacts at sanitary landfill sites is related primarily to the control measures that are put in place, and is not generally sensitive to the effects that organic waste management activities would have on the wastes disposed. 5.9 Costs For the purposes of this evaluation, the costs of sanitary landfill disposal of wastes were estimated for the three community population-based hypothetical scenarios, taking into account the effects of the three organic waste management scenarios. Table 5.14 lists the primary assumptions and cost elements incorporated into this evaluation.

95


Table 5.14 – Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions

Annual Finance Rate 7%

Inflation Rate 3%

Facility Operating Period Varies 20-25 Years

Post Closure Management Period 50 Years

Sanitary Landfill Facility Cost Elements

1. Predevelopment

a. Site Selection

b. Land Acquisition

c. Approvals

2. Site Development (Capital Works)

a. Site Clearing and Preparation

b. Site Utilities

c. Site Infrastructure

d. Cell Excavation and Base Preparation

e. Engineered Leachate Containment and Collection System

f. LFG Collection and Flaring System

g. Cap System Construction

h. Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure

3. Site Operations

a. Administration and Support Staff

b. Waste Disposal Operations

c. Daily Cover Placement

d. Leachate Treatment

e. Reporting

Post Closure Management

a.

b. Leachate Treatment

c. Maintenance Allowance

4.

Staffing and Administration

Cost estimates were prepared using the cost parameters and assumptions shown on Table 5.6, consistent with the hypothetical facility assumptions and parameters identified previously and using unit costs derived from experience on landfill projects verified and/or complemented by reference to industry cost yard sticks. Unit costs applied in this evaluation are summarized in Appendix E.

96


It is important to note that while the potential for recovery of renewable energy from landfills is significant, the potential revenue streams resulting from renewable energy recovery and tradable greenhouse gas emission reductions have not been included in this evaluation. These potential revenue streams have been excluded from the evaluation due to uncertainties associated with access to markets and pricing for energy and greenhouses gases. It is felt that application of assumptions regarding revenue from renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reductions might prove to be unrealistic and could potentially skew the evaluation of the waste management scenarios. For comparative purposes, the present value of all costs associated with landfill disposal of waste was determined on a unit basis and are summarized as follows:

Table 5.15 – Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed)

Waste Management Scenario Base Case SSO

20,000 47.43 48.62 49.34

80,000 50.59 51.85 52.62

200,000 41.43 43.47 42.70

Community Population Mixed Waste

In the context of the sanitary landfill facilities, the cost evaluation demonstrates the lower unit costs that would be expected for a natural attenuation site due to the significantly lower capital and operating costs that would be incurred. The evaluation also illustrates the economies of scale that would be expected to be realized at a larger sanitary landfill facility. Given that the facility capacities are considered fixed and that the infrastructure requirements are unaffected by the waste stream alterations resulting from organic waste management activities, the primary effect of organic waste management on the unit cost of waste disposal is related to the longer operating period of the facilities. As illustrated, the organic waste management scenarios contribute to small increases in unit waste disposal costs in the ranges of approximately 2.5 to 3% and 4 to 5% for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios, respectively. The corresponding overall waste diversion rates for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios are 15% and 21%, respectively. The sensitivity of the cost evaluation was explored and it was found that while the unit costs are moderately sensitive to capital cost assumptions, they are relatively insensitive to time-based assumptions. This is consistent with the structure of costs for a typical landfill facility being heavily weighted towards front-end capital costs (i.e., acquisition, approvals and development). To explore the time-based sensitivity, a cost scenario comparison between the 50 year period which was assumed for post-closure management in the evaluation and a 30 year post-closure management period as is often typically assumed. It was found that the longer post-closure management period increased the unit cost of waste disposal by approximately 1%, or less than $0.50/tonne of waste disposed.

97


5.10 Summary

While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, the preceding evaluation shows that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from sanitary landfill disposal is practiced:

• increased effective operating lifespan of sanitary landfills serving the community; • minor increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at sanitary landfills serving

the community; • notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from sanitary

landfills serving the community; • reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at sanitary landfills serving

the community; • reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to sanitary landfills serving the

community; and, • small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving

the community.

98


6 DISPOSAL TREATMENT EVALUATION: BIOREACTOR LANDFILL

6.1 Introduction and Overview The following evaluation describes the current status of the bioreactor landfill as an emerging waste treatment technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on bioreactor landfills.

• enhanced landfill gas recovery potential thereby improving the feasibility of energy generation and engaging market forces to motivate even greater levels of emission reductions.

6.1.1 Technology Description With appreciation, the following technology description has been excerpted from Section 6 of “Solid Waste as a Resource, Review of Waste Technologies”, published by The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, March 2004.

“The bioreactor landfill is a new technology evolved from contemporary landfill design that is being developed in response to public demand for innovation to achieve more sustainable approaches to waste disposal. Bioreactor treatment of solid wastes involves design, construction and operation of a landfill cell that is specifically engineered to enhance the decomposition of wastes through careful manipulation of conditions within the site. In essence, bioreactor technology provides a method of processing or treating wastes within the confines of a tightly controlled landfill cell.“

Many of the elements of a bioreactor are similar to the components of a modern, engineered sanitary landfill site. The primary differences lie in the increased level of process control that is inherent in the bioreactor landfill system of waste treatment. The primary benefits of bioreactor treatment of solid waste that have been identified include:

• rapid stabilization of wastes resulting in shortening of a site’s contaminating lifespan during the period of time when engineered controls are most effective;

• faster landfill settlement allowing for optimal use of existing approved waste disposal capacity and forestalling the necessity of establishing new replacement sites;

• in-situ treatment of leachate to reduce the contaminant loading; and,

By achieving rapid stabilization of the wastes, the bioreactor landfill shortens the potential contaminating lifespan of the disposed wastes. This effectively focuses the primary period of concern regarding the potential for contamination within the time frame when the engineered control systems for the site are most effective. Some workers37 theorize that typical waste stabilization periods in a bioreactor might be in the range of 10 to 15 years as compared to more than 50 years expected in a conventional sanitary landfill. An additional benefit of rapid stabilization of the wastes is reduction of the period when post-closure monitoring and care is required. This reduces the potential for long-term impacts while reducing the environmental and financial risks that are often associated with old landfills.

37 Pacey et al, “The Bioreactor Landfill – An Innovation in Solid Waste Management”

99


Bioreactor landfills require the ability to introduce significant quantities of moisture into the wastes as one of the key elements involved in optimizing the biological decomposition environment. The moisture that is introduced into the wastes must contain landfill leachate and generally additional moisture must also be provided. The method of moisture introduction must ensure an even distribution throughout the wastes for optimal bioreactor performance. Typically horizontal liquid injection pipe galleries are installed within the wastes as filling progresses. Alternative methods of moisture application have also been used including vertical injection wells, infiltration ponds and surface spray application systems. Moisture distribution may also be enhanced by use of permeable or wicking materials placed in layers as alternative cover on the wastes during filling. Extensive in-situ monitoring instrumentation and control systems are employed to allow for operational management of moisture injection and optimize waste treatment within the bioreactor. In-situ monitoring may incorporate arrays of moisture, temperature and/or hydrostatic pressure sensors located within the wastes. Information is collected to assess the distribution of moisture and performance of the bioreactor. Operational parameters may be altered to direct liquids to different areas of the landfill. Sophisticated bioreactor systems provide the ability to carefully monitor chemical characteristics of the injection liquids and if advantageous, adjust the liquid chemistry to further improve bioreactor performance. As a direct result of enhancing the rate of waste decomposition, landfill gas generation rates are also increased. To control the potential impacts of the gas, landfill gas collection systems are typically installed at bioreactor landfills. The increased rates of gas generation can provide greater landfill gas recovery thereby reducing the overall emissions from the landfill. Increased early rates of landfill gas recovery improves the economics of landfill gas-to-energy projects by providing better economies of scale in power plant size selection and allowing a faster return on capital investment during the early years of operation when maintenance costs are lower. Enhanced rates of landfill settlement provide an opportunity to increase the effective utilization of landfill space thereby reducing the need to locate, approve and construct replacement landfills. In its advanced form of development, the bioreactor offers the opportunity to replace waste disposal with a more sustainable method of waste treatment. Public attitudes and perception regarding the bioreactor may be better than conventional landfills due to the bioreactor’s enhanced environmental performance thereby reducing the potential for long-term problems that are often associated with historic landfilling practices.

The bioreactor can play a key role in a larger integrated waste management system and is complemented by important waste diversion and recycling efforts that are being implemented and expanded in many communities. In this context, it has been envisioned that advanced anaerobic bioreactor landfills could ultimately be developed in conjunction with such technologies as the aerobic bioreactor and/or landfill mining techniques to provide a sustainable approach to waste management.

Table 6.1 identifies the two examples of bioreactor landfills that have been approved in Canada.

100


Table 6.1 – Examples of Bioreactor Landfills in Canada

Site Name Site Owner Location Primary Site Features Ste. Sophie Landfill

Intersan (Canadian Waste Services)

Ste. Sophie, Quebec.

Lafleche Landfill Site

Lafleche Environment Inc.

North Stormont, Ontario

• Partial synthetic liner • Leachate collection system • Leachate recirculation/moisture

addition • Landfill gas collection and flaring • Landfill gas utilization

(potential future) • Process monitoring instrumentation

and controls

• Natural soil liner • Leachate collection system • Leachate recirculation (future) • Landfill gas collection and

flaring (future) • Landfill gas utilization

(potential future) • Monitoring instrumentation

and controls

While the bioreactor landfill offers a potentially attractive alternative to conventional landfilling, it should be recognized that this technology is still in the process of being developed as a widely applicable waste management option. Laboratory and pilot scale research is on-going to better define the criteria and constraints associated with the bioreactor landfill. Currently the bioreactor landfill does not fit neatly within standardized permitting and approvals processes defined for waste disposal sites and as such will generally require a highly site-specific approval methodology. The following lists a few of the important considerations that should be addressed in developing the design of a bioreactor landfill:

• leachate containment and collection system design parameters and performance; • moisture balance requirements and liquid distribution system; • active gas collection capacity and combustion/utilization; • enhanced in-situ monitoring and control systems; • waste stability; • settlement effects on engineered systems; • detailed bioreactor management plan:

– liquid injection program; – bioreactor performance assessment program and action/response plans. – a bioreactor site-specific waste disposal operations plan; and, – comprehensive impact monitoring and contingency response program.”

101


6.1.2 General Regulatory Requirements

6.2.1 Waste Quantities and Composition

With appreciation, the following description of regulatory requirements associated with waste disposal sites has been excerpted from Section 6 of “Solid Waste as a Resource, Review of Waste Technologies”, published by The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, March 2004.

“Landfills established within the past 25 years have been permitted within a regulatory framework that did not address as many environmental issues or considerations as today’s framework. Current regulatory approaches pertaining to planning and siting of landfills vary across Canada, ranging from broad performance-based environmental protection regulations to regulations defining minimum standards for specific technical elements. In some jurisdictions, combinations of performance-based and prescriptive regulations are applied. Regulatory processes may also include alternative procedures or applications that vary dependent upon the site and/or site location. Municipal solid waste landfills receive a wide variety of non-hazardous wastes, dependent upon the context of the landfill within the overall waste management approach. There is a trend towards excluding or banning disposal of some materials. Disposal of liquid wastes is no longer acceptable at many sites due to concerns about possible increased leachate effects. Hazardous wastes are managed at specifically designed landfills, which are different from municipal landfills. In some areas, materials that can be dealt with by other means are banned from landfills. In communities where recycling is available, it is generally not acceptable to dispose of recyclables in landfills. Other examples: drywall, auto hulks, construction/demolition debris, organic wastes, and other materials dependent upon availability of alternative material management options. These bans generally aim to ensure that wastes are managed properly and that landfill disposal is reserved for materials that cannot be managed by other means.”

6.2 Evaluation The primary purpose of the evaluation methodology applied herein is to provide a relative comparison of the primary effects of organic waste management activities on bioreactor landfills. While this evaluation makes use of commonly applied impact assessment tools, it must be recognized that this evaluation is generic in nature and cannot reasonably be considered or applied on a site-specific basis.

The evaluation approach, waste management scenarios, community population-based waste composition profiles and waste filling projections as defined in the sanitary landfill evaluation (see Section 5.2.1) were applied directly to the bioreactor landfill evaluation. This provides a comparative basis for evaluation of the effects of organic waste management activities. The methodology for evaluating organic waste management activities included the development of hypothetical bioreactor landfill facilities and assessment of the impacts on these hypothetical facilities resulting from the associated changes in the input waste disposal stream. A key consideration in this evaluation is definition of the impact that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on the quantity and composition of wastes and residuals

102


that would be directed to bioreactor landfills. To this end, three waste management scenarios were defined that result in landfill disposal of wastes including:

• Base case (BC) – waste generation, recycling and disposal based on recent national statistical information and waste composition derived from recent studies;

• Source separated organics (SSO) – the base case scenario with organic waste diversion and processing efforts applied; and,

• Mixed Waste – the base case scenario with mixed waste composting and anaerobic digestion applied.

These three waste management scenarios were considered in the context of three different sized communities having initial populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 persons each. Waste generation and composition data for the three community profiles were developed and are described and defined in detail elsewhere in this document. From the community-based waste generation and composition profiles, a summary of the anticipated initial waste composition and quantities directed to landfill disposal was derived as shown in Table 6.2. To reflect the widely applied practice of disposal of industrial, commercial & institutional (IC&I) wastes along with residential (“black bag”) wastes at many landfills, it was assumed that 50% of the waste landfilled under the base case scenario was industrial, institutional & commercial waste. This approach differs from assumptions regarding IC&I waste that have been applied for the waste processing technologies included in this evaluation to ensure that the bioreactor landfill disposal scenarios are reflective of current wide-spread practice and therefore provide an appropriate and equitable basis for comparison. As a simplifying assumption for the purposes of this evaluation, it was also assumed that the overall composition of the IC&I waste matched that of the base-case residential waste. The base case IC&I disposal amounts were held fixed for each of the community sizes in each of the organic waste management scenarios. For each of the community profiles, the initial waste composition and quantity profiles were projected over a 20 service life of the sanitary landfill facility. As a simplifying assumption for this analysis, a population growth rate of 1.5% per year was applied. To aid in the subsequent assessment of bioreactor landfill impacts, the wastes were also classified according to the associated decomposition characteristics as follows:



Table 6.3, Table 6.4 and Table 6.5 illustrate the bioreactor landfill waste filling projections for the three community sizes based on this approach. From the three tables it can readily be seen that extension of bioreactor landfill operating lifespan by reduction of the rate of waste disposal is one of the fundamental effects of organic waste management activities.

103


Table 6.2 – Initial Waste Compositions

Base Case Scenarios – Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

SSO Scenarios – Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

Mixed Waste Scenarios – Annual Waste Composition (Tonnes)

20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop 20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop 20,000 pop 80,000 pop 200,000 pop Waste Categories

Black Bag IC&I38 Black

Bag IC&I38 Black Bag IC&I38 Black



Bag IC&I38 Black Bag IC&I38

Paper Fibres 1,724 1,724 6,407 6,407 17,237 17,237 1,491 1,724 5,520 6,407 14,913 17,237 882 1,724 3,282 6,407 8,817 17,237

Plastics 467 467 1,869 1,869 4,672 4,672 467 467 1,869 1,869 4,672 4,672 420 467 1,679 1,869 4,198 4,672

219 219 875 875 2,188 2,188 219 219 875 2,188 534 875 1,335 2,188

319 319 1,276 1,276 3,189 3,189 319 319 1,276 1,276 3,189 3,189 159 319 638 1,276 1,595 3,189


48 48 192 192 479 479 48 48 192 192 479 479 30 48 118 192 296 479

Compostables 2,264 2,264 9,055 9,055 22,638 22,638 651 2,264 2,604 9,055 6,509 22,638 1,132 2,264 4,528 9,055 11,319 22,638

Other Wastes 958 958 3,834 3,834 9,584 9,584 1,050 958 4,201 3,834 10,507 9,584 771 958 3,086 3,834 7,714 9,584

Total 5,999 5,999 23,506 23,506 59,987 59,987 4,245 5,999 16,535 23,506 42,457 59,987 3,527 5,999 13,865 23,506 35,273 59,987

Annual Facility Input Total 11,997 47,013 119,973 10,244 40,042 102,443 9,526 37,371 95,259

Metals 875 2,188 134 219

Glass

38 IC&I assumed to be 50% of base case for each population scenario. For simplicity, composition of IC&I assumed to match that of base case black bag waste. IC&I tonnages

from base case held fixed and applied to waste management scenarios

104






(by Decomposition Characteristics) Year Population

Readily Moderate Low Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total 2005 20,000 5,681 5,137 1,179 11,997 4,068 4,996 1,179 10,244 4,362 4,229 935 9,526 2006 20,300 5,767 5,214 1,197 12,177 4,129 5,071 1,197 10,398 4,428 4,292 949 9,669 2007 20,605 5,853 5,292 1,215 12,360 4,191 5,147 1,215 10,554 4,494 4,357 963 9,814 2008 20,914 5,941 5,371 1,233 12,545 4,254 5,224 1,233 10,712 4,562 4,422 977 9,961 2009 21,227 6,030 992 5,452 1,252 12,733 4,318 5,303 1,252 10,873 4,630 4,488 10,110 2010 21,546 6,120 5,534 1,271 12,924 4,383 5,382 1,271 11,036 4,700 4,556 1,007 10,262 2011 21,869 6,212 5,617 1,290 13,118 4,449 5,463 1,290 11,201 4,770 4,624 1,022 10,416 2012 22,197 6,305 5,701 1,309 13,315 4,515 5,545 1,309 11,369 4,842 4,693 1,037 10,572 2013 22,530 6,400 5,786 1,329 13,515 4,583 5,628 1,329 11,540 4,914 4,764 1,053 10,731 2014 22,868 6,496 5,873 1,348 13,718 4,652 5,713 1,348 11,713 4,988 4,835 1,069 10,892 2015 23,211 6,593 5,961 1,369 13,923 4,722 5,798 1,369 11,889 5,063 4,908 1,085 11,055 2016 23,559 6,692 6,051 1,389 14,132 4,792 5,885 1,389 12,067 5,139 4,981 1,101 11,221 2017 23,912 6,793 6,141 1,410 14,344 4,864 5,974 1,410 12,248 5,216 5,056 1,118 11,389 2018 24,271 6,895 6,234 1,431 14,559 4,937 6,063 1,431 12,432 5,294 5,132 1,134 11,560 2019 24,635 6,998 6,327 1,453 14,778 5,011 6,154 1,453 12,618 5,373 5,209 1,151 11,734 2020 25,005 7,103 6,422 1,474 14,999 5,087 6,246 1,474 12,807 5,454 5,287 1,169 11,910 2021 25,380 7,210 6,518 1,497 15,224 5,163 6,340 1,497 13,000 5,536 5,366 1,186 12,088 2022 25,760 7,318 6,616 1,519 15,453 5,240 6,435 1,519 13,195 5,619 5,447 1,204 12,270 2023 26,147 7,427 6,715 1,542 15,685 5,319 6,532 1,542 13,392 5,703 5,528 1,222 12,454 2024 26,539 7,539 6,816 1,565 15,920 5,399 6,630 1,565 13,593 5,789 5,611 1,240 12,640 2025 26,937 7,652 6,918 1,588 16,159 5,480 6,729 1,588 13,797 5,876 5,696 1,259 12,830 2026 27,341 139,026 125,695 28,860 293,580 5,562 6,830 1,612 14,004 5,964 5,781 1,278 13,022 2027 27,751 5,645 6,933 1,636 14,214 6,053 5,868 1,297 13,218 2028 28,168 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 20 5,730 7,037 1,661 14,427 6,144 5,956 1,316 13,416 2029 28,590 6,236 6,045 1,336 13,617 2030 29,019 116,495 143,058 33,770 293,323

106,751 103,480 22,872 286,378


105






(by Decomposition Characteristics) Year Population Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total

2005 80,000 22,725 19,570 4,718 47,013 16,274 19,050 4,718 40,042 17,450 16,183 3,739 37,371 2006 81,200 23,066 19,863 4,788 47,718 16,518 19,336 4,788 40,642 17,712 16,425 3,795 37,932 2007 82,418 23,412 20,161 4,860 48,434 16,766 19,626 4,860 41,252 17,977 16,672 3,852 38,501 2008 83,654 23,763 20,464 4,933 49,160 17,017 19,920 4,933 41,871 18,247 16,922 3,910 39,078 2009 84,909 24,120 20,771 5,007 49,897 17,272 20,219 5,007 42,499 18,521 17,176 3,968 39,664 2010 86,183 24,482 21,082 5,082 50,646 17,532 20,523 5,082 43,136 18,798 17,433 4,028 40,259 2011 87,475 24,849 21,398 5,158 51,406 17,795 20,830 5,158 43,783 19,080 17,695 4,088 40,863 2012 88,788 25,222 21,719 5,236 52,177 18,061 21,143 5,236 44,440 19,367 17,960 4,149 41,476 2013 90,119 25,600 22,045 5,314 52,959 18,332 21,460 5,314 45,107 19,657 18,230 4,212 42,098 2014 91,471 25,984 22,376 5,394 53,754 18,607 21,782 5,394 45,783 19,952 18,503 4,275 42,730 2015 92,843 26,374 22,711 5,475 54,560 18,886 22,109 5,475 46,470 20,251 18,781 4,339 43,371 2016 94,236 26,769 23,052 5,557 55,378 19,170 22,440 5,557 47,167 20,555 19,062 4,404 44,021 2017 95,649 27,171 23,398 5,640 56,209 19,457 22,777 5,640 47,875 20,863 19,348 4,470 44,682 2018 97,084 27,578 23,749 5,725 57,052 19,749 23,119 5,725 48,593 21,176 19,639 4,537 45,352 2019 98,540 27,992 24,105 5,811 57,908 20,045 23,465 5,811 49,322 21,494 19,933 4,605 46,032 2020 100,019 28,412 24,467 5,898 58,777 20,346 23,817 5,898 50,061 21,816 20,232 4,674 46,723 2021 101,519 28,838 24,834 5,986 59,658 20,651 24,175 5,986 50,812 22,144 20,536 4,744 47,424 2022 103,042 29,271 25,206 6,076 60,553 20,961 24,537 6,076 51,575 22,476 20,844 4,816 48,135 2023 104,587 29,710 25,584 6,167 61,462 21,275 24,905 6,167 52,348 22,813 21,156 4,888 48,857 2024 106,156 30,155 25,968 6,260 62,383 21,595 25,279 6,260 53,133 23,155 21,474 4,961 49,590 2025 107,748 30,608 26,358 6,354 63,319 21,919 25,658 6,354 53,930 23,502 21,796 5,036 50,334 2026 109,365 556,102 478,882 115,440 1,150,424 22,247 26,043 6,449 54,739 23,855 22,123 5,111 51,089 2027 111,005 22,581 26,434 6,546 55,560 24,213 22,454 5,188 51,855 2028 112,670 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 20 22,920 26,830 6,644 56,394 24,576 22,791 5,266 52,633 2029 114,360 24,944 23,133 5,345 53,422 2030 116,076 465,978 545,477 135,079 1,146,535

427,005 395,999 91,489 1,123,491 Key Assumptions: Timeframe: 2005 to 2025 Initial Population: 80,000 Annual Population Increase (%): 1.5

106






(by Decomposition Characteristics) Year Population

Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total Readily Moderate Inert Total 2005 200,000 51,366 119,973 49,965 56,813 11,794 40,685 11,794 102,443 43,624 42,288 9,347 95,259 2006 203,000 57,666 52,136 11,971 121,773 41,295 50,714 11,971 103,980 44,279 42,922 9,487 96,688 2007 206,045 58,531 52,918 12,150 123,599 41,914 51,475 12,150 105,540 44,943 43,566 9,629

209,136 53,712 125,453 52,247 12,332 107,123 45,617 44,219 9,774 99,610 2009 212,273 60,300 54,518 12,517 127,335 43,181 53,031 12,517 108,730 46,301 44,883 9,920 101,105 2010 215,457 61,204 55,336 12,705 129,245 43,829 53,826 12,705 110,361 46,996 45,556 10,069 102,621 2011 218,689 62,122 56,166 12,896 131,184 54,634 44,486 12,896 112,016 47,701 46,239 10,220 104,160 2012 221,969 63,054 57,008 13,089 133,151 45,154 55,453 13,089 113,696 48,416 46,933 10,374 105,723 2013 225,299 64,000 57,863 13,286 135,149 45,831 56,285 13,286 115,402 49,143 47,637 10,529 107,309 2014 228,678 64,960 58,731 13,485 137,176 57,129 117,133 108,918 46,518 13,485 49,880 48,351 10,687 2015 232,108 65,934 59,612 13,687 139,234 47,216 57,986 13,687 118,890 50,628 49,077 10,847 110,552 2016 235,590 66,923 60,506 13,892 141,322 47,924 58,856 13,892 120,673 51,387 49,813 11,010 112,210 2017 239,124 67,927 61,414 14,101 143,442 48,643 59,739 14,101 122,483 52,158 50,560 11,175 113,894 2018 242,710 68,946 62,335 14,312 145,594 49,373 60,635 14,312 124,320 52,941 51,318 11,343 115,602 2019 246,351 69,980 63,270 14,527 147,777 50,114 61,544 14,527 126,185 53,735 52,088 11,513 117,336 2020 250,046 71,030 64,219 14,745 149,994 50,865 62,468 14,745 128,078 54,541 52,870 11,686 119,096 2021 253,797 72,095 65,182 14,966 152,244 51,628 63,405 14,966 129,999 55,359 53,663 11,861 120,882 2022 257,604 73,177 66,160 15,191 154,528 52,403 64,356 15,191 131,949 56,189 54,468 12,039 122,696 2023 261,468 74,275 67,153 15,418 156,846 53,189 65,321 15,418 133,928 57,032 55,285 12,220 124,5362024 135,937 265,390 75,389 68,160 15,650 159,198 53,987 66,301 15,650 57,887 56,114 12,403 126,4042025 269,371 76,519 69,182 15,884 161,586 54,796 67,295 15,884 137,976 58,756 56,955 12,589 128,3002026 140,046 273,412 1,390,255 1,256,947 288,600 2,935,802 55,618 68,305 16,123 59,637 57,810 12,778 130,2252027 277,513 56,453 69,329 16,365 142,147 60,532 58,677 12,969 132,1782028 281,675 Facility Lifespan (yrs) 20 57,299 70,369 16,610 144,279 61,440 59,557 13,164 134,1612029 285,901 62,361 60,450 13,361 136,1732030 290,189 1,164,946 1,430,669 337,697 2,933,312

1,067,512 1,034,804 228,723 2,863,776

Readily

98,138 2008 59,409 12,332 42,543


107


6.2.2 Bioreactor Landfill Facilities

The base-case waste disposal schedules as described above, were used as the basis for developing the primary configuration and design requirements for three hypothetical bioreactor landfills, as would be expected to be required to serve each of the communities.

Table 6.6 summarizes the key assumptions and parameters applied for each of the three community-based hypothetical bioreactor landfills.

It is recognized that in practice these key parameters and assumptions vary from site to site and it would not be possible to perform this evaluation in a manner that is universally representative of all facilities. For the purposes of this evaluation it is felt that the key parameters and assumptions applied represent the requirements that would be expected for implementation of a “typical” bioreactor landfill and provide a reasonable basis for comparison of the effects of organic waste management activities.

As would be expected there are numerous similarities between the key parameters and assumptions for the bioreactor landfills and the sanitary landfills, however there are also some important distinctions that should be noted.

In the context of the bioreactor landfill, no consideration was given to the possibility that a facility serving a smaller community could be established as an unlined site. All of the hypothetical bioreactor landfills were assumed to be equipped with engineered leachate containment, collection and recirculation systems. It was assumed that all leachate generated during a bioreactor’s operating lifespan would be recirculated into the wastes and augmented by an equal quantity of water. This is a rough approximation of the moisture requirements expected to be required to achieve the objective of rapid stabilization of the wastes placed in a bioreactor landfill.

One of the fundamental features of the bioreactor landfill that is in contrast to conventional sanitary landfill is the increased waste density that results from enhanced rates of decomposition and associated increased waste settlement. In the context of the bioreactor it was assumed that this is reflected by an increased apparent waste density of 800 kg/m3. This value of apparent waste density is within the range that has been demonstrated at numerous bioreactor landfills.

Assumptions regarding facility infrastructure and operational considerations were judged based on what would typically be expected at a bioreactor landfill.

