|
9. REVIEW
OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE – SCREENING
RESULTS & NEXT STEPS EXAMEN DES TECHNOLOGIES POUR LE TRAITEMENT ET L’ÉLIMINATION DES DÉCHETS
SOLIDES - RÉSULTATS DE L’EXAMEN PRÉALABLE ET PROCHAINES ÉTAPES |
Committee
recommendationS
That Council direct staff to:
1.
Undertake investigations to identify and assess
potential opportunities and constraints to managing residual waste on a
regional basis; and
2.
Determine the affordability breakpoints for each
technology based upon population and tonnage requirements.
RecommandationS du Comité
Que le Conseil enjoindre le
personnel :
1. effectue des études de base et de
poursuivre les discussions aves le gouvernement fédéral et d’autres
municipalités de la région concernant la régionalisation de la gestion des
déchets résiduels;
2. détermine l’accessibilité économique de
chaque technologie en fonction de la population et du tonnage.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Public
Works and Services
dated 4 December 2007 (ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0025).
2.
Report to /
Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par:
R.G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint,
|
City Wide/À l’échelle de la Ville |
Ref N°:ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0025 |
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL OF SOLID
WASTE – SCREENING RESULTS & NEXT STEPS
OBJET: EXAMEN
DES TECHNOLOGIES POUR LE TRAITEMENT ET L’ÉLIMINATION DES DÉCHETS SOLIDES -
RÉSULTATS DE L’EXAMEN PRÉALABLE ET PROCHAINES ÉTAPES
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council direct staff to:
1.
Undertake investigations to identify and assess
potential opportunities and constraints to managing residual waste on a
regional basis; and
2.
Determine the affordability breakpoints for each
technology based upon population and tonnage requirements.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’enjoindre le personnel :
1. d’effectuer des études de base et de
poursuivre les discussions aves le gouvernement fédéral et d’autres
municipalités de la région concernant la régionalisation de la gestion des
déchets résiduels;
2. de
déterminer l’accessibilité économique de chaque technologie en fonction de la
population et du tonnage.
Ottawa needs to secure long-term processing and disposal capacity for its waste. Currently, Ottawa residents, businesses and institutions generate approximately one million tonnes of waste annually, with less than a quarter of the waste diverted from landfill. The remaining residual waste is primarily disposed of at one of five local landfills. Residual waste is what remains following the at-source separation of reusable, recyclable and compostable materials from the waste stream. Currently, demand for disposal capacity is projected to outstrip local supply within ten years, in the absence of significant changes in waste generation and diversion rates, waste exportation, or the approval of new disposal capacity.
Ottawa’s 2002 Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) directs that the City secure long-term disposal capacity, specifically:
§ Examine means for extracting any remaining resources from the waste stream (i.e. from mixed wastes originating from high density residences);
§ Examine means for harnessing the caloric (energy) value contained in the balance of the waste stream; and
§ Secure long-term capacity for the disposal of residual wastes.
Since completion of the IWMMP, staff have undertaken studies and implemented various measures in accordance with direction received from Council. Key achievements to date include the following:
§ Obtained Certificate of Approval amendment for Trail Waste Facility (TWF) expansion of 8.2 M m3;
§ Commissioned and now operating Trail Road Gas to Electrical Energy Project (5 MW);
§ Entered into a demonstration project partnership with Plasco Energy Group for 85 tonnes per day gasification facility. The facility is now in the commissioning stage.
§ Responded to Draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Carp and Navan landfill expansions, with continued monitoring and input to the Environmental Assessment (EA) process;
§
Completed
the Phase II Report on System Options for the Longer
Term, 2004. This report outlines the results of a scan of
the market place, and identifies the broad range of technologies available for
the processing and disposal of wastes;
§ Issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for New & Proven Technologies for Waste Management, 2006. The REOI was issued to solicit interest from the market place and to ensure that no technologies had been overlooked; and
§ Obtained Council approval for the long-list of technologies available for the processing and disposal of solid waste (refer to Table 1), and the criteria to be used to screen out options that cannot meet the fundamental requirements of the City (refer to Table 2).
§ Pursuant to direction from Council, staff is negotiating with Lafleche Environmental Inc. for disposal capacity up to 100,000 tonnes per year for 10 years.
