management of municipal solid waste in metro … of municipal solid waste in metro vancouver ......

Metro Vancouver

Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste After Recycling

Prepared by:

AECOM Canada Ltd. 275 – 3001 Wayburne Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5G 4W3 T 604.438.5311 F 604.438.5587 www.aecom.com

Project Number:

80563 108052

Date:

June 2009

June 11, 2009 Project Number: 80563 108052

Fred Nenninger, P.Eng. Regional Utility Planning Division Manager Metro Vancouver

4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC

Dear Mr. Nenninger:

Re: Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Metro Vancouver – A Comparative Analysis of Options for Management of Waste After Recycling

Here is the final report as prepared by AECOM, with assistance from the Sheltair Group, RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Marvin Shaffer, Rambøll Danmark, and Juniper Consultancy Services. We thank you for your support and cooperation during the preparation of this

comprehensive study and look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

AECOM Canada Ltd.

Konrad Fichtner, P.Eng.

Practice Lead, Waste Services Environment

KF:kms Encl. cc:

Metro Vancouver

Ma na ge me nt o f Munic ipa l So l id Was te in Me t ro Va ncou ve r :

A Compara t i ve Ana l ys is o f Opt ions for Mana ge me nt o f Waste Af te r Rec yc l ing

Executive Summary

Synopsis

Metro Vancouver has outlined ambitious waste diversion initiatives in the Zero Waste Challenge – Goals, Strategies and Actions document. After these initiatives have been implemented, over one million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) will still require treatment and disposal because it cannot be practically and

economically recycled. The MSW that remains after exhaustive application of waste avoidance, reduction, reuse, recycling and composting is the subject of this report.

Three MSW technologies are reviewed: Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) to stabilize waste before landfilling or to produce a refuse derived fuel for industrial use; waste-to-energy (WTE) with energy recovery (electricity and heat); and landfilling with landfill gas (LFG) utilization.

Eight integrated waste management scenarios using different configurations of the three technologies, in combination with existing waste management facilities, were compared. The scenarios included: treating all

MSW using MBT before landfilling; producing refuse derived fuel for industrial use; adding WTE capacity within Metro Vancouver; adding WTE capacity out of the region; landfilling untreated waste locally; and landfilling untreated waste out of region in a bioreactor landfill. In all scenarios, the Vancouver Landfill and

the Metro Vancouver WTE Facility continue to operate, and recycling continues to be optimized. The environmental and financial burdens and benefits of the eight scenarios were reviewed using life cycle

assessment and financial analysis. The results will inform the decision Metro Vancouver must make to manage MSW when updating its solid waste management plan.

Background

Metro Vancouver is updating its Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The plan is one of a series of plans

based on the principles outlined in the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework. The SWMP is also based on the provincial waste management hierarchy which consists of six steps that outline in descending order of priority the strategies for waste management. At the top of the hierarchy are the preferred strategies: waste

avoidance and waste reduction. The next two steps in the hierarchy are reuse and recycling. These are waste diversion strategies. The Metro

Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge proposes a number of actions to increase waste diversion from the current rate of 55% to 70% by 2015. As a point of reference, the 2006 Canada-wide waste diversion rate was 22%.

The last two steps of the hierarchy, recovery and disposal, are the focus of this report. These last two steps are the strategies used to address the waste remaining after all practical efforts to avoid, reduce, reuse, and recycle the waste have been exhausted. This portion of the waste stream is defined in this report as

municipal solid waste (MSW).

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - i -

Metro Vancouver



The management of MSW presents challenges. The most valuable and extractable materials have been removed through reuse and recycling, and the remaining waste is highly commingled and contaminated. For the foreseeable future, technology and market requirements will continue to make it impractical to separate

and clean this material for further recycling. Despite intensive waste reduction and diversion efforts, MSW quantities are expected to increase due to

population growth in Metro Vancouver. When 70% waste diversion is achieved in 2015, the amount of MSW requiring treatment and disposal is expected to be 1.1 million tonnes. Figure E-1 illustrates the initial downward trend in MSW due to increased diversion, followed by an upward trend of total tonnages

attributable to population growth.

Figure E-1. Estimated MSW Requiring Disposal in Metro Vancouver

20201,260,000 tonnes

20151,125,000 tonnes

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Mill

ion

s o

f T

on

ne

s M

SW

70% diversion achieved in 2015

In 2008, the Metro Vancouver Board directed staff to commission a report by an outside consultant to “assess the relative characteristics and merits of landfill and waste-to-energy (various technologies) as a means to process or dispose of the remaining 30% of the waste stream.” In accordance with the Board’s

directive, this report examines options for managing MSW. The report details three processes for waste treatment and disposal: mechanical biological treatment (MBT), waste-to-energy (WTE), and landfilling, and explores the role each could play in an integrated waste management system. For the purposes of this

report, the WTE and MBT facilities were modeled as having less capacity than required to process the total

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - ii -

Metro Vancouver



amount of MSW shown in Figure E-1. This has been done to provide a buffer for additional diversion beyond the 70% target.

Waste Management Technologies

MBT is a generic term for a combination of technologies that sort MSW, dry the organic portion, and may produce refuse derived fuel (RDF). The specific types of technologies are selected based on the role that MBT will play in a waste management system. For this study, two types of MBT product were evaluated:

RDF and stabilized waste for disposal. WTE covers a range of thermal technologies that extract the energy in waste while reducing its volume and

rendering it inert, including mass burn, gasification and plasma arc technologies. Mass burn is the WTE technology selected for further study. Mass burn technology is used by the majority of WTE plants in the world. For this study, it was assumed that new WTE capacity established within Metro Vancouver would

recover energy by generating electricity and providing district heating. WTE facilities outside Metro Vancouver would produce electricity only.

The landfill technology (for new facilities) chosen for this analysis is the bioreactor landfill. This type of landfill enhances conventional landfill design and produces LFG faster for better energy recovery and utilization. It also shortens the active life of the landfill. For this study, it was assumed that any new bioreactor landfill

would be located outside the Lower Mainland. All three technologies can meet regulatory requirements for environmental protection and human health. The

environmental impacts and costs of the three technologies vary.

Eight Comparative Integrated Waste Management Scenarios

In order to support decision making, the report examines different combinations of MBT, WTE and landfilling as integrated waste management solutions. The following eight waste management scenarios (Table E-1) show various ways that the technologies could be deployed to manage the projected 1.26 million tonnes of

MSW in 2020 after 70% diversion has been achieved. The existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility and Vancouver Landfill continue to operate in all scenarios.

Of the first five scenarios involving energy recovery, the first three solutions are located within the region, and the next two are located outside the region. Scenarios 6, 7 and 8 focus on landfill technologies. Scenarios 6 and 7 are in-region solutions and Scenario 8 requires out of region disposal capacity. Scenario 6

includes a processing step before landfilling, but no energy recovery.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - iii -

Metro Vancouver



Table E-1. Scenario Descriptions

Scenario Number

Scenario Name Description

1 Large new WTE A new WTE facility with a capacity of 750,000 tonnes per year is built in the region; the balance of MSW is sent to existing local WTE and landfill.

2 Moderate new WTE A new WTE facility with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes per year is built in the region; the balance of MSW is sent to existing local WTE and landfill.

3 In-region use of RDF product from MBT

An MBT plant with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes per year is built in the region. It produces RDF that is used within the region (the user was modelled as a cement kiln). The balance of MSW is sent to the existing local WTE and landfill.

4 Out of region use of RDF product from MBT

An MBT plant with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes per year is built in the region. It produces RDF that is used outside the region. The balance of MSW is sent to the existing local WTE and landfill.

5 Waste exported out of region to WTE

A new WTE facility with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes per year located is built outside the region; the balance of MSW sent to existing local WTE and landfill.

6 Local landfilling of MBT product

A new MBT plant built in the region stabilizes all MSW for disposal at the Vancouver Landfill.

7 Maximize local Landfilling

The Vancouver Landfill accepts the maximum authorized capacity of 750,000 tonnes of MSW per year; the balance is trucked to a new bioreactor landfill, located outside the region. There is no additional processing or waste treatment.

8 Maximize out of region Landfilling

The Vancouver Landfill accepts 230,000 tonnes of MSW per year and the balance is trucked to a new bioreactor landfill located outside the region. There is no additional processing or waste treatment.

Life Cycle Assessment

The potential environmental impacts of the eight scenarios were estimated using life cycle assessment (LCA). For each of the eight scenarios, LCA constructs an inventory of the material and energy inputs and

outputs and the potential environmental impacts at each stage of the waste management process, including transportation, processing, and disposal. LCA also calculates direct and indirect emissions and avoided emissions. Avoided emissions are realized from the recovery of energy and materials. The recovery of

energy and materials avoids emissions associated with the creation of new materials and the generation of energy from fossil fuels, such as natural gas.

The results of the LCA are used to summarize the effects that the eight scenarios may have on the environment. The results of the LCA also enable a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the different scenarios in terms of energy and environmental performance. Finally, the LCA is able to show the

potential impacts of different options according to geographic location. This enables an assessment of the impact of emissions on the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) airshed.

For each scenario, the LCA reviewed the following emissions and outputs expected in 2020:

common air contaminants (SOx, NOx, CO, PM, VOCs and NH3);

selected air toxics: mercury and dioxins and furans;

energy production and consumption;

vehicle fuel consumption; and

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - iv -

Metro Vancouver



Emissions were identified according to their general location: within the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) airshed; elsewhere in BC, and unknown locations. Net common air contaminants were evaluated on a LFV airshed basis; net GHG emissions were considered on a provincial basis.

Net emissions of each of the common air contaminants for each scenario are shown as a percentage of total projected emissions in the LFV in Figure E-2. For all eight scenarios the contribution to overall emission

levels in the LFV airshed is very small (1.2% or less). Several of the key contaminants, such as NOx, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 are lower than the current contribution of waste management air emissions in the LFV. The blue horizontal lines in the figure show the level of emissions from current solid waste management activities

as measured in 2005 for reference. NOx emissions are of particular interest because they are precursors to the secondary formation of ozone

and PM2.5. Figure E-2 shows that Scenarios 3, 4 and 7 have marginally higher NOx emissions than the other scenarios, and therefore slightly increased potential to impact ozone and secondary PM2.5 formation. However, overall NOx emissions from waste management in 2020 are projected to be lower than current

levels.

Figure E-2. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total Emissions Projected for 2020

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

SOx NH3 NOx CO VOCs PM2.5 PM10

Contaminant

Pe

rce

nt

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

2005 (net)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - v -

Metro Vancouver



For common air contaminants (CAC) in the LFV and net GHG emissions in BC, the following major conclusions were reached:

SOx emissions for all scenarios are similar and represent about 1% of total LFV emissions, which is similar to the contribution of SOx emissions from existing waste management facilities.

There is greater variability in the net LFV emissions of NH3, representing between 0.1 and 0.6% of total

LFV NH3 emissions, which is greater than the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of NOx range from about 0.2 to 0.4% of total LFV NOx emissions, which is about half

the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of VOCs and CO are less than 0.2% of total LFV emissions for all scenarios, which is similar to the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 for the various scenarios are all less than 0.1% of total LFV emissions, which is much less than the existing contribution from waste management facilities although this difference could be due to fugitive dust emissions, which were not considered in the LCA analysis.

Scenarios 1 and 8 tend to have the lowest CAC emissions whereas Scenarios 3, 4 and 7 tend to have the highest CAC emissions.

Mercury emissions occur from all three types of facilities examined. WTE and cement kilns release mercury from the combustion of MSW; MBT facilities release mercury from processing MSW; and landfills release mercury from the distribution and compaction of MSW at the working face and through the combustion of

LFG. It must be noted that the mercury emitted is not created as a result of waste treatment and disposal; it is present in MSW, with typical sources being fluorescent lamps, electrical switches and relays, thermostats, thermometers and batteries. British Columbia’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program will be

expanded to cover mercury containing wastes and it is expected that the mercury content of MSW will decrease as a result, which in turn will further decrease mercury emissions and releases from MSW treatment and disposal. In addition, introduction of stringent regulations have resulted in the implementation

of technologies that have reduced mercury emissions from WTE plants to a fraction of what they once were. The current average mercury emission from the existing WTE Facility of 2 µg/m3 is well below the Canada Wide Standard for mercury of 20 µg/m3. This standard is considered one of the most stringent standards in

the world. The contribution of net dioxin and furan emissions from the various scenarios to total emissions in the LFV

(based on data from 2000 and 2006) is illustrated in Figure E-3. The figure does not include point sources from outside the country that contribute to the airshed, therefore the contributions on a percentage basis as shown are likely overestimated. The black diamonds in the graph show what the Canada Wide Standards for

dioxins and furans would theoretically allow, and these are considered one of the strictest standards in the world. The lowest overall dioxin and furan loading in the LFV is from Scenarios 6, 1 and 8.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - vi -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-3. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Dioxin and Furan Emissions to Total Emissions in LFV (based on 2000 and 2006 data)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-region useof RDF

product fromMBT

Out of regionuse of RDFproduct from

MBT

Wasteexported outof region to

WTE

Locallandfilling ofMBT product

Maximizelocal

Landfilling

Maximize outof regionLandfilling

Pe

rce

nt

Net LFV emissions compared to LFV total

Allowable net LFV emissions (if WTE operated at Canada Wide Standard level) compared to the LFV total

To provide context, the following points compare net emissions of the various waste management scenarios with emissions from heavy duty vehicles. As a reference, there are 85,000 heavy duty vehicles registered in the Lower Fraser Valley, which does not include out of province-registered heavy duty vehicles travelling

through the region.

Net PM2.5 emissions are equivalent to emissions from about 1,500-2,600 heavy-duty vehicles.

Net NOx emissions are equivalent to emissions from between 700 to 2,000 heavy-duty vehicles.

Net emissions of dioxins and furans are equivalent to emissions from between 2,700 and 5,600 heavy-

duty vehicles.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - vii -

Metro Vancouver



Air Quality Modelling

The LCA analysis provides information on emissions loading only, i.e., the quantity of emissions released to the atmosphere. It cannot predict the resulting ambient air quality in relation to the quantity of emissions

released. Air quality is a function of the interaction of emissions which are subject to different chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere. After air contaminants are released from industrial stacks, tailpipes and other sources, they are diluted and dispersed by the wind and other atmospheric phenomena. They

then combine with other contaminants in the air, some of which are transported from outside the airshed, and can be transformed through atmospheric chemical reactions.

Ambient air quality is monitored by a network of monitoring stations in the LFV, and is characterized as being acceptable most of the time. However, under certain episodic conditions related to weather and emissions loading, air quality can deteriorate to unacceptable levels. Ground-level ozone and visibility issues are key

concerns in the eastern portion of the airshed. Considering the small contribution of solid waste-related emissions to the total LFV emissions, as well as the

results of previous regional modeling conducted by Environment Canada, it is anticipated that solid waste-related operations will not significantly impact regional air quality in the LFV. In order to understand the details of the regional air quality impacts more fully, Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modelling is

currently underway to account for the cumulative impact of all emission sources, meteorology and terrain effects, and to fully characterize any changes in ambient air quality in the LFV associated with each of the eight scenarios in the year 2020. The impact on local air quality (the area in proximity to the source) can only

be determined once location and details of the emissions from these options are determined, so local scale dispersion modelling can be applied to understand the air quality implications to nearby areas.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Climate change is a global issue, and both the provincial government and Metro Vancouver have adopted

targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) by 33% from current levels by 2020. All of the waste management technologies and scenarios considered emit greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is the main GHG emitted by WTE or facilities burning RDF. Landfills and potentially MBT facilities release methane, a potent greenhouse

gas. Fuel consumed during waste transport and material handling also contributes to GHG emissions. Figure E-4 shows the base case results of the LCA for GHG emissions.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - viii -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-4. GHG Emissions

-600,000

-500,000

-400,000

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfillingof MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling

Maximizeout ofregion

Landfilling

CO

2e

(to

nn

e /

yr)

Existing WTE Local LandfillMBT / Processing Out of Region LandfillNEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material SupplyTransportation: Total Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l RecTOTAL (NET)

Scenario 6 has the lowest base case GHG emissions due to the fact that the waste is stabilized and produces less methane when landfilled. In this scenario, emissions are low, but there is also no energy

recovery and therefore no emissions are avoided. Scenario 3 has the next lowest base case net GHG emissions because GHG emissions from combusting RDF are largely balanced by avoiding the use of fossil fuels in cement kilns. In Scenario 1, district heating systems and electricity generated from recovered energy

result in the reduced consumption of fossil fuels, which in turn lowers net GHG emissions. According to the LCA, the GHG associated with waste management are small in comparison to regional or provincial totals. GHG emissions can be minimized through energy and fuel conservation and energy recovery.

Energy Generation and Fuel Consumption

Energy is generated in all scenarios, but the differences in energy production are significant. The highest energy production is in Scenarios 1 and 2. In these two scenarios, energy is recovered as electricity and as hot water for district heating; as a result, thermal efficiencies of over 90% are achieved. Scenarios 4 and 5,

generate electricity only, and achieve thermal efficiencies approaching 30%. Landfills recover energy from burning LFG, but it is less than any form of WTE. The least amount of energy is recovered in Scenario 6, because the MBT process stabilizes the waste before it is placed into a landfill, reducing the production of

LFG.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - ix -

Metro Vancouver



The amount of energy captured for district heating is shown in Figure E-5, and the recovered energy in the form of electricity is presented in Figure E-6. From these graphs it can be seen that Scenarios 1 and 2 provide the highest recovery of energy for district heating. It is recognized that not all of the energy will be

used all the time, and a minimum of 50% and maximum of 90% district energy uptake has been modeled in this study.

The highest net generation of electricity is in Scenarios 1, 2, 4 and 5, where MSW or RDF is used directly for electricity production. RDF used in a cement kiln (Scenario 3) replaces fossil fuels, but does not generate electricity. Some electricity is generated from LFG, but it is lower than what can be achieved through the

application of WTE technologies.

Figure E-5. Potential Heat Capture as Hot Water (District Energy)

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Ho

t W

ate

r O

utp

ut

(G

J /

ye

ar)


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - x -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-6. Net Electricity Production

-400,000,000

-200,000,000

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Gro

ss

Ele

ctr

icit

y P

rod

uc

tio

n (

kW

h /

ye

ar)


Fuel consumption is highly dependent on trucking distances for the waste and the amount of waste handling required using heavy equipment. Therefore, the scenarios with the most trucking, Scenarios 7 and 8, have

the highest fuel consumption. The closer the treatment facilities are to the source of waste, the lower the fuel requirements for transportation as seen in Figure E-7.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xi -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-7. Fuel Consumption

-4,000,000

0

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Pe

tro

leu

m F

ue

ls (

L d

ies

el e

qu

iv /

ye

ar)


Financial Model

A financial analysis was conducted to provide a comparative evaluation of the eight scenarios over the

course of a 35 year timeframe (2009-2045). The model was developed at a level appropriate for the nature of the cost information. The model examines cash flows and accounting costs and revenues. Levelized (lifecycle) costs and annual accounting (cost recovery) charges were calculated for each of the eight

scenarios. Assumptions were made about future energy prices, discount rates and inflation. Variations were explored

with a sensitivity analysis. For the purpose of the financial analysis the assumption was made that any new WTE facilities built in the region (Scenarios 1 and 2) would be owned by Metro Vancouver. Infrastructure in the other scenarios would be privately owned and operated on the basis of a tipping fee charged to Metro

Vancouver. This reflects the current situation, where Metro Vancouver owns the existing WTE Facility and the out of region landfill is privately owned and operated. Out of region WTE and RDF facilities operating in 2020 would also be expected to be privately owned and operated on the basis of tipping fee contracts.

Figure E-8 presents the levelized costs or real charge per tonne for the treatment and disposal of MSW for each scenario over a 35 year planning period.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xii -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-8. Real Charge per Tonne over Planning Period

System Costs ( 2045 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region use

of RDFproduct from

MBT

4Out of regionuse of RDFproduct of

MBT

5Waste

exported outof region to

WTE

6Local

landfilling ofMBT product

7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize out

of regionlandfilling

20

08

$/t

on

ne

The scenarios with the lowest levelized costs are those with in-region WTE and district heat (Scenarios 1 and 2). These are followed by the two landfill-only scenarios (Scenarios 7 and 8). In-region and out of region RDF use (Scenarios 3 and 4), as well as out of region WTE (Scenario 5), are slightly more costly than the in-

region WTE because of additional transportation costs and the lack of revenue from district heat. The most costly scenario is 6, which processes MSW and then takes the stabilized product to a landfill. This is because of the cumulative cost of processing, trucking and landfilling, without any offsetting revenue from the

production of energy. Figure E-9 shows the annual budget impacts for each scenario. They are expressed in nominal dollars per

tonne (actual dollars in each year allowing for inflation) and reflect the annual charge per tonne required in each year over the planning period to generate enough revenue to pay for the debt service and net operating costs of the scenarios in each year. These costs do not include collection, transfer station and other system

costs, which are included in the current tipping fee of $71 per tonne. Therefore, the costs can be compared with each other, but should not be compared with the current tipping fee.

Scenarios 1 and 2 exhibit relatively high annual accounting costs over the initial (15 year) amortization period because of the large debt service charges in those years. However, after the capital expenditures are fully amortized, the annual accounting costs fall sharply.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xiii -

Metro Vancouver



Figure E-9. Accounting Costs under Baseline Conditions

-$50

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

No

min

al $

/to

nn

e

1- Large new WTE 2 - Moderate new WTE 3 - In-region use of RDF product from MBT 4 - Out of region use of RDF product of MBT5 - Waste exported out of region to WTE 6 - Local landfilling of MBT product7 - Maximize local landfilling 8 - Maximize out of region landfilling

Waste Management and Employment

The levels, types and location of employment generated by the different scenarios depend on the technologies employed and the location of the facilities.

In-region WTE facilities generate the highest number of jobs for the Metro Vancouver area, both during and after construction. For example, if a 500,000 tonne per year facility were built (Scenario 2), it would be a

$470 million investment, which would employ local engineers, designers, contractors and trades for the construction of the facility. Once the facility is operational, it would provide about 50 skilled positions for a period of 40 to 50 years, plus indirect benefits to local supply and maintenance contractors for the same time

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xiv -

Metro Vancouver



period. Considerable employment would be generated by the construction, operation and maintenance of a district heating system that would be built to utilize the energy available from a WTE facility.

MBT facilities would also provide employment during construction and operation, although less so than WTE. MBT would generate about 20 to 25 long term jobs for a 500,000 tonne per year operation. There would also be similar employment benefits to local supply and maintenance contractors.

Large landfill operations generate up to 40 full time positions. In addition, if the landfill is located outside the region, there will be employment for truck drivers delivering MSW to the landfill. Most of the jobs would be located in the communities surrounding the landfill. There are ongoing periodic capital expenditures associated with landfills, namely the construction of new cells. This work, which also includes the installation of piping and instrumentation for leachate and LFG management, is usually carried out by local contractors.

Report Structure

This report is organized into two parts. Part 1 includes Sections 2 to 6 and provides background information for the discussion and analysis of alternative treatment technologies for treating MSW that are presented in Part 2. Part 1 includes the following sections: Section 2 describes the existing waste management system in Metro Vancouver and explains why the

Region is exploring alternative treatment technologies to deal with the management of MSW in the future.

Section 3 is an overview of the general regulatory context for MSW management in BC. Section 4 describes the regulatory and policy context specifically as it relates to greenhouse gases.

This section helps provide context for why greenhouse gases are such an important consideration in the choices of MSW management technologies.

Section 5 is a summary of trends in MSW management and provides context on emerging best practices for treating MSW.

Section 6 is a detailed technical description of the alternative technologies that are the subject of this report: WTE, MBT and landfills.

Part 2 of the report includes Sections 7 to 12: The purpose of Part 2 is to demonstrate how MSW might be treated and disposed in Metro Vancouver. This is accomplished using scenario analysis to present the financial and environmental costs and benefits of the different scenarios. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to understand the environmental effects of each scenario. The results of the LCA were used together with financial data to conduct a financial analysis of each scenario. The results of the LCA and financial analysis were then used to compare the scenarios.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xv -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - xvi -

Part 2 includes the following sections: Section 7 introduces the eight integrated waste management scenarios that were developed for the

scenario analysis. The eight scenarios are alternative configurations of existing facilities combined with the new treatment technologies described in Section 6.

Section 8 provides an overview of the assumptions and data used in the LCA and financial analysis of the eight scenarios.

Section 9 describes the scope and purpose of the LCA. Section 10 summarizes the results of the LCA. Section 11 describes the results of the LCA for air emissions in the context of air quality for the Lower

Fraser Valley. Section 12 describes the financial analysis methods and results. Appendices are attached to the report and provide the following additional information:

WTE facility performance data

Emissions data from commercial MBT projects

Sensitivity analysis

This report was prepared by AECOM, assisted by:

The Sheltair Group for the Life Cycle Assessment

RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists for air quality assessments and context

Marvin Shaffer for the financial model

Rambøll Danmark A/S for WTE facility performance data

Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd. UK for emissions data From commercial MBT projects

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Acronyms and Abbreviations

p a g e

1. Background and Purpose............................................................................... 1

1.1 Report Purpose .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Report Organization ....................................................................................................... 3

2. Current Waste Management in Metro Vancouver ........................................ 5

2.1 Existing Solid Waste System and Quantities in Metro Vancouver ................................. 5 2.2 Future Solid Waste Composition and Quantity............................................................... 6 2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 8

3. Environmental Regulations Pertaining to MSW Management Facilities ........................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Overview of National Standards ..................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Fisheries Act S.C, 1985, c. F-14.......................................................................................9 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions .........................................................................9 3.1.3 Canadian Environmental Protection Act SC.,1999 c.33.................................................10 3.1.4 Canada Wide Standards.................................................................................................10

3.2 Provincial Standards..................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act SBC 2002 c.43.............................................................12 3.2.2 Environmental Management Act SBC 2003 c. 53 ..........................................................12

3.3 Local Standards............................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082,

2008 (Bylaw 1082) ..........................................................................................................18 3.3.2 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use By-Law No. 299

(Bylaw 299), 2007 and Amending Bylaw No. 244, 2008 (Bylaw 244) ............................18 3.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 19

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from MSW...................................................... 20

4.1 BC Landfill Gas Management Regulation (BC Reg. 391/2008) ................................... 21 4.2 BC Climate Action Plan ................................................................................................ 22 4.3 BC Energy Plan ............................................................................................................ 23 4.4 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ...................................... 24

4.4.1 IPCC GHG Quantification in the Waste Sector ..............................................................25 4.5 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 27

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

5. Waste Management Trends.......................................................................... 28

5.1 Emerging Trends.......................................................................................................... 28 5.1.1 Extended Producer Responsibility..................................................................................28 5.1.2 Zero Waste .....................................................................................................................28 5.1.3 Integrated Resource Management .................................................................................29

5.2 Canadian Trends.......................................................................................................... 32 5.2.1 Greater Toronto Area (GTA)...........................................................................................32 5.2.2 Montreal ..........................................................................................................................36 5.2.3 Halifax Regional Municipality..........................................................................................37 5.2.4 Edmonton........................................................................................................................38 5.2.5 Calgary............................................................................................................................39 5.2.6 Summary of Practices and Waste Diversion Achievements ..........................................39

5.3 Waste Management in the European Union................................................................. 41 5.4 Waste Management in Japan....................................................................................... 48 5.5 Waste Management in the United States ..................................................................... 51 5.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 53

6. Technologies for the Treatment and Disposal of MSW............................. 54

6.1 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)....................................................................... 54 6.1.1 Technology Description ..................................................................................................54 6.1.2 Stabilization of Waste for Landfilling...............................................................................56 6.1.3 Production of Refuse Derived Fuel.................................................................................57 6.1.4 MBT Process Variables ..................................................................................................58 6.1.5 Marketability of MBT Outputs .........................................................................................59 6.1.6 Environmental Issues .....................................................................................................60 6.1.7 Community/Social Issues ...............................................................................................67

6.2 Waste-to-energy ........................................................................................................... 68 6.2.1 Technology Description ..................................................................................................68 6.2.2 Environmental Issues .....................................................................................................83 6.2.3 Community/Social Issues ...............................................................................................91

6.3 Landfill .......................................................................................................................... 97 6.3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................97 6.3.2 Technology Description ..................................................................................................98 6.3.3 Environmental Issues ...................................................................................................104 6.3.4 Community/Social Issues .............................................................................................107

6.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 109

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

7. Potential Applications of MSW Management Technologies ................... 113

7.1 Scenario Definition – Assumptions............................................................................. 113 7.2 Scenario Descriptions................................................................................................. 115

7.2.1 Scenario 1 – Large New WTE ......................................................................................116 7.2.2 Scenario 2 – Moderate New WTE ................................................................................116 7.2.3 Scenario 3 – In Region Use of RDF Product from MBT...............................................116 7.2.4 Scenario 4 – Out of Region Use of RDF Product from MBT ........................................117 7.2.5 Scenario 5 – Waste Exported Out of Region to WTE...................................................117 7.2.6 Scenario 6 – Local Landfilling of MBT Product.............................................................117 7.2.7 Scenario 7 – Maximize Local Landfilling ......................................................................117 7.2.8 Scenario 8 – Maximize Out of Region Landfilling.........................................................118 7.2.9 Material Flow Summary ................................................................................................118 7.2.10 Scenario Boundaries ....................................................................................................119

8. Scenario Analysis - Data and Assumptions ............................................. 121

8.1 Reference Facilities .................................................................................................... 121 8.1.1 WTE Reference Facilities .............................................................................................121 8.1.2 MBT Reference Facility ................................................................................................124 8.1.3 Use of MBT Product in Cement Kiln .............................................................................124 8.1.4 Landfills.........................................................................................................................125

8.2 Characteristics of MSW.............................................................................................. 126 8.2.1 Heating Value of MSW .................................................................................................126 8.2.2 GHG Emissions from MSW ..........................................................................................126

9. Life-Cycle Assessment Overview.............................................................. 129

9.1 LCA Purpose .............................................................................................................. 130 9.2 LCA Parameters ......................................................................................................... 130 9.3 Process Stages Evaluated ......................................................................................... 131 9.4 Emissions Types ........................................................................................................ 133

10. Life Cycle Assessment Results ................................................................. 134

10.1 Electricity Consumption and Production..................................................................... 134 10.2 Fuel Consumption ...................................................................................................... 135 10.3 Heat Energy Recovery ............................................................................................... 136

10.3.1 High Pressure Steam Export ........................................................................................136 10.3.2 Heat Recovery Potential (District Energy and Hot Water)............................................137

10.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................... 138 10.5 Common Air Contaminants ........................................................................................ 139 10.6 Selected Toxics .......................................................................................................... 150

10.6.1 Mercury .........................................................................................................................150 10.6.2 Dioxins and Furans.......................................................................................................152

10.7 Ferrous Metal Recovery ............................................................................................. 154 10.8 Discussion of Results ................................................................................................. 154

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

11. Comparison of Scenarios within the Lower Fraser Valley Context ....... 156

11.1 Regulated Air Quality Emissions Related to the Various Waste Management Options ....................................................................................................................... 157

11.2 Air Quality Conditions in the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed ......................................... 157 11.2.1 Current Ambient Air Quality in the Lower Fraser Valley ...............................................157 11.2.2 Current and Future Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley...........................................160 11.2.3 Current Emissions from Waste Management Facilities................................................165

11.3 Relative Potential Future Impact of Waste Management Scenarios on Air Quality.... 168 11.3.1 Potential Change in LFV CAC Emissions due to Waste Management Scenarios .......168 11.3.2 Comparison of Emissions to Other Sources.................................................................176 11.3.3 Potential Change in Provincial GHG Emissions due to Waste Management

Scenarios ......................................................................................................................177

12. Financial Analysis ....................................................................................... 179

12.1 Operational Parameters ............................................................................................. 179 12.2 Financial Parameters.................................................................................................. 180

12.2.1 Facilities Under Metro Vancouver Ownership ..............................................................180 12.2.2 Privately Owned Facilities.............................................................................................181 12.2.3 Key Financial Model Parameters..................................................................................182

12.3 Financial Analysis Results.......................................................................................... 182 12.4 Cash Flows................................................................................................................. 183 12.5 Accounting Costs........................................................................................................ 185 12.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 188

List of Figures

Figure 1. Waste Management Hierarchy........................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Current Distribution of MSW in the Metro Vancouver System........................................................6 Figure 3. Quantity of Waste Requiring Disposal in Metro Vancouver............................................................8 Figure 4. Sectoral Breakdown of BC’s GHG Emissions, 2006.....................................................................21 Figure 5. Integrated Resource Management Concept Diagram ..................................................................30 Figure 6. Incineration Emissions as they Relate to Total Emissions in the EU............................................45 Figure 7. Recycling and Thermal Treatment Rates in the EU , ....................................................................46 Figure 8. Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incinerators in Japan (g TEQ per year)..........................49 Figure 9. Comparison of Waste-to-Energy and Recycling Rates in the United States, ...............................53 Figure 10. MBT Schematic .............................................................................................................................55 Figure 11. MBT for Waste Stabilization..........................................................................................................56 Figure 12. MBT Process for RDF ...................................................................................................................57 Figure 13. Typical Mass Burn WTE Facility Cross-Section............................................................................69 Figure 14. Schematic of Thermoselect Process ............................................................................................74

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

Figure 15. Westinghouse Plasma Corporation Plasma Torch .......................................................................79 Figure 16. Plasco Flow Diagram ....................................................................................................................80 Figure 17. Measured Values of Ambient Air and Clean Flue Gas from WTE Facility KEZO in

Switzerland (Von Roll Inova/UMTEC)...........................................................................................88 Figure 18. Emissions per GJ of Energy Input (1) ...........................................................................................90 Figure 19. Emissions per GJ Energy Input (2) ...............................................................................................91 Figure 20. Picture of Landfill Gas Piping During Installation..........................................................................99 Figure 21. Example LFG Generation and Capture Curves..........................................................................103 Figure 22. Integrated Waste Management Scenarios..................................................................................115 Figure 23. Generic Scenario Diagram..........................................................................................................120 Figure 24. Topographical Diagram of the LFV Airshed................................................................................131 Figure 25. Net Electricity Consumption and Production...............................................................................135 Figure 26. Fuel Consumption .......................................................................................................................136 Figure 27. Potential Heat Capture as Hot Water (District Energy)...............................................................137 Figure 28. Scenario GHG Emissions ...........................................................................................................139 Figure 29. Scenario NOx Emissions .............................................................................................................140 Figure 30. Lower Fraser Valley (only) NOx Emissions .................................................................................141 Figure 31. Scenario SOx Emissions .............................................................................................................142 Figure 32. Lower Fraser Valley (only) SOx Emissions ................................................................................142 Figure 33. Scenario PM10 Emissions ..........................................................................................................143 Figure 34. Lower Fraser Valley (only) PM10 Emissions ..............................................................................144 Figure 35. Scenario PM2.5 Emissions .........................................................................................................144 Figure 36. Lower Fraser Valley (only) PM2.5 Emissions .............................................................................145 Figure 37. Scenario Carbon Monoxide Emissions .......................................................................................146 Figure 38. Lower Fraser Valley (only) Carbon Monoxide Emissions ...........................................................146 Figure 39. Scenario VOC Emissions............................................................................................................147 Figure 40. Lower Fraser Valley (only) VOC Emissions................................................................................148 Figure 41. Scenario NH3 Emissions ............................................................................................................149 Figure 42. Lower Fraser Valley (only) NH3 Emissions .................................................................................149 Figure 43. Scenario Mercury Emissions.......................................................................................................151 Figure 44. Lower Fraser Valley Only Mercury Emissions ............................................................................151 Figure 45. Scenario Dioxin and Furan Emissions ........................................................................................153 Figure 46. Lower Fraser Valley (only) Dioxin and Furan Emissions ............................................................153 Figure 47. Trends in Regional Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide 1998-2007...........................................158 Figure 48. Trends in Regional Concentrations of Ozone 1998-2007...........................................................159 Figure 49. Contribution of Various Source Types to NOx Emissions in 2005 and 2020 .............................161 Figure 50. Contribution of Various Source Types to CO Emissions in 2005 and 2020 ...............................162 Figure 51. Contribution of Various Source Types to PM2.5 Emissions in 2005 and 2020 ..........................162

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

Figure 52. Contribution of Various Source Types to SOx Emissions in 2005 and 2020 ..............................163 Figure 53. Contribution of Various Source Types to NH3 Emissions in 2005 and 2020 ..............................164 Figure 54. Contribution of Various Source Types to VOC Emissions in 2005 and 2020.............................164 Figure 55. Contribution of Various Source Types to GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2020 ............................165 Figure 56. Percentage Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total

Emissions Projected for 2020 – By Contaminant........................................................................171 Figure 57. Absolute Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total

Emissions Projected for 2020 – By Contaminant........................................................................172 Figure 58. Percentage Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total

Emissions Projected for 2020 – by Scenario ..............................................................................173 Figure 59. Absolute Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total

Emissions Projected for 2020 – by Scenario ..............................................................................174 Figure 60. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Mercury Emissions to Total Emissions in

LFV in 2000.................................................................................................................................175 Figure 61. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Dioxin and Furan Emissions to Total

Present Day Emissions in LFV (not including point sources in Whatcom County).....................176 Figure 62. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario GHG Emissions to Provincial Totals

Projected in 2020 for Currently Identified Policy Measures Case...............................................177 Figure 63. Levelized Costs..........................................................................................................................183 Figure 64. Annual Real Cash Flows under Baseline Conditions (2008 dollars) ..........................................185 Figure 65. Accounting Costs under Baseline Conditions .............................................................................186 Figure 66. Scenario 1 Annual Accounting Costs and Revenues .................................................................187 Figure 67. Scenario 2 Annual Accounting Costs and Revenues .................................................................188 List of Tables

Table 1. Metro Vancouver’s Estimated Waste Composition in 2020............................................................7 Table 2 Emission Limits for BC Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (BCMOE, 2009)...............................15 Table 3 Comparison of Emission Limits for Municipal Waste Incinerators ................................................16 Table 4. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Effluent Discharge Standards....................19 Table 5. How IRM Differs from Traditional Waste Management.................................................................31 Table 6. Summary of Waste Management in Major Canadian Cities .........................................................40 Table 7. Calorific Values for Selected Fuels ...............................................................................................58 Table 8. Air Emissions Limit Values for Incineration and Co-combustion of Wastes under EU

Waste Incineration Directive .........................................................................................................65 Table 9. Claimed Energy and Mass Balance for Plasco Gasification Process...........................................81 Table 10. Plasco Emissions ..........................................................................................................................82 Table 11. WTE Technology Summary ..........................................................................................................82 Table 12. Typical Water Sampling Parameters ..........................................................................................105

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

Table 13. Scenario Material Flow Summary of Scenarios ..........................................................................118 Table 14. Modeled Energy Recovery..........................................................................................................122 Table 15. Energy Recovery from Waste-to-energy Facilities......................................................................123 Table 16. SYSAV Emissions.......................................................................................................................123 Table 17. Description of Process Stages Evaluated in the LCA.................................................................132 Table 18. Summary of Net Total Emissions of CAC (net positive or net negative) ....................................140 Table 19. Tonnes of Ferrous Metal Recovered per Year............................................................................154 Table 20. Comparison of Current and Future Emissions of Various Contaminants in the LFV..................160 Table 21. WTE Contributions to Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley in 2005 ...................................166 Table 22. Landfill Contributions to Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley in 2005................................166 Table 23. Contribution of Heating and Electrical Power Generation Emissions to LFV Emissions in

2005 ............................................................................................................................................167 Table 24. Estimated Air Emissions of Toxics in the Lower Fraser Valley (data is from several

years) ..........................................................................................................................................167 Table 25. Comparison of Net Waste Management Scenario Emissions to Total LFV Emissions (for

CAC and Toxics) and Total Provincial Emissions (for GHG)......................................................169 Table 26. WTE Facility Estimated Capital Costs (2008$) ...........................................................................180 Table 27. Estimated Tipping Fees at Facilities Not Owned by Metro Vancouver.......................................181 Appendices

Appendix A Energy From Waste Performance Data – Rambøll Danmark A/S Appendix B Emissions Data From Commercial MBT Projects – Juniper Consultance Services Ltd.

Appendix C Sensitivity Analysis

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

Acronyms and Abbreviations £ Pound (UK currency) µm Micrometre 3 Rs Reduce, Reuse, Recycle 5 Rs Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Residuals management AD Anaerobic Digestion ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow ARI Alternative Resources, Incorporated BAT Best Available Techniques BC British Columbia BCCAT British Columbia Climate Action Team BCMOE British Columbia Ministry of Environment BETX Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and Xylenes BODs Biochemical Oxygen Demand BREF BAT (Best Available Techniques) Reference Document C&D Construction and Demolition Ca Calcium CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Cd Cadmium CH4 Methane CO Carbon monoxide Co Cobalt CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents Cr Chromium CWS Canada-Wide Standards DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom) DLC Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction EAA Environmental Assessment Act EAO Environmental Assessment Office EMA Environmental Management Act EPR Extended Producer Responsibility EU European Union FVRD Fraser Valley Regional District g TEQ Grams of toxicity equivalents GHG Greenhouse Gas GJ Gigajoule GJ/tonne Gigajoule per tonne GTA Greater Toronto Area GVS&DD Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District h hour HCL Hydrochloric acid HF Hydrogen fluoride Hg Mercury HHV Higher Heating Value HHW Household Hazardous Waste HPA Health Protection Agency (United Kingdom) HRM Halifax Regional Municipality HVC Landfill Highland Valley Copper Landfill

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

ICI Industrial, commercial and institutional IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control IRM Integrated Resource Management ISO International Organization for Standardization I-TEQ International Toxicity Equivalents KEZO A waste-to-energy facility in Switzerland Kg Kilogram Km Kilometre kWh/tonne Kilowatt hour per tonne L Litres LandGEM Landfill Gas Emissions Model LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment LF Landfill LFG Landfill Gas LFV Lower Fraser Valley LHV Lower Heating Value LNG Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. Limited m3/d Cubic metre per day MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment Mg Magnesium mg/L milligram per litre mg/m3 milligram per cubic meter mg/Nm3 milligram per normal cubic meter MJ Megajoule MJ/Nm3 Megajoule per normal cubic meter mL millilitre MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSOR Mechanically Sorted Organic Residue MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt hour MWIN Municipal Waste Integration Network N2O Nitrous oxide Na Sodium ng/Nm3 nanogram per normal cubic meter ng-TEQ/m3 nanograms of toxicity equivalents per cubic meter NH3 Ammonia NH4

+ Ammonia ion Ni Nickel nm Nanometer Nm3 Normal cubic metre NMOCs Non-Methanogenic Organic Compounds NMVOCs Non-Methanogenic Volatile Organic Compounds NOx Nitrogen oxides NRCan Natural Resources Canada NYC New York City oC Degrees Celsius

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc)

OMRR Organic Matter Recycling Regulation OUe/m

3 European odour unit per cubic metre Pa Pascal PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pb Lead PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin PCDD/F Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin and Dibenzofuran PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans pg I-TEQ Picograms of toxicity equivalents pH Potential of Hydrogen (measure of acidity) PM Particulate Matter PM10 Particulate matter with diameter less than or equal to 10 µm PM2.5 Particulate matter with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 µm ppm Part per million ppmv Parts per million by volume PVC Polyvinyl chloride RCBC Recycling Council of British Columbia RDF Refuse-Derived Fuel RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser SA & E Small Appliances and Electronics SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SELCHP An waste-to-energy facility in the UK SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SNCR Selective non-catalytic reduction SOx Sulphur oxides SSO Source Separated Organics SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan TCCD-ekv 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin TDI Tolerable Daily Intake The Greens The German Green Party Tl Thallium TOC Total Organic Carbon TSS Total Suspended Solids UK United Kingdom

UMTEC Institute for Applied Environmental Technologies at the University of Rapperswil in Switzerland

U.S. EPA US Environmental Protection Agency USA United States of America VLF Vancouver Landfill VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WHO World Health Organization WID Waste Incineration Directive WPC Westinghouse Plasma Corporation WTE Waste-to-Energy WTEF Waste-to-Energy Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 1 -

1. Background and Purpose

Solid Waste Management Plans are mandated by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. They are the mechanism by which solid waste management is planned and implemented in the province. Metro Vancouver is in the process of updating its Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).

The SWMP is one of a series of plans based on the principles outlined in the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework. The aspirational goal is to become a zero waste region. Zero Waste is a goal to emulate

sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for other uses. The Zero Waste Challenge document2 reflects the

Region’s commitment to minimize waste generation and to maximize reuse, recycling, and material and energy recovery. Only after these initiatives have

been practically exhausted does the plan consider the ultimate disposal of the residues to a landfill.

Metro Vancouver’s approach to waste management follows the Provincial Waste Management Hierarchy (the “Hierarchy”) (Figure 1). The primary objectives

are to avoid and reduce waste production in the Region. Using steps three and four of the Hierarchy, Metro Vancouver plans to divert 70% of the waste

generated in the Region by the year 2015. The two final steps address the portion of the waste stream that requires treatment and disposal after other

efforts to avoid, reduce, reuse, and recycle the waste. The fifth step deals with the recovery of energy and resources in the waste. The last step involves the disposal of the residuals left over from the recovery step. The last two steps in the Hierarchy are the focus of this report.

In 2007, 55% of all waste generated by all sectors in Metro Vancouver (the Region) was reused, or recycled (including composting).3 Approximately 8% was combusted for energy recovery and 37% was sent directly to

landfill. Although the volume of materials recycled has increased over the last decade, a growing population and a

trend of increasing waste generation per person has caused the total volume of waste being generated to increase significantly. The volume of waste requiring disposal has remained relatively constant. Reducing the

1 Adapted from: British Columbia Ministry of Community Development (BC MCD). (2009). Resources From Waste: A Guide to

Integrated Resource Recovery. Accessed May 14, 2009. http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/resources_from_waste.pdf 2 Metro Vancouver. (2009). Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies and Actions. Accessed March 16, 2009.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ZWCManagementPlanMarch2009.pdf 3 Metro Vancouver. (2009). Zero Waste Challenge: Goals, Strategies and Actions. Accessed March 16, 2009.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ZWCManagementPlanMarch2009.pdf

Recover

Recycle

Reuse

Avoid

Reduce

Dispose

Pre

fera

ble

Focus of this report

Figure 1. Waste Management Hierarchy1

http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/resources_from_waste.pdf



Metro Vancouver



amount of waste requiring disposal is the subject of the report “Zero Waste Challenge - Goals, Strategies, and Actions”.

As noted in the Zero Waste report, going beyond 70% diversion presents challenges at this time. The most valuable and extractable materials will have been removed, and what remains is highly commingled and contaminated. It is impractical to separate and clean this material for further recycling with current technology

and resources. When 70% diversion is achieved in 2015, the remaining portion of the waste stream is estimated to amount to 1.1 million tonnes per year. This waste is municipal solid waste (MSW) from residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial sources including some residential and commercial

construction and demolition debris. Privately hauled demolition, land clearing and construction waste are not included, as these wastes are handled by the private sector and are not under the control of Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver’s primary objective remains to minimize the generation of waste. However, in the short term, Metro Vancouver is faced with a growing population and economy. The Region must find ways to

manage the 30% remaining waste stream in an environmentally responsible manner.

1.1 Report Purpose

Metro Vancouver staff have been directed by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board to: “Develop a report by an outside consultant assessing the relative characteristics and

merits of landfill and waste-to-energy (various technologies) as a means to process or dispose of the remaining 30% of the waste stream.”

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Board’s directive. The purpose of this report is to examine options for handling MSW. The report examines three processes for waste treatment and disposal: mechanical biological treatment, waste-to-energy, and landfilling.

Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems mechanically extract the remaining recyclables from the MSW and biologically stabilize the organic fraction of the MSW. In addition to recovering recyclables and

stabilizing waste prior to landfilling, MBT systems can also be coupled with the production of refuse-derived fuel (RDF). RDF can be burned to generate heat, steam or electricity, or in cement kilns as a fossil fuel substitute.

Waste-to-energy (WTE) is a range of thermal technologies that extract the energy in waste while reducing and treating the volume into an inert state. This study focuses on the following thermal treatment

technologies: mass burn, gasification, and the use of refuse derived fuel (RDF). Modern WTE facilities commonly generate heat, steam and electricity.

Landfilling is the only disposal method available for residuals after efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle have been practically exhausted. Landfills are also needed to dispose of the residuals from WTE facilities, if they are not recycled. Landfills are often equipped with LFG recovery systems, which capture methane from the

degrading waste and can burn it to generate electricity and heat, or simply flare the gas.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 2 -

Metro Vancouver



1.2 Report Organization

This report is organized into two parts. Part 1 comprises Sections 2 to 6 and provides background

information for the discussion and analysis of alternative treatment technologies for treating MSW that are presented in Part 2.

Part 1 includes the following sections: Section 2 describes the existing waste management system in Metro Vancouver and explains why the

Region is exploring alternative treatment technologies to deal with the management of MSW in the future.

Section 3 is an overview of the general regulatory context for MSW management in BC.

Section 4 describes the regulatory and policy context specifically as it relates to greenhouse gases. This section helps provide context for why greenhouse gases are such an important consideration in the selection of MSW management technologies.

Section 5 is a summary of trends in MSW management and provides context on emerging best practices for treating MSW.

Section 6 is a detailed technical description of the alternative technologies that are the subject of this

report: WTE, MBT and landfills. Part 2 of the report includes Sections 7 to 11. The purpose of Part 2 is to demonstrate how MSW might be treated and disposed in Metro Vancouver. This is accomplished using scenario analysis to present the financial and environmental costs and benefits of the different scenarios. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to understand the environmental effects of each scenario. The results of the LCA were used together with financial data to conduct a financial analysis of each scenario. The results of the LCA and financial analysis were then used to compare the scenarios. Part 2 includes the following sections: Section 7 introduces the eight scenarios that were developed for the scenario analysis. The eight

scenarios are alternative configurations of existing facilities combined with the new treatment technologies described in Section 6.

Section 8 provides an overview of the assumptions and data used in the LCA and financial analysis of the eight scenarios.

Section 9 describes the scope and purpose of the LCA. Section 10 summarizes the results of the LCA. Section 11 describes the results of the LCA for air emissions in the context of air quality for the Lower

Fraser Valley (LFV). Section 12 describes the financial analysis methods and results.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 3 -

Metro Vancouver



Part 1

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 4 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 5 -

2. Current Waste Management in Metro Vancouver

In Metro Vancouver MSW remaining after reuse and recycling activities is currently managed at a variety of facilities. Some MSW is treated and rendered inert at the Metro Vancouver WTE facility located in Burnaby, and the remaining MSW is disposed in two landfills: the Vancouver Landfill located in the Region, in Delta, and the Cache Creek Landfill located outside the Region approximately 350 km from Vancouver, adjacent to the Village of Cache Creek.

2.1 Existing Solid Waste System and Quantities in Metro Vancouver

Waste management services are provided by Metro Vancouver and by the individual member municipalities. Metro Vancouver coordinates the long term planning for recycling and disposal, and funds and manages the contracts for the six regional transfer stations, the WTE facility, and the Cache Creek Landfill. In addition, the City of Vancouver owns and operates the South Vancouver Transfer Station and the Vancouver Landfill. The member municipalities manage the collection of waste, and the collection and management of recyclables and green waste from primarily single family residences. Waste and recyclables from multi-family residences and businesses are generally collected by privately contracted companies. All of the recycling processing facilities in the Region are privately owned and operated. Waste in the Region flows through the seven transfer stations or is delivered directly to treatment and disposal facilities. The majority of the waste processed at Metro Vancouver’s WTE facility is from Burnaby, Vancouver, Richmond, New Westminster and the North Shore. The facility has been operating for 20 years and presently operates at capacity - about 280,000 tonnes of waste per year. It produces about 132,000 MWh of electricity per year, and about 800,000 GJ of steam that is sold to a neighbouring industrial plant. The Vancouver Landfill, established in 1966, disposes of MSW from Vancouver, Delta, Richmond, the University Endowment Lands and Surrey. Under current conditions, the landfill is expected to last until 2037.4 A landfill gas (LFG) collection system installed in 1991 currently captures about 42 million m3 of LFG per year.5 Of the captured gas, 82% was utilized in reciprocating engines to produce electricity and heat; the remainder of the captured gas was flared.6 Waste heat from the engines is also captured to provide heat to neighbouring greenhouse operations. Waste that is neither treated nor disposed of locally is hauled to the Cache Creek Landfill. This landfill is owned and operated by Wastech Services Ltd. under an operational certificate issued to Wastech Services Ltd. and the Village of Cache Creek by the Province. The landfill has been accepting waste from Metro Vancouver since 1989, and currently has approximately 7.7 million tonnes of waste buried. The Cache Creek

4 Golder. (2008). Inventory of greenhouse gas generation from Landfills in British Columbia. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of

Environment, Community Waste Reduction Section. Accessed November 11, 2008. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/landfill_gas/pdf/inventory_ggg_landfills.pdf

5,6 City of Vancouver. (2007). Vancouver Landfill Annual Report. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm

7 City of Vancouver. (2007). Vancouver Landfill Annual Report. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/landfill_gas/pdf/inventory_ggg_landfills.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 6 -

Landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2010. The landfill has a landfill gas collection system in place that collects and flares an estimated 36% of the landfill gas generated. As shown in Figure 2, just over half of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste is diverted through recycling, extended

producer responsibility and composting initiatives. The remainder is used for energy recovery at the Metro Vancouver WTE facility or is buried at the Vancouver Landfill, Cache Creek Landfill or private demolition and construction waste landfills.7,8

Figure 2. Current Distribution of MSW in the Metro Vancouver System

Compost5%

Waste to Energy8%

Product Stewardship4%

Recycled46%

Landfill37%

2.2 Future Solid Waste Composition and Quantity

Metro Vancouver used 2006 waste composition data to estimate the proportion of the waste stream that is difficult to separate and recover for reuse or recycling. The composition of the waste requiring disposal will change as the diversion rate increases from the current rate of 55% to the 2015 target rate of 70%. Metro

Vancouver has modeled the changes in waste quantity and composition to 2020. The biggest change from the current waste composition is a decrease in the proportion of lumber. Also estimated to decrease are leaf and yard waste, small appliances and electronics, bulky waste, fibre, metals, glass, household hazardous

waste, and gypsum. The remaining waste will be highly commingled and contaminated. For the foreseeable future, the technology and market requirements are expected to make it impractical to separate and clean this material for further recycling.

Additional recycling and composting will reduce the volume of many of the materials in the solid waste stream. However, the overall composition is not expected to change substantially.