In recognition of the rapid stabilization of wastes that has been demonstrated at bioreactor landfills, a post-closure management period of 20 years was assumed. This is considered a conservative assumption as many researchers have projected that stabilization of wastes in a bioreactor landfill could potentially be reached within 10 to 15 years.

As noted, previously it should be recognized that the method of evaluation of a single bioreactor landfill serving a single defined community population base as presented herein does not reflect the current trend towards regionalization of waste disposal facilities.

Based on the key parameters and assumptions described above, an evaluation of fundamental environmental, energy, social and economic factors was performed for each of the hypothetical community-size based bioreactor landfills under each of the waste management scenarios.

108


Table 6.6 – Hypothetical Bioreactor Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions

Initial Community Service Population Parameter 20,000 80,000 200,000

Type of Site Bioreactor Bioreactor Bioreactor

Disposal Capacity (t) 293,580 1,150,424 2,935,802

Minimum operating period (y) 20 20 20

Site location Rural Land Suburban Industrial Land Suburban Industrial Land

Site operating mode Part-time Full-time Full-time

Site configuration:

Depth of Waste (m) 6 10 10

Top Side Slopes (%) 25 25 25

Top Surface Slope (%) 5 5 5

50 50 50

Cell Base Slope (%) 5 5 5

50 50 50

Daily Cover Material On-site soil On-site soil On-site soil

Waste: Cover Ratio 4:1 4:1 4:1

Apparent Waste Density (kg/m3) 800 800 800

Leachate Containment and Collection

Yes Yes Yes

Base Liner Double Composite Geotextile

with Geomembrane Double Composite Geotextile

with Geomembrane Double Composite Geotextile

with Geomembrane

Leachate Management Off-site Treatment Off-site Treatment Off-site Treatment

Landfill Gas Collection and Flaring Yes Yes Yes

Landfill Closure Cap Compacted Soil Compacted Soil Compacted Soil

Post-Closure Management Period (y) 20 20 20

Cell Sidewall Slope (%)

Perimeter Buffer Zone (m)

109


6.3 Key Environmental Considerations 6.3.1 Land Area Consumption The land area footprint required for the hypothetical bioreactor landfill facilities was calculated based on the required disposal capacity, apparent waste density and the defined site configuration parameters identified previously. An allowance for a 50 metre lateral separation buffer zone surrounding the entire landfill waste footprint was included. Given that landfill facilities are often sited and designed based on a fixed waste disposal capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of waste diversion by organic waste management activities would extend the operating lifespan of the hypothetical bioreactor landfills that are the subject of this evaluation. Under this assumption, the land area consumption of a given bioreactor landfill facility would not be impacted by the organic waste management activities. For comparative purposes, the following land area consumption required for each of the three community population-based bioreactor landfill facilities is expressed on a unit basis per tonne of waste disposed.

Table 6.7 – Land Area Consumption Requirements

Land Area Consumption Initial Community Population m² ha m²/tonne of Waste Disposed

20,000 69,626 6.9 0.237

80,000 146,028 14.6 0.127

200,000 280,938 28.1 0.096

The primary factor influencing the variation in the unit land area consumption values is the geometry of the facility configuration, with larger sites generally having a more efficient airspace-volume to footprint relationship. Land area consumption of bioreactor landfills is significantly less than conventional sanitary landfills due to the increased waste density that results from enhanced rates of decomposition and associated increased waste settlement in bioreactor landfills. 6.3.2 Bioreactor Landfill Airspace Consumption Bioreactor landfill facilities are sited and designed based on a fixed disposal capacity. It is also held that the in-place density of compacted wastes in a bioreactor landfill is insensitive to diversion of portions of organic wastes. These factors determine that organic waste diversion activities do not directly impact the consumption of bioreactor landfill airspace on a unit mass basis. As illustrated previously in the sanitary landfill evaluation, organic waste diversion activities reduce the overall rate at which wastes are directed to disposal, thereby extending the operating period of a bioreactor landfill facility. The following demonstrates the lifespan extension effect.

110


Table 6.8 – Bioreactor Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years)


20,000 20 23 25

80,000 20 23 25

200,000 20 23 25

Given the challenges associated with establishment of landfill sites and the significant economic value of landfill airspace, extension of landfill operating lifespan by even a few years is a notable benefit. 6.3.3 Water 6.3.3.1 Consumption Cycling of liquids through disposed wastes is required to achieve the optimal benefits of increased rates of decomposition in a bioreactor landfill. A portion of this liquid input requirement must be met through recirculation of leachate into the wastes, which re-introduces nutrients and microbes to assist enhancement of decomposition. There remains some debate as to the exact quantities of liquid that are required to achieve optimal decomposition rates in bioreactor landfills. In the range of climatic zones present in Canada, the quantity of liquid that would expected to be required for a bioreactor landfill is significantly greater than the quantity of leachate that is generated. The additional liquid requirements for a bioreactor landfill are typically made-up from other sources of water at or near the facility, resulting in a net consumption of water. For the purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed that 100% of the quantity of leachate generated during the operating years of a facility is required for additional water contribution into the bioreactor landfill. This value is reflective of moisture balance estimates that have been presented by researchers. The following summarizes the estimated water consumption of the hypothetical bioreactor landfills developed for this evaluation.

Table 6.9 – Bioreactor Landfill Water Consumption Summary (m/tonne waste disposal)


20,000 0.59 0.68 0.72

80,000 0.36 0.42 0.45

200,000 0.30 0.34 0.37

Note that the water consumption values are estimates for the purpose of this evaluation and do not attempt to reflect precise moisture balance requirements for a given bioreactor facility, which can only reasonably determined on the basis of a site-specific assessment.

111


The variation in water consumption rates between the different community-size based facilities is related to the varying unit leachate generation rates as discussed in the subsequent section. The variation in water consumption rates between the waste management scenarios is a reflection of the extended operating periods that result from the organic waste management activities. 6.3.3.2 Wastewater Bioreactor landfill sites generate leachate as a result of the percolation of precipitation moisture through wastes and the contribution of additional water as described in the preceding section. Bioreactor landfills manage leachate using engineered leachate containment, collection and treatment systems. The quantity of leachate that is generated at bioreactor landfill sites is influenced by local climatic conditions and physical site factors such as surface slopes, cap materials, surface cover materials as well as the contribution of additional liquids into the facility. Modeling of leachate generation for the operating and post-closure period of the various bioreactor landfill scenarios was undertaken as a component of this evaluation. For this evaluation it was assumed that during a facility’s operating period, all leachate generated plus an equal quantity of additional water are contributed back into the landfill site and then all of the leachate (generated and recirculated) is removed from the facility over the duration of the post-closure period. The following summarizes the evaluation of leachate expressed in terms of total quantity of leachate per tonne of waste disposed.

Table 6.10 – Bioreactor Landfill Leachate Summary (m/tonne Waste Disposed)39

Waste Management Scenario

Base Case SSO WC w Anaerobic Digestion

Community Population

Leachate Discharge

Leachate Generator

Leachate Discharge

Leachate Generator

Leachate Discharge

20,000 2.29 — 2.47 — 2.56 —

1.42 — 1.53 — 1.59

200,000

Leachate Generator

80,000 —

1.17 — 1.26 — 1.30 —

In the context of the bioreactor landfill evaluation there is no consideration for a natural attenuation option, therefore no leachate is considered to be discharged to the environment. The primary distinction in leachate generation quantities between the three waste management scenarios results from the additional leachate generation and water contribution that would take place over the extended facility operating lifespans that result from organic waste diversion activities.

39 Reflects the leachate quantities spanning the operation and post-closure periods of each facility.

112


From the above it can be seen that the larger sites generate less leachate per unit of waste disposed. This is primarily due to the more efficient relationship of waste-airspace to surface footprint that is inherent in the configuration of larger sites and the fact that leachate generation rates are strongly influenced by the size and condition of the surface of the facility. The bioreactor landfill evaluation results in lower overall unit leachate generation values as compared to the sanitary landfill evaluation. This is primarily a result of the comparatively smaller surface area footprint of the bioreactor landfill due to increased waste density. This is also influenced by the shorter leachate generation time-frame corresponding with the assumed shorter post-closure management period.

Bioreactor landfill gas is identical in composition to landfill gas and is made up primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. A variety of other organic compounds may also be present in bioreactor landfill gas at trace concentrations - typically at parts per million or less. The methane component of bioreactor landfill gas is a potent greenhouse gas and is evaluated in Section 6.3.4.2. Certain trace compounds, when present may contribute to odour impacts and in some cases, air quality impacts. The incidence and concentrations of specific trace compounds in bioreactor landfill gas are highly variable from Site to Site, at various locations within a given Site and on a temporal basis. As a general indicator of the potential air impacts, the following evaluation considers overall emissions of bioreactor landfill gas.

6.3.4 Air

Uncontrolled emissions to the air from landfill sites can contribute to odours, degradation of local air quality and contribution of greenhouse gases into the environment. Some Canadian jurisdictions have regulatory requirements relating to control of emissions from landfill sites. For the purpose of this evaluation it has been assumed that all of the hypothetical bioreactor landfill facilities would be equipped with active landfill gas collection and flaring systems. 6.3.4.1 Overall Emissions

To evaluate the effect that organic waste diversion activities would have on bioreactor landfill emissions, landfill gas generation modeling was performed using the widely accepted Scholl-Canyon model. The landfill gas generation modeling took into account the varying composition of the waste streams under the three waste management scenarios. To accomplish this, wastes directed to disposal were classified according to the associated decomposition characteristics as follows:



Various researchers have suggested that gas generation rates at bioreactor landfills can be as much as double the rates typically observed at conventional sanitary landfill sites. To reflect this in the context of this evaluation, the input variables for the Scholl-Canyon model were adjusted to reflect the increased gas generation rates, while preserving the distinctions in decomposition of differing waste types as indicated above. Bioreactor landfill gas generation was then modeled for the various hypothetical bioreactor facilities and filling scenarios using input parameters appropriate for the three decomposition

113


categories. It was assumed that all of the hypothetical bioreactor landfills would be equipped with gas controls to achieve a recovery rate of 85%, which is slightly higher than the recovery rate used for sanitary landfills to reflect an increased focus on engineered controls that is typically inherent in the design of bioreactor landfills. For all scenarios the quantities of bioreactor landfill gas generated and emitted were calculated spanning the entire 40 year operating and post-closure management period. The following summarizes the evaluation of bioreactor landfill gas generation and emissions, expressed in total quantity of gas per tonne of waste disposed.

Table 6.11 – Bioreactor Landfill Gas Summary (m/tonne Waste Disposed)40


Population Gas Generation

Gas Emissions

Gas Generation

Gas Emissions

Gas Emissions

20,000 337 51 312 47 323 48

80,000 339 51 283 43 296 44

200,000 337 51 312 47 323

Gas Generation

48

It is noted that there is some variation in unit gas generation under all scenarios based on community size. This is the result of variances in the waste composition profiles that are projected for the three different community sizes. This evaluation demonstrates that organic waste management activities have a noticeable effect on gas generation with the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios reducing the unit gas generation in the ranges of 7 to 17% and 4 to 13%, respectively. The corresponding overall waste diversion rates for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios are 15% and 21%, respectively. It is noted that while unit gas generation rates are higher for bioreactor landfills than those projected for the corresponding sanitary landfill scenarios, the unit emissions from the bioreactor landfills are less. This is primarily due to the increased rates of gas recovery that are anticipated in the context of bioreactor landfills. This is also influenced – albeit to a lesser extent – by the increase in gas generation and recovery occurring earlier in the lifespan of a site. The overall unit gas generation rates for the bioreactor landfill are approximately 5 to 6% greater than those estimated in the sanitary landfill evaluation, consistent with the enhanced rates of waste decomposition that are projected for bioreactor landfills.

40 Reflects total leachate quantities spanning the operating and post-closure periods of each facility.

114


6.3.4.2 Greenhouse Gases Gas generated from bioreactor landfills is identical in composition to gas generated at sanitary landfills and represents a potent greenhouse gas when emitted to the atmosphere. The gas evaluation presented in Section 6.3.4.1 was extended to calculate the unit greenhouse gas emissions associated with each of the hypothetical bioreactor landfills under the three waste management scenarios. The bioreactor landfill gas model results in the previous section were adjusted to reflect the methane component of bioreactor landfill gas and the global warming potential of methane being 21 times that of carbon dioxide. The following summarizes the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions, expressed by the total quantity of equivalent carbon dioxide per tonne of waste disposed.

Table 6.12 – Bioreactor Landfill Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (tonnes eCO2/tonne waste disposed)41


Population Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Mixed Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions

20,000 0.380 0.352 0.365

80,000 0.383 0.320 0.334

200,000 0.380 0.352 0.364

As would be expected, the results of the greenhouse gas emission evaluation parallel those of the bioreactor landfill gas evaluation. Organic waste management activities have some effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while the largest reductions in emissions are related to implementation of active landfill gas controls. It is noted that the unit greenhouse gas emissions from the bioreactor landfill are less than those projected for the corresponding sanitary landfill scenarios. This is due to the increased rates of gas recovery that are anticipated in the context of bioreactor landfills. 6.4 Renewable Energy 6.4.1 Energy Generation/Consumption When collected, bioreactor landfill gas represents a significant potential source of renewable energy. Proven technologies exist to harness the power of landfill gas. Generation of renewable energy from landfill gas also has the potential to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases due to avoidance of consumption of fossil fuels.

41 Reflects total greenhouse gas quantities spanning the operating and post-closure periods of each facility.

115


To evaluate the impact of organic waste management activities on the potential for energy recovery from landfill gas, the following assumptions were applied:

• Energy recovery is feasible only at landfills equipped with landfill gas collection systems; • Energy generation potential is based on 75% of the average rate of landfill gas recovery

anticipated during a 20 year time-frame spanning the peak landfill generating period; • Average energy density of landfill gas = 1.68 kW/(m3/hr) • Energy facility operational availability = 95%

The following summarizes the renewable energy generation potential from recovered landfill gas, expressed in terms of kilowatt-hours per unit tonne of waste disposed.

Table 6.13 – Bioreactor Landfill Renewable Energy Summary (kW-hr/tonne waste disposed)

Waste Management Scenario Base Case SSO Mixed Waste

Community Population

Renewable Energy Generation


20,00042 239 227

240 214

200,000 239 227 236

Renewable Energy Emissions

236

80,000 204

It is important to note that renewable energy recovery at bioreactor landfill facilities that exclusively serve a community of 20,000 persons would not be expected to be economically feasible on a stand-alone basis given current energy conversion technologies, the costs of implementation and available energy sale pricing. The values associated with the 20,000 person community profile are shown above only for comparative purposes. As may be expected, the evaluation of renewable energy recovery potential roughly parallels the results of the bioreactor landfill gas generation evaluation, with organic waste management activities reducing gas (i.e., fuel) generation and hence impacting renewable energy recovery potential. It is noted that the fuel reduction relationship is not directly proportional due to the differing time frames considered in the gas generation and renewable energy evaluations. The potential for renewable energy recovery from bioreactor landfill gas remains substantial and organic waste management activities would not be expected to have a significant impact on the overall feasibility of renewable energy recovery at most bioreactor landfills where gas collection is undertaken for emission control. In comparison with the evaluation of sanitary landfills, renewable energy generation potential from bioreactor landfills is somewhat greater. This is due to the enhanced rates of gas generation resulting in earlier availability of greater quantities of fuel and the increased rates of gas recovery that are anticipated in the bioreactor landfill context.

42 Renewable energy recovery at facilities of this scale is not economically feasible.

116


6.5 Social 6.5.1 Public Acceptance

Evaluation of public acceptance is subjective and can only reasonably be considered on a qualitative basis.

The public is generally resistant to local siting of all waste management facilities. In the context of landfills, opinions are strongly influenced by the occurrence of problems primarily at historic sites that were generally not subject to the current levels of oversight, management and regulation. There is potential for improved public perception of bioreactor landfills in comparison to sanitary landfills based on effective communication and recognition of the benefits of bioreactor landfills in treating wastes to improve overall environmental performance and reduce potential long-term liabilities. There is very little concrete information available regarding the public’s perception of bioreactor landfills.

6.5.2 Siting Challenges

There are significant challenges associated with the siting of any waste management facility. Specific factors such as surrounding land uses, proximity to sensitive receptors, protection of water resources and habitats must be taken into consideration in the process of establishing any waste management facility.

6.6 Odour

Odour impacts are site-specific, subjective depending upon the receptor and related to emissions of bioreactor landfill gas. The evaluation of overall landfill gas emissions presented in Section 6.3.4.1 provides the basis for a general indication of the potential for odour impacts as related to bioreactor landfill gas emissions.

6.7 Traffic

Traffic impacts at bioreactor landfill sites are primarily related to the number of vehicle trips delivering waste to a given facility. The following traffic evaluation was prepared using assumed vehicle capacities of 10 tonnes of waste for packer trucks delivering waste to the smaller facility (i.e., 20,000 person community) and 30 tonnes for trailers delivering waste to the larger facilities (i.e., 80,000 and 200,000 tonnes).

Table 6.14 – Traffic Summary


Population Total Vehicle

Trips Vehicle Trips per Year


1,275

80,000 38,347 1,917 1,662 1,564

200,000 97,860 4,893 4,252 3,991


20,000 29,358 1,468 1,197

117


From this it can be seen that the total number of vehicle trips is dependent on the waste disposal capacity of a facility. Given this, the traffic evaluation results for bioreactor landfills are identical to those arrived at for sanitary landfills. Organic waste management activities reduce the quantity of waste disposed in a facility on an annual basis, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips per year, while extending the number of years that the facility is in operation.

• noise;

6.8 Other Impacts Current practices for siting, designing and operating bioreactor landfills include measures to address potential local impacts such as:

• dust;

• vermin; • litter.

Quantitative assessment of these types of impacts is site-specific and as such is beyond the scope of this evaluation. As with sanitary landfills, it is postulated that the potential for the occurrence of these types of impacts at a facility is related primarily to the control measures that are put in place, and is not generally sensitive to the effects that organic waste management activities would have on the wastes disposed. 6.9 Costs

The evaluation of the costs of disposal of wastes in bioreactor landfills followed the same process applied to sanitary landfills (see Section 5.9), with a few key differences, which will be identified herein. For the purposes of this evaluation, the costs of bioreactor landfill disposal of wastes were estimated for the three community population-based hypothetical scenarios, taking into account the effects of the three organic waste management scenarios. Table 6.15 lists the primary assumptions and cost elements incorporated into this evaluation.

118


Table 6.15 – Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions

Annual Finance Rate 7%

Inflation Rate 3%

Facility Operating Period Varies 20-25 Years

Post Closure Management Period 50 Years

Sanitary Landfill Facility Cost Elements

1. Predevelopment

a. Site Selection

b. Land Acquisition

c. Approvals


a. Site Clearing and Preparation

b. Site Utilities

c. Site Infrastructure



f. Leachate Recirculation/Liquid Addition System

g. LFG Collection and Flaring System

h. Cap System Construction

i Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure

3. Site Operations


b. Waste Disposal Operations

c. Daily Cover Placement

d. Leachate Treatment

e. Reporting

4. Post Closure Management

a. Staffing and Administration

b. Leachate Treatment

c. Maintenance Allowance

Cost estimates were prepared using the cost parameters and assumptions shown on Table 6.6, consistent with the hypothetical facility assumptions and parameters identified previously and using unit costs derived from experience on bioreactor landfill projects verified and/or complemented by reference to industry cost yard sticks. Unit costs applied in this evaluation are summarized in Appendix E.

119


It is important to note that while the potential for recovery of renewable energy from bioreactors landfills is significant, the potential revenue streams resulting from renewable energy recovery and tradable greenhouse gas emission reductions have not been included in this evaluation. These potential revenue streams have been excluded from the evaluation due to uncertainties associated with access to markets and pricing for energy and greenhouses gases. It is felt that application of assumptions regarding revenue from renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reductions might prove to be unrealistic and could potentially skew the evaluation of the waste management scenarios. The following highlights differences in the cost estimates that were developed for the evaluation of bioreactor landfill facilities:

• Adjustment of facility sizes and associated material quantities to reflect the higher waste density of bioreactor facilities;

• Inclusion of costs for leachate recirculation and liquid addition; • Inclusion of costs for landfill gas recovery at the 20,000 person facilities as well as the

larger facilities; • Increased unit costs for: approvals; engineered leachate containment and collection

system; LFG collection and flaring system; environmental monitoring infrastructure; administration and support; waste disposal operations; reporting; post-closure staffing/administration; and post-closure maintenance – to reflect the higher degree of complexity and engineering control that is associated with bioreactor landfills;

• Decreased unit costs for leachate treatment to reflect the in-situ leachate treatment effect that is inherent in bioreactor landfills;

• Recirculation of all leachate generated during the operating phase plus addition of an equal quantity of water during the operating phase;

• Removal and subsequent treatment of all leachate generated and water added spanning the post closure management period; and,

• Adjustment of the post-closure management period to 20 years to reflect the more rapid stabilization of wastes.

For comparative purposes, the present value of all costs associated with landfill disposal of waste was determined on a unit basis and are summarized as follows:

Table 6.16 – Bioreactor Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed)


20,000 64.99 66.13 66.81

80,000 43.25 44.34 44.99

200,000 35.57 36.69 37.36

Given that the facility capacities are considered fixed and that the infrastructure requirements are unaffected by the waste stream alterations resulting from organic waste management activities, the primary effect of organic waste management on the unit cost of waste disposal at bioreactor landfills is related to the longer operating period of the facilities. As illustrated, the organic waste management scenarios contribute to small increases in unit waste disposal costs

120


in the ranges of approximately 2.5 to 3% and 3 to 5% for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios, respectively. The corresponding overall waste diversion rates for the SSO and Mixed Waste scenarios are 15% and 21%, respectively. The evaluation clearly illustrates the economies of scale that would be expected to be realized at larger bioreactor landfill facilities in comparison to smaller facilities. In comparison to the sanitary landfill evaluation - with the exception of the 20,000 person community based facilities - it was found that unit costs for disposal of wastes in a bioreactor landfill were projected to be less than those of sanitary landfills of comparable disposal capacity. This demonstrates that the effect of the higher unit costs for many of the capital and operational aspects of a bioreactor landfill is more than offset by the reduced physical size of the bioreactor required, the shorter post-closure management period and the slightly reduced unit costs for treatment of leachate. In the context of the 20,000 person community based facility, the unit disposal costs for a bioreactor were higher than those for a natural attenuation sanitary landfill, reflecting the higher costs for implementation of the full-suite of engineered controls required for a bioreactor, and the application of leachate management costs – which are taken as zero in the context of the natural attenuation site. 6.10 Summary While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, the preceding evaluation shows that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from bioreactor landfill disposal is practiced:

• Increased effective operating lifespan of the bioreactor landfill serving the community; • Increased consumption of water for contribution to a bioreactor landfill serving

the community; • Increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at a bioreactor landfill serving

the community; • Notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from a

bioreactor landfill serving the community; • Reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at a bioreactor landfill

serving the community; • Reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to a bioreactor landfill serving the


the community.

121


While the results of the preceding evaluation of bioreactor landfills are in strong parallel to those of the sanitary landfill in the context of the effects of organic waste management activities, it interesting to note the following in comparison of the two types of landfills:

• The unit land area consumption of bioreactor landfills is 17 to 22% less than that of sanitary landfills of equivalent disposal capacity. This is due to the significantly higher in-situ waste density that is achieved in bioreactors.





122


7 DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: THERMAL TREATMENT

7.1 Introduction and Overview This section provides a description and evaluation of the thermal treatment disposal option. Thermal treatment can be applied to the residual waste stream remaining after recycling and composting to recover renewable energy.

This section begins with a description of the various thermal treatment technologies. The approvals requirements for these technologies are then discussed. The various waste streams including both quantities and composition within the scope of the study are identified and considered. An evaluation of the available thermal treatment options in terms of costs, social impacts and environmental impacts is then provided and the section concludes with a summary of the key findings. 7.2 Description of Technologies Much of the information provided in this description of technologies is drawn directly from the 2004 FCM Publication, “Review of Waste Technologies, Solid Waste as a Resource”. Where appropriate, the text from the FCM Publication has been edited and updated to provide the most current information.

7.2.1 Introduction and Overview Managing waste via thermal technologies involves high temperature processing of waste materials to reduce the quantity of material requiring disposal; stabilize the material requiring disposal; and recover energy and potentially, material resources. Although individual facilities may vary, the process of thermal treatment/destruction generally involves the following core process elements:

• physical processing equipment (mechanical and manual) to remove unacceptable materials and possibly recover recyclable materials contained within the incoming waste stream;

• thermal treatment/destruction unit (e.g., combustion or gasification chambers); • heat and/or energy recovery system; • air pollution control system; and • ash management system including processing to recover materials.

Overall, thermal treatment/destruction facilities are designed based on:

• site-specific needs; • energy consumer needs; and • applicable regulatory requirements, (in particular, air emissions performance standards).

123


The categories of thermal technologies that are used or are being considered for use in the management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) include:

• starved air (or multiple stage) combustion; • mass burn (single stage combustion); • fluidized bed combustion; • rotary kiln combustion; • pyrolysis and gasification including plasma technology; and • solid recovered fuel production and use (also referred to as refuse derived fuel).

Essentially the differences between these categories of technologies involve the following aspects:

Starved air combustion, mass burn, fluidized bed and rotary kiln units have been used extensively for the past 50 years in Europe and North America to treat MSW. Canadian examples include facilities in Charlottetown, PEI; Quebec City, Quebec; Brampton, Ontario; Wainwright, Alberta; and Burnaby, British Columbia.

• process oxygen concentrations (e.g., starved air combustion/gasification and pyrolysis

occurring in low to no oxygen environments); • process temperatures (e.g., plasma involves extremely high temperature); • point of application of gas cleaning/air pollution control (e.g., gasification often involves

pre-combustion cleaning, whereas conventional thermal treatment entails gas cleaning post combustion) and

• physical location where energy resource is recovered (i.e., solid recovered fuel (SRF) is material recovered from waste that has been processed to possibly upgrade its heat value and is used to replace conventional fossil fuels in industrial manufacturing (e.g., cement and metals smelting kilns) and utility electricity generating stations and district heating plants. In other categories of technologies, in general, the energy value of the incoming waste is extracted as an integral component of the physical location of the thermal treatment/destruction facility itself.

Pyrolysis/gasification, and plasma arc technologies have historically been utilized in Europe and North America for the management of special wastes. Canadian plasma gasification examples include technology developers located in Ottawa and Montreal. These technologies are now being considered for application to MSW under the contexts of “new and emerging” technologies. Commercial scale applications to MSW in Canada are not yet in existence. However, a pilot scale fluidised bed gasification facility has been tested in Sherbrooke, Quebec and vendors of these types of technologies are in discussions with municipal authorities in a number of Canadian communities in regard to potential future project initiations. Solid recovered fuel technology has been employed principally in Europe and in the USA, to a certain degree. In order to utilize an solid recovered fuel in Canada, the utilization site must obtain the necessary approvals. The approval requirements are generally very onerous (identical to an incinerator facility) and to-date, few Canadian facilities have obtained the required approval to use solid recovered fuel manufactured from a MSW feedstock. Figure 7.1 presents the principal elements of thermal technologies.

124


7.2.1.1 Summary of Representative Facilities

Table 7.1 at the end of this section provides examples of where various types of thermal treatment technology are in operation in Canada and summarizes the key management considerations with respect to these thermal technologies.

A. Waste Delivery, Preparation and Feed to Thermal Process Unit

Waste Delivery (Varying degrees of “curbside” resources recovery)

Optional Pre-Thermal Treatment Processing to Remove “Contaminants” eg. HSW and/or Recover Recyclable Materials

Batch or Continuous Waste Feed to Thermal Units

B. Thermal Process Elements

C. Air Pollution Control and Ash Management Elements• “Exhaust” gas from direct waste combustion, or combustion of

gas generated from waste thermal elements treated to remove contaminants prior to release as air emission. Treatment involves combinations of: Temperature Cooling, Acids’ Neutralization, Particulate Capture (filtering), Metals Capture/Chemical Conversions (Catalytic Reactors) and Trace Organic Capture (Carbon Adsorption)

• Bottom ash and/or fly ash from air pollution control can be treated to recover recyclable metals and/or stabilized via high temperature vitrification processes

D. Energy Recovery Elements

• Energy in exhaust gas recovered via heat recovery boiler (steam) and/or gas turbine (electricity)

• Energy in synthetic gas recovered via use in internal combustion engine, boiler, gas turbine application or hydrogen fuel cell

Variously:Single Stage Combustion Exhaust Gas

Starved Air Gasification Gas combustion Exhaust Gas

Gasification Gas Cleaning Synthetic Gas

Pyrolysis Synthetic Oil & Carbon Char

Variously:Single Stage Combustion Exhaust Gas

Starved Air Gasification Gas combustion Exhaust Gas

Gasification Gas Cleaning Synthetic Gas

Pyrolysis Synthetic Oil & Carbon Char

Figure 7.1 – Summary of Principal Elements of Thermal Treatment Process

Note: Starved incineration/gasification can also be referred to as two or multi-stage combustion.