Most recently, research was carried out regarding the long-list of technologies, and then each was evaluated using the Council approved criteria. The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the evaluation, to confirm the short-list of technologies, and to outline next steps.
|
Table 1:
Summary of Alternative Waste Technologies |
|
|
Process Type |
Technology |
|
Physical / Mechanical |
§
“Dirty” Material Recovery Facility (MRF) §
Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF) or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) |
|
Chemical |
§
Catalytic Conversion §
Hydrogen Reformation §
Thermal Cracking §
Acid Hydrolysis |
|
Biological |
§
Composting §
Digestion §
Fermentation |
|
Thermal |
§
Gasification §
Pyrolysis §
Incineration |
|
Table 2:
Screening Criteria |
|
|
Pass or Fail evaluation using the following criteria: |
|
|
1. |
The technology has demonstrated
consistent and effective processing or disposal of both residential and
IC&I waste streams. |
|
2. |
The technology has operated at a
scale that lends confidence to its application to a City producing over 1M
tonnes of waste per year. |
|
3. |
There is good evidence to suggest
that the technology will be approved for large-scale application by the
Provincial Ministry of the Environment within the timeframe required. |
ANALYSIS
Waste technologies can be divided into four categories: physical, biological, thermal, and chemical. The following is a summary description of each, with examples. It is not uncommon for these technologies to be used in combination to enhance process efficiency and effectiveness.
Physical – mechanical processes used to remove recyclables and contaminants from the waste stream before further processing (e.g. “dirty” material recovery facilities {MRFs}); and processes used to convert the waste into a more useful form (e.g. drying and compressing into pellets to become Refuse Derived Fuel {RDF}).
Biological – processes that use microbes to change the waste to a more useful form (e.g. digestion or composting to produce compost and fertilizer, and fermentation to produce ethanol).
Chemical – processes used to convert the waste into commercial fuels and chemicals, with energy generation as a by-product of production, not the objective of the processing (e.g. acid hydrolysis can be used to produce furfural, formic acid, and levulinic acid).
Thermal – processes that use heat to break down the waste, and in some cases to generate a combustible syngas for use as a fuel or chemical feedstock (e.g. incineration, plasma gasification, and pyrolysis).
Not all four categories were represented amongst the submissions received in response to the 2006 Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI). And, not all REOI submissions contained the same level of detail regarding the proposed technology. Accordingly, research was required to fairly address the questions posed by the three criteria.
For each technology, data gaps were identified and resolved through a combination of web searches, discussions with vendors and companies using the various technologies, and the sharing of information with other municipalities. The attached Document 1 is an internal report that summarizes research findings.
Document 1 presents the results of the screening evaluation. In summary, seven technologies met all three of the “must meet” criteria, and five technologies did not meet one or more of the criteria.
|
All
three “must meet” criteria were met |
At least
one criterion was not met |
|
§ “Dirty” Material Recovery Facility (MRF) § Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF) or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) § Composting § Digestion § Gasification[1] § Pyrolysis § Incineration |
§ Catalytic Conversion § Hydrogen Reformation § Thermal Cracking §
Acid Hydrolysis §
Fermentation |
As outlined in Document 1, the five technologies that failed to pass the “must meet” criteria are not without merit. Most of them manage some form of wastes at a limited scale today, and are being investigated for broader or larger applications. However, they are not developed to the degree required to address Ottawa’s demands within the next 10 years. Therefore, in keeping with the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, staff will continue to monitor advances in these technologies and evaluate opportunities as they arise for potential small scale pilot or demonstration facilities.
The next step in this process is to develop a Residual Waste Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to:
§ Define the need for residual waste management capacity;
§ Evaluate the short-list of technologies for addressing those needs;
§ Identify the preferred undertaking(s)[2]; and
§ Outline the steps required to carry out the undertaking and meet projected needs over time.
Accordingly, the first step is to clearly
define the need for residual waste management capacity so that a more detailed
assessment of the technologies can be carried out. Therefore,
before commencing the study, Council should direct staff to:
§ Undertake background investigations and pursue discussions with the federal government and other area municipalities regarding regionalization of residual waste management; and
§ Determine the affordability breakpoints for each technology based upon population and tonnage requirements.
Due to the significant investment to develop new facilities such as incinerators and landfills, it may be prudent to expand the scope of “need” to include other municipal residential waste programs, or a commitment from the federal government. Such partnering could help off-set the risks of constructing large facilities that cannot be operationally or financially supported by Ottawa’s residential sector alone.
Generally,
large municipalities in Ontario confine their solid waste planning and service
delivery responsibilities to the residential sector. Ottawa is no different.