8 Metro Vancouver. (2008). Disposal Facilities. Accessed September 9, 2008.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/disposal/Pages/disposalfacilities.aspx

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/disposal/Pages/disposalfacilities.aspx

Metro Vancouver



Table 1. Metro Vancouver’s Estimated Waste Composition in 2020

Waste Type % of MSW

Food Waste 21.2% Fibre 19.3% Plastic 13.1% Household hygiene 12.4% Leather 6.3% Lumber 4.7% Textiles 4.2% Bulky Waste 3.5% Leaf & Yard Waste 3.4% Metals 3.3% Small appliances & electronics 2.4% Fines 2.3% Glass 1.4% HHW 1.3% Rubber 0.6% Gypsum 0.6% Concrete, Asphalt & Masonry 0.1%

Total 100.0%

Metro Vancouver’s model is based on the following assumptions:

continued growth in population, employment and waste generation;

70% diversion achieved by 2015 and maintained thereafter;

disposal and composition projections do not include waste from demolition, land clearing and

construction industries, (i.e., residential and institutional, commercial and industrial sources only are included);

disposal projections are for direct haul quantities only and do not include transfers, bottom ash or fly ash

quantities; and

estimates are based on 2006 data.

As shown in Figure 3, the total quantity of waste requiring disposal is projected to decrease steadily as Metro Vancouver’s diversion efforts continue. However, after 2015, when the majority of diversion programs have

been established, the amount of waste requiring disposal is projected to increase steadily, due to increases in population, employment and per capita waste generation. Despite that increase, the quantity of MSW requiring disposal is estimated to be approximately 160,000 tonnes less in 2020 than it was in 2006.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 7 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 3. Quantity of Waste Requiring Disposal in Metro Vancouver

20201,260,000 tonnes

20151,125,000 tonnes

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Mill

ion

s o

f T

on

ne

s M

SW

70% diversion achieved in 2015

Source: Data is output from Metro Vancouver’s solid waste model. (October 3, 2008).

2.3 Summary

Metro Vancouver is committed to minimizing the amount of MSW requiring treatment and disposal. The updated SWMP will outline how this commitment will be achieved.

Metro Vancouver will require additional capacity for the management of MSW due to population growth in the Region and the limited capacity remaining at one of the landfills in the system. This report will explore

options for the treatment and disposal of MSW. The options explored in this report focus on the integrated management of MSW, using a combination of treatment and disposal technologies to maximize the recovery of energy and materials from MSW and to minimize environmental burdens. The existing Vancouver Landfill

and Metro Vancouver’s existing WTE Facility will continue to operate in all waste management scenarios in this study.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 8 -

Metro Vancouver



3. Environmental Regulations Pertaining to MSW Management Facilities

Environmental protection laws, regulations and by-laws exist at the federal, provincial and local level in BC. These regulations control the discharge of air and water contaminants, and govern the management and disposal of wastes.

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of how the environmental performance of waste management facilities is regulated. Performance standards applicable to specific discharges and waste

management technologies are covered in Section 6 of the specific technology. Many waste management activities that fall within the scope of federal, provincial and local regulations

require licenses, permits or approvals of one sort or another. It is not the intent of this section to provide an exhaustive discussion of the types of environmental approvals required, nor the process by which those approvals are issued.

3.1 Overview of National Standards

3.1.1 Fisheries Act S.C, 1985, c. F-14

The Fisheries Act administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is aimed at protecting fish and their habitat. However, the Act contains strong provisions relating to water pollution and therefore provides

protection for water quality. The Act enables the passage of regulations in relation to the deposit of waste, pollutants or deleterious substances (Sections 36(4), 36(5) and 43). The regulations under the Act regulate the discharge of the liquid effluent from various industrial sectors; however, none of these are specific to

waste management facilities. While there are no specific regulations under the Act for waste management facilities, the general provisions of the Act prohibit the deposit of “deleterious substances” into or near waters frequented by fish (Section 36(3)). This means that waste management facilities must implement appropriate

controls to prevent discharge of effluent that could be deleterious to fish into ground or surface waters. 3.1.2 Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions

On April 27, 2007, the federal government released its Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions (Framework). The Framework is intended to significantly reduce greenhouse gases and other air emissions in Canada and focuses primarily on reducing air emissions from major industrial emitters. It is the first

comprehensive federal regulatory regime for greenhouse gases and air pollutants. The Framework includes a number of cap-and-trade mechanisms to reduce Canada’s emissions of GHG

and other air emissions through market mechanisms. It also includes several incomplete trading schemes,

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 9 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 10 -

including establishing a North American trading system for nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide emissions.9 The regulatory details of the Framework are not in place at this time; it is simply a roadmap of the federal government's goals with respect to air emissions and how it intends to achieve those goals. The Framework

is currently the subject of consultation with the Provinces and key industries. 3.1.3 Canadian Environmental Protection Act SC., 1999 c.33

The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and its associated schedules is to manage potentially dangerous chemical substances. Once a toxic substance is scheduled under CEPA, it triggers a process of elimination or virtual elimination of the toxin from the environment. The Act applies to

any chemical substance, in the air emissions and liquid effluent of waste management facilities that falls under the schedules of the Act. 3.1.4 Canada Wide Standards

The doctrine of paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be

inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with federal law.10 Therefore, consistency in standards and policy is particularly important in relation to the environment where the federal and provincial governments often have concurrent jurisdiction.

Canada Wide Standards (CWS) are intergovernmental agreements developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). The CCME is made up of the federal, provincial, and territorial

Environment Ministers. CWS are an effective mechanism by which the federal, provincial and territorial governments address key environmental protection and health risk-reduction issues that fall under their concurrent jurisdiction and thereby ensure consistency in environmental standards across the country.11

CWS are one of the main mechanism by which the elimination of toxic substances listed under CEPA is addressed.

3.1.4.1 Liquid Effluent

Liquid effluent from waste management facilities (i.e., landfills) is likely to contain chemical substances listed under CEPA. However, there are currently no endorsed CWS related to water quality.

3.1.4.2 Air Emissions

In the case of air emissions from waste management facilities, there are currently three chemical substances

that fall under Schedule 1 in CEPA for which there are CWS: polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and

9 Canada (2007). Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/news-

nouvelles/pdf/20070426-1-eng.pdf 10 Supreme Court of Canada. (1960). Smith v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 776. Accessed September 18, 2008.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1960/1960rcs0-776/1960rcs0-776.pdf 11 Environment Canada. (2008). CEPA Environmental Registry – Canada-wide Standards. Accessed on September 18, 2008.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/agreements/cws.cfm

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.31/29533.html#rid-29558

http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/pdf/20070426-1-eng.pdf

http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/pdf/20070426-1-eng.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith_v._The_Queen&action=edit&redlink=1

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1960/1960rcs0-776/1960rcs0-776.pdf

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/agreements/cws.cfm

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 11 -

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), commonly known as dioxins and furans; mercury; and respirable particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

Canada Wide Standards for PCDD/F

In the Canada Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans (2001),12 the CCME identified six sectors that together account for 80% of the Canadian emissions of polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and dibenzofuran

(PCDD/F). One of these sectors is waste incineration, including incineration of municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, sewage sludge and medical waste.

In the 2001 Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans Emissions from Waste Incinerators and Coastal Pulp and Paper Boilers, the CCME set emission targets for all new and expanding MSW waste incinerators at 80 pg I-TEQ/m3.13 The CCME made several recommendations on how to reduce PCDD/F emissions from

MSW incinerators, including:14

waste diversion (waste reduction, material reuse options) to minimize the generation of wastes destined

for disposal;

waste segregation of materials with greater potential to generate emissions of PCDD/F or other air pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury and other heavy metals) and diverting those wastes to recycling or

other non-incineration disposal options;

combustion control strategies to optimize performance of existing combustors at destroying pollutants of

concern; and

use of alternative disposal or management technologies.

In a review of the 2001 CWS for PCDD/F conducted in 2007, the CCME determined that the target did not require updating. This was based in part on the finding that the targets in the 2001 CWS were more stringent than those in the European Union (92 pg I-TEQ/Rm3), Australia (92 pg I-TEQ/Rm3), New Zealand

(92 pg I-TEQ/Rm3), Japan (92 – 9,200 pg I-TEQ/Rm3) and the United States (77-10,500 pg I-TEQ/Rm3).15

Canada Wide Standards for Mercury

In the Canada Wide Standards for Mercury (2000),16 the CCME identified waste incineration as one of three sectors contributing to the bulk of mercury emissions in Canada. However, the CCME noted that improved exhaust gas controls had decreased emissions of both mercury and dioxins and furans from the municipal solid waste sector.17 The primary area of concern remained the incineration of sewage sludge and

12 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2001). Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, p9. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/d_and_f_standard_e.pdf 13 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2001). Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, p7. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/d_and_f_standard_e.pdf 14 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2001). Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, p12. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/d_and_f_standard_e.pdf. 15 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2007). Review of Dioxins and Furans from Incineration In Support of a

Canada-Wide Standard Review. Accessed September 19, 2008 http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/df_incin_rvw_rpt_e.pdf 16 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2000). Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, p3. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf 17 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2000). Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, p5. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/d_and_f_standard_e.pdf



http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/df_incin_rvw_rpt_e.pdf

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 12 -

hazardous waste.18 The CCME established a limit of 20 μg/Rm3 for new or expanding municipal waste incineration facilities of any size.19

Particulate Matter

The CWS for Particulate Matter and Ozone (2000)20 set an overall ambient target for PM2.5 for 2010 of 30 μg/m3, 24 hour averaging time, based on the 98th percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over three consecutive years. The 2000 CWS for particulate and ozone does not set stack or industry sector specific targets. Although the CCME recognized that there are also health effects associated with the coarser fraction, PM10, they have not set a reduction target. The reasons cited by the CCME are that reductions in ambient PM10 levels will occur as ancillary benefits from reducing PM2.5, and that most jurisdictions already had ambient air quality standards related to the coarser fraction. A review of the 2000 CWS for Particulate Matter and Ozone conducted in 2005 recommended retaining the 2000 targets.21

3.2 Provincial Standards

3.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act SBC 2002 c.43

Any new proposed waste management facility of the type discussed in this report would likely be required to undergo an environmental review process under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The size of the facility triggers the application of the Act. The Act applies to landfills with a design capacity of >250,000 tonnes/year, waste incinerators with a design capacity of ≥225 tonnes/day.22 3.2.2 Environmental Management Act SBC 2003 c. 53

Provincial environmental regulation is largely contained in BC's Environmental Management Act (EMA), and in the regulations under the Act. Section 6 of the Act prohibits the deposit of any waste into the environment without a permit or approval. Waste includes: air contaminants, refuse and effluent. Therefore, in addition to

undergoing an environmental impact assessment, waste management facilities would be required to obtain separate approvals for any discharges of air contaminants, refuse or effluent.

Under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, the Regional Manager has the authority to issue a permit or approval under any condition they deem advisable to protect the environment including the limits and characteristics

18 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2000). Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, p5. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf 19 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2000). Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury Emissions, p5. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf 20 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2000). Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone.

Accessed September 19, 2008. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf 21 Joint Action Implementation Coordinating Committee (JAICC). (2005). Report to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment: An Update in Support of the Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Accessed April 3, 2009. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pm_o3_update_2005_e.pdf

22 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2002). Environmental Management Act – Reviewable Projects Regulation, Table 11. Accessed March 6, 2009. http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20E%20--/Environmental%20Assessment%20Act%20%20SBC%202002%20%20c.%2043/05_Regulations/13_370_2002.xml

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/03053_00.htm



http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20E%20--/Environmental%20Assessment%20Act%20%20SBC%202002%20%20c.%2043/05_Regulations/13_370_2002.xml

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20E%20--/Environmental%20Assessment%20Act%20%20SBC%202002%20%20c.%2043/05_Regulations/13_370_2002.xml

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 13 -

of the discharge and the technology and pollution controls required. The Regional Manager will take into consideration not only regulated limits, where they exist, but any information that is reasonably available, such as standards in other jurisdictions, information regarding the potential for impacts as well as

determination of what pollution control measures should be applied. These requirements will vary depending on the location of the facility, characteristics and quantity of the discharge, nearby receptors, local airshed or watershed conditions, and any other factors that the Regional Manager deems to be relevant.

The EMA requires Regional Districts to develop Solid Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) that are long term visions of how each regional district proposes to manage its solid wastes, including waste diversion and

disposal activities.23 These plans must be updated on a regular basis to ensure that they reflect the current needs of the regional district, as well as current market conditions, technologies and regulations.

The principal Regulations and Codes of Practice under the Act related to the types of waste management facilities discussed in this report are discussed below.

3.2.2.1 Waste Discharge Regulation BC Reg. 377/2008 (WDR)

The Waste Discharge Regulation (WDR) describes the process and information requirements for applying for a waste discharge permit or approval. The WDR also defines the activities that are considered high, medium

and low risk and therefore require different treatment under the EMA. High risk operations require permits or approvals. Medium risk operations may require permits but are typically governed by codes of practice or regulations that will apply industry wide. Only the lowest risk operations will not require a waste discharge

authorization but are still prohibited from polluting. A code of practice is a regulation that is a legally binding and enforceable set of rules that must be followed by a specified industry.

Municipal solid waste management and waste incineration are activities listed in Schedule 1 of the WDR. For Schedule 1 activities, applicants for approvals are required to submit a technical assessment report. The content of a technical assessment report will include:24

a review of the pollution prevention alternatives assessed;

a description of the source, volumes and characteristics of the waste. Modelling of predicted air

emissions from the facility will likely be required for waste incinerators; and

how the treatment selected compares to Best Commercially Achievable Technology; and expected

quality of the waste after treatment. Compost operations fall within Schedule 2 of the WDR and are considered to be of medium risk. Registration

under a code of practice is required for compost operations. For these operations a technical assessment is not required. However, pursuant to Section 23 of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation BC Reg 18/2002 (see following section) an environmental impact study is required for facilities that process quantities greater

than 20,000 tonnes of product per year. This is not an environmental impact study pursuant to the

23 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). (1994). Guide to the Preparation of Regional Solid Waste Management Plans

by Regional Districts. Accessed August 8, 2008. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/gprswmp1.html 24 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2009). Waste Discharge Authorizations. Accessed March 6, 2009.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/waste_discharge_auth/intro.htm

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/gprswmp1.html

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/waste_discharge_auth/intro.htm

Metro Vancouver



Environmental Assessment Act, but the equivalent of a technical assessment report submitted to the Regional Director.

3.2.2.2 Organic Matter Recycling Regulation BC Reg 18/2002

The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) applies to all facilities that process organics and would apply to an MBT facility. The OMRR defines operating requirements for managing the storage of materials

on site, controlling and preventing the discharge of leachate off site, odour control, and standards for the characteristics of the composted material once it is processed.

Managing air emissions is a critical requirement for facilities that manage organics. The potential impacts to air quality from MBT facilities are: greenhouse gas emissions, particulates from material handling, dust from facility roads, hazardous air contaminants and odour causing compounds. Odour is generally the most

significant impact to manage. Division 1 (24) (2) of the OMRR requires that compost facilities develop and implement an odour management plan during facility construction and operation.

3.2.2.3 Landfill Gas Management Regulation BC Reg. 391/2008

This is a new regulation and is discussed in detail in Section 4 under greenhouse gases.

3.2.2.4 BC Emission Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators

The BC Emission Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste incinerators applies to all new and modified MSW incinerators. For incinerators with a capacity of 400 kg/h or more of waste, the Criteria require continuous

monitoring of temperature, oxygen, carbon monoxide, opacity, hydrogen chloride; and the temperature of the emission control device inlet or outlet temperature. The Criteria also set specific limits for stack emissions, and monthly performance reports are required. Stack emission limits for incinerators with capacity over

400 kg/h of waste are listed in Table 1.

Table 2 provides a comparison of the British Columbia emission limits for MSW incinerators to limits from other sources including: Canadian Council of Ministry of the Environment (CCME), Ontario, the EU, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The emissions for the Metro Vancouver WTE

facility are provided for comparison to these standards.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 14 -

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/32_18_2002

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/25_391_2008

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 15 -

Table 2 Emission Limits for BC Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (BCMOE, 2009)25

Contaminant Limit Averaging Period Monitoring Method

Total Particulate 20 mg/m3 (1) (2) Carbon Monoxide 55 mg/m3 (3) 4-hour rolling average Continuous Monitoring Sulphur Dioxide 250 mg/m3 (1) (2) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 350 mg/m3 (1) (2) Hydrogen Chloride 70 mg/m3 8-hour rolling average Continuous Monitoring Hydrogen Fluoride 3 mg/m3 (1) (2) Total Hydrocarbons (as Methane (CH4) 40 mg/m3 (1) (2) Arsenic (4) 4 µg/m3 (1) (2) Cadmium (4) 100 µg/m3 (1) (2) Chromium (4) 10 µg/m3 (1) (2) Lead (4) 50 µg/m3 (1) (2) Mercury (4) 200 µg/m3 (1) (2) Chlorophenols 1 µg/m3 (1) (2) Chlorobenzenes 1 µg/m3 (1) (2) Polycyclicaromatic Hydrocarbons 5 µg/m3 (1) (2) Polychlorinated Biphenyls 1 µg/m3 (1) (2) Total PCDDs & PCDFs (5) 0.5 ng/m3 (1) (2) Opacity 5% 1-hour average from data taken

every 10 seconds Continuous Monitoring

Notes:

(1) To be averaged over the approved sampling and monitoring method.

(2) All sampling and monitoring methods, including continuous monitors, are to be approved by the Regional Manager.

(3) For RDF systems the limit shall be 110 mg/m3.

(4) The concentration is total metal emitted as solid and vapour.

(5) Expressed as Toxicity Equivalents. The value shall be estimated from isomer specific test data and toxicity equivalency factors by following a procedure approved by the Ministry.

With the exception of the BC emission limits, the values in Table 2 have been corrected to the same conditions to facilitate comparison. The BC limits are based on 20oC, rather than 25oC. In general, the EU limits are the most stringent, followed by the Ontario Regulation Guidelines A7, the BC Emission Criteria for

Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators, the CCME Guidelines, and the U.S. EPA limits.

25 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (1991). Emission Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Accessed

February 16, 2009. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/codes/ecmswi.html#1

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/codes/ecmswi.html#1

Metro Vancouver



Table 3 Comparison of Emission Limits for Municipal Waste Incinerators

Emissions Metro Vancouver WTE Facility

(actual emissions, 2007)

Permit levels are the same as BC Criteria,

except as noted

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Emission Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators*

CCME Operating & Emissions

Guidelines for MSW

Incinerators*, **

ONTARIO

Regulations Guideline A-7*

EU Waste Incineration Directive*

U.S. EPA*, ***

Opacity 0.5% 5% - - - 10% Particulates 3.8 mg/m3 20 mg/m3 20 mg/m3 17 mg/m3 9.2 mg/m3 14.2 mg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 23 mg/m3 55 mg/m3 57 mg/m3 - 45.8 mg/m3 vary NOx 265 mg/m3 350 mg/m3 400 mg/m3 207 mg/m3 183 mg/m3 201 mg/m3 Sulphur Dioxide 85 mg/m3

(200 permit level) 250 mg/m3 260 mg/m3 56 mg/m3 45.8 mg/m3 55.9 mg/m3

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

23.6 mg/m3 (55 mg/m3 permit

level)

70 mg/m3

75 mg/m3 27 mg/m3 or

removal efficiency ≥ 95%

9.2 mg/m3 26.6 mg/m3

Hydrogen Flouride 0.1 mg/m3 3 mg/m3 - - 0.9 mg/m3 - VOCs - - - - 9.2 mg/m3 - THC (as methane) 4.3 mg/m3 40 mg/m3 - - - - Organic matter (as methane)

- - - 65 mg/m3 - -

Arsenic Included in Class 2 metals

4 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 - - -

Cadmium 0.6 µg/m3 100 µg/m3 100 µg/m3 14 µg/m3 46 µg/m3 7.1 µg/m3 Chromium Included in Class

3 metals 10 µg/m3 10 µg/m3 - - -

Lead 5.9 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 142 µg/m3 - 100 µg/m3 Mercury 2 µg/m3 200 µg/m3 20 µg/m3 20 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 36 µg/m3 Heavy Metals - - - - 0.46 mg/m3 - Class 1 metals (Cd, Hg, Tl)

0.002 mg/m3 (0.2 permit level)

- - - - -

Class 2 metals (As, Co, Ni, Se, Te)

0.008 mg/m3 (1 permit level)

- - - - -

Class 3 metals (Sb, Pb, Cr, Cu, Mn, V, Zn)

0.069 mg/m3 (5 permit level)

- - - - -

Chlorophenol - 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 - - - Chlorobenzene 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 - - - PAH 0.13 µg/m3 5 µg/m3 5 µg/m3 - - - PCB 0 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 - - - Dioxins/Furans I-TEQ 0.002 ng/m3 0.5 ng/m3 0.08 ng/m3 0.08 ng/m3 0.092 ng/m3 9.3 ng/m3

* Concentrations based on a temperature of 25°C (except British Columbia, which is based on 20oC) and a pressure of 101.3 kilopascals and are corrected to 11% oxygen and 0% moisture.

** Excepting Mercury and Dioxins/Furans, these guidelines are considered to be withdrawn or obsolete by CCME, but are shown for comparison purposes, primarily for their similarity to British Columbia criteria.

*** Shown are the accepted U.S. EPA emission limits from 1997. New limits were proposed in 2008 but are under review.

- This parameter is not covered by a particular regulation.

Shading identifies the most stringent criteria.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 16 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 17 -

3.2.2.5 BC Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid waste landfills in British Columbia are covered by the Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste.26 The Criteria cover three categories of landfills: sanitary landfills, modified sanitary landfills and

selected waste landfills. Sanitary landfills are defined as disposal facilities which are normally, but not necessarily, located in areas serving populations of 5,000 or more people and that may accept all types of municipal solid wastes. Any landfill used to dispose of Metro Vancouver’s MSW would fall into the sanitary

landfill category. The Criteria outline a series of performance requirements for: preventing impairment of ground and surface

water quality; LFG management, public health and safety, odour and other nuisance. The potential for leachate generation and the estimated environmental impact of leachate must be assessed

during the design of a new landfill. If the assessment indicates that leachate could result in an impact to water quality, some form of leachate management, using best available technology is mandatory. Leachate can be managed either through controlling the quality and quantity of discharge collection or collection and

treatment. The appropriate water quality criteria for each site will be specified by the Ministry of Environment after reviewing existing and potential future uses of the groundwater and surface water resources.

Section 4.1 of the Criteria require that landfills be operated in a manner that ground or surface water quality at or beyond the landfill property boundary meet the Approved and Working Criteria for Water Quality27 prepared by the Water Management Division of the Ministry of Environment, or other appropriate criteria.

The potential for LFG generation must also be assessed. BC’s new LFG Regulation is discussed in detail in Section 4. In addition, landfills must not create a public odour nuisance, or exceed federal, provincial or local

air quality criteria. Finally, a landfill must not create a significant threat to public health or safety or a public nuisance with respect to: unauthorized access, traffic, noise, dust, litter, vectors or by attracting wildlife.

The Criteria also outline siting requirements in relation to buffer zones and proximity to: other facilities, surface water, floodplains, unstable and other excluded areas.

Design requirements are set to minimize environmental impact and risk and to ensure compliance with performance criteria. The Criteria provide detailed requirements for how landfills are to be operated in terms of the following:

26 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2005). Landfill Criteria for Municipal Waste. Accessed February 16, 2009.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/lcmsw.html 27 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2006). Water Quality: British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines,

2006 Edition. Prepared by the Water Management Division, BC MOE. Accessed http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved.html and http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved_6.html

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/lcmsw.html

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved.html

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved_6.html

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 18 -

prohibited wastes scavenging wildlife

landfilling method dust control open burning

designated areas waste compaction and cover

r conditions

ing monitoring

signs extreme weathe record keeping

supervision litter control annual report

waste measurement vectors

3.3 Local Standards

3.3.1 uver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008 (Bylaw 1082)

d authority. The Fraser Valley Regional District has delegated authority plan, but not manage, air quality.

ment acilities owned by Metro Vancouver would require authorization from the Provincial Government.

3.3.2 By-Law No. 299 (Bylaw 299), 2007 and Amending Bylaw No. 244, 2008 (Bylaw 244)

s that a facility must fulfill in order to be granted a permit to ischarge non-domestic waste into a sewer.

es to the sewer system within Metro Vancouver must comply with the limits indicated in Table 3.28

Greater Vanco

Under the Environmental Management Act the GVRD (now Metro Vancouver) has delegated authority from the Province to plan and manage air pollution. The GVRD is responsible for monitoring air quality in the

Region and for regulating and permitting emissions from major sources. Montreal is the only other jurisdiction in Canada with this scope of delegateto

GVRD Air Quality Management Bylaw 1082 is the main by-law regulating the control of emissions within Metro Vancouver. Privately owned Waste Management Facilities discharging air contaminants within Metro

Vancouver would require the approval of the District Director. Under Sections 7, 7(10), 10 and 11 of Bylaw 1082 the District Director exercises the same discretion as those of the Regional Director under the Environmental Management Act (described in Section 4.3.2 above) to determine the requirements that a

facility must fulfill in order to be granted a permit to discharge air contaminants. Waste ManageF

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use

In Metro Vancouver, the discharge of any effluent to municipal sewers is governed by Bylaws 299 and 244.

Waste management facilities discharging non-domestic waste into a sewer in excess of 300 cubic metres over any consecutive 30 day period or any in excess of 30 litres per minute require the approval of the Sewage Control Manager. Under Section 5.3 of Bylaw 299 the Sewage Control Manager exercises the same

discretion as those of the Regional Director under the Environmental Management Act (described in Section 4.3.2 above) to determine the requirementd

All discharg

28 Metro Vancouver. (2007). Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299. Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Board. Accessed February

20, 2009. http://www.ormi.com/r_files/55-Vancouver___Bylaw2991.pdf.

http://www.ormi.com/r_files/55-Vancouver___Bylaw2991.pdf

Metro Vancouver



Table 4. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Effluent Discharge Standards

Contaminant Maximum Concentration (mg/L)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 500 Total Suspended Solids 600 Total Oil and Grease 150

Conventional Contaminants

Oil and Grease (Hydrocarbon only) 15 Phenols 1.0 Chlorophenols 0.05 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 0.05 Benzene 0.1

Organic Contaminants

Total BETX 1.0 Metals

Aluminium 50.0 Arsenic 1.0 Boron 50.0 Cadmium 0.2 Chromium 4.0 Cobalt 5.0 Copper 2.0 Iron 10.0 Lead 1.0 Manganese 5.0 Mercury 0.05 Molybdenum 1.0 Nickel 2.0 Selenium 1.0 Silver 1.0 Zinc 3.0

Other Inorganic Contaminants Cyanide 1.0 Sulphide 1.0

Inorganic Contaminants

Sulphate 1500

3.4 Summary

Waste management and disposal in BC is covered by a number of regulations. Facilities are required to

comply with a permit, regulation, or plan, and may operate with or without an operating certificate. Discharge limits may vary, depending on the nature of the receiving environment. Well operated facilities that use best available pollution control technologies or best commercially available technologies and that adhere to

standard operating procedures should be able to conform to their permitted emissions. All waste water treatment and disposal technologies in this study fully meet the applicable anticipated

regulatory performance standards.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 19 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 20 -

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from MSW

In addition to local impacts, waste management contributes to global climate change through the release of greenhouse gases (GHG). Climate change refers to any long-term shift in weather conditions over time. The most common GHG is carbon dioxide; emissions of all other GHG are typically expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). A breakdown of GHG emissions by sector for BC in 2006 is shown in Figure 4. The waste sector contributed 5% of the total provincial GHG emissions. Within the waste sector, 95% of the emissions are from landfills, with 2% from waste incineration and 3% from wastewater management.29 For the purposes of GHG inventories, it is important to distinguish between “fossil” and “biogenic” carbon in wastes. Fossil carbon is found in waste that is derived from fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) that are processed into a variety of wastes (notably plastics). Biogenic carbon is in waste that has “recently” been alive (such as wood, paper, plants, food waste, rubber products). When conducting GHG inventories, the release of biogenic carbon to the atmosphere (as carbon dioxide) is not considered a GHG emission, because this carbon dioxide is simply returning to the atmosphere from where it was “recently” removed by the growth of organic matter.30 Biogenic waste can create a GHG emission if its treatment or disposal generates methane (via LFG) or nitrous oxide (via combustion). These two gases are respectively 21 and 310 times more potent, than carbon dioxide. Therefore, the biogenic carbon is being returned to the atmosphere in a more potent form than it would have under natural conditions.31 Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of biogenic waste are not included in the waste management section of a GHG inventory. Carbon dioxide from the burning of wastes of a fossil carbon origin is counted in the waste management portion of an inventory. It is therefore important to have an accurate estimate of the proportion of biogenic carbon in the waste stream so that estimates can be made about the climate-relevant emissions associated with thermal treatment. GHG emissions from landfills are from the release of landfill gas (LFG) generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic (i.e., biogenic) waste in landfills. LFG is primarily carbon dioxide and methane. As noted previously, methane has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and therefore is of great concern in MSW management. Landfills also have the potential to act as carbon “sinks”, storing carbon underground rather than emitting it into the atmosphere. Only the fraction of the biogenic waste that does not decompose into carbon dioxide or methane is stored. Landfilling fossil-based carbon (e.g., plastic wastes) does not count as carbon storage, as that carbon has not “recently” been in the atmosphere. See Section 8 for the detailed GHG assumptions used in this study.

29 British Columbia. (2008). BC Climate Action Plan. Accessed August 8, 2008.

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf. 30 This assumes that the material has been harvested sustainably (i.e., that the rate of carbon release through waste

treatment/disposal is the same as the rate of carbon capture during growth). Any difference in the rates should be accounted for in the inventory category of Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF).

31 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 2 – Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 21 -

Figure 4. Sectoral Breakdown of BC’s GHG Emissions, 200632

Transportation36%

Fossil Fuel Production

21%

Net Deforestation6%

Electricity2%

Waste5%

Agriculture4%

Other Industry14%

Residential and Commercial

12%

4.1 BC Landfill Gas Management Regulation (BC Reg. 391/2008)

The Landfill Gas Management Regulation was passed in December 2008.33 The Regulation covers landfills

that accept waste after January 1, 2009 and that have more than 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste in place, or that receive more than 10,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste per year.

Every landfill covered by the Regulation must complete a LFG generation assessment, based on the quantity of municipal solid waste received (historic and projected). Initial reports are due by January 1, 2011. If the assessment indicates that more than 1,000 tonnes of methane will be released, then a design plan for LFG

management must be prepared for the site. The plan must be prepared within one year of the assessment and submitted to the Ministry of Environment. Once the design plan is approved by the Ministry of Environment, LFG management facilities and processes must be installed and implemented within four years

of the approval. Landfill gas must be flared or used for a purpose that reduces the methane emissions by an amount equivalent to the reduction that would be achieved by flaring. The regulation does not specify what portion of the LFG must be collected and flared.

The purpose of flaring the LFG is to convert the gas from methane to carbon dioxide. As has been noted, this conversion reduces the global warming potential of the gas from 21 (methane) to one (carbon dioxide). While

the resultant carbon dioxide still affects the climate, the impact is much less than from raw LFG, because it has been converted to natural process emissions.


http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf. 33 British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2008). Landfill Gas Management Regulation. Accessed January 5, 2009.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/landfill_gas/pdf/lg-reg-12-08.pdf


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/landfill_gas/pdf/lg-reg-12-08.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 22 -

4.2 BC Climate Action Plan

The Province of BC is taking a leadership role in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The Province released a Climate Action Plan in June 2008, followed by a series of recommendations from the Climate Action Team in August 2008. Both of these documents incorporate statements related to waste diversion. These include:

Climate Action Plan: The Climate Action Plan represents a key step in transforming our relationship to waste. Instead of viewing it as something to dispose of, the Province is increasingly viewing waste as a resource – a strategy that has enormous potential to support the move to a new low-carbon economy.34

Climate Action Team Recommendations: The Climate Action Team has recommended that “By 2020, BC ends its growing dependency on disposing municipal solid waste in landfills both here and the United States through a strategy that is based on requiring that the pollution prevention hierarchy (avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, dispose) be considered in waste-management planning and requiring the management of waste as close to the source as possible.35”

Climate Action Plan

The Climate Action Plan outlines a series of initiatives that the provincial government commits to undertaking to reduce GHG emissions. The Plan also includes an overall reduction target of 33% for GHG emissions by

2020. A number of supporting pieces of legislation were also passed to enable the following actions to be achieved:

implementation of a cap and trade system in conjunction with regional partners;

implementation of a revenue-neutral carbon tax;

adoption of vehicle emissions standards that will increase automobile fuel efficiency;

regulation of LFG;

development of more low-carbon energy generation projects;

development of renewable forms of energy and decrease the carbon content of fuels;

development of more sustainable, healthy communities; and

low-carbon economic development.

The most relevant of these actions to waste management is the Landfill Gas Regulation previously discussed.

Climate Action Team Recommendations

The recommendations from the Climate Action Team include interim CO2 emissions reduction targets of 5-7% below 2007 levels by 2012, and 15-16% below 2007 levels by 2016. The recommendations also provide strategies related to a number of sectors, including solid waste, as noted at the beginning of this


http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf 35 British Columbia Climate Action Team. (2008). Meeting British Columbia’s Targets: A Report from the BC Climate Action Team.

Accessed August 12, 2008. http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/attachment/CAT_FINAL_REPORT_July_23_2008.pdf


http://www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/attachment/CAT_FINAL_REPORT_July_23_2008.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 23 -

section. Although the strategy is not yet specified, the recommendation document mentions diverting organics from landfill, extended producer responsibility, expanded composting, and strict standards for air quality, energy efficiency for waste-to-energy facilities, and residuals management.

4.3 BC Energy Plan

The BC Energy Plan was released in February 2007. This plan notes that British Columbia is currently dependent on other jurisdictions to supply up to 10% of our electricity, and that forecasts from BC Hydro show that electricity demand may grow by up to 45% over the next 20 years. Within this context, the Plan sets a goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency by 2016.36 The new electricity generating capacity that will be required to meet the goal of energy self-sufficiency should comply with the following policies:37

all new electricity generation projects will have zero net GHG emissions;

zero net GHG emissions means that facilities that emit GHG will be required to purchase carbon offsets from other activities in British Columbia.;

zero GHG emissions means that the project itself must not generate any GHG emissions. This can be accomplished by sequestering (storing) carbon that is generated;

clean or renewable resources include sources of energy that are constantly renewed by natural processes, such as water power, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, geothermal energy, geoexchange, wood residue energy, and energy from organic municipal waste;38

zero net GHG emissions from existing thermal generation power plants by 2016;

zero GHG emissions from coal thermal facilities;

ensure clean or renewable electricity generation continues to account for at least 90% of total generation % of electricity is from clean or renewable resources); and (Currently in BC, 90

no nuclear power.

is important to define the terms used in the policies above:

lities that emit GHG will be required to purchase carbon offsets

rate any GHG emissions. This can be

, geothermal energy, geoexchange, wood residue energy, and energy from organic municipal waste.39

It

Zero net GHG emissions means that facifrom other activities in British Columbia.

Zero GHG emissions means that the project itself must not geneaccomplished by sequestering (storing) carbon that is generated.

Clean or renewable resources include sources of energy that are constantly renewed by natural processes, such as water power, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy

36 British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2008). The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy

Leadership. Accessed August 24, 2008. http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/ 37 British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2008). The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy



Leadership. Accessed August 24, 2008. http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/

http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/




Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 24 -

Achieving these goals will be difficult, and implementation details have not yet been provided. The plan further notes the potential for biomass to generate energy (bioenergy). Wood residue, agricultural waste, municipal solid waste and other biomass and may be considered a carbon-neutral form of energy because the carbon dioxide released by the biomass when converted to energy is equivalent to the amount absorbed during its lifetime. This type of energy is considered firm, and the plan estimates the cost of additional biomass-based electricity capacity at $75 – $91/MWh.40 A supporting document to the BC Energy Plan is the BC Bioenergy Strategy.41 This strategy provides more detail on the potential for municipal solid waste to provide energy to BC. The case studies provided in the strategy document focus on the capture and use of LFG (at Hartland Landfill near Victoria, and at the Vancouver Landfill in Delta) and the WTE facility in Burnaby. The strategy earmarks municipal solid waste as a source of green energy with “endless potential”. The “next step” identified in the report is for the development of requirements for methane capture at landfills (which has been mandated under the recently enacted Landfill Gas Regulation).

4.4 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an arm of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. It is made up of government representatives from the UN’s member countries, scientists from around the world, and members of the UN itself. It was established to provide governments around the world with an objective source of information about climate change. Because it was set up as an independent body, it is able to provide policy neutral, scientific and socio-economic information to decision-makers.42

The IPCC has developed a series of guidelines for national GHG inventories. The guidelines are broken down into several chapters which provide guidance on GHG quantification for many GHG-producing sectors of the economy.43 The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is an evolving

document that builds on the research contained in the 1996 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. It has incorporated new scientific information and experience into the existing guidelines, and has been subject to a thorough scientific review. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide internationally accepted methodologies that

are currently used to estimate greenhouse gas inventories on a global scale. Volume 5 of the Guidelines provides procedures for GHG quantification in the waste sector.

40 British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2008). The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy

Leadership. Accessed August 24, 2008. http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/ 41 British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. (2008). BC Bioenergy Strategy Growing Our Natural Energy

Advantage. Accessed August 24, 2008. http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bioenergy/ 42 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2008). About IPCC. Accessed September 30, 2008 .

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm 43 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,

Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 2 – Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf


http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bioenergy/

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 25 -

4.4.1 IPCC GHG Quantification in the Waste Sector

4.4.1.1 Landfilling

According to the IPCC’s 2006 Guidelines, landfilling of solid waste produces significant amounts of methane (CH4). Besides methane, landfills also produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), smaller amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). Global nitrous oxide emissions from landfills are not considered significant but they should be considered locally if landfill cover soils are amended with sewage sludge.44 According to the Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary of Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, waste and wastewater management contributes approximately 2.8% of the annual global anthropogenic GHG emission inventory. The report notes that methane capture at landfills and waste incineration with energy recovery are key technologies and practices currently available to mitigate GHG emissions.45

4.4.1.2 Landfilling with Landfill Gas Collection

As noted in Section 3, LFG collection systems involve the installation of underground pipes and wells that capture the methane released from decomposing organic matter in the landfill. This gas is then distributed through a network of distribution pipes to well-heads above the landfill’s surface. Captured LFG can be flared or used to generate energy. Landfill gas collection systems have become more common as a measure to reduce methane emissions from landfills, and are considered to be the “single most important mitigation measure to reduce [GHG] emissions”.46 However, they are seldom able to capture all methane being generated by the landfill. The IPCC-referenced recovery efficiencies for LFG range from 20% up to over 90% under ideal conditions. High recovery efficiencies are generally related to closed landfills, which have reduced gas fluxes, well-designed and operated collection systems, and less permeable covers. Lower efficiencies can be related to landfills that are still in operation and any areas that use only temporary sandy covers. This evidence is supported by measured LFG collection efficiencies of 90% for five closed, capped landfills in Sweden.47 Some sources have indicated that lifetime LFG recovery may be as low as 20%.48

44 Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang T. (2007). Waste

Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter10.pdf

45 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report/Summary for Policymakers. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

46 Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang T. (2007). Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter10.pdf

47 Börjesson, G., Samuelsson, J., & Chanton, J. (2007). Methane Oxidation in Swedish Landfills Quantified with the Stable Carbon Isotope Technique in Combination with an Optical Method for Emitted Methane. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(19), 6684-6690.

48 Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang T. (2007). Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, U.S. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter10.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 26 -

Fugitive emissions occur when methane escapes without being captured through the LFG collection system. This can occur in the period between the deposition of waste before a LFG collection system is installed. It can also occur when methane escapes from seams under the landfill cover where the LFG collection system is in place, but simply fails to capture the LFG before it escapes.

4.4.1.3 Thermal Treatment

CO2 is the primary GHG emission of relevance with regard to thermal treatment of MSW; emissions of N2O, NOx, and NH3 contribute to a lesser extent. Unlike landfilling, thermal treatment is not a significant emitter of

CH4.49

The climate-relevant CO2 emissions from waste incineration are determined by the proportion of waste whose carbon compounds are assumed to be of fossil origin (e.g., plastics). On the other hand, carbon of biogenic origin (e.g., food waste, yard waste, paper) is not accounted for under incineration (rather it is accounted for under land use, where the carbon containing resources were grown.50 Given the heterogeneous nature of MSW, the IPCC has estimated that the carbon dioxide from fossil carbon that results from the incineration of a typical MSW stream is between 33-50%.51 When measuring CO2 emissions from thermal treatment, it is important to have an accurate estimate of the proportion of biogenic carbon in the waste stream so that estimates can be made about the climate-relevant CO2 emissions associated with thermal treatment. Metro Vancouver has measured the amount of CO2 emitted from its WTE facility and differentiated between biogenic and fossil carbon sources based on the composition of the waste treated at the facility. Using the estimated waste composition for 2020 (as shown in Section 2), Metro Vancouver’s Air Quality Division calculated this split to be about 38% fossil carbon and 62% biogenic carbon. In addition to consideration of the split between biogenic and fossil carbon content, the IPCC also advises that calculation of GHG emissions take into account whether energy is recovered from the thermal treatment process. This can have considerable influence on the climate-relevant GHG emissions from the overall process, if the energy recovered from the thermal treatment process replaces energy that would have otherwise been generated from fossil fuel sources. Depending on the region the thermal treatment facility is located in, the electricity and heat that the facility generates may replace energy from coal, natural gas, oil, hydro or nuclear systems, all of which have varying carbon dioxide emissions per unit of power or heat generated. IPCC’s inventory rules allow credits to be claimed for the substitution of fossil fuels, using the concept of avoided emissions.52 The IPCC has taken the position that thermal treatment with energy recovery, particularly with co-generation (recovery of electricity and heat), can result in no net GHG emissions (or even achieve a net reduction in GHG emissions) if the recovered energy displaces the generation of electricity and heat generation from other sources. The IPCC asserts that with an energy transformation efficiency equal to or greater than 25%, thermal treatment can be at least GHG neutral, due to emissions credits associated with the power

49 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2008). About IPCC. Accessed September 30, 2008.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm 50 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Emissions From Waste Incineration. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

51 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Emissions From Waste Incineration. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

52 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Emissions from Waste Incineration. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 27 -

production.53 A study cited by the IPCC used a life cycle approach to calculate that about 14% of solid waste in the United States is sent to WTE facilities and that the these WTE facilities plants reduced GHG emissions by 11 Mt CO2 equivalent per year due to offsetting fossil fuels.54 The IPCC recognizes that where steam and electricity can be utilized at a high level, the overall (transformation and recovery) efficiency of a thermal treatment plant with energy recovery can typically be 75-83% of the energy input (calorific value).55 Data from some European WTE facilities indicates that even higher efficiencies (over 90%) can be achieved (Section 8.1). A mixed energy output in the range of 2MWh per tonne of waste can be produced and supplied to external users. The Metro Vancouver WTE facility currently (2007 data) captures 16% of the energy of the incoming waste as electricity and 26% as steam; the total energy recovered per tonne of waste is approximately 1.2 MWh.

4.5 Summary

GHG emissions from waste management activities are 3% of the GHG emissions produced in Canada and 5% of those produced in BC. 95% of the GHG associated with waste management in BC originates from landfills. Treating waste with MBT and WTE can reduce the amount of GHG produced in landfills. Refer to Section 10 for detailed analysis of the GHG emissions balance for various waste management scenarios that have been analyzed in this study. In addition to reducing the GHG emissions from landfills, WTE also generates energy from the waste. Producing electricity and district heat or process steam from biogenic waste helps avoid the use of fossil fuels, providing additional savings to the overall GHG emissions balance. Capture and utilization of LFG can also produce electricity and heat, avoiding the use of fossil fuels.

53 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Emissions from Waste Incineration. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

54 Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang T. (2007). Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter10.pdf

55 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Emissions from Waste Incineration. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 28 -

5. Waste Management Trends

The following section outlines emerging approaches to waste management and how other jurisdictions are managing MSW. Approaches vary widely depending on local conditions, such as regulations, availability of land for disposal, and culture. The trends across Canada, in the European Union, Japan and the United States are highlighted, and the underlying conditions are examined in comparison to Metro Vancouver.

5.1 Emerging Trends

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), zero waste, and Integrated Resource Management (IRM) are three emerging approaches that strive to close the loop by treating waste as a resource and taking social and environmental responsibility for waste management. 5.1.1 Extended Producer Responsibility

The provincial government defines EPR as "a management system based on industry and consumers taking life-cycle responsibility for the products they produce and use.”56 The objective of EPR programs is to shift the burden of waste management from the government and taxpayers to the producer. EPR programs in BC currently fall under the (Recycling Regulation) BC Reg. 374/2008. Currently the program covers products in the following categories: electronics, tires, beverage containers, used oil, oil filters and oil containers, paint, pharmaceuticals, and residuals (flammable liquids, solvents, pesticides and gasoline). The Ministry of Environment has committed to adding two new product categories to EPR programs every three years.57 With the exception of beverage containers, EPR efforts to date have applied to materials with hazardous components and properties. They do not yet apply to high volume materials such as packaging or building materials. 5.1.2 Zero Waste

The Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC) defines zero waste as “a goal to be approached as we learn how to decrease consumption and to turn our current waste into new resources… It depends on designing products and industrial processes so that their components can be dismantled, repaired and recycled. It means linking communities, businesses and industries so that one's waste becomes another’s feedstock. It means preventing pollution at its source. It means new local jobs in communities throughout British Columbia.”58 The Province has not issued any policy directive regarding the adoption of zero waste goals. However, like Metro Vancouver, several other regional districts throughout BC have taken the initiative of setting “zero waste” as an ultimate goal of their SWMPs. The regional districts that have adopted zero waste goals

56 British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2008). Product Stewardship: Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed August 24, 2008.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/faq.htm 57 British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2008). Product Stewardship: Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed August 24, 2008.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/faq.htm 58 Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC). (2006). List of Zero Waste Supporters. Accessed September 12, 2008.

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/education/zero-waste

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/faq.htm

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/faq.htm

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/education/zero-waste

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 29 -

include: the Regional District of Nanaimo, the Sunshine Coast Regional District, the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Kootenay Boundary Regional District, and the Regional District of Central Okanagan. The adoption of a zero waste goal is a mechanism to bring attention to the need for waste reduction and reuse, and a way of re-energizing residents’ commitment to reduce, reuse and recycle. 5.1.3 Integrated Resource Management

In May 2008 the Province released an independent report on the integrated management of solid waste and wastewater. The report, titled “Resource from Waste – Integrated Resource Management Phase I Study Report”59, examines approaches for local governments across British Columbia to use solid and liquid waste to create energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and recover nutrients. In examining these issues together, the highest and best value can be determined for a given waste resource. The report includes a case study of how the IRM approach could be applied in the Capital Regional District.

5.1.3.1 IRM Approach

In traditional municipal waste management approaches, solid and liquid wastes are managed as separate streams. IRM combines the treatment processes for both waste streams and prioritizes resource recovery by incorporating it during the design and construction of infrastructure, rather than retrofitting it into already existing facilities. This optimizes the recovery of resources. Figure 5 is an illustration of the IRM concept. IRM provides a business case model for the structured analysis of options. The analysis includes a number of environmental aspects, such as GHG, carbon taxes and credits, and energy production. The inputs and outputs of each option are assessed to determine the net highest and best use and value.

59 British Columbia Ministry of Community Services (BC MCS). (2008). Resource from Waste: Integrated Resource Management

Phase I Study Report. Accessed March 30, 2009. http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/ministry/docs/IRM_report.pdf

http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/ministry/docs/IRM_report.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 30 -

Figure 5. Integrated Resource Management Concept Diagram60

IRM applies a number of principles when developing the business case for each option. These principles are:

recognize every waste as a resource;

use the highest and best use value (includes pricing ecological services);

consider revenues first, costs second;

properly reflect long-term costs and values (i.e., use low discount rate);

do not discard the best long-term option, even if it requires new infrastructure;

maintain broad system boundaries; and

integrate ecology, economics and engineering.




Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 31 -

5.1.3.2 IRM Compared to Traditional Waste Management61

The IRM Phase I Report provided a case study mainly focussed on resources from wastewater, moving from a traditional waste management approach to an integrated resource management approach. Table 5 details

how IRM differs from traditional waste management for MSW.

Table 5. How IRM Differs from Traditional Solid Waste Management

Traditional Waste Management Integrated Resource Management

Primary Objective

Dispose of waste safely and economically. Use waste as a resource - realize the greatest environmental, social, and economic values from waste. To achieve zero waste by managing waste as a resource.

Economics Focus is on cost. Focus on revenues from sale of resources. Consider

costs required to generate the revenues.

Environment

Strives to control pollution. Can unintentionally cause other forms of pollution, for example in the form of leachate and fugitive methane emissions from landfilling, air contaminants from combustion of MSW and landfill gas or biogas.

Strive to eliminate pollution by turning waste into a resource. Reduce pollution, for example by displacing fossil fuel use through district heating systems, generating biogas from anaerobic digestion.

Energy Consumes energy. For example, energy consumed to transport wastes over long distances.

Produces energy. Examples include: biogas to fuel vehicles and power generated by combustion of MSW or landfill gas.

Infrastructure Design

Form follows function. Facilities are designed with the primary focus on safe treatment and disposal of MSW, and with existing infrastructure in mind.

Form follows function. Resource recovery infrastructure is designed to serve the needs of customers by recovering additional materials such as metals and energy for use in the community.

Scope Deals with waste streams individually. Accounts for synergies among all waste streams

(e.g., solid waste, wastewater) and all community needs (e.g., water, energy, sustainable employment).

Resource Recovery

Resource recovery is possible, but not optimal. For example, LFG collection systems can only recover a fraction of the methane emissions from decomposing organic waste.

Resource recovery is maximized. For example, anaerobic digesters recover biogas more efficiently from decomposing organic waste.

Climate Change Potentially increases GHG emissions from increased energy needs and lack of resource recovery.

Contributes to reduction in GHG emissions by integrating systems to recover resources.

Accountability Accounts for the financial costs of individual waste streams.

Accounts for the total environmental and economic benefits and costs of recovering waste streams as resources.

Use of Land Requires large tracts of land. Usually expensive and visually intrusive. For example, landfills require significant quantities of soil for temporary cover, cell closure, and capping plus aggregate for road building.

Minimizes or eliminates land use. Visually minimal with consideration given to future generations.

Scale Built for projected growth. Requires facilities to be sized to meet future population increase and demand and mostly built at inception. Highly reliant on projection accuracy for MSW growth.

Just-in-time construction. Facilities built for waste diversion goal, considering population growth.

Social Aspects Creates local jobs relating to waste management.

In addition to jobs created for waste management, creates sustainable local jobs relating to resource recovery.




Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 32 -

Traditional Waste Management Integrated Resource Management

Procurement Requires taxpayer funding. Either government-owned and procured, or private sector owned/procured.

May not need taxpayer funding. Either government-owned and procured, or private sector owned/procured.

Economic Competitiveness

Adds cost, does not contribute to economic competitiveness.

Projected to be revenue positive (i.e. profitable). Reduces tax burden, thus contributing to BC's economic competitiveness.

Primary Objective

Dispose of waste safely and economically. Use waste as a resource - realize the greatest environmental, social, and economic values from waste. To achieve zero waste by managing waste as a resource.

5.1.3.3 Relevance of IRM to Metro Vancouver

IRM covers a broader scope of wastes than is the focus of this study. However, IRM and the approach taken in this study to the management of MSW share the same underlying principles, these are:

focus on “resource recovery and extracting maximum value”;

focus on integrated systems rather than large single aspect solutions; and

focus on options that result in the net highest and best use value, including environmental factors.

5.2 Canadian Trends

The following provides a broad overview of the current and future trends in solid waste management in several regions of Canada. The regions include: the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) comprising the City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, York, Peel, and Halton. Other regions include Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton and Calgary. The information in this section focuses on residential waste management. 5.2.1 Greater Toronto Area (GTA)

Since the late 1980s all of the municipalities in the GTA have been aggressively expanding waste reduction and recycling programs. In 2004, the Province of Ontario set a diversion goal for residential waste of 60% by 2010,62 and today most of the member regions are achieving residential waste diversion rates in excess of 40% (see Table 6). The Ontario Ministry of Environment has identified the following waste management hierarchy to guide municipalities:63

waste reduction;

waste reuse and recycling;

source separated composting and anaerobic digestion;

thermal treatment with energy recovery;

landfill with energy recovery; and

thermal treatment or landfill without energy recovery.

62 Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE). (2004). Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal – A Discussion Paper. Accessed

January 12, 2009. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/4651e.htm 63 Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE). (2007). Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning: Best Practices for

Waste Managers. Accessed December 10, 2008. http://www.owma.org/db/db2file.asp?fileid=499

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/4651e.htm

http://www.owma.org/db/db2file.asp?fileid=499

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 33 -

In Ontario, only waste reduction or waste captured through reuse, recycling, composting or anaerobic digestion counts towards waste diversion targets. Thermal treatment and refuse derived fuel (RDF) are currently considered disposal, regardless of energy recovery.

In October 2008, the Ontario Ministry of Environment released a discussion paper titled “Towards a Zero Waste Future”, which proposed four main strategies for achieving zero waste:64

Extended Producer Responsibility;

increased focus on waste reduction, and reuse;

increased reduction and diversion of waste from the institutional, commercial and industrial (ICI) sector; and

greater clarity around roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. The discussion paper outlines approaches and impacts of each of these strategies, but does not quantify

potential waste diversion from each approach or set new waste diversion targets.

City of Toronto

All residential customers, both single family and multi-family, receive waste collection and commingled recycling collection. This service is provided bi-weekly in the case of single family homes. Single family residents also receive seasonal bi-weekly yard waste collection. Approximately 500,000 single family residences and 2,600 commercial establishments receive weekly source separated organics (SSO) collection. Two material recovery facilities (MRFs) process commingled recyclables. One facility is owned by the City but operated by a private contractor and the other is owned and operated privately. Both facilities are operating at capacity. A portion of the collected SSO is sent to a central plant owned by the City, where it is processed by large anaerobic hydro-pulping digester units. Liquid effluent from the process is treated through the municipal wastewater treatment system. Solid organic material from the process is sent to an off-site location for further curing. The cost for the anaerobic digestion of SSO is $130 per tonne. The remaining SSO is sent to private facilities in Ontario. Yard waste is also sent to private processors in Ontario at an approximate cost of $60 per tonne. All MSW collected by the City is compacted at one of seven transfer stations and hauled to landfills in Michigan. The City purchased the Green Lane Landfill in St. Thomas Ontario at a cost of $220 million; this facility will be utilized once the disposal contract with Michigan is concluded at the end of 2010. Plans are underway to expand the Green Lane Landfill to further increase capacity to the end of 2034.65 The City also plans to upgrade the existing SSO plant and build a second plant to accommodate collection of organic waste from multi-family residents. The City also plans to build a mixed waste processing plant and to develop six reuse centres.66 To achieve 70% waste diversion, the City must divert an additional 75,000 tonnes per year. A

64 Ontario Ministry of Environment (Ontario MOE). (2008). Towards a Zero Waste Future: Review of Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act,

2002. Accessed December 10, 2008 www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/wda/wda-zeroWastePaper.pdf 65 City of Toronto. (2008) Solid Waste Management Services 2009 Capital & Operating Budget, Council November 6, 2008. Accessed

December 5, 2008. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-17276.pdf 66 City of Toronto. (2008) Solid Waste Management Services 2009 Capital & Operating Budget, Council November 6, 2008. Accessed

December 5, 2008. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-17276.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/wda/wda-zeroWastePaper.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-17276.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-17276.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 34 -

citizen’s advisory body, the Residual Waste Working Group, was formed in 2007, and will be providing information and recommendations to staff this spring.67

Regional Municipality of Durham

Durham has an integrated waste reduction and recycling program that collects blue box recyclables and green bin organics weekly, and MSW bi-weekly. Recyclables are shipped to a MRF owned by the Region, while organics go to an indoor aerobic composing system operated by Miller Waste Systems in Pickering.