125


7.2.2 Established Technologies

Waste Pre-processing and Feed Rate Control

Incoming waste is inspected to isolate unacceptable materials (e.g., HSW, large non-combustible waste and oversized materials). Incoming waste loads are mixed to create a blend of material that is homogenous in physical, chemical and heat value characteristics. Wastes may be mechanically processed (e.g., shredded and screened) to create a uniform practical size. This protects the integrity of and optimizes the utilization of the design capacity elements of the technology (e.g., thermal capacities of combustion and gasification chambers and energy recovery units such as boilers, treatment capacities of air pollution control systems, etc.). Incoming waste can be mechanically and/or manually processed (e.g., positively sorted) to recover recyclable materials that were not captured in ‘curbside’ recycling programs. Once ‘pre-processed’, waste is ‘fed’ at a controlled rate into the thermal treatment/destruction units of a facility. Careful control of feed rates, often via computerized weight/volume measures, is necessary to protect and optimize the design capacities of the ‘downstream’ elements (thermal units, air pollution control systems, energy recovery and power generation systems) of a facility.

Thermal Treatment/Destruction

Waste is treated and /or destroyed via application of temperature under various chemical ‘environments’ (principally oxygen concentrations). Temperature drives various physical/chemical transformations of the waste. As a general principle, waste is either rapidly oxidized (i.e., combusted) to convert carbon/hydrogen molecules into carbon dioxide and water, or is reduced (i.e., in the reduced presence or absence of oxygen in the case of gasification and pyrolysis technologies) to convert complex carbon/hydrogen molecules into simpler, elements such as constituent oils, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. This oil or gas is subsequently subjected to combustion to release heat and produce carbon dioxide and water. In both cases, the waste materials remaining are substantially reduced in quantity (e.g., water and other elements are volatilized – converted from solid to gaseous states) and are of a simpler, stable chemical composition (e.g., less reactive, less prone to leaching contaminant constituents, etc). Thus the remaining ash or char material is made more amenable to ‘ultimate’ management via landfill disposal or perhaps recycling.

Energy Recovery

7.2.2.1 Introduction To achieve the objectives of waste volume reduction, physical/chemical stabilization and energy and recyclable material recovery from thermal destruction, the following process functions occur.

MSW contains substantial heat energy, principally in the form of its constituent organic carbon molecules. Unprocessed, unprepared MSW typically has a heat value of approximately 10,500 to 12,800 kilo-joules/kg (4,500–5,500 Btu/lb). As a rule of thumb, a relatively small facility of the kind of interest to the readers of this report can supply, after in-plant consumption, at least 450 to 500 kWh of electricity from each tonne of waste burned. The heat energy contained in 24 tonnes of waste, released via thermal

126


treatment/destruction and subsequently captured and converted into electricity can supply the annual power needs of a typical Canadian home. Actual heat values depend on the specific composition of the waste, including the circumstances of its collection and delivery to a facility, as well as the extent to which the waste is pre-processed at the facility to remove inert and high moisture content materials. For example, the energy difference between a load of low heating value yard waste – principally grass – collected after a week of rain, and a load of high heating value waste collected from a strip-mall principally comprised of plastic materials from fast-food outlets, will be significant. Heat energy recovery systems have typically involved boilers in the past. The heat energy released from waste is transformed to steam that is then converted to electricity via turbine/generators. Essentially, the configuration is that of a conventional thermal power plant, substituting coal, oil or gas with MSW. Energy recovery/conversion efficiencies of 20% to 30% are associated with conventional thermal treatment and electricity production. Steam and/or hot water can also be used directly as in the case of district heating systems or applications in industrial manufacturing processes. In recent years, combined cycle gas turbines (combustion exhaust gas powers a gas turbine and at the same time, excess heat is captured to power a steam turbine) have substantially improved energy efficiencies. Use of newer gasification treatment and combined cycle gas turbine technologies can yield energy efficiencies of 40% to 60%. These have been proven for natural gas, but not for the lower heating value synthetic gas produced in a gasification facility. In the case of certain gasification technologies, synthetic gas can be fired in internal combustion engines or potentially used to ‘drive’ hydrogen fuel-cells.

• acid gases scrubbing (neutralization by lime injection), heavy metals capture (bag house filtering and activated carbon and/or catalytic reactor adsorption);

Air Pollution Control

An air pollution control system is used for the treatment of the gaseous products (typically flue gas) from the thermal treatment/destruction units. The design of the air pollution control system is a function of the composition of the in-feed waste, the treatment/destruction technology and the environmental performance regulations (emission limits) applicable to the facility. This latter parameter typically incorporates consideration of the thermal technologies’ generic environmental performance track-record and consideration of the circumstances of the location where thermal treatment is to occur (i.e., surrounding land use context and ambient air quality) vis-à-vis protection of human health and the natural environment. Typical air pollution control systems are comprised of the following elements: • flue gas cooling for subsequent physical/chemical capture and removal;

• trace organics (e.g., dioxins and furans) destruction and/or avoidance of substance formation (via high temperature, greater than approximately 1,000°C to 1,200°C, exposure and avoiding formation of free chlorine by use of low oxygen reducing conditions); capture (bag house filtering and activated carbon and/or catalytic reactor adsorption); and

• particulate collection (bag house filtering and/or electrostatic precipitators).

Air pollution control systems include equipment to continuously and/or periodically monitor emissions performance and to report performance for process control and regulatory compliance purposes. Modern air pollution control systems are interlinked to the waste in-feed control, thermal treatment/destruction units and energy

127


recovery/conversion units of a facility, so that trends in emission performance are discerned and appropriate adjustments in the facility’s unit functions are automatically made to ensure that emissions meet or are better than regulatory standards. Ash Management The solid residue remaining after thermal treatment/destruction is typically termed ‘bottom ash’. This material is mechanically collected, cooled (typically water quenched then drained) magnetically/electrically screened to recover recyclable ferrous/aluminium materials (although these metals can be recovered during the MSW infeed preparation) and removed for ‘ultimate’ management, typically placed in MSW landfill sites. The material can, depending upon its chemical composition, physical state, and regulatory requirements, be utilized as a form of aggregate substitute. Bottom ash from a conventional thermal treatment system is typically 10% by volume and 25% by weight of the incoming waste stream. Air pollution control systems generate the other solid residue from a facility. Termed ‘fly ash’, this material is comprised of the fine particulate contaminants captured from the flue gas and the reagents (e.g., lime) used to effect capture. Fly ash may be classified as hazardous waste (higher propensity to leach contaminants in hazardous concentrations) as it contains the contaminants removed from the exhaust gases and is usually managed via further chemical stabilization so that it can be disposed in landfill sites. Certain more costly thermal technologies employ extremely high temperatures to convert ash into inert vitrified substances, either as an integral element of converting the waste into gas and recoverable chemical elements, or as a dedicated ash management process. Residues from a process that vitrifies and recycles ash are usually less than 5% by volume. The following sub-sections provide additional details on the specific thermal treatment technologies typically classified as ‘proven technologies’. All the technologies include air pollution control and ash management technologies similar to that described above.

These technologies are the most appropriate for the smaller municipalities to whom this report is primarily addressed. Starved air incinerators, also known as controlled air incinerators, have been used extensively for MSW. There is a higher degree of oxygen control in a starved air system. The two stage technology separates the first and second stages for good combustion control and reduces generation of particulate in the active burning stage. The first stage operates typically as a gasifier. Starved air incineration has been continuously developed over the years to achieve increased reliability through improved design of component functions/equipment. Today it is a well-known and well-established technology, with a stable and reliable process.

7.2.2.2 Starved Air (or Multiple Stage) Combustion (‘Pure’ Two-Stage Combustion)

Background

General Operating Principles Starved air (or multiple stage) incinerators are two-stage combustion systems consisting of a primary combustion chamber and a secondary combustion chamber. The purpose of the primary chamber is to partially oxidize carbon to produce combustible gas (i.e., carbon monoxide). MSW is fed, typically in an as-received state, into the primary chamber where it is volatilized on a stationary hearth in a sub-stoichiometric

128


environment (i.e., an environment in which the oxygen level is significantly below the level required for the complete combustion of the waste material). Volatile gases from the primary chamber enter the secondary chamber for more complete oxidation, where combustion air blowers provide excess air (150-200%) to maintain temperatures up to 1,200°C. The secondary chamber is typically designed for a residence time of 1 to 2 seconds. Two types of starved air incineration systems are available for use in the treatment of MSW: Semi-continuous incinerators and batch units. Semi-Continuous Starved air Incinerators Typically, semi-continuous starved air systems are found to be an appropriate technology for smaller cities. A common type of starved air incinerator is the stepped hearth incinerator, which contains two to four stationary hearths in a line. Waste is injected onto the first hearth by a ram feeder or an auger screw feeder. Waste is fed into the unit about every 10 minutes, with each successive charge of waste moving the previous charge through the unit. When the charge gets to the end of the first hearth, it free-falls 300 mm to 600 mm onto the second hearth. This allows the waste to mix with the combustion air and exposes new surfaces to the high temperatures.

Waste is burnt at approximately 850°C under sub-stoichiometric conditions in the primary chamber. Products of this stage are ash (inerts) and flue gas, which contains the gaseous products of incomplete combustion (such as carbon monoxide). Flue gas from this stage feeds into the secondary stage, where it is injected with excess air to assist in completing the combustion process. Temperatures are allowed to rise to about 1,000°C and maintained at that level for at least one second to achieve thorough combustion.

Capacity

Typically, semi-continuous starved air systems are found to be an appropriate technology for smaller cities as their design capacities for individual units are in the 10 to 100 tonne per day range. Typical facilities are comprised of 3 to 5 units (i.e., plant capacities of 30 to 500 tonnes per day). Environmental Issues and Energy Implications Semi-continuous starved air incinerator technology applications can meet all Canadian environmental regulatory requirements, provided appropriate air pollution control equipment (APC) is installed. APC systems will be similar to those required for larger systems, since the same contaminants will need to be removed and the same emission standards will have to be met. Heat recovery and electricity generation is feasible and can be economically advantageous. In general, heat recovery is not usually economical for small facilities, but can be worthwhile for larger facilities. Heat recovery in the form of process steam sold to a nearby user is usually more cost effective than the production of electricity. At current energy prices, it is usually not viable to recover electricity for systems smaller than 200 tonnes per day. Heat recovery viability depends on the availability of a heat load in

129


close proximity to the plant. In all cases, a cost-benefit study is required to assess feasibility.

Waste is fed into the primary chamber of the unit as a one-time function at the start of the batch operation, and is partially combusted at a temperature of 650 to 850°C under sub-stoichiometric conditions (i.e., not enough air for complete combustion). Products of this stage are ash, fixed carbon and flue gas, which contains the gaseous products of incomplete combustion (such as CO).

There is an additional standard established by the CCME, which dictates the allowable concentration of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator. For a unit that processes more than 26 tonnes/year, there is a maximum concentration of 80pg I-TEQ/m3, which must be confirmed by annual testing. For a unit processing less than 26 tonnes/yr, the facility must make determined efforts to achieve the stack concentration of 80pg I-TEQ/m3.

An example of this thermal processing technology is the “Consutech” units employed at the Algonquin EFW facility in Brampton Ontario, and the Charlottetown PEI, EFW facility.

Batch Process Starved Air (or Multiple Stage) Incinerators Batch starved air facilities are suitable for very small communities. General Operating Principles

Flue gas from this primary stage feeds into the secondary stage, where it is injected with excess air to assist in completing the combustion process. Combustion in the second stage is assisted with a secondary burner, especially during the early and late stages of combustion of the batch, so that a temperature of 1,000 °C is maintained at all times. Depending on the size of the batch system, the post incineration portion of the system may be somewhat different from the previous incinerators, with considerably less equipment. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has developed guidelines for the operation of municipal waste incinerators. According to CCME guidelines, if the unit processes more than 9.6 tonnes per day (400kg per hour on a 24 hour basis), then strict emission standards apply and a complete APC system is usually required. However, if the capacity is less than 9.6 tonnes per day, then less stringent emission standards apply, which enable operation with a simpler scrubber system. In this case, the flue gases are cooled, and treated in a low-tech acid scrubber to remove or lower the hydrochloric acid, which is formed when PVC plastics are burned. Particulates and other contaminants must be controlled through proper combustion procedures. As in other systems, stack gases are periodically monitored for the concentrations of air pollutants released into the atmosphere through the stack. The emission standards for smaller units vary from province to province.

Capacity Capacities for typical batch starved air incinerators range from 1 to 20 tonnes per day.

130


Environmental Issues and Energy Implications

“Eco Waste Solutions” of Burlington, Ontario, manufactures a batch process starved air unit that has been used in a number of MSW management applications in small communities, military installations and ‘eco-sensitive’ contexts such as destination tourism locations, in Canada and the USA. These applications have to date, been associated with relatively remote geographic locations where waste management options are limited (e.g., prohibitions against landfill disposal in the high-north) and the higher costs for the units simply have to be absorbed.

• primary burning - the more readily combustible materials are oxidized; and

The advantages of this system include simple operations, good ash quality (low carbon content in the ash) and relatively small amounts of particulate emissions. Low levels of turbulence in the primary chamber reduces particulate carryover and, as a result, particulate matter emissions (before APC) from this type of incinerator are typically lower than for other incineration technologies. This technology enables a slow and quiet burn, which allows for complete processing of the waste so that the resulting ash has less carbon and no fused materials. Manufacturers claim that these units meet the stringent criteria of the Canada wide standard (CCME). In addition, this technology can also meet the Ontario Ministry of the Environment A-7 Guidelines, for emissions such as NOx, SO2, Hg, CO, particulates and dioxins/furans, but will require an air pollution control scrubber to reduce Pd, Cd, and HCl emissions.

Electrical energy production is not generally economical given the small facility size. Heat recovery for industrial applications at adjacent facilities may be viable.

7.2.2.3 Mass Burn Combustion

Background Mass burning is a well-established technology developed over 100 years ago for energy generation from MSW. The units are typically large in capacity and involve operations that can range from single stage combustion to a form of two stage combustion. Mass burn combustion is typically used in large cities with a population of over 1 million. At this size and greater, the economies of scale for this technology are developed. General Operating Principles Typically waste is fed “as received” (i.e., very limited pre-feed processing of waste; thus waste is heterogeneous in its composition – physical materials sizes, chemical/moisture content, etc.). Waste is fed into a single combustion chamber, onto one or more grates (“multi-grate systems”) where the following activities occur:

• drying - the water content of the waste is reduced to prepare the material for burning;

• finish burning - fixed carbon is oxidized.

Depending upon the temperature and oxygen content of operations, and the design of the internal physical configuration of the combustion chamber, waste can either be oxidized in a single function, or in a two stage function i.e., waste is partially oxidized

131


(solid converted to gas state) on the grate(s), and this gas is subsequently oxidized in the zone of the combustion chamber above the grate(s). The latter form of unit design and operation is more typically employed as it yields better control of combustion, more complete ‘burn-out’ i.e., less ash of a more inert nature, and more optimal energy recovery. Waste is burned on the grate(s) in what is commonly referred to as sub-stoichiometric conditions, where sufficient oxygen is not available for complete combustion. The available oxygen is about 30% to 80% of the required amount for complete combustion, resulting in the formation of combustible pyrolysis gases (or ‘flue gas’). These gases rise up in the combustion chamber where they are combined with the introduction of excess air (above full-stoichiometric conditions) and complete oxidation occurs. The remainder of the system includes energy recovery via a boiler, air pollution control and ash management systems. Capacity Mass burn facilities are large systems generally consisting of multiple grates ranging in capacity from 200 to 1000 tonnes per unit per day. Facilities with total capacities of over 3,000 tonnes per day are in operation worldwide, and larger systems are planned. However, in Canada, typical facilities have a total capacity of between 400 and 850 tonnes per day. Environmental Issues and Energy Implications Mass burn technology applications meet all Canadian environmental regulatory requirements provided the appropriate air pollution control unit is installed. A characteristic of mass burn systems is their ability to accept all types of MSW with a minimum or pre-processing. Both heat recovery and electricity generation are possible with modern boilers. Mass burn facilities have good energy efficiency and generally export their energy as either steam or electricity. As an example, steam produced at the Burnaby facility in British Columbia is utilized by a nearby paper recycling facility to replace the use of natural gas. The facility has recently been upgraded to also produce electricity. Vendors of theses technologies include “Covanta (Martin)”, “Foster Wheeler” and “Wheelabrator”.

132


7.2.2.4 Fluidized Bed Systems

Background

Fluidized bed systems are capable of destroying a wide range of wastes including: sewage sludge, petroleum waste and paper industry waste. While the technology is typically commercially used for material of homogeneous nature (sewage sludge), fluidized beds can be used for MSW treatment if adequate shredding and pre-treatment is applied. There are no such facilities processing MSW in Canada. General Operating Principles A fluidized bed is a large combustion chamber with a bed of silica sand at the bottom. Air is injected at the bottom of the bed and is dispersed into the sand through a series of air dispersion nozzles, hence decreasing the density of the sand mass – commonly referred to as fluidizing the sand mass – so as to enable it to transport air and heat to the particles of waste substance to be treated (combusted). A burner at the bottom of the bed raises the sand mass temperature to about 850°C, prior to initial introduction of the waste stream. Pre-processed / shredded waste with a relatively uniform particle size is introduced onto the bed. The waste material is induced to move into the body of the sand bed by the convection current movement of the air and sand particles. The waste is partially combusted / gasified to produce carbon monoxide and other volatiles. These gases undergo further combustion in the upper section of the combustion chamber, above the surface of the bed, where additional combustion air is injected. Flue gases are then directed into the air pollution control system. Ash deposited on the bed is evacuated through an exit at the side of the bed opposite the side from which waste is injected. Capacity Fluidized bed systems typically range in capacity from 50 to 200 tonnes of waste per unit per day. Larger systems require multiple units. Environmental Issues and Energy Implications Fluidized beds have a number of environmental advantages. Extensive turbulence and high residence time in the combustion chamber results in smaller amounts of trace organics emissions (dioxins, furans, etc.). Pre-processing the waste to smaller particle sizes and the physical action of convection movement through the sand bed medium increases surface areas resulting in good ‘burn-out’ and better ash quality (ash with smaller unburned carbon content). However, large amounts of ash carry over in the flue gases (larger than those in mass burn systems) and place an added burden on the air pollution control system, as much of the fine ash is carried out of the bed by the air movement in the furnace. Fluidized bed systems require more extensive air pollution control systems with oversized equipment that includes particulate removal devices in the gas stream, hence requiring more intense maintenance than those for suspension or grate burners.

133


A number of practical and economic advantages and disadvantages related to fluidized beds have been noted. The advantages stem mostly from the fact that these systems have simple designs, and include low capital cost, long service life, and low maintenance costs. As well, the absence of moving parts results in a lesser probability of breakdowns and simpler, less costly maintenance.

Due to high thermal inertia, fluidized bed systems are also quite versatile in that they can tolerate large fluctuations in both waste composition and the rate of feed. However, these systems require skilled labour to operate, as they involve more sophisticated electrical components than older technologies. They are also highly sensitive to particle sizing: if particles are too large, they sink and stay at the bottom of the bed in an unburned state. Other potential problems and special considerations include bed degeneration, the build up and removal of residual materials from the bed, and the formation of eutectic mixtures that fuse in the furnace.

7.2.2.5 Rotary Kiln Incinerator

Background

Rotary kiln incinerators have been used for the thermal destruction of MSW since the 1950s. They are also widely used for the disposal of a variety of solid and liquid hazardous wastes, including thermally stable compounds such as PCBs. General Operating Principles

Rotary kiln incinerators are two-stage combustion systems consisting of a primary and a secondary combustion chamber. The primary chamber is a rotary kiln, a refractory lined cylindrical metal shell mounted at a slight angle from horizontal, sloping down from the waste feed end of the kiln to the discharge end. MSW is fed into the kiln, and burnt at a typical temperature of 850°C. MSWs are either batch fed into the kiln by a ram feed system, or are screw fed through a rotating air lock. Liquid wastes can be either blended with solids or injected into the primary (or secondary) chamber through atomization with steam or air. The rotation of the kiln and the slope serve to transport the wastes through the kiln and ensure adequate mixing with combustion air. Residence time for the waste can be controlled by adjusting the rotational speed of the kiln. Typically residence times in a rotary kiln are approximately 30 minutes. Flue gases generated from solids combustion in the primary chamber are directed to the secondary chamber, a stationary refractory lined metal vessel equipped with auxiliary burner(s). The secondary combustion chamber is between 30-60% of the size of the rotary kiln, depending upon the air volume and residence time required. Combustion temperatures in the secondary chamber are in the range of 1,000°C-1,200°C at 1 to 2 seconds residence time. Capacity

Rotary kiln incinerators have typical capacities ranging from 10 to 50 tonnes per day. The technology is relatively capital intensive, given the complexity of its rotating element design.

134


Environmental Issues and Energy Implications

Rotary kiln incinerator technology applications can meet all Canadian environmental regulatory requirements provided that appropriate APC is installed. However, due largely to a relatively short combustion residence time, the quality of the ash generated can be disadvantageous from a life-cycle management cost standpoint. To improve the ash quality, feed waste may be pre-processed to remove non-combustibles. Further, the combustible portion of the feed may be shredded prior to incineration so as to reduce the residence time required for complete burning. Rotary kiln incinerators involve relatively high operating and maintenance costs. It has been shown in practice that high operating temperatures periodically destroy the seals in the rotary unit and cause leakages, which result in poor combustion and energy recovery performance. Further, the tumbling action caused by rotation can result in dense waste particles cracking the refractory brick resulting in often frequent and expensive shutdown and repair. Again, pre-processing the waste can solve this problem.

Heat recovery is possible, however, economic cost-benefit studies are required to identify the level of capital investment required.

7.2.2.6 Alternative Fuel

Background

Solid recovered fuel systems involve pre-processing of incoming waste to produce a ‘refuse derived fuel’ (RDF) and subsequent use of that fuel as a substitute for some of the conventional fossil fuels in industrial manufacturing (e.g., cement kilns), utility power generation and institutional (e.g., district heating) applications. Pre-processing recovers combustible materials from the waste. As well, pre-processing results in the recovery of recyclable materials that may have been missed in curbside recycling programs. General Operating Principles

Pre-processing of waste is carried out in order to improve the combustion characteristics of the fuel. Various levels of processing are possible, but they all involve the same basic operations. Non-combustibles are removed from the waste in order to reduce the quantity of ash per unit of waste introduced into the facility, and to increase the heating value of the waste to be processed by the combustion unit. Further, removing certain materials containing higher concentrations of heavy metals and trace organics improves the effectiveness of the air pollution control system employed post fuel combustion. Recyclable materials may also be captured at this stage. Organic matter may also be removed for subsequent management via composting or anaerobic digestion. Alternatively, the moisture content of the organic fraction of the incoming waste stream may be driven off to render the organic material more suitable as a fuel (by making it drier). The solid recovered fuel is particle sized, usually by shredding. The purpose of particle sizing is to decrease the residence time and/or the incinerator size required to achieve acceptable ash quality; i.e. ash with low concentrations of unburned carbon. The solid recovered fuel can be pelletized through compression to facilitate its transportation to and storage at the point of usage – typically a large industrial or utility facility (e.g., cement kiln, metals smelter, electric power generator, etc). The solid

135


recovered fuel can be used as a substitute for conventional fossil fuels, typically coal, provided the required approvals are obtained. Environmental Issues and Energy Implications

The direct advantages of pre-processing waste into an alternative fuel include improved air emissions, better ash quality, economic benefits from recovered marketable recyclable materials, and access to a greater range of potential energy recovery opportunities given the readily transportable state of the solid recovered fuel. The indirect advantages lie in the net environmental benefits of replacing consumption of fossil fuels (typically coal) with solid recovered fuel, which may be used in place of conventional non-renewable carbon sources in heat intensive industrial applications such as cement manufacturing. It can also be used at electricity generating stations, particularly as a substitute for coal, again assuming that the required approvals are in place.

7.2.3 New and Emerging Technologies 7.2.3.1 Introduction

This section provides a general discussion on the category of technologies typically defined as ‘new and emerging’. Following this general discussion, subsections deal with the major examples of these technologies. New and emerging technologies are discussed in some detail, as it is clear that there are a number of misunderstandings over definitions of terms, the potential for technology applications and performance capabilities. This circumstance is due to the fact that, unlike conventional thermal treatment/destruction technologies, new and emerging technologies do not yet have a history of commercial application to MSW streams, upon which commonly accepted understandings of performance can be based. To date, knowledge of the technical design, and environmental and economic performance aspects of these technologies, mainly lies with a relatively few proprietary technology vendors. Background

A number of new and emerging technologies exist in concept form, bench-scale or as pilot scale demonstration units, with some theoretical advantages over conventional thermal treatment/destruction technologies. Potential but largely unproven advantages include low contaminant emissions (particularly trace organic substances) and the possibility to recover material resources such as synthetic oils and gases. In general these technologies involve creating more sophisticated ‘environments’ in which thermal treatment occurs, e.g. greater control of oxygen concentrations and the use of chemicals as reagents in conjunction with various temperature profiles. Despite the potential advantages, the complexity of new and emerging technology system operations, coupled with the varying and highly heterogeneous composition of MSW, has been a significant economic barrier to commercial applications to MSW streams. To date, their use has been generally limited to processing industrial sludges, wood wastes and select, hazardous wastes of homogeneous composition. However, due to their potential environmental and form of energy generation advantages over conventional systems, these technologies are being considered for MSW treatment in the future.

136


Costs

Given the new and emerging state of these technologies, generic data on capacities and costs related to commercial scale applications, relevant to Canadian waste management, environmental and energy contexts are not available. This data must be obtained as strictly ‘estimates only’, on an application specific basis, from individual vendors of technologies/units. This data is very often presented in business development and proprietary contexts. It is therefore crucially important to seek objective third-party analysis of claims being made on an individual project specific basis. Environmental Issues and Energy Implications

Certain environmental advantages may be realized with the use of these technologies. In principle, the relatively high operating temperatures of many of these technologies are expected to generate reduced trace organics emissions. In principle, recovery of materials such as metals, oils and synthetic gases can result in raw material and energy resource consumption avoidance credits, including energy credits. The generation of synthetic fuels which can be readily transported for off site consumption, including uses in internal combustion engines, existing industrial thermal processes (e.g., cement kilns and metals smelting operations and/or fuel-cells) could broaden these technologies’ ability to supply future energy demands.

7.2.3.2 Pyrolysis Systems (Also Called Destructive Distillation Systems)

Pyrolysis is the thermal processing of waste in the complete absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis systems are used to convert MSW into gaseous, liquid and solid fuels. This technology is often confused in literature and industry practice with starved air (or multiple stage) combustion systems and gasification systems. A pyrolysis system uses an external source of heat to derive the endothermic (heat requiring) pyrolysis reactions in an oxygen-free environment. Synthetic gas (syngas), liquid fuels (oils) and carbon char are produced as the desired output. With the exception of a plant in Burgau, Germany, that was built in 1987 and is still operational, pyrolysis systems have yet to be successfully commercially applied to the management of MSW (the plant in Germany was built with federal government money as a demonstration facility). However, if the economics associated with the production of synthetic liquid fuels (oils) and gases (including the monetization of environmental credits) change, these systems may become an economically viable process for the thermal treatment of MSW.

137


Three major component fractions result from the pyrolysis process:

• A gas stream containing primarily hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and various other gases depending on the organic characteristics of the waste material being pyrolyzed. This gas is typically consumed internal to the process of generating the desired liquid and solid product fractions;

• A liquid fraction consisting of an oil stream containing acetic acid, acetone, methanol and complex oxygenated hydrocarbons (tars). The liquid fraction may be further processed for use as a synthetic fuel oil as a substitute for conventional fuel oil; and

• A char consisting of almost pure carbon plus any inert material originally present in the MSW.