The 2002 Integrated Waste Management Master Plan is focused almost
exclusively on the residential sector, with only two references to the IC&I
sector. Currently, the City is involved
in the management of IC&I waste only insofar as it receives some IC&I
waste at the two municipal landfills; and is considering options for
influencing waste minimization and diversion by the IC&I sector.
Some of the key matters to be addressed through these investigations are the following:
§ Availability, location and price of disposal capacity outside of Ottawa;
§ Price elasticity for the processing and disposal of IC&I waste;
§ Cost recovery mechanisms available to the City to pay for municipal facilities servicing the IC&I sector;
§ Ability of the City to reserve and protect municipal landfill capacity for the residential sector only;
§ The quantities and current management of federal facility wastes generated in the National Capital Region;
§ The willingness of adjacent municipalities and/or the federal government to participate in a cooperative study, and to commit tonnages to resulting infrastructure;
§ The sensitivity and vulnerability of local businesses and institutions to local shortages in waste processing and disposal capacity;
§ Risk and liability of the City in assuming this new responsibility;
§ Precedents and circumstances where other municipalities plan for and manage both IC&I and residential waste streams;
§ The quantities and current management of residential wastes generated in adjacent municipalities; and
§ The potential environmental benefits and costs of expanding the scope.
The
purpose of the investigations is to provide Council with information and
recommendations regarding the proposed “scope of need” to be addressed by the
Residual Waste Management Plan. The
review will take approximately one year to complete.
CITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Earlier this year, Council identified Solid Waste & the Environment as one of its top priorities for the next three years. Of particular relevance to this initiative is the objective to “reduce residential dependence on landfill/dumps by 30 per cent within 1000 days.” In October, Council approved establishment of a source separated organics program that will allow for achievement of Council’s objective. However, even if the new program is aggressively implemented and enforced, approximately 40% of the residential waste generated will still require disposal. Therefore, to further reduce dependence on landfills requires an investigation of alternative approaches. The purpose of the Residual Management Plan is to evaluate means for dealing with residual waste and developing a plan most suitable for the City. This report identifies the next steps to be undertaken towards completing the Plan.
There are no immediate environmental consequences associated with the adoption of this report.
Solid waste management is essential to maintaining public health and sanitation. In protecting public health through the provision of centralized waste collection, processing, and disposal services, some environmental impacts are anticipated. The Residual Waste Management Plan is to be completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. Any subsequent facility would also require approval under the Act.
Every reasonable effort would be made to mitigate potential impacts through responsible and progressive design, system operation in accordance with regulated and design requirements, regular monitoring of emissions, and redress of any problems in a timely and responsible manner to prevent harm to the natural and built environment.
There
are no immediate implications for the rural community. Landfills require large land mass generally
associated with rural area. Some of the
technologies under consideration may be suitable for an urban setting,
particularly those generating energy.
CONSULTATION / PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All vendors who responded to the 2006 REOI have been notified of the completion of this study. A notice was published in Ottawa’s major daily newspapers regarding the tabling of this report. The City’s Environmental Advisory Committee, Business Advisory Committee, and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the IC&I 3R Waste Strategy have all been notified of the tabling of this report.
Consultant assistance will be
sought to undertake this project.
Spending authority is in place for the required funds, and monies are
available in Capital Account 902 970 for this purpose. This initiative has significant implications
on the City’s Long Range Financial Plan in that any new or expanded facility
will have associated cost impacts.
These costs cannot be calculated at this time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Table of Screening Results
DISPOSITION
The Public Works and Services Department will undertake a review to enable scoping of the need to be addressed by the Residual Waste Management Plan.
|
Alternative Technologies:
Screening Results |
|||
|
Technology |
Criterion 1 Manages MSW, |
Criterion 2 at a large
scale, |
Criterion 3 and is
approvable |
|
“Dirty” Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Halifax (Otter Lake) - processing approx. 150,000 tonnes of MSW per
year since 1998. §
Monterey, California - processing on the order of 85,000 tonnes of
commercial wastes, C&D, wood waste and yard wastes per year. Operating since May 1996. §
Piedmont, North Carolina – Republic Services facility processing
approx. 19,000 tonnes of MSW per year.