MSW is compacted and hauled to a landfill in Michigan, but this will cease at the end of 2010. Long term landfill disposal sites have not yet been identified. In a partnership with York Region, Durham is undertaking a full environmental assessment with public consultation for the construction of a 160,000 tonne per year WTE facility. The Region has diversion goals of 60% by 2011 and 75% in future years.68 The Region released a call for proposals for the design and operation of the facility on August 25, 2008. The plant would be built with a modular design that would allow expansion to a maximum annual capacity of 400,000 tonnes.69 Five different firms offered various technologies:

a. Veolia Environmental Services, New York b. Covanta Energy Corp., New Jersey c. WRSI/ DESC a joint venture including Morgan Stanley Biomass, Seattle

d. Wheelebrator Tech. Inc., New Hampshire e. Urbaser SA, Spain

The cost of the facility in 2008 dollars is expected to be $197 million in capital investment with an operating cost in the range of $16 million per year. Annual revenue for the sale of electricity (estimated to be $7.5 million) is based upon a rate of eight cents per kilowatt hour. Additional revenue would also be generated from the recovery of metals. The Region will retain all greenhouse gas credits from the facility and also reserves the right to utilize or market energy generated at the facility. On May 21st, 2009 the York Regional Council confirmed that Covanta is the preferred supplier for this project.

Regional Municipality of York

York Region provides residents with the collection of organics and recyclables on a weekly basis. Waste is collected on a bi-weekly basis. Currently, recyclables go to a regional MRF. Waste is hauled to Green Lane Landfill in Ontario. Waste shipments to Michigan were stopped in August of 2008. Organics are processed at

67 City of Toronto: Residual Waste Working Group (RWWG). (2009). Progress Report for Public Works and Infrastructure, February 3,

2009. Accessed February 9, 2009. http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/rwwg/pdf/meetings/2009/2009-02-03_progress_rpt_for_pwi.pdf

68 Regional Municipality of Durham/York. (2006). Durham/York Residual Waste Study - Evaluation of “Alternatives to” and Identification of Preferred Residuals Processing System Recommendations Report. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/pdfs/processing/Final-Report-May30-06-no-e-signatures.pdf

69 Regional Municipality of Durham. (2008). Durham Region Energy From Waste (EFW) Project: Detailed Business Case and Request for Proposal. Prepared for The Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committees. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/works/waste/efwreport2008.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/rwwg/pdf/meetings/2009/2009-02-03_progress_rpt_for_pwi.pdf

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/pdfs/processing/Final-Report-May30-06-no-e-signatures.pdf

http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/works/waste/efwreport2008.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 35 -

two privately operated in-vessel composting facilities in London and Welland. The Region of York waste diversion targets are 65% diversion in the short term, with a goal of over 70% by 2016.70 York is also exploring some innovative materials processing options. They have contracted with Dongara Waste Shredding Co. for the development of a thermal treatment plant that processes MSW into pellets that can be burned at approved operations.71 The plant is permitted to receive a maximum of 208,000 tonnes of MSW annually from the Greater Toronto Area and the regions of York, Durham and Peel.72 The facility officially opened in February, 2009. Operations began in July 2008, and ramped up to full scale capacity by October 2008.73 Dongara currently has two contracts to supply pellets for use as coal and heating oil replacement; one contract is for use in a greenhouse operation in South Western Ontario, and the other is with a Delaware based company that will use the pellets as a substitute for coal and oil fuels.74 York region is committed to providing 100,000 tonnes of waste annually for 20 years to the facility. The MSW is delivered to the facility after the removal of SSO and recyclables. Hazardous waste, electronic waste and construction and demolition waste are not accepted. The current tipping fee is $84 per tonne. When combined with current waste diversion programs, which currently divert 46% of the waste, the total waste diverted from landfill disposal through recycling and energy recovery diversion will be 85% in 2009.75 As previously discussed, York is also involved in a joint venture with Durham on the development of a WTE facility for use by both regions.76

Regional Municipality of Peel

Peel provides residents with weekly collection of recyclables and organic waste, and bi-weekly collection of

waste. About 135,000 tonnes of recyclables are hauled to a mechanical recycling facility, while

70 Regional Municipality of York. (2006). Joint Waste Diversion Strategy: Working Together Toward a Sustainable Residential Waste

Management System. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/yls5qzew46arb5pm4mgsxbgb36g3ob75nmq7f4ij7lsujwtovyrxhuc7ud4yduwb6h6kby5tbvyq477z3zakkby3db/Publication+-+Waste+Diversion+Strategy+Sept+2006.pdf

71 Gombu, P. (2008). Who will buy York’s waste pellets? The Star.com. Accessed May 3, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/421044

72 Dongara. (2008). Business Overview. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.dongara.ca/ 73 Regional Municipality of York. (2009). Media Release, Dongara celebrates official opening in City of Vaughan, February 9, 2009.

Accessed February 9, 2009. http://www.york.ca/Publications/News/2009/February+9,+2009+Dongara+celebrates+official+opening+in+City+of+Vaughan.htm; and Regional Municipality of York. (2008). Report No. 6 of the Solid Waste Management Committee Regional Council Meeting of October 23, 2008. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/5vrqbxweayj4kjbxfavwlu2ftmbrd5s4oisyjzceza7v7r5uyufxgtgrtjc7eowqwlq75tfkp4mug72fx374jkkheb/rpt+6+cls+3.pdf

74 Regional Municipality of York. (2009). Media Release, Dongara celebrates official opening in City of Vaughan, February 9, 2009. Accessed February 9, 2009. http://www.york.ca/Publications/News/2009/February+9,+2009+Dongara+celebrates+official+opening+in+City+of+Vaughan.htm; and Regional Municipality of York. (2008). Report No. 6 of the Solid Waste Management Committee Regional Council Meeting of October 23, 2008. Accessed December 5, 2008. http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/5vrqbxweayj4kjbxfavwlu2ftmbrd5s4oisyjzceza7v7r5uyufxgtgrtjc7eowqwlq75tfkp4mug72fx374jkkheb/rpt+6+cls+3.pdf

75 Regional Municipality of York. (2009). Media Release, Dongara celebrates official opening in City of Vaughan, February 9, 2009. Accessed February 9, 2009. http://www.york.ca/Publications/News/2009/February+9,+2009+Dongara+celebrates+official+opening+in+City+of+Vaughan.htm

76 Regional Municipality of Durham/York. (2008). Durham/York Residual Waste Study Accessed December 5, 2008. www.durhamyorkwaste.ca

http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/yls5qzew46arb5pm4mgsxbgb36g3ob75nmq7f4ij7lsujwtovyrxhuc7ud4yduwb6h6kby5tbvyq477z3zakkby3db/Publication+-+Waste+Diversion+Strategy+Sept+2006.pdf

http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/yls5qzew46arb5pm4mgsxbgb36g3ob75nmq7f4ij7lsujwtovyrxhuc7ud4yduwb6h6kby5tbvyq477z3zakkby3db/Publication+-+Waste+Diversion+Strategy+Sept+2006.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/421044

http://www.dongara.ca/

http://www.york.ca/Publications/News/2009/February+9,+2009+Dongara+celebrates+official+opening+in+City+of+Vaughan.htm

http://www.york.ca/NR/rdonlyres/5vrqbxweayj4kjbxfavwlu2ftmbrd5s4oisyjzceza7v7r5uyufxgtgrtjc7eowqwlq75tfkp4mug72fx374jkkheb/rpt+6+cls+3.pdf






http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 36 -

47,000 tonnes of organics are composted at one of two regionally operated Herhof composting facilities in the area.

Peel uses WTE as a part of its integrated waste management system. The WTE facility is privately owned and operated by Algonquin Power, and produces electricity, which is sold into the provincial energy grid. The plant currently processes approximately 160,000 tonnes of MSW from Peel, which is about half of the

Region’s MSW. The Region is contracted to provide waste to the facility until the year 2012, with a five year extension. The current tipping fee for waste to the thermal plant is $110/tonne, but this rate is subject to change if major alterations to the plant are required; any change of rate would be negotiated with Algonquin

Power. The remaining 279,000 tonnes of MSW generated in Peel is landfilled. The Region recently signed a 25 year

contract with Canadian Waste for the use of their landfill at a tipping fee of $38/tonne, and transportation costs of $15/tonne. Due to the age of the existing WTE Facility, the Region is considering alternative thermal treatment options such as other technologies or operating their own facility.

Regional Municipality of Halton

Halton offers weekly collection of organics and recyclables, and bi-weekly collection of waste. Recyclables are shipped and processed at the region’s MRF, while organics are processed at an in-vessel composting

facility owned by the City of Hamilton and operated by Aim Environmental Group.77 Halton has its own regional landfill, with an operating life expectancy until 2030.

The Region completed a full business case review of thermal treatment options in the spring of 2007. A WTE facility would be intended to serve as a super regional site, processing waste from all other regions in the

Golden Horseshoe Area of Ontario. It was anticipated a thermal treatment facility of this kind would obtain only 8% of its feedstock from the Region of Halton, and that all other MSW would be imported from other regions such as the City of Toronto. This option was not approved by council and WTE has been deferred for

at least another five years in favour of enhanced 3Rs and Extended Producer Responsibility initiatives and continued landfill disposal.78 5.2.2 Montreal

The Quebec government has set municipal recycling targets by material types. The following targets are in place:79 60% of glass, plastic, metals, paper fibre, large items and organics; 75% of waste oil, paints and pesticides; 60% of other household hazardous waste;

77 Regional Municipality of Halton. (2008). GreenCart: Where Does it Go?. Accessed February 9, 2009.

http://www.halton.ca/ppw/waste/greencart/processing.htm 78 Regional Municipality of Halton. (2007). Energy From Waste Business Case report (PPW80-07). Prepared for the Chair and

Members of the Planning an Public Works Committee. Accessed December 6, 2008. http://www.halton.ca/ppw/waste/documents/EFW_BusinessCase_PPW80-07.pdf

79 Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. (2006). Plan métropolitain de gestion des matières résiduelles. Accessed December 6, 2008. http://www.cmm.qc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/pmgmr_2006.pdf

http://www.halton.ca/ppw/waste/greencart/processing.htm

http://www.halton.ca/ppw/waste/documents/EFW_BusinessCase_PPW80-07.pdf

http://www.cmm.qc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/pmgmr_2006.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 37 -

50% of textiles; and 80% of beer and carbonated beverage containers. According to a recent study, Montreal has a measured waste diversion rate of 22%, taking into account recycling, compost programs and eco centres.80

The existing waste management system includes: one landfill, six eco centres for the disposal of household hazardous waste (HHW) and paint, one transfer station and one MRF. Most of the waste generated is hauled off the Island of Montreal for disposal in a landfill owned by BFI. The site receives approximately 1.3 million

tonnes annually from the Montreal area at a tipping fee of $70 per tonne.

Similar to the Ministry of Environment in Ontario, the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal has adopted a hierarchy of waste management: reduction at source, reuse, recycle/compost, “valorization” (which translates to value extraction) and disposal. Valorization can include any waste management process outside of the

three R’s that adds value, such as composting, anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment with energy recovery, or waste stabilization. An integrated solid waste management system has been proposed for the Montreal area and is outlined in a Draft Master Plan for the Management of Residual Materials 2008 – 2012. This

report is currently undergoing public consultation. One of the key considerations in the report is the development of capacity for the processing of organic waste, both green waste (yard and garden waste), and food waste. Rather than building one single processing facility, multiple facilities to manage organic waste

are identified as potential infrastructure requirements. Other potential infrastructure identified in the plan includes a reuse centre, new eco-centres, a transfer station and a pilot pre-treatment facility. MBT is identified in the report as a potential option for waste going to landfill. Gasification has been also identified for

consideration. It is estimated that there is 25 years of remaining capacity at the existing landfill site. 5.2.3 Halifax Regional Municipality

The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) was the first region in Canada to develop an Integrated Solid Waste/Resource Management Strategy. The original waste diversion goal was set at 60% and a 55% waste

diversion rate has been achieved for the total waste stream (including construction and demolition waste). The residential and commercial sectors together have reached a 48.7% diversion rate. The diversion target has not been updated.81 The success of the program is predicated on the availability of source separated organics and recycling

collection for all residential and commercial customers, combined with a good public education program. The program is also unusual in Canada given the use of a MBT facility. The waste stabilization facility is owned by HRM, but the operation is contracted out to a private company. The tipping fees are based on a formula

that is dependent on the volume of waste received, but is generally close to the landfill tipping fee of $115 per tonne. The facility receives all wastes that have not been source separated; the purpose of this facility is

80 City of Montreal. (2008). Less is More, Draft Master Plan for the Management of Residual Materials in Montreal 2008-2012.

Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/environnement_fr/media/documents/pdgmr_sommaire_en.pdf

81 Regional Municipality of Halifax. (2007). Solid Waste/Resource Management System – Diversion Opportunities. Submitted to Mayor Kelly and Members of Halifax Regional Council. Accessed April 7, 2009. http://www.halifax.ca/wrms/documents/070213cow4.pdf

http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/environnement_fr/media/documents/pdgmr_sommaire_en.pdf

http://www.halifax.ca/wrms/documents/070213cow4.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 38 -

to ensure that only inert, stable residual materials enter the landfill.82 Waste entering the facility is removed from bags and screened. Large items are sent directly to landfill. The remaining waste is processed aerobically and then sent to landfill. Although stabilized waste in landfill produces a significantly reduced

amount of methane, the methane that is still produced is collected and flared. The total annual incoming waste is approximately 175,000 tonnes. Of that amount, 20,000 tonnes (about 15%), is separated and recovered and the remaining waste is landfilled. It is estimated that there are 12 to 15 years of remaining

waste disposal capacity at the municipally owned landfill. 5.2.4 Edmonton

The City of Edmonton has adopted a goal of 80% diversion (including energy recovery) for all waste sectors by 2020 through an integrated waste management system following the pollution prevention hierarchy, with Zero Waste as the ultimate goal. In addition to the 80% diversion goal for all sectors, the City has established

a 90% waste diversion goal for the residential sector by 2012. This will be supported by the opening of their biofuels production facility in 2011.83

The current waste collection system includes two streams: mixed waste and commingled recyclables. Mixed waste is delivered to a composting facility owned by the City, where it is mixed with dewatered sewage bio-solids to produce low grade compost. Commingled recyclables are delivered to the privately-owned MRF

where a combination of manual and mechanical separation of materials is utilized. The City estimates they have reached a 60% waste diversion rate as a result of their existing solid waste programs.84 The City also operates one MSW landfill (Cloverbar), with a $55 per tonne tip fee, but it is scheduled to close in June of

this year.85 The City has signed a 30 year contract with the Beaver Regional Waste Management Services Commission who operate a landfill in Ryley, AB. The approximate cost per tonne for transportation and tipping fees will be $55 per tonne, but tipping fees will increase over time based upon the negotiated

contract. To go beyond 60% waste diversion the City is developing a first-of-its-kind demonstration biofuels production

facility to begin operation in 2011. The facility is being built with financial assistance from the Alberta Energy Research Institute, and will be used to evaluate the performance of gasification technologies using different waste materials, and facilitate research into the production of ethanol and other biofuels. The main feedstock

for the facility will be MSW, but additional waste, such as clean wood waste or plastics that have fuel value, may be segregated and utilized in the process. The municipality will process the waste material into RDF for delivery to the biofuel facility, which will be privately owned and operated. The final cost per tonne of creating

the RDF and gasification is not yet known, but it is anticipated to be between $70 and $80 per tonne.

82 Regional Municipality of Halifax. (2008). Otter Lake Waste Processing and Disposal Facility. Accessed September 18, 2008.

http://www.halifax.ca/wrms/otterlake.html 83 City of Edmonton. (2008). Waste Management Strategic Plan 2008. Accessed November 18, 2009.

http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/Environment/Waste_Mgmt_F3.pdf 84 City of Edmonton. (no date). An Introduction to: The Edmonton Waste Management Centre & Eco Stations. Accessed

November 18, 2009. http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/for_residents/Environment/Intro%20to%20EWMC%20and%20Eco%20St.pdf 85 City of Edmonton. (no date). An Introduction to: The Edmonton Waste Management Centre & Eco Stations. Accessed

November 18, 2009. http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/for_residents/Environment/Intro%20to%20EWMC%20and%20Eco%20St.pdf

http://www.halifax.ca/wrms/otterlake.html

http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/Environment/Waste_Mgmt_F3.pdf

http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/for_residents/Environment/Intro%20to%20EWMC%20and%20Eco%20St.pdf

http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/for_residents/Environment/Intro%20to%20EWMC%20and%20Eco%20St.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 39 -

5.2.5 Calgary

Calgary has three operational landfill sites that include large areas designated for future waste disposal. As such, there has been little incentive in the past to develop aggressive waste diversion programs, and the

current diversion rate is 20%.86 A depot program has been in place for many years. Residents transport recyclables to centralized drop off locations and sort recyclables at the site into designated recycling containers.

More recently the City has become aware that the areas previously designated for waste disposal are not all suitable for waste disposal activities and the remaining waste disposal capacity will only last an additional

25 years. To decrease the amount of waste disposed and therefore extend the remaining landfill capacity, the City decided to provide curbside recycling services to 340,000 city households. An automated collection system using 240 litre bins for waste and recyclables is slated for implementation in early 2009. The current

depot recycling system will remain intact to service rural and multi-unit households. Calgary has set a goal of 80% waste diversion by 2020. How this goal will be achieved has not been fully defined, but thermal treatment is expected to play a role.

The City recently conducted a pilot construction and demolition (C&D) waste diversion program at a major construction site in the downtown core. The pilot showed that 90% of C&D waste produced at the

construction site was readily recyclable. The City plans to continue to develop diversion programs for this waste sector in anticipation of a province wide ban on the disposal of C&D waste in 2010. Landfill tipping fees are currently $75 per tonne and are expected to rise to $95 per tonne by 2011.

5.2.6 Summary of Practices and Waste Diversion Achievements

Table 6 provides a summary of the information provided in the preceding sections.

86 Sarah Nobel, City of Calgary, personal communication. Calculation based on tonnages diverted through depot system, leaf and

pumpkin waste collection in the fall, x-mas trees, back yard composting, e-waste recycling, tires, household hazardous waste recovery, paint, and bottle depots, divided by total waste received at landfill which includes commercial and ICI.

Metro Vancouver Regional District



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 40 -

Table 6. Summary of Waste Management in Major Canadian Cities

Municipality Population Tonnes Recycled

Tonnes Composted

Thermal Treatment Tonnes Landfilled

Reported Diversion Rate

Diversion Goal Disposal Capacity (by

year)

Montreal 1.8 million Not available Not available Under consideration 1.3 million 22% (2006)

60% by 2012 2024

Halifax 385,000 20,000 41,000 Was considered but now dismissed 70,000 48.7% for residential waste

56% for all MSW (2007)

60% 2021 - 2024

Edmonton 750,000 40,000 200,000 mixed MSW

Demonstration bio-fuels facility to open in 2010

100,000 60% 80% by 2020 Including 4th R

2039

Calgary 1 million 30,000 (2004)

1300 tonnes leaves (2002)

Not under active consideration 740,000 20% 80% by 2020 Including 4th R

2035

City of Toronto 2.5 million 183,000 195,000 Not under active consideration 530,000 42% (residential only, 2006)

70% by 2010 2034

Halton 433,000 58,000 27,000 Considered but deferred until 2012 122,000 41% (residential only, 2006)

60% by 2010 2030

Peel 1.2 million 135,000 47,000 160,000 tonnes per year 279,000 40% (residential only, 2006)

70% by 2016 2034

Durham 586,000 66,000 34,000 Environmental assessment process under way for a joint facility with York. 130,000 tonnes per year proposed from Durham

140,000 42% (residential only, 2006)

70% by 2010 2010

York 932,000 79,000 53,000 Environmental Assessment process under way for a joint facility with Durham. 25,000 tonnes per year proposed from York

200,000 40% (residential only, 2006)

65% by 2010

no estimated end date to

disposal capacity

Sources for Canadian cities as noted in text, plus Waste Diversion Ontario. (2006). Waste Diversion Ontario 2006 Program Data Report. Accessed November 5, 2009. http://www.wdo.ca/reports/?rcat=39979

http://www.wdo.ca/reports/?rcat=39979

Metro Vancouver


A Compara t ive Ana l ys is o f Opt ions fo r Mana ge me nt o f Waste Af te r Rec yc l ing

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 41 -

5.3 Waste Management in the European Union

In the European Union (EU), Directives are used to bind Member states to achieving specific objectives. Each national authority may choose its preferred form and method of achieving the mandated result. Waste-

related directives include the directive to promote the waste management hierarchy, which regulate the type of material that can be landfilled, and set limits on emissions from waste incineration facilities. Each of these Directives is explored in more detail below.

5.3.1.1 EU Directive on Waste

In 2006, the EU updated its 1975 Directive on Waste87. The Directive provides general statements of

environmental and social responsibility for waste disposal. It instructs Member States to prevent or reduce of waste production as a first step. Once this is done, Member States may undertake the recovery of waste by recycling, reuse and reclamation or the use of waste as an energy source.88 The Directive also encourages

Member States to create a network of disposal installations to enable them to become self-sufficient in terms of disposal.

5.3.1.2 EU Landfill Directive

In 1999, the EU introduced the Landfill Directive, which aims “to provide for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possible the negative effects on the environment… from the

landfilling of waste”.89 The negative environmental effects considered include the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, as well as the global environment and risks to human health. The Directive defines three classes of landfills: hazardous waste, non hazardous waste and inert waste. The Directive also

requires all Member States to create a strategy to reduce biodegradable waste entering landfills. Three tiers of reduction goals were set over 15 years to reach a total biodegradable90 component of 35% (by weight) of the biodegradable component of municipal solid waste in 1995. Member states were given two years to

implement the new legislation.91 Therefore, by 2018 the quantity of biodegradable waste being landfilled should be no more than 35% of the quantity in 1995.92 Recommended methods to reach this level of diversion include recycling, composting, biogas production and materials/energy recovery.

87 Council of the European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on

waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L114 (49), 9-21, Section 5.1.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0009:0021:EN:PDF

88 Council of the European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L114 (49), 9-21, Section 3.1.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0009:0021:EN:PDF

89 Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L182(42), 1-19, Section 1.1.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF

90 Biodegradable is defined as “any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard: EU LD 2.1.m.1


92 Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L182(42), 1-19, Section 5.1.c.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0009:0021:EN:PDF





Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 42 -

All waste going into landfills must be treated to reduce the negative impacts of landfilling, as described above. Treatment is defined as “physical, thermal, chemical or biological processes, including sorting, that change the characteristics of the waste in order to reduce its volume or hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery.93,94 The Directive also sets out materials that are banned from landfills, including:95

liquid waste;

waste which is explosive, corrosive, oxidising, or flammable;

medical and veterinary waste that are infectious; and

whole tires. The Directive also lays out specifics for applications, conditions and content of operating permits. The Directive encourages Member States to redeem the cost of operating and closing landfills from the tipping fees.96 Lastly the Directive provides specifications on control and monitoring procedures during operation, closure and after-care and for reporting to the European Commission.

5.3.1.3 UK Landfill Tax

In 1996 the United Kingdom implemented the Landfill Tax to help the UK meet the EU Landfill Directive. The tax is aimed at landfill operations and applies to all material disposed on site as waste. There are two categories: active and inert waste. Inert waste is waste that falls into one of the following categories (all other waste is deemed active):97

rocks and soils (in naturally occurring condition);

ceramic or concrete materials;

minerals (processed or prepared, but not used);

furnace slags;

ash;

low activity inorganic compounds;

calcium sulphate (if disposed of at a site not licensed for putrescible waste or in a cell that only takes calcium sulphate);

calcium hydroxide and brine; and

water (may contain other qualifying materials in suspension).

93 Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the

European Union, L182(42), 1-19, Section 2.1.h.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF

94 Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L182(42), 1-19, Section 6.1.a.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF



97 United Kingdom Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). (1996). Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1528, The Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996. Accessed February 22, 2009. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961528_en_2.htm





http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961528_en_2.htm

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 43 -

Active waste was initially taxed at £7/tonne98 and the increased to £32/tonne99 in 2008. Inert waste was initially taxed at £2/tonne100 and increased to £2.5/tonne101 in 2008.

Landfill operators can, as part of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, receive tax credit (for up to 6.7% of their tax as of 2006) for 90% of any contributions they make to approved environmental bodies for approved projects. These environmental bodies must be registered with ENTRUST, who is the regulator of the Tax Credit

Scheme, but does not make funding decisions.102

5.3.1.4 EU Waste Incineration Directive

In 2000, the European Union created the Waste Incineration Directive (WID), which aims “to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-

incineration of waste.”103 The Directive provides guidance on the operating conditions, air emission limit values, water discharge from

exhaust gas cleaning and residues. Incineration plants are required to achieve a level of incineration such that the total organic carbon content of

slag and bottom ashes is less than 3% or their loss on ignition is less than 5% of the dry weight of the material.104 Gas resulting from incineration must be heated to a temperature of 850°C measured near the inner wall for at least two seconds. This requirement is increased to 1,100°C if the waste has more than 1%

halogenated organic substances expressed as chlorine.105 Any heat generated by the incineration process recovered as far as is practical.106

98 United Kingdom. (1996). Finance Act 1996 (Section 42.1.a.1). Government of the United Kingdom. London. Accessed August 20,

2008. http://vlex.co.uk/vid/finance-act-28273910. 99 United Kingdom, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). (2007). Landfill Tax: Increase to Rates (Section 5.1). Government of the

United Kingdom. London. Accessed August 20, 2008. http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD1_027233

100 United Kingdom. (1996). Finance Act 1996 (Section 42.2.1). Government of the United Kingdom. London. Accessed August 20, 2008. http://vlex.co.uk/vid/finance-act-28273910

101 United Kingdom, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). (2008). Landfill Tax. Government of the United Kingdom. London. Accessed August 18, 2008. http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_001206.

102 Entrust, 2008. About Entrust. Accessed August 20, 2008. http://www.entrust.org.uk/home/about. 103 Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 4, 2000

on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L332(43), 91-111, Section 1.1.1. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:332:0091:0111:EN:PDF

104 Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 4, 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L332(43), 91-111, Section 6.1.1. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:332:0091:0111:EN:PDF

105 Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 4, 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L332(43), 91-111, Section 6.1.2.1. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:332:0091:0111:EN:PDF


http://vlex.co.uk/vid/finance-act-28273910

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD1_027233

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD1_027233

http://vlex.co.uk/vid/finance-act-28273910

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_001206

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_001206

http://www.entrust.org.uk/home/about





Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 44 -

The Directive provides emission limit values for exhaust gas in terms of total dust, total carbon, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in terms of daily and half hourly averages (carbon monoxide also has a ten minute average limit). Cadmium,

thallium, mercury, antimony, arsenic, lead, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, and vanadium have limits in terms of averages over 0.5 to eight hours while dioxins and furans have limits in terms of an average over 6-8 hours.107 A comparison of emissions standards for Canada, the EU, and Japan was

provided in Section 4.2. The Directive also provides guidance on measurement techniques and requirements.

Flue gas cleaning systems for WTE facilities can generate effluent that must be treated prior to being discharged to the environment. The EU has come up with strict standards for these discharges and facilities must obtain a permit for these discharges.108

Residues from incineration must be minimized and recycled where appropriate. Residues leaving the site must be tested to determine their physical and chemical characteristics to be sure they do not have any

polluting potential. The Directive sets out specific criteria to determine whether waste incineration is disposal or recovery. WTE

facilities dedicated to the processing of MSW are regarded as a recovery operation when their energy efficiency is equal to or above 60% for installations in operation before January 1, 2009 and 65% for installations permitted after December 31, 2008.109 In this respect, the new legislation considers energy-

efficient waste incineration a recovery operation – a provision that promotes resource efficiency, thus reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.110

Lastly the Directive sets out control and monitoring, permitting and reporting procedures. This Directive came into effect in 2002 for new facilities and 2005 for existing facilities (EU 2000).111

107 Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 4, 2000

on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L332(43), 91-111, Annex V. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:332:0091:0111:EN:PDF


109 Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Green Paper On the management of bio-waste in the European Union. Accessed November 26, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0811:EN:NOT

110 Commission of the European Communities, Eurostat. (2008). Waste Incineration: recovery or disposal. Accessed November 26, 2008. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_DS_WASTE/PGE_DS_WASTE/TAB70521329/GUIDANCE%20ON%20WASTE%20INCINERATION%20STATISTICS_FINAL.PDF; and Northern Ireland Environmental Agency (NIEA). (2008) Guidance on Waste Incineration Directive. Accessed November 26, 2008. http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/pollution/ippc/waste-incineration-directive.htm; and United Kingdom, Department of Environment. (2007). Guidance on: Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste. Department of Environment Planning and Environmental Policy Group. Access November 26, 2008. http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/wid_guide_edition_2.pdf; and Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 4, 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L332(43), 91-111. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:332:0091:0111:EN:PDF




http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0811:EN:NOT

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_DS_WASTE/PGE_DS_WASTE/TAB70521329/GUIDANCE%20ON%20WASTE%20INCINERATION%20STATISTICS_FINAL.PDF

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_DS_WASTE/PGE_DS_WASTE/TAB70521329/GUIDANCE%20ON%20WASTE%20INCINERATION%20STATISTICS_FINAL.PDF

http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/pollution/ippc/waste-incineration-directive.htm

http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/pollution/ippc/waste-incineration-directive.htm

http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/wid_guide_edition_2.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 45 -

Due to the implementation of the Directive, emissions from incineration facilities in the EU now represent a negligible fraction of total emissions from all sources in the EU. Figure 6 shows air emissions from thermal treatment as a percentage of total air emissions from all other sources in the EU.

Figure 6. Incineration Emissions as they Relate to Total Emissions in the EU112

0.01%1.18%0.40%0.04%0.19%0.07%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PCDD & PCDF NOx SOx Cd Hg PM

Pollutant

% C

on

trib

uti

on

to

to

tal

Total Emissions

WTE Emissions

5.3.1.5 Recycling in the EU

Figure 7 shows the percentage of waste recycled, landfilled or subject to thermal treatment in the EU15

countries. The data shows little correlation between lower recycling rates and the presence of incineration. Several countries have achieved high success in recycling (e.g., Netherlands, Germany, Belgium), along with high rates of incineration.

112 Rechberger, H., & Schöller, G. (2006). Comparison of Relevant Air Emissions from Selected Combustion Technologies Project

CAST. Presentation at CEWEP, Congress 2006, Waste-to-Energy in European Policy, May 18, 2006. Accessed October 25, 2008 http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/96_RechbergerPresentationFinalweb.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8

http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/96_RechbergerPresentationFinalweb.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 46 -

Figure 7. Recycling and Thermal Treatment Rates in the EU113,

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EU

15

Germ

any

Neth

erland

s

Belg

ium

Sw

eden

Den

mark

Au

stria

Lu

xemb

ou

rg

Fran

ce

Italy

Fin

land

Un

ited K

ing

do

m

Sp

ain

Po

rtug

al

Ireland

Greece

Country

% o

f W

aste

Landfilled WTE Recycled/ Composted

Waste diversion statistics from the EU 15 are based on residential and commercial waste.

5.3.1.6 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive

The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) was established in 1996, and has been revised four times (most recently in 2008). The purpose of the Directive is to provide a framework for the prevention and control of a wide range of industrial activities, including waste management (incinerators and

landfills).114 Member states are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that facilities are operated in a manner that incorporates best available pollution prevention techniques, and that no significant pollution is generated. The IPPC Directive does not prescribe the use of any technique or specific technology

for pollution control. Permits are considered based on technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions. In all circumstances, the conditions of the

113 Eurostat News Release. (2009, March 9). Municipal waste. Half a ton of municipal waste generated per person in the EU27 in 2007.

Almost 40% of this waste was recycled. Issued by Eurostat Press Office. Accessed March 9, 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_03/8-09032009-EN-BP.PDF

114 Europa. (2008). Integrated pollution prevention and control: IPPC Directive. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28045.htm; and Council of the European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official Journal of the European Union, L24 (51), 8-29. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDF

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_03/8-09032009-EN-BP.PDF


http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28045.htm


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 47 -

permit must contain provisions to minimize of long-distance or transboundary pollution and ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole. Furthermore, facilities must use energy efficiently, take measures to prevent accidents, and restore facility sites to a satisfactory condition when the facility ceases

operations. The IPPC Directive also governs the issuance and governance of permits. It does not override other

environmental quality standard requirements; if stricter conditions are required than those achievable by the use of the Best Available Techniques (BAT) (as required by the IPPC), additional measures will be required in the permit. The process of issuing permits must be fully coordinated where more than one authority is

involved, in order to guarantee an effective integrated approach. The IPPC places a strong emphasis on BAT for pollution prevention and control. BAT are defined as: the

most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact

on the environment as a whole.

BAT is defined as: Both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built,

maintained, operated and decommissioned.

Available means: developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and

advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator.

Best means: most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole.

There are a series of BAT Reference Documents (BREFS) that provide details on the BAT for each industrial process covered by the IPPC.115 The BREF that deals with energy recovery is the “European

Commission Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control – Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, August 2006”.

5.3.1.7 German Green Party Approach to Solid Waste Management

The German Green Party, formerly part of the ruling coalition in Germany, have taken a strong position on solid waste management. Their approach to solid waste management was summarized in a paper presented

at a Waste Conference in Berlin in 2006 by Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, environmental policy spokeswoman of the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, and Dr. Michael Weltzin.116 The following is a summary of the approach presented by the Greens.

The Greens advocate producer responsibility for the manufacture of goods and recovery/reuse of the resources used in these goods. This should be achieved through efficiency and more intelligent management

of resources. The Greens’ waste management policy advocates reduced consumption of raw materials through a practical implementation of closed substance cycle waste management with the complete

115 BREFs are available online at: http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/ 116 Kotting-Uhl, S. (2006). Alternatives for the Waste Industry. Paper for the 2006 Berlin Waste Conference. Accessed August 25, 2008.

http://www.nmwda.org/news/documents/AlternativesfortheWasteIndustry.pdf

http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/

http://www.nmwda.org/news/documents/AlternativesfortheWasteIndustry.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 48 -

reclamation of valuable resources. The Greens also advocate a move away from petroleum, which means replacing fossil sources of energy with ecologically sustainable alternatives. This includes using biologically sourced raw materials for the manufacturing of all plastics, since it is recognized that plastics, unlike glass

and metals, cannot be infinitely recycled and must ultimately be reclaimed in another way. According to the Greens, making plastic products using regenerative raw materials (e.g., from raw materials

that can be grown, and not from fossil-based hydrocarbons) opens the door to new perspectives for resource recovery in the form of energy. Since the Greens advocate for all plastics to be made from biogenic raw materials, they consider the recovery of energy from those materials that cannot be recycled in the

conventional way a form of closing the cycle on raw materials. According to Ms. Kotting-Uhl, “These days, waste from human settlements can already be sorted fully automatically and, consequently, the valuable substances it contains almost completely recovered. Not only can the sorting residues that are left over be

used to generate energy in waste incineration plants operated to very high standards, the by-products of the waste incineration can also be reused.” Furthermore, “The calculations assume that, in line with the latest development in technical capabilities [for waste incineration plants], the only unrecoverable residual

substances that would remain from what was originally one tonne of waste from human settlements would be about 20 kilograms of boiler and filter dust, and seven kilograms of mixed brine. This means that, overall, less than one percent of the original volume of the waste [two percent by weight] would be left over and

would actually have to be ‘disposed of’ by classic methods (underground).” The Greens propose to end all surface disposal of municipal solid waste to landfills by 2020. Energy from

biogenic waste plays a key role in achieving this goal.

5.4 Waste Management in Japan

5.4.1.1 Historical Waste Management Practices

Waste management practices in Japan have been primarily driven by the desire to manage waste close to its

origin, which has led to the establishment of many dispersed waste management facilities such as WTE facilities, landfills, recycling depots, and transfer stations.117 This has created some economic inefficiencies in the overall waste management system, but has helped to site waste management facilities close to where

the waste is generated. The Japanese tend to apply the “proximity principle” out of a strong moral obligation to their fellow citizens as opposed to an environmental obligation.118

Japan’s population density has also been a driver behind waste management policies and technologies for many years.119 Japan’s land scarcity means that many waste management policies have been geared towards minimizing the amount of waste that is destined for final disposal in a landfill; as a result, thermal

treatment has been employed extensively across the country. By the early 1990’s 75% of the waste stream

117 Okuda, I., & Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19. 118 Okuda, I., & Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19. 119 Tanaka, M. (2006). Waste management for a sustainable society. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 9(2), 2-6

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 49 -

was treated thermally120,121 However, many of these thermal treatment facilities were very basic in nature, many lacked energy recovery capability and sufficient air pollution control devices.

Many of these early thermal treatment facilities were found to produce a negative effect on human health.122 Consequently, the Japanese government took action to shut down small, basic incinerators and imposed strict regulations on emissions.123 This led to a more regionalized approach to waste management as

municipalities formed waste management partnerships and upgraded or built new thermal treatment facilities. The result was a 98% decrease in dioxin emissions between 1997 and 2003.124 The Japanese National Implementation Plan developed to satisfy requirements under the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants predicts that by 2010, dioxin emissions will decrease even further, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incinerators in Japan (g TEQ per year)125

71 51

5,000

0

2000

4000

6000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Target

5.4.1.2 Current Waste Management Trends

Waste management continues to be governed by the proximity principle but has been regionalized in areas where significant economic gains can be made without compromising the overall social equality of the

system. In addition, the minimization of environmental effects associated with waste management has

120 Okuda, I. and Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19. 121 The National Implementation Plan of Japan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Developed by the

Inter-Ministerial General Directors’ Meeting on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Accessed November 14, 2008. www.env.go.jp/chemi/pops/plan/en_full.pdf

122. Tanaka, M. (2006). Waste management for a sustainable society. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 9(2), 2-6. 123 Okuda, I. and Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19. 124 Okuda, I. and Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19. 125 The National Implementation Plan of Japan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Developed by the

Inter-Ministerial General Directors’ Meeting on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Accessed November 14, 2008. www.env.go.jp/chemi/pops/plan/en_full.pdf

http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/pops/plan/en_full.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 50 -

become a pillar of the current system. This environmental focus has led to the creation of new laws and standards governing dioxins and furans in Japan.

The Law Concerning Special Measures Against Dioxins was brought into force in January 2000.126,127 This law established emission limits for solid waste incinerators as well as a tolerable daily intake (TDI) limit for dioxin and furan exposure. The TDI was established by the World Health Organization in collaboration with

the Japanese Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The TDI is designed to evaluate the effects of dioxin and furan emissions on human health as well as prevent any potential negative effects. The most recent TDI for dioxins and furans in Japan was established in 1998, after consultation with

the WHO, European Centre for Environment and Health, and the International Program on Chemical Safety. The TDI for dioxins and furans was determined to be 4 pg-toxicity equivalence (TEQ)/kg/day, and environmental standards in air, water, and soil were set at 0.6 pg-TEQ/m3, 1 pg-TEQ/l, and 1000 pg-TEQ/g,

respectively. The strictest standard is 0.1 ng-TEQ/m3 is applied to newly-constructed waste incinerators having a capacity of four tonnes/h or more.128,129

Waste diversion continues to be a priority in Japan’s waste management system. Municipalities are responsible for the collection of recyclable paper, glass, and metal. Five to eight categories of recycling exist in the typical Japanese municipality with some municipalities collecting up to 44 separate streams.130 This

collected waste is further screened and processed at the appropriate recycling facilities. Bulky items, such as household electronic appliances and furniture are separated and recycled appropriately.131 This focus on waste diversion has led to a 16% waste diversion rate for the country. While this is a modest diversion rate, it

does not include any private recycling or recycling of newspapers and deposit-based beverage containers. If these diversion initiatives are included, Japan’s overall waste diversion rate is approximately 35%.132

Japan continues to increase its waste reduction and recycling initiatives with increased EPR programs through its federal Packaging Waste Recycling Law of 1995, which extends responsibility for large, household appliances. In 1998, the government introduced the Home Electric Appliance Recycling Law,

which extends responsibility for small household appliances such as televisions and microwaves.

126 Environment Agency of Japan. (1999). Law Concerning Special measured against Dioxins (Law No. 105 of 1999. Promulgated on

July 16, 1999). Environment Agency of Japan, Office of Environmental Risk assessment, Environmental Health and Safety Division, Environmental Health Department. Accessed November 14, 2008. www.env.go.jp/en/laws/chemi/dioxin.pdf

127 The National Implementation Plan of Japan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Developed by the Inter-Ministerial General Directors’ Meeting on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Accessed November 14, 2008. www.env.go.jp/chemi/pops/plan/en_full.pdf

128 Tanaka, M. (2006). Waste management for a sustainable society. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 9(2), 2-6. 129 Environment Agency of Japan & Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan (1999). Report on Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of Dioxins

and Related Compounds (Japan). Environmental Health Committee of the Central Environment Council – Environment Agency and Living Environment Council and Food Sanitation Investigation council – Ministry of Heal and Welfare. Accessed February 26, 2009. http://env-health.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/topics/hokoku-e.pdf

130 Okuda, I., & Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19.

131. Tanaka, M. (2006). Waste management for a sustainable society. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 9(2), 2-6. 132 Okuda, I., & Thomson, V.E. (2007). Regionalization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Japan: Balancing the Proximity

Principle with Economic Efficiency. Environmental Management, 40(1), 12-19.

http://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/chemi/dioxin.pdf


http://env-health.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/topics/hokoku-e.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 51 -

5.5 Waste Management in the United States

5.5.1.1 Waste Management Trends

In the United States, landfilling remains common practice for MSW disposal. Waste management decisions are governed by state and municipal authorities, and given the relatively large abundance of land, landfilling continues to be the primary disposal destination for solid waste, with many large regional landfills developed. These regional landfills operate with high economies of scale, as waste can be hauled by rail, barge and truck to these sites for disposal.133 The model for most urban centres is waste collection, waste transport, and land disposal far from urban activities.134 Many areas of the US are beginning to experience landfill capacity shortages and are facing increasing costs associated with transporting solid waste over long distances. Diversion and recovery programs have been initiated throughout the US. The U.S. EPA has set a national waste reduction and recycling goal of 35%.135 Curbside recycling of plastics, paper, glass and organics led the US to achieve an overall diversion rate of 32% in 2007.136 Recently, the US has begun to implement EPR programs for electronic products and beverage containers. However, only a few states have passed legislation to facilitate these programs.137 Despite increased diversion, the USA has had little success in reducing its per capita waste disposal rate. Since 1960, the US’s per capita waste disposal rate138 has increased from 1.14 kg/person/day to 1.41 kg/person/day in 2006.139,140 This has meant that overall gains in waste diversion have failed to keep pace with waste generation. In 2004, there were 89 thermal treatment plants operating in the US. Of these, 65 used mass burn technology, 15 used RDF, and nine were modular. Modular thermal treatment systems are generally smaller-scale than mass-burn systems, and are made up of multiple (usually two) combustion chambers. The primary chamber in the system is for combustion of solid and liquid phase components of the waste, while the secondary chamber is for combustion of the resulting gases from the primary chamber. These facilities

133 Louis, G.E. (2004). A historical context of municipal solid waste management in the United States. Waste Management and

Research, 22 (4), 306–322. 134 McCarthy, J.E. (2007). CRS Report for Congress. Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2007 Update. Prepare by

Congressional Research Service: Resources, Science and Industry Division. Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. Accessed September 8, 2008. http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jul/RL34043.pdf

135 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (n.d.). Wastes – Recourse Conservation Challenge: 35 Percent Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste Action Plan. Accessed March 5, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm

136 Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Stern, E. (2008). A purview of waste management evolution: Special emphasis on USA. Waste Management, 29(2), 974-985.

137 Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Stern, E. (2008). A purview of waste management evolution: Special emphasis on USA. Waste Management, 29(2), 974-985.

138 Includes MSW generated – waste diversion. Thermal treatment not included in diversion. 139 Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Stern, E. (2008). A purview of waste management evolution: Special emphasis on USA. Waste

Management, 29(2), 974-985. 140 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (n.d.). Wastes – Recourse Conservation Challenge: 35 Percent

Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste Action Plan. Accessed March 5, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jul/RL34043.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm




Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 52 -

can be portable, but this is not a necessary condition. In 2006, total thermal treatment in the US converted over 26 million tonnes of waste into 2,700 megawatts of electricity.141 The US Department of Energy developed a policy regarding the classification of MSW as renewable energy when processed in a WTE facility. This classification is important in the United States because many forms of renewable energy qualify for subsidies or funding under the US Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Information Administration in the United States now classifies the energy captured from the combustion of the biogenic portion of the waste stream as being renewable, but excludes all energy capture from the combustion of fossil-fuel based constituents of the waste stream. However, this policy applies only at the national level, specifically for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There still exists a patchwork of policies across many states, so some states allow all or part of the waste stream to be classified as renewable, while others do not allow it at all. This lack of consistency also exists across various state-level, and federal-level programs which may or may not classify MSW as renewable energy.142

5.5.1.2 Recycling in the United States

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the national recycling rate in the US is 32%. There is some disagreement on this number though, and a 2006 Biocycle research project determined the diversion rate to be 28%. For the purpose of this report, we will use the U.S. EPA’s calculated diversion rate of 32%. Despite this relatively low average national diversion rate, many individual communities have achieved much higher diversion rates. A recent study undertaken in 2008 looked at recycling rates in communities that also used WTE.143 The data from this research is presented in Figure 9. Overall, a state’s usage of WTE does not appear to have any significant degree of correlation to its recycling rate. Waste diversion statistics from the United States are based on residential and commercial waste.

141 Themelis, N. (2006). The Role of Waste-to-Energy in the U.S.A. Presentation at the 3rd Congress of the Confederation of European

WTE Plants (CEWEP). Accessed October 24, 2008. http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/85_ThemelisPresentation.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8

142 Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2007). Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic/Non-Biogenic Energy. Accessed November 15, 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.pdf.

143 Berenyi, E.B. (2008). A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy work in Concert. Accessed November 15, 2008. http://www.wte.org/docs/2008_Berenyi_compatibility_study.pdf

http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/85_ThemelisPresentation.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/mswaste/msw.pdf

http://www.wte.org/docs/2008_Berenyi_compatibility_study.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 53 -

Figure 9. Comparison of Waste-to-Energy and Recycling Rates in the United States144,145

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ca

liforn

ia

Oreg

on

Wash

ing

ton

Marylan

d

Min

neso

ta

Ne

w Jersey

Ind

iana

Massach

usetts

Virg

inia

So

uth

Caro

lina

Co

nn

ecticu

t

Pen

nsylvan

ia

Ne

w Y

ork

Wisco

nsin

Haw

aii

Flo

rida

Ne

w H

amp

shire

Mich

igan

Ma

ine

Uta

h

No

rth C

aro

lina

Alab

ama

US

Averag

e

State

% o

f W

aste

Landfilled Recycled/Composted WTE

5.6 Summary

Metro Vancouver’s plan to achieve 70% diversion appears to be in line with or exceed targets set in other jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with higher goals usually include some form of energy recovery in their diversion reporting, and practice integrated management of MSW. In Europe, the goal for recycling is 50% for residential waste and 75% for demolition and land clearing (DLC) waste.146 The management of MSW in the more developed European countries demonstrates a high degree of recycling coupled with a high amount of energy recovery. The criticism that WTE reduces the incentive to recycle is not supported by evidence from countries such as Austria, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, and Denmark. The German Green Party is pushing for a shift away from using fossil fuels for producing products and advocates the recovery of green energy from the MSW stream. The use of landfills, particularly for untreated waste, is being increasingly discouraged by policy initiatives in Europe. In Great Britain, for example, there is a steep landfill tax imposed, which increases annually. In Germany, the landfilling of unprocessed organics is prohibited, which has supported the development of MBT facilities and additional WTE capacity.

144 Berenyi, E.B. (2008). A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy work in Concert. Accessed November 15, 2008.

http://www.wte.org/docs/2008_Berenyi_compatibility_study.pdf 145 Simmons, P., Goldstein, N., Kaufman, S.M., Themelis, N.J., & Thompson, J.J. (2006). The State of Garbage in America. BioCycle

,47(4), 26-43. Accessed September 8 2008. http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000848.html 146 Council of the European Union Press Release. (2008). A new framework for waste management in the EU. Accessed March 23,

2008. www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/103477.pdf


http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000848.html

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/103477.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 54 -

6. Technologies for the Treatment and Disposal of MSW

This section describes the characteristics of:

mechanical biological treatment (for additional material recovery, waste stabilization and production of

refuse derived fuel);

waste-to-energy; and

landfill/bioreactor, This report considers only proven technologies capable of treating or disposing of Metro Vancouver’s MSW.

Unproven, emerging technologies are not covered in this report. Technologies are considered unproven if their efficiency, costs and environmental performance cannot be demonstrated in a full scale commercially operating facility over a reasonable period of time. Many of the emerging technologies have been the subject

of other evaluations including: a report prepared by Earth Tech Canada Ltd. for Metro Vancouver in December 2005, one prepared by URS Corporation for the County of Los Angeles, and one for the City and County of Santa Barbara by Alternative Resources, Incorporated (ARI).147,148,149

Technologies that are used to process the diverted waste stream, such as recycling, composting, and anaerobic digestion are not part of this report.

6.1 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

6.1.1 Technology Description

The primary reference document for this section is “Mechanical-Biological Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers”, prepared in 2005 by Juniper Consultancy Services in the United Kingdom. Other references are

noted as appropriate. Mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) is a generic term used to describe a range of residual waste

treatment options that combine some form of the following:

Mechanical Processing – sorting, separation, size reduction and sieving technologies in varying

configurations to achieve a mechanical separation of waste into potentially useful products or streams suitable for biological processing; and

147 Earth Tech Canada Incorporated. (2005). Greater Vancouver Regional District Review of Alternative Solid Waste Management

Methods. Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District, Utility Analysis and Environmental Management Division. 148 URS Corporation. (2005). Conversion Technology Evaluation Report for the County of Los Angeles. Prepared for The County of

Los Angeles, Department of Public Works and The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee, Integrated Waste Management Task Force’s Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee. Accessed September 23, 2008 http://www.socalconversion.org/pdfs/CT_Eval_Report.pdf

149 ARI. (2008). Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Conversion Technologies. Prepared for City and County of Santa Barbara, California. Accessed September 23, 2008. http://www.conversiontechnologystudy.com/media/documents/4-4-08FinalEvaluationReport.pdf.

http://www.socalconversion.org/pdfs/CT_Eval_Report.pdf

http://www.conversiontechnologystudy.com/media/documents/4-4-08FinalEvaluationReport.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 55 -

Biological Treatment – aerobic or anaerobic biological process that convert the biodegradable waste into a stabilized organic or compost-like output and, in the case of processes incorporating anaerobic digestion, biogas.

A generalized schematic flow diagram of MBT is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. MBT Schematic

MBT can be configured differently to achieve different goals, including the stabilization of waste prior to landfill disposal, production of compost-like products, diversion of non-organic recyclables and other materials, production of refuse derived fuel, or a combination of these elements.150 Some MBT systems

produce energy by digesting the organics in the waste stream to produce a biogas, which can then be combusted to generate electricity and/or heat. A large portion of the organic waste in Metro Vancouver is expected to be diverted to composting programs. In this context, the most viable uses for MBT are to

stabilize the remaining waste for landfilling or to produce refuse (i.e., MSW)-derived fuel (RDF). Therefore, the focus of the following sections is on MBT systems that achieve these goals.

All MBT options include the recovery of recycled materials during the mechanical sorting process. It is anticipated that there would be recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and, depending the purpose of the MBT technology (RDF or stabilized product), the recovery of some plastics.

150 Enviros Consulting Limited. (2007). Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste. Prepared by Enviros Consulting

Limited on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Accessed September 19, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/mbt.pdf

150 Juniper Consultancy Services Limited. (2005). Mechanical-Biological Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers Processes, Polices & Markets. Annex C: An Assessment of the Viability of Markets for MBT Outputs. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://www.juniper.co.uk/Publications/mbt_report.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/mbt.pdf

http://www.juniper.co.uk/Publications/mbt_report.html

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 56 -

6.1.2 Stabilization of Waste for Landfilling

MBT processes were originally developed in Germany to bio-stabilize MSW to the degree necessary to enable landfill disposal while meeting the requirements of the European Union Landfill Directive. The aim of

European Union Landfill Directive is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills. This can be achieved by stabilizing the organics before they are landfilled using an MBT process, or by recovering the energy in the waste stream through a thermal process. When MBT is chosen the bio-stabilization process

reduces the biological activity of the waste before it is landfilled, thereby reducing the generation of methane gas. A schematic for MBT being used to stabilize waste for landfilling is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. MBT for Waste Stabilization

Mechanical treatment involves sorting to recover additional recyclables that may remain in the waste stream after source separation, and in some cases crushing or shredding for size reduction. After this, the remaining waste material is typically composted to stabilize the organic fraction. Composting technologies used in bio-

stabilization processes are typically in-vessel to control odours and vectors. Bio-stabilization is achieved through the partial decomposition of the organic matter, and may require the addition of air and moisture to create suitable conditions for optimal composting.

Only MBT processes that utilize composting are capable of meeting the bio-stabilization requirements of the European Union Landfill Directive.151

151 Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of April 26, 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the

European Union, L182(42), 1-19, Section 1.1.1. Accessed August 19, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF


Metro Vancouver



6.1.3 Production of Refuse Derived Fuel

MBT can be used to produce Refuse Derived Fuel, a solid fuel produced by shredding MSW and removing metals and other non-combustible materials. Biological treatment improves the quality of the RDF by drying

the organic portion of the material, and provides an opportunity to tailor the RDF characteristics to the fuel specifications of the end user. A typical schematic of MBT for RDF production is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. MBT Process for RDF

In some RDF production systems, metals and inerts are removed, the organic fraction is screened out and composted. The residual component, largely consisting of paper, plastics and textiles, is processed into the RDF creating a product with high calorific value. In other systems, the residual component is “bio-stabilized”

or “bio-dried” by allowing it to undergo a partial composting process without the addition of moisture. The heat of the partial composting process dries out the material and oxidizes the putrescible organic fraction, while retaining other organic material. The bio-stabilized material is then mechanically processed though a

number of screening stages to achieve the necessary size reduction and produce the RDF. The level of mechanical processing is driven by the fuel specifications of the combustion technology used by the RDF customer.