The only full-scale pyrolysis system operated on MSW in North America was built in the United States in El Cajon, California. The system failed to achieve its primary operational goal (production of a saleable pyrolysis oil). The facility was shut down after two years of operation. The following is a description of the California pyrolysis system:

• the front-end system employed two stages of shredding, air classification, trommeling and drying. Dried material underwent screening to separate the inorganic and organic portions of the stream. Ferrous metals, aluminium, and glass were recovered from the inorganic portion of the dried material before it was sent to a landfill site. The organic portion of the dried material was a very fine grind that was fed into the pyrolysis reactor;

• the pyrolysis portion of the system consisted of several interconnected process loops, with pyrolytic oils, gases, char and ash as the end products;

• numerous operational problems were encountered, including those listed below and contributed to the failure of the system;

• Failure of the front-end system to recover materials that meet market specifications for aluminium and glass, which affected the economics of the system; and

• Failure of the system to produce saleable pyrolysis oil. While the pilot plant results had suggested a 14% moisture content in the oil, the actual moisture content turned out to be 52%. The increased moisture in the oil decreased the energy content to 3,600 Btu/lb, as compared to the 9,100 Btu/lb predicted by the pilot plant tests.

Pyrolysis is still widely used for industrial purposes. However, the pyrolysis of MSW has not been economically successful and has presented many technical challenges. The principal causes for the failure of pyrolysis technology in the past appear to be costs and the inherent complexity of the system, and a lack of appreciation by system designers of the difficulties of producing a consistent feedstock from MSW. Pyrolysis may either be a new energy user or producer, depending on factors such as the nature of the waste, feedstock and scale of operation. A product of pyrolysis – synthetic gas, can offer significant energy benefits, including use of the gas in fuel cells.

7.2.3.3 Gasification Systems

Gasification systems are also used to convert MSW into gaseous fuels. Gasification systems typically require homogeneous feedstock and therefore front-end processing is generally required. Gasification is an endothermic (requires heat) process. Some oxygen may be used for the partial combustion of MSW. Combustible gases are produced as the desired output. These gases are then cleaned and become a resource output

138


product - synthetic gas. As a general statement, if gaseous fuels are desired, gasification is a simpler and more cost-effective technology than pyrolysis. Gasifiers have been used since the 19th Century for coal and wood. By the early 1900s gasifier technology had advanced and was used on certain industrial waste streams to produce ‘synthetic’ natural gas fuel for stationary and portable internal combustion engines. Gasoline shortages of World War II provided an impetus for the development of gasifier technology. However, with the return of relatively cheap and plentiful gasoline and diesel oil after the end of World War II, gasifier technology was all but forgotten. Gasification is the general term used to describe the process of partial combustion in which a fuel is combusted with a quantity of air that is deliberately set to be below the stoichiometric amounts required for complete combustion. It is an alternate technique to direct combustion for reducing the volume of MSW and for the recovery of energy. The process involves the partial combustion of carbonaceous fuel to generate a combustible synthetic gas (syngas) which can be combusted in an internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or boiler under excess-air conditions, or potentially in the future used as feed-stock for hydrogen fuel-cell electricity generators. The generated syngas has an energy content about one third that of natural gas if air is used as the oxidant. Use of pure oxygen can yield gases with a higher energy content. The use of oxygen has safety and economic implications. The operation of air-blown gasifiers is quite stable, with a fairly constant quantity of gas being produced over a broad range of air input rates. Gasifiers have the potential to achieve low air pollution emissions with simplified air pollution control devices. The emissions can be comparable to or less than those from excess-air combustion systems (incineration technologies) employing far more complex emission control systems. “Enerkem Technologies Inc.” of Montreal has built a demonstration gasification unit in Sherbrooke, Quebec. A full scale MSW gasifier has not been built as yet. The unit in Sherbrooke was tested on waste feed rates in the range of 5 tonnes/day. It employs fluidized bed technology, is targeted at receiving an alternative fuel material of high heat value and is being used to create a syngas for combustion in reciprocating engines or gas fired boilers. As the composition of MSW changes, particularly the substitution of plastic for glass and metal containers, and as high moisture content kitchen food organics are increasingly removed at source for central composting programs, high heat value, non-recyclable residual ’garbage’ is expected to become more readily available at lower cost to thermal treatment processors. Further, if fuel-cell technology advancement brings power generation costs down in relation to conventional generation, this gasification technology may one day become commercially viable for typical Canadian municipal applications. “THERMOSELECT S.A.” is a second example of a gasification technology developer, with a full-scale technology application in Japan. The THERMOSELECT process converts mixed waste to clean synthetic gases and recoverable metals and minerals. High temperatures (2000°C) and oxygen concentrations are used in the gasification stage. Subsequent rapid cooling is used to prevent formation/reformation of trace organic contaminants in the synthetic gas. A 225,000 tonnes per year “THERMOSELECT” plant in Karlsruhe, Germany was operated for some time but was recently shut down due to high costs compared to conventional mass burn combustion. The “THERMOSELECT” technology did not yield significant improvements in air emissions over state-of-the-art conventional combustion. In Japan, it does offer

139


the benefit – at a significant cost premium – of vitrifying the residue char to meet Japanese ash standards.

7.2.3.4 Plasma Technology

Industrial applications of plasma arc technologies are well established and include electric arc furnaces used in the steel industry, and arc welding units used in the construction industry. Plasma technology is also used for treating hazardous waste. The technology involves relatively high capital and operating costs, but may offer some environmental advantages in certain applications. The environmental advantages include the ‘ultimate destruction’ of highly problematic hazardous materials such as PCBs and complex stable volatile organic compounds, due to the application of extremely high operating temperatures, and the resultant production of a vitrified inert ash. Plasma arc processes use extremely high temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment to pyrolyze waste into simple molecules. A thermal plasma field is created by directing an electric current through a low pressure gas stream, thereby creating a stream of plasma at temperatures of 5,000 to 15,000°C. The by-products of the process are slags and combustible gases. The combustible gases are subsequently either combusted in an afterburner or treated by catalytic conversion. Plasma may be either a net energy user or producer, depending on factors such as the nature of the waste, feedstock and scale of operation. In theory the sythetic gas produced by plasma technologies can be used in many applications, including fuel cells. Despite considerable research to study the environmental applications of plasma technology, the technology is still at the developmental stage. Currently there are no commercial scale units managing MSWs in North America. There are, however, a number of different patented plasma arc systems proposed for the treatment of MSW in the future. Two examples of companies offering plasma arc systems are “Pyrogenesis Inc.” and “Plasco Energy Group” (formerly RCL Plasma Inc.). Both companies claim to be able to treat processed MSW using plasma generators which create extreme heat and convert the waste into a synthetic gas, heat and an inert slag. The process forms a 1,000°C syngas composed of simple molecules such as H2, N2, CO, CO2, etc. This gas is then cleaned and combusted in an engine or turbine for energy recovery. “Plasco” has been developing their patented Plasma Gasification Process (PGP) since 1973. According to the company, the gasification process itself has no air emissions, and the emissions from gas combustion in a Jenbacher engine fall well below the stringent CCME and Ontario A-7 guidelines. The City of Ottawa is considering the installation of a 75 tonne per day plant near its Trail Road landfill, to be owned and operated by “Plasco”. A Spanish waste management firm, “Hera”, has contracted for a 200 tonne per day “Plasco” facility in Barcelona, with an 85 tonne phase 1, and 115 tonne phase 2. “Pyrogenesis” has operated their demonstration Plasma Resources Recovery System (PRRS) in Montreal since 2002, treating 25 to 100 kg/h. The units run for periods of several hours and not on a continuous basis. The unit has been tested on various

140


wastes including MSW, automobile shredder residue, tires, and hazardous waste. The information from the operation of this pilot unit has been used to scale up the design from 5 up to 200 tonnes per day. They are currently looking for a demonstration site for the technology, to scale the operation up to 20 tonnes/day. They also manufacture compact plasma gasification units, which can process over 5 tonnes per day of dry waste – plastic and paper. These units were developed under a contract from the US Navy, and one was installed on a “Carnival” cruise ship in 2003. These systems are scheduled for more cruise ships and possibly an aircraft carrier by 2007.

141


7.2.3.5 Summary of Representative Facilities

Table 7.1 – Summary of Representative Facilities

Technology Details

Canadian Example EcoWaste Solutions, Burlington, Ontario

0.5-10 tonne per day

Cost (Capital and Operating Costs)

$400 to $475/tonne

Environmental Impacts Long residence time yields good ash quality

Community Characteristics Very small communities with populations less than 20,000.

Starved air (or multiple stage) Incinerator Batch Feeding

Other Well known technology

Canadian Examples KMS, Brampton, Ontario (Consutech Systems Technology)

Capacity 450 tonnes per day (using five 100 tonne/day units)


$110/tonne

Environmental Impacts Facility has consistently incorporated ‘state of the art’ air pollution control technology upgrades and as a result enjoys strong support from the host community

Energy Implications Produces about 10 MW of electriciy for sale to the grid. Feasibility of steam sales to neighbouring facility being considered

Community Characteristics Typically for medium-sized cities +20,000 households, although can serve larger communities with multiple units

Starved air (or multiple stage) Incinerator Semi-Continuous Feeding

Other Extensively used Well known technology and stable operation Sensitive to operating conditions

Capacity

May require additional air pollution control equipment to meet CCME air emission regulations (especially if processing greater than 9.6 tonnes/day). Alternatively, community education programs could result in removal of significant amounts of contaminant precursors (e.g., heavy metals) from the incoming waste streams.

Energy Implications Electrical energy production not generally economical given small facility size. Heat recovery for heat energy use in industrial applications adjacent to facility can make energy recovery viable, but only on an intermittent basis due to the “batch” nature of the process..

142


Technology Details

Canadian Examples Wainright, Alberta

Capacity 25 tonne per day


$257/tonne

Facility meets permit requirements, that are based on Alberta and CCME emission guidelines

Energy Implications Steam is recovered and sold to a nearby industrial plant

Community Characteristics The system serves to burn the MSW from a population of 5,000 residents, as well as medical waste generated across the province of Alberta. If burning MSW alone, it would typically serve a municipality with a population of over 50,000.

Starved air (or multiple stage) Incinerator Semi-Continuous Feeding

Other Proven technology, which has been operating successfully in North America for over 20 years.

Canadian Examples Burnaby, British Columbia

Capacity 720 tonne per day


$66/tonne (retported by GVRD)

Environmental Impacts Facility emissions are significantly less than all existing requirements and proposed new CCME metals and organics emission concentration guidelines. Ambient testing has never shown detectable impact.

Energy Implications Facility has excellent efficiency as steam is utilized by nearby paper recycling facility to replace the use of natural gas. Electricity production has been added.

Community Characteristics Large cities, typically 1 million population or greater

Mass Burning

Other Well established technology, over 50 years old State of the art technology for large facilities

Environmental Impacts

143


Technology Details

Canadian Examples Quebec City

Capacity Original rated capacity is 280,000 tonnes per year. In 2006 plan to process 300,000 tonnes of MSW plus 20,000 tonnes of sewage sludge


Gross annual operating costs, excluding capital, $16 million Annual steam sales revenue $10 million. Capital expended for various purposes in various years since plant origionally constructed in 1974

Community Characteristics

Mass Burning

Canadian Examples

Potential net environmental life-cycle benefits of resources recovery

Fluidized Bed Gasification

Environmental Impacts Improving air pollution control system in 2006 to meet latest EU standards (see APPENDIX A)

Energy Implications Produce steam. 80% sold to neighbouring paper mill. Also dry sewage sludge prior to its combustion. Considering producing electricity with balance.

Located in industrial area of a large city - Quebec

Other —

Enerkem, Sherbrooke, Quebec

Capacity Currently demonstrated with 5 tonnes/day


NA

Environmental Impacts

Energy Implications Benefits may be achieved through the use of synthetic gas including its use in fuel cells

Community Characteristics To be determined.

Other Pilot facility has proven capability of technology but a full scale MSW facility has not been built yet. Full scale facility in operaiton in Spain processing industrial plastic waste.

144


Technology Details

Canadian Examples

Plasma torch consumes large amounts of power. Significant quantities of syngas provides potential for energy recovery using a reciprocating engine.

Plasco Energy Group (formerly RCL Plasma Inc), Ottawa, Ontario

Capacity Currently small demo unit, developing plans for 75 tonne per day in Ottawa, near Trail Road Landfill.


N/A

Environmental Impacts Claims are that gasifier has no emissions, and emissions from Jenbacher engine burning syngas is less than A-7 guidelines. No information on syngas cleaning.

Energy Implications Plasma torch consumes large amounts of power. Benefits could be achieved by burning syngas in a reciprocating engine.

Community Characteristics To be determined.

Plasma Technology

Other The City of Ottawa is currently considering installing a 75 tonne per day unit near itsTrail Road Landfill, and a Spanish waste management firm, Hera, has contracted for a 200 tonne per day Plasco facility in Barcelona.

Canadian Examples Pyrogenesis, Montreal, Quebec

Capacity 25 kg/h to 5 tonne per day (currently plans to scale up to 200 tonne per day)


N/A

Environmental Impacts Emissions at the demonstration unit are less than Montreal regulation levels but specific test results are not public yet.

Energy Implications

To be determined.

Plasma Technology

Other Pyrogensis has scaled up their design from 5 tonne per day to 200 tonne per day but larger facilities are not built yet. They also manufacture compact plasma gasification units, one of which is installed on a Carnival cruise ship. More are planned for the future.

Community Characteristics

145


7.3 Approvals Requirements and Regulatory Requirements MSW processing facilities using thermal technologies, such as combustion and gasification, convert MSW into gaseous, liquid and solid conversion products with a simultaneous or subsequent release of heat energy. Air emissions released from thermal processing facilities arise from the compounds present in the waste stream, and are formed as a normal part of the combustion process e.g. oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

The requirements specified in Ontario Guideline A-7 are in addition to the requirements for compliance with Point of Impingement (POI) standards listed in Ontario Regulation 419. A-7 addresses the concentration of specified pollutants in the exhaust stack, while Reg. 419 takes dispersion into consideration and addresses the resulting concentration of pollutants at the facility property boundary and beyond. Guideline A-7 Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for New MSW Incinerators was last updated in 2002. The guideline reflects the installation of state-of-the-art air pollution control systems, sets air emission limits for particulate matter, total hydrocarbons, acid gases, metals and dioxins/furans and establishes requirements for the control, monitoring and performance testing of systems.

Emissions criteria specified in Guideline A-7 are very stringent. In all cases, the set limits are significantly below those that would be established based solely on protection of human health and the environment (Reg. 419 POI Limits). They are comparable with the latest regulations governing comparable emissions from facilities in both the United States and Europe. Appendix F provides a comparison of the maximum allowable concentration of various pollutants under:

• Ontario MOE Guideline A-7; • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines (i.e., Canada’s

National Standard); • US EPA New Incinerator Limits (i.e., the current and proposed US National Standard);

and • The European Union, New Incinerator Unit, Regulation (i.e., the current

European Standard).

Nationally, thermal treatment facilities will be subject to provincial air emission standards. In many cases, these are based on CCME guidelines that specify maximum concentrations of the most common contaminants in the flue gas stream. Ontario Guideline A-7 has similar limits for the emissions addressed in the CCME guideline but also addresses acid gases, smog precursors, combustion gases and other trace air contaminants. Since A-7 is the most comprehensive and stringent set of requirements it has been frequently referenced throughout this chapter of the report.

In summary, the air pollution control standards specified in Ontario Guideline A-7 are as stringent as any in the world and more stringent than the regulations applied to many other Canadian sources of air emissions.

146


147

7.4 Waste Streams

7.4.1 Quantities

Three waste management system scenarios are being examined in this Report:

• Baseline – after at-source removal of recyclables, all residual waste proceeds to

thermal processing.

• Source Separated Organics – in addition to recyclables, source separated organics are

diverted from the baseline stream through composting or anaerobic digestion and the remaining residuals are thermally processed.

• Mixed Waste – the baseline stream is composted or digested and the remaining

residuals are thermally processed.

The following three tables indicate the assumed waste quantities for each of three population

sizes, under the three waste processing scenarios. Waste quantities change between

population sizes, but within each scenario the composition is assumed as constant regardless of population.


Material Baseline 43 Source Separated Organics

Mixed Waste

Residual Treatment

SSO Residual Treatment

Mixed Waste Program

Residual Treatment

Tonnes Paper Fibres 1,721 232 1,489 842 880

Plastics 467 0 467 47 420

Metals 219 0 219 85 134

Glass 319 0 319 159 159


48 0 48 18 30

Compostables 2,264 1613 651 1,132 1,132

Other Waste Materials 958 0 958 187 771

Subtotal Tonnes — 1845 4,151 2,470 3,526

Total Tonnes 5,996 5,996 5,996

43

Assumes that recyclables are removed at the source.



Material Baseline 44 Source Separated Organics Mixed Waste

Residual Treatment SSO Residual

Treatment Mixed Waste

Program Residual

Treatment Tonnes

6,886 886 6,000 3,124 3,763

Plastics 1,869 0 1,869 189 1,679

Metals 875 0 875 341 534

Glass 1,276 0 1,276 638 639


192 0 192 73 118

Compostables 9,056 6,452 2,604 4,528 4,528


3,834 0 3,834 748 3,086

Subtotal Tonnes — 7,338 16,650 9,641 14,347

Total Tonnes 23,988 23,988 23,988

Paper Fibres


Material Baseline 44 Source Separated Organics Mixed Waste

Residual Treatment SSO Residual

Treatment Mixed Waste

Program Residual

Treatment Tonnes

Paper Fibres 17,217 2,324 14,893 8,421 8,797

Plastics 4,672 0 4,672 474 4,198

Metals 2,188 0 2,188 852 1,335

Glass 3,189 0 3,189 1,595 1,595


479 0 479 183 296

Compostables 22,638 16,129 6,509 11,319 11,319


9,584 0 9,584 1,870 7,714

Subtotal Tonnes 59,967 18,453 41,514 35,254

Total Tonnes 59,967 59,967 59,967

24,714

44 Assumes that recyclables are removed at the source.

148


Quantities and Viability of Thermal Technology

The quantity of residual waste for each population size partially determines which thermal technologies will be economically viable. For example, it will require a small and specialized unit to handle the waste from a population of 20,000 people, which is approximately 3,500 to 6,000 tonnes/year, depending on the waste management system assumed. Similarly, a population of 80,000 would require a total thermal treatment capacity of 14,000 to 24,000 tonnes/year, and a population of 200,000 would require a total thermal treatment capacity of 35,000 to 60,000 tonnes/year.

7.4.2 Composition The differences between the three scenarios (baseline, SSO or mixed waste) can be examined through the three primary waste properties in thermal processing:

• waste energy value; • air emissions; and • ash management implications.

The effect of the waste composition on the above variables is considered below. 7.4.2.1 Waste Energy Value The estimated energy value of the residual waste considered for thermal treatment under the three waste management system scenarios is provided in Table 7.5.

No Organics Diversion – Baseline

In the baseline scenario it is assumed that, recyclables have been removed at source but there is no organics diversion, and all remaining material is thermally processed. As a result, there is a higher quantity of low energy value compostable/digestable material, which results in an overall waste energy value of approximately 10.9 GJ/tonne (4,700 BTU/lb).

After Composting/Digestion – Source Separated Organics

In the SSO case, the residual waste is received in a separate waste stream from the compostable/digestable material, and therefore has a higher percentage of high energy materials such as residual papers and plastics. The overall energy value of this waste stream was found to be 12.0 GJ/tonne (5,165 BTU/lb).

After Composting/Digestion – Mixed Waste

Mixed waste treatment requires the physical separation of compostable/digestable materials from other residual waste. This process results in a fairly high percentage of compostable/digestable materials being integrated into the residual stream and as a result, the overall energy of this waste stream is slightly less than that of the SSO scenario, and is approximately 11.6 GJ/tonne (5000 BTU/lb).

149


Table 7.5 – Residual Waste Composition and Energy Content45

Energy Baseline 46 SSO MW Material GJ/tonne BTU/lb Percentage of Composition

Paper Fibres 15.7 6770 28.7% 35.9% 25.0%

Plastics 32.8 14100 7.8% 11.3% 11.9%

Metals 0.0 0 3.7% 5.3% 3.8%

Glass 0.2 80 5.3% 7.7% 4.5%


11.6 5000 0.8% 1.2% 0.9%

Compostables 7.5 3220 37.8% 15.7% 32.1%

Other Waste Materials 5.9 2520 16.0% 23.1% 21.9%

10.9 GJ/tonne 12.0 GJ/tonne 11.6 GJ/tonne Weighted Average Energy Content

(4704 BTU/lb) (5165 BTU/lb) (5000 BTU/lb)

The three waste streams (baseline, SSO and MW) feature different waste compositions, but result in very similar overall energy contents. There is less than 10% difference between the highest and lowest estimate. These marginally different energy values indicate that the scenarios will have very similar operating characteristics, and do not need to be independently considered due to energy values of the input material stream. 7.4.2.2 Air Emissions and Ash Management The waste compositions shown above are not significantly different between scenarios. Given the minimal composition range, the air emissions, with the exception of carbon dioxide, will be determined by the control technology employed, not the input waste stream. The characteristics of the ash/char resulting from the thermal treatment of these different waste compositions will also be very similar. As a result, the waste management system scenarios do not need to be independently considered for air emissions or ash management (with the exception of carbon dioxide). 7.4.2.3 Overall Conclusion Given the waste composition for any one size range, the same technology can be used for any of the waste management system scenarios. Differences in energy value, most air emissions, and ash management implications are all expected to be minimal. As a result, in the balance of the Report, with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions, different waste quantities will be considered but differences due to varying composition resulting from the different waste management system scenarios will not be considered further.

45 The waste composition energy values are based on data from Tchobanoglous, et al “Integrated MSW

Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues”, Table 4-2. 46 Assumes that recyclables are removed at the source.

150


7.5 Costs 7.5.1 Availability of Cost Information and Viability of Thermal Treatment Processes In this section, the costs for several different sized facilities are identified. These cost estimates are generally based on budget estimates for core process elements, provided by vendors and coupled with estimates for the balance of the facility, developed by the consulting team. In addition, these cost estimates are supplemented with available cost information on selected existing facilities. The cost estimates are for established technologies, as reliable cost information on new and emerging technologies is not available. Cost estimates include contingencies and actual costs may be lower. In general, there are significant economies of scale associated with thermal treatment facilities. The quantities of material generated by the smaller sized municipalities considered in this study are generally too small to justify the very high cost of thermal treatment. In practice, thermal treatment may be the only available alternative for very small remote communities and the cost for such a facility is provided. Other municipalities, even those in the 200,000 population range, interested in thermal treatment may consider joining together with neighbouring municipalities in order to generate more favourable economies of scale. 7.5.2 Estimates for Typical Facilities 7.5.2.1 Batch Process Starved Air Incinerators This technology has been selected for the small population size (20,000 people) which requires processing of 3,500 to 6,000 tonnes/year. Assuming a five day per week operating rate, this requires a facility capable of processing roughly 13 to 23 tonnes/day. An example vendor of this technology is “Eco Waste Solutions”, which manufactures batch process starved air incinerator units, capable of processing 1 to 10 tonnes/day each. This technology would be appropriate for waste quantities up to about 8,000 tonnes/year. Table 7.6 indicates the estimated cost associated with 3 different batch process starved air incinerator units.

151


Table 7.6 – Batch Process Starved Air Incinerator Financial Analysis

Unit Size 47 2 x 5 TPD 2 x 7 TPD 2 x 10 TPD Units Annual Input Quantity to Facility 2,600 3,640 5,200 TPY

Capital Cost Core Process Element $3,724,000 $4,676,000 $5,584,000 $

Building $780,000 $892,000 $1,003,000 $

Site $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $

Plan Approval $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $

Total Capital Cost $5,104,000 $6,168,000 $7,187,000 $

Capital Financing

Before Tax Cost of Capital 7% 7% 7% %

Amortization Period 20 20 20 Years

Annual Capital Charge $481,781 $582,216 $678,402 $

Facility Costs

Annual Operating Cost $917,114 $1,283,959 $1,834,227 $

Annual Maintenance Cost $186,200 $233,800 $279,200 $

Total O&M Cost $730,914 $1,050,159 $1,555,027 $

Gross Annual Cost $1,212,695 $1,632,375 $2,233,429 $

Cost per Input Tonne $466 $448 $430 $/tonne The above table indicates treatment costs in the range of $425 to $465 per tonne, decreasing as the unit size increases. This is very expensive, but may be viable for smaller communities and remote areas with few viable alternatives.

47 Since Eco Waste Solutions manufactures units sized 1 to 10 tonnes per day (TPD). We have shown 3 scenarios

where 2 units are installed for a capacity of 10 TPD, 14 TPD and 20 TPD.

152


7.5.2.2 Semi-Continuous Starved Air Incinerators The costs associated with the operation of two existing units plus a recent cost estimate developed as for the Niagara Hamilton Waste Plan Environmental Assessment are summarized below.

Table 7.7 – Semi-Continuous Starved Air (or Multiple Stage) Incinerator Financial Analysis

Wainright Alberta

Algonquin Peel Ontario

(Existing Facilty) 48

Niagara Hamilton EA

Cost Estimate Units

Annual Input Quantity to Facility 6,000 160,000 150,000 TPY

Capital Cost Core Process Element 8,000,000 — 110,000,000 $

Building 1,000,000 — included $

Land amd Site Works Pre-existing — 5,500,000 $

Plan Approval 500,000 — 2,500.000 $

Total Constructed Capital Cost 9,500,000 — 118,000,000 $

Capital Financing

Before Tax Cost of Capital 7% — 7% %

Amortization Period 20 — 20 Years

Annual Capital Charge 897,000 — 11,138,000 $

Facility Costs

Annual O & M Costs 900,000 49 — 10,500,000 $

Residue Disposal Cost included — 3,500,000 $

Energy and Metal Sales Revenue

included — (5,500,000) $

Net Annual Cost 1,797,000 — 19,638,000 $

Cost per Input Tonne 257 110 131 $/tonne

48 Waste supply and tipping fee agreement negotiated 17 years ago based on estimated capital costs in 1989.

Tipping fee has been adjusted annually for inflation. 49 Based on consultant’s estimate of $150/tonne, which is typical for this kind and size facility.

153


7.5.2.3 Mass Burn The costs associated with the operation of the existing Burnaby units and the consultants estimate for a 300,000 tonne per year facility developed from costs received from a Region of Niagara Request for Expression of Interest are summarized below.

Table 7.8 – Mass Burn Financial Analysis

Burnaby British

Columbia (Existing Facility) 50

Consultants Estimate Units

Annual Input Quantity to Facility 280,000 300,000 TPY

Capital Cost Core Process Element 162,000,000 190,000,000 $

Building Included included $

Land ad Site Works Included 7,500,000 $

Plan Approval Included 2,500,000 $

Total Capital Cost 162,000,000 200,000,000 $

Capital Financing

Before Tax Cost of Capital 7% 7% %

Amortization Period 20 20 Years

Annual Capital Charge 15,292,000 18,879,000 $

Facility Costs

Annual O & M Cost 13,500,000 15,000,000 $

Residue Disposal Cost 3,900,000 7,000,000 $

Energy and Metal Sales Revenue 14,250,000 11,000,000 $

Net Annual Cost 18,442,000 29,879,000 $

Cost per Input Tonne 66 100 $/tonne

50 Published cost figures from the GVRD.

154


7.6 Social Impacts 7.6.1 Social Acceptability The social acceptability of thermal treatment is mixed. Those familiar with European integrated waste management approaches and the role of thermal treatment tend to support it. Individuals in the environmental community tend to oppose thermal treatment as they believe this approach will compete with diversion (recycling and composting) and they have concerns about air emissions. Some members of the general public share the concerns of the environmentalists regarding air emissions, as public understanding of the improvements in emissions control technology in recent years is not widespread. In general, thermal treatment may be more acceptable than a ‘greenfields’ landfill site as a thermal treatment facility is a compatible land use for an industrial area and does not generally impact residents directly (‘greenfield’ landfill sites are locations where the land is undeveloped other than for agriculture). ‘Greenfield’ landfill sites tend to be proposed for rural areas and are generally not compatible with existing rural land uses. The siting of a ‘greenfield’ landfill site is generally disruptive to the host community. 7.6.2 Footprint and Land Use The area required for a thermal treatment facility varies with the size of the facility. Table 7.9 illustrates the footprint range (site size) required for various sized facilities. The identified sizes range from minimum requirements to a site with ample on-site buffer and room for expansion.