Operating since 1996. |
|||
|
Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF)
or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Resource Recovery Technologies, LLC – two facilities producing RDF
for nearby energy plants. Ash
represents 28% of incoming waste by weight. §
Elk River, Minnesota – processing approx. 365,000 tonnes of MSW per
year. §
Newport, Minnesota – processing approx. 385,000 tonnes of MSW per year.
§
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd with Arbour Power – plans to construct a
facility in Vaughn, ON. MOE approvals
have reportedly been obtained.
Anticipated construction 2008. |
|||
|
Hydrogen Reformation &
Catalytic Conversion |
|
|
ü |
|
§
No known, currently operating, full-scale facilities processing MSW,
IC&I waste or C&D. §
Startech Environmental Corp. - Hydrogen Reformation demonstration
facility located in Wilton, Connecticut, in association with the U.S.
Department of Energy. Processing MSW
and coal. No full-scale facilities. §
World Waste Technologies - completed construction of a Catalytic
Conversion first facility in Anaheim, CA and operated for one year
(2006). Shut down due to inability to
demonstrate cost effectiveness. |
|||
|
Thermal Cracking |
|
|
ü |
|
§
No known, currently operating, full-scale facilities processing MSW,
IC&I waste or C&D. §
GEM Waste to Energy Inc. – has received a Certificate of Technology
Assessment from MOE that verifies the technology is effective for treating
MSW. They constructed one facility in
Ohio to process rubber waste for a private enterprise. Also reportedly developing a demonstration
plant in Yorkshire, UK to process MSW. |
|||
|
Acid Hydrolysis |
|
|
ü |
|
§
No known, currently operating, full-scale facilities processing MSW,
IC&I waste or C&D. §
Masada Resource Group – Reportedly developing a facility in
Middletown, NY to convert MSW into ethanol using a concentrated sulfuric acid
process. Working with assistance from
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL). |
|||
|
Composting |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Conporec Canada Inc. – facility in Tracy, QC processing approx.
17,500 tonnes of MSW and 18,000 tonnes of SSO. §
Edmonton – processing approx. 200,000 tonnes of SSO and 22,500 dry
tonnes of biosolids per year since 1990s. |
|||
|
Digestion |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Arrow Ecology & Engineering, Tel-Aviv, Israel – processing
approx. 28,600 tonnes of commercial waste and mixed MSW per year since
2002. Process yields a fertilizer and
biogas. §
UTE Planta de Pinto, Spain - processing approx. 73,000 tonnes of MSW
per year since 2003. Process yields
compost and biogas, generating 2.5 MW of power. §
Valorga Anaerobic Digestion Facility, Spain - processing approx.
130,000 tonnes of MSW per year since 2004. |
|||
|
Fermentation |
|
|
ü |
|
§
This process is similar to Acid Hydrolysis. §
No known, currently operating, full-scale facilities processing MSW,
IC&I waste or C&D. §
Masada Resource Group – see info under Acid Hydrolysis. |
|||
|
Gasification |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Interstate Waste Technology / Caribe Waste Technology – a combined
pyrolysis and high temp. gasification process with three (3) facilities
processing MSW. §
Mutsu, Japan – max. capacity of 140 tonnes per day (or about 35,000
tonnes per year), operating since 2003. §
Nagaski, Japan – max. capacity of 300 tonnes per day (or about 70,000
tonnes per year), operating since 2005. §
Tokushima, Japan – max. capacity of 120 tonnes per day (or about
30,000 tonnes per year), operating since 2005. §
Nippon Steel – a pyrolysis/gasification process processing 135,000
tonnes of MSW per year in Ibaraki, Japan. |
|||
|
Pyrolysis |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Mitsui R21 Process – a close-coupled pyrolysis-high temperature
combustion system. The company’s Yame
Seibu Plant in Japan has a max. capacity of 220 tonnes of MSW per day (or
about 55,000 tonnes per year). §
Pyroleg Process – low temperature pyrolysis of MSW with high
temperature combustion of the product gas.
A small plant in Burgau, Germany (pop. 120,000) has been operating
since 1984, processing residual domestic waste, commercial waste, bulky
waste, and sewage sludge. §
See also Interstate Waste Technology and Nippon Steel under
Gasification. |
|||
|
Incineration |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
§
Wheelabrator Technologies (Waste Management Inc.) - 16
waste-to-energy plants have converted more than 140 million tonnes of
municipal solid waste into 70 billion kilowatt-hours of clean energy since
they began operation. §
Facilities are located in the states of California, Maryland,
Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts and Washington. |
|||