The RDF can be used directly as a loose material (fluff) or pelletized into a denser product. The decision to pelletize the RDF is usually based on the proximity of the manufacturing facility to the combustion facility, the

need to store the material prior to its use and the type of feed system for the final application. The calorific content of RDF as compared to MSW and other fuels it typically displaces is shown in Table 7.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 57 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 58 -

Table 7. Calorific Values for Selected Fuels152

Calorific Value (GJ/tonne) Fuel Type

Net Gross

Coal 25.6 26.9 RDF 13.0 18.5 Wood 12.3 13.9 Average MSW 6.7 9.5

The removal of metals, inerts and the wet organic fraction results in a product with a higher calorific value than MSW. For example, the Southeastern Public Service Authority RDF Plant in Norfolk, Virginia and other sources typically achieves calorific values in the range of 12 – 14 GJ/tonne.153,154

6.1.4 MBT Process Variables

The following sections describe the scalability, feedstock flexibility, and compatibility of MBT with diversion

goals. A brief description is also provided of Canadian experience with MBT processes. Scalability

MBT facilities are highly scalable. Within a plant of given size, the mechanical process may incorporate multiple lines that can be run independently; this provides flexibility to handle fluctuations in incoming waste quantities. MBT facility operations can be run with flexible hours to accommodate the waste volumes to be

processed. For example, normal operations can be two shifts per day, and if waste volumes increase, a shift can be added when needed.

Flexibility

MBT facilities treat a wide range of residuals and can accept any type of MSW. Some process adjustments may be required when handling high-moisture content waste. However, the sorting and biological treatment

technologies are designed for the specific waste composition expected. Once the equipment is installed, major changes to waste composition could also require changes to equipment.

When MBT is used to bio-stabilize waste prior to landfilling, variations in feedstock will not affect the ability of the material to be landfilled following treatment. However, variations in feedstock are likely to impact RDF quality and calorific value, especially where RDF is being manufactured for an application with specific

quality requirements.

152 Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). (2008). Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2008. A

National Statistics Publication. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08.pdf 153 SPSA Plant Manager, Personal Communication, 2005. 154 United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Solid Waste Management (Chapter 12). United Nations Environment Programme

International Environmental Technology Centre Publication. Accessed August 12, 2008. http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/Solid_Waste_Management/index.asp

http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08.pdf

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/Solid_Waste_Management/index.asp

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 59 -

Compatibility with Diversion Goals

MBT processes are compatible with source-separated recyclables and organics diversion programs. Where diversion programs are already in place, MBT processes can be established to manage the remaining waste.

Recovery of additional recyclables, particularly metals, can be achieved through the mechanical sorting process.

There is a potential risk that the existence of an MBT facility may cause some waste generators to feel that there is no longer a need for source-separation since the waste will be sorted at the MBT plant. This could negatively impact source separated recycling rates and the marketability of recyclables (due to lower quality

from the mixed MSW stream). MBT Facilities in Canada

No MBT facilities are currently operating in British Columbia. However, a project being developed on Vancouver Island by a private enterprise proposes to shred MSW to produce an RDF stream. The waste will be baled and transported to the facility to be used as RDF in their power production operations.155 Shredding

and baling is planned to take place at existing or new transfer stations in Metro Vancouver. The Edmonton Composting Facility began operation in 2000 and can be considered as being similar in

function to an MBT facility. The incoming MSW undergoes initial hand-sorting to remove oversized items and is then composted and screened to remove non-organic components to produce compost.156 The residuals are currently landfilled, but will be converted into syngas in a gasification plant that is planned to begin

operations in 2011. The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) also operates a facility that can be considered an MBT facility. This

facility bio-stabilizes MSW prior to landfilling. The HRM operates an integrated solid waste management system that provides collection of recyclables and source separated organics collection to all residential and commercial customers.157 MSW entering the facility is removed from bags and screened. Large items are

sent directly to landfill. The remaining waste is processed aerobically and then sent to landfill. The total annual incoming waste is approximately 175,000 tonnes; of that amount, 20,000 tonnes (about 15%) is recovered and the remainder is landfilled.

6.1.5 Marketability of MBT Outputs

Where MBT is used to bio-stabilize MSW prior to landfilling there are no marketable products generated

(excluding materials removed by the mechanical front-end process).

155 Green Island Energy Limited and International Resource Solutions Incorporated. (2006).Request For Expression of Interest.

Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. 156 City of Edmonton, Waste Management Branch. (2006). Waste Facts: Edmonton Composting Facility. Accessed December 5, 2008.

http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/CompostingWasteFacts.pdf. 157 Regional Municipality of Halifax. (2008). Otter Lake Waste Processing and Disposal Facility. Accessed September 18, 2008.


http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/CompostingWasteFacts.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 60 -

MBT applications that produce RDF are very sensitive to market needs. The key to successful RDF operations is finding long term customers willing to pay for the RDF based on heating value or a portion of the heating value. The production of RDF is energy intensive and highly focused on the end user’s

specifications.158 Two possible options exist for the utilization of RDF in Metro Vancouver. The first is to make RDF available

to local cement kilns. The second is to use RDF as a fuel source in thermal treatment facilities in the Lower Mainland or elsewhere in BC.

Using RDF in cement kilns can result in the following benefits for cement producers:

reduced fuel cost;

reduced greenhouse gas emissions when RDF is substituted for fossil fuels; and

advancement of corporate sustainability and environmental stewardship objectives.

The use of RDF in the cement manufacturing process also contributes to community goals to reduce the amount of waste disposed to landfill. Should Metro Vancouver wish to pursue this option, there are some

important limitations that need to be addressed as part of the market development process:

Pre-processing – To reduce processing at the cement kiln facility and provide sufficient stockpiles to

eliminate fluctuations in availability the RDF would need to be produced off-site and delivered to the facility “ready to use”. Some level of stabilization at the cement kiln facility would still be required to avoid handling issues and odours once the RDF was on site.

Emissions and Permitting – Stack emissions from cement kilns are subject to regulatory limits. The RDF would need to be tested to ensure that combustion would meet stack emission limits. Chlorine and sulphur content in the RDF are of particular concern in relation to meeting emission limits.

Product Quality – The chemical composition of cement must be precisely controlled to maintain the desired structural properties. To ensure that the structural properties of the cement are not adversely affected specifications and “recipes” based on the characteristics of the RDF would need to be

developed.

Fuel Consistency – Since the RDF is likely to replace fossil fuel, consistency in the quality of RDF is needed so that the calorific values can be predicted to manage blending of the fuel appropriately.

Acceptance by the Cement Industry – In the past, cement kiln operators in Canada have been reluctant to use RDF as a fuel source because of inconsistency in RDF quality. They will need to be convinced that RDF is a viable fuel before they change over to this type of fuel.

6.1.6 Environmental Issues

MBT systems have the potential for environmental impact to water, air, and land. The upstream and

downstream environmental impacts of MBT systems are discussed in the following sections. The discussion places particular focus on the performance of MBT systems that stabilize waste for landfilling or produce RDF.

158 Earth Tech Canada Incorporated. (2005). Greater Vancouver Regional District Review of Alternative Solid Waste Management

Methods. Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District, Utility Analysis and Environmental Management Division.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 61 -

6.1.6.1 Water Contamination – MBT Operations

Aerobic processes for bio-stabilization produce wastewater from the condensation of aeration or exhaust air.159 Aerobic composting and bio-drying processes also have the potential to produce leachate from the

processing of the organic fraction. However, the volume of leachate is low since the MBT process is generally enclosed in a building, thereby reducing exposure of the waste to precipitation. Leachate can normally be returned to the process as an input.160

The Compost Facility Requirements Guideline161 from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment identifies the following parameters of concern with respect to leachate resulting from compost systems:

biochemical oxygen demand;

chemical oxygen demand;

ammonia;

resin fatty acids;

faecal coliforms;

pesticide residuals;

phosphorus; and

toxicity. Any MBT facility would be required to incorporate sufficient treatment or other controls to prevent

unauthorized discharges of leachate to surface or groundwater.

6.1.6.2 Water Contamination – Landfilling of Bio-stabilized Waste

The quality and quantity of leachate produced in a landfill is a function of a number of factors including: waste composition, age and moisture content, levels of precipitation and ambient temperatures; and filling and compaction practices in landfill operation.162 Leachate quantities are most directly related to the amount

of moisture that comes into contact with the waste. The generation of leachate from landfilling the bio-stabilized material from an MBT treatment process will

also be influenced by these factors. Certain characteristics of the MBT bio-stabilized material such as moisture content, size and composition are likely to differ from untreated waste. However, little detailed research has been conducted on the leachate generated by bio-stabilized materials in landfills. The

availability of data is further limited by the fact that very few landfills accept MBT bio-stabilized materials exclusively. The more common experience is that MBT process outputs are landfilled together with other municipal waste streams.163

159 Fricke, K., Santen, H., & Wallman, R. (2005). Comparison of selected aerobic and anaerobic procedures for MSW treatment. Waste

Management, 25, 799-810. 160 Fricke, K., Santen, H., & Wallman, R. (2005). Comparison of selected aerobic and anaerobic procedures for MSW treatment. Waste

Management, 25, 799-810. 161 Forgie, D.J.L., Sasser, L.W., & Neger, M.K. (2004) Compost Facility Requirements Guideline: How to Comply with Part 5 of the

Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/pdfs/compost.pdf 162 Quasim S.R., & Chiang W. (1994). Sanitary Landfill Leachate: Generation, Control and Treatment. CRC Press. 163 Robinson, H.D., Knox, K., Bone, B.D., Picken, A. (2005). Leachate quality from landfilled MBT waste. Waste Management, 25,

383-391.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/pdfs/compost.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 62 -

The UK Environment Agency commissioned Enviros Consulting Ltd. to study the impacts on leachate quality from landfilling MBT outputs.164 In the Enviros study, the MBT outputs being landfilled were specifically characterized as “mechanically sorted organic residue” (MSOR), described as the “fine fraction residues from

a mechanical sorting process, which cannot be reused or recycled”. The implications of landfilling the larger-size fractions separated out during the sieving process were not considered since it was assumed these materials were utilized elsewhere, e.g., at a waste-to-energy facility.

This study was based on a comparison of leachate characteristics from landfills accepting both treated (via composting) and untreated MSOR and concluded that:

MSOR that had undergone bio-stabilization resulted in lower leachate strength compared to untreated MSOR;

the stabilization process has the effect of causing the landfilled material to bypass the acetogenic phase during which strong organic leachate is typically produced; and

total nitrogen levels in leachate are considerably reduced by bio-stabilization.

The study also concluded that despite the reductions in leachate strength as a result of MBT treatment, the

leachate quality is such that treatment is still likely to be required, and proper landfill management practices to limit leachate are still appropriate.165

6.1.6.3 Water Contamination – RDF Use

The potential for water contamination associated with the use of RDF were considered both in the context of storage and combustion.

Since RDF still contains organic matter that can decompose, long-term storage needs to be managed to reduce the potential for leachate generation. If the RDF is produced through an aerobic biological

stabilization process such as composting, the control of leachate and site drainage within the curing and storage areas is subject to the British Columbia Organic Matter Recycling Regulation166 and the Compost Facility Requirements Guideline167.

The potential for water contamination or wastewater discharges associated with combustion or thermal use of RDF depend on the thermal treatment technology used rather than the characteristics of the RDF.

164 Robinson, H.D., Knox, K., Bone, B.D., Picken, A. (2005). Leachate quality from landfilled MBT waste. Waste Management, 25, 383-

391. 165 Robinson, H.D., Knox, K., Bone, B.D., Picken, A. (2005). Leachate quality from landfilled MBT waste. Waste Management, 25, 383-

391. 166 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2007). Environmental Management Act and Health Act - Organic Matter

Recycling Regulation. Accessed March 6, 2009. http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20e%20--/environmental%20management%20act%20%20sbc%202003%20%20c.%2053/05_regulations/32_18_2002.xml.

167 Forgie, D.J.L., Sasser, L.W., & Neger, M.K. (2004) Compost Facility Requirements Guideline: How to Comply with Part 5 of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/pdfs/compost.pdf.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20e%20--/environmental%20management%20act%20%20sbc%202003%20%20c.%2053/05_regulations/32_18_2002.xml

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20e%20--/environmental%20management%20act%20%20sbc%202003%20%20c.%2053/05_regulations/32_18_2002.xml

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/pdfs/compost.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 63 -

6.1.6.4 Air Emissions – MBT Operations

Air emissions for MBT processes arise from both the mechanical and biological components of the process. A review of regulatory frameworks for MBT facilities in European jurisdictions revealed that emission

parameters that are typically regulated are: dust, total organic and volatile organic compounds (TOC/VOC), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen oxide (NOx), ammonia, and odour.

Emissions from composting for bio-stabilization include carbon dioxide, ammonia, organic contaminants (VOCs/TOCs), bio-aerosols and fine particulates. In RDF production, emissions also arise when the RDF or other fuel fractions are combusted or gasified in thermal treatment facilities or other power plant applications.

Air emissions process controls include facility ventilation to minimize internal dust and odour, and capture and treatment of air extracted from process units to reduce odour impacts on surrounding areas. The type of

odour control system used would depend on the regulatory emission standard being met. The odour control processes normally used in European MBT plants are:

bio-filtration;

wet scrubber first stage with second stage bio-filtration; and

Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser (RTO).

Bio-filtration has become the odour control process of choice for many in-vessel composting facilities

operating in Canada and the USA. RTOs are the designated standard for treatment in some European jurisdictions (particularly Germany) as this approach gives the best emissions performance of the processes listed above.

6.1.6.5 Air Emissions – Landfilling of Bio-Stabilized Waste

Landfill gas results from the biological decomposition of landfilled organic material. The decomposition

occurs in conditions where there is very little oxygen. These anaerobic conditions favour particular types of bacteria that break down the waste into methane and carbon dioxide, the primary components of LFG. Information on the impact on LFG generation from landfilling MBT bio-stabilized waste is not widely

available. In Canada, the very limited number of MBT facilities in operation means that there is no technical data available.

In the UK, “there is a lack of technical information about the new generation of treated residue streams, for example their gross composition, leaching behaviour and biodegradability. Therefore, it is difficult to predict their behaviour when landfilled or recycled to land with respect to release of metals, nutrients and

greenhouse gases.”168 Some modelling and simulation work has been undertaken in the UK to demonstrate that MBT bio-

stabilization significantly reduces the potential to generate LFG emissions, as a means of making a case for

168 Lewin, K., A. Godley, J. Turrell, R. Smith, J. Frederickson, A. Graham, J. Gronow and N. Blakey. (2006). Characterisation of treated

wastes to support an evidence base for sustainable waste management. Proceedings of Waste 2006: Sustainable and Resource Management Conference. Accessed September 19, 2008 https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2563/3/Characterisation%20of%20treated%20wastes-2006.pdf.

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2563/3/Characterisation%20of%20treated%20wastes-2006.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 64 -

lower landfill tax rates to be applied to MBT processed waste streams.169 There have also been a number of studies that examine the effects of MBT processing on LFG generation, using simulated landfill conditions and a range of MBT process output samples. As with the previous discussion on leachate generation, the

focus of this analysis was on the impact on LFG generation of landfilling bio-stabilized MSOR from the MBT process rather than the larger-size fractions separated out during the mechanical sieving process.

A number of studies have found that LFG generation could be reduced significantly by bio-stabilizing the organic portion of the waste stream. Stegmann found that gas generation was reduced by up to 90% as compared with the landfilling of untreated waste,170 similar results demonstrating 90 – 98% reduction under

simulated conditions were also achieved by others.171 The impact of bio-stabilization on LFG quality and composition has also been investigated. One study

focused on characterization of the residual gas production from MSOR aerobically treated waste for periods of eight to 15 weeks to determine values for gas generation rate constants and potential gas generation capacity by means of anaerobic testing of treated wastes.172 This study concluded that:

The start of the methane-producing phase of decomposition was accelerated with the MBT treated samples. Once stable methane generation was achieved, the MBT processed samples produced gas

with greater than 50% by volume methane.

Gas production rates were higher for untreated waste, but gas generation started after a longer period of time than the MBT treated samples. The overall total gas produced was lower for treated samples. The

longer the period of biological treatment as part of the MBT process, the lower volumes of gas produced.

Cumulative gas production was found to decrease with increased periods of MBT treatment.

The reduced quantities of LFG from MBT processed waste could make it possible to use passive LFG management systems as a suitable alternative to active extraction systems. This would result in simplified

landfill operations and reduced costs over the long term for landfills accepting MBT processed waste streams.173

6.1.6.6 Air Emissions – RDF Use

Air emissions associated with the use of RDF in WTE processes or in cement kilns depend on the process controls and regulatory standards associated with the treatment technology. The properties of RDF differ

169 ‘Eunomia Research & Consulting. (2008). ‘Biostabilisation’ of waste: making the case for a differential rate of landfill tax. Accessed

September 19, 2008. http://www.eunomia.co.uk/shopimages/Eunomia%20Landfill%20Tax%20Paper%20Final.pdf.

170 Stegmann, R. (2005). Mechanical Biological Pretreatment Of Municipal Solid Waste. Proceedings Sardinia 2005: Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Accessed October 23, 2008. http://www.image.unipd.it/tetrawama/S2005/mechanical_biological_pretreatment.pdf.

171 Fricke, K., Santen, H., & Wallmann, R. (2005). Comparison of selected aerobic and anaerobic procedures for MSW treatment. Waste Management 25, 799–810.

172 de Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A, Cappai, G & Milia, S. (2009). Landfill gas generation after mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste. Estimation of gas generation rate constants. Waste Management 29, 1026-1034.

173 de Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A, Cappai, G & Milia, S. (2009). Landfill gas generation after mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste. Estimation of gas generation rate constants. Waste Management 29, 1026-1034

http://www.eunomia.co.uk/shopimages/Eunomia%20Landfill%20Tax%20Paper%20Final.pdf

http://www.image.unipd.it/tetrawama/S2005/mechanical_biological_pretreatment.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 65 -

from untreated waste primarily in terms of calorific value and moisture content.174 Emission limits associated with the combustion of untreated waste streams in waste-to-energy facilities are discussed in Section 4 of this document.

There may be some variability in the emission profile of RDF used in the cement manufacturing process as a supplemental fuel due to regulatory standards specific to the cement manufacturing industry. Research by

the Juniper Consultancy on MBT systems shows how emission limits for key emission parameters vary for incineration and co-combustion of waste, including RDF, in cement kilns (see Table 8). Note that emission limits for dust (particulate matter), and NOx are higher for cement kilns than for WTE facilities. Therefore, if

RDF is burned in a cement kiln rather than a WTE facility, emissions may be higher.

Table 8. Air Emissions Limit Values for Incineration and Co-combustion of Wastes under EU Waste Incineration Directive175

Total Emissions Limit Values (mg/Nm3 unless otherwise noted) Pollutants

Incinerators Cement Kilns

Dust 10 30 TOC 10 10 HCl 10 10 HF 1 1 SO2 50 50 NOx (existing plants) 400 800 NOx (new plants) 200 500 Cadmium + Tl 0.05 0.05 Mercury 0.05 0.05 Other Metals 0.5 0.5 Dioxins/Furans (ng/Nm3) 0.1 0.1

In British Columbia, cement manufacturing operations are regulated by specific permits that are process, facility and location specific. Any facility utilizing RDF as a supplemental fuel would, at a minimum, need to

maintain compliance with its existing permits and air emissions regulations.

6.1.6.7 Water Consumption – MBT Operations

Water consumption for MBT processes that stabilize material for landfilling or produce RDF are minimal, particularly where bio-stabilization takes advantage of inherent moisture content in the waste stream.

174 Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). (2008). Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2008. A

National Statistics Publication. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08.pdf 175 Juniper Consultancy Services Limited. (2005). Mechanical-Biological Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers Processes, Polices &

Markets. Annex C: An Assessment of the Viability of Markets for MBT Outputs. Accessed October 21, 2008. http://www.juniper.co.uk/Publications/mbt_report.html.

http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08.pdf

http://www.juniper.co.uk/Publications/mbt_report.html

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 66 -

6.1.6.8 Other Implications of Landfilling Bio-Stabilized Waste

The pre-treatment of waste through MBT bio-stabilization has benefits in terms of reduced volumes of residual waste requiring landfill disposal, and reduced leachate strength and LFG generation.176 The

changes in the chemical and physical properties of the residual waste stream as a result of MBT processing also have implications for the construction and operation of landfills that accept MBT process outputs as a significant portion of their total waste intake.177

A study conducted by Munnich et al. assessed both physical and chemical properties of landfilled MBT process outputs, as well as their behaviour in landfills at and following placement. The study sought to

provide operational and construction guidance for landfill managers. The main conclusions of the study were as follows:

There may be a need to create paved surface storage areas at the landfill to stockpile MBT outputs awaiting placement. Some MBT processes are batch processes and generate outputs sporadically. The non-constant supply of waste may require stockpiling so that there is sufficient material to construct the

appropriate lifts of waste at the time of waste placement. Such a storage area may need to provide cover for the stockpiled material to control leachate production and surface drainage issues.

There may be a need to add vehicle capacity at the landfill site to transfer the material from the storage

area to the landfill face.

The greater uniformity of the MBT process waste means that the material is more easily placed and

compacted than untreated mixed waste where different sizes of material require greater effort to crush and compact waste to achieve uniform densities.

The uniformity of the material at placement also reduces permeability and infiltration of precipitation,

which can reduce leachate generation. However, the lower permeability of the material means that during heavy rainfall events the precipitation remains on or close to the surface. This makes localized pooling of water more common and increases the challenges associated with operating heavy equipment

in very wet conditions.

Reduced LFG generation offers the opportunity to utilize passive gas management systems instead of active extraction systems.

In processes where the organic fraction only is landfilled following MBT processing, there is a reduction in the shear strength of the material, meaning that the slope stability design for waste placement must include more gradual slopes in order to maintain appropriate landfill stability.178

Other research has also been conducted to determine how post-closure management of landfills might be affected by the MBT processing of waste prior to landfilling. One UK study prepared in 2005 used landfill

simulation modelling to evaluate how various waste treatment process residues might behave in landfills.

176 Stegmann, R. (2005). Mechanical Biological Pretreatment Of Municipal Solid Waste. Proceedings Sardinia 2005: Tenth International

Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Accessed October 23, 2008. http://www.image.unipd.it/tetrawama/S2005/mechanical_biological_pretreatment.pdf

177 Münnich, K., Bauer, J., Bahr, T., & Fricke, K. (2005). Landfilling of Pre-Treated Waste – Consequences for the Construction and Operation of Landfill. Conference: The Future of Residual Waste Management In Europe 2005. Accessed September 19, 2008. http://www.orbit-online.net/orbit2005/vortraege/muennich-doc.pdf

178 Münnich, K., Bauer, J., Bahr, T., & Fricke, K. (2005). Landfilling of Pre-Treated Waste – Consequences for the Construction and Operation of Landfill. Conference: The Future of Residual Waste Management In Europe 2005. Accessed September 19, 2008. http://www.orbit-online.net/orbit2005/vortraege/muennich-doc.pdf

http://www.image.unipd.it/tetrawama/S2005/mechanical_biological_pretreatment.pdf

http://www.orbit-online.net/orbit2005/vortraege/muennich-doc.pdf

http://www.orbit-online.net/orbit2005/vortraege/muennich-doc.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 67 -

This model found that MBT process outputs appear to have shorter post-closure management periods before achieving a state of equilibrium beyond which no significant environmental impacts are likely to occur. However, this study notes that there is still a need to: investigate actual landfill sites accepting MBT process

outputs; and, to continue to incorporate a greater understanding of MBT process output properties when planning, designing and operating landfills that will accept these materials.179 6.1.7 Community/Social Issues

6.1.7.1 Health Impacts

According to a report by United Kingdom’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), “no

studies specifically looking at the health effects of MBT facilities have been carried out. Depending on the nature of an individual facility, the health effects of MBT facilities might be expected to be comparable to those of in-vessel composting facilities.”180 This report goes on to observe that there have been no known

instances of increases in cancer or asthma in populations close to MBT facilities.

6.1.7.2 MBT as a Neighbour

MBT plants are contained within buildings, and emission, noise and nuisance controls and appropriate buffer zones are part of good design and operating practices.

MBT plants are most suitable in industrial or manufacturing locations, as there are likely to be impacts to surrounding areas in terms of increased traffic from waste transport vehicles into and out of the plant. Alternatively, these facilities may be located in areas where there are few neighbours, and land use

competition is minimal. Facilities must also be located in areas with sufficient land to accommodate the biological component of the

system. In the case of composting, an appropriate buffer zone is also required that may be land-intensive. Other issues that may impact the public include odours and dust, although these should be effectively

addressed at the stage of plant design to minimize impacts on the neighbours.181

6.1.7.3 Employment Opportunities

Employment would be generated during both construction and operation phases. During operations, a 500,000 tonne/year plant would generate between 20-25 full time equivalent positions. This estimate is based on a survey of a number of facilities using the Strabag (formerly Linde-KCA) MBT technology in the

179 Hall, D.H., Gronow, J., Smith, R., & Rosevear, A. (2005). Estimating the Post-Closure Management Time for Landfills Containing

Treated MSW Residues. Proceedings Sardinia 2005: Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Accessed October 25, 2008. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2691/1/Estimating%20post-closure%20management%20time-landfills-MSW%20residues-2005.pdf.

180 Enviros Consulting Limited. (2007). Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste. Prepared by Enviros Consulting Limited on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Accessed September 19, 2008 http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/mbt.pdf

181 Earth Tech Canada Incorporated. (2005). Greater Vancouver Regional District Review of Alternative Solid Waste Management Methods. Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District, Utility Analysis and Environmental Management Division.

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2691/1/Estimating%20post-closure%20management%20time-landfills-MSW%20residues-2005.pdf

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2691/1/Estimating%20post-closure%20management%20time-landfills-MSW%20residues-2005.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/mbt.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 68 -

UK.182 In addition to direct employment, the use of MBT would support jobs associated with the use of RDF or the landfilling of the stabilized MBT output.

6.2 Waste-to-energy


This study examines the following energy recovery technologies for MSW: mass burn combustion, gasification/pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification. Each of these technologies is described in the sections below.

6.2.1.1 Mass Burn

Process Description

Waste is treated as received with minimal pre-processing. In most large systems waste is received in a bunker and mixed using grapple cranes that remove non-combustible items such as appliances. Shredders may be used to reduce large items such as furniture to more manageable sizes.

Mass burn combustion systems use some form of moving grate to accept the mixed waste and slowly transport it through the combustion process. “Under fire” air is usually blown through the grate up into the

waste, with the “over fire” air added to maintain minimum combustion temperature and residence times in order to achieve proper combustion.

Electronic combustion control systems are implemented into all grate systems to ensure that complete combustion is achieved and all organic pollutants are destroyed prior to entering the flue gas stream. Combustion control involves the addition of secondary air into the combustion chamber to facilitate

turbulence or mixing of waste particles and ensure that the system has sufficient oxygen to enable combustion to take place.

Bottom ash is classified as non-hazardous and can be deposited in a municipal landfill. The bottom ash from the Metro Vancouver WTE facility is re-used at the Vancouver Landfill as landfill cover material and in road bed construction. Fly ash is captured by the air pollution control equipment of the plant, and usually requires

stabilization, either chemically or with cement, before it can be deposited in a municipal landfill. A typical mass burn WTE facility cross-section, courtesy of MVA Hamm Betreiber GmbH is shown in

Figure 13.

182 Earth Tech Canada Incorporated. (2008). Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Material & Energy Recovery Options Review.

Prepared for Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 69 -

Figure 13. Typical Mass Burn WTE Facility Cross-Section

Legend:

1. Scale and visual inspection of waste 2. Tipping hall 3. Waste bunker/storage 4. Overhead crane 5. Fire detection system 6. Waste feed hopper and system 7. Combustion chamber 8. Grate 9. Ash discharge and quench 10. NOx control 11. Heat exchanger

12. Steam turbine generator 13. Steam condenser 14. Cyclone coarse dust removal 15. Reagent injection for neutralization of

acid gases 16. Absorber tower 17. Activated carbon injection 18. Baghouse filter 19. Induced draft fan 20. Stack 21. Emissions monitoring system

Level of Maturity and Implementation

Mass burn is currently the industry standard technology for WTE. It is a proven technology with hundreds of

plants operating worldwide. In Europe alone, approximately 50 million tonnes of waste is thermally treated each year in over 400 WTE plants.183 In the USA, there are 65 mass burn plants burning a total of 20 million tonnes of MSW each year.184

183 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (IPPC). (2006). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the

Waste Treatment Industries. Accessed August 18, 2008. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wt_bref_0806.pdf 184 Themelis, N. (2006). The Role of Waste-to-Energy in the U.S.A. Presentation at the 3rd Congress of the Confederation of European

WTE Plants (CEWEP). Accessed October 24, 2008. http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/85_ThemelisPresentation.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8

ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wt_bref_0806.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 70 -

The most commonly used mass burn grate technologies are Martin and Von Roll. As of 2003, Martin had an annual installed capacity of 53 million tonnes, while Von Roll had an annual installed capacity of 29 million tonnes.185 There are several other qualified manufacturers of grates in Europe and Japan. Energy Conversion Efficiencies

Current mass burn technologies regularly recover energy and sell electricity to the grid in the range of 550 kWh/tonne of waste burned.186 Mass burn facilities can also be designed to maximize energy recovery

by recovering electricity and steam for district heating (this is referred to as combined heat and power). An example is the modern WTE facility in Brescia, Italy.187 This facility has a throughput of 514,000 tonnes of MSW per year. For each tonne of waste treated, it generates 650 kWh of electricity for sale to the grid and

over 500 kWh of heat supplied to a local district heating system. Another example is the Malmo facility in Sweden, which produces 280 kWh of electricity and 2,580 kWh of heat for district heating from each tonne of waste treated.188 Metro Vancouver’s WTE facility converts 16% of the energy from incoming waste to

electricity and 26% of the energy from incoming waste to steam. The facility produces about 470 kWh of electricity and 760 kWh of steam per tonne of waste. The steam is sold to the neighbouring paper recycling facility.

Scalability

Mass burn facilities are inherently modular. Depending on the technology, furnace sizes range from 40,000

to 300,000 tonnes per year. Most mass burn WTE plants consist of multiple furnaces or modules and can be expanded as the need arises. Individual modules can also be selectively shut down if there is a need to maintain or repair them or if there is inadequate feedstock.

The capacity of WTE plants using mass burn usually ranges from 100,000 tonnes to well over one million tonnes per year. The Metro Vancouver WTE facility has three furnaces and a capacity of about

280,000 tonnes per year. The average size of European facilities is about 200,000 tonnes per year and in the US it is over 300,000 tonnes per year.

Flexibility

Mass burn facilities can treat feedstock with little or no preparation. If it is municipal solid waste, steps must be taken to reduce contaminants189 and large non-combustible objects such as appliances. Mass burn

systems can be designed for relatively wet waste, but operate more efficiently with dry waste. The

185 Milrath, K. & Themelis, J.T. (2003). Waste as a Renewable Source of Energy: Current and Future Practices. Proceedings of 2003

ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Accessed December 4, 2008. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Millrath_ASME-ICEME_2003_paper.pdf

186 Themelis, N. (2006). The Role of Waste-to-Energy in the U.S.A. Presentation at the 3rd Congress of the Confederation of European WTE Plants (CEWEP). Accessed October 24, 2008. http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/85_ThemelisPresentation.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8

187 Bonomo, A. (2003). Waste to Energy Advances: The Brescia Experience. Plenary lecture at second Meeting of the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council. Accessed October 2, 2008. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/bonomo_nawtec11_brescia.pdf

188 International Solid Waste Association: Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste (ISWA). (2006). Energy from Waste, State-of-the-Art Report. Statistics 5th Edition, August 2006. Accessed November 3, 2008. http://www.iswa.org

189 This may take the form of a ban on the disposal of household hazardous waste, or a sorting system before the WTE process.

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Millrath_ASME-ICEME_2003_paper.pdf


http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/bonomo_nawtec11_brescia.pdf

http://www.iswa.org/

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 71 -

technologies are forgiving when the waste composition changes or the moisture content undergoes seasonal variations. The systems are designed for a constant release of heat. If the waste is wetter, the feed rate is increased to compensate for the reduced heating value; if the waste is drier, the feed rate is reduced.

Steady-state combustion can be maintained by increasing or decreasing the flow of waste. The flexibility of a mass burn facility is usually achieved in conjunction with a landfill. The mass burn facility is

sized for the lowest monthly or weekly tonnages expected, with a significant margin of safety, since the technology is most efficient when operating at 100% capacity. The landfill is used for any waste that is over and above what the mass burn facility needs. The landfill also provides a buffer for waste increases and

decreases due to factors such as population growth, increased recycling or a changing economy. Availability

Mass burn has the highest availability of all combustion technologies for MSW. Availability refers to the actual time, on a percentage basis, that the plant is operational in a calendar year. The calculation takes into consideration planned and unplanned shut downs. Existing facilities in Europe consistently achieve

availabilities of over 90%.190 The WTE facility in Metro Vancouver consistently achieves an availability of 95%.191

Compatibility with Diversion Goals

Mass burn is compatible with waste diversion goals as long as facilities are properly planned and not overbuilt. Mass burn facilities must be planned as an integral part of an integrated system and be employed

after recycling and organics management have been optimized. Even then, enough flexibility must be built into the system so that the first four levels of the waste management hierarchy (avoid, reduce, reuse and recycle) always take priority over the fifth level, the recovery of energy..

Many progressive countries in Europe with advanced waste management systems combine both extensive recycling and recovery of energy. As such, dependence on landfills is significantly reduced, which is the

intent of the strategy. See Section 6.3.1.5 for detailed information on WTE and recycling rates in the EU. The degree of recycling and WTE depend on the country’s priorities, legislation and markets for recovered materials and energy. The overall recycling rate for municipal waste in the EU15 is 40%. The EU defines

municipal waste as “… waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste management system. For areas not covered by a municipal waste collection scheme the amount of waste generated is estimated. Wastes from agriculture and industry are not included.”192 Based on this

definition, the EU recycling rate does not include construction and demolition waste, which is included in the Metro Vancouver 55% recycling rate. Therefore, the two rates are not directly comparable.


Waste Treatment Industries. Accessed August 18, 2008. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wt_bref_0806.pdf 191 Metro Vancouver, Personal Communication. 192 Eurostat News Release. (2009, March 9). Municipal waste. Half a ton of municipal waste generated per person in the EU27 in 2007.

Almost 40% of this waste was recycled. Issued by Eurostat Press Office. Accessed March 9, 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_03/8-09032009-EN-BP.PDF.




Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 72 -

Extensive recycling does not appear to materially alter the ability of mass burn technology to recover the energy in the MSW. A European study analyzed the impacts of recycling and organics removal on MSW and found that the heating value was reduced by about 3%.193 A separate Green Paper on the management of

bio-waste in the European Union noted that the removal of organic waste from the waste stream may increase the heating value of the remaining waste.194 A positive side effect of a strong recycling and organics separation program is a reduction of contaminants through the removal and recycling of PVC plastics and

household hazardous wastes such as batteries. Many potentially hazardous products, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and electronics, are covered by extended producer responsibility regulations in British Columbia. The actual change in heating value will depend on the materials removed. If recycling removes a

high percentage of wet organics, the heating value of the waste can be expected to increase. Mass burn technologies can also contribute to recycling. Any metal not recovered (including metal that is not

recoverable) by upstream recycling means can be extracted from the bottom ash through magnetic separation. At the Metro Vancouver WTE facility over 3% of the input every year is metal that is recovered and recycled. In addition, bottom ash can either be landfilled, or treated, stabilized if required, and recycled

as construction aggregate. Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Spain recycle over half of the bottom ash produced at their mass burn facilities.195

The German Federal Environment Agency issued a background paper in 2008 titled: “Waste Incineration and Waste Prevention are not a Contradiction in Terms”.196 The German Agency clearly affirms that waste diversion and producer responsibility take precedence, but recovering energy from the non-recyclable waste

stream in state-of-the-art mass burn facilities is the preferred environmental and socially responsible method compared to landfill.

6.2.1.2 Gasification and Pyrolysis

Gasification and pyrolysis are two similar processes that heat a feedstock under starved air (substoichiometric) conditions to produce a synthetic gas, syngas. The syngas can then be cleaned and

burned to produce heat or electricity, or used in industrial processes. The following sections provide a brief overview of the differences between gasification and pyrolysis, followed by sections describing the energy conversion efficiency, scalability, flexibility, availability, level of maturity/implementation, and compatibility

with diversion goals of the two technologies.

a) Gasification Process Description

Gasification is a generic term used to describe a process of partial combustion of carbonaceous fuel to generate syngas. Once cleaned, the syngas can be burned in an internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or


Waste Treatment Industries, Chapter 2.2.1.1. Accessed August 18, 2008. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wt_bref_0806.pdf 194 Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union.

Accessed October 16, 2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF 195 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (IPPC). (2006). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the

Waste Treatment Industries Chapter 1.6.2. Accessed August 18, 2008. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wt_bref_0806.pdf 196 Umwelt Bundes Amt. (2008). Abfallverwertung ist kein Gegner der Abfallvermeidung. Accessed July 8, 2008.

www.umweltbundesamt.de


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF


http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 73 -

in a boiler under excess-air conditions. Alternatively, the syngas can be used in chemical processes such as ethanol production. The syngas has an energy content about one fifth to one third that of natural gas.

Gasification of solid materials is a process that has been around for over a century and was historically used to gasify coal and wood to make gas while producing coke and charcoal. Gasification has only recently been applied to MSW.

Gasifiers operate with smaller air pollution control devices than mass burn systems since smaller volumes of flue gas are produced. However, the syngas needs to be cleaned using a chemical process that produces

residues. When the syngas is ultimately burned as fuel, it will release combustion by-products similar to those of natural gas and additional NOx control may be required. Emissions from gasification systems generally have to meet the same air emission standards as mass burn systems. A study prepared for the

government in the UK concluded that the gasification systems commercially available in Europe are able to meet EU emission standards.197 A comparison of emissions from various technologies shows that gasification systems have similar or lower emissions than mass burn WTE plants.198 Despite these positive

findings related to emissions control, the Fichtner Consulting Engineers study concluded that “…the commercial application of gasification and pyrolysis technologies for the treatment of MSW is not widespread in the UK or in Europe. Only a few plants operate at the commercial scale. The risks associated with using

less developed technologies for the treatment of waste are considered to be higher than for the more established mass burn technologies”.

Gasification systems typically require homogeneous feedstock necessitating extensive front-end processing of MSW. This significantly raises costs and requires energy inputs into the process. Treating the hazardous by-products generated from cleaning the syngas adds to the complexity and cost of the system.

Thermoselect is an 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 (2,000°C), achieved through the combustion of a portion of the waste, and oxygen concentrations are used in the gasification stage. Subsequent rapid cooling is used to prevent formation of trace organic contaminants in the synthetic gas. Thermoselect is unique among the advanced

systems in that: it accepts waste with minimal pre-processing, similar to that required for mass burn systems, rather than the highly refined refuse derived fuel required by other gasification systems; it uses a combination of both gasification and pyrolysis; and it includes cleaning processes for all residues. It is also

known for its minimal environmental impact and its high cost. A facility that operated in Karlsruhe, Germany was shut down in 2004 amid claims of operational difficulties and high costs. Actual costs of operation were not disclosed by the German utility. However, based on the complexity of the system, it can be safely

assumed that costs would be higher than for a mass burn system. The Fichtner Consulting Engineers Study (2004) states that: “there is no reason to believe that these technologies [gasification, pyrolysis] are any less expensive than [mass burn] combustion and it is likely, from information available, that the more complex

processes are significantly more expensive.”

197 Fichtner Consulting Engineers. (2004). The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatment of MSW in the UK. Published by ESTET,

London. Accessed October 16, 2008. www.esauk.org/publications/reports/thermal%20treatment%20report.pdf 198 RPS-MCOS Ltd. (2005). Feasibility Study of Thermal Waste Treatment/Recovery Options in the Limerick/Clare/Kerry Region.

Section 5.2. Accessed October 7, 2008. http://www.managewaste.ie/docs/WMPNov2005/FeasabilityStudy/LCK%20Thermal%20Feasibility%20Report-Ful%20(web).pdf.

http://www.esauk.org/publications/reports/thermal%20treatment%20report.pdf

http://www.managewaste.ie/docs/WMPNov2005/FeasabilityStudy/LCK%20Thermal%20Feasibility%20Report-Ful%20(web).pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 74 -

A schematic of the Thermoselect process (provided by Thermoselect) is shown in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14. Schematic of Thermoselect Process

There is also a Canadian technology that is making progress towards implementing gasification of MSW. Enerkem is building a gasification facility for the City of Edmonton to process residues from the City’s composting plant. These residuals are derived from MSW and have higher plastics content than typical

unprocessed MSW.199 The Edmonton facility is in an advanced planning stage and is intended to ultimately produce ethanol from the syngas.200 Enerkem also has an operational facility in Spain that processes waste plastics.

b) Pyrolysis Process Description

Pyrolysis is similar to gasification except for the source of heat. A pyrolysis system uses an external source

of heat to drive the process whereas gasification uses the heat from the waste generated inside the reaction chamber. Generally, gasification is configured to maximize the production of gaseous fuel, while pyrolysis is optimized to produce liquid fuel.

199 Earth Tech Canada Incorporated and Juniper (2004). Study of Gasification/Pyrolysis of MSW Residuals. Prepared for the City of

Edmonton and EPCOR Power Development Corporation. 200 Jim Schubert, City of Edmonton, Personal Communication, November 2008.

Metro Vancouver



Level of Maturity and Implementation

c) Gasification

There are few full-scale plants in continuous operation outside of Japan. Energos claims to have eight

gasification plants in operation in Norway and Germany. These are grate gasifiers that would be classified as controlled air combustion units in North America. The only true gasification plant in Europe was the previously mentioned Thermoselect plant in Karlsruhe, Germany. There are no commercial scale gasification

plants for MSW in North America. In Japan, Ebara sells fluidized bed gasification plants with subsequent high temperature combustion, but these are more closely related to combustion technologies than true gasifiers. The Thermoselect technology, owned by JFE Engineering Corporation in Japan, is probably the

most mature of the advanced full scale gasification systems for MSW. The first of these plants has been operating since 1999 and the technology can be considered mature. In addition to Thermoselect, JFE has developed another gasification technology. However, this technology does not clean the syngas before

combustion, making it similar to conventional combustion.

d) Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is widely used for industrial purposes, with more limited application to MSW. The oldest operating facility began operations in 1987. It is located in Burgau, Germany and was built by the German government as a demonstration facility. It is now being operated by the municipality as a means of treating MSW. The

facility burns syngas directly in a boiler to produce steam without any syngas cleaning. Therefore, it is being operated like most mass burn plants and requires a conventional air pollution control system. As a demonstration facility it was not designed to optimize the production of energy; therefore, it has low

efficiencies and produces only enough power to cover its own electricity needs. The same technology is used at a newer and much larger facility in Hamm, Germany which provides dirty syngas as additional fuel to a coal fired power plant.

Pyrolysis is also being used in Japan. Mitsui Babcock has built six plants with capacities ranging from 60,000 to 150,000 tonnes per year. The technology is based on a Siemens development that was stopped after a

gas explosion at a full scale demonstration facility in Furth, Germany in 1999. Products of Gasification and Pyrolysis

Gasification and pyrolysis produce syngas and char. During syngas cleaning, it is separated into a clean gas and a liquid product. The liquid product is a fuel consisting of an oil stream containing acetic acid, acetone, methanol and complex oxygenated hydrocarbons (tars). The liquid product can be processed further for use

as a synthetic oil as a substitute for conventional oil. The solid by-product is carbon char that consists of almost pure carbon and any inert material originally present in the MSW.

One of the advantages of gasification and pyrolysis when compared to mass burn is that more heavy metals are contained in the char as opposed to the syngas. That is also a disadvantage when the char has to be disposed or burned to remove the high level of carbon remaining in the char. In the EU, the char cannot be

disposed in a landfill due to its high carbon content.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 75 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 76 -

Energy Conversion Efficiencies

Both gasification and pyrolysis create syngas that can be used in many of the same ways as natural gas. Syngas can be burned in a conventional boiler to produce steam to drive a steam turbine generator to

produce electricity. Cleaned syngas can also be used in:

reciprocating engines to produce electricity and heat;

combined cycle gas turbine power plants to produce electricity and heat; or

fuel cells.

Syngas can also be converted to ethanol.

The efficiencies of gasification and pyrolysis when the syngas is converted to electricity using a steam boiler and turbine are 10% to 20%.201 This does not compare favourably to the efficiency of mass burn systems, which typically reach 14% to 27% and can be optimized to achieve 30%. However, if the syngas is burned in

a reciprocating engine, efficiencies increase to 13% to 28% and in a combined cycle gas turbine, they can be as high as 30%. As there are no known commercial scale applications of combined cycle gas turbines using syngas produced from MSW, or of ethanol produced from MSW, the actual efficiency of these systems is not

known. Scalability

Gasification and pyrolysis facilities are usually built with a fixed capacity. Module sizes range from less than 40,000 tonnes per year to about 100,000 tonnes per year. The largest gasification/pyrolysis facility to operate commercially was built in Karlsruhe, Germany with a total capacity of 225,000 tonnes per year. However, the

facility is currently not in operation due to cost issues and disputes between the operator and Thermoselect.202,203

Due to their potential for smaller sized units, gasification facilities can be sited close to the feedstock source, i.e., decentralized applications. However, as with mass burn systems, there are economies of scale to be achieved by building larger centralized facilities.

Flexibility

Most gasification technologies require a dry and consistently sized feedstock with a limited amount of inert

material. Size and moisture constraints vary with technology. In general, the same municipal solid waste that provides energy via traditional mass burn systems can be processed using gasification, after pre-processing

201 Enviros Consulting Limited. (2007). Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. Prepared on behalf of United Kingdom Department of

Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Accessed August 11, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/incineration.pdf.

202 Thermoslect S.A. (2004). Press release: The Thermoselect Process: Common Position of JFE Engineering Thermoselect SA. Accessed December 3, 2008. http://www.thermoselect.com/news/Statement%20JFE%20TS%202004-03-31.pdf

203 EnBW. (2006). EnBW wins against Thermoselect in front of the District Court, June 30, 2006. Accessed March 2, 2009. http://www.enbw.com/content/en/press/press_releases/2006/06/PM_20060630_CU_jm01/index.jsp;jsessionid=2036E76FA6EFCF38F92B25B18D12C1D9.nbw04.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/incineration.pdf

http://www.thermoselect.com/news/Statement%20JFE%20TS%202004-03-31.pdf

http://www.enbw.com/content/en/press/press_releases/2006/06/PM_20060630_CU_jm01/index.jsp;jsessionid=2036E76FA6EFCF38F92B25B18D12C1D9.nbw04

http://www.enbw.com/content/en/press/press_releases/2006/06/PM_20060630_CU_jm01/index.jsp;jsessionid=2036E76FA6EFCF38F92B25B18D12C1D9.nbw04

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 77 -

to remove moisture, inert materials, and to create a more uniform feedstock. Pre-processing to convert heterogeneous MSW into a stable fuel is often complex and expensive.

Availability

The most advanced true gasification technology being used in multiple commercial scale plants is the Thermoselect process. It produces a clean syngas that is combusted in internal combustion engines,

produces no effluent and no ash. Seven Thermoselect facilities are operating in Japan with a total capacity of 580,000 tonnes per year. These facilities are achieving an availability of about 80%.204 This is similar to the availability of fluidized bed combustion systems for MSW, but well below the 90% plus availability that is

typical for mass burn technology. Compatibility with Diversion Goals

Gasification and pyrolysis are thermal technologies for the recovery of energy from the non-recyclable waste. Gasification and pyrolysis are compatible with diversion goals for the same reasons presented for mass burn WTE. For brevity, these reasons will not be repeated here (refer to 6.2.1.1).

6.2.1.3 Plasma Arc Gasification

Process Description

Plasma arc processes use extremely high temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment to gasify waste into simple molecules. In essence, it is a conventional gasification system where the heat is supplied by a high temperature plasma field.

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 from 5,000 to 15,000°C. The products of the process are slag

and combustible gases. The synthetic gas produced by plasma technologies can be used for combustion in industrial boilers and steam boilers, and in internal combustion engines and gas turbines after extensive gas cleaning.

Plasma arc is not new. Industrial applications 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. However, because of extremely high operating temperatures and the resultant production of a vitrified inert ash that will not leach metals or other contaminants into the environment, plasma technology has environmental advantages in certain

applications. The environmental advantages include the ‘ultimate destruction’ of highly problematic hazardous organic materials such as PCBs and complex stable volatile organic compounds.

In principle, plasma arc has the same attributes, advantages and disadvantages as conventional gasification, with the added benefit of much higher heat that destroys all organic contaminants and vitrifies the slag into a

204 Themelis, N. (2007). Thermal Treatment Review: Global Growth of Traditional and Novel Thermal Treatment Technologies. Waste

Management World, 8 (4), 37-45. Accessed November 13, 2008 http://www.waste-management-world.com/display_article/304395/123/ARCHI/none/none/1/Thermal-treatment-review/

http://www.waste-management-world.com/display_article/304395/123/ARCHI/none/none/1/Thermal-treatment-review/

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 78 -

reusable aggregate-like substance. This aggregate would need to be ground into a marketable commodity and compete with traditional aggregates on price. The major disadvantages are the higher energy requirements to create and maintain the plasma, the heat losses associated with high heat conditions, and

the technical complexity and material challenges that come from managing such high temperatures. Despite considerable research into the application of plasma technology for MSW, the technology is still at

the developmental stage. Currently, there are no commercial scale units managing MSW in North America or Europe. There are, however, a number of different patented plasma arc systems being proposed for the treatment of MSW and undergoing pilot tests. For the purposes of this report only, two technologies that are

being tested in Canada are described. One of these is the Alter NRG process and the other is Plasco.

The Alter NRG Gasification Process

Gasification occurs through the application of heat using a plasma torch. Alter NRG’s plasma technology comes from its wholly-owned subsidiary company called Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC). WPC has developed a universal plasma torch system that can be used to process a wide variety of feedstocks,

including MSW.205 Alter NRG does not sell a complete system, only the plasma torch used in the process. Typically, the technology for the pre-processing of waste is the responsibility of the purchaser. However, Alter NRG does form partnerships with other technology suppliers to deliver a complete plasma gasification

system.206 Carbon containing feedstock is exposed to extremely high temperatures (over 5,000°C) in the presence of

controlled amounts of steam, air and oxygen. The feedstock reacts in the gasifier with the steam, air and oxygen to produce syngas and slag. Syngas is composed primarily of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other gaseous constituents. It can be used to generate electricity, steam, or as a basic chemical building block to

produce liquid fuels.207 Inorganic components of the feedstock form in the bottom of the gasifier into a glass-like slag. This material

does not leach, can be ground to normal aggregate size and used in the construction and building industries.208 Figure 15 provides a diagram of a typical Westinghouse plasma torch.209

205 Alter NRG. (2009). Our Technology. Accessed March 6, 2009. http://www.alternrg.ca/our_technology/. 206 Alter NRG. (2009). Project Development. Accessed March 6, 2009.

http://www.alternrg.ca/project_development/commercial_projects. 207 Alter NRG. (2008). Confidential Information Memorandum for Technology Review by Gartner Lee. Cited with permission from Alter

NRG. 208 Alter NRG. (2008). Confidential Information Memorandum for Technology Review by Gartner Lee. Cited with permission from Alter

NRG. 209 Alter NRG. (2008). Confidential Information Memorandum for Technology Review by Gartner Lee. Cited with permission from Alter

NRG.

http://www.alternrg.ca/our_technology/

http://www.alternrg.ca/project_development/commercial_projects

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 79 -

Figure 15. Westinghouse Plasma Corporation Plasma Torch

The are only two commercial applications of Alter NRG’s WPC plasma torch processing MSW. Both facilities are located in Japan and have been in operation since 2002. Japan’s Hitachi Metals Ltd. uses the technology to transform MSW, auto shredder residue and sewage sludge into steam and electricity.210 These are

privately owned and operated facilities and operating and performance information is not available.

The Plasco Gasification Process

Plasco Energy Corp. (Plasco) utilizes a more traditional approach to gasification. MSW is pre-selected and is fed into a gasification chamber where a portion is combusted to create the necessary heat for the gasification process to occur. Plasma torches are applied in the flue gas stream to clean up organic contaminants and in

the slag area to create the vitrified residue. After passing through the plasma area, the syngas is cooled and passed through a cleaning system to remove metals, sulphur, and the remaining particulates. A flow diagram of the Plasco process is shown in Figure 16.

210 Alter NRG. (2009). Project Development. Accessed March 6, 2009.

http://www.alternrg.ca/project_development/commercial_projects.

http://www.alternrg.ca/project_development/commercial_projects

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 80 -

Figure 16. Plasco Flow Diagram

Plasco operates a demonstration facility in Ottawa with a permitted capacity of 27,000 tonnes per year. Plasco financed the construction and operation of the plant, and the City of Ottawa provided the site for the facility and is paying a tipping fee of $40/tonne.211 The facility is permitted to process up to 75 tonnes of

MSW per day and ten tonnes per day of high carbon waste (plastics 3-7 and tires).212 The high carbon waste is added to reduce fluctuations in the energy content of MSW and to increase the heating value of the feedstock. Plasco believes that the addition of the high carbon waste will not be required in the long term.

Plasco claims that their gasification plant can handle highly variable waste, requires minimal sorting, and can handle almost any type of feedstock. The process involves pre-sorting of any undesirable waste (e.g., large

bulky items, propane canisters, metals, frames) from the waste, and those with higher commercial value are reclaimed. Plasco can integrate the facility with a materials recovery facility (MRF) although a MRF is not required for the technology to operate, according to Plasco. The waste is shredded into relatively large,

consistent pieces prior to being sent to the converter. There is no feed drying system. The technology claims to be able to handle chemical waste, agricultural waste and tires without any problems. High moisture content waste (such as sewage sludge) is an undesirable feedstock because of the energy required to

vaporize the water once it is in the chamber.

211 Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBD). (2008). Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option. Accessed February 23, 2009.

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/files/u3/policypaper_101024_wteoption.pdf 212 Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBD). (2008). Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option. Accessed February 23, 2009.

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/files/u3/policypaper_101024_wteoption.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 81 -

To date, the facility in Ottawa has been processing only small amounts of MSW, an average of 6.6 tonnes per day from February to June 2008.213 The facility has also experienced difficulties in handling mixed MSW. The January 2009 engineering report indicates that the facility was only able to process 178 tonnes of the

430 tonnes received. The report also indicates that the plant did not reject any incoming waste loads. This would suggest that the plant is pre-sorting waste resulting in approximately 59% of the incoming waste being removed prior to processing.214 During the six months of operation, the facility was operational for nearly

17 days, approximately 9.1% of available operating time.215 Comments on availability and reliability are not possible because the technology cannot be considered mature since it has not been operating commercially and consistently processing MSW.

Plasco states that their technology results "in no emissions from [the] conversion [process]”.216 However, there will be emissions from the combustion of the syngas in the reciprocating engines. These emissions will

be subject to the emissions standards that apply to any gas-fired cogeneration facility. According to Plasco, the efficiency of the conversion process is based on a waste heating value of 16.5 MJ at 30% moisture per tonne of MSW (Table 9). This is much higher than the 10.5 GJ/tonne measured at the Metro Vancouver WTE

facility.