Table 7.9 – Thermal Treatment Facility Site Size

Population Serviced

Range of Annual Quantity (tonnes)

Range of Daily Quantity (tonnes)

Range of Site Size Required

(ha) 20,000 3,500 – 6,000 13 – 23 0.4 – 0.6

80,000 14,000 – 24,000 42 – 73 1 – 2

200,000 35,000 – 60,000 106 – 182 2 – 3

1,000,000 175,000 – 300,000 532 - 912 4 – 8

As noted previously, thermal treatment facilities can be sited as a compatible land use in a heavy industry area without directly impacting residents. In addition to the thermal treatment facility, landfill capacity is required to dispose of the ash/residue from the facility. Typically, this residue amounts to approximately 10% of the volume of the material initially processed by the thermal facility and up to 30% by weight. This residue can often be accommodated in existing landfill sites. The bottom ash can be used for road construction or as alternative daily cover at the landfill site. The fly ash/residue from the air pollution control system usually representing less than 5% by weight of the material initially processed, requires management as a special waste as it contains the contaminants removed from the exhaust gases prior to their discharge. It is usually stabilized so that it can be disposed in a conventional landfill.

155


7.6.3 Employment The direct employment generated by thermal treatment facilities is relatively small as the technology is highly automated. Table 7.10 illustrates the estimated on-going employment levels at various sized thermal facilities.

Table 7.10 – Thermal Treatment Facility Labour Requirements

Population Serviced Range of Annual Quantity (tonnes)

Range of Facility Employment Levels

20,000 3,500 – 6,000 1 – 2

80,000 51 14,000 – 24,000 11 – 15

200,000 51 35,000 – 60,000 20 – 30

1,000,000 51 175,000 – 300,000 40 – 50

In addition to the ongoing direct labour requirement, significant employment will be generated during the construction of these capital-intensive facilities. 7.6.4 Nuisance Effects Nuisance impacts include dust, noise, odour, vermin and litter. Off-site, these impacts are negligible from a well-run thermal facility as they are generally enclosed with the tipping area being operated under negative pressure (air sucked into building and into thermal process where odours are destroyed). 7.6.5 Traffic The traffic impacts from thermal treatment facility are a function of the quantity of material delivered to the facility and the size of the trucks employed. Table 7.11 illustrates the estimated number of trucks associated with various sized facilities.

Table 7.11 – Thermal Treatment Facility Daily Traffic Impacts

Population Serviced

Range of Annual Quantity (tonnes)

Range of Daily Quantity

Number of 10 Tonne Packer

Trucks per Day 20,000 3,500 – 6,000 13 – 23 2 – 3 N/A

80,000 14,000 – 24,000 42 – 73 5 – 8 2 – 3

35,000 – 60,000 11 – 19

175,000 – 300,000 532 – 912 54 – 92 18 – 31

(tonnes)

Number of 30 Tonne Transfer Trailers per Day

200,000 106 – 182 4 – 7

1,000,000

51 Operation 24 hours per day, 7 days per week assumed.

156


As noted previously, thermal treatment facilities tend to be sited in heavy industry areas with significant existing truck traffic. Given this type of setting, traffic impacts are generally very small. 7.7 Environmental Implications 7.7.1 Renewable Energy The thermal treatment of waste yields energy in the form of heat, electricity, or both heat and electricity via cogeneration. Since a significant portion of the waste stream is composed of renewable materials (e.g., paper, wood, natural fibres, etc.), a growing number of jurisdictions and agencies are classifying energy from MSW as a renewable energy source. The US EPA and a number of states – including environmentally progressive California – now classify energy from waste as a renewable energy source. In Europe, energy from waste is an important component in national energy policies. Sweden, an environmentally progressive country, uses thermal treatment of MSWs to fuel district heating of many of the communities that generate the waste. To foster this approach, Sweden has passed legislation that bans the landfilling of combustible material. The Netherlands has a clearly defined integrated waste management policy that specifies the role of thermal treatment. Lansink’s ladder, named after the Member of Parliament who proposed it, is as follows:

1. Prevention 2. Design for prevention and design for beneficial use 3. Product recycling (re-use) 4. Material recycling 5. Recovery for use as fuel 6. Disposal by incineration 7. Disposal to landfill

In some parts of Canada, thermal treatment is still simply classified as a disposal option. The amount of energy that can be recovered via thermal treatment varies with the technology employed. Small 5 to 10 tonne per day batch starved air units offer a heat recovery option, although this recovered energy could be used to heat an adjacent building, energy recovery is not an integral feature of these waste disposal units. Modular semi batch starved air units can be used to produce steam, which in turn can be used to produce electricity. These facilities can convert about 15-20% of the energy in the waste into electricity for sale into the grid. The comparable efficiency of larger mass burn units can increase to 25-30%. If there is a suitable heat load in close proximity to the facility, these overall conversion efficiencies can double via the use of cogeneration – combined generation of heat and electricity. Gasification technologies offer the option of using the synthetic gas in reciprocating engines or gas turbines. It is theoretically possible to achieve electricity conversion efficiencies in excess of 50% via the use of a clean synthetic gas in a combined cycle power plant. Table 7.12 illustrates the quantity of renewable electrical energy that can be recovered from various sizes of thermal treatment facilities

157


Table 7.12 – Renewable Energy Produced From Thermal Treatment Facilities

Population Served

Range of Annual Waste Quantity

Range of Annual Electrical Output 52

Equivalent Number of Homes Consuming

Electricity 53 20,000 3,500 – 6,000 — —

80,000 14,000 – 24,000 7,000 – 12,000 600 – 1,000

200,000 35,000 – 60,000 17,500 – 30,000 1,500 – 2,500

1,000,000 175,000 – 300,000 87,500 – 150,000 7,300 – 12,500

(tonnes) (MWh)

7.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction When waste is placed in a landfill, the degradable materials are converted to methane, which has 21 times the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide. In a conventional landfill with a landfill gas collection and utilization system, only about 60% of the methane generated over the life of the site is captured. The balance of the methane is emitted to the atmosphere. In smaller landfill sites, without gas collection and flaring systems, all of the landfill gas consisting of approximately 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. In a thermal treatment facility, virtually all of the organic materials are converted to carbon dioxide and water. When considering GHG emissions, only the carbon dioxide from the non-renewable portion of the waste stream is generally counted. In the case of the renewable fraction, (e.g., wood), carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere as the tree grows and is released back into the atmosphere when the wood is burned. Therefore, burning wood, or other renewable fuel materials, does not add any new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. When comparing GHG emissions from thermal treatment and landfill, the assumptions regarding the composition of this residual waste stream and the sequestration of carbon in the landfill are critical. If it is assumed that all of the organic material ultimately decomposes, then the GHG emissions are greater from landfill than from thermal processing.

If, on the other hand, it is assumed that materials such as newsprint and garden waste do not totally break down but rather sequester carbon in the landfill, then landfill, under certain scenarios, can generate fewer GHG emissions than thermal processes. A study performed by ICF Consulting for Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada titled “Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 Update”, provides emission factors associated with various waste management approaches. Table 7.13 provides an estimate, based on the use of the ICF model of the GHG emissions under the three waste composition scenarios: the baseline waste stream, the residuals after SSO, and the residuals following the composting of mixed waste.

52 This table assumes production of electricity only, with a net output of 500 kWh per tonne of waste. Energy

recovery could be doubled if heat is recovered as well. 53 The average Canadian house uses 1 MWh/month, or 12 MWh/year.

158


Table 7.13 – Residual Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Without Carbon Sequestration

Baseline SSO MW Material

Combustion Emission Factors 54

(tonnes eCO2/tonne waste) Percentage of Composition Paper Fibres (0.04) 35.9% 28.7% 25.0%

Plastics 2.63 7.8% 11.3% 11.9%

Metals (0.72) 3.7% 5.3% 3.8%

Glass 0.01 5.3% 7.7% 4.5% Household Special Wastes 55

0.01 0.8% 1.2% 0.9%

Compostables 0.02 37.8% 15.7% 32.1%

Other Waste Materials 56 (0.19) 16.0% 23.1% 21.9% Overall Combustion Emission Factor

tonnes eCO2 / tonne waste 0.14 0.20 0.24

Based on the above factors, the total emissions for each scenario were calculated. These emissions are summarized in the table below. The detailed spreadsheets from which this table was derived can be found in Appendix G.

Table 7.14 – GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario

Baseline SSO MW Population Tonnes of eCO2

20,000 860 840 840

80,000 3,430 3,340 3,360

200,000 8,570 8,360 8,430

7.7.3 Other Emissions In addition to GHGs, other emissions such as acid gases, smog precursors, heavy metals and organics (to both air and water) should be considered. The table below indicates the differences between landfill and thermal processes by indicating which has the highest emissions with a check mark. These findings were developed using the IWM model, which was developed by CSR (Corporations Supporting Recycling), EPIC (Environment and Plastics Industry Council), Environment Canada and the University of Waterloo.

54 The combustion emission factors were calculated based on the ICF study previously mentioned. 55 The material making up household special waste material was assumed to be inert, resulting in an emission factor

of 0.01 tonnes eCO2/tonne waste for transportation. 56 “Other waste material” was assumed t 0% wood, 20% paper, 20% metal and 40% inert material.

Assumptions are further explained ino be composed of 2 APPENDIX G.

159


Table 7.15 – Emissions Comparison Between Combustion and Landfill Process57

Emission Combustion Process 58 Landfill Process 59 Acid Gases NOx !

SOx !

HCl !

Smog Precursors NOx !

PM !

VOCs !

Heavy Metals, Organics and Other Contaminants Air

Pb !

Hg !

Cd !

Dioxins (TEQ) !

Water

!

Hg !

Cd !

BOD !

Dioxins (TEQ) !

BOD !

Pb

In general, thermal treatment deals with emissions immediately. Releases of contaminants from landfill can take place over several decades.

57 The check mark indicates the process with the higher emissions. 58 The thermal process includes a credit due to recovery of recyclable materials from ash. 59 The landfill process is assumed to be highly engineered, with gas collection and energy recovery.

160


7.8 Summary The key findings from this analysis are as follows:








• People tend to be concerned about the air emissions from thermal treatment facilities. With the utilization of start-of-the-art air pollution control technology, these emissions are far lower than they were historically and far lower than from many other industrial facilities.



161


8 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

In this section, a summary of the evaluation criteria for each technology by population is provided. In addition, an overall summary for each technology is provided. Finally, the next steps as identified in the workshops held in Mississauga and Calgary are provided. 8.1 Summary of Evaluation Criteria by Population Size Table 8.1 through Table 8.3 provide a summary of the evaluation for each technology by population. 8.2 Overall Summary The findings of each municipal solid waste management option, as contained in each section of the report, are summarized below. 8.2.1 Source Separated Organics (SSO) and Mixed Waste Composting The report provides a description and evaluation of composting and examines both source separated organics (SSO) and mixed waste composting. It consists of an overview of the composting process and a general description of available technologies which include:

• non reactor – windrow; and – aerated static pile;

• reactor – enclosed channel; and – container/tunnel.

The various tonnages of available organic wastes, based on population figures of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000, are quantified in terms of tonnages and an evaluation of SSO and mixed waste composting in terms of environmental, social, financial and greenhouse gas impacts is provided.

The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through an SSO program, based on the 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 population figures:

• facility throughput ranges from 3,000 to 30,800 tonnes; • total operating cost ranges between $100,000 and $1,480,000; • footprint size requirements vary between 0.23 ha and 2.3 ha; • quality of processed organics is high; • potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and • average public acceptability with negative social impact from odours.

In general SSO composting has a positive impact because it is removing wastes from the disposal stream. It produces a beneficial product which can be reintroduced into the soil.

In general, it is found that all composting technologies can be used for incoming tonnages. The selection of a suitable composting technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts.

162


The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage potential negative social and environmental impacts – and deciding if these can be passively managed (i.e., typical in non-reactor systems) or need to be actively managed (i.e., typical in reactor type composting systems). The key determiner of technologies will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. Therefore in areas with access to remote sites, a non-reactor based system can be contemplated and developed. In heavily populated areas this is more challenging and therefore, a reactor based system will likely be selected.

• footprint size requirements varies between 0.45 ha and 4.5 ha;

For the communities selected the 20,000 and possibly the 80,000 person population can choose from all available technologies and can seriously consider the use of a non-reactor type composting system. The 200,000 person population is unlikely to have remote locations in which to build a non-reactor style facility and unless it has access to a remote site some distance away it will likely opt for a reactor style composting facility. In terms of costs, this means that smaller communities have the potential to develop a SSO program on a cost effective basis through the selection of a non-reactor composting technology. For larger communities, the costs will likely be higher but they will have the tax base to support this type of development.

Mixed Waste

The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through a mixed waste composting program based on 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 populations:

• facility throughput ranges from 6,000 to 60,000 tonnes; • total operating cost ranges between $249,000 and $3,462,000;

• quality of processed organics can be defined as low-medium; • potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and • average public acceptability.

Mixed waste composting is uncommon. It is difficult to produce a compost product which will meet regulatory requirements. The resultant residual material will likely be relatively benign for landfilling as compared to raw organic waste. The composted mixed waste may be useful as a source of fuel for thermal treatment.

It is found that reactor (i.e., in-vessel) composting technologies should be used for mixed waste composting. This minimizes the opportunity for smaller communities to undertake this type of composting due to costs.

For larger communities (i.e., 200,000) the actual selection of a technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis undertaken that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts.

The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage these potential negative environmental and social impacts. The key determiner of technology will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process.

163


8.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is used in Europe for processing of both SSO and mixed waste. However, we have very little operational experience with this technology in Canada to date, although two plants are in place in Toronto and Newmarket. Anaerobic digestion technology works well at scales of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/year of SSO in Europe. Larger plants have been constructed in the last two years, but have not operated for an extended period of time to date. Favourable renewable energy policies and the relatively high costs of landfilling in Europe make the economics of anaerobic digestion of SSO and mixed waste much more favourable than in Canada. Preliminary estimates indicate that anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (source separated or mixed) will have a net cost of $111/tonne to $282/tonne for facilities that would process waste streams generated by communities with populations ranging from 20,000 to 200,000. Anaerobic digestion experiences significant economies of scale, with an estimated net cost of $68/tonne for anaerobic digestion facilities which would process 100,000 tonnes/year; this size of facility would serve a population of 800,000 to 1.1 million. Anaerobic digestion has a significant benefit from a greenhouse gas point of view. It produces methane from the degradation of organic waste in a controlled environment. The methane can be used to displace fossil fuels. In addition, it avoids the production of this methane over a much longer period in a landfill, where its maximum energy potential would not be realized. The social impacts of anaerobic digestion are considered similar to those of composting, and are less significant that those of thermal processing or landfilling. The energy benefits of anaerobic digestion are smaller than those of thermally processing the same amount of material. Key features of anaerobic digestion are summarized below:

• Organic biodegradable waste is broken down without oxygen (anaerobic) to produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, water and digestate, which is composted.

• Can divert all or most organic materials and biodegradables – food, garden waste, some papers. Applicable to 40% to 50% of the municipal waste stream

• Plants with capacitates of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/yr work well in Europe. There is little track record for larger plants currently in operation.

• Diverts organic waste from landfill, minimizing generation of acidic leachate and methane.

• Generates methane under controlled conditions. Biogas can be used as an energy source, displacing other sources of power.

• Net energy generator, with 50% (wet plants) to 80% (dry plants) available for export

• Employment requirements are modest, with a requirement for about 6-9 staff for a facility to process 25,000 tonnes/year.

• Anaerobic digesters require less space than composting facilities to process the same tonnage. The small footprint is one of the advantages of the technology.

• Nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods) and odours (controlled by bio-filters, but occasional releases expected).

• Green and renewable energy benefits are positive attributes

164


• Costs decrease dramatically towards 50,000 tonnes/yr.

• Reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to sanitary landfills serving the community; and,

• Greatest economies of scale are experienced at a digestion plant size of 100,000 tonnes/yr (mixed waste from population of 800,000 or source separated waste from population of 1.1 million).

• Methods to digest mixed waste effectively are currently being explored. • Need cost-effective technology development for small communities.

8.2.3 Sanitary Landfill While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, the preceding evaluation shows that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from sanitary landfill disposal is practiced:

• Increased effective operating lifespan of sanitary landfills serving the community; • Minor increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at sanitary landfills serving

the community; • Notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from sanitary

landfills Serving the community; • Reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at sanitary landfills serving

the community;

• Small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving the community.

8.2.4 Bioreactor Landfill While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, it is concluded that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from bioreactor landfill disposal is practiced:

• Increased effective operating lifespan of the bioreactor landfill serving the community; • Increased consumption of water for contribution to a bioreactor landfill serving

the community; • Increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at a bioreactor landfill serving

the community; • Notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from a

bioreactor landfill serving the community; • Reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at a bioreactor landfill

serving the community; • Reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to a bioreactor landfill serving the


the community.

165


Evaluation results of bioreactor landfills are in strong parallel to those of the sanitary landfill in the context of the effects of organic waste management activities, it interesting to note the following in comparison of the two types of landfills:

• The unit land area consumption of bioreactor landfills is 17-22% less than that of sanitary landfills of equivalent disposal capacity. This is due to the significantly higher in-situ waste density that is achieved in bioreactors.





8.2.5 Thermal Treatment The key findings from this analysis are as follows:






166




• People tend to be concerned about the air emissions from thermal treatment facilities. With the utilization of start-of-the-art air pollution control technology, these emissions are far lower than they were historically and far lower than from many other industrial facilities.



8.3 Next Steps A key part of the project was the delivery of two workshops (one in Mississauga, Ontario on February 23, 2006 and one in Calgary, Alberta on March 2, 2006). The workshops had two objectives:

• share information with participants on leading edge, non-traditional residual municipal solid waste options, including consideration of environmental impacts, energy recovery, greenhouse gas emissions, social and environmental impacts; and

• seek advice on the applicability of the technological options at the municipal level; in particular, any barriers, potential opportunities and information gats.

Approximately 100 people attended the two workshops, representing urban and municipal interests, were presented with highlights of five technology options including composting, anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment, sanitary landfill and enhanced treatment landfill. Participants then assessed the degree of community interest in the adoption of the technology, identified barriers that might need to be addressed in making the decision to adopt the technology and offered suggestions to overcome the barriers.

167


The participants identified organics management and residual treatment activities the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or organizations could support and these included:

• research and development supported by awareness and education; • leadership in research, education, communication and regulation is required at the

federal and provincial government levels; • use regulatory tools to influence research, development and implementation of

new technologies; • simplify siting/approvals regulations and adopt favourable/supportive policies; • providing funding/financial incentives for waste reduction, GHG reduction and particular

technologies; and • conduct research and development and demonstration of the technologies.

MWIN and RCA encourage the federal and provincial governments to support the activities suggested by the participants.

168


Table 8.1 – Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 20,000 Population

Criteria SSO Composting60

Mixed Waste Composting

(MWC) Anaerobic Digestion Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor Landfill Thermal

Treatment

Facility Throughput in Year (tonnes)61

3,083 6,000 1,845 tonnes SSO 2,470 tonnes MW

11,997 11,997 6,000


Non-reactor - outdoors, turning with loader or specialized turner Reactor - enclosed, possible specialized turning equipment, air handling and odours off gas treatment.


Natural Attenuation Engineered containment and process controls.

Modular combustion technology. Air pollution control system. Heat recovery for steam is possible.


Non-reactor - Well established Reactor - Established

Non-reactor - Not established Reactor - Not established

No facilities of this size in Canada. Test facility this size under construction in California

Widely applied. Emerging technology. Combustion well established/ mature. Emerging technologies established.

Total Capital Cost (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances) ($1,000s)

231 - 1,695 540 - 3,960 3,000 SSO 3,300 MW

9,800 13,571 7,200 - 9,500

• One-stage system likely at this small scale.

• Output from digester is dewatered to produce digestate.

• Digestate is composted off site.

60 Includes 40% amendment for composting process. 61 Facility throughput is made up of 5,999 tonnes for residential and 5,999 tonnes for IC&I waste for baseline scenario.

169





Treatment

Total Operating Cost (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances) ($1,000s)

101 - 148 249 - 346 900 - 1,600 (Net of Energy Revenue) 225 SSO 257 MW

4,125 - 4,686 5,510 - 5,843

Cost/Tonne Annualized ($) (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances)

40 - 100 50 - 120 $282 SSO $257 MW

47 - 49 300 - 473 65 - 66

Footprint Size (ha) 1.2 >0.23 >0.45 8.4 7.0 0.4 - 0.6

Zoning Requirements

Typically industrial, agricultural, rural.


Best location is at a transfer station, MRF composting or landfill where infrastructure can be shared. Typical waste management facility zoning requirements would apply. Could also be located in agricultural area or in an industrial subdivision.


Typically industrial, agricultural, rural

Generally industrial, plus local requirements.

Approvals Required Typical waste management site requirements

Typical waste management site requirements

Air emissions approvals similar to landfill gas engines. Typical waste management site requirements (composting is closest type of technology). Typical municipal building permits

Provincial environmental assessment and permit requirements, municipal by-laws


Varies by province, in Ontario A7 Guidelines for air emissions.

Net GHG Emissions (tonnes eCO2) Note: Values shown in parentheses show net GHG reduction

(832) (533) (879) SSO* (650) MW*

*Compared to landfilling.

26,700 to 29,100 4,200 to 4,600 840 to 860

Energy Recovery Potential

N/A N/A 47 kW to 65 kW N/A N/A 3 MWH Thermal

170





Treatment


Reduces GHG from decomposition or organic material. Produces compost which directs nutrient and humus back to the land. Preserves landfill capacity.

Reduces GHG from decomposition or organic material. Produces compost which directs nutrient and humus back to the land. Preserves landfill capacity.

Reduces GHG from decomposition of organic material. Produces compost which directs nutrients and humus back to the land. Preserves landfill capacity. Displaces small amount of energy generation from other sources.

Site-specific potential for occurrence of leachate and odour impacts.

Similar to landfill with potential improvement.

Some increase in air emissions, reduction in water and ground contamination. Fossil fuel offsets/GHG reduction compared to landfilling.

Quality of Processed Organics (If Applicable)

High Lower Higher quality digestate from SSO. This is converted to higher quality compost than digestate from mixed waste.

N/A N/A N/A

Public Acceptability Medium May be a concern with odours.

Low-Medium May be a concern with odours.

Probably good based on production of green energy. May be a concern regarding odours and other nuisance impacts (e.g., truck traffic). These are minimized if AD is co-located with other waste handling facilities (e.g., transfer station, MRF, composter or landfill). Acceptability likely highest in rural agricultural area.

Generally poor Similar to landfill with potential improvement.

Low to medium.

171





Treatment

Potential Social Impacts

Positive: Employment Negative: Odour, followed by leachate, dust, traffic, litter and noise


Employment impact is small (5 full-time equivalents (FTEs))

Potential for land use conflicts. Minimal employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods.

Potential for land use conflicts. Modest employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods). Rapid waste stabilization, reduction of long-term environmental risk, reduced emissions, and renewable energy recovery are seen as positive.

Local management of locally generated waste. Reduced truck traffic. Lower long-term liability. Smaller footprint than landfilling.

172




Mixed Waste Composting Anaerobic Digestion Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor Landfill Thermal

Treatment Facility Throughput in Year (tonnes) 63


48.-13 48.-13 24,000




One-stage system likely at this small scale. Engineered Containment

Engineered containment and process controls.

Multi-unit modular technology. Air pollution control system. Heat recovery for steam, questionable for electricity.



Non-reactor - Not established Reactor- Not established

No facilities of this size in Canada, the US or Europe

Widely applied. Emerging technology. Combustion well established/ mature. Emerging technologies established.


912 - 6,691 2,160 - 15,840 7,000 SSO 7,300 MW

36,235 32,236 29,000

62 Includes amendment for composting process. 63 Facility throughput is made up of 23,506 tonnes for residential and 23,506 tonnes for IC&I waste for the baseline scenario.

173




Treatment Total Operating Cost (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances) ($1,000s)

400 - 585 995 - 1,385 525 SSO 601 MW

21,970 - 24,295 17,520 - 19,522 3,800

Cost/Tonne Annualized ($) (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances)

40 - 100 50 - 120 172 SSO 156 MW

51 - 53 43 - 45 267

Footprint Size (ha) 0.91 1.8 1.6 18.2 14.6 1 - 2

Zoning Requirements

Typical industrial, agricultural, rural.

Best location is at a transfer station, MRF composting or landfill where infrastructure can be shared. Typical waste management facility zoning requirements would apply. Could also be located in agricultural area (similar to composting) or in an industrial subdivision.




Generally industrial, plus local requirements

Approvals Required

Typical waste management sites.






(tonnes eCO2) Note: Values shown in parentheses show net GHG reduction

(3,285) (2,066) (3,632) SSO* (2,827) MW*

*Compared to landfilling.

24,000 to 29,000


High N/A N/A 235 kW to 325 kW 6,200 to 7,600 kW 9,600 to 13.300 kW 12,000 MWH el

Net GHG Emissions

15,000 to 17,900 3,400

174




Treatment Potential Environmental Impacts

Lower than Landfill

Reduces GHG from decomposition of organic material.


Lower than Landfill

Produces compost which directs nutrients and humus back to the land Preserves landfill capacity Displaces small amount of energy generation from other sources

Engineered control of potential impacts. Source of renewable energy.



High Low Higher quality digestate from SSO. This is converted to higher quality compost than digestate from MSW

N/A N/A N/A

Public Acceptability Medium May be a concern with odours.

Low- Medium May be a concern with odours.

Low to medium. Probably good based on production of green energy. May be a concern regarding odours and other nuisance impacts (e.g., truck traffic). These are minimized if AD is co-located with other waste handling facilities (e.g., transfer station, MRF, composter or landfill). Acceptability likely highest in rural agricultural area.


175




Treatment Potential Social Impacts



Employment impact is small (7 FTEs) Potential for land use conflicts due to land area requirements. Modest employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods. Renewable energy recovery seen as positive.

Potential for land use conflicts due to land area requirements. Modest to significant employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods). Rapid waste stabilization, reduction of long-term environmental risk, reduced emissions, and renewable energy recovery are seen as positive.

Local management of locally generated waste. Reduced truck traffic. Lower long-term liability. Smaller footprint than landfilling only.

176



Criteria SSO Composting Mixed Waste Composting Anaerobic Digestion Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor Landfill Thermal

Treatment Facility Throughput in Year (tonnes)


119,973 2,935,802 60,000




One-stage system likely at this small scale. Engineered Containment

Engineered containment and process controls.

Multi-unit modular technology. Air pollution control system. Heat recovery for steam, questionable for electricity.



Non-reactor - Not established Reactor- Limited establishment.

AD facilities of this size operating in Europe for a number of years. Dufferin Organics Processing Facility a similar size

Widely applied Emerging technology, 2 Canadian sites and numerous international

Combustion well established/ mature. Emerging technologies established.


2,312 - 16,958 5,400 - 39,600 12,000 SSO 12,600 MW

68,090 60,579 60,000

Total Operating Cost (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances) ($1,000s)

1,015 - 1,482 2,490 - 3,462 (Net of Energy Revenue) 955 SSO 1,109 MW

53,547 - 59,520 43,847 - 49,103 6,500

177



Treatment Cost/Tonne Annualized ($) (Including Finance and Inflation Allowances)

40 - 100 50 - 120 123 SSO 111 MW

41 - 43 35 - 37 197

Footprint Size (ha)

2.3 4.5 2 34.4 28.1 2 - 3

Zoning Requirements



Best location is at a transfer station, MRF composting or landfill where infrastructure can be shared. Typical waste management facility zoning requirements would apply. Could also be located in agricultural area (similar to composting) or in an industrial subdivision.



Generally industrial, plus local requirements

Approvals Required







Net GHG Emissions (tonnes eCO2) Note: Values shown in parentheses show net GHG reduction

(8,325)

(5,330) (8,972) SSO* (6,499) MW*

* Compared to landfilling.

67,200 to 73,200 42,000 to 45,600 8,400


N/A N/A 470 kW to 650 kW 16,800 to 19,200 kW 28,300 to 28,700 kW High 30,000 MWH el

178



Treatment Potential Environmental Impacts

Lower than Landfill Lower than Landfill Reduces GHG from decomposition of organic material. Produces compost which directs nutrients and humus back to the land

generation from other sources


Preserves landfill capacity Displaces small amount of energy




High Higher quality digestate from SSO. This is converted to higher quality compost than digestate from MSW

N/A Low N/A N/A

Public Acceptability

Medium Low- Medium Probably good based on production of green energy. May be a concern regarding odours and other nuisance impacts (e.g., truck traffic). These are minimized if AD is co-located with other waste handling facilities (e.g., transfer station, MRF, composter, landfill). Acceptability likely highest in rural agricultural area.


Low to medium.

179



Treatment Potential Social Impacts



Employment impact is small (9 FTEs) Potential for land use conflicts due to land area requirements. Significant employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods). Rapid waste stabilization, reduction of long-term environmental risk, reduced emissions, and renewable energy recovery are seen as positive.

Potential for land use conflicts due to land area requirements. Significant employment. Potential nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods. Renewable energy recovery seen as positive.

Local management of locally generated waste. Reduced truck traffic. Lower long-term liability. Smaller footprint than landfilling only.

180

APPENDIX A

WASTE COMPOSITION

Per Capita Disposal

Rate300

Municipality:

North

Glengarry

Township,

Ontario

Sudbury,

Ontario

City of

Calgary,

Alberta

City A City B City C

Population: 10,589 85,000 880,000 Population 20,000 80,000 200,000

Total Waste

Generated

(tonnes/year)

6000 24000 60000

Households: 4,100 hh 37,400 hh 330,000 hh

6,500 hh 25,000 hh 65,000 hh

Waste sort categories and

descriptions

Composition

%

Composition

%

Composition

%

Average

Composition

Applied To Three

MWIN/RCA

project

communities

%

Material in

Black Bag

Now (tonnes)

20,000 pop

Material in

Black Bag

Now

(tonnes)

80,000 pop

Material in

Black Bag

Now

(tonnes)

200,000 pop

% captured

in SSO

Organics

Program

Green Bin

(Applied to

Black Bag)

Tonnes to Green

Bin SSO

Program 20,000

pop

Tonnes

Remaining (To

Residuals

Treatment)

20,000 pop

Tonnes to

SSO Program

80,000 pop

Tonnes

Remaining (To

Residuals

Treatment)

80,000 pop

Tonnes to

SSO

Program

200,000 pop

Tonnes

Remaining (To

Residuals

Treatment)

200,000 pop

Composition of

Material to

Thermal or

Landfill After

SSO

% of Black

Bag Waste

captured in

Mixed Waste

Organics

Processing

Tonnes

Absorbed

By Mixed

Program

20,000 pop

Tonnes

Remaining

After Mixed

Waste

Processing

(To

Residuals

Treatment)

20,000 pop

Tonnes

Absorbed

By Mixed

Program

80,000 pop

Tonnes

Remaining

After Mixed

Waste

Processing

(To Residuals

Treatment)

80,000 pop

Tonnes

Absorbed

By Mixed

Waste Proc

and

Compostin

g/AD

Program

200,000 pop

Tonnes

Remaining

After Mixed

Waste

Composting/A

D (To

Residuals

Treatment)

200,000 pop

Composition of

Material To Thermal

or Landfill From

Mixed Waste

Processing and

Composting/AD

1. PAPER FIBRES 1. PAPER FIBRES 1. PAPER FIBRES

Newspaper ONP, inserts 11.1 11.1 8.4 Newspaper 10.2 611 2,016 6,111 10% Newspaper 61 550 202 1,814 611 5,500 13.2% 50% 306 306 1008 1,008 3,056 3,056 8.7%

Magazines OMG 4.6 1.8 2.0 Magazines 2.8 168 480 1,683 5% Magazines 8 160 24 456 84 1,599 3.9% 50% 84 84 240 240 842 842 2.4%

Phone Books OTB 0.0 0.1 0.3 Phone Books 0.1 8 72 80 0% Phone Books 0 8 0 72 0 80 0.2% 50% 4 4 36 36 40 40 0.1%

Cardboard OCC 3.6 3.6 4.2 Cardboard 3.8 229 1,008 2,286 10% Cardboard 23 206 101 907 229 2,058 5.0% 50% 114 114 504 504 1,143 1,143 3.2%

Boxboard/Rolls OBB 3.1 3.7 3.3 Boxboard/Rolls 3.4 203 810 2,026 10% Boxboard/Rolls 20 182 81 729 203 1,823 4.4% 50% 101 101 405 405 1,013 1,013 2.9%

Mixed Papers junk mail, fine household papers 2.1 3.7 4.8 Mixed Papers 3.5 213 851 2,126 20% Mixed Papers 43 170 170 680 425 1,701 4.1% 50% 106 106 425 425 1,063 1,063 3.0%

Molded Pulp egg cartons, drink trays 0.4 0.2 Molded Pulp 0.2 11 45 113 10% Molded Pulp 1 10 5 41 11 101 0.2% 50% 6 6 23 23 56 56 0.2%

Books hard and soft cover 0.4 0.4 Books 0.3 16 65 162 0% Books 0 16 0 65 0 162 0.4% 0% 0 16 0 65 0 162 0.5%

Kraft Paper paper bags 1.0 0.5 Kraft Paper 0.5 29 118 295 20% Kraft Paper 6 24 24 94 59 236 0.6% 50% 15 15 59 59 147 147 0.4%

Spiral Wound frozen juice, pringles type packaging 0.2 0.1 Spiral Wound 0.1 7 27 67 0% Spiral Wound 0 7 0 27 0 67 0.2% 50% 3 3 13 13 34 34 0.1%

Tissue/Toweling tissues, napkins, paper towels 2.0 2.5 Tissue/Toweling 1.5 90 361 902 50% Tissue/Toweling 45 45 180 180 451 451 1.1% 50% 45 45 180 180 451 451 1.3%

Other Papermulti-layered, waxed, wrapping, fast

food0.7 0.7 4.4

Other Paper1.9 115 461 1,152 20%

Other Paper23

92 92 369 230 922 2.2% 50% 58 58 230 230 576 576 1.6%

Gable Top Cartons milk, juice 0.4 0.2 0.4 Gable Top Cartons 0.3 21 83 206 10% Gable Top Cartons 2 19 8 74 21 186 0.4% 0% 0 21 0 83 0 206 0.6%

Aseptic Containers tetra type packaging 0.0 0.0 0.1 Aseptic Containers 0.0 3 11 28 0% Aseptic Containers 0 3 0 11 0 28 0.1% 0% 0 3 0 11 0 28 0.1%

Sub-total Paper Fibres 29.7 28.6 27.8 28.7 1,722 6,887 17,217 232 1,489 886 6,000 2,324 14,893 35.9% 842 880 3,124 3,763 8,421 8,797 24.9%

2. PLASTICS 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

PETE Soft Drink # 1 soft drink 0.5 0.4 0.2 PETE Soft Drink 0.4 21 85 211 0% PETE Soft Drink 0 21 0 85 0 211 0.5% 50% 11 11 42 42 106 106 0.3%

LCBO containers alcholic beverage containers 0.0 0.5 0.1 LCBO containers 0.2 12 48 121 0% LCBO containers 0 12 0 48 0 121 0.3% 50% 6 6 24 24 60 60 0.2%

PETE Other water, juice, food, dish soap, trays 0.5 0.6 0.1 PETE Other 0.4 25 99 248 0% PETE Other 0 25 0 99 0 248 0.6% 50% 12 12 50 50 124 124 0.4%

HDPE bottles # 2 0.7 0.1 1.0 HDPE bottles 0.6 37 147 367 0% HDPE bottles 0 37 0 147 0 367 0.9% 50% 18 18 73 73 184 184 0.5%

PVC # 3, bottles, packaging 0.1 0.0 0.1 PVC 0.1 3 12 30 0% PVC 0 3 0 12 0 30 0.1% 0% 0 3 0 12 0 30 0.1%

LDPE & PP Bottles # 4 and # 5, squeezable 0.2 0.1 0.2 LDPE & PP Bottles 0.1 9 35 89 0% LDPE & PP Bottles 0 9 0 35 0 89 0.2% 0% 0 9 0 35 0 89 0.3%

Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids # 2, 4, 5 & 6 0.4 0.2 0.1 Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids 0.2 15 60 149 0% Wide Mouth Tubs & Lids 0 15 0 60 0 149 0.4% 0% 0 15 0 60 0 149 0.4%

PS # 6, trays, cups, packaging 0.6 0.8 0.7 PS 0.7 43 172 429 0% PS 0 43 0 172 0 429 1.0% 0% 0 43 0 172 0 429 1.2%

Recyclable Film shopping bags, milk pouches, 1.1 1.7 2.1 Recyclable Film 1.6 97 389 973 0% Recyclable Film 0 97 0 389 0 973 2.3% 0% 0 97 0 389 0 973 2.8%

Non-Recyclable Film garbage bags, chip bags, shrink wrap2.3 0.2 2.1

Non-Recyclable Film1.5 93 370 925 0%

Non-Recyclable Film0

93 0 370 0 925 2.2% 0% 0 93 0 370 0 925 2.6%

Other Containers # 7, trays, bottles, unmarked plastics0.0 0.5 1.1

Other Containers0.5 31 124 311 0%

Other Containers0

31 0 124 0 311 0.7% 0% 0 31 0 124 0 311 0.9%

Other Plastics non-pkg, garden hose, VCR tape, toys1.8 1.3 1.0

Other Plastics1.4 82 327 817 0%

Other Plastics0

82 0 327 0 817 2.0% 0% 0 82 0 327 0 817 2.3%Sub-total Plastics 8.3 6.4 8.7 7.8 467 1,869 4,672 0 467 0 1,869 0 4,672 11.2% 47 420 189 1,679 474 4,198 11.9%

3. METALS 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Aluminum Cans food & beverage cans 0.7 1.2 0.4 Aluminum Cans 0.8 46 183 459 0% Aluminum Cans 0 46 0 183 0 459 1.1% 50% 23 23 92 92 229 229 0.7%

Aluminum Foil Trays pie plates, etc 0.1 0.1 0.3 Aluminum Foil Trays 0.2 10 38 96 0% Aluminum Foil Trays 0 10 0 38 0 96 0.2% 50% 5 5 19 19 48 48 0.1%

Steel Cans food & beverage cans 1.8 2.6 1.3 Steel Cans 1.9 115 460 1,149 0% Steel Cans 0 115 0 460 0 1,149 2.8% 50% 57 57 230 230 575 575 1.6%

Other Metal scrap metal, other containers, bikes 0.8 1.0 0.6 Other Metal 0.8 48 193 483 0% Other Metal 0 48 0 193 0 483 1.2% 0% 0 48 0 193 0 483 1.4%Sub-total Metals 3.4 4.9 2.6 3.6 219 875 2,188 0 219 0 875 0 2,188 5.3% 85 134 341 534 852 1,335 3.8%

4. GLASS 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Clear food & beverage containers 5.2 3.5 1.5 Clear 3.4 204 816 2,040 0% Clear 0 204 0 816 0 2,040 4.9% 50% 102 102 408 408 1,020 1,020 2.9%

Coloured food & beverage containers 3.4 0.9 0.0 Coloured 1.4 86 344 860 0% Coloured 0 86 0 344 0 860 2.1% 50% 43 43 172 172 430 430 1.2%

Other Glasslightbulbs, window glass, cups,

ceramics0.3 0.6 0.5

Other Glass0.5 29 116 289 0%

Other Glass0

29 0 116 0 289 0.7% 50% 14 14 58 58 145 145 0.4%

Sub-total Glass 8.9 5.0 2.0 5.3 319 1,276 3,189 0 319 0 1,276 0 3,189 7.7% 159 159 638 638 1,595 1,595 4.5%

5.HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTES 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Batteries all types 0.0 0.1 0.1 Batteries 0.1 4 18 45 0% Batteries 0 4 0 18 0 45 0.1% 50% 2 2 9 9 22 22 0.1%

Paint paints (not empty) 0.1 0.3 0.1 Paint 0.2 10 40 100 0% Paint 0 10 0 40 0 100 0.2% 0% 0 10 0 40 0 100 0.3%

Motor Oil used oil, filters 0.1 0.0 0.0 Motor Oil 0.0 1 5 12 0% Motor Oil 0 1 0 5 0 12 0.0% 0% 0 1 0 5 0 12 0.0%

Flammables starter fluid, solvents 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flammables 0.0 0 0 0 0% Flammables 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Aerosol Cans empty 0.3 0.2 0.0 Aerosol Cans 0.2 9 37 92 0% Aerosol Cans 0 9 0 37 0 92 0.2% 50% 5 5 18 18 46 46 0.1%

Paint Cans empty 0.2 0.2 0.0 Paint Cans 0.1 7 28 71 0% Paint Cans 0 7 0 28 0 71 0.2% 50% 4 4 14 14 35 35 0.1%

Other HSW sharps, drugs, acids, antifreeze 0.0 0.0 0.8 Other HSW 0.3 16 64 160 0% Other HSW 0 16 0 64 0 160 0.4% 50% 8 8 32 32 80 80 0.2%

Sub-total HSW 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 48 192 479 0 48 0 192 0 479 1.2% 18 30 73 118 183 296 0.8%

6.COMPOSTABLES 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Vegetable Food Waste vegetable and fruit peelings 26.0 18.5 Vegetable Food Waste 23.4 1,406 5,625 14,064 75% Vegetable Food Waste 1,055 352 4,219 1,406 10,548 3,516 8.5% 50% 703 703 2813 2,813 7,032 7,032 19.9%

Animal Food Waste meats, fats, oils 0.6 1.6 Animal Food Waste 0.7 44 178 444 75% Animal Food Waste 33 11 133 44 333 111 0.3% 50% 22 22 89 89 222 222 0.6%

Grass grass clippings 0.0 6.1 14.6 Grass 6.9 414 1,656 4,140 75% Grass 311 104 1,242 414 3,105 1,035 2.5% 50% 207 207 828 828 2,070 2,070 5.9%

Woody Yard Waste brush, branches, wood chips 0.4 1.0 1.6 Woody Yard Waste 1.0 60 239 597 75% Woody Yard Waste 45 15 179 60 448 149 0.4% 50% 30 30 119 119 299 299 0.8%

Other Yard Waste leaves, soil, garden wastes 0.9 3.0 6.5 Other Yard Waste 3.5 208 831 2,077 75% Other Yard Waste 156 52 623 208 1,558 519 1.3% 50% 104 104 415 415 1,039 1,039 2.9%

Animal waste feces, animal litter and bedding 2.0 2.3 2.2 Animal waste 2.2 131 523 1,307 10% Animal waste 13 118 52 471 131 1,176 2.8% 50% 65 65 261 261 654 654 1.9%

Wood ashes fireplaces & wood stoves 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wood ashes 0.0 1 3 8 75% Wood ashes 1 0 2 1 6 2 0.0% 50% 0 0 2 2 4 4 0.0%

30.0 38.2 45.0 37.7 2,264 9,055 22,638 1,613 651 6,452 2,604 16,129 6,509 15.7% 1,132 1,132 4,528 4,528 11,319 11,319 32.1%

7.OTHER WASTE MATERIALS 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Textiles clothing, shoes 2.1 4.2 3.8 Textiles 3.4 203 811 2,029 0% Textiles 0 203 0 811 0 2,029 4.9% 0% 0 203 0 811 0 2,029 5.8%

Building Renovations drywall, lumber, carpeting 0.5 6.0 1.6 Building Renovations 2.7 163 650 1,625 0% Building Renovations 0 163 0 650 0 1,625 3.9% 0% 0 163 0 650 0 1,625 4.6%

White Goods large appliances 0.1 1.3 0.0 White Goods 0.5 28 112 280 0% White Goods 0 28 0 112 0 280 0.7% 0% 0 28 0 112 0 280 0.8%

Sanitary Products diapers, napkins 12.3 2.3 4.1 Sanitary Products 6.2 374 1,496 3,740 0% Sanitary Products 0 374 0 1,496 0 3,740 9.0% 50% 187 187 748 748 1,870 1,870 5.3%

Rubber tires, mats, tubing 0.2 0.1 0.1 Rubber 0.1 7 30 74 0% Rubber 0 7 0 30 0 74 0.2% 0% 0 7 0 30 0 74 0.2%

Furniture sofas, chairs, cabinets 0.0 1.0 0.0 Furniture 0.3 20 80 200 0% Furniture 0 20 0 80 0 200 0.5% 0% 0 20 0 80 0 200 0.6%

Electronics televisions, radios, computers 0.0 0.0 1.2 Electronics 0.4 24 96 240 0% Electronics 0 24 0 96 0 240 0.6% 0% 0 24 0 96 0 240 0.7%

Other materials not classified elsewhere 3.8 1.2 2.0 Other2.3 140 558 1,395 0% Other 0 140 0 558 0 1,395 3.4% 0% 0 140 0 558 0 1,395 4.0%

Sub-total Other Waste Materials 19.0 16.1 12.8 16.0 958 3,834 9,584 0 958 0 3,834 0 9,584 23.1% 187 771 748 3,086 1,870 7,714 21.9%

Total Composition Check 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 0.0%

0.0%

Total Tonnes 5,999 23,506 59,987 6 1,845 4,153 7,338 16,168 18,453 41,534 100.0% 17 2,471 3,527 9,641 13,865 24,714 35,273 1

Check Tonnes 6,000 24,000 60,000 5,999 23,506 59,987 5,999 23,506 59,987

Mass Balance for Mixed Waste Composting and AD Program

Original FCM Workbook Data

Sub-total Compostables

25.8

Mass Balance for SSO Program

Black Bag Waste Composition

AD & Comp Mass Balance

FCM AVG

Compositio

n of MSW

SSO

Program

Residual

Treatment

SSO

Program

Residual

Treatment

SSO

Program

Residual

Treatment

Mixed Waste

Program

Residual

Treatment

Mixed Waste

Program

Residual

Treatment

Mixed Waste,

Compost/AD

Program

Residual

Treatment

%

PAPER FIBRES 29 232 1,489 886 6,000 2,324 14,893 842 880 3,124 3,763 8,421 8,797

PLASTICS 8 0 467 0 1,869 0 4,672 47 420 189 1,679 474 4,198

METALS 4 0 219 0 875 0 2,188 85 134 341 534 852 1,335

GLASS 5 0 319 0 1,276 0 3,189 159 159 638 638 1,595 1,595

HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTES 1 0 48 0 192 0 479 18 30 73 118 183 296

COMPOSTABLES 38 1,613 651 6,452 2,604 16,129 6,509 1,132 1,132 4,528 4,528 11,319 11,319

OTHER WASTE MATERIALS 16 0 958 0 3,834 0 9,584 187 771 748 3,086 1,870 7,714

Total Tonnes 1,845 4,153 7,338 16,168 18,453 41,534 2,471 3,527 9,641 13,865 24,714 35,273

Total Tonnes per City

City Population

SSO Mixed Waste

City Population

200,000

(tonnes)

80,000 200,000

5,999 23,506 59,987

20,000

(tonnes)

5,999 23,506 59,987

20,000 80,000

APPENDIX B

OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS BY PROVINCE


Appendix B – Overview of Composting Approvals by Province

Jurisdiction Approvals/Permits Required Regulatory References and Guidance Documents Provincial Contact

British Columbia

Environmental Impact Study Report

Waste Management Act:

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/W/96482_01.htm Organic Matter Recycling Regulation:http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/W/WasteMgmt/18_2002.htm (Note: Allow permit-by-rule for SSO for certain sized facilities) Best Management Practices Guidelines for the Land Application of Managed Organic Matter in British Columbia: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/local_govt_section/pdfs/omrr_best_prac.pdf Compost Facility Requirements Guidelines: How to Comply with Part 5 of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/compost.pdf

Jack Bryden Senior Environmental Management Officer

# [email protected]

Alberta Registration Form under the Code of Practice for Compost Facilities

Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act:

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/E12.cfm?frm_isbn=0779718771 Waste Control Regulation:http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/1996_192.cfm?frm_isbn=0779723341&type=htm Activities Designation Regulation:http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/2003_276.cfm?frm_isbn=0779733274&type=htm Code of Practice for Compost Facilities:http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/codes/COMPOST.CFM?type=htm (Note: Allow permit-by-rule for SSO for certain sized facilities) Agricultural Operations and Practices Act:http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/a-7/20050318/whole.html

Natasha Page Pesticide/Waste Specialist Alberta Environment #780-427-5830

Appendix B – Page 1

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/W/96482_01.htm

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/local_govt_section/pdfs/omrr_best_prac.pdf

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/local_govt_section/pdfs/omrr_best_prac.pdf

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/compost.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/E12.cfm?frm_isbn=0779718771

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Regs/1996_192.cfm?frm_isbn=0779723341&type=htm




http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/codes/COMPOST.CFM?type=htm

http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/a-7/20050318/whole.html



Saskatchewan

Certificate of Approval and/or permit

Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002: http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/english/Statutes/Statutes/e10-21.pdf Municipal Refuse Management Regulations:

Kim Yee Environmental Protection Brach Saskatchewan Environment

#[email protected]

Manitoba Environmental permit

The Environment Act, C.C.S.M. c. E125:

Waste Disposal Grounds Regulations, Reg. 150/91:

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/e125e.php

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-150.91.pdf Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, Reg. 42/98:http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-042.98.pdf

Jim Ferguson Manager, Waste Reduction & Prevention Pollution Prevention Branch Manitoba Conservation

#[email protected]

Ontario Certificate of Approval

Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Ontario Regulation 347

A Guide to Approvals for Recycling Sites, Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Sites and Compost Use (As Required Under Regulation 101/94)

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e19_e.htm

Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario (November 1991) http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/1749e01.pdf

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/940101_e.htm http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/2477e.pdf Guide for Applying for Approval of Waste Disposal Sites (November 1999).http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/index.htm#disposal

Brad Guglietti Program Funding Group Leader Waste Reduction Branch Ministry of Environment

#[email protected]

http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Regulations/Regulations/E10-2R4.pdf

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/900347_e.htm


http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/english/Statutes/Statutes/e10-21.pdf


http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/e125e.php

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-150.91.pdf

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-042.98.pdf


http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e19_e.htm

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/1749e01.pdf

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/940101_e.htm

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/2477e.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/index.htm




Quebec Certificate of Approval

Exemptions under the Regulation Respecting the Application of the EQA

The Environment Quality Act::http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/q-2/20050513/whole.html Regulation respecting the application of the EQA (Q-2, r.1.001): http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R1_001_A.htm Regulations Respecting Solid Waste:http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/regu/q-2r.3.2/20050513/whole.html Environment Quebec, Guidelines for the Beneficial Use of Fertilizing Residuals

Marc Hebert Quebec Ministry of the Environment

#418-521-3829 OR #[email protected]

Certificate of Approval

The Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6:http://www.gnb.ca/0062/PDF-acts/c-06.pdf Water Quality Regulation – Clean Environment Act, N.B Reg. 82-126http://www.gnb.ca/0062/PDF-regs/82-126.pdf

Heather Valsangkar Remediation Officer Remediation Branch Environmental Management Division New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government #506-444-5955

Nova Scotia Certificate of Approval

The Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c.1:

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/envromnt.htm Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations, Section 27, N.S. Reg. 25/96: http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/regulations/regs/envsolid.htm Nova Scotia Environment and Labour, Composting Facility Guidelines:http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/docs/Composting_Facility_Guidelines.pdf

Solid Waste Coordinator Solid Waste Resource Implementation Committee Nova Scotia, Environment and Labour #902-424-2645

New Brunswick


http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/q-2/20050513/whole.html

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R1_001_A.htm

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2/Q2R1_001_A.htm

http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/regu/q-2r.3.2/20050513/whole.html


http://www.gnb.ca/0062/PDF-acts/c-06.pdf

http://www.gnb.ca/0062/PDF-regs/82-126.pdf

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/envromnt.htm

http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/regulations/regs/envsolid.htm

http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/docs/Composting_Facility_Guidelines.pdf

http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/docs/Composting_Facility_Guidelines.pdf



Prince Edward Island

Certificate of Approval Environmental Assessment (mandatory)

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I 1988, C.E – 9: http://www.canlii.org/pe/laws/sta/e-9/20050419/whole.html Waste Resource Management Regulations, Sections 35-58, P.E.I. RegEC583/95: http://www.canlii.org/pe/laws/regu/2000r.691/20050419/whole.html

Don Jardine Acting Deputy Minister Department of Environment and Energy Prince Edward Island #902-368-5035

Newfoundland and Labrador

Certificate of Approval Environmental Assessment (dependant on review)

Environmental Protection Act, S.N.L 2002, C.E. – 14.2:

Conservation

http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/sta/e-14.2/20050303/whole.html Environmental Assessment Regulations, 2003 under the Environmental Protection Act, N.L.R 54/03: http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/c2003r.54/20050303/whole.html Waste Management Regulations, 2003 under the Environmental Protection Act, N.L.R 59/03: http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/c2003r.59/20050303/whole.html Waste Material Disposal Areas, C.N.L.R 998/96http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/1996r.998/20050303/whole.html

Marie Ryan Environmental Biologist Pollution Prevention Division Department of he Environment and

Government of Newfoundland & Labrador #[email protected]

Permit under the Solid Waste Regulations

Environment Act:http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/pdf/environment.pdf Solid Waste Regulations:http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/pdf/swregs.pdf

Pat Paslawski Environmental Liaison Officer Department of Environment

#[email protected]

Northwest Territories

Permit/license under the Environmental Protection Act

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988,c.E-7:

Development

http://www.canlii.org/nt/laws/sta/e-7/20050211/whole.html Guideline for Agricultural Waste Management:http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/library/pdf/eps/agriculturalwastefinal.pdf

Ken Hall Director Environmental Protection Resources, Wildlife and Economic

#[email protected]

Yukon


http://www.canlii.org/pe/laws/sta/e-9/20050419/whole.html

http://www.canlii.org/pe/laws/regu/2000r.691/20050419/whole.html

http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/c2003r.54/20050303/whole.html

http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/c2003r.59/20050303/whole.html

http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/regu/1996r.998/20050303/whole.html


http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/pdf/environment.pdf

http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/pdf/swregs.pdf

http://www.canlii.org/nt/laws/sta/e-7/20050211/whole.html

http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/library/pdf/eps/agriculturalwastefinal.pdf


APPENDIX C

SURVEY TABLES


Appendix C – Composting Facility Survey with Focus on Facilities Accepting Residential SSO

Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)

General Information Annual Capacity1 (Tonnes);

Residue2 (%)

Annual Throughput (Tonne/year)

($) Capital Cost per Tonne Capacity ($/Tonne)

Annual Operating Cost ($ and $/Tonne

Processed)

Mitigation of Potential Social 3 and Environmental Impacts 4

Windrow Cumberland County, NS (owned and operated by Cumberland County) Serviced Population 33,000 Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO

Process Manual sorting of incoming wastes followed by shredding and formation into windrows in enclosed structure. Aeration is mechanical and with wheeled loader. Curing takes place outdoors on clay lined pad. Age

Brand None Amendment

70 Ft “Cover-All building”

Compost sold ($31/Tonne) to local company that produces soil blends.

NA Area 200 Ft byCuring area

Capacity 5,000 Percent Residue NA

2,500

Note: Waste from food processing facility (2,000 tonnes per year). Facility is under capacity and material residence time in building is up to six months (design is for 20 to 30 days).

$1,140,922 $228 $239,387, $95.75/Tonne

Social Odour controlled with biofilter. Environmental Leachate goes to leachate collection tank where it is recirculated at a landfill or disposed off-site.

Port Colborne, ON (owned by Region of Niagara and operated by Compost Management Associates) Serviced Population 335,000 Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO.

Capacity

Percent Residue

NA

Product is marketed for beneficial uses in accordance with Ontario Regulations for Composting.

Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval are: Certificate of Approval (processing), Certificate of Approval (Air), Certificate of Approval (Sewage Works).

Process Outdoor windrow and curing. Age 15 years Brand None Amendment Leaf and yard waste, wood waste Area 6.32 Ha (2.96 Ha is asphalt and 3.36 is granular).

The Certificate of Approval for Air permits 6,000 Tonnes on the compost pad at any one time, but Niagara Region has requested an amendment to the Certificate of Approval to allow 12,000 Tonnes on-site at any-one time.

7.7% (2005)

35,000 (2005) $800,000 Very rough estimate of

capital expense for

pad.

NA

Tipping fee for SSO is

$65/tonne

Meet Ontario Regulatory Standards.

Social Had one serious issue in 2004 with odour. Problem has been fixed, however community is sensitive about odour. Nearest residences in two directions are 400 m. Environmental Since facility is located on Regional landfill site, the Region is responsible for environmental monitoring.

Monitoring requirements reflect Ontario’s Guidelines for composting.

Capital Cost Quality of Final Product

4 years

Appendix C – Page 1


Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)

Capital Cost per Tonne Capacity ($/Tonne)


Processed)

Quality of Final Product


Thorold, ON (owned and operated by Walker Industries )

Capacity

Serviced Population NA (services 20% of the region) Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO.

Process Outdoor windrow and curing. Age 3 years Brand NA Amendment Leaf and yard waste, wood waste Area 4.9 Ha (compost pad)

90,000 (approved capacity). Actual capacity is closer to 40,000 Tonnes Percent Residue 25% (of total incoming but skewed by the plastic in source separated material)

30,000-35,000

NA NA NA Tipping fee for residential SSO is $68/tonne


Social There were zoning requirements. There was public acceptability. Environmental NA

Sarnia, ON Serviced Population 100,000 (estimate) Feedstocks Yard Waste and on occasion cattle and horse manure.