Table 9. Claimed Energy and Mass Balance for Plasco Gasification Process217

1 Tonne of MSW at 16.5 GJ/Tonne and 30% Moisture Yields

2600 Nm3 Syngas with LHV of 4.85 MJ/Nm3 150kg Vitrified slag 5kg Sulphur 5-10kg Salt 300L Water (potable) 1.3kg Heavy metals and particulates

The emissions from the combustion of syngas for the Ottawa facility are prepared by an external body and are reported in the Monthly Engineers Reports and on Plasco’s website

(http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/). Data is provided for nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide, and organic matter from the flare stack and the engines. The flare stack emits the majority of the pollutants. To date, emissions have been below both Ontario regulatory standards and the more stringent

limits in Plasco’s permit (Table 10). The only exception is a minor exceedance of the Plasco permit limit for

213 Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (DCS). Monthly Engineer’s Report: Plasco Trail Road-Gasification Process

Demonstration Project. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Environment on Behalf of Plasco Energy Group. Accessed February 23, 2009. http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/

214 Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (DCS). Monthly Engineer’s Report: Plasco Trail Road Gasification Process Demonstration Process. (January 1-January 31). Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Environment on Behalf of Plasco Energy Group. Accessed February 23, 2009. http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/.

215 SENES Consultants Limited. (2008). Semi-Annual Progress Report 6-Month Summary (January 24-July 31, 2008) for Plasco Trail Road Plasco Gasification Process Demonstration Project. Prepared on behalf of Plasco Trail Road Incorporated. Accessed October 15, 2008. http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/Semi-Annual%20Progress%20Report%20(January%2024-July%2031,%202008).pdf.

216 Plasco Energy Group. (2008). Environment Protection Committee Port Moody. Accessed February 22, 2009. www.cityofportmoody.com/NR/rdonlyres/09F9FAE6-9D70-42E9-97F6.../82119/PlascoAug508FinalforEPCTaskForceMeeting1.pdf

217 Plasco Energy Group. (2008). Environment Protection Committee Port Moody. Accessed February 22, 2009. www.cityofportmoody.com/NR/rdonlyres/09F9FAE6-9D70-42E9-97F6.../82119/PlascoAug508FinalforEPCTaskForceMeeting1.pdf.

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/Semi-Annual%20Progress%20Report%20(January%2024-July%2031,%202008).pdf

http://www.cityofportmoody.com/NR/rdonlyres/09F9FAE6-9D70-42E9-97F6.../82119/PlascoAug508FinalforEPCTaskForceMeeting1.pdf

http://www.cityofportmoody.com/NR/rdonlyres/09F9FAE6-9D70-42E9-97F6.../82119/PlascoAug508FinalforEPCTaskForceMeeting1.pdf

Metro Vancouver



SOx emissions in July 2008. Plasco reports on its website that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) devices will be installed on the exhaust manifolds of the engines to further reduce NOx emissions.

Table 10. Plasco Emissions

Pollutant Ontario Regulatory

Limit

(ppmv)

Plasco Permit Limit

(ppmv)

Minimum Recorded (February 12 2008-February 16 2009)

(ppmv)

Maximum Recorded (February 12 2008-February 16 2009)

(ppmv)

NOx 110 110 27.53 76.78 HCl 18 13 0.13 2.76 SOx 21 14 4.45 14.33

Organic Matter 100 75 0.6 26

6.2.1.4 Summary

Table 11 provides a summary comparison of the thermal treatment technologies described in this section.

Table 11. WTE Technology Summary

Mass Burn Gasification Pyrolysis Plasma Arc Gasification

Energy Recovery Efficiency (electricity %)

14% to 27% 10% to 20% unknown No verified data available

Energy Recovery Efficiency (combined heat and power %)

Over 90% with district heating

Over 90% with district heating

unknown No verified data available

Availability (% of time) ≥90% 80% 80% expected unknown Residuals (% mass of incoming waste)

5% if bottom ash is recycled, otherwise >20%, including fly ash

<1% if ash is vitrified, otherwise >20%

Unknown, but >30% if residue not treated

Over 1% expected

Meets EU and Canadian Emission Criteria

Yes Yes Yes Probably, not yet proven at commercial scale

Level of Maturity/ Implementation

Highly mature. Hundreds of plants in operation

One technology mature in Japan with seven plants in operation. Other technologies not well proven

Only one or two technologies considered mature. Only four plants in operation.

No plants in operation in N. America or Europe. Two facilities in Japan. Questionable maturity

Operational Complexity Routine – Operational procedures well understood and established

Complex process – requires additional operational experience and maintenance skills

Complex process –requires additional operational experience and maintenance skills

Complex process and extremely high temperature environment poses special operational challenges

Additional Processes Required up-stream and down-stream

Minimal pre-processing Normally requires high degree of pre-processing to size and moisture specifications.

Minimal to moderate pre-processing

Normally requires high degree of pre-processing to size and moisture specifications.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 82 -

Metro Vancouver



Mass burn technology is used in over 80% of the hundreds of thermal treatment facilities built and operating world wide. The majority of recent WTE projects employ mass burn technology. Because mass burn technology appears to be the preferred WTE technology across the globe, it was selected as the WTE

technology in this report for the purpose of comparing landfilling, MBT and WTE. This does not in any way imply a decision to select mass burn technology for future implementation in Metro Vancouver.

The following sections on environmental and social impacts of WTE are based on mass burn technology. The purpose of these sections is to describe the environmental and social issues associated with WTE and how these issues are being addressed based on information gathered from operating facilities, technical

papers and government agencies. 6.2.2 Environmental Issues

Electricity and heat generated by WTE facilities can be used in place of electricity and heat generated by other types of generating facilities that burn fossil fuels. The emissions that would have otherwise been generated by these other facilities are considered to have been “avoided”. The calculation of avoided

emissions is location-specific since the type of generating facilities and their emissions vary. Therefore, the discussion of environmental issues in the following section are not location-specific. The discussion focuses instead on direct emissions including: stack emissions, transport process, fugitive emissions, and any other

quantified emissions that occur during the operation of the regional MSW treatment and disposal system. Later sections of this report that examine alternative possible MSW management scenarios for Metro Vancouver, quantify direct emissions and indirect emissions. Indirect emissions are emissions that occur

elsewhere in the economy to provide functions that support the MSW system operation.

6.2.2.1 Residuals

6.2.2.1.1 Solid Residuals

The solid residue remaining after thermal treatment is typically termed “bottom ash”. Bottom ash from a WTE facility is typically 5 to 10% by volume and 20 to 25% by weight of the incoming MSW stream (note: the

Metro Vancouver WTE facility generates only 17% bottom ash by weight, which may be due to the extensive at source recycling already prevalent in the region). Bottom ash is mechanically collected, cooled (typically water quenched then drained), magnetically or electrically screened to recover recyclable metals, and

removed for final disposal, typically in MSW landfill sites. Depending upon its chemical composition, physical state, and regulatory requirements the material can be utilized as a form of construction aggregate substitute. Bottom ash must be regularly tested for leachability to confirm that it is safe for use or disposal.

Air pollution control systems generate the other solid residue from WTE facilities. Termed “fly ash”, this material comprises particulate contaminants captured from the flue gas and the reagents (e.g., lime) used to

capture the particulates. Fly ash has a higher propensity to leach contaminants in hazardous concentrations as it contains the contaminants removed from the exhaust gases. Depending on regulatory standards and its chemical composition, fly ash may be classified as hazardous waste. Fly ash is usually managed by further

chemical stabilization before disposal at a sanitary landfill site.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 83 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 84 -

The treatment of ash through vitrification can be added to any WTE process. Vitrification employs extremely high temperatures to convert ash into inert vitrified substances that can be ground and fully recycled as aggregate. Environmentally, this is the most benign method of ash management. However, because of the

high energy costs required to vitrify the ash, there are no known large commercial scale applications of ash vitrification for MSW combustors in North America.

6.2.2.1.2 Liquid Discharges

Modern WTE plants are designed for zero process liquid discharge. Therefore, there is no impact to the environment from process discharges. The only liquid discharge is the domestic waste water that is sent to

the municipal waste water treatment plant. Metro Vancouver’s WTE plant produces no process liquid discharge.

6.2.2.2 Dioxins and Furans

In a recent publication by the German Ministry of Environment218, dioxins and furans are defined as:

“… a group of more than 200 individual chemical compounds, all of which are of different toxicity. They cause chloric-acne and are carcinogenic. Dioxins and furans will form spontaneously from chlorine atoms, carbon that has not been fully oxidized, and various

catalysts in cooling smoke….” The German Ministry of the Environment noted that due to stringent legislation and emission standards, the

release of dioxins into the environment from WTE is less than 1% of the total and is considered insignificant. In Germany, tiled stoves in private households emit 20 times more dioxins and furans into the environment than WTE facilities.219 This is in spite of the fact that 35% of the waste generated was used for energy

recovery in Germany in 2007.220 In Canada, the situation is similar. The Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for dioxins and furans numeric

targets are the most stringent in the world. According to a CCME document from 2007, dioxin and furan loading from WTE has been significantly reduced and most of the remaining emissions are from older medical waste incinerators.221

The new and stringent emission standards that have been applied to mass burn WTE facilities in Canada, the US and in Europe in the 1980s have reduced the amount of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and

218 Germany, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2005). Waste Incineration – A Potential

Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Sprouting. Accessed October 26, 2008. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/muellverbrennung_dioxin_en.pdf.

219 Germany, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2005). Waste Incineration – A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Sprouting. Accessed October 26, 2008. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/muellverbrennung_dioxin_en.pdf.

220 Eurostat News Release. (2009, March 9). Municipal waste. Half a ton of municipal waste generated per person in the EU27 in 2007. Almost 40% of this waste was recycled. Issued by Eurostat Press Office. Accessed March 9, 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_03/8-09032009-EN-BP.PDF

221 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2007). Review of Dioxins and Furans from Incineration In Support of a Canada-wide Standard Review. Accessed September 19, 2008 http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/df_incin_rvw_rpt_e.pdf.

http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/muellverbrennung_dioxin_en.pdf




http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/df_incin_rvw_rpt_e.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 85 -

dibenzofurans (PCDD/F) emitted from WTE by a factor of 1,000. More data on specific sources of dioxins and furans in Metro Vancouver is provided in Section 2.

In the UK, MSW management activities account for only about 1% of dioxin emissions, shared approximately equally between incineration and emissions from burning LFG. There is considerable uncertainty over dioxin emissions from other sources, and so the relative percentage from MSW management activities is difficult to

estimate.222 A statement that “during the Millennial celebrations in London the emissions from one 15 minute, 35 tons of

firework display equalled 120 years of dioxin emissions from the SELCHP [London] waste incinerator” has been attributed to the UK Environment Agency by numerous organizations.223 The content of the claim was verified by referring to scientific journal articles. It appears that the first study of dioxin emissions from

fireworks was conducted in the mid-1990s.224 This study tested ambient air quality on “bonfire night” in the UK. On this night, it is common to light fireworks and bonfires. The results of the testing showed that on bonfire night, the concentration of dioxins and furans increased to approximately four times ambient levels.

This study did not distinguish between fireworks and bonfires as potential sources of dioxins. A follow-up study focused on emissions from fireworks.225 Laboratory tests of the release of PCDD/F were

performed by setting off fireworks under controlled conditions. The experiment found that in terms of the quantity of the emission of PCDD/F, the majority of the investigated pyrotechnic products proved to be harmless. The very small amounts of PCDD/F generated were found in only the ashes and solid residues.

The study team concluded that “No indications were found that PCDD/F emissions from fireworks may cause air pollution. This could lead to the conclusion that the increased background concentration detected on bonfire night was mainly due to bonfires, not to fireworks.”

6.2.2.3 Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PM) emissions from combustion sources are a concern in many urban areas (e.g., Harrison, 2000; Ping Shi et al., 2001). Until recently, attention has focussed on larger particulate matter with

222 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health

Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf.

223 Among many others, the following were found to contain this claim and to attribute the source to the UK Environment Agency: Carrigan, N., & Cogins C. (no date). Energy From Waste. Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Waste Group (APSWG).

Accessed August 15, 2008. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/docs/content/efw_pamphlet.pdf Tekniska Verken. (no date). The Swedish Experience in Waste Management. Presentation by Stellan Jacobsson, General

Manager Waste & Recycling, Tekniska Verken. Accessed August 15, 2008. www.mee.government.bg/doc_pub/6-Bulg%20Swed%20exp%20march2007def.ppt

The Embassy of Sweden, Ontario. (2007). Waste Management in Europe and Canada: Meeting with the Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition. Presentation by Magnus Schönning, First Secretary, The Embassy of Sweden. Accessed August 15, 2008. http://www.belcarra.ca/reports/WTE_In_Europe.pdf

Umwelt Bundes Amt. (2008). Role of Thermal Treatment Facilities in Sustainable Waste Management. Seminar on Thermal Waste Treatment Hongkong by Federal Environment Agency, Germany. Accessed August 15, 2008. www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/news_events/events/files/V_Weiss.pdf

224 Dyke, P., Coleman, P., & James, R. (1997). Dioxins in Ambient Air: Bonfire Night 1994. Chemosphere: 34: 5-7, 1191-1201 225 Fleiseher, O., Wichrnama, H., & Lorenz, W. (1999). Release of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans by Setting of

Fireworks. Chemosphere: 39:6, 925-932.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf

http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/docs/content/efw_pamphlet.pdf

http://www.mee.government.bg/doc_pub/6-Bulg%20Swed%20exp%20march2007def.ppt

http://www.mee.government.bg/doc_pub/6-Bulg%20Swed%20exp%20march2007def.ppt

http://www.belcarra.ca/reports/WTE_In_Europe.pdf

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/news_events/events/files/V_Weiss.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 86 -

diameters of 10 μm and 2.5 μm, known as PM10 and PM2.5. (the formation, control and impacts of these particles are well documented). There are many regulatory agencies that have established ambient standards of objectives for both PM10 and PM2.5. There is a Canada Wide Standard for PM2.5 that was established in 2000. It is expected that the EU will have a PM2.5 regulation by 2010.226 Metro Vancouver established PM2.5 objectives of 12 µg/m3 on an annual basis, and 25 µg/m3 on a 24 hour basis, in advance of the federal and provincial governments. In 2009, the Province established PM2.5 objectives that are the same as Metro Vancouver’s on a 24 hour basis, but more stringent on an annual basis. It is likely that Metro Vancouver will align its objectives with the provincial objectives once they are adopted.227 PM emissions from stationary combustion sources such as burning coal, fuel oil, biomass, and waste, and PM from mobile internal combustion engines burning gasoline and diesel are a significant source of primary particles smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) in urban areas.228 More recently, ultra-fine particles have been gaining the attention of researchers. These ultrafine particles (also called “nano-particles”) have a diameter of ≤0.1 μm (100 nm). The discussion of ultrafine particles below focuses on current research on their formation, control and health impacts. Ultrafine particles are generated directly by combustion and through post-combustion atmospheric reactions of gas-phase molecules.229,230,231 Combustion takes place at point sources such as industrial facilities, fossil fuel power plants, and incinerators; and at mobile sources such as gas and diesel fuelled vehicles. In general, the highest contributors to fine and ultrafine particulates are industrial combustion processes and traffic related emissions; some sources estimate that on-road vehicles contribute 40-60% of the mass of ultrafine particles.232 In the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV), ultrafine particles are not measured in isolation from PM2.5. Known major point sources of PM2.5 are wood products handling, the bulk shipping terminals, and cement kilns. Together, these three types of sources release nearly 200 times more PM2.5 than the existing WTE Facility. Area sources, most of which are not required to obtain air discharge permits, are the largest overall contributors of PM2.5 emissions.233

226 Maghun, J, E., Karg, A., Kettrup, & Zimmermann, R. (2003). On-line Analysis of the Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Aerosol

Particles in Flue and Stack Gas of a Municipal Waste Incineration Plant: Effects of Dynamic Process Control Measures and Emission Reduction Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 4761-4770.

227 Metro Vancouver. (2008). 2007 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Report. Accessed November 20, 2008 from www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2007LFV-AirQualityReport.pdf

228 Lighty, J., Veranth, J. M., & Sarofim, A. F. (2000). Combustion Aerosols: Factors Governing their Size and Composition and Implications to Human Health. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 50, 1565-1618.

229 Maghun, J, E., Karg, A., Kettrup, & Zimmermann, R. (2003). On-line Analysis of the Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Aerosol Particles in Flue and Stack Gas of a Municipal Waste Incineration Plant: Effects of Dynamic Process Control Measures and Emission Reduction Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 4761-4770.

230 Cormier, S., Lomnicki, S., Backes, W., & Dellinger, B. (2006). Origin and Health Impacts of Emissions of Toxic By-Products and Fine Particles from Combustion and Thermal Treatment of Hazardous Wastes and Materials. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(6), 810-817.

231 Buonanno, G., Ficco, G., & Stabile, L. (2009). Size distribution and number concentration of particles at the stack of a municipal waste incinerator. Journal of Waste Management, 29, 749-755.


233 Metro Vancouver. (2007). Metro Vancouver 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast. Accessed August 31, 2008. http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2005_LFV_Emissions.pdf

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2007LFV-AirQualityReport.pdf

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2005_LFV_Emissions.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 87 -

Three experimental studies have been conducted to examine the formation of ultrafine particles in municipal waste incinerators. Maguhn (2003) focussed on measuring the concentration of ultrafine particles at various stages in the incineration process. Buonanno, Ficco & Stabile (2009) measured the number and mass of particles of various sizes in the stack gas of a municipal waste incinerator, and Zeuthen (2007) experimented on the effects of varying the feedstock and operating conditions on the formation and emissions of ultrafine particles. Some experimental results have shown that air pollution control devices, such as fabric filters, may be more effective for larger particles (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10) than for ultrafine particles.234 Baghouse filters are very effective at capturing larger particles. The collection efficiency is from 100-1,000 nm with maximum penetration for particles sized 400-1,000 nm. This results in approximately 0.11% of all particles passing through the filter.235 Wet and dry electrostatic precipitators efficiently precipitate fine and ultrafine particulate matter.236,237 Of the particles passing through a dry electrostatic precipitator, the most frequently detected size was 80-90 nm.238 Secondary formation of ultrafine particles occurs through chemical reactions in the gas phase. Metals that are vaporized in the flame zone of an incinerator subsequently nucleate to form metal particles or condense on the surfaces of other particles on the way to the post flame zone.239 Observations of particle size and density also support the idea that ultrafine particles are formed by nucleation of gas-phase constituents of the stack gas. Actual measurements of particles in flue and stack gas of MSW incineration plants revealed that the most frequent particle size was 90nm at the 700oC sampling point. Due to particle growth from coagulation and condensation at decreasing temperatures, the most frequent size increased to 140 nm at the 300oC sampling point.240 A strong correlation between SO2 and NH3 concentrations and the total number of ultrafine particles has also been observed.241 Analysis comparing emissions of ultrafine particles from WTE to those from vehicles showed that 20 vehicles travelling for 3 km release approximately the same number of ultrafine particles as a 130,000 tonnes per year WTE facility operating for one hour.242

234 Maghun, J., Karg, E., Kettrup,A., & Zimmermann, R. (2003). On-line Analysis of the Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Aerosol

Particles in Flue and Stack Gas of a Municipal Waste Incineration Plant: Effects of Dynamic Process Control Measures and Emission Reduction Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 4761-4770.

235 Zeuthen, J.H., Pedersen, A.J., Hansen, J., Frandsen, F.J., Livbjerg, H., Riber, C., & Astrup, T. (2007). Combustion Aerosols from Municipal Waste Incineration – Effect of Fuel Feedstock and Plant Operation. Combustion Science and Technology, 179 (10), 2171-2198.

236 Maghun, J., Karg, E., Kettrup, A., & Zimmermann, R. (2003). On-line Analysis of the Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Aerosol Particles in Flue and Stack Gas of a Municipal Waste Incineration Plant: Effects of Dynamic Process Control Measures and Emission Reduction Devices. Environmental Science and Technology: 37, 4761-4770.



239 Cormier, S., Lomnicki, S., Backes, W., & Dellinger, B. (2006). Origin and Health Impacts of Emissions of Toxic By-Products and Fine Particles from Combustion and Thermal Treatment of Hazardous Wastes and Materials. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(6), 810-817.

240 Maghun, J., Karg, E., Kettrup, A. and Zimmermann, R. (2003). On-line Analysis of the Size Distribution of Fine and Ultrafine Aerosol Particles in Flue and Stack Gas of a Municipal Waste Incineration Plant: Effects of Dynamic Process Control Measures and Emission Reduction Devices. Environmental Science and Technology: 37, 4761-4770.



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 88 -

Another study was conducted by the Institute for Applied Environmental Technologies at the University of Rapperswil (UMTEC) in Switzerland.243 The study examined the effectiveness of different types of air pollution control systems to control fine and ultra fine particulates at WTE facilities in Switzerland.244 This study demonstrates on the basis of actual measurements at operating WTE facilities that electro filters followed by wet scrubbers can remove ultrafine particulates to levels at or below ambient conditions. This is illustrated in Figure 17, which shows the measured values of ambient air and cleaned flue gas from the WTE facility KEZO in Switzerland. The red line represents ambient air particulate concentration in an urban setting, the yellow line is for a rural setting, and the blue line shows the measured values from the WTE stack.

Figure 17. Measured Values of Ambient Air and Clean Flue Gas from WTE Facility KEZO in

Switzerland (Von Roll Inova/UMTEC)

Urban ambient air

Rural ambient air

Flue gas of WTE facility

Particle Diameter (micrometers)

0.10.01 1

1.00

10

100

1000

10,000

100,000

Con

cen

trat

ion

(# o

f pa

rtic

les/

cm3 )

There is no consensus in the literature regarding the characteristics of particulate matter that contribute to the health impacts. Ping Shi states that epidemiology cannot yet determine whether it is the mass, number or

even surface area of particles that is the most important determinant of health impact.245 Biswas & Wu note that many studies have been conducted on human exposure to particles, but that data on the effects of

243 umtec (2001). Messmethodik und Abscheidemöglichkeiten von Feinsstaubpartikel (PM10) in Abfallvebrennungsanlagen. UMTEC

Institut fuer Angewandte Umwelttechnik, Hochschule Rapperswil, Switzerland. 244 umtec (2001). Messmethodik und Abscheidemöglichkeiten von Feinsstaubpartikel (PM10) in Abfallvebrennungsanlagen. UMTEC

Institut fuer Angewandte Umwelttechnik, Hochschule Rapperswil, Switzerland. 245 Ping Shi, J., Evans, D.E., Khan, A.A, Harrison, R.M. (2001). Sources and Concentration of Nanoparticles (<10 nm diameter) in the

Urban Atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 35, 1193-1202.

Particles <0.1 micrometer are considered ultra-fine

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 89 -

exposure to nanoparticles “are just emerging” and that some studies show greater impacts from fine particles than from ultrafine particles while other studies show the reverse.246 6.2.2.4 Metals

Municipal solid waste contains a wide range of metals; the most common are iron, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium and mercury. Most of the metals will remain stabilized in the bottom ash following combustion. However, the more volatile metals, especially lead and mercury, will partially or fully volatilize and must therefore be handled by an appropriately designed air pollution control system. Mercury is often used to demonstrate the worst case of what happens to volatile metals (mercury and lead) in the combustion and emissions control system. Mercury is found in many household items, such as batteries, thermometers, thermostats, fluorescent tubes and mercury switches. It is important that mercury is removed before combustion and after combustion. Industry stewardship and household hazardous waste programs remove many of these sources of mercury from the waste stream. Lead acid batteries used to be a major contributor to lead in MSW, but these are now removed through an industry stewardship program. The Province of BC’s recently announced its intention to add mercury-containing light bulbs and thermostats to the list of wastes covered by product stewardship (under the Recycling Regulation), and will also expand the existing electronics product category.247 A province-wide recycling program for these products should be in place by 2010. In the past, WTE plants were significant emitters of mercury. However, similar to the experience with dioxins and furans, the introduction of stringent regulations have resulted in the implementation of technologies that have reduced mercury emissions to a fraction of what they once were. In Germany, where excellent data exists, emissions of lead and mercury declined in the past two decades to 0.2% and 1.3% of what they were initially. According to a German Ministry of Environment publication, lead and mercury emissions from the incineration of household waste are no longer significant sources for human exposure to toxic substances, and emissions from all other sources are 1,000 times greater than the emissions produced by WTE facilities.248 6.2.2.5 Summary

Globally, WTE is the most highly regulated waste management process. As a result the technology has advanced to meet legislative requirements. The emissions from WTE are now so low that many governments in the traditional EC countries consider WTE emissions insignificant. The same is true for governments in Canada and the U.S. Most modern WTE plants have zero effluent discharge. Bottom ash and fly ash are tested, and stabilized if necessary, before being re-used or landfilled.

246 Biswas, P. and Wu, C. (2005). Nanoparticles and the Environment. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 55, 708-

746. 247 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2008). Product Stewardship, New Products. Accessed April 15, 2009.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/new_products/index.htm 248 Germany, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2005). Waste Incineration – A Potential

Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Sprouting. Accessed October 26, 2008. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/muellverbrennung_dioxin_en.pdf.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/new_products/index.htm


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 90 -

A study conducted in Austria examined air emissions from a number of combustion sources including WTE. Emissions were studied on the basis of energy input. About 50 WTE facilities from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden were included in the study. The study examined

particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, cadmium, and PCDD/F. The results of the study (Figure 18 and Figure 19) indicate that for most of the emissions studied, cement kilns and biomass combustion facilities result in the highest emissions per GJ of energy input. The data has been split into two

graphs to accommodate differences in scale. Many of the WTE facilities included in this study are older and are not necessarily state-of-the-art. If only newer facilities were compared, the emissions from WTE facilities would be lower than those shown in these results.249

Figure 18. Emissions per GJ of Energy Input (1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

WTE Coal Lignite Oil Gas Biomass Cement Kiln

Sources

g/G

J

Total Particulates Mercury Cadmium PCDD/F

249 Rechberger, H., & Schöller, G. (2006). Comparison of Relevant Air Emissions from Selected Combustion Technologies Project

CAST. Presentation at CEWEP, Congress 2006, Waste-to-Energy in European Policy, May 18, 2006. Accessed October 25, 2008. http://www.cewep.com/storage/med/media/wastepol/96_RechbergerPresentationFinalweb.pdf?fCMS=7551b02584e6a24105ea0e4589f31eb8



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 91 -

Figure 19. Emissions per GJ Energy Input (2)

0

100

200

300

400

500

WTE Coal Lignite Oil Gas Biomass CementKiln

Sources

g/G

J

NOx SO2

6.2.3 Community/Social Issues


The following section on health impacts provides examples of health impact studies associated with emissions from WTE facilities using state-of-the-art mass burn technology.

DEFRA Health Impacts Study

In 2004, DEFRA published a comprehensive report on the potential for health effects associated with the management of MSW. Based on a review of over 600 publications, no link was discovered between living

close to a modern thermal treatment facility and adverse health impacts, including cancer and respiratory problems. The study concluded that:250

250 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health Effects

of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/WASTE/research/health/pdf/health-report.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/WASTE/research/health/pdf/health-report.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 92 -

“If the operation of these facilities does have any effect on the health outcomes which have been investigated, any effect is very small – smaller than many other influences on these health outcomes.”

Furthermore, as part of the same study, the (UK) government’s independent expert advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concluded that:

“any potential risk of cancer due to residency (for periods in excess of ten years) near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the

most modern techniques.”

Durham Region – Medical Health Officer’s Report

The Regions of Durham and York in Ontario are undergoing a process to identify appropriate MSW management options. Five waste-to-energy proposals have been short-listed and submissions are being reviewed. The Regions have undertaken an environmental assessment of the proposed project that included

a risk assessment. The Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health of the Region of Durham commissioned an evaluation of

the risk assessment and an independent study into the health effects of the proposed WTE facility. The evaluation of the risk assessment concluded that there is no conclusive evidence regarding the effect of modern incinerators on the health of people living in the vicinity.251 This conclusion was based on the

epidemiologic literature from 2000 to 2007. The independent study included an assessment of the epidemiological literature surrounding potential health

impacts of WTE facilities, a report produced by a neighbouring health department (Halton Region), and a generic risk assessment conducted for Durham by Jacques Whitford Ltd. The author of the assessment of the epidemiological literature into the health effects of WTE facilities noted that a review of epidemiological

literature has some limitations because it is difficult to define a causal link using the current epidemiological research alone.252 The assessment concluded that:

“…current epidemiologic literature on health effects of incinerators on local communities (2000-2007) is inconclusive and does not demonstrate one way or another that modern incinerators have associated health effects on the people living around them.”

The report produced for the Halton Region identified emissions of concern from WTE facilities. However, the emissions were associated with older WTE facilities that have higher emissions than new or retrofitted WTE

facilities. In the review of the Halton Report, the independent assessor concluded that ultrafine particles and

251 Smith, Dr. L.F. (2007). Energy from Waste Facility in the Region of Durham. Prepared for Medical Officer of Health: Durham Region.

Access September 8, 2008. http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/health/pub/energyFromWasteReport.pdf 252 Smith, Dr. L.F. (2007). Energy from Waste Facility in the Region of Durham. Prepared for Medical Officer of Health: Durham Region.

Access September 8, 2008. http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/health/pub/energyFromWasteReport.pdf

http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/health/pub/energyFromWasteReport.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 93 -

nanoparticles are emissions of concern for hazardous waste incineration but not for municipal WTE facilities.253

UK Health Protection Agency Report

The UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) issued a public document in 2005 summarizing its position on the EU’s Landfill Directive that included the potential public health impacts of WTE.

The report acknowledged that all air pollutants can have adverse health impacts on people’s health, particularly those who are most susceptible. These impacts include respiratory and cardiovascular disease,

increased mortality, and reduction in life expectancy. The HPA did not find any evidence to suggest that WTE facilities led to increased respiratory problems in the general population near the facility. In addition, they acknowledged that modern WTE facilities contribute only a small portion to overall air emissions.254

The report also noted that inhalation plays a small role in human exposure to dioxins. The majority (90%) of dioxin exposure for humans occurs through the diet by ingesting foods containing dioxins and furans. The

HPA found that WTE emissions of dioxins are unlikely to increase the overall human exposure to these compounds since WTE facilities contribute less than 1% of overall dioxin emissions in the UK environment.255

The HPA report also concurs with the findings of a study undertaken by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit. This study examined 14 million people living within 7.5 km of WTE facilities that operated until 1987. The

study concluded that any potential risk of cancer from living near a WTE facility for periods in excess of ten years was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques.256

6.2.3.2 Compatibility of WTE with Recycling

WTE can be compatible with a highly efficient recycling program and represents a viable solution to treating the waste that is not and currently cannot be recycled.

WTE is most compatible with recycling programs when WTE facilities are appropriately sized. Facilities must be sized according to optimistic diversion goals and conservative growth estimates. The balance of the

waste that is not reused, recycled or composted, and that is in excess of the capacity of the WTE facility needs to be landfilled. Furthermore, WTE facilities are often modular, so that additional capacity can be added if required.

Data from both the EU and the United States support the notion that WTE and high recycling rates do co-exist. Figure 7 (Section 6) shows that the Netherlands, which uses WTE to treat over 30% of its waste, has a

253 Smith, Dr. L.F. (2007). Energy from Waste Facility in the Region of Durham. Prepared for Medical Officer of Health: Durham Region.

Access September 8, 2008. http://www.region.durham.on.ca/departments/health/pub/energyFromWasteReport.pdf 254 United Kingdom Health Protection Agency. (2005). Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Accessed September 8, 2008.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947374730 255 United Kingdom Health Protection Agency. (2005). Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Accessed September 8, 2008.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947374730 256 United Kingdom Health Protection Agency. (2005). Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Accessed September 8, 2008.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947374730





Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 94 -

diversion rate of approximately 65%. Sweden and Denmark use WTE to treat approximately 50% of their wastes, and recycle approximately 40%. In the United States, a 2008 study showed that over 500 communities in twenty-two states that rely on waste-to-energy for waste disposal have recycling rates

that are higher than the national average. Also of note from this research is the finding that recycling rates in communities with WTE are more closely linked to the state-wide recycling rate than to the use of WTE.257

Case Study - Pinellas County

Pinellas County, on the West Coast of Florida, owns and operates a 2,720 tonnes per day WTE facility. The County’s solid waste management system consists of: the WTE facility, a construction and demolition waste

landfill, a MSW landfill, and recycling and yard waste composting facilities. In addition, the County provides a series of grants ($500,000) to communities to help with waste diversion initiatives.

Collection of recyclables and MSW is largely conducted by private contractors, but there is some limited franchise collection with the County. The overall system receives approximately 1.1 million tonnes of material per year. About 862,000 tonnes, including recovered metals, are processed in the WTE facility. The

remainder is diverted through recycling and composting programs or disposed in the landfill. The current solid waste management plan for the County includes implementing curbside recycling for the

outlying areas in the county, multi-family and ICI sector recycling, and the construction of a new material recovery facility (MRF) for the County.

All aspects of the solid waste management system are funded by the operations of the WTE facility through tipping fees, sale of power to the utility, and the sale of recycled material and recovered metals from bottom ash258 (Pinellas County, 2008). The tipping fee in Pinnellas County is US$37.50 per tonne.259

Case Study – Fairfax County

Fairfax County in Virginia is responsible for solid waste operations for a population of approximately one

million. In 1990, after state law required the County to close many of its landfills, Fairfax constructed and began the operation of a 3,175 tonne per day WTE facility.

Prior to the construction and operation of the WTE facility, the County established a residential curbside recycling program to ensure that waste diversion remained a priority. The WTE facility was built below capacity and does not process all of the County’s MSW. In fact, Fairfax Country still disposes of

approximately 36,000 tonnes of MSW in landfills outside of the County every year. This continues to provide the County with an incentive to further divert waste through its waste reduction and recycling programs, especially as the population continues to grow.

257 Berenyi, E.B. (2008). A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy work in Concert. Accessed November 15, 2008.

http://www.wte.org/docs/2008_Berenyi_compatibility_study.pdf. 258 Pinellas County. (2008). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Waste-to-Energy & Recycling Working Together. Presentation by

Robert Hauser, Director of Solid Waste Operations – Pinellas County Utilities. 259 Pinellas County. (2008). Teacher Guide. Accessed December 12, 2008. www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/teachers/guide.pdf


http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/teachers/guide.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 95 -

The overall solid waste management system is largely private but the County does operate a resource recovery facility that houses the following operations:

3,175 tonnes per day WTE facility;

transfer station;

yard waste composting facility;

scrap metal recycling facility;

household hazardous waste and used oil recycling facility; and

recycling drop-off facility (self-haul/residential). Despite the large private sector involvement, the County has been successful in implementing a number of

successful diversion initiatives including:

3-stream residential curbside recycling;

mandatory 3-stream multi-family recycling (as of 2007);

building code amendments to mandate allowances for recycling collection;

mandatory recycling of paper and cardboard for institutional, commercial and industrial sector (as of 2007); and

mandatory construction and demolition recycling.

These programs enabled the County to achieve an overall waste diversion rate of 35% in 2006 despite the fact that the County does not have a beverage deposit system or any EPR programs. All of the County-run

operations are self-funded through tipping fees and sale of power to the electrical grid. The current tipping fee in Fairfax County is $US61/tonne.260

The County’s 20-year solid waste management plan includes the following programs and initiatives that will continue to be funded within the existing framework:

E-waste recycling (through EPR);

toxics reduction with increased HHW diversion;

removal of materials not compatible with combustion;

increased legislation and enforcement of regulations; and

increased construction and demolition segregation and diversion.

6.2.3.3 WTE as a Neighbour

The public is generally resistant to locating any waste management facility in their neighbourhood. In the

context of WTE facilities, opinions are strongly influenced by historic facilities that were not subject to the current levels of oversight, management and regulation.

260 Fairfax County. (2008). Integrated Solid Waste Management. Presentation by Pamela Gratton, Recycling Manager, Fairfax County.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 96 -

Despite public perception, a WTE facility can be a responsible neighbour and service provider to neighbours. The Metro Vancouver WTE facility provides steam to the neighbouring paper mill. This benefits the mill and the environment by replacing fossil fuels while providing revenue to Metro Vancouver through steam sales.

As practiced by some European countries for decades, heat from a WTE facility can be distributed to the surrounding buildings through a district heating system. District heating systems provide area heat or hot

water to multiple buildings using steam or hot water from a centralized source. A variety of heat sources are commonly used for this type of project, including geothermal, cogeneration plants, waste heat from industry, and purpose-built heating plants. District heating systems are most suitable for new developments, since the

cost of building new district-wide infrastructure is generally lower than retrofitting.261 Furthermore, new buildings can be designed to be compatible with the heating system. Use of district heating for existing buildings is best accomplished with large, energy intensive buildings such as hospitals, universities, and

industry. District heating systems offer a number of advantages over traditional single-building boilers. They are:262

more reliable;

more efficient – the use of industrial boilers and load diversification flatten the overall peak demand so

that a district heating system does not need as much capacity as the sum of the individual boilers of a conventional system;

cleaner burning – the City of North Vancouver has calculated that its district heating system has resulted

in a reduction in nitrous oxide emissions by 64% and carbon dioxide emissions by 21% relative to conventional heating practices; and

flexible – the distribution system allows for greater flexibility in choosing fuel/energy sources (e.g., natural gas, biomass, solar panels.

A thermal treatment facility is a compatible land use for an industrial area.263 The chosen site must have good road access along a major corridor so as not to introduce traffic disturbances.

A WTE facility that treats 175,000 to 300,000 tonnes per year generally requires four to eight hectares of land264, although the Metro Vancouver WTE facility occupies less than two hectares and processes 280,000 tonnes of MSW annually. The upper end of the range provides ample room for a buffer and

expansion.

261 BC Climate Action Toolkit. (2009). District Energy Systems. Accessed February 26, 2009.

http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/tool/district-energy-systems 262 BC Climate Action Toolkit. (2009). District Heating in North Vancouver. Accessed February 26, 2009.

http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/success-stories/district-heating-north-vancouver. 263 Municipal Waste Integration Network & Recycling Council of Alberta. (2006). Municipal Solid Waste MSW Options: Integrating

Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal. Accessed December 17, 2008. http://www.recycle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/MSW_Options_Report.pdf.

264 Municipal Waste Integration Network & Recycling Council of Alberta. (2006). Municipal Solid Waste MSW Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal. Accessed December 17, 2008. http://www.recycle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/MSW_Options_Report.pdf

http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/tool/district-energy-systems

http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/success-stories/district-heating-north-vancouver

http://www.recycle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/MSW_Options_Report.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 97 -


WTE facilities create short-term employment during the planning and construction phases, and long-term employment during operation. A WTE facility with capacity in the range of 500,000 tonnes per year, is

estimated to require an investment cost of over $400 million.265 Of this, about $200 million would be for civil works, fabrication, engineering and construction. It is likely these services would be provided by local companies, directly supporting the local economy during construction, which could take up to two years.

Once a facility is commissioned, it would need qualified operators including: steam engineers, electricians, mechanics and maintenance staff. The plant would also need management and administration personnel. In

total, about 50 full time equivalent positions would be created. These would be well paying jobs that would last for the life of the plant and support the local economy. The operational life of a WTE plant is typically between 25 to 50 years, depending on the refurbishments undertaken.

In addition, the facility would require regular maintenance. This would generate work for local construction and service companies, and sales for local suppliers of equipment and chemicals.

6.3 Landfill

6.3.1 Introduction

Traditionally, excess waste that cannot be reused, recycled or composted has been disposed to land. Landfills have been used for thousands of years. In the past, most of the waste disposed consisted of food

residues, wood and some inert materials, such as pottery and glass. The industrial revolution led to more urbanization and the development of new materials and chemicals. The waste generated per capita grew in volume and in complexity. In the twentieth century, landfills were the most common form of waste

management. They were inexpensive and usually located outside of urban centres. There were few environmental controls on landfills until late in the century. Many landfills became environmental problems due to the migration of leachate and emissions of LFG.

Today, landfills are a highly regulated form of waste management. Waste must be contained and enclosed in cells so that it is completely separated from the environment. Leachate is extracted and treated, either on-

site, or discharged under a permit to the municipal sewerage system. A portion of the LFG can be captured and flared or burned for heat or power. The surrounding environment is regularly monitored for signs of impact.

In essence, a landfill is a containment vessel in which buried MSW slowly decomposes. The traditional approach is to eliminate any water from entering the landfill to reduce the production of leachate. This is

commonly referred to as a dry tomb landfill.

265 Estimate based on the common industry formula for capital cost of $80 per tonne of installed annual capacity for this size of facility.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 98 -

More recently, the advantages of speeding up the decomposition of waste in landfills were recognized, leading to the advent of bioreactor landfills. A bioreactor landfill uses the controlled addition of liquids to accelerate the anaerobic process, thus increasing the speed of LFG production.

Landfills are currently a major component of Metro Vancouver’s waste management system. Landfilling ranks at the bottom of the Provincial waste management hierarchy because it is difficult to efficiently recover

energy or materials from buried MSW. For the foreseeable future some degree of landfilling will be required to:

dispose of the residuals from the various diversion and treatment processes (recycling, composting, waste-to-energy);

dispose of the waste materials that cannot be diverted or treated;

provide buffer capacity so that waste-to-energy facilities, if they are built, can be undersized, and

enable the disposal of wastes when treatment systems are not operable or there are unexpected surges

in waste generation. In the following sections, the various attributes and issues associated with landfills are discussed.


Conventional Landfills

The purpose of a landfill is to provide for the disposal of solid waste, while protecting the environment and

human health. This is achieved by segregating the waste from the environment. Conventional modern engineered landfills place waste in cells that are enclosed by a series of impermeable liners. As waste is placed, it is compacted to reduce the amount of space that it consumes and covered with soil to reduce

odours and access by animals. Once a cell is full, it is capped with a liner to enclose it. Pipes are installed to remove leachate, which is treated separately. Another network of pipes is installed to collect and remove LFG. The gas can be flared to convert the methane to carbon dioxide and water, or it can be utilized as an

energy source. Landfill liner systems are designed to keep surface water from entering the cells and leachate from escaping

into ground water or surface water. They also help to contain LFG. There are clear Provincial guidelines for the design of landfill cells and liner systems, as well as requirements for the removal of LFG. The Vancouver Landfill and Cache Creek Landfill are examples of modern engineered conventional landfills. The Vancouver

Landfill has an extensive LFG collection and utilization system with three primary products: gas, as a natural gas substitute; electricity that is sold to the electric grid in British Columbia, and heat that is recovered and used to heat greenhouses.266 A photo of typical horizontal and vertical LFG piping being installed during

construction of a new landfill cell is shown in Figure 20.

266 City of Vancouver. (2007). Vancouver Landfill Annual Report. Accessed September 18, 2008.

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm.


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 99 -

Figure 20. Picture of Landfill Gas Piping During Installation

Bioreactor Landfills

Bioreactor landfills are considered the next step in the evolution of landfills. A bioreactor landfill promotes

rapid biological degradation of the organic waste fraction through the recirculation of leachate and the addition of water under highly controlled conditions. Essentially, bioreactor landfills control the speed of the anaerobic digestion process that occurs naturally. The bioreactor design has several benefits:

landfill gas is released sooner so that recovery and utilization efforts become more economical;

landfill settlement is enhanced, enabling the disposal of more waste over a shorter period of time; and

the landfill becomes stable sooner than a conventional landfill, reducing the time needed for post closure monitoring and allowing the site to be re-used for other purposes.

The U.S. EPA writes: “In a bioreactor landfill, controlled quantities of liquid amendments are added and circulated through the landfill to achieve desired waste moisture content. This process significantly increases

the rate of biodegradation of the waste, a form of anaerobic digestion, thereby reducing the waste stabilization period to five or ten years instead of 30 or more years for a conventional ‘dry tomb’ designed facility. The enhanced biodegradation also increases the short term production, but not total volume, of

landfill gas (LFG), a mixture comprised predominantly of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane can be recovered for electricity or other uses.”267

For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that any potential new landfill that considered by Metro Vancouver would use a bioreactor design. Therefore, the discussion in the following sections focuses on bioreactor landfills.

267 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). Bioreactor Performance. (Direct Quotation). Accessed

September 18, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-perf.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-perf.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 100 -

Landfill Stability of Bioreactor Landfills

The increased moisture in a bioreactor landfill can increase the weight of the waste by as much as 30%,268 which can lead to structural instability in the landfill causing it to slump and potentially tear the liner. There is

only one reported occurrence of this effect, and the U.S. EPA has found that instability associated with bioreactors can be prevented through design and operational changes.269 In a review of five bioreactor landfills in the U.S, the U.S. EPA concluded the following with respect to landfill stability:270

The addition of leachate and other liquids can be managed with appropriate design and operation of injection systems that evenly distribute moisture within the landfill.

The design of leachate collection systems were adequate to handle any additional leachate generated. All five sites were able to maintain leachate levels under 30 cm of head on the liner.

Slope stability issues were minor and readily corrected, and slope stability could be improved through design and operational controls.

Water Consumption

Water consumption for bioreactor landfills will vary depending on the moisture content of the waste, and

leachate production. It will also depend on the amount of annual precipitation. If the moisture required cannot be supplied by precipitation and leachate recirculation, water from other sources is required. A study commissioned by the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) on bioreactor landfills estimated that the

additional amount of moisture required for a bioreactor landfill is approximately equal to 100% of the leachate that it generates.271 For a bioreactor landfill sized to meet Metro Vancouver’s needs, the water consumption would be in the range of 0.34 m3/tonne disposed (170,000m3 for 500,000 tonnes of MSW landfilled).272 Scalability Bioreactor landfills can be designed at any scale, although smaller scales can make LFG utilization uneconomic. Larger bioreactors can achieve greater economies of scale than smaller bioreactors.

268 Augenstein, D., Morck, R., Reinhart, D. & Yazdani, R. (no date). The Bioreactor Landfill – An Innovation in Solid Waste

Management. Accessed October 12, 2008. http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/epsd_Bioreactor_issues.pdf

269 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). Bioreactor Performance. (Direct Quotation). Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-perf.pdf

270 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). Bioreactor Performance. (Direct Quotation). Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bio-perf.pdf



http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/epsd_Bioreactor_issues.pdf





Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 101 -

Flexibility

A bioreactor landfill is capable of receiving any kind of MSW; however, the feedstock must contain organics

policy shift towards source segregation and utilization of organics and away from organics disposal in bia would have implications for a bioreactor landfill’s ability to deliver revenues. The reduction

in LFG generation could also diminish the environmental benefit associated with its replacement of fossil fuel

to generate LFG. As the organic content of the waste stream decreases with increased waste diversion, LFG and associated power generation also decrease. Barlaz and Reinhart note the bioreactor landfill’s reliance on organic waste disposal to produce LFG.273 ABritish Colum

use. Landfill Gas

Landfill gas is a natural by-product caused by anaerobic digestion of organic materials in a landfill. Landfill gas is comprised of approximately 50% methane by volume. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas: over a

00 year period, methane has a global warming potential approximately 21 times greater than carbon

andfill gas recovery ystems are common throughout the developed world. The LFG collected by the recovery system at the

ribute about 4% of the carbon dioxide equivalents that contribute to global climate change. In BC, landfills are responsible for almost 5% of the provincial emissions of carbon dioxide

1dioxide.274 For MSW streams, such as that forecasted for Metro Vancouver, LFG is generated at a rate of approximately 360 m3/tonne of waste disposed (based on a 40 year operating and post-closure management period).275 Landfill gas has a heating value of about half that of natural gas. If there is sufficient volume of LFG, it can be cleaned and combusted in reciprocating engines to generate electricity and heat. LsVancouver Landfill is used to generate electricity and heat nearby greenhouses. At the Hartland Landfill in Victoria, LFG is used to generate electricity. At the Cache Creek Landfill, gas is flared for odour control and for conversion of methane to carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas reduction measure. Worldwide, landfills cont

276

equivalents.277 Landfill gas avoidance or recovery plays an important role in managing climate change in BC. LFG Capture Efficiency

Modern bioreactor landfills employ LFG collection and recovery systems that can capture significant (54-95%, with a mid range of 75%) amounts of methane and carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to

Barlaz, M. and Reinhart, D. (2004). Bioreactor Landfills: Progress Continues. W273 aste Management, 24, 859-860. y 22, 274 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). (1995). Global Warming Potentials. Accessed Februar

2009. http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php 275 Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) & Recycling Council of Albe

Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposalrta. (2006). Municipal Solid Waste MSW Options:

. Accessed December 17, 2008. http://www.recycle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/MSW_Options_Report.pdf The Economist. (2009, February 26). A special report on waste: Talking rubbish. Accessed February 28, 2009. 276 http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13135349

277 British Columbia. (2008). BC Climate Action Plan. Accessed August 8, 2008. http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13135349

http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/FINAL_SWICS_GHG_White_Paper_07-11-08.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 102 -

climate change.278 Emerging technological advances in landfill biocovers and methanotrophic bacteria in soil

ic conditions and cold temperatures can reduce biocover efficiency.283 Optimal oxidation mperatures are reported to be between 15 and 30oC. This indicates that biocover systems in cold climates

4

soil according to the regulatory requirements in most countries.285

layers have further improved the control of methane. This enhanced cover material helps mitigate potential fugitive methane emissions by oxidizing a portion of the LFG that escapes capture by collection system.279 Despite on-going technical advances and research into biocovers and methane oxidation, there is still considerable scientific debate on their effectiveness.280,281 Reported oxidation estimates for biocovers have a large range. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contends that oxidation factors are very uncertain because they are difficult to measure and vary considerably with the thickness and nature of the cover material, atmospheric conditions and climate, the flux of methane, and the escape of methane through cracks in the cover material.282 Field and laboratory studies that determine oxidation of methane only through uniform and homogeneous soil layers may lead to over-estimations of oxidation in landfill cover soils. Dry climattemay not work as effectively as expected. The following is a list of findings from recent studies into methane

oxidation:

Chanton et al. found the percent oxidation to be 23 +/- 3% and 38 +/- 16% for soil and compost covers, respectively.28

Borjesson et al. recommend using an oxidation default value of 10% for active landfills, and 20% for closed landfills covered with at least 1m of

The IPCC recommends using a default value of 0%, and 10% if the site is covered with methane

oxidizing materials such as soil or compost.286 The above-referenced capture rates represent instantaneous recovery efficiencies from the landfill. They do not represent the total percentage of LFG captured over a landfill’s lifetime. In the early stages of a landfill’s life there is very little waste in the landfill. Collection systems are not likely to capture significant portions of LFG, and might not even be employed at all. When LFG generation increases as a result of an increase in

278 SCS Engineers. (2008). Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane Oxidation,

and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills. Prepared For Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions. Accessed November 5, 2008. http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/FINAL_SWICS_GHG_White_Paper_07-11-08.pdf

279 Chanton, J.P., Powelson, D.K., Abichou, A., & Hater, G. (2007). Improved Field Methods to Quantify Methane Oxidation in Landfill Cover Materials Using Stable Carbon Isotopes. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(3), 665-670.


281 Borjesson, G., Sundh, I., & Svensson, B. (2004). Microbial oxidation of CH4 at different temperatures in landfill cover soils. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 48(3), 305-312.

282 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 3 – Solid Waste. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_3_Ch3_SWDS.pdf

283 Bogner, J.E., Chanton, J., Franco, G., & Spokas, K. (2009). Moving Up…to the top of the landfill. MSW Management: March/April. Accessed March 3, 2009. http://www.mswmanagement.com/march-april-2009/methane-emissions-inventory-3.aspx

284 Chanton, J.P., Powelson, D.K., Abichou, A., & Hater, G. (2007). Improved Field Methods to Quantify Methane Oxidation in Landfill Cover Materials Using Stable Carbon Isotopes. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(3), 665-670.


286 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 3 – Solid Waste P 3.15. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_3_Ch3_SWDS.pdf

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_3_Ch3_SWDS.pdf

http://www.mswmanagement.com/march-april-2009/methane-emissions-inventory-3.aspx


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 103 -

the total amount of waste disposed, the collection system might very well collect 75% of the generated LFG. When the final cover is placed on the landfill, LFG capture efficiencies are increased further. However, this is also the point at which LFG generation begins to decline. Collection systems might not be fully utilized after closure if the operational costs outweigh the revenue that can be gained from energy production. In some jurisdictions, collection is required, or is continued for reasons other than economics. It is important to evaluate whether LFG capture efficiency numbers refer to recovery over the lifetime of the landfill or over the period of maximum gas production. When the early and late stages of a landfill are taken into consideration, the recovery of LFG over the lifetime of the landfill is lower. Figure 21 is an illustration of FG generation and capture for the Ambt-Delden Landfill in the Netherlands.287 In this example, the red line hows the levels of LFG generation projected, the shaded yellow area shows the levels of extractable LFG,

and the black line sho nstration purposes and other lan ically extracted at the lower e wever, it can be collected to p

Ls

ws the actual levels captured. This graph was provided for demodfills may show higher or lower extraction efficiencies. Landfill gas is not economnds of the LFG curve, i.e., at the beginning and at the end of a landfill’s life. Horevent it from escaping to the atmosphere.

Figure 21. Example LFG Generation and Capture Curves288

287 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). U.S. EPA’s Perspective on Landfill Gas Modeling –

Presentation for World Bank Workshop on Landfill Gas. Presentation by Susan Thornelow, Research Triangle Park. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/840343-1178120035287/ThorneloeWorldBankLFGModelingFinalApril2007.pdf

288 Faassen, D. (no date). Landfill Gas Recovery & Calculations. Accessed November 14, 2008. http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/6251/LFGsite.htm?200925.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/840343-1178120035287/ThorneloeWorldBankLFGModelingFinalApril2007.pdf


http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/6251/LFGsite.htm?200925

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 104 -

Bioreactor Landfills in British Columbia

The BC Ministry of Environment recently issued an Environmental Certificate of approval for a proposed ioreactor landfill. The landfill is proposed by Highland Valley Copper, a 97.5% owned subsidiary of Teck

would be located near Logan Lake, BC, approximately 340 km northeast of Vancouver. The proposed landfill would have an ultimate capacity of approximately 55 million tonnes of

ompatibility with Diversion Goals

b

and Sperling Hansen Associates. It

MSW.

Wastech Services and the Village of Cache Creek are pursuing an extension of the Cache Creek Landfill. There has been no indication of whether this expansion would be operated as a conventional landfill or a

bioreactor.

C

s have poor compatibility with organic waste diversion programs since LFG is generated om the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter.289,290 Gas generation could be substantially reduced

ganic materials away from landfill and towards organics composting or

digestion. This would lead to a reduction in energy recovery per tonne of waste landfilled. In essence, a

.3.3 Environmental Issues

The principal environmental effects of landfills include: methane emissions, non-methanogenic organic

Bioreactor landfillfrwhen Metro Vancouver diverts or

bioreactor landfill would compete for the same organic waste that will be diverted from the MSW stream at source for composting or anaerobic digestion in Metro Vancouver.

Bioreactor landfills are compatible with diversion programs that target plastic, metal, glass and other non-organic wastes.

6

compounds (NMOCs), cadmium, leachate discharge to ground and surface water, and consumption of land. For example, methane emissions are of concern because of their global warming potential, while cadmium is of concern based on its potential for negative impacts on human health.291 There is a large body of research

surrounding the environmental effects of landfills, and many developed countries (particularly in Europe) are shifting away from landfilling untreated waste.

289 Augenstein, D., Morck, R., Reinhart, D., & Yazdani, R. (no date). The Bioreactor Landfill – An Innovation in Solid Waste

Management. Accessed October 12, 2008. http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/epsd_Bioreactor_issues.pdf

290 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2007). U.S. EPA’s Perspective on Landfill Gas Modeling – Presentation for World Bank Workshop on Landfill Gas. Presentation by Susan Thornelow, Research Triangle Park. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/840343-1178120035287/ThorneloeWorldBankLFGModelingFinalApril2007.pdf

291 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/WASTE/research/health/pdf/health-report.pdf

http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/epsd_Bioreactor_issues.pdf



http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/WASTE/research/health/pdf/health-report.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 105 -

6.3.3.1 Water Contamination

A well functioning and contained landfill is designed to have minimal impacts on groundwater and surface water quality. Landfill leachate is generated from liquid in the waste and from precipitation that percolates

rough waste. All leachate should be captured and treated or recirculated, and surface water runoff should

s or by uck. In some designs, landfill leachate is allowed to accumulate indefinitely.

The potential exists for groundwater and surface water to become contaminated if standard operational procedures are not followed. ation of gro rf n result if the liner is

breached during land er the landfill is closed. his reas ills must be regularly monitored during their and many years after closure.

Water quality monito rams use indicator par tect the e of leachate in the groundwater and surf r around the site. Grab samples of e leachate a lso typically taken as part of water quality m programs. If leachate is found to be leaving the landfill area, remedial actions

must be taken to prote rways and aquatic life. Table 12 indi parameters.

Typical Water Sampling Parameters292

thbe directed away from the open cells. Leachate is collected in landfills using constructed drainage networks or more simply by grading the base of a landfill such that a low point is created where leachate can pool. The

length of time leachate remains in these storage areas depends on the landfill design. Periodically, leachate will be pumped out of the landfill and taken to a wastewater treatment plant, either through force maintr

Contamin undwater and su ace water ca

fill operation or aft For t on, landf operation

ring prog ameters to de presencace wate pur re aonitoring

ct wate cates typical sampling

Table 12.

Parameter Surface Water Ground Water

Alkalinity as CaCO3 Yes Yes Aluminum Total Dissolved Ammonia Yes Yes Arsenic T Dissolved otalCadmium Total Dissolved Calcium Total & Dissolved Dissolved Chloride Yes Yes Chromium T Dissolved otalCobalt T Dissolved otalCopper T sootal Dis lved Dissolved oxygen Yes No Hardness as CaCO3 Yes Yes Iron To issolved solved tal & D DisLead Total ved DissolMagnesium Total & Dissolved ved DissolManganese Total & Dissolved Dissolved Nickel Total Dissolved pH Yes Yes Phenols Yes Yes Potassium Total & Dissolved Dissolved Sodium Total & Dissolved Dissolved Specific conductivity Yes Yes Sulphate Yes Yes Temperature Yes Yes

292 These are the leachate sampling parameters reported in: City of Vancouver. (2007). Vancouver Landfill Annual Report. Accessed

September 18, 2008. http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/report.htm.


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 106 -

Parameter Surface Water Ground Water

TOC Yes No True Colour Yes No TSS Yes No Turbidity Yes No Zinc Total Dissolved

6.3.3.2 Air Emissions

odours, emissions from mobile landfill equipment and MSW hauling vehicles, and LFG. Odours are generated from waste before it is covered and during periods of inefficient

necessarily reduce the land area of a landfill. However,

iversion programs increase the lifespan of a landfill. The Municipal Waste Integration Network cites a r tonne of waste disposed.296 For example, a landfill accepting

500,000 tonnes of MSW per year for 50 years would require about 200 hectares of land. Once land has been

future land use options are limited. Locally, closed landfills have become golf courses, such as the Eagle Quest Golf Centre in Coquitlam, and playing fields in Kelowna and North

Air emissions from landfills include

LFG collection.

Landfills produce more methane and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than thermal treatment.293 Sulphur dioxide emissions are similar for thermal treatment and land disposal. Landfills produce lower

amounts of NOx compared to thermal treatment.294 This does not include emissions from hauling, equipment usage, or LFG combustion, as these parameters vary widely from site to site.

According to a DEFRA study in the UK, emissions of dioxin for LFG combustion are similar to those for thermal treatment.295

6.3.3.3 Land Area Consumption

The most obvious environmental impact of landfills is land use. Because landfills are generally designed for a total volume of waste, diversion programs do not

drequirement of 0.092 m2 of land pe

used for waste disposal, its

Vancouver. Buildings on top of closed landfills must address issues of ground settlement and potential gas

intrusion. These issues must be addressed as per the BC Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste.297


Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf.

294 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf.

295 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf.

296 Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) & Recycling Council of Alberta. (2006). Municipal Solid Waste MSW Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal. Accessed December 17, 2008. http://www.recycle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/MSW_Options_Report.pdf. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2005). Landfill Criteria for Municipal Waste.297 Accessed February 16, 2009. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/mpp/lcmsw.html






Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 107 -

Landfills can also impact wildlife during operation and post-closure. Habitat may be displaced by the landfill and migratory paths may be disrupted. Landfills also play a role in habituating animals to people, such as

ttracting bears. This can be mitigated in part through the use of improved operating procedures, use of

ndfill itself.

ed the health impacts of landfills.

nks between landfills and birth efects, cancers, and respiratory disease. The report concluded that the existing research does not

ions, was conducted to assess the health

sks associated with processing New York City’s MSW using a thermal treatment facility versus transporting dfills in other states.300

emissions has yet to be conclusively linked to human health impacts. The study further acknowledges the

a

electric fences, and other site specific measures. 6.3.4 Community/Social Issues


Generally, there has been less research into the potential health impacts of modern landfills than into the health impacts of WTE facilities.298 Landfills are generally located farther away from population centres than

WTE facilities. A full accounting of landfill impacts on human health must include long distance trucking, the operation of transfer stations, LFG usage, as well as the operation of the la

The following sections summarize two studies that examin

6.3.4.1.1 DEFRA Health Impacts Study

A 2004 DEFRA report examined epidemiological research into the possible li299d

demonstrate a causal link between landfills and human health impacts, although there is a possible link

between living close to a landfill and the occurrence of birth defects. However, the research did not draw a causal relationship between birth defects and living close to a landfill. The report also found no evidence that living near a landfill increases the risk of cancer to any measurable level.

6.3.4.1.2 2005 Health Risk Comparison (New York City)

A health risk comparison, based on the inhalation of airborne emiss

rithat same waste by truck, rail, or barge to sanitary lan

The study provides some insight into the potential health risks associated with landfilling MSW. The study described the mechanisms for exposure to contaminants associated with landfilling as inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure to landfill gases, leachate contaminated water and soils, and dietary intake of contaminated plants or livestock.301 The study acknowledges that research into chemical exposure from LFG


Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-report.pdf.

299 United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2004). Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes. Accessed July 15, 2008.

rt.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/research/pdf/health-repo . 300 Moy, P. (2005). A Health Risk Comparison of Landfill Disposal and Waste-To-Energy (WTE) Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in

New York City (NYC). Accessed July 31, 2008. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Moy_ms_thesis.pdf

301 Moy, P. (2005). A Health Risk Comparison of Landfill Disposal and Waste-To-Energy (WTE) Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in New York City (NYC). Accessed July 31, 2008. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Moy_ms_thesis.pdf


http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Moy_ms_thesis.pdf



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 108 -

difficulty in measuring landfill emissions, which can lead to unreliable results. This is consistent with the recommendations from the DEFRA study, which suggest that more research into the health impacts of

ndfills is required to make a more comprehensive evaluation.302

andfills are generally not in conflict with traditional recycling initiatives. Generally, waste is required to

for the landfill operator to pay for the capital and operating expenses of running the landfill, as well as to provide a fund for closure and long term environmental monitoring. In some

inions are strongly influenced by historic landfill practices that were not subject the current levels of oversight, management and regulation.

eing readily available, with the result that many municipalities have had to resort to extreme and costly measures to dispose of their wastes at distant out of region facilities. Public opposition to landfill siting has fostered and expedited the development of waste minimization efforts and programs to recover valuable resources from the waste stream including the development of mandated recycling programs, composting of organics, energy recovery in waste-to-energy facilities, and LFG recovery at landfills, to name a few. The concept of local landfill siting has been replaced in large part by more regional approaches where landfills are sited in remote locations distant from major populated areas. This regional approach has allowed for the development of large scale facilities serving a wider population, that in combination with willing host communities have been better accepted.

la

6.3.4.2 Compatibility of Landfilling with Recycling

L

generate a tipping fee (revenue)

cases, landfill tipping fees are used to subsidize other waste related programs, such as recycling and waste

reduction education. As the amount of waste disposed decreases, revenues are lost, potentially to the detriment of programs that were funded through tipping fees. As discussed in Section 3.4.2 (Compatibility with Diversion Goals), modern bioreactor landfills rely on organic waste to generate LFG, which is a marketable product.303,304 Incompatibility occurs if a bioreactor landfill and composting program compete for the same organic wastes.

6.3.4.3 Landfill as a Neighbour

The public is generally resistant to locating any waste management facility in their neighbourhood. In the context of sanitary landfills, opto In many cases, landfill siting has in fact run into much stronger opposition than other facilities, due in part to conflicting land use and title issues, concerns over traffic, litter and odours, and other community impacts that could lead to long term reduction in the quality of life of those living in the vicinity of a landfill. The term NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) was coined around the battle lines that were formed around efforts to site landfills in various rural communities across North America. As a result of strong local opposition, many landfill siting projects have and continue to fail, often with no solution b

302 Moy, P. (2005). A Health Risk Comparison of Landfill Disposal and Waste-To-Energy (WTE) Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in

New York City (NYC). Accessed July 31, 2008. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Moy_ms_thesis.pdf

303 Gartner Lee Limited. (2007). Application for Environmental Assessment Certificate: Highland Valley Centre for Sustainable Waste Management Project. Prepared for Highland Valley Copper.

304 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (no date). Wastes – Recourse Conservation Challenge: 35 Percent Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste Action Plan. Accessed March 5, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm.



Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 109 -

In granting approval for a proposed large regional landfill development (the Highland Valley project) the Minister of the Environment agreed with the findings of the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) that negative effects from the proposed landfill on the public had been identified and would be mitigated to the

Minister’s satisfaction.305

6.3.4.4 Role of Landfill in Local Responsibility

A landfill can provide a way for communities to manage their MSW locally. This is the case for the City of Vancouver that operates its own landfill for waste produced in the City and other local municipalities such as in the Corporation of Delta. Other examples within BC are the Capital Regional District (Victoria and area),

Regional District of Nanaimo and Regional District of Central Okanagan (Kelowna and area), that all have landfills in proximity to population centres. Due to the large land requirements of landfills, new facilities are usually sited in remote areas and do not provide an opportunity for urban communities to dispose of the

waste close to where it is generated.


Landfills provide local employment opportunities for truck drivers, landfill operations personnel, administrative landfill personnel and some limited spin-off employment as well. The Cache Creek Landfill employs approximately 80 full time equivalent staff on site, with an additional 75 trailer drivers.306

The Highland Valley project is expected to create approximately 38 direct, full time jobs from landfill operations and approximately 88 direct jobs associated with waste hauling.307 In addition to employment

benefits, the project has committed to helping the District of Logan Lake offset the loss of tax revenue when the Highland Valley Copper Mine closes. Highland Valley Copper has also committed to providing funding to the host community, the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, to assist with waste diversion initiatives.308

6.4 Summary

There is a wide body of knowledge on WTE technologies and landfills. Less is known about MBT, since it is a recent development used mostly in Europe.

MBT prepares the MSW for burning as fuel, recovers some remaining recyclables, or stabilizes organic materials prior to landfilling. Selection of a technology depends on whether MBT is used for the production of RDF or for stabilizing organic materials biologically prior to landfilling. In Europe MBT technologies are

sometimes employed by regions or municipalities in lieu of WTE as a means of meeting the Landfill Directive

305 British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. (BC EAO). (2008). Information Bulletin: Highland Valley Waste Management

Project Approved. Project Information Centre. Completed/Certified Notices. Accessed October 8, 2008. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p263/1223326001333_8e248a8d30d95427cc823b374324be10cb8ddf7bc48a.pdf.

306 Metro Vancouver, personal communication. 307 Gartner Lee Limited. (2007). Application for Environmental Assessment Certificate: Highland Valley Centre for Sustainable Waste

Management Project. Prepared for Highland Valley Copper. 308 Gartner Lee Limited. (2007). Application for Environmental Assessment Certificate: Highland Valley Centre for Sustainable Waste

Management Project, Ch 14 p 14. Prepared for Highland Valley Copper.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p263/1223326001333_8e248a8d30d95427cc823b374324be10cb8ddf7bc48a.pdf

Metro Vancouver



of keeping untreated organic waste out of landfills. Most MBT facilities produce RDF that is burned for energy recovery.

WTE recovers the energy that is in the MSW directly and converts it into electricity, steam for industrial processes and hot water for district heating. Mass burn is the most proven WTE technology with over 400 proven installations world wide. Mass burn is highly developed technically and meets stringent European and

Canadian emission standards. When WTE is coupled with district heating, over 90% of the energy available in the MSW can be recovered.

Emerging technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc gasification systems are not yet commercially proven in North America. As such, it is not possible to fairly compare the performance of these technologies with the performance of more proven technologies.

Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that MBT and WTE are complementary, as are WTE and recycling. There do not appear to be any adverse health or environmental effects from the use of MBT or

WTE. In Europe, WTE is no longer considered a relevant source of emissions. Integrated waste management systems in developed countries with advanced environmental policies

generally show a high level of recycling coupled with a high level of energy recovery. Landfills remain a necessary part of an integrated waste management system to provide flexible capacity to buffer changes in waste quantities and to dispose of residuals from WTE facilities, if and when they are not recycled or

beneficially used for other purposes.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 110 -

Metro Vancouver



Part 2

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 111 -

Metro Vancouver



The purpose of Part 2 is to demonstrate how MSW might be treated and disposed in Metro Vancouver. This is accomplished using scenario analysis to present the financial and environmental costs and benefits of the different technology combinations. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to understand the

environmental effects. The results of the LCA were used together with financial data to conduct a financial analysis. The results of the LCA and financial analysis were then used to compare the scenarios. Part 2 includes the following sections: Section 7 Introduces the eight scenarios that were developed for the scenario analysis. The eight

scenarios are alternative configurations of existing facilities combined with the new treatment technologies described in Section 6.

Section 8 Provides an overview of the assumptions and data used in the LCA and financial analysis of the eight scenarios.

Section 9 Describes the scope and purpose of the LCA. Section 10 Summarizes the results of the LCA. Section 11 Describes the results of the LCA for air emissions in the context of air quality for the Lower

Fraser Valley (LFV). Section 12 Describes the financial analysis methods and results.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 112 -

Metro Vancouver



7. Potential Applications of MSW Management Technologies

An overview of the technologies available to treat and dispose of MSW and the regulatory and environmental context for the implementation of these technologies was presented in the first part of this report.

To demonstrate how MSW might be treated and disposed in Metro Vancouver using the various technologies described in Section 6, and to understand the financial and environmental costs and benefits of

alternative options, an analysis of integrated waste management scenarios was conducted. Eight scenarios were developed that represent reasonable configurations of existing MSW management facilities (Metro Vancouver WTE Facility and Vancouver Landfill) in combination with the treatment and disposal technologies

(MTB, landfilling, and WTE) described in Section 6. All scenarios use landfills; in some scenarios, WTE and landfills operate together in an integrated system. In all scenarios, the existing Vancouver Landfill and the existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility continue to form an integral part of the Region’s solid waste

management system.

7.1 Scenario Definition – Assumptions

The following assumptions were used in defining the eight integrated MSW management scenarios:

General – All Scenarios:

Waste flows in all scenarios are based on a projected 1.26 million tonnes of MSW requiring disposal in

2020. This is the quantity of MSW projected by Metro Vancouver to remain in 2020 after 70% waste diversion is achieved. The projection includes population, employment and waste generation growth rates. Disposal and composition projections exclude DLC quantities, i.e. residential, industrial,

commercial and institutional only.

The Region’s waste management system is modeled as an integrated system operating in a homogeneous fashion.

The waste composition is assumed to be constant throughout the Region and across all scenarios.

Existing Facilities

All of the scenarios include continued use of the existing Metro Vancouver WTE facility and the Vancouver Landfill.

The Vancouver Landfill is used as the “top-up capacity” for all scenarios except Scenario 6, in which it is used to dispose of all MBT-process residuals, and Scenario 7, in which it is the primary disposal facility.

The current annual capacity of the Metro Vancouver WTE is 285,000 tonnes of MSW. With anticipated

changes in waste composition and the associated increase in heating value, the facility’s capacity is estimated to reduce to 265,000 tonnes per year. This is the annual processing capacity used in all eight

scenarios.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 113 -

Metro Vancouver



Based on current practice, up to 4 tonnes of bottom ash from the existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility is beneficially re-used at the Vancouver Landfill; fly ash is treated to MSW standards and hauled to an out of Region landfill.

The size of new facilities is based on projected waste volumes, and not on a known size of a specific technology.

From an LCA perspective, the number of facilities needed to meet the capacity requirements is not

crucial, provided that all facilities meet the defined emissions levels. WTE Scenarios

In scenarios with new WTE facilities, the WTE infrastructure has been significantly undersized. This is intended to reflect the way that a real waste system would evolve. The under-sizing assures that a new facility would be fully utilized, while the excess material going to local landfill would provide a continual

incentive for further waste diversion activities.

Bottom ash from the existing WTE Facility would continue to be used beneficially at the Vancouver Landfill. For the new in-Region WTE facilities, bottom ash would be disposed at the Vancouver Landfill,

because the amount of bottom ash generated by these facilities would exceed the amount that could be beneficially reused.

Fly ash from new in-Region WTE facilities would be stabilized and disposed at the out of Region landfill.

Bottom and fly ash from new out of Region WTE facilities would be disposed of at landfills near the WTE facilities.

Transportation

Transportation methods and distances are based on actual transport distances to existing facilities and expected distances to new facilities. Expected distances and transportation methods are based on WTE facilities and landfills that have been proposed by the private sector.

Both new and existing facilities in the Region are located an “average” distance from a transfer station (assumed 25 km for all), and all waste received for treatment and disposal originates at a solid waste transfer station. In practice there will be some direct haul of collection trucks to disposal facilities,

depending on the facility’s location in relation to source of waste generated. For simplicity this is not included.

New out of Region WTE facilities are assumed to be located 500 km away (for WTE facilities processing

using RDF) or 100 km away (for WTE facilities processing untreated MSW).

Long distance transportation by trucking is assumed to be similar to the current practice of long hauling

MSW in 37 tonne capacity transport trucks (B-Trains) and short hauling (transfer station to facility) MSW in 27 tonne single trailer loads.

All out of Region WTE facilities are assumed to be accessed by barge.

Landfills

New landfills are assumed to operate as bioreactor landfills.

New landfills are assumed to be located out of Region, about 350 km away from Metro Vancouver.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 114 -

Metro Vancouver



The average LFG collection efficiency at Vancouver Landfill is 75% based on information received from the City of Vancouver and considering US EPA document, “Background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”.

The average LFG collection efficiency at a new out of Region bioreactor landfill is 75%.

MBT Facilities

MBT facilities are assumed to be located within Metro Vancouver.

There is no difference in outputs between MBT facilities producing RDF and MBT facilities stabilizing waste for landfilling.

7.2 Scenario Descriptions

The eight scenarios are described in detail below. Figure 22 shows the configuration of waste treatment and disposal processes for each scenario and the amount of waste treated by each waste treatment process.

Figure 22. Integrated Waste Management Scenarios

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region use

of RDFproduct from

MBT


MBT

5Waste


WTE

6Local


7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize out


Scenarios

To

nn

es M

SW

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f W

aste

Gen

erat

ed

Large new WTE Moderate new WTE MBT/RDF MBT & Landfill Untreated waste exported for fuel Vancouver LF Out of Region LF

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 115 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 116 -

7.2.1 Scenario 1 – Large New WTE

Scenario 1 involves the construction of a new WTE facility within the Region with processing capacity to treat 750,000 tonnes of MSW in 2020. The existing WTE Facility would continue to treat 265,000 tonnes of MSW. The remaining 245,000 tonnes of MSW and the bottom ash from the new WTE facility would be disposed of at the Vancouver Landfill. Bottom ash from the existing WTE Facility would continue to be beneficially reused at the Vancouver Landfill. Fly ash would be stabilized to MSW quality and hauled to an out of Region landfill.

For the base case, the new WTE facilities would provide electricity and heat for a district heating system. The impact of maximizing electricity production and supplying less district heat (as little as 50%) was also

examined as a sensitivity in Appendix C. For the purposes of the financial analysis, this scenario was modeled as having 500,000 tonnes of capacity

online by January 1, 2015, with the remaining 250,000 tonnes online by January 1, 2020. The LCA looked at total processing capacity of 750,000 tonnes online in 2020. 7.2.2 Scenario 2 – Moderate New WTE

Scenario 2 is identical to Scenario 1 except that the capacity of the new WTE facility is reduced to 500,000

tonnes (on line in 2015). As with Scenario 1, the impact of maximizing electricity production and supplying less district heat was examined. Under this scenario, a larger portion of the MSW requiring disposal is directed to the Vancouver Landfill. 7.2.3 Scenario 3 – In Region Use of RDF Product from MBT

Scenario 3 involves the construction of a new MBT facility with a processing capacity of 500,000 tonnes of MSW. The remaining MSW requiring disposal would be treated by the existing WTE Facility (265,000

tonnes), with the balance of MSW plus existing WTE ash landfilled at the Vancouver Landfill (495,000 tonnes). The MBT facility would be equipped to produce RDF to be burned in local cement kilns as auxiliary fuel, replacing currently used fossil fuels. In this scenario it was assumed that the MBT facility and the cement kilns would be located in Metro Vancouver within a 25 km distance of each other.

The MBT facility would produce about 275,000 tonnes of RDF; this is about 55% of the original mass of the MSW received.309 The reduction in tonnage is due to the recovery of some additional metals and to mass

reduction through moisture loss and organic degradation. Burning RDF in a cement kiln means that no bottom ash or fly ash disposal is required (beyond that from the

existing WTE Facility) since the ash is incorporated into the cement


Waste Incineration Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3. Accessed August 18, 2008. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wi_bref_0806.pdf

ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/eippcb/doc/wi_bref_0806.pdf

Metro Vancouver



7.2.4 Scenario 4 – Out of Region Use of RDF Product from MBT

Scenario 4 is the same as Scenario 3, except that the RDF produced at the MBT facility would be used as fuel in a facility located outside Metro Vancouver. The RDF-using facility would be optimized for electricity generation, with no additional use of steam or heat to run processes or for district heating. The ash that is produced as a result of the combustion process would be disposed by the RDF customer/user at a landfill in the vicinity of the final destination of the RDF. The RDF is assumed to be barged a distance of 500 km using large ocean capable barges (carrying 15,000 tonnes per load). 7.2.5 Scenario 5 – Waste Exported Out of Region to WTE

Scenario 5 involves a new WTE facility with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes located out of the Region. The remainder of the Region’s MSW would be treated by the existing WTE Facility and disposed at the Vancouver Landfill. A new WTE facility optimized for electricity generation would be constructed, however, unlike Scenarios 1 and 2, no additional use of steam or heat to run processes or district heating was included in this scenario. The MSW is assumed to be transported by barge a distance of 100 km, using barges capable of carrying 2,600 tonnes per load. The ash that is produced as a result of the combustion process would be disposed of by the user of the MSW at an industrial landfill in the vicinity of the WTE facility. 7.2.6 Scenario 6 – Local Landfilling of MBT Product

Scenario 6 involves the construction of a new MBT facility in the Region. The MBT facility would have capacity to remove additional metals for recycling and then biologically stabilize 995,000 tonnes of MSW. All MSW beyond the capacity of the existing WTE Facility would be stabilized by the MBT facility and then disposed in the Vancouver Landfill. There is no new energy recovery involved in this scenario because the biologically stabilized MSW disposed at the Vancouver Landfill will not generate additional landfill gas. The MBT facility would be located within the Region, at an “average” distance from the transfer stations of 25 km. 7.2.7 Scenario 7 – Maximize Local Landfilling

Scenario 7 focuses on maximizing the use of the Vancouver Landfill. The Vancouver Landfill is permitted to accept 750,000 tonnes of waste per year. Under this scenario, the Vancouver Landfill would continue to operate to the limit of its permitted capacity. The remainder of the MSW would be exported to a new bioreactor landfill located 350 km outside the Region. There are no new WTE or MBT facilities under this scenario, i.e. no MSW treatment prior to landfilling.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 117 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 118 -

7.2.8 Scenario 8 – Maximize Out of Region Landfilling

Scenario 8 focuses on maximizing the use of a new bioreactor landfill located outside the Region and minimizing the use of the Vancouver Landfill. Under this scenario, the Vancouver Landfill will accept only 245,000 tonnes per year. Waste will be hauled to the out of region landfill using 37 tonne capacity transport trucks (B-Trains). Based on historic practices, a backhaul has been modeled (i.e., emissions associated with hauling the waste out of the region are included, but emissions from the trucks returning to Metro Vancouver are not included).310 As in Scenario 7, there will be no additional WTE or MBT facilities, i.e. no treatment prior to landfilling. 7.2.9 Material Flow Summary

Table 13 provides a summary of the waste flows for each scenario. The data refers to the tonnes of MSW delivered to a facility’s front gate as well as the process residual and subsequent tonnages for WTE fly ash, bottom ash, and MBT product. Table 13. Scenario Material Flow Summary of Scenarios

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Large New WTE

Moderate New WTE

In-region Use of RDF

Product from MBT

Out of Region Use

of RDF Product of

MBT

Waste Exported

Out of Region to

WTE

Local Landfilling

of MBT Product

Maximize Local

Landfilling

Maximize Out of Region

Landfilling

MSW (tonnes per year) MSW to Existing WTEF 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 MSW to New In-Region WTEF 750,000 500,000 MSW to New Out-of-Region WTEF 500,000 MSW to Vancouver LF 245,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 750,000 245,000 MSW to Out-of-Region Landfill 245,000 750,000 MSW to New MBT Facility 500,000 500,000 995,000 Total MSW Requiring Disposal 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 WTE Residuals (tonnes per year) Bottom Ash: Existing WTEF to Local Landfill 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 Fly Ash: Existing WTEF to Out-of-Region Landfill 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Bottom Ash: New In-Region WTEF to Local Landfill 130,000 86,000 Fly Ash: New In- Region WTEF to Out-of-Region Landfill 27,000 18,000 Bottom Ash from RDF Combustion: Disposed of On Site or Nearby 86,000

310 At the time of writing, backhauling had been suspended due to a decrease in the quantity of wood chips being brought to the

Lower Mainland from the interior of the province. However, it has been assumed that this is a temporary disruption.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 119 -

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Large New WTE

Moderate New WTE

In-region Use of RDF

Product from MBT

Out of Region Use

of RDF Product of

MBT

Waste Exported

Out of Region to

WTE

Local Landfilling

of MBT Product

Maximize Local

Landfilling

Maximize Out of Region

Landfilling

Fly Ash: Disposed of On Site or Nearby 18,000 Bottom Ash: from Exported MSW Disposed of On Site or Nearby 86,000 Fly Ash: Disposed of On Site or Nearby 18,000 MBT Processing (tonnes per year) MBT Input 500,000 500,000 995,000 MBT Output to Vancouver Landfill 547,000 MBT Output to RDF facility 275,000 275,000

Gray shading indicates this element is not applicable to a given scenario.

7.2.10 Scenario Boundaries

Specific activities that are included within the scope of the LCA and financial analysis are:

hauling of waste from transfer stations to treatment/disposal facilities;

operation of the existing WTE Facility and new WTE facilities (where applicable), including the manufacturing of chemicals and feed stocks required by WTE facilities,

operation of landfills (either local or out-of-Region) including material handling, LFG collection and

management, and fugitive LFG emissions;

hauling and handling of ash residuals to local or out-of-Region landfills; and

upstream emissions from the extraction and processing of natural gas, petroleum, and coal, and the

production of electricity (as required by the scenarios). Some activities are not included in this study. These are:

Transfer station operations - Operations are assumed to be the same for all scenarios, though there may

be small differences depending on the use of long haul or short haul vehicles. The upstream boundary of this study is after MSW is loaded onto vehicles at a transfer station.

Disposal of the residues from the programs that are used to achieve 70% diversion - For example, this

study does not include the handling of the rejects from recycling facilities or the residues from future composting facilities.

Emissions related to any other diversion, recycling, or EPR programs - Those emissions are expected to

be the same for any of the other remaining scenarios, and not to interact with treatment and disposal.

Construction of facilities - It is acknowledged that the construction of facilities includes emissions and resource consumption. However, it has been frequently found in other LCA studies of long-lived

infrastructure that the energy and emissions associated with construction of the facilities, while

Metro Vancouver



substantial, are relatively small compared with the many years of emissions from ongoing annual operations.

Incidental activities such as office administration, small vehicles, staff travel, commuting, etc.

The inclusion of other material streams such as waste water treatment plant biosolids, waste from emergency situations (e.g., destroyed animals from an avian flu control program), or agricultural wastes (manure etc.).

Waste sent to existing disposal facilities that originate from outside Metro Vancouver.

Figure 23 shows a generic waste management system in Metro Vancouver. This figure shows all the possible pathways of waste for all eight scenarios. Some of these pathways (shown as dotted lines) are relevant only for specific scenarios.

The scenario boundaries reflect Metro Vancouver’s waste management jurisdiction. The exclusion of processes that are common to all scenarios does not affect the relative ranking of scenarios.

Figure 23. Generic Scenario Diagram

TransferStation

Metro WTEF

Vancouver Landfill

Bottom Ash

Fly Ash

Out of Regionlandfill

New WTEF(in region or out of region)

MBT

MSW

MSW

MSW

MSW

MSW

Fly Ash

Bottom Ash

Cement Kiln

New out of regionRDF burning WTE

MBT Product

Energy Supply:Electricity,

Petroleum andNatural Gas

Vehicle andChemicalFeedstock

Manufacture

Avoided Emissionsdue to ferrous

metals recovery

AvoidedEmissions due

to energyrecovery

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 120 -

Metro Vancouver



8. Scenario Analysis - Data and Assumptions

This section presents the data and assumptions used to conduct the LCA and financial analysis. Two main categories of data are provided: facility operating data and waste characterization data.

Every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive and realistic analysis of the alternative scenarios, by using known data on the local waste stream and composition, and actual operating data for the new technologies from existing facilities successfully operating in other locations. However, the environmental

and financial results should not be seen as absolute values but rather as comparative information intended to support informed decision making for the future direction of solid waste management in the Region.

8.1 Reference Facilities

To complete the LCA, it was necessary to define the operating parameters for the waste treatment and disposal technologies (WTE, MBT and landfilling) that were modelled. Data was selected that was appropriate and accurately reflects actual operating conditions. The data hierarchy from most to least accurate is:

real operating data if available and applicable;

data or methodologies from government agencies (e.g., U.S. EPA, Environment Canada);

standardized modeling tools or emissions factors; and

derived values and first principle calculations cross checked against literature sources, and other quoted values.

Generally, data from advocacy groups and industry groups was avoided. Occasionally this information was used to cross check data derived by another method. To the extent possible, operating parameters were drawn from data on state-of-the-art reference facilities. Using data from actual facilities provides a degree of certainty that the results presented are achievable. 8.1.1 WTE Reference Facilities

The WTE facilities modelled in this study were optimized for both energy recovery and pollution control. The parameters used for both of these factors are discussed below. 8.1.1.1 Energy Recovery

During the treatment of MSW, WTE facilities produce steam which can be used to generate electricity, provide process steam to a nearby industrial facility, and/or provide hot water for district heating. The design of the WTE facility affects how much of each type of energy is recovered. There is generally a limit on the amount of energy that can be captured as electricity or process steam. Facilities that have exceptionally high energy recovery rates are usually connected to district heat systems that use captured

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 121 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 122 -

heat for space and water heating in the community. To make use of process steam or hot water for district heating, the WTE facility must be located near customers or end users. Electricity production is less

ependent on location.

facilities included in this study are modeled according to the energy recovery schemes show in able 14.

Table 14. Modeled Energy Recovery

d The WTE T

Facility Energy Recovery

The Existing Metro Vancouver WTEF Facility d steam) Maintain current energy recovery parameters (electricity anNew In-Region WTE Facility Maximize energy recovery (electricity and district heating) New Out of Region WTE Facility Maximize electricity, with no process steam or district heating New Out of Region WTE Facility that Burns RDF

Maximize electricity, with no process steam or district heating

Rambøll, a Danish engineering and design consultancy has conducted a survey of recently constructed WTE facilities in Europe, where most WTE facilities generate both electricity and heat and therefore, achieve greater energy efficiencies than North American WTE facilities that generate electricity only. The Ramboll urvey is included as Appendix A

roduces only electricity. The reference cilities used to derive data for the LCA model are described below.

hieves an energy recovery of 21% for electricity and 68% for heat, for a ombined thermal efficiency of 89%.

es an energy recovery of 27% for electricity and 71% for heat, for a combined thermal efficiency of 8%.

uipment is not optimized for power production and the facility only chieves a 20.7% thermal efficiency.

erence facilities the energy recovery parameters shown in Table 15 ere used for the base case of study.

s To provide appropriate data for the LCA model, Rambøll identified three reference facilities: two produce mostly heat with some (less than 50%) power generation, and one pfa The SYSAV facility in Malmo, Sweden maximizes heat generation and produces some electricity. It has a boiler and turbine for electricity production and it is equipped with flue gas condensation and heat pumps for district heating. The SYSAV facility acc The Reno-Nord facility in Aalborg, Denmark is optimized to produce both electricity and heat. This facility is equipped with a steam boiler and turbine for electricity production and district-heating. The Reno-Nord facility achiev9 In the UK, the WTE facility on the Isle of Man generates electricity only, but the facility was built to minimize investment costs. As a result, the eqa Based on the data from the three refw

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 123 -

Table 15. Energy Recovery from Waste-to-energy Facilities

Energy Recovery (% of MSW Energy Content)

Existing WTE Facility

(In Region) NEW WTE facility In

Region

NEW Out of Region WTE

facility RDF Burning Plant

Out of Region Electricity 16 20 27 27 Steam 26 0 0 0 Heat (hot water) for district heata 0 70 0 0 Total recovery 42 90 27 27

Notes:

(a) The values for recovered steam and hot water for district energy are at the WTE Facility and do not account for losses in transmission and distribution.

erating data from a number of facilities, the base case analyzed assumed that 90% nd displaces natural gas and electricity as sources of heat.

all of the new WTE facilities in Scenarios 1, 2, 4 and 5 were modeled on the SYSAV facility. system at SY precipitator, quench, acid scrubber,

alkaline scrubber, wet dioxin/mercury and condensing scrubber, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Emissions from SYSAV are show , standa d to % O2, 25 °C and 101.325 Pa. These values have been used in the study to estimate th f emissions from the new WTE facilities.

SYSAV Emissions

Data from Rambøll indicates that the amount of heat sold is less than the amount of heat generated (shown

Table 15). Based on opinof the heat generated is sold a As noted in Section 7, variations of Scenarios 1 and 2 were also modeled with WTE facilities that maximized electricity production and do not supply district heat. Those variations used the same parameters as the out of region WTE facilities.

8.1.1.2 Pollution Control

The Rambøll survey examined best practices for pollution control at the aforementioned facilities. Based on Rambøll’s research the SYSAV facility in Sweden was found to have the best pollution control. Therefore, missions from e

The flue gas treatment SAV consists of an electrostatic

n in Table 16 rdize dry flue gas at 11e mass loadings o

Table 16.

Emission Data Unit Highly E ent Wet fficiFlue Gas Treatment-

Plant

Carbone monoxide (CO) mg/m³ 10 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) mg/m³ 20 Dust mg/m³ 2 Total organic carbon (TOC) mg/m³ 1 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) mg/m³ 3 Hydrogen chloride (HCl) mg/m³ 2 Hydrogen fluoride (HF) mg/m³ < 1 Ammonia (NH3) mg/m³ 4 Nitrous oxide (N2O) mg/m³ < 5 Mercury (Hg) mg/m³ 0.006 Cadmium + Tallium (Cd+Tl) mg/m³ 0.0002 Other heavy metals mg/m³ 0.05 Dioxins (TCCD-ekv) ng/m³ 0.0002

Metro Vancouver



For the existing WTE Facility, all emissions except NOx were modeled based on actual 2007 data. Emissions for NOx were assumed to be reduced, based on Metro Vancouver’s plans to improve the air pollution control system by installing an SCR system. With an SCR system, Metro Vancouver estimates that the NOx emission would decrease to 65 tonnes per year, 400 tonnes lower than the present 465 tonnes per year. No resulting loss in energy from the installation of this new equipment was assumed. 8.1.2 MBT Reference Facility

The different MBT scenarios in this study examined three alternate objectives of MBT processing:

1. Generating a refuse derived fuel (RDF) suitable for combustion in a cement kiln (Scenario 3); 2. Generating RDF to supply an out-of-region WTE facility (Scenario 4), or

3. Stabilizing the organics in the MSW so that the treated MSW can be landfilled with reduced LFG generation (Scenario 6).

In practice, the MBT facility for each scenario would be designed to achieve those specific objectives. However, for this study, one simplified MBT design was used for all scenarios. This simplified design is based on the following assumptions: The MBT product would not be processed into land applied compost because it would be derived from a

contaminated mixed waste stream. Separation will include bulky items and marketable recyclables – ferrous or other metals, large items,

etc. The process would include stabilization through some level of biodegradation. This serves to dry the

material and to reduce mass through the microbial degradation of organic materials.

8.1.2.1 MBT Process Parameters and Emissions

Due to the European Landfill Directive that bans the disposal of untreated organics, MBT facilities are more common in Europe than in North America. Therefore, data for MBT emissions for this study are primarily based on European data. Key features related to emissions from MBT are that: mass reduction occurs through moisture loss and from organic degradation; no energy input (e.g., natural gas) is used for drying; electricity is consumed for operations of separation and by handling equipment, and minimal loaders and other equipment are used. A report on emissions from MBT facilities was completed by Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd. It is included as Appendix B. 8.1.3 Use of MBT Product in Cement Kiln

Emissions from burning the output of an MBT/RDF process in a cement kiln assume that the RDF replaces other energy on a GJ for GJ basis, not on a tonne for tonne basis. Common fuels burned in cement kilns are petroleum coke, coke, coal, and sometimes natural gas. Thus for every GJ of RDF used in a cement kiln,

one GJ of other energy is avoided, and the emissions associated with that other energy are also avoided. However, the RDF that is burned “adds back” some emissions. Substituting a GJ from fossil fuel avoids

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 124 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 125 -

74 kg of CO2 emissions311, and “‘adds back” 97.5 kg of total CO2, of which only 45 kg is fossil derived and considered a GHG emission. Therefore, the net benefit of using RDF is a reduction of 29 kg of CO2 per GJ.

There is no modeled change in other air emissions as a result of switching part of the fuel mix to an MSW derived fuel. This is considered reasonable because:

the fuel mixture is expected to be a small part of the total mass loading to the kiln;

the input materials to a cement kiln contain metals. Typically, the raw materials represent the majority of the input of these metals to the kiln. Changing out a portion of that fuel mixture for RDF could be managed to not change the input of metals to the kiln substantially and so should not affect the emissions of metals substantially;312

cement clinker acts as a sequestering agent for metals;

cement kilns operate at high temperatures and residence times, that destroy organic compounds, and

cement plants include quick cooling of the flue gas that help to minimize organic compound reformation. 8.1.4 Landfills

All scenarios involve the operation of the Vancouver Landfill, and Scenarios 6 and 7 include the operation a new, out of Region landfill. The key assumptions of landfill operations are:

the out of Region landfill will be operated as a bioreactor landfill. Operations will be similar to operations quipment; at the Cache Creek Landfill in terms of the use of compactors, spreaders and other off-road e

bioreactor landfills will capture 75% of the LFG generated over the lifetime of the facility; and

the Vancouver Landfill will capture 75% of the LFG generated over the lifetime of the facility. Data used in modeling the emissions and fuel consumption for landfill operations was derived primarily from detailed operating data from the Cache Creek Landfill. Records for the Cache Creek Landfill define the operating hours of each vehicle type, and the number of tonnes of waste accepted. Based on this the operating time “per tonne” was estimated. Fuel consumption was derived from manufacturer’s specification sheets and emissions from compactors and loaders were estimated using off-road vehicle emission factors,

hich address emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, NO , VOCs, SO , PM , and PM . w x x 10 2.5

Additional environmental data for the new bioreactor landfill in Scenarios 6 and 7 was drawn from the Environmental Certificate of Approval recently issued by the BC Ministry of Environment for a proposed bioreactor landfill near Logan Lake, BC.

311 Jacott, M., Reed, C., Taylor, A., Winfield, M. (2003). Energy Use in the Cement Industry in North America: Emissions, Waste

Generation and Pollution Control, 1990-2001. Prepared for the Commission for Environmental Co-operation. Accessed March 26, 2009. http://www.texascenter.org/publications/cement.pdf

312 For example, a recent application for a test burn of waste products within a cement kiln estimated that for lead, the raw materials would delivery 3.1 kg/hr of lead into the kiln and the fuel (pet coke) would deliver 0.03 kg/hr. Changing the fuel mixture to include 30% alternative fuels (post composting residual plastics, post-recycling paper biosolids, or other post-recycling materials from paper manufacturing) would only alter the lead input to the kiln by a maximum of 4%.Other metals showed similarly small increases in loading, and some showed decreases.

Subsequent air quality modeling indicated that the expected change in air quality at the Point of impingement (POI) is less than 0.05% for all trace metals.

While these alternative fuels are not directly comparable to post MSW derived fuels, the indication is the same that the other raw materials are substantial sources of metals input, and the expected changes to air quality may be small. [Source: Application for Approval Under Section 27 of the EPA [Ontario] For the Purpose of conducting an alternative fuels Demonstration: Bowmanville Cement Plant.

http://www.texascenter.org/publications/cement.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 126 -

Data for LFG utilization and the associated emissions for the Vancouver Landfill is based on current operating data from the landfill.

8.2 Characteristics of MSW

The following sections describe the estimated heating value, fossil carbon content and LFG generation potential of the MSW used for the LCA and financial analysis. The estimated waste quantities used for this study are described in Section 2.2. 8.2.1 Heating Value of MSW

Metro Vancouver’s waste projection includes an estimate of the future waste composition. This information indicated that due to the removal of additional recyclables to achieve 70% waste diversion, the heating value of MSW in 2020 would differ from its current level. It has been estimated for the purpose of this study that the waste heating value will increase by about 10%. This is consistent with information from companies operating waste-to-energy plants. Based on the known current heating value of the Metro Vancouver of 10.5 GJ/tonne, it is estimated that the heating value in 2020 will be in the order of 11.2 GJ/tonne.

8.2.2 GHG Emissions from MSW

To understand the nature of GHG emissions from MSW, a distinction is required between carbon of fossil origin and carbon of biogenic origin. For WTE, the GHG emissions are related to the amount of fossil carbon in the waste from materials derived from geologic reserves of carbon like coal, natural gas, or petroleum, which is primarily found as plastics. For landfills, the GHG content is related to the amount of biogenic carbon from materials derived from “recently grown” biological sources, which includes paper, lumber, food scraps, and yard waste.

8.2.2.1 GHG Emissions from WTE

In 2020, the MSW composition will include both biogenic and fossil carbon. The GHG emissions from WTE were estimated based on the amount of fossil and biogenic carbon in the MSW as follows:

The current total CO2 emissions from the Metro Vancouver WTE facility. These have been determined through an analysis of the stack gas CO2 content and the flow rates through each of three lines at the WTE facility. This used 2005 data and indicated that the total carbon dioxide emissions were

1,157 kg per tonne of MSW.

Analysis by Metro Vancouver’s Air Quality Group that differentiated between biogenic and fossil components at the 2006 diversion rate of 52%. That analysis split the total CO2 to about 36% fossil

carbon and 64% biogenic.313 This reference point, together with the estimated reduction in organic waste

313 The IPCC Good Practice Document (IPCC, 2006), estimates the defined range for the fossil component of MSW to be 30% to 50%

of the total carbon. Where other data is lacking, they recommend using a default value of 40% of total carbon is fossil carbon. This is in very close agreement with the estimated value used here of 38%.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 127 -

in the MSW, was used to estimate the split between fossil and biogenic carbon in 2020. The estimated split in 2020 is 38% fossil and 62% biogenic.

8.2.2.2 GHG Emissions from Landfilling

The anaerobic decomposition of organic matter generates landfill gas (LFG). LFG comprises two green house gases: methane and carbon dioxide. The rate and quantity of LFG generation is a function of many factors including the moisture content of the waste, the composition of the waste, the landfill conditions (pH, temperature, moisture content, compaction, etc.) and other factors. Evaluating the gas generation based on these factors is an on-going area of research.

For this study the LFG emissions were estimated using a computational model developed by the U.S. EPA called LandGEM (Landfill Gas Emissions Model) Version 3.02.314 The LandGEM model is a spreadsheet-based tool that generates a forecast of LFG emissions based on inputs of waste deposition and defined model parameters. There are two key parameters of the LandGEM model: k and L0. The rate at which LFG is generated (i.e., the lag between waste deposition and gas generation) is described by k. The value of k does not affect the total amount of LFG estimated by the model, and is therefore not critical to the results of the LCA, since the LCA is concerned with the total quantity of methane generated by a tonne of MSW, and not the quantity generated in a specific year.

The second key parameter of this model is L0, the methane gas generation potential. This parameter indicates the ultimate methane generation possible from the waste (units of methane production in m3 per mass of waste). The U.S. EPA recommended figure for a traditional landfill in a wet region (such as the

Vancouver Landfill) is 100 m3 methane per tonne MSW. Based on the waste composition in Section 2.2, an L0 value of 98 m3 of methane per tonne MSW was calculated and used in this study. LFG is nominally composed of 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide. There are many other contaminants associated with LFG and the LandGEM model includes standard concentrations of 48 other compounds. These have been included at their default concentrations. For this analysis, we have assumed that 75% of the generated LFG is captured from a newly designed bioreactor landfill. This is consistent with the recent environmental assessment completed for the proposed bioreactor landfill at Logan Lake which predicts a 75% capture rate. A 75% capture rate means that 25% of the LFG is not captured. Some of the escaping LFG may be oxidized as it passes through the landfill cover. An IPCC guidance document states that 10% of the uncaptured gas could be degraded microbially or otherwise oxidized as it travels to the surface.315 This additional oxidation is difficult to quantify and has not been accounted for in the LFG calculations at this time.

314 U.S. EPA (2005), LandGEM Model V3.02, posted to EPA software download site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/software) 5-12-05.

Downloaded May 2006. User's Guide (EPA-600/R-05/047) downloaded May 2005. 315 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,

Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 3 – Solid Waste P 3.15. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_3_Ch3_SWDS.pdf.


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 128 -

The Vancouver Landfill has been modeled as achieving an average 75% average capture rate for LFG from now until closure. A recent study conducted by CH2M Hill on behalf of the City of Vancouver estimated a capture rate in the range of 65 to 90%.316 A recent US EPA report suggested 75% as an average value.317 Since the quantity of LFG generated over the life of a landfill is not easily measurable and may not be known precisely, a broad sensitivity analysis has been conducted on LFG capture rates for both Vancouver Landfill and the new bioreactor landfill. The range of LFG capture rates for the new bioreactor landfill and the Vancouver Landfill is assumed to be 60-90%. For this work, carbon storage in landfills is not included (i.e., carbon storage is set to 0 kg CO2e per tonne of MSW), since even hard to decompose materials would be expected to undergo some degradation.318 The US EPA is currently studying this issue, but has not yet officially recognized the potential for carbon storage. The IPCC’s 2006 Guidelines include carbon storage as an “informational item”, meaning that the data can be collected but does not form part of the inventory.319 The expected change in future LFG generation due to the implementation of source segregated organics programs that reduce the quantity of gas generating putrescibles from entering the landfill has been accounted for in the calculations and estimates. Captured LFG is assumed to be burned in an internal combustion engine (similar to that used at the Vancouver Landfill) to generate electricity. It has also been assumed that heat is recovered from the exhaust as hot water. Combustion emissions and power output are based on results for the Vancouver Landfill. This LCA assumed best case conditions where 90% of the captured landfill gas is combusted in an internal combustion engine and 10% is flared.

316 CH2M Hill. (2009). Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste-to-Energy Facilities and the Vancouver Landfill.

Prepared for the City of Vancouver. 317 Background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills",

EPA/600/R-08-116, September 2008 on page 7 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/db02s04.pdf) 318 Note that although fossil carbon in MSW is not released, this does not constitute a sequestration activity. Sequestration

occurs when atmospheric carbon is removed from the atmosphere and kept from being released back into circulation. The creation of plastics and other MSW from fossil carbon has not removed carbon from the atmosphere; the carbon in these materials has been transported from one reserve (petroleum reservoir) to another (landfill).”

319 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 – Waste, Chapter 2 – Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data. Accessed August 26, 2008. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/db02s04.pdf


Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 129 -

9. Life-Cycle Assessment Overview

This study uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the eight scenarios for managing the MSW that remains after vigorous efforts at waste diversion. LCA is a technique for assessing some of the environmental impacts of a service or the creation of a product, from cradle to grave. In this study LCA does not address economic or social factors. LCA can be used to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with a process or product by:320

compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product manufacture or system operation;

evaluating the relative broad-based potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs (localized impacts will be estimated through a separate study); and

interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study.

LCA is not a risk assessment tool. The output of an LCA is limited to the quantification of likely environmental burdens and benefits. Risk assessment builds on the results of an LCA or other inventory of hazards, and considers the pathways and receptors for the environmental burdens to evaluate the potential impacts. A risk

assessment may include quantification of risks to human health and the environment. The ISO system of environmental management standards for LCA321 provides guidance for conducting Life Cycle Assessment studies. In this framework, LCA consists of four stages:

Goal Definition and Scoping: The process to be studied is described and the boundaries for analysis are established.

Life Cycle Inventory: The input and outputs of each process are compiled. This includes inputs of energy and raw materials and outputs of wastes, by-products, contaminant emissions, etc.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment: An assessment is made of the potential environmental burdens, classified according to their category of environmental impact (e.g., global warming, ozone depletion, smog formation potential).

LCA Interpretation: The results are placed in context and qualified. Limitations on interpretation are made clear, data shortcomings are highlighted, and any subjective assessments are reviewed. In some LCA studies this stage is used to define potential improvements in the process.

The LCA approach allows for an analysis to look not solely at a single facility but to incorporate activities that occur throughout the process chain (i.e., ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ of the facility). This allows for the

identification of a range of impacts that may occur away from the point of final production or consumption of

320 ISO. (1997). CAN/CSA-ISO 14040-97, Environmental Management – Life cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Published

Aug 1997, reaffirmed 2002. 321 ISO. (1997). CAN/CSA-ISO 14040-97, Environmental Management – Life cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Published

Aug 1997, reaffirmed 2002. ISO. (1998). CAN/CSA-ISO 14041-98, Environmental Management – Life cycle Assessment – Goals and Scope Definition and

Inventory Analysis. Published Nov 1998. ISO. (2000a). CAN/CSA-ISO 14042-00, Environmental Management – Life cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment.

Published March 2000. ISO. (2000b). CAN/CSA-ISO 14043-00, Environmental Management – Life cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Interpretation. Published

March 2000.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 130 -

a product. For more details on the process stages included in this study, please refer to Section 9.3. For a detailed description of the structure of the LCA, please refer to “Life Cycle Assessment of Potential Waste

isposal Scenarios for the Metro Vancouver Region, June 1, 2009” by The Sheltair Group.

9.1 LCA Purpose

quantify the environmental impacts of the eight waste management cenarios described in Section 7.2:

n or stage of the waste management process (e.g., transport,

estimate the potential energy recovery for each scenario.

tended to define the ‘best’ scenario nor provide an optimization of the different technologies

be deployed.

9.2 LCA Parameters

led at a regional scale and considered only the disposal system, from the ansfer stations to final disposal.

he attributes assessed were:

C, NH3);

n and electrical energy generation (or net electrical generation);

iii) vehicle fuel consumption.

systems,322 consumption of potable water, se of land, etc. These were not included for this LCA because:

D

The purpose of the LCA was to s

compare environmental impacts between scenarios;

review emissions by geographic locatiotreatment etc) at which they occur; and

The LCA is not in

to

This is a planning-level study designed to determine the relative impacts of each scenario. The waste system in each scenario was modetr T

Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O);

Common air contaminants (SOx, NOx, CO, PM, VO

Selected toxics (mercury and dioxins and furans);

Energy consumption and production, including: i) electrical energy consumptio

ii) net heat production; and

In some LCA studies, a broader scope of parameters is assessed. These can include: discharges to surface or groundwater, discharges to municipal wastewater treatment u

322 For example, the Vancouver Landfill currently pumps two million cubic meters of leachate into the sanitary sewer

(www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/env.htm).In this study, the amount of leachate would not change in any of the scenarios evaluated as they all include the operation of the Vancouver Landfill.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 131 -

Some of these attributes are not sensitive to the level of waste disposal. For example, the amount of leachate generated at the Vancouver Landfill is not highly sensitive to the amount of waste disposed at

liquid effluent (the same as the current Metro Vancouver WTE facility). MBT facilities would

Control of liquid effluent is addressed through facility design, management and operating practices, and

therefore cannot be specifically quantified for future facilities.

erstanding the location at which emissions

ccur was very important in this case. The LFV airshed is defined geographically as the area bounded by the

ict of Hope in the east.

the landfill. Instead, it is a function of the age of the waste and the rainfall in the area, and the cover and

landscaping practices.

Liquid discharges from waste treatment are expected to be minimal. Modern WTE facilities have zero discharge of

also have minimal discharge of liquid effluent, in compliance with the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation.

9.3 Process Stages Evaluated

In most LCA models the focus is on process stages rather than on geographic location. However, because air emissions are an important concern in the LFV airshed, und

oCoast and Cascade mountain ranges and the Strait of Georgia.

The airshed extends from Lions Bay in the west to the Distr Figure 24. Topographical Diagram of the LFV Airshed

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 132 -

To allow for interpretation of emissions by stage of the process and by location, the process stages were

o facilitate communication of the results, the 18 groups were rolled up into eight summary groups. The LCA sults in this section are presented according to the eight summary groups. The graphical and tabular

presentation of resu eltair Group.

D Evaluated in the LCA

divided into 18 groups (see detailed groups in Table 17). All emissions were assigned to one of three location tags: LFV; BC (outside LFV), and unknown.