Process Windrow composting Age 17 years Brand NA Amendment None, add cattle and horse manure when it comes in as a feedstock. Area 4.8 Ha (includes curing area)


6,980 (2005) NA NA $190,000, $27.22/Tonne

CCME Grade A Social Facility located in industrial area, not many complaints Environmental Groundwater monitoring, obtain approval from Ministry of Environment.

Aerated Static Pile Saint John, NB (owned and operated by Fundy Regional Solid Waste Commission) Serviced Population 125,000 (est) (38,000 households) Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO.

Process Manual sorting of incoming wastes followed by shredding and formation into aerated static piles (some turning) in enclosed structure. Aeration is mechanical and with wheeled loader. After 8 weeks of indoor composting compost is then moved to an outdoor curing pad and turned with a windrow turner Age 4 years. Brand NA Amendment Leaf and yard waste, sawdust, wood chips Area 2.8 Ha

Capacity 14,000 (design) Percent Residue NA

7500 (approx.)

6,300,000 (inc. 4 cover all buildings, 35,000 compost carts, heavy equipment, processing equipment and biofilters)

$450 (includes carts)

Annual operating costs $360,000, debt reduction cost is $890,000 until 2012 with lump sum payment of $700,000 in 2013. $167/Tonne (includes debt repayment), until 2012, $48/Tonne after 2013.

CCME Grade A Social Situated close to residential area (2 km) however residents are more concerned about landfill operation and leachate (which is situated at same site as composting). Environmental Certificate of Approval from the Provincial Department of Environment, follow CCME guidelines for compost quality. Monitoring wells are situated around the area and are tested quarterly.



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Penticton, BC (owned and operated by City of Penticton) Serviced Population Currently services 30,000 (approx.). Feedstock Biosolids (8,000 tonnes), grass (5,000 tonnes)

Process Outdoor Aerated Static Pile facility. Active composting takes 35-40 days and curing in windrows one to two months. No biofilter. Age 30 years Brand NA Amendment 12,000 Tonnes chipped wood, 60,000 Tonnes yard and garden waste Area 1 Ha

Capacity 85,000 (estimate) Percent Residue None, overs go back into compost recipe.

85,000 $700,000 includes

impervious surface,

equipment costs (does not include land costs).

$8.24 $127,000, $1.49/Tonne

Meets BC regulations. Sold as product for gardens ($25 per Tonne, bulk, and $3.00 per garbage bag).

Social Has been some complaints throughout the history of the site pertaining to build up of material on site. Presently they have better marketed the final compost and are able to sell the 100% of the material (about 45000 Tonnes per year). Concern with dust on-site. In rural setting therefore do not have odour issues. Environmental NA

Spruce Grove, AB (SSO/leaf and yard waste collected by City of Spruce Grove and taken to private facility for composting) Serviced Population 5,500 households, population 18.305 (2005) Feedstocks Residential SSO//leaf and yard wastes (private facility takes other wastes as well)

Process Aerated Static Pile Brand NA Amendment Wood waste residuals Area 2.2 Ha

<20,000 tonne/ year.

Percent Residue NA

1,800 (2005). NA NA Class A – CCME guidelines for Quality Compost

The City of Spruce Grove pays $19.21/Tonne

Social Successful program, 80% participation rate. Environmental NA



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Enclosed Channel Lunenburg, NS (Owned and operated by operated by four partners: Towns of Bridgewater, Luneneburg and Mahone Bay along with the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg) Serviced Population 55,000. Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO

Process Manual and mechanical pre-processing of wastes. Wide bed composting (120 ft long and 70 ft wide) that is regularly turned with a specialized turner fixed to an overhead crane and negatively aerated. Material resides for 1 month indoors and is cured outdoors for six to eight months Age 11 Brand Ebara Amendment Receive commingled SSO and leaf and yard waste and do not add additional amendment Area Ca. 2 Ha

Capacity 12,000 Percent Residue Pre-processing 2 to 5% 20-40% overs after screening compost (reintroduced into composting process or used as landfill cover)

10,000 -11,000 $2,500,000 (approx.)

$208.33 $40/Tonne(includes capital)

Grade A CCME Social Site is in a rural area (about 2 miles from nearest Town). No large public outcry (same site as landfill). On occasion there are odour complaints (however nearest residence is one quarter of one mile away). Environmental Department of Environment required approval. Approval process was not too costly. Had to do some pilot work. Monitor groundwater, surface water and weekly in-house monitoring for certain gases

(owned and operated by Miller Waste) Serviced Population 360,000 (Halifax Regional Municipality) Feedstocks Residential and IC&I SSO.

Process Similar to Lunenburg facility but on a larger scale.. Secondary composting takes place in an adjoining building. Curing takes place off-site. Age 6 years. Brand Ebara Amendment Residential SSO includes leaf and yard waste Depends on how the finished compost is used by purchasers. Area NA

25,000 Percent Residue

NA

12,000 (Avg. residential) plus

8000 IC&I

$9,500,000 $380 Operating costsare less than tipping fee of $70/Tonne (includes amortization of the capital including building)

Meets CCME Grade A

Social Sited within an industrial park. Occasionally get odour complaints but usually limited to when hauling material off site for final curing. Operations keep in mind climatic conditions to minimize odours. Pest control program Facility paved. Environmental Approval granted by the Department of Environment.

Halifax, NS



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Halifax (Otter Lake) , NS (Owned by Halifax Regional Municipality and operated by Mirror Nova Scotia) Serviced Population 360,000 Feedstock MIXED Residential and IC&I waste. (60 to 40 ratio of ICI to Residential).

Process Nova Scotia has a ban on organics going to landfill. Halifax has a composting program for SSO. The incoming wastes are manually and mechanically negatively sorted for organics. The residue (organics) are ground up and processed in channels, that include forced aeration, for 2-3 weeks with the discharged material landfilled. Age NA Brand Custom built facility using a variety of suppliers and equipment. Amendment None. Area NA

Capacity 160,000 (est)

Percent Residue 10 to 20% sorted at the beginning of the process and directly landfilled. During a waste audit determined that 18% of the total incoming waste at Otter Lake is food waste.

160,000 $12,000,000 -$15,000,000 (estimate)

$84 (approx.) $42,000,000 (operating cost

for entire facility. Do not have

breakdown for Waste

Stabilization facility)

Material landfilled.

Social Siting required extensive assessment and public participation process. Environmental Approval required from the Department of Environment. On-going monitoring of groundwater and air samples taken at Methane vents. Have a community monitoring committee in place which works with the operator to review and correct any problems which may occur.

Pictou , NS (Owned by Pictou County District Planning Commission and operated by Pictou County Solid Waste) Serviced Population 47,000 Feedstock Majority, source separated residential waste, some commercial.

Process Paddle turns compost once per day, leachate added for moisture, stays in channels for 15-20 days and then cured (in roof covered building) for 45 days. Compost is then allowed to sit for another 3 months after which it is screened and then windrowed (another 3 to four months) until odour dissipates. Age 7 years Brand Ebara Amendment Little or none. Area 1.2 Ha

Capacity 7,500 Percent Residue 3 to 4% upfront and another 5% after screening.

7,500 $2,260,000 $301 $197,000(budget, does not

include capital repayment)

$26.26/Tonne

CCME Class A Social High acceptability, 92% participation rate in residential organics collection, only one odour complaint since the facility opened.

Environmental Facility sits on landfill site therefore required monitoring is part of landfill approval.



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Guelph, ON

(Owned and operated by City of Guelph) Serviced Population Over 113,000 includes population of Guelph (113,000) plus other areas. Also takes waste from Dufferin County, Barrie, and some others. Used to take waste from City of Toronto. Feedstocks Primarily residential SSO. Some non-residential SSO

Process Open top in-vessel channel system with agitated turning machines. Compost remains in channels for one month and then proceeds to secondary stage (open room with aerated floor). Material is turned with a loader and then is cured outside for six months. Age 10 years. Brand Longwood (American brand, Pennsylvania) Amendment

Area 0.56 Ha (does not include curing area). Debagging process area of the building is another 0.11 Acres. Total is 0.67 Acres (not including curing area).

Capacity 30,000 Percent Residue 0-65% depending on feedstock. On average in 2004 residue was 42%.

28,640 (2004) $9,000,000 (structure, equipment

and biofilters)

$300 CCME Grade A. $2,000,000budgeted, per year including maintenance (building was constructed 10 years ago and therefore the capital expense has been re-paid, does not include capital replacement costs). $69.83/Tonne

Social Site is only 500 m from residences and there have been some odour issues In general community of Guelph is supportive. Environmental Monitor groundwater and leachate. All of indoor and outdoor runoff is contained and directed to the wastewater treatment plant. Nearby airport had concerns about attracting birds in the area. As part of the approval must monitor the number of birds.

1 to 1 ratio and at a minimum 40% amendment.



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Container/Tunnel Charlottetown, PEI (owned by Island Waste Management Corporation and operated by ADI International) Serviced Population 135,000 (entire PEI population) Feedstocks Residential and ICI SSO

After manual and mechanical sorting, composting occurs in containers (40 cubic yard containers) for 10-14 days and is followed by indoor curing in aerated static pile (42 days, in two buildings). The compost is then screened and sold Age 3 years Brand Combination of Green Mountain Technologies (modified) and ADI International Technologies. Amendment 1:1 ratio between wood waste and other organics. Area 2.4 Ha

Capacity 30,000 Percent Residue 6%

26,000 $733 $40(includes capital)

CCME Grade A compost (Grade A refers to prior change of 2005 CCME).

Social Low public acceptability, public formed a committee when the facility was first opened.

Now that facility exists, the community does not feel much impact. The biggest complaint has been excessive lighting.

Very few odour complaints. Nearest residence is ½ km away. Environmental Approvals granted by the Department of Environmental Energy and Forestry. Also required pertinent building permits. Approvals cost roughly $150,000.

Facility is monitored for groundwater (5 sets of wells),surface water (runoff is drained into a lined surface water retention pond, which is sampled.

Halifax, NS (owned and operated by New Era)

Depends on how the finished compost is used by purchasers.

Serviced Population 360,000 (Halifax Regional Municipality) Feedstocks Residential and ICI SSO

Process Composting takes place in containers. Container is filled with SSO, connected to a ventilation system and left for about 10 days. The container is then emptied and the contents windrowed inside a large building for another few weeks. Age 6 years Brand Stinnes Enerco

Residential SSO includes leaf and yard waste

Area NA


20,000 $9,500,000(approx.)

$380 Operating costsare roughly $70/Tonne (includes amortization of the capital including building)

Social Medium public acceptability, some odour complaints. Had to retrofit system. Special zone for compost facilities was created. Occasionally some odour problems, operators have had to correct. Environmental Approval granted by the Department of Environment.

Process $22,000,000

Amendment

Meets CCME Grade A compost



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Hamilton, ON (Owned by City of Hamilton and to be operated by private firm) Serviced Population 500,000

Residential SSO (may market excess capacity).

Process Tunnel aerobic system with upfront sorting, and shredding. Composting takes place in two tunnels where material stays in first tunnel for 1 to 7 days followed by the second tunnel for 1 to 7 days. Curing takes place in covered building (20-30 days). Age Expected to open in 2006 Brand Christians Controls Amendment NA Area Property size 3.2 Ha and area for buildings (process, curing, administration) is 1.67 ha.

Capacity

Percent Residue Expected to be less than 5%

NA $30,000,000 $500 NA (the City pays an operating contractor).

Expected to meet Ontario Regulatory Standards.

Social Had to involve the public in the siting of the facility however there was no public resistance as this is a heavily industrially zoned area.

Noise is not expected to be an issue (as there are no equipment that would produce noise other than the air handling system). Dust is not expected to reach outside as everything is enclosed (including the curing stage). Biofilter will be used to manage odours. Environmental Obtained Ontario Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval and also obtain an Air Emissions certificate of Approval.

Monitoring will entail periodic testing of air emissions, as well as testing for compost quality.

(Owned and operated by Region of Peel) Serviced Population 12,000 Caledon and north- end Brampton residents. Feedstocks Residential SSO/leaf and yard waste

Process Composting takes place in a reinforced concrete 60 cubic meter biocell. Air is circulated through the box. A biofilter is used to control the odours. Active composting takes 7 to 10 days and curing takes approximately 45 days. Age 11 years

Herhof Biocell Amendment 80% kitchen waste to 20% yard waste. Area 1.2 Ha (Compost building, curing area, screening area)


5,141 (based on 2004 diversion)

$4,070,855 (budget)

$339.24

$136.16/Tonne


Social Facility located on existing landfill site.

One odour complaint in the history of the compost site. Environmental Application submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Energy to establish a composting facility.

Monitoring program includes: inbound waste, quantity and quality, compost waste quantity and quality, process conditions, moisture content, process temperature, oxygen content, odours, dust and litter.

60,000 tonnes

Feedstocks

Caledon, ON

Approximately$700,000 per year (based on budget)

Brand



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


($) Capital Cost per Tonne Capacity


Processed)


Capital Cost

($/Tonne)


Capacity Pembrooke, ON (Owned and operated by the Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery Centre) Serviced Population 40,000 Feedstocks

Process After manual and mechanical sorting and shredding material is loaded via conveyor into containers. Loaded containers are moved with roll-off vehicle to outdoor composting pad. Design retention time in containers is 14 days and curing takes place outdoors for about 6 months. Age 3 years

Engineered Composting Systems. (same as Green Mountain Technologies) Amendment 3 to 1 volume ratio of raw feedstock to wood chips.

Residential and IC&I SSO Brand

Residential SSO includes leaf and yard waste Area On 370 acre multi-use waste management site. The area devoted to composting is 0.87 Ha and includes a 0.074 Ha (8,000 ft 2 )enclosed receiving/preparation/loading hall and 0.8 Ha (8000 m2 outdoor composting area, windrows, curing and finished compost storage).

4,500 Percent Residue Less than 3% by weight of contaminants removed in initial picking station.

Just under 4500 Tonnes (3700 Tonnes processed in in-vessel and 465 Tonnes leaf and yard in outdoor windrow)

$2,424,000 $539 Net cost for SSO $83/Tonne includes tipping fee revenue.

Net cost for Leaf and Yard Waste is $28/Tonne. Above costs include annual capital expenditures, reserve fund expenditures, gross annual operating and capital expenses, annual revenues including tipping fees.

Currently follow stricter standard than the CCME Guidelines. Product sold to residents and topsoil producers.

Social

Environmental Aeration control, manages pathogen reduction (3 days > 550C) as well as temperature control for processing.

Edmonton

Serviced Population 700,000 plus some residential MSW from Strathcona County. Feedstocks MIXED Residential and IC&I waste. MSW, Biosolids, Yard waste (Note: Have curbside recycling program for single unit residences)

City of Edmonton, processes three organic waste streams MSW utilizing digesters and aeration bays, biosolids utilizing the GORE technology and yard waste (windrows).

Building air not used to aerate and is sent to biofilter.

Process

(Owned by City of Edmonton and operated by Earth Tech Canada)

Brand Bedminister rotary drums (MSW) (five drums) Gore Composting System (Biosolids) Age

Amendment Used for the GORE process (roughly 2.5 parts wood chips to 1 part biosolids. Area All of these processes occur at the same facility (53 Acres, 21 Ha).

Capacity 175,000 Tonnes (MSW), 12,000-14,000 dry Tonnes (biosolids, 22-25% solids) Percent Residue Roughly 45% (MSW)

MSW 175,000 Tonnes (approx.), biosolids 14,000 Dry Tonnes (approx.). (seasonal fluctuations, in summer have to divert, in winter they are under capacity)

$100 million (minimum)

$571 (MSW)

$57-$69 (MSW)

(range between $10,000,000 and

$12,000,000)

(includes capital and utility costs.)

Yard waste (CCME Category A), MSW and biosolids facilities produce (CCME Category B)

Social Public acceptability seems to be fine.

Main impact is increase in traffic. Environmental Approval obtained from Alberta Environment. Groundwater is monitored.

Bulk of odour complaints from nearby residence (across river).

6 years



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Mountain View County - Olds College (Canada) Serviced Population Town of Sundre – 2267 (2001 Census), Town of Didsbury – 3932 (2001 Census), Town of Olds – 6703 (2005 Census unconfirmed) Type Residential SSO, Olds College manures, and Industry directed research projects.

Process Continuous Feed In-Vessel, Batch Bunker system, Continuous Bunker system , Windrows Age 10 Years Brand Wright In-Vessel (for continuous feed in-vessel). Amendment Residential SSO includes leaf and yard waste Dependent on feedstock Area Total area of facility – 2.4 Ha

Capacity Class 1 Facility, allowed under 20 000 Tonnes per year. Facility has a capacity of 4800m3 on the pad using windrow system set-up. This capacity does not include bunkers, in-vessels, pole shed and cement pad. Percent Residue 16 % of total incoming (MSW overs are used as land fill cover).

Industry directed research (confidential), Olds College farm manures 3 tonnes, Olds College Grounds/ Greenhouses 56 Tonnes, Misc Yard care companies 132 Tonnes and the MSW 974 Tonnes, Total for 2005 is 1165 Tonnes. In the last five years tonnage has varied in the above categories. Total incoming weights range from 1100 Tonnes to 4500 Tonnes per annum.

NA NA Included in Olds College budget, therefore not available.

CCME – Grade A

Social Located on College farm land and therefore no zoning issues.

Public acceptability at this time.

There have not been any issues in terms of dust, noise, traffic, odours, and vermin. Litter was an issue two years ago, site was cleaned up and residents were educated (with door to door communication) on what is acceptable/not acceptable at a composting facility. Environmental Must comply with Alberta Environment Protection Code of Practice for Compost Facilities.

Monitoring requirements are according to the CCME guidelines for Quality Compost.

Runoff is collected in a lagoon and pumped into windrows when needed.

Strathcona-Comox, BC (Owned and operated by Regional District of Strathcona-Comox)) Serviced Population 50,000 Feedstock Mainly residential biosolids,

Process Fixed composting tunnels. Biosolids are mixed with bulking agent and then transported via conveyor and front end loader to an empty composting cell. Includes in floor aeration system is used. Offgases are directed to a biofilter. Material is screened following composting and then cured (aerated). Age 2.5 years. Brand NA Amendment By volume 4 to 1 (Bulking agent to biosolids). By weight the ratio is 1 to 1. Bulking agent includes wood chips and cleaned ground up wood waste. Area Active site area is 2.6 Ha

Capacity 6000 Tonnes biosolids. This does not include amendment. With amendment it is 12,000 Tonnes (approx.) Percent Residue Not Applicable.

5400 (biosolids) and roughly 5400 amendment for total of 10,800

Amendment is

screened out and re-used.

$4,100,000 $683(biosolids)

$342

(biosolids and amendment)

$28.92 (biosolids)

$14.46 (biosolids

and Amendment)

$156,182 (excluding debt

repayment)

Class A under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR), no restriction on end-use.

Social Site is industrially zoned (next to landfill). There are no odour issues as nearest neighbour is approximately 2.5 Km. Utilize biofilter for active composting odour control. Environmental Monitor time/temperature, metals, Fecal Coliforms.



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Tracey, Quebec Serviced Population NA Feedstock MSW and biosolids

Process The process begins at the waste receiving area where the waste is unloaded into an enclosed waste pit. Liquid wastes are unloaded into a tank which are pumped into the Bioreactor. The liquid is used as process water. Following this the waste is moved to a continuously rotating bioreactor which has a retention time of 3 days within the reactor. The material leaving the bioreactor consists of biodegraded organic matter and non-compostable residues. The organic matter is separated from the residue and moved to the maturation building and placed into windrows for further processing. After several weeks the compost is transported to a secondary refining area. The residue is sorted for recyclables. Age 10 Years Brand Conporec Amendment NA Area NA

Capacity 35,000 Percent Residue NA.

30,000 (Solid waste)

$2,000,000 for the cost of upgrades

completed in 2005.

NA NA Compost sold. Social A biofilter is used for odour control. The odour control system was upgraded in 2005. Environmental NA

Rapid City , South Dakota, USA Serviced Population 85,000. Feedstock MSW (mixed) and biosolids.

Process MSW and biosolids are co-composted in a rotary drums and then cured. Age

Brand 2 rotary drums (Dano) Amendment Approximately 60 tpd of biosolids at 8% solids is added to bring the moisture of the MSW up to 55% Area Site Size 2.1 ha Facility Size 1.8 ha

Capacity 59,439 Percent Residue Of the total incoming, about 15 to 20% ends up as compost. Approximately 50% is Dano drum reject, primarily plastic. The remainder is residuals from the tip floor, sorting line, and refining.

58,966 MSW

45,359 Biosolids

13,607 wet Tonne.

$9,200,000

$154 $3,360,044(includes debt payoff, all operating costs.) $56.98/Tonne

NA Social Public acceptability was good except for immediate neighbours, Had to install a chemical scrubber that was required by City Council. Environmental Required to receive a solid waste permit from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, county approval( a state law requirement), and local zoning and building codes had to be adhered.

2 Years



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



East Marlborough, Massachusetts USA (WeCare Environmental LLC) Serviced Population NA Feedstock Receive a combination of mixed residential waste, commercial SSO and biosolids

Process Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) are co-composted with biosolids in a rotary drums and then cured. Age NA Brand Two rotary drums(Bedminster) Amendment NA Area Site Size 2.4 ha Facility Size 0.94 ha

Capacity 32,400 tonnes MSW and 16,200 tonnes biosolids Percent Residue Less than 5% (approx.)

30,000 $9,300,000(estimate)

$287 (MSW)

$574 biosolids

NA Tipping fee for City of Marlborough is $126.44/Tonne for solid waste, and $536.53/Tonne for biosolids. The City also pays for 1/3 of the facilities electrical charges and disposal charges for any hazardous waste material.

Meets the Massachusetts Type 1 Approval. Compost, unrestricted use. Compost is transported to a number of soil manufacturers

Social Facility is in commercial area which borders residential neighbourhood. Large biofilter is used and there are minimal odour issues. Environmental Odour treatment 2 water scrubbers followed by enclosed biofilter, with roof fans for dispersion

West Yellowstone , Montana, USA) Serviced Population Yellowstone National Park Visitors – over 3 million annually, area residents – 5,000 (approx.) Feedstock MSW (mixed)

Process Composting takes place in containers. Curing takes place indoors. Finished compost is stored outside There is also a transfer station on-site Age NA Brand Engineered Compost Systems (containers) Amendment NA Area Site Size 1.2 Ha Facility size 0.32 Ha

Capacity 4536 Percent Residue 40-60%

2722

$4,900,000 (approx.)

What were

capital costs for

composting portion of facility??

$1,080 (approx.)

$1,165,000 (approx. includes cost for transfer

station and composting

facility combined, capital

expenditure is included in the

cost).

$427/Tonne

Meets US specifications The compost is used around the park and district for landscaping projects and erosion control

Social Odour control using Biofilter. Odour not an issue as the facility is several miles from the nearest occupied building. Public is accepting of facility. Environmental Require approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Forest Service



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Nantucket, MASS, USA (Waste Options Nantucket LLC) Serviced Population NA Feedstock MIXED Residential and Biosolids

Process Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) with recyclables removed at source are co-composted with biosolids in rotary drums and then cured indoors. Compost is stored outside on a pad. Age NA Brand 1 rotary drum (Bedmisnter) Amendment The mixed green waste is ground up and added to the compost outside in windrows. Area Site Size 2.8 Ha Facility Size (Buildings) 1.84 Ha Outdoor curing and storage 2.3 Ha

Capacity NA Percent Residue 30%

MSW 32,400 Seasonal fluctuations 18-90 tpd Biosolids seasonal fluctuations 0-18 tpd

NA NA NA NA

Markets include golf courses and

landscapers as well as an

amendment for landfill capping.

Social Facility was supported by the community (had a voted town meeting). Minimal dust, noise, odour issues. Environmental Had to obtain approval from the Massachusetts Department of environmental protection. The approval process was complex and costly.

Must monitor groundwater, soil and periodically air.

Reedy Creek , FLA, USA Serviced Population NA Feedstock IC&I SSO

Process Source separated food wastes from a large entertainment complex are mixed with amendments and composted in 1 of 3 composting tunnels (14 days), Curing takes place outdoor under a roof (pole barn structure). Age NA Brand Wright Environmental Management Inc. Amendment 2:1 (Food waste to amendments, by weight) Area Site Size 1.2 Ha (no curing on-site) Facility Size 0.35 Ha Curing ca. 2.5 Ha (separate site)

Capacity 27,000 (estimate) Percent Residue NA

18,000

33 tpd food wastes 17 tpd amendments

NA NA NA NA Social Odour control Biofilter Environmental NA



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Okotoks, Alberta Serviced Population Currently services 15,500 people. The system is being upgraded to service the growing population of about 10% per year. Feedstock Biosolids. There are two types a) waste activated sludge which comes from the biological treatment system and b) screened out material which are solids that are screened out upstream in the wastewater treatment process. These solids are currently ground up to a uniform particle size before composted. Foreign matter is a problem with the screened out material. In new upgraded system, the screened material will not be composted. It will go directly to the landfill.

Process The CV Composter is a modular in-vessel system featuring automated aeration controls and stainless steel, roll-off compatible vessels. The aeration and control systems are designed to allow for future expansion to 16 vessels. Currently the system has 9 vessels. The system is integrated with the treatment facility's existing equipment for efficient operation and to reduce worker exposure to potentially pathogenic materials. Compost from the vessels is cured outside in windrows. Age 3.5 years Brand Engineered Compost System. Amendment Ratio of biosolids to wood is about 2.8 to 1 part by weight. Area Roughly 2 acres (0.81 Ha) (includes temporary storage pad for curing).

Capacity Was designed for about 4500 Tonnes but for a drier material than what is currently composted. Percent Residue NA

18 – 20 Tonnes per day of

feedstock per vessel.

This is about 4500 Tonnes per year (dry Tonnes at 30% solids).

One million dollars. Includes equipment for the in-vessel system. Includes mixing, conveyors. Feedstock prep equipment. Does not include pad for curing (pad already had).

$222/dry Tonne

Approx. $100,000 per year (capital

expenditure not included).

Can achieve Grade A CCME however copper is limiting factor. Require different feedstock preparation. In the future, looking at marketing the product (erosion control).

Social Already in an industrial area (landfill and wastewater treatment plant). There are odour issues with dumping material from vessels to curing pad. Working towards alleviating this problem. Environmental Monitoring is done for the landfill.



Location

Serviced Population

Feedstocks (N)


Residue2 (%)


Capital Cost ($)



Processed)



Squamish, British Columbia Serviced Population NA Feedstock SSO commercial , municipal organic waste, brush and land clearing debris, biosolids, yard waste, and non-recyclable paper (waxed cardboard, soiled paper products).

Process The process entails enclosed flow-through tunnels which can accommodate 25 Tonnes per day. The retention time of the material within the tunnels is 14 days. The system is fully automated with air and water recirculation and data capture. Age 2 Years Brand Wright Environmental Amendment NA Area composting area: 5 acres (2 Ha)

Capacity NA Percent Residue NA

35-50 Tonnes/day since opening the

facility.

NA NA NA The final product is blended with other materials to make a soil amendment, garden blend, top dressing. Custom blends are also developed. Products are tested and monitored.

Social NA Environmental NA


APPENDIX D

COMPOST FACILITY COSTS


Appendix D – Capital Costs, Operating Costs and Tipping Fees at a Number of Composting Facilities in Canada and the United States

Facility Annual Capacity (tonne/yr)

Capital Cost ($)

Capital Cost/Capacity

($/tonne)

Operating Cost (Annual)

($)

Operating Cost/ Throughput

($/tonne) Tipping Fee ($/tonne) 1

Windrow

Cumberland County, NS 5,000 $1,140,922 $228 $239,387 $95.76 NA

Port Colborne, ON 12,000-35,000 $800,000 (approx.

for pad only) $23-66 (approx.

for pad only) NA NA $65 (tipping fee)

Thorold, ON

90,000 (approved capacity). Actual capacity is closer to 40,000 Tonnes

NA NA NA NA $68 SSO

Sarnia, ON 15,000 NA NA $190,000 $27.22 NA

Aerated Static Pile

14,000

$6,300,000 (incl. 4 cover all

buildings, 35,000 compost carts,

heavy equipment, processing

equipment and biofilters)

$450 (including carts)

Annual operating costs $360,000, debt reduction

cost is $890,000 until 2012 with

lump sum payment of $700,000 in

2013.