Tre

lts by the 18 detailed groups can be found in the LCA report by The Sh

Table 17. escription of Process Stages

Summary Group

Detailed Group Description of Emissions Location Tag

MBT Processing g MBT Processin Emissions at MBT processing facility LFV

Local Landfill Local Landfill Emissions from operations (machinery), fugitive landfill gas escape, emissions from combustion of landfill gas via reciprocating engine aflare.

nd LFV

Out of Region Landfill

ry), fugitive landfill gas escape, emissions from combustion of landfill gas via reciprocating engine and

utside Out of Region Landfill

Emissions from operations (machine

flare.

BC (oLFV)

Existing WTE Existing WTE Emissions at the existing Metro Vancouver WTE facility LFV

WTE Facility 1 om a new WTE facility Emissions fr LFV

WTE Facility 2 Emissions for a new WTE facility located out of Region BC (oLFV)

utside

RDF Burning Facility

BC (outside LFV)

Emissions from a WTE plant designed to burn RDF generated by the MBT plant

New WTE Facility/RDF/Kiln

m the MBT plant in a Cement Kiln

Emissions from combusting RDF product frocement kiln

LFV

Energy & Material Supply

& Material

is

own

EnergySupply

1) Emissions created “upstream” in the process to deliver energy. Thincludes emissions from the generation of electricity, and emissions from the production of fuel and natural gas.

2) Estimated emissions from the manufacture of feedstock chemicalsfor WTE facilities and for the manufacture of waste hauling vehicles and trailers.

Unkn

Truck Transportation 1

Truck emissions for those transportation segments located within Metro Vancouver.

LFV


Truck emissions for those transportation segments located from the Metro Vancouver boundary to Hope.

LFV


Truck emissions for those transportation segments located within but outsid

BC e in the LFV

BC (outside LFV)

Barge Transportation 1

Barge transportation emissions in the Fraser River LFV

Transportation: Total

n 2 utside

LFV) Barge Transportatio

Barge transportation emissions in Howe Sound or the Straight of Georgia

BC (o

Avoided Emissions-Energy Recovery 1

Avoided emissions that occur as a result of energy recovery, including

ption from hot water avoided natural gas consumption from steam sales which displace natural gas, and avoided natural gas consumwhich displaces natural gas in either a small boiler or residential furnaces

LFV

Avoided Emissions-Energy

2 natural gas consumption. LFV)

Recovery

Avoided emissions that occur as a result of energy recovery. This is primarily avoided

BC (outside

Avoided Emissions: Energy & Material Recovery

Avoided Emissions-Energy Recovery 3

natural gas consumption, and avoided electricity production.

Unknown Avoided emissions that occur as a result of energy recovery. This includes avoided

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 133 -

Summary Group

Detailed Group Description of Emissions Location Tag

Avoided Emissions-Material

Emissions avoided from the recovery of materials at the Wand MBT plant

Recovery

TE facility Unknown

9.4 Emissions Types

LCA quantifies three types of emissions: direct, indirect and avoided emissions.

Direct emissions are emissions from the facility stack, transport process, fugitive emissions, and any other

emissions occur to support the waste system peration, but they are not the responsibility of the waste system operator, nor would the operator report

out the technology or missions from waste management systems, but about broader aspects in the region or society. For

avoided emissions. The net emissions represent the total of the waste system emissions and

e broader societal emissions which occur beyond the waste system. Care should be made in interpreting e net emissions in recognition that this net does not necessarily occur within the waste system or within a

ingle geographic area. To highlight this feature, the LCA output shows the component emissions as well as

the net total.

quantified emissions that will occur during the operation of the waste treatment and disposal system. These are typically quantified with the most precision either because they are derived from real operating conditions

or from reasonable estimates. Direct emissions can be defined by the location in which they occur. Indirect emissions are emissions that occur elsewhere in the economy to support the waste system

operation. Examples include the extraction and processing of fossil fuels, the generation of electricity, and the manufacture of vehicles and feedstock chemicals. Theseo

these as their own emissions. These are typically quantified in a more approximate fashion than the direct emissions, and their location cannot usually be defined. Their location tag is “unknown” and for the most part should be considered as out of Region or outside of the LFV.

Avoided emissions are “negative” emissions and represent the broader societal benefit that occurs as a result of system operation. Avoided emissions represent a societal benefit and not a benefit to the waste

system operator. It is generally not possible to identify to whom the benefits of avoided consumption accrue. Avoided emissions involve two sets of assumptions. The first is the engineering quantification, analogous to

the estimates used to quantify direct emissions (e.g., what is the emission of a boiler burning natural gas?). The second set of assumptions is about what is actually being avoided. This is not abe

example, emissions from natural gas powered boilers are avoided if heat is recovered from a WTE facility and distributed through a district energy system. As a second example, avoided emissions from electricity production often focus on the GHG that are emitted during electricity production.

The results of the LCA can also be expressed as net emissions. Net emissions are the total of all the direct, indirect, and

thths

Metro Vancouver



10. Life Cycle Assessment Results

Each of the parameters evaluated in the LCA is presented below in terms of its direct, indirect, avoided and net emissions. The sensitivity of the LCA results to the GHG intensity of electricity and district heating uptake, and to the LFG collection efficiency is also examined. Sensitivity results are presented in

Appendix C. Emissions of CAC are shown in terms of total emissions and emissions in the LFV. The results presented in this section represent the base case.

10.1 Electricity Consumption and Production

The scenarios are both consumers and producers of electricity. Electricity inputs include:

direct consumption used in facility operations;

indirect consumption in the manufacture of materials and equipment used for facility operations, such as the manufacture of chemicals and vehicles; and

avoided consumption from the recovery of recyclables from the waste stream (i.e., ferrous metals from WTE and MBT).

Of the eight scenarios, the WTE and MBT facilities are the largest consumers of electricity. These facilities also result in substantial avoided use of electricity due to the upstream benefits of recovering recyclables (primarily ferrous metals).

Electricity is produced by the following sources:

the existing WTE Facility;

a new WTE facility(s) (mass burn WTE facilities and the RDF-burning WTE facility); and

landfill gas combustion.

Electricity production is reported as the turbine output for the specific scenarios because all electricity produced by WTE and LFG facilities is sold to the grid. Any electricity required to run the facilities is

purchased and was reported in the previous section under electricity consumption. Scenarios 1 and 2 involve substantial new WTE capacity, with facilities optimized for district energy and heat

capture. Scenario 1 produces the largest amount of electricity of all eight scenarios. Scenario 3 does not result in any electricity generation, other than from the existing WTE Facility and local landfill, because the excess heat from the cement kiln is used to preheat the process, rather than generate electricity.

Scenarios 4 and 5 are optimized to achieve maximum electricity generation per tonne of waste sent to WTE (i.e., all recovered energy is recovered as electricity). Scenario 5 produces slightly more electricity than

Scenario 4, because in Scenario 4 the MSW is processed into RDF for combustion. While the processing increases the heating value on a per tonne basis (from 11.2 GJ/tonne for MSW to 18 GJ/tonne for RDF), the

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 134 -

Metro Vancouver



mass of RDF reduces to only 55% of the mass of MSW. Therefore, the heating value of RDF per tonne input MSW is 9.9 GJ. The energy that is “lost” is used in the biological activity associated with RDF production. Despite the optimization for electricity generation in Scenarios 4 and 5, the larger quantity of waste sent to

the WTE facilities in Scenario 1 means that Scenario 1 produces the largest quantity of electricity. In Scenario 6, MBT processing does not result in any electricity generation. Therefore, Scenario 6 produces

the least amount of electricity of all eight scenarios. Both Scenarios 7 and 8, the Vancouver Landfill and the out of Region landfill, produce electricity due to LFG

recovery and utilization. The net electrical benefit of a scenario can be determined by subtracting the net electricity consumption from the net

electricity output. This information is presented in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Net Electricity Consumption and Production

-400,000,000

-200,000,000

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Gro

ss

Ele

ctr

icit

y P

rod

uc

tio

n (

kW

h /

ye

ar)


10.2 Fuel Consumption

Fuel is consumed primarily for hauling MSW and ash by truck and barge, and for operating equipment at the landfills (Figure 26). As expected, scenarios with the greatest truck hauling distances (Scenarios 7 and 8)

have the greatest fuel consumption. All hauling to an out of Region landfill is based on the assumption that

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 135 -

Metro Vancouver



backhauling will be available; if backhauling were not available, the fuel consumption of Scenarios 7 and 8 (and particularly 8) would increase. Although Scenarios 4 and 5 also involve out of region waste treatment and disposal, these scenarios make use of barging, which uses less fuel per tonne-kilometre than truck

transportation. Scenario 3 has the largest avoided fuel consumption because MSW is used as a replacement for fossil fuels,

which results in avoided fuel use in fossil fuel production.

Figure 26. Fuel Consumption

-4,000,000

0

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Pe

tro

leu

m F

ue

ls (

L d

ies

el e

qu

iv /

ye

ar)


10.3 Heat Energy Recovery

10.3.1 High Pressure Steam Export

Steam capture is limited to the existing WTE Facility, operating at its current level of energy capture. No other facilities were assumed to export steam. Since the capacity of the existing WTE Facility is the same

across all scenarios, they all result in the same steam recovery of 785,000 GJ/year.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 136 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 137 -

10.3.2 Heat Recovery Potential (District Energy and Hot Water)

The new in-region WTE facilities and the landfills were modeled to determine the heat recovery potential from capturing heat as hot water (see Figure 27). This variable is called the heat recovery potential because it is the maximum amount of heat that could be captured.323 For the WTE facilities, the calculation is based on a simple fraction of the input heat content, based on performance data from facilities operating in Europe. For the landfills, the calculation was based on data from the Vancouver Landfill’s operations. The scenarios with large WTE facilities that are optimized for district heating recovery (Scenarios 1 and 2) capture the most heat. Scenarios 7 and 8 have the same amount of material sent to landfill disposal, and equal rates of LFG capture. Although a large amount is sent to landfill in Scenario 6, the waste has been stabilized through MBT, and less LFG is produced, resulting in reduced landfill gas and heat recovery. A sensitivity calculation was carried out to determine the impacts of selling less of the available heat (down to 50%). This is presented in Appendix C.

Figure 27. Potential Heat Capture as Hot Water (District Energy)

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Ho

t W

ate

r O

utp

ut

(G

J /

ye

ar)


323 Note that the quantity of heat as hot water shown in Figure 27 is 90% of the absolute maximum. The value has been

discounted to 90% to be conservative.

Metro Vancouver



10.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions and avoided emissions for the eight scenarios are illustrated in Figure 28.

The WTE facilities and the landfills are major contributors of GHG in all scenarios except Scenario 6. In Scenario 6 MBT processing of waste prior to disposal reduces GHG emissions from LFG generation due to the stabilized nature of the organics being disposed. Both the Vancouver Landfill and the bioreactor landfills

are assumed to capture 75% of the LFG generated. The relatively low GHG intensity of electricity used in the LCA calculations (based on the present GHG

intensity of electricity generated in BC, which is 22 tonnes CO2e per GWh) results in limited avoided GHG emissions from electricity production. The new out of region WTE facilities that generate only electricity (Scenarios 4 and 5) do not avoid as much GHG emissions as the new WTE facilities in Scenarios 1 and 2,

which generate both electricity and heat. The higher avoided GHG emissions in Scenarios 1 and 2 come from the avoided emissions from district energy, which is assumed to offset a combination of natural gas fired boilers and electric heat.

The use of RDF (which contains biogenic carbon) in a cement kiln results in large avoided emissions through the displacement of fossil fuel burned at the cement kiln.

Transportation is not a substantial source of GHG emissions in any scenario. For scenarios with local treatment and disposal capacity (Scenarios 1, 2 and 7), this is because the fossil fuel consumption for

transportation is low. Scenarios 4 and 5 involve transportation of MSW out of region by barge, which is more fuel efficient as compared to trucking. For Scenario 8, emissions from landfill are much larger than transportation emissions because the landfill is releasing methane, which has 21 times the global warming

potential of carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 138 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 28. Scenario GHG Emissions

-600,000

-500,000

-400,000

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

CO

2e

(to

nn

e /

yr)


10.5 Common Air Contaminants

Common air contaminants (CAC) are generated as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels and LFG, and

combustion at WTE facilities. The results for NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, VOC and NH3 emissions are shown in Figure 29 to Figure 42.

In contrast to greenhouse gas emissions, these emissions can impact local air quality, so these results are presented in two different formats. The first shows the total emissions for each scenario, and the second shows the emissions within the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV).

In terms of total emissions, some criteria for some scenarios are net negative. This is because some of the avoided emissions are not located in the Region. For example, ferrous metals recovery results in avoided

emissions that occur outside the region. This is particularly noticeable in Scenario 6, where the MBT processing of almost one million tonnes of waste per year results in the recovery of substantial amounts of ferrous metals. The net total emissions are summarized in Table 18. See Section 11 for a detailed

examination of net emissions within the LFV.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 139 -

Metro Vancouver



Table 18. Summary of Net Total Emissions of CAC (net positive or net negative)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Emission

New Large WTE

Moderate New WTE

In-Region Use of

MBT/RDF Product by

Cement Kiln

Out of Region Use of MBT/RDF

Product

Untreated Waste

Exported as Fuel

Local Landfilling

of Stabilized MSW

Local Landfilling of Unprocessed

MSW

Out of Region Landfilling of Unprocessed

MSW

NOx - + + + + + + + SOx - - + + + + + +

PM10 + + + + + + + + PM2.5 + + + + + + + +

CO - + + - + - + + VOC - - - - - - + + NH3 + + + + + + + +

If only CAC emissions within the LFV are considered, then all scenarios have net positive emissions. This is

because many of the avoided emissions do not occur within the LFV (e.g., avoided electricity production, avoided emissions from metals recovery and avoided emissions from avoided energy production). This observation is not unusual in waste management. For example, recycling results in reduced energy

consumption, air emissions, and GHG emissions. These reductions do not occur at the point where materials are recycled, but rather at some distant production facility, which, as a result of recycling, avoids one unit of production. Thus the environmental benefits of the recycling action do not directly accrue to the person or

community executing the recycling activity.

Figure 29. Scenario NOx Emissions

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

NO

x (

kg

/ y

r)

Existing WTE Local LandfillMBT / Processing Out of Region LandfillNEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material SupplyTransportation: Total Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 140 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 30. Lower Fraser Valley (only) NOx Emissions

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

NO

x (

kg

/ y

r)

Existing WTE Local LandfillMBT / Processing Out of Region LandfillNEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material SupplyTransportation: LFV Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET)

NB: Emssions shown are only those within the LFV and not the complete LCA results.

The major sources of NOx are WTE facilities and the combustion of LFG. Capture of heat from WTE facilities

and landfills results in avoided NOx emissions because of avoided natural gas combustion. The WTE facilities in Scenarios 4 and 5 do not capture heat, and therefore do not avoid the combustion of natural gas. In addition to generating NOx when combusted, natural gas production causes substantial emissions of NOx.

Therefore, avoiding the use of natural gas avoids NOx emissions in the LFV (from combustion) and NOx emissions outside of the LFV (from production).

Transportation is a not a substantial source of NOx emissions. The use of an out of region landfill moves NOx emissions from LFG combustion, and the avoided emissions associated with avoided natural gas use, out of the LFV.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 141 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 31. Scenario SOx Emissions

-250,000

-200,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

SO

x (

kg

/ y

r)


TOTAL (NET)

Figure 32. Lower Fraser Valley (only) SOx Emissions

-250,000

-200,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

SO

x (

kg

/ y

r)

Existing WTE Local LandfillMBT / Processing Out of Region Landfill

NEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material SupplyTransportation: LFV Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET)


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 142 -

Metro Vancouver



The majority of the SOx emissions are from the existing WTE Facility, because newer WTE facilities have better SOx controls and lower emissions.

There are avoided emissions from the production of natural gas, but since there are low sulfur emissions from the combustion of natural gas, there are few avoided emissions within the region from displacing natural gas.

Figure 33. Scenario PM10 Emissions

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

PM

10

(k

g /

yr)


TOTAL (NET)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 143 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 34. Lower Fraser Valley (only) PM10 Emissions

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

PM

10

(k

g /

yr)



TOTAL (NET)


Figure 35. Scenario PM2.5 Emissions

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

PM

2.5

(k

g /

yr)


TOTAL (NET)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 144 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 36. Lower Fraser Valley (only) PM2.5 Emissions

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

PM

2.5

(k

g /

yr)



TOTAL (NET)


Particulate matter emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) are reduced by new WTE technology. As a result,

emissions from the existing WTE Facility dominate emissions in LFV. Additional emissions of PM in the LFV from new WTE capacity are more or less balanced by avoided natural gas use.

PM from landfills is from a combination of LFG combustion and the operation of equipment. Fugitive/windblown PM from landfills, and PM from road dust have not been quantified.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 145 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 37. Scenario Carbon Monoxide Emissions

-1,000,000

-500,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

CO

(k

g /

yr)


TOTAL (NET)

Figure 38. Lower Fraser Valley (only) Carbon Monoxide Emissions

-1,000,000

-500,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

CO

(k

g /

yr)



TOTAL (NET)


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 146 -

Metro Vancouver



The majority of the CO emissions are produced by gas engines at the landfills (both in and out of region) There are some avoided emissions in the region from displacing natural gas through district energy from WTE and landfill gas utilization. There are also substantial emission reductions on a lifecycle basis from the

recovery of metals from WTE and MBT.

Figure 39. Scenario VOC Emissions

-400,000

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

VO

Cs

(k

g /

yr)


TOTAL (NET)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 147 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 40. Lower Fraser Valley (only) VOC Emissions

-400,000

-300,000

-200,000

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

VO

Cs

(k

g /

yr)



TOTAL (NET)


Landfills (from LFG combustion and fugitive LFG) are the major sources of VOCs identified. There are

minimal VOCs from WTE, and there are no avoided emissions within the LFV.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 148 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 41. Scenario NH3 Emissions

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

NH

3 (

kg

/ y

r)


TOTAL (NET)

Figure 42. Lower Fraser Valley (only) NH3 Emissions

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

NH

3 (

kg

/ y

r)



TOTAL (NET)


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 149 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 150 -

Ammonia emissions from landfills are proportional to the amount of uncaptured landfill gas, which in turn is proportional to the amount of untreated MSW landfilled. MBT facilities are a secondary source. There are no avoided emissions of ammonia.

10.6 Selected Toxics

10.6.1 Mercury

Mercury emissions occur from all three types of facilities examined in this study. WTE facilities and cement kilns release mercury from the combustion of MSW, MBT facilities release mercury from processing MSW,

and landfills release mercury from the distribution and compaction of MSW at the working face and through the combustion of LFG. It must be noted that the mercury being emitted is not created as a result of waste treatment and disposal; it is present in MSW, with typical sources being fluorescent lamps, electrical

switches and relays, thermostats, thermometers and batteries. British Columbia’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) will be expanded to cover mercury containing wastes and it is therefore expected that the mercury content of MSW will decrease as a result, and consequently will further decrease the mercury

emissions from MSW treatment and disposal. In addition, introduction of stringent regulations have resulted in the implementation of technologies that have reduced mercury emissions from WTE plants to a fraction of what they once were. The current average mercury emission from the existing WTE Facility of 2 ug/m3 is well

below the Canada Wide Standard for mercury of 20ug/m3. This standard is considered one of the most stringent standards in the world.

Mercury emissions from the current WTE facility, reference WTE facility and LFG combustion are known; fugitive mercury emissions from the landfills were based on values in the literature.324 Mercury emissions from MBT facilities are based on data obtained by Juniper Consultancy in the UK (Appendix B). Mercury

emissions for all scenarios are shown in Figure 43, and for the Lower Fraser Valley only in Figure 44. To provide perspective on how much below the CWS limits the all of the scenarios would emit mercury, the theoretical CWS level of emissions are shown for reference as black diamonds above the scenarios.

324 Lindberg, S.E., Southworth G.R., Bogle, M.A., Blasing, T.J., Owens, J., Roy, K., Zhang, H., Kuiken, T., Price, J., Reinhart,

D., & Sfeir, H. (2005). Airborne Emissions of Mercury from Municipal Solid Waste. I: New Measurements from Six Operating Landfills in Florida. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (55): 859-869.

Metro Vancouver



Figure 43. Scenario Mercury Emissions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Hg

(k

g /

yr)

Existing WTE Local Landfill

MBT / Processing Out of Region LandfillNEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material Supply

Transportation: Total Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l RecTOTAL (NET) Net using Canada Wide Standards

Figure 44. Lower Fraser Valley (only) Mercury Emissions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfilling of

MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Hg

(k

g /

yr)


MBT / Processing Out of Region Landfill

NEW WTEF / RDF / Kiln Energy & Material Supply

Transportation: LFV Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET) Net using Canada Wide Standards


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 151 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 152 -

On the basis of kg Hg/tonne MSW, the existing WTE Facility has lower emissions than the reference facility in Sweden. This may be due to superior compliance with source reduction programs in Metro Vancouver. The reference facility concentration was used for this analysis in order to ensure consistency with the data

sources used. 10.6.2 Dioxins and Furans

The emission of dioxins and furans occurs from the combustion of MSW in WTE facilities and from the emission of LFG, including the combustion of LFG (Figure 45 and Figure 46). The black diamonds in these

figure show the allowable dioxin and furan emissions under the CWS for scenarios 1 and 2, and emphasize how much lower actual emissions are than the already stringent CWS.

The estimated emissions for the existing WTE Facility are based on actual annual sampling results. For a new WTE facilitity, emissions are based on test results reported for the reference European facility.

LFG combustion may be a source of dioxins and furans. As local landfills do not test for dioxin and furan emissions, the calculation is based on data from sampling at a Los Angeles landfill.325

The MBT facility is indicated as a potential source of dioxins and furans. This is based a report by Juniper Consultancy (Appendix B).

Transportation also contributes to the emission of dioxins and furans. The quantification of these emissions is based on an EPA compilation of other studies.326 There is high variability in the data reported. To remain conservative, a value at the lower end of the range was used.

325 Caponi, F., Wheless, E., & Frediani, D. (1998). Dioxin and Furan Emissions from Landfill Gas-Fired Combustion Units. Paper 98-

RP105A.03 presented at the 91st Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association. Accessed January 11, 2006. http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/LFG-caponi.pdf

326 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (1997). Locating and Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of Dioxins and Furans. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Accessed September 18, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/le/dioxin.pdf

http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/LFG-caponi.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/le/dioxin.pdf

Metro Vancouver



Figure 45. Scenario Dioxin and Furan Emissions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

360

400

520

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfilling of

MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Dio

xin

s a

nd

Fu

ran

s (

mg

TE

Q /

yr)




Transportation: Total Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET) Allowable Net Emissions (if WTE facilities operated at CWS level)

Figure 46. Lower Fraser Valley (only) Dioxin and Furan Emissions

0102030

520

400

3606050

40

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfilling of

MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Dio

xin

s a

nd

Fu

ran

s (

mg

TE

Q /

yr)

0

50

100

150

200




Transportation: LFV Avoided Emissions: Energy & Mat'l Rec

TOTAL (NET) Allowable Net LFV Emissions (if WTE facilities operated at CWS level)


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 153 -

Metro Vancouver



10.7 Ferrous Metal Recovery

Ferrous metals are recovered from the WTE facilities after combustion and from the MBT facilities. Estimated quantities for each scenario are shown in Table 19.

Table 19. Tonnes of Ferrous Metal Recovered per Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Large New WTE

Moderate New WTE

In-Region Use of

MBT/RDF Product by

Cement Kiln

Out of Region Use of

MBT/RDF Product

Untreated Waste

Exported as Fuel

Local Landfilling

of Stabilized

MSW

Local Landfilling

of Unprocess

ed MSW

Out of Region

Landfilling of Unprocessed

MSW

Existing WTE Facility 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 8,890 NEW WTE facility (In-region) 25,150 16,770 - - - - - - Facility using RDF - - - 2,310 - - - - Out of Region WTE facility - - - - 16,770 - - - MBT - - 25,000 25,000 - 49,750 - - Total Recovered Ferrous Metals (tonnes) 34,030 25,650 33,890 36,190 25,650 58,640 8,890 8,890

10.8 Discussion of Results

All of the scenarios show some degree of avoided GHG emissions as a result of energy production. However, the stack emissions generally result in net positive GHG emissions. Scenario 3 (RDF used at a cement kiln) includes substantial avoided GHG emissions due to the replacement of fossil fuel with RDF, which is partially biogenic. Scenario 6 (landfilling of MBT product) has almost no GHG emissions beyond the existing WTE Facility because biologically stabilized MSW resulting from the MBT process will not generate additional LFG. The creation of WTE capacity with district heating (Scenarios 1 and 2) has the potential to reduce natural gas combustion in the region and result in substantial avoided NOx emissions. Scenario 1 indicates a slight net decrease, and Scenario 2 indicates a slightly positive net NOx value since there is less district heating than in Scenario 1. Mercury emissions occur from all three types of facilities examined. There are no avoided emissions of mercury. Dioxin and furan emission are generated by all forms of waste treatment and disposal considered in this LCA. The reported dioxin and furan emissions for WTE facilities have the highest degree of data confidence, as WTE emission are tightly regulated and monitored, whereas air emissions from landfills and MBT facilities are less tightly controlled and more difficult to monitor, so fewer data sources are available.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 154 -

Metro Vancouver



Transportation is often identified as a concern for emissions and fuel consumption. The LCA analysis shows that hauling is a substantial contributor to the life cycle fuel consumption, particularly for the scenarios that maximize use of an out of Region landfill (Scenarios 7 and 8).Transportation contributes only a minor portion of the overall greenhouse gas and CAC emissions. The majority of the GHG inventory comes from the waste treatment and disposal stages. Hauling and barging are also not substantial contributors to criteria air contaminant emissions, but contribute to dioxin and furan emissions. They are not large relative contributors of CAC emissions, because of the larger emissions at the WTE facilities and landfills, and the relatively low emissions modeled for the hauling fleet in 2020.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 155 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 156 -

11. Comparison of Scenarios within the Lower Fraser Valley Context

The LFV airshed includes three jurisdictions: Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Whatcom County in the State of Washington. This airshed is constrained by mountain ranges on two sides and the Strait of Georgia on the third side. As a result, the mountain ranges that bound the valley can

act to limit the transport of contaminants in and out of the airshed. Metro Vancouver is responsible for monitoring air quality in the Region, and for regulating emissions from

major sources. Metro Vancouver compiles an inventory of air emissions within the LFV. The latest inventory is from 2005 and includes information on the sources of common air contaminants (CAC), including: nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia

(NH3), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)).327 The inventory does not include data on toxics such as metals and organic pollutants. However, data on toxics is available from other sources, such as the National Pollutant Release Inventory.

The emissions inventory covers three main categories of air pollution sources:

Point Sources – This category represents emissions from industrial facilities or utilities operating under: an air discharge permit or regulation issued by Metro Vancouver or the BC Ministry of Environment (BCMOE); a Solid Waste Management Plan authorized by BCMOE, or under the jurisdiction of the

Washington State Department of Ecology or Northwest Clean Air Agency.

Area Sources – This category represents emissions from light industrial, residential, commercial and institutional sources that normally do not require a regulatory permit or approval, as well as natural

sources such as vegetation and wildfires.

Mobile Sources – This category represents emissions from mobile sources including passenger cars,

trucks, buses, and motorcycles, aircraft, marine vessels, railways, and non-road engines such as construction and lawn and garden equipment.

Emissions of air quality contaminants and ambient air quality are related but distinct concepts that are often confused. Emissions are characterized by the mass per time or concentration of a substance at the point of release, such as from a stack or the tailpipe of a car. Contaminants are initially released at relatively

high concentrations. They are diluted when mixed with the surrounding air and transported downwind. At this point, the concentrations of contaminants are considered to be "ambient" concentrations. The extent of the dilution depends on the emission rate of the contaminants, the characteristics of the source (e.g., height

above ground), meteorology and geophysical conditions (i.e., topography and surface characteristics). Metro Vancouver has ambient air quality objectives for: NO2, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and ozone. There are

also Canada-wide standards (CWSs) for ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Metro Vancouver regulates emissions from many point sources, but the permitted emission levels vary depending on the source.

327 Metro Vancouver. (2007). 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast. Accessed July 31, 2008.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ExecSummary_2005_LFV.pdf


Metro Vancouver



11.1 Regulated Air Quality Emissions Related to the Various Waste Management Options

The air contaminants of concern for MSW WTE facilities that are regulated in BC include particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), total hydrocarbons (THCs),

hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), select metals, chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toxic equivalents of polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDDs and PCDFs). In addition to select metals that are considered individually (i.e.,

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury), three groups of metals are considered:

Class I: cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), thallium (Tl);

Class II: arsenic (As), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), tellurium (Te); and

Class III: antimony (Sb), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), zinc

(Zn). Air emissions from MBT facilities are limited mainly to dust and odours. Emissions from combustion of RDF

are similar to the emissions from a WTE facility. Air contaminants of concern associated with landfills, including landfilling of the output of MBT, are PM, NOx,

SO2, ammonia (NH3), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), odours, and fugitive dust. There is also the potential for the secondary formation of particulate matter and ozone as a result of chemical

reactions between the emissions of NOx, SO2, NH3 and VOCs. Lower thresholds have not been established for the health effects for PM2.5 and ozone and therefore these contaminants are of particular concern in the LFV. Emissions of dioxins and furans and heavy metals such as mercury are also of concern due to their

toxicity.

11.2 Air Quality Conditions in the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed

The first part of this section describes existing air quality in the LFV in terms of measured ambient concentrations. In the second part, the total level of emissions in the LFV and the most important types of emission sources are discussed for both current and future years. The third part of this section details the

current emissions from existing MSW treatment and disposal facilities in Metro Vancouver. 11.2.1 Current Ambient Air Quality in the Lower Fraser Valley

Metro Vancouver operates a large air quality monitoring network in the LFV. To help the public interpret the vast amount of data collected by these stations, Metro Vancouver uses an Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) to characterize short-term air quality levels. Air quality health risks are characterized as low, moderate, high, or

very high.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 157 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 158 -

Periodic episodes of increased health risk can occur for various reasons such as smog during hot, sunny, stagnant weather or smoke from major fires like the Burns Bog fire in 2005. Air quality advisories are issued to the public and health authorities when air quality has deteriorated or is predicted to deteriorate to ‘Poor’

throughout significant portions of the LFV. In recent years, the number of air quality advisories issued has varied from none (2002 and 2007), to two (2006).

Long-term trends in air quality in the LFV show that over the past two decades, there have been decreases in both short-term peak and average concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, PM2.5 and VOCs.328 These improvements have resulted from improved vehicle emission standards, AirCare, the closing of several

refineries, and other initiatives. More recently, peak and average levels of SO2 and PM2.5 have leveled off, although levels of CO and NO2 continue to decline. Figure 47 illustrates the trend in NO2 ambient concentrations for the past two decades.

Figure 47. Trends in Regional Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide 1998-2007

Source: Metro Vancouver (2008)329.

The relationship between emissions of NOx and VOCs and the concentration of ozone is complex. As a result, although these emissions have decreased over the past two decades, ozone concentrations have not. Figure 48 illustrates that average ozone levels decreased slightly in the early nineties but have trended

upward since that time. Peak ozone concentrations are lower now than during the 1980s, but in the last ten to 15 years have remained largely unchanged.

328 Metro Vancouver. (2008). 2007 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Report. Accessed November 20, 2008 from

www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2007LFV-AirQualityReport.pdf 329 Metro Vancouver. (2008). 2007 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Report. Accessed November 20, 2008 from

www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/2007LFV-AirQualityReport.pdf



Metro Vancouver



Figure 48. Trends in Regional Concentrations of Ozone 1998-2007

Source: Metro Vancouver (2007).

In 2005, Metro Vancouver set new air quality objectives for NO2, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and ozone that are overall more stringent than previous criteria. From 2001 to 2007 (years for which ambient monitoring reports are readily available), there were no exceedances of the ambient air quality criteria for CO and few

exceedances of the SO2 and NO2 criteria. The new annual objective for NO2 has been exceeded at the Vancouver Downtown station each year since the new objective was released, but there have been no other exceedances of the NO2 one-hour or annual objectives.

From 2001 to 2007, there were no exceedances of the CWS for PM2.5 or of the Metro Vancouver annual objective for PM2.5 but there were exceedances of the Metro Vancouver 24-hour objective at two to seven

stations each year. For PM10, there were no exceedances of annual criteria from 2001 to 2007 but there were exceedances of the 24-hour objectives at up to five stations in any one year. Exceedances of the PM objectives have occurred in the eastern part of the airshed during stagnant summer conditions but also at

other locations in the airshed due to fires, fireworks and wintertime inversions. The CWS for ozone was equalled or exceeded at Hope every year from 2003 to 2007. It was also equalled in

Chilliwack in 2006. Since the Metro Vancouver 8-hour objective was set in 2005, it has been exceeded at six to 11 stations each year. Prior to that time the federal one-hour acceptable objective was exceeded at two or three stations in most years. Most of the ozone exceedances have occurred in the eastern part of the LFV

airshed during hot, sunny stagnant summertime conditions. Ozone is an important air quality issue in the airshed and is considered to be the number one issue by the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD).

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 159 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 160 -

11.2.2 Current and Future Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley

Current and estimated future emissions of CAC, toxics and GHG are compared in Table 20. These

emissions are based on the 2005 emission inventory and forecast for the LFV,330 which is the most recent emission inventory for the Region. The 2020 emission inventory forecast is based on assumptions most similar to the assumptions for Scenarios 7 and 8, which are that the existing WTE Facility would be upgraded

with SCR to reduce its NOx emissions, and the remaining waste would be sent to either the Vancouver Landfill or an out-of-Region landfill.331 One difference is that Metro Vancouver’s 2020 emission inventory forecast did not include the assumption that waste diversion would be increased from current levels to 70%.

Therefore, emissions associated with landfill disposal would be less than waste management emissions in the 2020 emission inventory forecast, since there is less MSW going to landfill than in the emission inventory forecast.

Table 20 shows that from 2005 to 2020 emissions of NOx, CO and VOCs are expected to decrease 26%, 10% and 25%, respectively, whereas emissions of PM2.5, PM10, GHG, NH3 and SOx are expected to increase

from 2% to 20%.

Table 20. Comparison of Current and Future Emissions of Various Contaminants in the LFV

Contaminant LFV Total Emissions (tonnes)

2005 2020 %change

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 61,000 45,300 -26

Carbon monoxide (CO) 439,900 395,900 -10

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 7,000 7,100 2

Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) 11,800 12,600 6

Sulphur oxides (SOx) 10,300 12,400 20

Ammonia (NH3) 18,500 21,700 17

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 108,000 94,500 -12

Mercury (Hg) 1.1 n/a n/a

Dioxins and Furans 3.11b n/a n/a

Greenhouse gases (GHG) 22,875,000 24,625,000 8

Source: Metro Vancouver 2007 except mercury (Metro Vancouver, May 2009) and dioxins and furans (Metro Vancouver 2009). Notes: a Emissions for 2000, area source emissions are uncertain and are being reviewed by Metro Vancouver. b Units of g TEQ, does not include point sources in Whatcom County.

In 2005, mobile sources (light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles as well as marine vessels) were the largest sources of NOx. Emissions from light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles are expected to decrease substantially by 2020 whereas marine emissions are expected to increase. The change in the relative contribution of various

source types to NOx emissions from 2005 to 2020 is illustrated in Figure 49.

330 Metro Vancouver. (2007). 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory & Forecast and Backcast. Accessed July 31, 2008.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ExecSummary_2005_LFV.pdf. 331 Metro Vancouver, Personal Communication, March 20, 2009.


Metro Vancouver



Please refer to Metro Vancouver’s Emissions Inventory for a detailed listing of the “all other sources” category for each emission. Note that the existing WTE Facility and Vancouver Landfill are included in the

“all other sources” category for all graphs, and that 2005 emissions from these sources are detailed in Section 11.3.3.

Figure 49. Contribution of Various Source Types to NOx Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 NOx Emissions61,000 tonnes

Light-Duty Vehicles

24%

Heavy-Duty Vehicles

11%Marine14%

Non-Road17%

All Other Sources

24%

Heating10%

2020 NOx Emissions45,300 tonnes

Heating15%

Light-Duty Vehicles

14%

Heavy-Duty Vehicles

3%

Marine26%

Non-Road12%

All Other Sources

30%


The main source of CO emissions is light-duty vehicles (Figure 50). Emissions from this source category are

expected to decrease from 2005 to 2020 and this is the primary reason for the overall decrease in CO emissions expected for this period.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 161 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 50. Contribution of Various Source Types to CO Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 CO Emissions439,900 tonnes

Light-Duty Vehicles

52%Non-Road37%

All Other Sources

11%

2020 CO Emissions395,900 tonnes

Light-Duty

Vehicles43%

Non-Road45%

All Other Sources

12%


Although PM2.5 emissions decreased from 1990 to 2005, they are expected to gradually increase by 2020. In 2020, the contribution of PM2.5 emissions from heating, marine emissions and non-road emissions is

expected to increase (Figure 51). The same is true for PM10 emissions.

Figure 51. Contribution of Various Source Types to PM2.5 Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 PM2.5 Emissions7,000 tonnes

Wood Products

5%Burning

15%

Heating20%

Construction6%

Light & Heavy-Duty

Vehicles4%

Marine7%

Non-Road12%

All Other Sources

31%

2020 PM2.5 Emissions7,100 tonnes

Wood Products

4% Burning13%

Heating23%

Construction6%

Light & Heavy-Duty

Vehicles2%

Marine11%

Non-Road6%

All Other Sources

35%


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 162 -

Metro Vancouver



The marine sector is the largest source category for emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx). Emissions from this sector are expected to increase in the future and, hence, the relative contribution of this sector to total SOx emissions is also expected to increase (Figure 52).

Figure 52. Contribution of Various Source Types to SOx Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 SOx Emissions10,300 tonnes

Petroleum Products

23%

Primary Metal

Industries16%Marine

47%

Non-Road3%

All Other Sources

11%

2020 SOx Emissions12,400 tonnes

Petroleum Products

19%

Primary Metal

Industries13%

Marine60%

Non-Road0%

All Other Sources

8%


The agricultural sector (manure handling and storage and fertilizer application) is by far the largest contributor of NH3 emissions to the LFV airshed (see Figure 53). Ammonia emissions are projected to steadily increase from 2005 to 2020 due in part to increased activity in the agricultural sector and increased use of light duty vehicles.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 163 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 53. Contribution of Various Source Types to NH3 Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 NH3 Emissions18,500 tonnes

Light-Duty Vehicles

7%

All Other Sources

17%

Agricultural76%

2020 NH3 Emissions21,700 tonnes

Light-Duty Vehicles

7%

Agricultural76%

All Other Sources

17%


Natural sources, such as trees and vegetation, are the largest contributor of VOC emissions to the LFV airshed (see Figure 54). Of the man-made sources of emissions, the solvent evaporation sector, which

includes paints, varnishes, solvents and thinners, is the largest contributor of VOC emissions. VOC emissions in the LFV are expected to decrease from 2005 to 2020 mainly due to the continued decline in emissions from cars and light duty trucks.

Figure 54. Contribution of Various Source Types to VOC Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 VOC Emissions108,000 tonnes

Agricultural7%

Solvent Evaporation

20%

Light-Duty Vehicles

17%

Non-Road11%

All Other Sources

12%

Natural Sources

33%

2020 VOC Emissions94,500 tonnes

Agricultural7%

Light-Duty Vehicles

8%

Non-Road9%

All Other Sources

12%

Natural Sources

38%

Solvent Evaporation

26%


(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 164 -

Metro Vancouver



GHG emissions in the LFV are expected to increase from 2005 to 2020 primarily due to increases in population and economic activity. GHG emissions from the heating sector are expected to increase whereas emissions from light-duty vehicles are expected to decrease (Figure 55).

Figure 55. Contribution of Various Source Types to GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2020

2005 GHG Emissions22,875,000 tonnes

Heating24%

Light-Duty Vehicles

24%

Heavy-Duty Vehicles

6%

Non-Road5%

All Other Sources

18%

Electric Power

Generation4%

Non-metallic M ineral

Processing Industries

9%

Petro leum Products

10%

2020 GHG Emissions24,625,000 tonnes

Electric Power

Generation5%

Non-metallic M ineral

Processing Industries

8%

Petro leum Products

9%

Heating30%

Light-Duty Vehicles

19%

Heavy-Duty Vehicles

7%

Non-Road7%

All Other Sources

15%


11.2.3 Current Emissions from Waste Management Facilities

The existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility is a small contributor of most air contaminants, and also offsets

emissions from other sources by generating heat and electricity. For example, by selling steam to an adjacent industrial facility, the Metro Vancouver WTE Facility generates avoided emissions, because in the absence of the steam from the WTE Facility, the industrial facility would have burned fossil fuels to generate

the steam. The percentage of emissions contributed by the existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility for each emission

tracked by Metro Vancouver’s inventory is detailed in Table 21.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 165 -

Metro Vancouver



Table 21. WTE Contributions to Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley in 2005

Emission Total LFV Emissions

(tonnes)

WTE Emissions

(tonnes)

WTE as % of Total Emissions

NOx 61,000 465 0.8%

CO 439,900 31 0.0%

PM2.5 7,000 7 0.1%

PM10 11,800 9 0.1%

SOx 10,300 108 1.0%

NH3 18,500 1 0.0%

VOC 108,000 20 0.0% CO2 20,716,000 115,800 0.6% CH4 68,500 - 0.0% N2O 2,300 3 0.1%


The existing WTE Facility emissions for which there is the largest relative contribution to total LFV emissions

are NOx, SOx, and CO2. A new WTE facility is expected to have lower emissions compared to the existing facility. Refer to Section 8 for projected emissions for a new WTE facility.

The Vancouver Landfill is also a small contributor to air emissions in the LFV airshed. The collection and use of some of the LFG also offsets emissions from other sources by generating heat and electricity. The percentage of emissions contributed by the Vancouver Landfill for each emission tracked by Metro

Vancouver’s inventory is detailed in Table 22.

Table 22. Landfill Contributions to Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley in 2005

Contaminant Total LFV Emissions

(tonnes)

Landfill Emissions

(tonnes)

Landfill as % of Total Emissions

NOx 61,000 0 0.0%

CO 439,900 0 0.0%

PM2.5 7,000 15 0.2%

PM10 11,800 55 0.5%

SOx 10,300 0 0.0%

NH3 18,500 101 0.5%

VOC 108,000 91 0.1%

CO2 20,716,000 0 0.0%

CH4 68,500 16,400 23.9%

N2O 2,300 0 0.0%

Note: This data is based on Metro Vancouver’s 2005 emissions inventory (Metro Vancouver (2007)) and includes all landfills in the LFV.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 166 -

Metro Vancouver



The emissions from heating and electric power generation in the LFV are shown in Table 23. These data show that there is very little electric power generation in the LFV and therefore the contribution of this source category to total LFV emissions (and therefore the potential for avoided emissions) is also negligible. By

contrast, heating (e.g., buildings) contributes a substantial proportion of total PM2.5 (20%) and GHG (25%) emissions and about 10% of total NOx and PM10 emissions. As discussed above, emissions due to heating are expected to increase in the future.

Table 23. Contribution of Heating and Electrical Power Generation Emissions to LFV Emissions in 2005

Contribution to LFV Total Emissions in 2005 (%)

Contaminant

Heating Electric Power Generation

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 10 0

Carbon monoxide (CO) 2 0

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 20 1

Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) 12 0

Sulphur oxides (SOx) 3 0

Ammonia (NH3) 3 0

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 2 0

Greenhouse gases (GHG) 25 4


The LFV airshed is also subject to loadings of various toxics, such as metals and persistent organic pollutants. WTE facilities and landfills are both contributors to these emissions. Data on toxics is not

available for the Vancouver Landfill. However, data for the existing WTE Facility indicate that it is a very small contributor to these toxic emissions (Table 24).

Table 24. Estimated Air Emissions of Toxics in the LFV (data is from several years)

Contaminant Unit WTE Other Sources WTE %

Dioxins and Furans (PCDD/F) g TEQ(ET) 0.008085 3.099 0.26% Lead (Pb) kg 7.4 2200 0.33% Cadmium (Cd) kg 1.3 205 0.63% Mercury (Hg) kg 5 1100 0.44%

Source: Spreadsheet provided by Metro Vancouver, titled “April042008 - Waste to energy toxics (2).xls” on October 3, 2008, updated March 13, 2009.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 167 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 168 -

11.3 Relative Potential Future Impact of Waste Management Scenarios on Air Quality

Since the main concern related to CAC and toxic emissions is their potential effect on human health, they are typically considered a local or regional issue. By contrast, the main concern regarding GHG emissions is

global climate change; therefore GHG emissions are considered to be a global issue. The emissions from the waste management scenarios must be put into context. Net emissions of CAC, and toxics attributable to sources in the LFV are compared to LFV airshed totals, whereas total net emissions of GHG (i.e.

independent of source location) are compared to provincial totals. 11.3.1 Potential Change in LFV CAC Emissions due to Waste Management Scenarios

Table 25 is a comparison of forecasted emissions of CAC, mercury and dioxins & furans in the LFV to estimated LFV emissions for the eight waste management scenarios (recall that these scenarios include existing and potential new facilities and are not comparisons of individual technologies). In addition, Table 25

also shows the overall net emissions of GHG for each scenario compared to the forecast total BC GHG emissions if all the policy measures of the Climate Action Plan are considered.332 For each contaminant, the scenario with the highest net emissions is highlighted in yellow and the scenario with the lowest emissions is

highlighted in green.




Metro Vancouver



Table 25. Comparison of Net Waste Management Scenario Emissions to Total LFV Emissions (for CAC and Toxics) and Total Provincial Emissions (for GHG)

Waste Management Scenario Contaminant

Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2020 Emissions Inventory

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) t/y 74 141 189 190 123 147 212 86 45,300a

Carbon monoxide (CO) t/y 256 522 561 561 515 140 794 258 395,900a

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) t/y 3.8 4.6 5.3 5.3 3.6 6.0 5.6 4.5 7,100a

Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) t/y 6.5 7.0 6.9 6.9 5.2 7.4 7.4 6.0 12,600a

Sulphur oxide (SOx) t/y 125 137 143 143 128 130 146 113 12,400a

Ammonia (NH3) t/y 43 67 119 119 59 136 88 31 21,700a

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) t/y 75 117 122 122 102 63 153 55 94,500a

Dioxins and Furans mg TEQ 20 28 31 30 28 18 37 20 3,100c

Mercury kg/y 33 25 8.5 8.5 5.2 7.9 9.1 8.8 1100d

Greenhouse gases (GHG) t/y 345,000 359,000 67,000 449,000 465,000 57,000 392,000 403,000 55,000,000 b

Notes:

Yellow highlight represents the highest emissions for a given contaminant whereas green highlight represents the lowest emissions.

a Metro Vancouver (2007).

b 2020 BC GHG emissions based on current policy measures in Climate Action Plan, Government of British Columbia (2008).

c Emissions for 2006, does not include point sources in Whatcom County, Metro Vancouver (2009).

d Metro Vancouver, Personal Communication, March 20, 2009

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 169 -

Metro Vancouver



There are several observations from the information presented in Table 25:

For each contaminant, the highest net emission from any scenario is two or more orders of magnitude

less than total emissions in the LFV (or in BC for GHG emissions).

Scenario 1 (large new WTE) has the lowest net emissions of NOx in the LFV.

Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are not associated with any of the highest or lowest emissions.

Scenarios 3 (in-region use of RDF product from MBT) and 4 (out-of-region use of RDF product from MBT) have essentially the same net emissions in the LFV of CACs but GHG emissions associated with

Scenario 4 are an order of magnitude larger than those associated with Scenario 3.

Scenario 5 (out-of-region WTE) has the lowest PM2.5 and PM10 emissions but the highest GHG emissions.

Scenario 6 (local landfilling of MBT product) has the highest net emissions of PM2.5, PM10 and NH3 but the lowest emissions of CO, dioxins & furans, and GHGs.

Scenario 7 (maximizing local landfilling) is associated with the highest net emissions of NOx, CO, SOx,

VOCs and dioxins & furans.

Scenario 8 (maximize out-of-region landfilling) has the lowest emissions of SOx, NH3 and VOCs. .

Net CAC emissions in the LFV for the waste management scenarios are shown as a percentage of total LFV emissions projected for 2020 by contaminant in Figure 56; absolute emissions are shown in Figure 57. Superimposed on these graphs in horizontal blue lines are the emissions measured in 2005 due to solid

waste management activities in the LFV. Observations that can be made from these figures include:

SOx emissions for all scenarios are similar and represent about 1% of total LFV emissions, which is

similar to the contribution of SOx emissions from existing waste management facilities.

There is greater variability in the net LFV emissions of NH3, representing between 0.1 and 0.6% of total

LFV NH3 emissions, which is greater than the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of NOx range from about 0.2 to 0.4% of total LFV NOx emissions, which is about half the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of VOCs and CO are less than 0.2% of total LFV emissions for all scenarios, which is similar to the contribution from existing waste management facilities.

Net LFV emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 for the various scenarios are all less than 0.1% of total LFV

emissions, which is much less than the existing contribution from waste management facilities although this difference could be due to fugitive dust emissions, which were not considered in the LCA analysis.

In Figure 58, net CAC emissions in the LFV for each scenario are shown as a percentage of total LFV emissions projected for 2020 and in Figure 59 the absolute values are shown. These figures show that Scenarios 1 and 8 tend to have the lowest CAC emissions whereas Scenarios 3, 4 and 7 tend to have the

highest CAC emissions.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 170 -

Metro Vancouver



NOx and VOC emissions are important due to their associated health effects but also because they are precursors to the secondary formation of ozone. Figure 56 and Figure 58 show that Scenarios 3, 4, and 7 have the highest NOx and VOC emissions and therefore have the greatest potential to impact ozone

formation. There is currently a study underway to model the relative change in ozone concentrations in the LFV due to emissions from the various waste management scenarios. NOx, SOx, NH3 and to a lesser extent VOC emissions are also involved in the secondary formation of PM2.5 and Figure 56 shows that Scenarios 3,

4 and 7 also have the highest emissions of these contaminants and are therefore most likely to result in the secondary formation of PM2.5.

Figure 56. Percentage Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total

Emissions Projected for 2020 – By Contaminant

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4


Contaminant

Pe

rce

nt

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

2005 (net)

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 171 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 57. Absolute Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total Emissions Projected for 2020 – By Contaminant

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900


Contaminant

ton

ne

s/y

ea

r

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

2005 (net)

Note: For consistency with the LCA analysis presented in this report, the 2005 numbers shown in Figure 56 and Figure 57 are based on net emissions from the management of MSW in Metro Vancouver in 2005. they do not include, for example, landfills in Whatcom County or closed landfilsl in Metro Vancouver.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 172 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 58. Percentage Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total Emissions Projected for 2020 – by Scenario

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfilling of

MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

2005 (net)

Per

cen

t

SOx

NH3

VOCs

NOx

PM2.5

PM10

CO

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 173 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 174 -

Figure 59. Absolute Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Emissions to LFV Total Emissions Projected for 2020 – by Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE

Locallandfilling of

MBTproduct

Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

2005 (net)

To

nn

es/y

ear

SOx

NH3

VOCs

NOx

PM2.5

PM10

CO

The relative contribution of mercury emissions from the various scenarios to LFV total emissions is illustrated in Figure 60. The most recent estimate of mercury emissions in the LFV is for 2000.333 Net mercury emissions of Scenarios 1 (large new WTE) and 2 (moderate new WTE) are less than 3% of total LFV

emissions. For all other scenarios, net mercury emissions represent less than 1% of total LFV emissions. In order to provide a perspective on these emissions, the levels of emissions permitted by CWS are shown as black diamonds for scenarios 1 and 2. It can be seen that all scenarios emit substantially lower emissions of

mercury than would be allowed by the already stringent CWS.

333 Metro Vancouver, personal communication

Metro Vancouver



Figure 60. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Mercury Emissions to Total Emissions in LFV in 2000

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-region useof RDF

product fromMBT


MBT


WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling

Maximize outof regionLandfilling

Pe

rce

nt



The contribution of net dioxin & furan emissions of the waste management scenarios to total emissions in the LFV (based on data from 2000 and 2006) is illustrated in Figure 61. It is important to note that the total LFV

dioxin & furan emissions do not include point sources in Whatcom County and therefore the contributions shown in Figure 61 are likely overestimates. Scenario 7 (maximize local landfilling) is the largest source of dioxin & furan emissions and represents about 1.2% of total LFV emissions. The contribution from all other

scenarios is less than 1%. The scenarios with the lowest dioxin & furan emissions are 6, 1 and 8. As with mercury, and in order to provide a perspective on dioxin and furan emissions in the LFV, the levels of

emissions permitted by CWS are shown as black diamonds for scenarios 1 and 2. It can be seen that all scenarios emit substantially lower dioxin and furan emissions than would be allowed by the already stringent CWS.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 175 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 61. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario Dioxin and Furan Emissions to Total Present Day Emissions in LFV (not including point sources in Whatcom County)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-region useof RDF

product fromMBT


MBT


WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling

Maximizeout of regionLandfilling

Pe

rce

nt



11.3.2 Comparison of Emissions to Other Sources

To put the net emissions of the various waste management scenarios into context, one can compare the waste management related emissions to emissions for common sources such heavy-duty vehicles. For

example, the net PM2.5 emissions associated with the various scenarios are equivalent to the PM2.5 emissions from about 1,500 to 2,600 heavy-duty vehicles (based on average annual distance travelled). The net NOx emissions of the various scenarios are equivalent to NOx emissions from 700 to 2,000 heavy-duty

vehicles, depending on the scenario. Net emissions of dioxins and furans for the range of scenarios are equivalent to between 2,700 and 5,600 heavy-duty vehicles. As a reference, there are 85,000 heavy duty vehicles registered in the Lower Fraser Valley, which does not include out of province-registered heavy duty

vehicles travelling through the region.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 176 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 177 -

11.3.3 Potential Change in Provincial GHG Emissions due to Waste Management Scenarios

In 2007 the BC Government announced a target to reduce BC’s GHG emissions by at least 33% below

current levels by 2020. In June 2008 it released the Climate Action Plan that outlines policy measures to reduce GHG emissions.334 If no action were taken, it is estimated that BC’s GHG emissions would be 78 million tonnes (Mt) by 2020. Current policy measures are expected to reduce BC’s GHG emissions to 55 Mt

by 2020. To meet the 33% reduction target, BC’s GHG emissions have to be reduced another 9 Mt to 46 Mt. Figure 62 shows that based on current policy measures, the waste management scenarios will represent

from 0.1 to 0.8% of provincial GHG emissions. If BC achieves the 33% reduction target, then the waste management scenarios will represent up to 1.0% of provincial GHG emissions (Scenario 5 – out of region WTE facility).

For the three possible future GHG policy cases outlined above (business as usual, current policy and the 33% reduction policy), net GHG emissions associated with Scenarios 3 (in region use of RDF) and 6 (local

landfilling of MBT product) represent less than 0.2% of provincial GHG emissions. Under the business as usual case, the waste management scenarios represent 0.85% or less of total provincial GHG emissions.