$167/Tonne (includes debt

repayment), until 2012, $48/Tonne

after 2013.

NA

City of Penticton, BC (biosolids)

85,000 (estimate) $700,000 (does not include land

costs) $8.23 $127,000 $1.49/Tonne

Facility accepts less than 20,000 Tonnes per year, and accepts 1800

Tonnes (2005) from Spruce Grove

NA NA $19.21/Tonne

Fundy Regional Solid Waste Commission, St Johns, NB (enclosed)

NA

Spruce Grove, AB NA NA

Appendix D – Page 1



Capital Cost ($)


($/tonne)


($)



Enclosed Channel

Lunenburg, NS 12,000 $2,500,000 (approx.)

$208.33 $400,000-

$440,000 (includes debt repayment)

$38-$42 (Avg.)

NA

Halifax, NS (Miller) 25,000 $9,000,000-$10,000,000

$360-$400 NA NA

(<$70) $70

Halifax, NS (Otter Lake) 160,000 (est) $12,000,000 -$15,000,000 (estimate)

$84 (approx.) NA NA

7500 $301 $26.26/Tonne

City of Guelph, ON 30,000 $9,000,000 (approx.)

$300.00

$2,000,000 (does not include debt repayment as it has been paid)

$69.83 NA

Charlottetown. PEI 30,000 $22,000,000 $733.33 $1,040,000

(includes debt repayment)

$40.00 NA

25,000 $9,000,000-$10,000,000

$360-$400

The actual operating cost is

not available however it should be covered by the

tipping fee of $70/tonne

NA

Operating costs are roughly

$70/Tonne which is equivalent to the

tipping fee (includes

amortization of the capital including

building)

City of Hamilton, ON 60,000 $30,000,000 $500 NA NA NA

NA

Pictou, NS $2,260,000 $197,000 (budget, does not include

capital repayment)NA

Container/Tunnel

Halifax- New Era (Private), Halifax, NS




Capital Cost ($)


($/tonne)


($)



Ottawa Valley, ON 4,500 $2,424,000 NA $538.67

Net cost for SSO $83/Tonne includes tipping fee revenue.

Net cost for Leaf

and Yard Waste is $28/Tonne. Above

costs include annual capital expenditures, reserve fund

expenditures, gross annual operating

and capital expenses, annual revenues including

tipping fees.

NA

Region of Peel (Caledon), ON 12,000

$4,070,855 (budgeted)

$339.24 $700,000 (budget

and approx.) $136.16 NA

City of Edmonton, AB 175,000 $100,000,000 $571(MSW) $10,000,000-$12,000,000

$57-$69 (MSW) NA

Mountain View County - Olds College, AB <20,000 NA NA NA NA NA

Okotoks, AB 4500 dry Tonnes (approx.)

$1,000,000 $222 (approx.)

(dry Tonne)


repayment)

$22/Tonne (dry Tonne)

NA

Strathcona-Comox, BC

6000 Tonnes biosolids. This

does not include amendment. With amendment it is 12,000 Tonnes

(approx.)

$4,100,000 $683. (biosolids) $342 (biosolids and amendment


repayment)

$28.92 (biosolids)

$14.46 (biosolids and

Amendment)

NA




Capital Cost ($)


($/tonne)


($)



Tracey, Quebec 35,000 NA NA NA NA NA

Rapid City, South Dakota, USA 59,439 $9,200,000 $154.78 $3,360,044 $56.98 NA

WeCare Environmental LLC (US)

32,400 tonnes MSW and 16,200 tonnes biosolids

$9,300,000 (estimate)

$287 (MSW) $574 biosolids

NA NA

Tipping fee for City of Marlborough is $126.44/Tonne for solid waste, and

$536.53/Tonne for biosolids. The City also pays for 1/3 of the facilities

electrical charges and disposal

charges for any hazardous waste

material.

West Yellowstone Compost Facility 4536

$4,900,000 (approx.)

$1080 (approx.) $1,165,000 (approx.)

$427 (approx.) NA


APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF LANDFILL AND BIOREACTOR UNIT COSTS


Appendix E – Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Activities Sanitary Landfill Sites Summary of Unit Costs

Community Size-Based Facility Cost Elements Units 20,000 80,000 200,000

1. Pre-development

a. Site Selection Allowance Lump Sum $250,000 $500,000 $750,000

b. Land Acquisition Allowance ha $150,000 $350,000 $350,000

c. Approvals Allowance Lump Sum $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000


a.. Site Clearing and Preparation ha $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

b. Utilities Allowance Lump Sum $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

c. Site Infrastructure Allowance ha $75,000 $75,000 $75,000


m² $100 $135 $135


m² $0 $75 $75

f. Leachate Recirculation System m² $0 $0 $0

g. LFG Collection and Flaring System

m² $0 $1 $1

h. Cap System Construction m² $30 $30 $30

i. Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure Allowance

Lump Sum $150,000 $200,000 $250,000

3. Site Operations


yr $50,000 $100,000 $250,000

b. Waste Disposal Operations m3 $8 $10 $10

c. Daily Cover Placement m3 $5 $8 $8

d. Leachate Treatment m3 $0 $5 $5

e. Reporting yr $20,000 $40,000 $100,000

4. Post-Closure Management

a. Staffing and Administration $10,000 $20,000 $50,000

b. Leachate Treatment yr $0 $255,417 $523,202

c. yr $10,000 $40,000 $100,000

yr

Maintenance Allowance

Appendix E – Page 1


Appendix E – Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Activities Bioreactor Landfill Sites – Summary Of Unit Costs

Community Size-Based Facility Cost Elements Units 20,000 80,000 200,000

1. Pre-development

a. Site Selection Allowance Lump Sum $250,000 $500,000 $750,000

b. Land Acquisition Allowance ha $150,000 $350,000 $350,000

c. Approvals Allowance Lump Sum $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000


a.. Site Clearing and Preparation ha $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

b. Utilities Allowance Lump Sum $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

c. Site Infrastructure Allowance ha $100,000 $100,000 $100,000


m² $135 $135 $135


m² $75 $75 $75

f. Leachate Recirculation System m² $1.20 $1.20 $1.20

g. $1.20 LFG Collection and Flaring System

m² $1.20 $1.20

h. Cap System Construction m² $30 $30 $30

i. Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure Allowance

$150,000 $350,000Lump Sum $280,000

3. Site Operations


yr $60,000 $120,000 $310,000

Waste Disposal Operations m3 $12 $12 $12

c. Daily Cover Placement m3 $8 $8 $8

d. Leachate Treatment m3 $3 $3 $3

e. Reporting yr $30,000 $50,000 $120,000

4. Post-Closure Management

a. Staffing and Administration yr $20,000 $30,000 $70,000

b. Leachate Treatment yr $101,009 $245,347 $514,821

c. Maintenance Allowance yr $30,000 $50,000 $120,000

b.

Appendix E – Page 2

APPENDIX F

MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATORS EMISSION LIMITS COMPARISON SUMMARY


Appendix F – Municipal Waste Incinerators Emission Limits Comparison Summary Contaminant Concentration Units Ontario MOE A-7

(October 2002) Canadian Council of Ministers

of the Environment (CCME) US EPA 40 CFR Part 60

New Source Performance Standards for New Small

Municipal Waste Combustion Units; Final

Rule (a), (c)

US EPA 40 CFR Part 60 (Dec-19-05 Edition)

Proposed Standards of Performance for Large

Municipal Waste Combustors (Existing Facilities) (b), (c)

US EPA 40 CFR Part 60 (Dec-19-05 Edition)

Proposed Standards of Performance for Large

Municipal Waste Combustors (New Facilities) (b), (c)

EU Directive 2000/76/EC

of the European Parliament And Council

on the incineration of waste (c)

Total Particulate Matter (TPM) mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 17 20 (p) 17 17 7 9 (n)

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 56 260 (q) 56 (d) 43 (d) 56 (d1) 46 (n)

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 27 75 or 90% removal

(p) 27 (e) 28 (e1) 27 (e2) 9 (n)

mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 207 400 (q) 201 (f), (g) 208 to no limit (g1) 201 (g) 183 (n)

mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 669 (h)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) mg/Rm3 @ 11% O2 49 57 (114 for

RDF Systems) (p) 41 to 163 (i) 41 to 200 (m1) 41 to 200 (m1) 46 (n)

ug/Rm3 @ 11% O2 14 14 22 2 N.Def.

Lead (Pb) ug/Rm3 @ 11% O2 142 (q) 50 140 175 59 N.Def.

Mercury (Hg) ug/Rm3 @ 11% O2 20 20 (r) 56 (j) 56 (j) 34 (j1) 46 (o)

Cd + Tl ug/Rm3 @ 11% O2 N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. 46 (o)

Sum (Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V)

ug/Rm3 @ 11% O2 N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. N.Def. 458 (o)

PCDD/F TEQ (l) ng/Rm3 @ 11% O2 0.08 0.08 (s) 9.1 (k) 9.1 (k) 9.1 (k) 0.092

Organic Matter (as Methane) ppmv undiluted 100

mg/Rm3 65.3

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (as NO2)

Cadmium (Cd) 100 (q)

Concentration units: Mass per reference cubic metres corrected to 11% oxygen. Reference conditions: 25 deg. C, 101.3 kPa. N.Def. = Not Defined Table Notes: (a) 'Small' = Small municipal waste combustion (MWC) units with an individual MWC capacity of 250

tons/d or less (b) 'Large' = Large MWC units with an individual MWC capacity greater than 250 tons/d (c) Units have been converted to Ontario MOE A-7 concentration units to allow direct comparison

(m1) : 41 mg/Rm3 @11% O2 for Modular Starved-Air & Excess Air Unit; 200 mg/Rm3 @11% O2 for Spreader Stoker Refuse-derived fuel

(l) TEQ = Toxity Equivalent. Per MOE, International Toxicity Equivalency Factors (I-TEFs) are applied to 17 dioxin and furan isomers of concern to convert them into 2,3,7,8-TCDD tetrachlorobenzo-p-dioxin) toxicity equivalents (most toxic compound). The conversion involes multiplying the concentration of each isomer by the appropriate I-TEF to yeild the TEQ for each isomer. Summing the individual TEQ values for each isomer of concern provides the total toxicity equivalent level for the sample mixture. The I-TEF scheme is intended to be used with isomer specific analytical results, rather than results reported by congener group only. CO limit varies per technology

(d) or 80% reduction by weight or volume of potential SO2 emissions, whichever is less stringent (d1) or 90% reduction by weight or volume of potential SO2 emissions, whichever is less stringent (e) or 95% reduction of potential HCl emissions by weight, whichever is less stringent (e1) or 97% reduction of potential HCl emissions by weight, whichever is less stringent (e2) or 98% reduction of potential HCl emissions by weight, whichever is less stringent (f) Limit for Class I MWC. Class I = small MW combustion unit located at MW combustion plant with an

aggregate plant combustion capacity of more than 250 tons/d of MSW (n) Daily average value (o) Average values over the sample period of a minimum of 30-minutes and a maximum of 8h

(g) 180 ppmdv @ 7% O2 for 1st year of operation, 150 ppmdv @ 7% O2 after 1st year of operation (p) CCME Operating & Emissions Guidelines for MSW Incinerators Report CCME-TS/WM-TRE003, June 1989. Table 4.2: Stack Discharge Limits (at 11% O2) (g1) NOx limit varies by combustor type: 158 ppmdv @ 7% O2 for Mass Burn Rotary Waterwall,

180 ppmdv @ 7% O2 for Fluidized Bed, 205 ppmdv @ 7% O2 for Mass Burn Waterwall, 219 ppmdv @ 7% O2 for Refuse-derived fuel, no limit for Mass Burn Refractory (after Apr. 28, 2009)

(q) CCME Operating & Emissions Guidelines for MSW Incinerators Report CCME-TS/WM-TRE003, June 1989. Table 4.3: Anticipated Emissions From MSW Incinerators Operating Under Good combustion conditions and equipped with dry scrubber fabric filter systems (at 11% O2) (h) Limit for Class II MWC. Class II = small MW combustion unit located at MW combustion plant with an

aggregate plant combustion capacity no more than 250 tons/d of MSW (r) CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions (2000) (i) CO limit varies per technology: 41 mg/Rm3 @11% O2 for Modular Starved-Air & Excess Air Unit; 163

mg/Rm3 @11% O2 for Fluidized Bed, Mixed Fuel, (Wood/Refuse Derived Fuel) Unit (s) CCME Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins & Furans (2001)

(j) or 85% reduction by weight of potential Hg emissions, whichever is less stringent (j1) or 90% reduction by weight of potential Hg emissions, whichever is less stringent (k) Limit not comparable to Canadian and European limits. Dioxins/furans on total mass basis measured

as tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Not TEQ values

Appendix F – Page 1

APPENDIX G

20,000, 80,000 AND 200,000 GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS


Appendix G – Page 1

Table G4 – Population of 20,000 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation (Excluding Carbon Sinks) ICF Emission Factors 3 Baseline SSO Mixed Waste

ICF Study Items 1 Percentage

2 Combustion Emissions

Net Landfill Emissions - National Avg

Waste Comp

Combustion

Emissions


Waste Comp Combustion Emissions


Waste Comp

Combustion

Emissions


Explanation 4

% t eCO2/t waste

t eCO2/t waste

Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2

Tonnes eCO2 Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2 Tonnes eCO2 Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2

Tonnes eCO2

Newsprint (0.05) 643.2 147.9 37.4% 0.23 (32.2) 556.5 (27.8) 128.0 328.9 (16.4) 75.6 Newsprint Fine Paper 0.0% (0.04) 1.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0

Cardboard 12.1% (0.04) 1.19 208.6 (8.3) 248.2 180.5 (7.2) 214.8 106.7 (4.3) 126.9 Cardboard Other Paper 50.5% 752.0 (0.04) 1.22 869.2 (34.8) 1060.4 (30.1) 917.5 444.4 (17.8) 542.2 Remaining fibres

TOTAL PAPER FIBRES 100.0% (0.04) 0.85 1721.0 (75.3) 1456.6 1489.0 (65.1) 1260.2 880.0 (38.5) 744.8 Aluminum 23.5% 0.01 0.01 51.5 0.5 0.5 51.5 0.5 0.5 31.5 0.3 0.3 Aluminum Cane and Trays Steel 70.6% (1.03) 0.01 154.6 (159.2) 1.5 154.6 (159.2) 94.6 1.5 (97.4) 0.9 Remaining metals Copper Wire 5.9% 0.01 0.01 12.9 0.1 0.1 12.9 0.1 0.1 7.9 0.1 0.1 1/4 Other Metal TOTAL METALS 100.0% (0.72) 0.01 219.0 (158.6) 2.2 219.0 (158.6) 2.2 134.0 (97.0) 1.3 Glass Bottles 100.0% 0.01 3.2 0.01 319.0 3.2 3.2 319.0 3.2 159.0 1.6 1.6 Clear, colored and other glass

TOTAL GLASS 100.0% 0.01 0.01 319.0 3.2 3.2 319.0 3.2 3.2 159.0 1.6 1.6 HDPE 8.4% 2.89 0.01 39.4 113.8 0.4 39.4 113.8 0.4 35.4 102.4 0.4 HDPE Bottles PET 12.0% 2.17 0.01 56.3 122.1 0.6 56.3 122.1 0.6 50.6 109.8 0.5 PETE Other Other Plastics 79.5% 2.67 0.01 371.3 991.5 3.7 371.3 991.5 3.7 334.0 891.7 3.3 Remaining plastics TOTAL PLASTICS 100.0% 2.63 0.01 467.0 1227.4 4.7 467.0 1227.4 4.7 420.0 1103.9 4.2 Food Scraps 88.7% 0.02 0.89 2007.4 40.1 1786.6 577.2 11.5 513.7 1003.7 20.1 893.3 Vegetable and Animal Food Waste Yard Trimmings 11.3% 0.01 0.43 256.6 2.6 110.3 73.8 0.7 31.7 128.3 1.3 55.2 Remaining compostables TOTAL COMPOSTABLES 100.0% 0.02 0.84 2264.0 42.7 1896.9 651.0 12.3 545.5 1132.0 21.4 948.5

(Yard Trimmings) 20.0% 0.01 0.43 191.6 1.9 82.4 191.6 1.9 82.4 154.2 1.5 66.3 Wood (Yard Trimmings)

(Other Paper) 20.0% 0.04 1.22 191.6 7.7 233.8 191.6 7.7 233.8 154.2 6.2 188.1 Paper (Other Paper)

(Steel) 20.0% (1.03) 0.01 191.6 (158.8) (197.3) 1.9 191.6 (197.3) 1.9 154.2 1.5 Metal (Steel)

INERT 40.0% 0.01 0.01 383.2 3.1 3.8 3.8 383.2 3.8 3.8 308.4 3.1 Inert

TOTAL OTHER WASTE 100.0% (0.19) 958.0 321.9 (183.9) 771.0 0.34 (183.9) 958.0 321.9 (148.0) 259.1

INERT 100.0% 0.01 0.01 48.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 48.0 0.5 30.0 0.3 0.3 Inert

TOTAL HSW 100.0% 48.0 0.01 0.01 48.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 30.0 0.3 0.3

GRAND TOTAL tonnes 5996.0 856.0 4151.0 2138.1 3685.9 835.7 3526.0 843.6 1959.8 WEIGHTED AVERAGE (t eCO2/t waste) 0.61 0.14 0.20 0.52 0.24 0.56

1 This column indicates the ICF study waste composition categories which were used to compose each of the 7 categories (shown in CAPS). Items shown in brackets are used to represent other materials, as discussed in the explanations on the far right. 2 These percentages were applied based on the available waste composition and assumptions. Explanations are shown on the far right. 3 These emission factors are from the ICF Consulting Report. The overall factors for each of the 7 categories is based on a weighted average.

4 The "Explanation" column explains which categories in the detailed MWIN waste composition were matched up with ICF study categories. For example, "aluminum cans and trays" from MWIN were matched to the "aluminum" category from ICF.

ork / Recycling Council of Alberta ng Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal


Table G5 – Population of 80,000 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation (Excluding Carbon Sinks) ICF Emission Factors 3 SSO Mixed Waste

ICF Study Items1 Combustion Emissions




Waste Comp

Combustion Emissions


Waste Comp

Combustion

Emissions


Explanation 4

% t eCO2/t waste Tonnes Waste Tonnes eCO2 Tonnes eCO2 Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2


Tonnes eCO2

Tonnes eCO2

Newsprint 37.4% (0.05) 0.23 2573.6 (128.7) 591.9 2242.4 (112.1) 515.8 1406.4 (70.3) 323.5 Newsprint Fine Paper 0.0% (0.04) 1.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A Cardboard 12.1% (0.04) 1.19 834.7 (33.4) 993.3 727.3 (29.1) 865.5 456.1 (18.2) 542.8 Cardboard Other Paper 50.5% (0.04) 1.22 3477.8 (139.1) 4242.9 3030.3 (121.2) 3697.0 1900.5 (76.0) 2318.6 Remaining fibres

TOTAL PAPER FIBRES 100.0% (0.04) 0.85 6886.0 (301.2) 5828.1 6000.0 (262.4) 5078.2 3763.0 (164.6) 3184.9 Aluminum 23.5% 0.01 0.01 205.9 2.1 2.1 205.9 2.1 2.1 125.6 1.3 1.3 Aluminum Cane and Trays Steel 70.6% (1.03) 0.01 617.6 (636.2) 6.2 617.6 (636.2) 6.2 376.9 (388.2) 3.8 Remaining metals Copper Wire 5.9% 0.01 0.01 51.5 0.5 0.5 51.5 0.5 0.5 31.4 0.3 0.3 1/4 Other Metal

TOTAL METALS 100.0% (0.72) 0.01 875.0 (633.6) 8.8 875.0 (633.6) 8.8 534.0 (386.7) 5.3 Glass Bottles 100.0% 0.01 0.01 1276.0 12.8 12.8 1276.0 12.8 12.8 639.0 6.4 6.4 Clear, colored and other glass

TOTAL GLASS 100.0% 0.01 0.01 1276.0 12.8 1276.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 639.0 6.4 6.4 8.4% 2.89 0.01 157.6 455.5 1.6 157.6 455.5 1.6 141.6 409.2 1.4 HDPE Bottles

PET 12.0% 2.17 0.01 225.2 488.6 2.3 225.2 488.6 2.3 202.3 439.0 2.0 PETE Other Other Plastics 79.5% 2.67 0.01 1486.2 3968.1 14.9 1486.2 3968.1 14.9 1335.1 3564.7 13.4 Remaining plastics

TOTAL PLASTICS 100.0% 2.63 0.01 1869.0 4912.3 18.7 1869.0 4912.3 18.7 1679.0 4412.9 16.8

Food Scraps 88.7% 0.02 0.89 8029.7 160.6 7146.4 2308.9 46.2 2054.9 4014.8 80.3 3573.2 Vegetable and Animal Food Waste

Yard Trimmings 11.3% 0.01 0.43 1026.3 10.3 441.3 295.1 3.0 126.9 513.2 5.1 220.7 Remaining compostables TOTAL COMPOSTABLES 100.0% 0.02 0.84 9056.0 170.9 7587.7 2604.0 49.1 2181.8 4528.0 85.4 3793.9

(Yard Trimmings) 20.0% 0.01 0.43 766.8 7.7 329.7 766.8 7.7 329.7 617.2 6.2 265.4 Wood (Yard Trimmings) (Other Paper) 20.0% 0.04 1.22 766.8 30.7 935.5 766.8 30.7 935.5 617.2 24.7 753.0 Paper (Other Paper) (Steel) 20.0% (1.03) 0.01 766.8 (789.8) 7.7 766.8 (789.8) 7.7 617.2 (635.7) 6.2 Metal (Steel) INERT 40.0% 0.01 0.01 1533.6 15.3 15.3 1533.6 15.3 15.3 1234.4 12.3 12.3 Inert

TOTAL OTHER WASTE 100.0% (0.19) 0.34 3834.0 (736.1) 1288.2 3834.0 (736.1) 1288.2 3086.0 (592.5) 1036.9 INERT 100.0% 0.01 0.01 192.0 1.9 1.9 192.0 1.9 1.9 192.0 1.9 1.9 Inert

TOTAL HSW 100.0% 0.01 0.01 192.0 1.9 1.9 192.0 1.9 1.9 192.0 1.9 1.9 GRAND TOTAL tonnes 14421.0 23988.0 3426.9 14746.1 16650.0 3344.0 8590.3 3362.9 8046.1 WEIGHTED AVERAGE (t eCO2/t waste) 0.14 0.61 0.20 0.52 0.23 0.56

Baseline

Percentage2

t eCO2/t waste

HDPE

1 This column indicates the ICF study waste composition categories which were used to compose each of the 7 categories (shown in CAPS). Items shown in brackets are used to represent other materials, as discussed in the explanations on the far right.

4 The "Explanation" column explains which categories in the detailed MWIN waste composition were matched up with ICF study categories. For example, "aluminum cans and trays" from MWIN were matched to the "aluminum" category from ICF. 3 These emission factors are from the ICF Consulting Report. The overall factors for each of the 7 categories is based on a weighted average. 2 These percentages were applied based on the available waste composition and assumptions. Explanations are shown on the far right.

Municipal Waste Integration NetwMunicipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrati


Table G6 – Population of 200,000 (Non-Sequestered) – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation (Excluding Carbon Sinks) ICF Emission Factors 3 Baseline SSO Mixed Waste

ICF Study Items1 Percentage

2

Combustion

Emissions


Waste Comp

Combustion Emissions


Waste Comp

Combustion

Emissions



Explanation 4

% t eCO2/t waste

t eCO2/t waste

Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2

Tonnes eCO2

Tonnes Waste

Tonnes eCO2


Tonnes eCO2

Newsprint 37.4% (0.05) 0.23 6434.6 (321.7) 1480.0 5566.1 (278.3) 1280.2 3287.8 (164.4) 756.2 Newsprint Fine Paper 0.0% (0.04) 1.35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A Cardboard 12.1% (0.04) 1.19 2086.9 (83.5) 2483.4 1805.2 (72.2) 2148.2 1066.3 (42.7) 1268.9 Cardboard

Other Paper 50.5% (0.04) 1.22 8695.5 (347.8) 10608.5 7521.7 (300.9) 9176.5 4442.9 (177.7) 5420.4 Remaining fibres

TOTAL PAPER FIBRES 100.0% (0.04) 0.85 (753.0) 14571.8 14893.0 (651.4) 12604.9 8797.0 (384.8) 7445.5 Aluminum 23.5% 0.01 514.8 5.1 5.1 314.1 3.1 3.1 Aluminum Cane and Trays Steel 70.6% (1.03) 0.01 1544.5 (1590.8) 15.4 (1590.8)

16.0

31.9 1595.0 16.0 16.0 HDPE 8.4% 2.89 0.01 394.0 1138.7 3.9 394.0 1138.7 3.9 354.0 1023.2 3.5 HDPE Bottles PET 12.0% 2.17 0.01 562.9 1221.5 5.6 562.9 1221.5 505.8 1097.5 5.1 PETE Other Other Plastics 79.5% 2.67 0.01 3715.1 9919.3 37.2 3715.1 9919.3 37.2 3338.2 8912.9 33.4 Remaining plastics

TOTAL PLASTICS 100.0% 2.63 0.01 4672.0 12279.5 46.7 4672.0 12279.5 46.7 4198.0 11033.7 42.0

Food Scraps 88.7% 0.02 0.89 20072.4 401.4 17864.4 5771.3 115.4 5136.5 10036.2 200.7 8932.2 Vegetable and Animal Food Waste

Yard Trimmings 11.3% 0.01 0.43 2565.6 25.7 1103.2 737.7 7.4 317.2 1282.8 12.8 551.6 Remaining compostables

TOTAL COMPOSTABLES 100.0% 0.02 0.84 22638.0 427.1 18967.6 6509.0 122.8 5453.7 11319.0 213.6 9483.8 (Yard Trimmings) 20.0% 0.01 0.43 1916.8 19.2 824.2 1916.8 19.2 824.2 1542.8 15.4 663.4 Wood (Yard Trimmings) (Other Paper) 20.0% 0.04 1.22 1916.8 76.7 2338.5 1916.8 76.7 2338.5 1542.8 61.7 1882.2 Paper (Other Paper) (Steel) 20.0% (1.03) 0.01 1916.8 (1974.3) 19.2 1916.8 (1974.3) 19.2 1542.8 (1589.1) 15.4 Metal (Steel) INERT 40.0% 0.01 0.01 3833.6 38.3 38.3 3833.6 38.3 38.3 3085.6 30.9 30.9 Inert

TOTAL OTHER WASTE 100.0% (0.19) 0.34 9584.0 (1840.1) 3220.2 9584.0 (1840.1) 3220.2 7714.0 (1481.1) 2591.9 INERT 100.0% 0.01 0.01 479.0 4.8 4.8 479.0 4.8 4.8 296.0 3.0 3.0 Inert

TOTAL HSW 100.0% 0.01 0.01 479.0 4.8 4.8 479.0 4.8 4.8 296.0 3.0 3.0 GRAND TOTAL tonnes 59967.0 8565.7 36865.0 41514.0 8363.1 21384.1 35254.0 8433.6 19595.4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE (t eCO2/t waste) 0.14 0.61 0.20 0.52 0.24 0.56


Tonnes eCO2

17217.0 0.01 5.1 514.8 5.1

1544.5 15.4 942.4 (970.6) 9.4 Remaining metals Copper Wire 5.9% 0.01 0.01 128.7 1.3 1.3 128.7 1.3 1.3 78.5 0.8 0.8 1/4 Other Metal

TOTAL METALS 100.0% (0.72) 0.01 2188.0 (1584.4) 21.9 2188.0 (1584.4) 21.9 1335.0 (966.7) 13.4 Glass Bottles 100.0% 0.01 0.01 3189.0 31.9 31.9 3189.0 31.9 31.9 1595.0 16.0 Clear, colored and other glass

TOTAL GLASS 100.0% 0.01 0.01 3189.0 31.9 31.9 3189.0 31.9

5.6

1 This column indicates the ICF study waste composition categories which were used to compose each of the 7 categories (shown in CAPS). Items shown in brackets are used to represent other materials, as discussed in the explanations on the far right. 2 These percentages were applied based on the available waste composition and assumptions. Explanations are shown on the far right. 3 These emission factors are from the ICF Consulting Report. The overall factors for each of the 7 categories is based on a weighted average. 4 The "Explanation" column explains which categories in the detailed MWIN waste composition were matched up with ICF study categories. For example, "aluminum cans and trays" from MWIN were matched to the "aluminum" category from ICF.