Figure 62. Contribution of Waste Management Scenario GHG Emissions to Provincial Totals

Projected in 2020 for Currently Identified Policy Measures Case

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Per

cent

Con

trib

utio

n




Metro Vancouver



The order of GHG emissions for the various scenarios from lowest to highest is:

Scenario 6 (local landfilling of MBT product);

Scenario 3 (in-region use of RDF product from MBT);

Scenario 1 (large new WTE);

Scenario 2 (moderate WTE);

Scenario 7 (maximize local landfilling).

Scenario 8 (maximize out-of-region landfilling);

Scenario 4 (Out-of-region use of RDF product of MBT); and

Scenario 5 (waste exported to out-of-region WTE).

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 178 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 179 -

12. Financial Analysis

A financial analysis was conducted to provide a comparative evaluation of the eight scenarios over the course of a 35 year timeframe (2009-2045). A financial model was developed at a level appropriate for the nature of the cost information at this time and examines cash flows and accounting costs and revenues.

Levelized (lifecycle) costs and annual accounting (cost recovery) charges were calculated for each of the eight scenarios.

Levelized costs indicate the relative cost performance of each scenario (net of revenues) over the entire 35 year timeframe. It provides a measure of the average lifecycle cost per tonne.

Levelized costs are the real charge per tonne of waste (i.e., in 2008 dollars) that would be required to generate a present value of revenues equal to the present value of costs (i.e., to achieve a net present value of zero). Levelized costs are calculated by dividing the present value of the cash flow expenditures by the

present value of the waste volumes measured in tonnes. The levelized costs are based on the estimated annual cash flows. The cash flows indicate the total amount

of expenditures, net of energy revenues that are estimated to be incurred each year (in 2008 dollars) to manage the total system wastes. The cash flows are the sum of the annual capital expenditures to construct the required infrastructure and the operating costs. The cash flows are not amortized payments, and

therefore scenarios with capital investments show peaks at the time of capital outlays. The financial model also shows the annual accounting costs associated with each scenario. The annual

accounting costs are the sum of the debt service charges (amortization and interest) plus operating costs net of energy revenues, divided by the tonnes of waste handled each year. These indicate for each scenario the trend or pattern of annual unit revenue requirements over the 35 year planning horizon. These figures are

based on nominal costs and revenues (i.e., including the effects of inflation).

12.1 Operational Parameters

While the environmental Life Cycle Assessment (as described in Section 10) looked at a snapshot in time (the year 2020), the financial analysis considered costs and revenue over time. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate annual waste flows through each of the facilities in the eight scenarios. The waste flows in 2020 (as developed for the LCA) were used as a point of reference for developing waste flows for each year of the 35-year period covered by the financial analysis. The total waste handled in each year was based on Metro Vancouver’s waste forecast and is the same for all scenarios. The quantity of waste going to the existing WTE Facility is held constant at the capacity of the facility.335 For all other facilities in each scenario, the quantity of waste handled by each facility is based on the scenario descriptions.

335 Due to the increase in heating value after the removal of organics, the current WTE facility’s boiler capacity will be reached with a

smaller quantity of waste. Up until 2015, the plant is modeled at operating at 285,000 tonnes per year, which drops to 265,000 tonnes per year, based on the increased heating value of the waste after 70% diversion is achieved.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 180 -

The following assumptions are applicable to all scenarios:

Bottom ash generation has been calculated at 17%, by weight of total WTE throughput (the current bottom ash generation rate at the existing Metro Vancouver WTE Facility);

Bottom ash is hauled to Vancouver Landfill;

Once the Vancouver Landfill has reached capacity, all bottom ash will be disposed of at the out of Region landfill;

Fly ash generation has been calculated at 4% by weight of total WTE throughput. According to current practice, fly ash is always shipped to an out of Region landfill for disposal;

The tipping fee for fly ash includes an allowance for stabilization required prior to disposal;

Energy content of MSW for all scenarios is calculated to be 11.2 GJ/tonne after 2015 based on the projected waste composition after 70% diversion has been achieved. Prior to 2015, the energy content is modeled at the observed value of 10.5 GJ/tonne;

Outputs from new WTE facilities in the region are modeled as 633 kWh/tonne (gross) as electricity (20% of input energy), 8 GJ/tonne as heat (70% of input energy), for an overall efficiency of 90%.

Vancouver Landfill will not accept more MSW than its annual operational capacity of 750,000 tonnes.

As of December 31, 2008, the remaining capacity at Vancouver Landfill is about 19 million tonnes of waste.336 This limit is reached in every scenario except Scenario 8. Once the Vancouver Landfill has reached capacity, the waste that is not treated is sent to an out of Region landfill.

and wnership by the private sector. The financial parameters for these two methods are discussed below.

12.2.1 Facilities Under Metro Vancouver Ownership

bt service payments. The estimated capital costs associated ith this development are shown in Table 26.

Table 26. WTE Facility Estimated Capital Costs (2008$)

12.2 Financial Parameters

Two alternative methods of financing projects have been modeled: ownership by Metro Vancouvero

New WTE facilities are assumed to be financed, constructed and owned by Metro Vancouver, as is the case with the existing WTE Facility owned by Metro Vancouver. Therefore, only Scenarios 1 and 2 involve new borrowing and the calculation of annualized dew

Scenario Facility Capital Cost Operating Cost per e Tonn

T ransportation from TransferStations to WTE Facilities

1,2 500,000 tonne per year WTE facility $470,000,000 $40 $10 1 250,000 tonne per year WTE facility extension $235,000,000 $40 $10

While these facilities are modeled as being owned by Metro Vancouver, the operation of the facilities may be contracted out to a private sector firm, as is the case at the existing WTE Facility.

336 Deloitte & Touché LLP. (2008). Financial/Business Evaluation of Various filling Scenarios for the Vancouver Landfill.

Prepared for the City of Vancouver. Accessed May 20, 2009 . http://ns.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/pdf/landfillEvaluationNov10_08.pdf

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 181 -

12.2.2 Privately Owned Facilities

New landfills, out of region WTE facilities and MBT facilities were modeled as being privately financed and owned. For these facilities, the only cost to Metro Vancouver would be the tipping fee paid to the private operator. Ultimately, the cost to Metro Vancouver over the life of the facility would reflect ownership costs, since the tipping fees would need to cover amortized capital costs, operating costs and some profit. However, when projects are carried out by the private sector, the costs tend to be more constant, since contracts depend on providing a constant and competitive tipping fee. Tipping fees were estimated for each privately owned facility, based on publicly available information on tipping fees and costs from actual facilities in operation, either locally or in other jurisdictions (Table 27). For this study it has been assumed that the Metro Vancouver transfer stations would remain in operation and any and all costs up to and including the transfer stations would be borne by Metro Vancouver and the municipalities or private collection contractors, as they are today. Tipping fees for the scenarios modeled here are based on receipt of waste at the transfer stations, and include all transportation costs from the transfer stations to the final treatment or disposal facility. All scenarios also include existing facilities that are currently operating but that are not owned or operated by Metro Vancouver, such as the Vancouver Landfill and Cache Creek Landfill.

Table 27. Estimated Tipping Fees at Facilities Not Owned by Metro Vancouver

Scenario Tipping Fee Derivation

3 In-region use of MBT product

$65/tonne Cost estimate from Ontario RDF project ($55/tonne for processing into pellets). The tipping fee used in this analysis also includes in region transportation from the transfer stations to a central MBT/pelletizing facility at a rate of $10/tonne.

4 Out of region use of MBT product (RDF)

$67/tonne Cost estimate from Ontario RDF project ($55/tonne for processing into pellets). Fee reduced by $30 per tonne because out of region RDF user requires fluff only, not pellets. RDF processing to occur at transfer stations, so there are no additional in-region transportation costs. Transport of waste out of region to the WTE facility is at a rate of $17/tonne. Tipping fee charged by WTE facility is $25/tonne, based on expression of interest received by Metro Vancouver.337

5 Out of Region WTE Facility

$64/tonne Estimated tipping fees from an out of region WTE developer were not available for this study. The tipping fee has therefore been estimated based on the cost to Metro Vancouver to build a WTE facility of the same capacity (Scenario 2), plus profit, development of barging infrastructure in the Lower Mainland, and barging costs.

6 Landfilling of stabilized MBT product

$125/tonne Based on combined MBT/landfill tipping fee in Halifax and the City of Edmonton’s composting facility (which is similar to MBT). The tipping fee includes the in-region transportation fee of $10/tonne from transfer stations to a centralized MBT facility, as well as the final disposal cost for the stabilized waste. When the Vancouver Landfill is full, the tipping fee rises to cover the cost of the tipping fee at the out-of-region landfill and the extra transportation cost.

7 & 8 (Vancouver Landfill)

$33/tonne Based on current costs of MSW tipping fee of $23/tonne, and in region transportation cost of $10/tonne from transfer stations to landfill.

7 & 8 (Out of region landfill)

$35/tonne Based on Highland Valley proposal of $18/tonne MSW tipping fee, and out of region transportation cost of $17/tonne.

All scenarios Bottom Ash from Metro Vancouver owned WTE facilities

$14/tonne Based on current costs plus $10/tonne transportation cost; applies only to current tonnages. All new bottom ash has been modeled at the Vancouver Landfill MSW rate until the Vancouver Landfill is full Thereafter it is modeled at the MSW rate for the out-of-region landfill.

All Scenarios Fly Ash from Metro Vancouver owned WTE facilities

$55/tonne Includes costs for stabilization, out-of-region transportation and disposal.

337 Green Island Energy Limited and International Resource Solutions Incorporated. (2006).Request For Expression of Interest.

Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Metro Vancouver



12.2.3 Key Financial Model Parameters

The following base case financial parameters were used in the model:

Discount rate: 5% real. This discount rate is intended to reflect the opportunity cost of capital, but still give appropriate weight to future cost consequences. In benefit-cost terms, it is a weighted average of the social opportunity cost of capital and social time preference rate.

Interest rate during construction: 4%

Amortization Period: 15 years

Municipal Finance Authority 15 Year lending rate: 5.5%

General inflation rate: 2%

Real inflation rate for electricity: 0%. This is intended to reflect a combination of BC Hydro’s typical

contract terms, which result in a declining real price paid for electricity supply over any given contract period, and the potential for re-contracting at higher real prices at intervals (e.g., every 15 years) over the 35 year planning period.

Real inflation rate for natural gas: 1%. This is based on natural gas price forecasts submitted by BC Hydro in its most recent Long Term Acquisition Plan.

Real inflation rate for transportation: 0.3%. This is based on the fuel component of transportation

costs.

Backhaul for out of region landfill: The financial model was based on transportation costs for out of

region landfills that were developed using market conditions from 2008. These costs include revenue from backhauling woodchips from the interior of BC to the Lower Mainland. Since that time, there has been a significant decrease in the availability of backhaul opportunities. This has the potential to increase

the transportation costs for disposal of waste at an out of region landfill in the future.

Electricity price: $100/MWh (2008$). This is based on BC Hydro's last call for power (the average price adjusted for firm delivery to the Lower Mainland was $88/MWh), plus the expectation of higher prices in

future calls.

Natural gas: $6/GJ (2008$). This is based on natural gas price forecasts submitted by BC Hydro in its most recent Long Term Acquisition Plan

Value of district heat: 70% of natural gas value. Heat generated by a WTE facility can be sold to a district heating system. The value of the heat has been discounted to recognize the need to accommodate district heating infrastructure expenses.

Uptake of district heat: 90% of heat output. This is consistent with data from European plants optimized for district energy systems. This value was tested with sensitivity analysis from 50%-100% uptake.

12.3 Financial Analysis Results

Levelized costs are shown in Figure 63. The sensitivity of the base case levelized cost to changes in district

energy uptake, electricity price, and type of energy output (electricity only rather than both electricity and district energy) are presented in Appendix C.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 182 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 63. Levelized Costs

System Costs ( 2045 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region use

of RDFproduct from

MBT


MBT

5Waste


WTE

6Local


7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize out


20

08

$/t

on

ne

Under base case assumptions, the lowest levelized costs are from scenario 1, the large new WTE facility combined with the Vancouver Landfill and the existing WTE Facility. This is due to the substantial amount of

revenue that can be obtained from the sale of electricity and district energy. A more moderate expansion of WTE capacity provides the second lowest costs, followed by the scenarios 7 and 8, which focus on landfilling with no new waste treatment capability. Scenarios 3, 4 and 5, involving RDF and/or waste export for

electricity generation only are in the mid range of costs. The highest cost by far is for the stabilizing of MSW using MBT process and followed by landfilling of the stable product. There are some revenues from additional recycling, but no energy revenues to offset the increased processing and handling costs.

12.4 Cash Flows

Figure 64 shows the annual cash flows for each scenario. This data is shown in real terms (i.e., constant

dollars). Total expenditures trend upwards because of the increasing quantity of waste being handled each year. All scenarios show a slight decrease in total system expenditures from 2030-2031 because the SCR upgrades at Metro Vancouver’s existing WTE Facility are paid off at the end of 2030.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 183 -

Metro Vancouver



The total system expenditures are higher in the initial years for Scenarios 1 and 2 than the other scenarios because they involve the construction of WTE facilities by Metro Vancouver, which requires substantial capital outlay. The capital outlay for the 500,000 tonne per year WTE facility occurs from 2010-2015; the

250,000 tonne capacity WTE facility has capital outlays from 2015-2020. Scenarios 1 and 2 also show spikes in the annual expenditures for Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2040 and 2045 because of the need for refurbishment of the WTE facilities (the 500,000 tonne per facility in 2040 and the 250,000 tonne per year facility in 2045).

Scenarios 3 through 8 involve Metro Vancouver paying tipping fees and transportation costs only. Scenarios 3 and 4 have very similar total system expenditures and follow the same pattern throughout the

planning period. Both of these scenarios involve the use of facilities owned and operated by the private sector, and the total tipping fee estimated for these facilities is similar for the two scenarios. Scenario 5 also follows a similar trend, with a slightly lower annual expenditure than Scenarios 3 and 4.

Scenario 6 shows in increase in expenditure from 2019-2020, because it assumed that until 2019, only 500,000 tonnes per year of MSW are treated by MBT prior to being landfilled. In 2020, additional MBT capacity comes online to process the remaining MSW. Therefore, in 2020, all of the MSW is treated by MBT prior to landfilling. After 2020, the capacity of the MBT plant is exceeded, and the balance of the MSW is disposed of without MBT processing. In 2034, the total capacity of the Vancouver Landfill is reached, and both the stabilized and untreated MSW is disposed of at the out-of-region landfill. Scenarios 7 and 8 have very similar total system expenditures until 2040. In Scenario 7, the Vancouver Landfill has reached capacity by 2032; in Scenario 8, the Vancouver Landfill still has capacity. As a result, after 2032 Scenario 8 has a slightly lower total system expenditure than Scenario 7.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 184 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 64. Annual Real Cash Flows under Baseline Conditions (2008 dollars)

-$50,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

$2

00

8 (

Th

ou

sa

nd

s)

1 - Large new WTE 2 - Moderate new WTE3 - In-region use of RDF product from MBT 4 - Out of region use of RDF product from MBT5 - Waste exproted to out of region WTE 6 - Local landfilling of MBT product7 - Maximize landfilling 8 - Maximize out of region landfilling

12.5 Accounting Costs

Figure 65 shows the annual accounting costs for each scenario. The difference between the annual

accounting costs and annual cash flows shown previously is that the accounting costs include interest on capital during construction and amortized capital costs. The capital expenditures are accrued with interest during construction in order to determine the installed capital cost; this cost is then assumed to be 100% debt

financed and paid off over a 15 year amortization period. Accounting costs are expressed in nominal dollars per tonne (i.e., current dollars for each year, including the effects of inflation). They reflect the annual charge per tonne required in each year over the planning period to generate enough revenues to pay for the debt

service and net operating costs.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 185 -

Metro Vancouver



Scenarios 1 and 2 exhibit relatively high annual accounting costs over the 15 year amortization period (2015-2029 for the 500,000 tonne per year WTE facility in Scenarios 1 and 2, and 2020-2034 for the 250,000 tonne per year WTE facility in Scenario 1) because of the large debt service charges in those years. After the

capital expenditures are fully amortized, the annual accounting costs fall sharply in those scenarios because only operating costs have to be paid. By 2031, the annual cost for Scenario 1 becomes the lowest of all scenarios.

As scenarios 3-8 do not involve capital expenditures by Metro Vancouver, the accounting cost trends do not differ from the cash flow trends.

Figure 65. Accounting Costs under Baseline Conditions

-$50

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

No

min

al $

/to

nn

e

1- Large new WTE 2 - Moderate new WTE 3 - In-region use of RDF product from MBT 4 - Out of region use of RDF product of MBT5 - Waste exported out of region to WTE 6 - Local landfilling of MBT product7 - Maximize local landfilling 8 - Maximize out of region landfilling

The costs and revenues that comprise the net accounting costs for Scenarios 1 and 2 can be broken out. This is shown in Figure 66 and Figure 67.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 186 -

Metro Vancouver



Figure 66. Scenario 1 Annual Accounting Costs and Revenues

-$200,000

-$150,000

-$100,000

-$50,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

An

nu

al N

om

ina

l $ (

Th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Total annual costs Total annual revenues Net annual costs

Costs rise in 2015 with the construction of the first WTE facility. In 2020 costs increase again, with the

construction of the second WTE facility. Costs fall in 2030 when the capital costs of the first WTE facility are fully paid, and fall slightly again in 2031 when the SCR upgrade at the existing WTE Facility is fully amortized. By 2035, the capital costs of the second WTE are fully paid, and annual costs increase gradually

due to increasing quantities of untreated waste requiring disposal. Revenues increase between 2019 and 2020, when the second WTE facility comes online. Revenues rise gradually throughout the remainder of the planning period due to increasing district energy prices.

Scenario 2 follows a pattern very similar to Scenario 1. Costs rise in 2015 with the construction of the new WTE facility. Costs fall in 2030 when the capital costs of the WTE facility are fully paid, and fall slightly again

in 2031 when the SCR upgrade at the existing WTE Facility is fully amortized. From 2031 onwards, annual costs increase gradually due to increasing quantities of untreated waste requiring disposal. Revenues begin to be realized in 2015 when the new WTE facility comes online, and rise gradually throughout the remainder

of the planning period due to increasing district energy prices.

(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 187 -

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 188 -

Figure 67. Scenario 2 Annual Accounting Costs and Revenues

-$200,000

-$150,000

-$100,000

-$50,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

An

nu

al N

om

ina

l $ (

Th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Total annual costs Total annual revenues Net annual costs

12.6 Summary

Based on this financial model and the assumptions made, the scenarios showing the lowest levelized costs

are those with in-region WTE and district heat (Scenarios 1 and 2). These are followed by the two landfill only scenarios (7 and 8). RDF use in-region and RDF use out of region, as well as WTE out of region, are slightly more costly than the in-region WTE because of additional transportation costs and the assumed

financing arrangements (with Metro Vancouver paying a tipping fee based on the financing costs and energy recovery opportunities of the private developer). The most costly scenario is 6, which processes waste and then takes the stabilized product to landfill. This is because there is the cumulative cost of processing and

landfilling, without any offsetting revenue from the production of electricity and heat.

This cost comparison is based on planning level numbers only and is intended to assist with setting the direction for future waste management strategies. Actual costs will need to be determined through more detailed site specific designs and competitive processes.

Metro Vancouver



(80563_108052_final_rpt_09-jun10.doc) - 189 -

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

© 2009 AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND TRADE SECRET LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, EXCEPT BY CLIENT FOR ITS OWN USE, OR WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF AECOM CANADA LTD. OR CLIENT (IF COPYRIGHT ASSIGNED TO CLIENT).

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:

are subject to the budgetary, time, scope, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represent Consultants’ professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which they were collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:

shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared or for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant;

makes no representations whatsoever with respect to the Report or any part thereof, other than that the Report represents Consultant’s professional judgement as described above, and is intended only for the specific purpose described in the Report and the Agreement;

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions geographically or over time.

Except as required by law or otherwise agreed by Consultant and Client, the Report:

is to be treated as confidential; may not be used or relied upon by third parties.

Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.

(108052_apptitles_09-jun1.doc)

Appendix A

Energy from Waste Performance Data – RambØll Danmark A/S

Memo

Rambøll Danmark A/S

Teknikerbyen 31

DK-2830 Virum

Danmark

Phone +45 4598 6000

Direct +45 4598 8628

Fax +45 4598 8520

[email protected]

www.ramboll.dk

Date 2009-01-12

Ref Metro Vancouver

834-082110

Rambøll Danmark A/S Danish reg. no: CVR-NR 35128417 Member of FRI

1. Introduction

Metro Vancouver wants to identify EFW facilities in Europe that demonstrate best practice, both in terms of lowest emissions, and in terms of best thermal efficiency. The outputs of these best practice facilities will be used as a basis to calculate total emissions loading that could be expected in Vancouver if a facility processing 500,000 or 750,000 tonnes per year was built. In addition, it would allow a calculation of the levels of offsets from displaced natural gas that could be achieved through varying degrees of district heating. Metro Vancouver wants to demonstrate potential impacts based on data from existing facilities, as opposed to using theoretical data from suppliers.

2. Emission

Metro Vancouver needs to identify one EFW facility that demon-strates best practice and lowest emissions. It is important the EFW facility meets the EU standards as well as the standards for

Project EFW performance data Client Metro Vancouver Subject Flue gas emissions and energy data From Rambøll To Susana Harder, Konrad Fichtner

Ref 8576206/834-082110 2/22

the existing Burnaby EFW facility with respect to reduction of NOx, SOx, dust, PCDD/F and metals.

In order to identify the EFW facility with the lowest emissions a simple screening has been carried out among recently built European EFW facilities.

It is important to underline that the screening is mainly a screening among vari-ous principles of flue gas treatment systems – dry, semi-dry, wet or a combina-tions of these.

However, not only the systems should be compared also the actual operation of the system has to be identified. The local regulatory emission standard as well as the environmental tax system may influence significantly how the plant man-agement decides to operate the plant. In some cases EFW facilities do not add more reagents than requested in order to fulfil the standard even though the flue gas treatment system might be able to obtain lower emission levels if more reagents were added.

It is also important to stress that according to the European understanding of BAT (Best Available Technique) is not only a matter of lowest emission values. Also local conditions and costs have to be taken into consideration, and accord-ing to the European BREF (Best Reference) note for EFW facilities it has not been possible to point out one flue gas treatment system as BAT above another.

As Metro Vancouver has asked specific for the EFW facility with the lowest emis-sion values we have for the current study concentrated only on emissions values and have not included any financial analysis.

If the lowest possible emission values are used for calculation of the emissions loading from a potential EFW facility in Metro Vancouver it might entail a higher investment.

2.1 Preconditions When comparing emission data from different EFW facilities it is important to make a fair comparison and among others compare ½ h values with other ½ h values, daily average with other daily average values, etc. as well as it is impor-tant to use the same reference. For the current study Metro Vancouver has re-quested all data corrected to 11% Oxygen, 25°C, a pressure of 101,3 kilopascal and 0% moisture.

Another aspect to take into consideration is fluctuation. Some flue gas treatment systems are capable of presenting excellent average data even though the sys-tem might have difficulties fulfilling EU standards when peaks in raw gas compo-sition occur. When selecting the best technology it is important to evaluate if fluctuations in raw gas composition are expected (which is often the case with mixed industrial and municipal waste) or if relative stable and lower concentra-

Ref 8576206/834-082110 3/22

tions are expected (which is often the case when only municipal solid waste is received).

Flue gas treatment systems consist of a number different treatment steps for the different types of air pollutants.

The general principle of choosing the FGT system is initially to decide how the acidic gases shall be treated and hereafter select the most appropriate method to remove particles, dioxin and NOx.

The entire flue gas treatment system is often named after the chosen acidic treatment step:

- Dry/semi dry system The acidic compounds in the flue gas react with an injected sorption agent (typically hy-drated lime, Ca(OH)2, for the dry system and lime milk for the semi-dry process) and forms a dry residue. The residue is removed from the flue gas by a fabric filter. Sodium bicar-bonate may also be used as sorption agent.

- Wet FGT system The acidic compounds in the flue gas are washed with water and thereby producing a salt-containing waste water stream. The wastewater stream is neutralized (e.g. lime and NaOH) and requires further treatment (for heavy metal etc.) before it can be discharged from facility.

2.1.1 Dry and semi-dry system In dry and semidry FGT-systems the flue gas is brought to react in a reactor with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) or another neutralizing compound (e.g. Na-HCO3) introduced as a dry powder or in an aqueous suspension, respectively. The overall process of dry and semi-dry method is similar. The injected lime re-acts with the acidic compounds in the flue gas converting them to solid com-pounds (e.g. CaCl2, CaF2 and CaSO3/CaSO4). These compounds are removed – together with the dust (fly ash) – in a down stream bag house filter. By adding activated carbon between the reactor and the bag house filter it is also possible in the bag house to remove the dioxins and Hg to below the emission limit val-ues. The SNCR and SCR in Figure 1 are referring to the DeNOx process which is de-scribed in chapter 3.3.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 4/22

Figure 1. Illustration of dry/semi-dry FGT (flue gas treatment) system

2.1.2 Wet system In wet FGT-systems the first stage is removal of dust and particles from the combustion process with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or eventualy a bag house filter. Removal of particles will also reduce the concentration of heavy metals below the respective emission limits (expect Hg) as the main fraction of heavy metals is bond to the surface of the particles that are removed in the fil-ter. In the next treatment stage the flue gas is washed with water in an “acid” scrub-ber where HCl will react (remove) under formation of a diluted hydrochloric acid solution. Also the main part of the Hg is removed. The spent scrubber liquid re-quires treatment before discharge. The third step is an “alkaline” scrubber, in which the flue gas is washed with a solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or a suspension of limestone (CaCO3). This process removes the SO2 to below the respective emission limit values.

Furnace Boiler Reactor

ID-Fan

Dry/semi-dry FGT system

Bottom ash Boiler ash Solid residue

Lime/ Limemilk

Baghouse-filter

Activated carbon (HOK)

SCR-system

SNCR: NH3 injection

Furnace Boiler Reactor

ID-Fan

Dry/semi-dry FGT system

Bottom ash Boiler ash Solid residue

Lime/ Limemilk

Baghouse-filter

Activated carbon (HOK)

SCR-system

SNCR: NH3 injection

Ref 8576206/834-082110 5/22

Figure 2. Illustration of wet FGT system. The spent liquid is subsequently treated in a wastewater treatment stage. Fi-nally, the flue gas is treated with activated carbon to ensure absorption of the remaining quantities of dioxins and Hg. The wastewater from the scrubbers are neutralised to around pH 9 typical by CaCO3 and NaOH. Furthermore, the heavy metals and other solids are precipi-tated by addition of chemicals like CaCl2, FeCl3 and TMT 15. The precipitates (the sludge) are de-watered in a filter press before disposal, and the treated waste water is discharged. The best situation is when discharge to the see is possible

2.1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of dry/semi and wet systems

Semidry FGT system Wet FGT system

Advanta

ges

• Simple technology

• No waste water

• Relatively low capital costs

• Less footprint than a wet FGT-system

• High efficient/less consumption of lime (approx. 1:1)

• Small amount of solid residue

• Generally large margin to the limit values

• Less sensitive of HCl and SO2 peaks in flue gas

• Relatively low operational costs

Furnace Boiler ESP

Gas/gas heat-exchanger

Acidscrubber

Alkalinescrubber

Baghouse filter

ID-Fan

Wet FGT system

Wastewater treatmentGypsum

Bottom ash Boiler ash Fly ash

CaCO3

NaOHTMT-15FeCl3Polymer Sludge

Treated wastewater

Residues back to furnace

Water

Activated carbon (HOK)SCR-

system

Furnace Boiler ESP

Gas/gas heat-exchanger

Acidscrubber

Alkalinescrubber

Baghouse filter

ID-Fan

Wet FGT system

Wastewater treatmentGypsum

Bottom ash Boiler ash Fly ash

CaCO3

NaOHTMT-15FeCl3Polymer Sludge

Treated wastewater

Residues back to furnace

Water

Activated carbon (HOK)SCR-

system

Ref 8576206/834-082110 6/22

Dis

advanta

ges

• Less efficient/higher consumption of lime (approx. 1:1,7) and thereby higher operational costs

• Large amount of solid residue

• Less margin to the limit values

• Sensitive to HCl and SO2 peaks in the flue gas

• Many process stages

• Discharge of waste water

• Relatively high capital costs

• Higher footprint than a dry or semi-dry FGT-system

Table 2: Matrix illustrating advantages and disadvantages of the different FGT-system.

2.1.4 Choice of DeNOx process All combustion processes produces more or less significant concentrations of NOx (NO+NO2).

For waste incineration facility the general flue gas concentration is around 250-400 mg/m3. Recirculation of the flue gas and high control of the combustion process can reduce the NOx level, but unlikely below the emission limit and ac-tive NOx removal is required to fulfil the limit:

- Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)

The ammonia is injection into the flue gas in the furnace at the location where the temperature is around 850 °C. The SNCR process is typically cho-sen on incineration facilities where there is no finan-cial incentive to reduce NOx below the emission lim-its.

- Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

The reaction between NOx and the injected NH3 takes place on a catalytic surface at temperature between 220-250 °C. The flue gas to the SCR-process is preheated with the flue gas leaving the SCR and the additional need for heating is around 25 °C. This can be done with e.g. high pressure steam or natural gas. This process is typically the last treatment step as dust and SO2 will reduce the lifetime of the catalytic surface.

2.1.5 Advantages and disadvantages of SCR and SNCR

SNCR SCR

Advanta

ges • Simple technology

• Low capital costs

• Low footprint required

• Low consumption of ammonia

• Very low emission values (10-20 mg NOX/Rm3 ) can be obtained

Ref 8576206/834-082110 7/22

Dis

advanta

ges

• Consumes more ammonia than SCR (around 30% more)

• A small ammonia slip may oc-cur

• Require strict temperature con-trol

• Hard to get guarantees from Vendors below 110-120 mg NOx/Rm3

• High capital costs

• Require reheat of flue gas

• High footprint required

Table 2: Matrix illustrating advantages and disadvantages of SCR and SNCR.

2.1.6 Treatment efficiency of dry, semi-dry and wet FGT systems Both FGT-systems are able to clean the flue gas below the emissions require-ments set by EU Directive 2000/76/EC and in the A7 guideline, as seen in table 3. The values serve as indication of the emission data that can normally be guaranteed by suppliers. It is, however, important to distinguish between guaranteed values and actual operating values. In order to fulfil the guaranteed values the suppliers normally set a relative high margin and the actual operating values are normally well be-low the guaranteed figures.

Unit

Raw flue gas

Semi-dry FGT-

system

Wet FGT-

system

A7 emissions requirements

EU emissions requirements

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 1830-4580 3 0-2 17 9.2

SO2 mg/Rm3 183-550 < 46 1-10 56 46

NOx mg/Rm3 229-458 <165 < 165 207 183

HCl mg/Rm3 458-1830 < 9 1-2 27 9.2

HF mg/Rm3 4-9 0.01 0.05 N.D. 0.92

Hg mg/Rm3 0.1-1 0.01 0.002 0.02 0.046

Cd mg/Rm3 0.9-1.8 0.01 0.002 0.014 N.D.

Cd, Tl mg/Rm3 0.9-1.8 0.015 0.005 N.D. 0.046

Pb mg/Rm3 25-35 0.005 0.005 0.14 N.D.

∑ As, Ni, Co Pb, Cr, Cu, V, Mn, Sb

mg/Rm3 4-46 0.05 0.04 N.D. 0.46

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 0.009-14 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.092

(Rm3: Refers to 25°C, 11 % O2, and dry flue gas, N.D. = Not Defined)

Table 3: Typical composition of the raw flue gas and treated flue gas from the 2 main FGT systems. For comparison also the A7 emissions requirements and the European emission requirements (EU Directive 2000/76/EC) are shown. NOx control by SNCR.

2.2 Screening As presented in chapter 3 the lowest emissions are expected at flue gas treat-ment facilities with a wet flue gas treatment system and SCR. Especially due to

Ref 8576206/834-082110 8/22

the fact that the wet systems are better to stand up to fluctuations in the raw flue gas. To demonstrate this statement flue gas data have been collected from selected, modern flue gas treatment facilities. The actual plants have been selected by Rambøll among some of the EFW facilities where Rambøll acts as consultant. There are many be other EFW facilities that present similar emission data and the selected facilities should only be considered as examples of the actual FGT system rather than individual plants. The screening has been carried out for the following components: Dust, HCl, SO2, NOx and dioxine. All data are presented as daily average.

2.2.1 Dry/Semi-dry Systems As representatives for the dry/semidry system we have selected the ASM Brescia plant in Italy.

ASM Brescia ASM Brescia has been selected as it is one of the most famous EFW facilities in Europe and won the WTERT award 2006 (at Columbia University in New York, USA). Emission was one of the criteria for the award. ASM Brescia treats approx. 500,000 t/y MSW in two lines. The flue gas treat-ment system consists of the semi-dry FGT system and SNCR. ASM Brescia makes some test-runs with SCR, but these data are not included as it is for test-ing only. The low NOx values are possible but results in rather high ammonium slip.

Unit Semi-dry

FGT-system

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 0,3-0,6

SO2 mg/Rm3 1-14,9

NOx mg/Rm3 80

HCl mg/Rm3 1,8-4,2

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 0,002

Table 4: Emission data from ASM Brescia

2.2.2 Peaks Even though the figures are well below the EU emission levels an analysis of the ½ h values indicates that for these dry/semi-dry systems variations occur as the systems are sensitive for fluctuations. Especially for the system at AVV some of the ½ h values are close to the emission limit. What is also illustrated by these two plants – and again more obvious when the ½ h values are analysed – is that

Ref 8576206/834-082110 9/22

the dry/semi-dry systems have difficulties in obtaining low values for both SO2

and HCl as the reaction occur in one stage and thus cannot be optimised indi-vidually as for the wet system.

2.3 Wet system For representing the wet systems we have selected four plants – Reno-Nord, Ålborg in Denmark, Halmstad in Sweden, SYSAV in Sweden and Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

2.3.1 Reno-Nord Reno-Nord has been selected as it is one of the newest EFW facilities in Denmark with a very efficient wet flue gas treatment system. Reno-Nord treats approx. 200,000 t/y MSW at the new line. Reno-Nord still op-erates one older line which is not included in the present study. The flue gas treatment system consists of a wet system with ESP, acidic scrub-ber, alkaline scrubber, wet dioxin/mercury scrubber and condensing scrubber. The furnace is equipped with SNCR.

Unit Wet

FGT-system

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 ~0

SO2 mg/Rm3 5,3

NOx mg/Rm3 117

HCl mg/Rm3 ~0

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 0,07

Table 5: Emission data from Reno-Nord

2.3.2 Halmstad, Sweden Halmstad is one of the most high efficient EFW facilities in Sweden and treats in one line approx.120,000 t/y MSW in one line. The plant also operates old lines which are however not included in this survey as we are concentrating on new lines.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 10/22

The flue gas treatment system consists of an ESP, quench, acid scrubber, alka-line scrubber, bag house filter with injection of activated carbon and SCR.

Unit Wet

FGT-system

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 <1

SO2 mg/Rm3 5,6

NOx mg/Rm3 25,9

HCl mg/Rm3 0,1

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 <0,02

Table 6: Emission data from Halmstad

2.3.3 SYSAV, Sweden SYSAV has been chosen as it is one of the most famous EFW facilities in Europe and has been visited by a number of guests from all over the world - including Canada. SYSAW was runner-up is the WTERT competition. Great effort has been given for optimising the plant performance.

SYSAV operates two old lines which are not part of this survey, as well as it op-erates a line 3 and a line 4 just being constructed. The operating data is from line 3 as line 4 does not have operating data yet, but is a copy of line 3 and similar operating data are expected.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 11/22

The flue gas treatment system consists of an ESP, quench, acid scrubber, alka-line scrubber, wet dioxin/mercury and condensing scrubber and SCR.

Unit Wet

FGT-system

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 <2

SO2 mg/Rm3 <3

NOx mg/Rm3 20

HCl mg/Rm3 <2

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 0,0002

Table 7: Emission data from SYSAV

2.3.4 Amsterdam, the Netherlands The Amsterdam EFW facility has been chosen as the plant is one of the much discussed facilities in Europe, not so much due to the FGT system but rather because the plant operates with very high steam parameters for electricity effi-ciency. Nevertheless, as the facility is often presented at conferences etc. we have included it in the screening. The plant treats 530,000 t/y MSW in two new lines. The flue gas treatment system consists of an ESP, quench, acid scrubber, alka-line scrubber, bag house filter with injection of activated carbon and SNCR.

Unit Wety

FGT-system

TSP / Dust mg/Rm3 0,5

SO2 mg/Rm3 5

NOx mg/Rm3 63

HCl mg/Rm3 0,2

Dioxins ng

TEQ/Rm3 0,007

Table 8: Emission data from Amsterdam

2.4 Peaks As illustrated by the four EFW facilities above all FGT systems operate well below the emission levels. The wet system is capable operating with low HCl and SO2 values at the same time.

A more detailed analysis of the operating data – ½ values - shows that peaks are almost not present as the wet system is better resistant for peaks.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 12/22

2.5 Result of the Screening The screening confirms the theoretic statement that the wet systems are able to operate with lowest emissions values as well as the wet systems are better to level peaks.

The dry/semi-dry systems are all able to fulfil the emission standards but with more fluctuations and are not to the same level as the wet systems able to op-timise both HCl and SO2.

The screening also shows that the EFW facilities equipped with SCR have the lowest emissions. However, SNCR facilities in Brescia and Amsterdam show ex-cellent SNCR results but not as low as SCR.

3. Flue gas emissions – lowest

As the SYSAV plant shows very low emission values for all components at the same time we have decided to base the calculation below on SYSAV’s figures corresponding to an EFW facility equipped with a highly efficient flue gas treat-ment system based on wet scrubbing technology and SCR. For comparison we have in the tables below also included a typical semi-dry FGT system. Pollutant concentrations

Emission data Unit* Highly efficient wet FGT-plant

Semi-dry FGT, annual average

Carbone monoxide (CO) mg/m³ 10 10

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) ** mg/m³ 20/ 50/150

Dust mg/m³ 2 3

Total organic carbon (TOC) mg/m³ 1 1

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) mg/m³ 3 30

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) mg/m³ 2 8

Hydrogen fluoride (HF) mg/m³ < 1 < 1

Ammonia (NH3) ** mg/m³ 4/ 5/10

Nitrous oxide (N2O) mg/m³ < 5 < 5

Mercury (Hg) mg/m³ 0,006 0,01

Cadmium + Tallium (Cd+Tl) mg/m³ 0,0002 0,01

Other heavy metals mg/m³ 0,05 0,1

Dioxins (TCCD-ekv) mg/m³ 0,0002 0,01

*: ref. dry flue gas at 11% O2, standard temperature (25 °C) and pressure (101,325 Pa) **: SCR and SNCR, respectively Table 9. Emission data for an EFW facility with lowest possible emission com-pared with a semi-dry system.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 13/22

Mass flows of pollutants

Plant data Unit* Highly efficient wet FGT-plant

Semi-dry FGT, annual average

Waste throughput metric ton/h

25 25

Lower heating value MJ/kg 12 12

Flue gas flow rate, dry flue gas 11% O2, standard temperature and pres.

m³/h 175.000 175.000

Operating hours hours/y 8.100 8.100

Pollutant mass flows

Carbone monoxide (CO) kg/year 14.000 14.000

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) kg/year 28.000 70.000/210.000**

Dust kg/year 3.000 4.000

Total organic carbon (TOC) kg/year 1.000 1.000

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) kg/year 4.000 43.000

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) kg/year 3.000 11.000

Hydrogen fluoride (HF) kg/year < 1.000 < 1.000

Ammonia (NH3) kg/year 6.000 7.000/21.000**

Nitrous oxide (N2O) kg/year < 7.000 < 7.000

Mercury (Hg) kg/year 9 14

Cadmium + Tallium (Cd+Tl) kg/year 0,3 14

Other heavy metals kg/year 70 140

Dioxins (TCCD-ekv) mg/year 0,3 10

**: SCR and SNCR, respectively Table 10. Mass flow data for an EFW facility equipped with a FGT system with lowest possible emission values compared with semi-dry FGT system.

4. Energy Production

All EFW facilities in Canada and in USA generate electricity and only very few facilities also generate heat either in the form of process steam or district heat-ing. In Europe – and especially in Scandinavia – most of the EFW facilities generate both electricity and heat. The process can be optimised for either electricity or for heat and the overall efficiency is very much dependent on the actual design parameters and the op-timization.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 14/22

4.1 Terms Metro Vancouver has requested reference facilities that produce varying degrees of heat and power, illustrated by the scenarios as follow:

1. Maximum heat (either process steam, district heating or both) with no electricity generation

2. Mostly heat with some (less than 50%) power generation 3. Mostly power generation with some heat 4. All power/electricity generation

Metro Vancouver wants to use the data from existing facilities to model scenar-ios in Vancouver. For each of the four scenarios described above, one reference plant that most closely matches the criteria should be identified and actual amounts of district heating and power sold should be presented. For each reference facility the following information is requested by Metro Van-couver:

• Feedstock description (MWS, ICI, industrial) with combined average heating value (LHV)

• Mass of feedstock consumed per year • Gross electricity production and electricity • Gross heat output, and net heat sold to users/district heating systems • Total thermal efficiency of the facility • Any other relevant information that is readily available about the plant

It should be underlined that for some EFW facilities the amount of heat sold to the district heating system is depending on the load. In the summertime some of the EFW facilities have to cool away the surplus heat as not all heat produced is possible to sell to the net. At the same time for a new green field EFW facility the district heating network is often being expanded over a period of time and often not fully established before after 10 years. For the first years of operation it might happen that only a certain amount of the district heat is actually sold.

4.2 Turbine Concept The turbine concept is depending on whether the turbine is optimised for elec-tricity production, for heat production or for both.

If a constant and relatively high amount of energy can be sold as district heat/process steam, a backpressure turbine, where the steam is cooled down by means of the district heating system in one or two condensers is the most com-mon concept.

If there is no possibility to sell heat – or only a limited amount of heat can be sold – an extraction/condensing turbine is the most common design. In this case, the air- cooled condenser is connected directly on the steam side and is typically bringing the pressure in the low-pressure part of the turbine lower than

Ref 8576206/834-082110 15/22

the backpressure turbine (0,1-0,2 bar contra 3 bar) and hereby representing a higher electricity efficiency.

In general 1 ton of waste for incineration results in generation of 2 MWh heat and 2/3 MWh electricity.

Possibilities to boost electricity production include:

• Higher steam parameter – which cannot be recommended due to higher risk of corrosion

• In case of backpressure turbine introduction of a high pressure and a low pressure DH condenser. This is common practise and could be intro-duced, but only if a backpressure is feasible

• Separate high-pressure and low-pressure turbines connected by the same shaft to the generator; the high-pressure part by gear and the low-pressure part with direct coupling

• Reheat of steam between the turbine high-pressure and low-pressure part. This option is possible but will complicate the system, which is of-ten a disadvantage

Rambøll recommends to carefully analysing the possibility for sale of electricity, district heat and/or process steam and to simulate the turbine process for opti-misation before finally selecting the turbine/generator concept.

Direct transfer of data from existing facilities to Metro Vancouver should be taken with a certain reservation as the local circumstances and specific energy load is crucial for the design.

Extractions used internally for optimising the grate/boiler system should also be clarified before the turbine is finally decided as steam extraction could be used for reheat of SCR, air preheat, etc.

In the case of an extraction turbine plume visibility and drift from the condens-ers should be considered as this might not be accepted for all locations of an EFW facility. However, plume from water cooled condensers is in general not considered to be a problem as many power facilities in USA/Canada is equipped with water cooled condensers with visible plume, whereas this is not common practise in Scandinavia.

4.3 Plants selected For the 4 scenarios presented above it has been aimed to selected representa-tive EFW facilities that clearly illustrate the scenario. The size of the plant is not decisive for the design of the energy system and more efforts has been given for

Ref 8576206/834-082110 16/22

selecting representative plants rather than plants with the same capacity as for Metro Vancouver. The following plants have been selected:

1. TAS (Denmark), Trondheim (Norway) 2. Uppsala (Sweden) 3. Reno Nord (Denmark), SYSAV (Sweden) 4. Isle of Man (UK)

4.4 TAS, Denmark Location: Bronzevej 6, 6000 Kolding, Denmark Ownership: Intermunicipal by four municipalities (Fredericia, Middelfart, Kolding, Vejle). Number of WTE-lines: 2 Commissioning year of each: line 2 (2004) and line 5 (2007) Energy recovery system: Line 2: Steam boiler, turbine with electricity production and district-heating generation. Line 5: hot water boiler for district-heating. Line 5 is design and optimised for district heating only. Waste types: Throughput

(ton/y) Lower heat-ing value (MJ/kg)

Comments

MSW 44,700

Commercial 53,629 Small combustibles

Industrial 12,290 Large combustibles

Other 561

Sum/average 111,180 11 Total for line 2 and 5, Valid for 2007 Approximately 55,000 ton waste treated on line 5.

Energy recovery Unit Value (line 5, only)

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis) GJ/y 605,000

Gross electricity production MWh/y 0

Sold electricity MWh/y 0

Gross heat output GJ/y 517,000

Heat sold GJ/y 483,000

Thermal efficiency of heat and power production*

% 85,5

Ref 8576206/834-082110 17/22

*:thermal efficiency is defined as (gross electricity and heat production in per-cent of total thermal input)

4.5 Trondheim, Norway Location: Heimdal, Trondheim, Norway Ownership: Municipal by Trondheim Energi. Number of WTE-lines: 3 Commissioning year of each: line 3 (2007) Energy recovery system: Line 3: Hot water boiler, district-heating generation. The plant is optimised for district heating only.

Energy recovery Unit Value (line 3, only)

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis) GJ/y 1,330,000



Gross heat output GJ/y 1,150,000

Heat sold GJ/y more than 700,000


% 87


4.6 Uppsala, Sweden Location: Uppsala, Sweden Ownership: Wattenfall, national Swedish power company. Commissioning year of each: line 5, 2003 Energy recovery system: Line 5: Low pressure (20 bar) steam boiler, sale of process steam and district-heating generation, no electricity production. Line 5 equipped with flue gas condensation unit and absorption heat pumps for in-creased district-heating production. Line 5 is optimised for high district heating performance corresponding to the Swedish tax regulation. Due to changes in the tax system electricity production is now feasible and line 5 is planned for conversion to still optimised district heating but with some electricity production (low pressure turbine).

Ref 8576206/834-082110 18/22

Waste types: Throughput

(ton/y) Lower heat-ing value (MJ/kg)

Comments

MSW

Commercial

Industrial

Other

Sum/average 176.000 12 Estimate for line 5, only

Energy recovery Unit Estimate

(line 5, only)





Heat sold GJ/y more than 1,500,000


% 95

*:thermal efficiency is defined as (gross electricity and heat production in per-cent of total thermal input). The figures are based on approx. 50% usage of heat pumps. Base data for line 5, only: Energy recovery Unit Actual

With heat pump in op-eration, no power pro-

duction

After rebuild With heat

pump in op-eration and power pro-

duction

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis) MW 73.3 73.3

Gross electricity production MW 0 11.0

Gross heat output (including process steam)

MW 75.7 64.7


% 103 103

Efficiency, power % 0 15

Efficiency , heat % 103 88

Ref 8576206/834-082110 19/22

4.7 SYSAV,Sweden Location: Spillepengsgata 13, Malmö, Sweden Ownership: Intermunicipal company. Number of WTE-lines: 4 Commissioning year of each: line 1 and 2 (1973), Line 3 (2003) and line 4 (2008). Only the two new lines are considered. Data are based on operation of line 3 as line 4 has no been in operation a full year. The two lines are identical and the same figures are valid for line 4 when it will be in full operation. Energy recovery system: Line 3 and 4: Steam boiler, turbine with electricity production and district-heating generation. These are further equipped with flue gas condensation and heat pumps for district-heating production. The plant (line 3 and 4) is optimised for district heating but at the same time with a high power production.

Waste types: Throughput (ton/y), line 3, only

Lower heat-ing value (MJ/kg)

Comments

MSW

Commercial

Industrial

Other

Sum/average 216,000 12

Energy recovery Unit Value for line 3, only)


Gross electricity production MWh/y 132,000

Sold electricity MWh/y 132,000




% 98,6


Ref 8576206/834-082110 20/22

Base data for line 3 and 4:

Energy recovery Unit Without heat pump

in operation

With heat pump in

operation

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis)

MW 89.9 89.9

Gross electricity production MW 18.7 14.3

Gross heat output MW 60.8 83.4


% 88.4 109

Efficiency, Power % 21 16

Efficiency, Heat % 68 93

4.8 Reno Nord Location: Aalborg, Denmark Ownership: Intermunicipal company. Number of WTE-lines: 2 Commissioning year of each: Line 3 (1992) and line 4 (2006) Energy recovery system: Line 3 and 4: Steam boiler, turbine with electricity production and district-heating generation. Line 4 is further equipped with flue gas condensation and increased district-heating production (by heat exchange between condenser liquid and district-heating water). Reno-Nord is optimised for very high electricity production and at the same time a high heat production. The high power production is obtained optimised steam parameters and optimised turbine design. Waste types: Throughput

(ton/y), line 4, only


Comments

MSW

Commercial

Industrial

Other

Sum/average 160,000 12

Ref 8576206/834-082110 21/22

Energy recovery Unit Value (estimate for

line 4, only)







% 95,5

*:thermal efficiency is defined as (gross electricity and heat production in per-cent of total thermal input) Base data for line 4: Energy recovery Unit Without con-

densation in operation

With con-densation in

operation

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis)

MW 66.7 66.7

Gross electricity production MW 18.0 18.0

Gross heat output MW 44.0 47.3


% 93 98

Efficiency, Power % 27 27

Efficiency, Heat % 66 71

4.9 Isle of Man Location: Isle of Man Ownership: Public (Government of Isle of Man) Number of WTE-lines: 1 Commissioning year of each: 2004 Energy recovery system: Steam boiler, electricity generation. The plant gener-ates electricity only. In order to keep a low investment cost and as the main purpose at this islands was to incinerated the waste no specific optimisation have been done in order to optimise the power production. If optimised electric-ity production have been requested the power efficiency could have been opti-mised as shown in the above scenario.

Ref 8576206/834-082110 22/22

Waste types: Throughput (ton/y)


Comments

MSW 54,000

Commercial 2,000

Industrial

Other 200 Tyres

Sum/average 56,200 10.5

Energy recovery Unit Value

Thermal input by waste (LHV-basis) GJ/y 590,100


Sold electricity MWh/y

Gross heat output GJ/y 0

Heat sold GJ/y 0


% 20.7


4.10 Conclusion – Energy production Based on the scenario presented above the electricity production is between approx. 20 – 27%. With optimised design – and a higher investment – the power efficiency can be as high as 27%, whereas the power efficiency is typically closer to 21-23% is not specific precautions are taken. With even higher steam pa-rameters (Amsterdam) and design optimizations it is possible to reach 30%, but with higher risk.

The heat production is in general between 85-89% if no specific precautions are taken. In case the price for district heat allows it the efficiency can be optimised by means of heat pumps.

The highest, total energy efficiency is achieved at EFW facilities producing both heat and power. In these cases the efficiency is close to 100% and in case of heat pumps above 100%.


Appendix B

Emissions Data from Commercial MBT Projects – Juniper Consultance Services Ltd.

Juniper

Emissions Data

Date finalised: 30th April 2009 Client: AECOM

Status: Final to Client Contact: Konrad Fichtner

EMISSIONS DATA FROM COMMERCIAL MBT PROJECTS

Research: Egan Archer, BEng (hons), MSc(Eng), PhD, AMIChemE

Sylvia Austermann, BEng (hons), MSc

© Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd

Bathurst House, Bisley Road, Stancombe, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL6 7NH, England Telephone: +44 1452 770078 Fax: +44 1453 860882 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.juniper.co.uk/

Registered in England Number: 2580687 VAT Registration Number: GB 572 6379 12

Independent Review

E m i s s i o n s f r o m M B T f o r M e t r o Va n c o u v e r P r o j e c t Page: 2

Juniper

Important Note:

Our Review has been conducted on a completely independent basis. Neither KIV or Orchid Environmental had any involvement in determining the direction of our enquiries or the development of our conclusions.

Our review considers only those matters identified in the Terms of Reference. This report summarises our initial views from the appraisal of information provided to us by KIV about their technology, site appraisal of two of KIV’s reference projects in Slovenia and face-to-face interviews with KIV’s management team at their Vransko offices also in Slovenia. In reaching our conclusions we have drawn upon our knowledge of novel and conventional thermal technologies and related MBT and MHT technologies, international Best Practice as it relates to waste management and the benefits, issues and challenges in relation to implementing a thermal technology in the UK.

During the preparation of this report, we have relied upon the accuracy of the underlying information provided to us.

In line with the Terms of Reference this is a preliminary review and not a full technical Due Diligence. Opinions or conclusions where expressed should not be relied on without further more detailed evaluation of potential issues. For this reason we explicitly decline any liability for any decisions or actions, taken by United Utilities or Third Parties (including inter alia, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority), whether direct or indirect, arising out of our analysis or the wider consideration of the matters reported on herein.

The absence of comment should not be taken as an endorsement of the information we reviewed. A fuller consideration of the complex matters under review and more detailed analysis might lead to a change in the views contained in this preliminary report.

This report has been prepared by Juniper with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within our Terms and Conditions. Because of the preliminary and limited nature of this review we do not warrant the accuracy of the analysis and there is no implied endorsement or validation of the data reviewed. While we have taken reasonable precautions to check the accuracy of our analysis,

Copyright in this document is reserved to ourselves. The report may not be reproduced without prior authority. A license for its reproduction has been granted by Juniper to United Utilities.

© Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd, 2009

T +44 1452 770078 E [email protected] W www.juniper.co.uk

Independent Review




Juniper

Background

The Canadian construction and infrastructure company AECON are modelling a number of residual waste management scenarios for Metro Vancouver to evaluate, amongst other factors, the environmental impacts of using Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), waste to energy and landfilling to treat residual waste in Vancouver. We understand that 3 of the scenarios being modelled are based on an MBT-led approach.

Juniper is recognised as one of the leading independent analysts within the international waste management sector. Our work in analysing MBT technologies is well regarded worldwide and as a result we were retained to provide specific input to AECON of real world MBT emissions data.

We have focussed our research on obtaining relevant emissions data from European MBT plants as the technology is most advanced in this part of the world and second and third generation systems have been implemented. Abatement of emissions from MBT plants in the EU is now standard practice. We are aware of MBT facilities outside the EU that are also closely regulated, but typically, these employ European technology and EU Best Practice in terms of emissions abatement. Outside the EU, certain rudimentary – first generation – MBT systems are still being used. Many of these types of plant have some rudimentary odour abatement, but rarely monitor other emissions to air .

This summary includes:

Relevant information pertaining to emissions control in the EU.

Emissions data from a wide range of public domain and plant specific sources. Where appropriate we have anonymised our source as on occasions the data was provided under confidentiality terms.

Relevant information about the throughput of the plants (in Tonnes per annum) and the the type of emissions control used.

Schematics of the configuration of MBT plant to which the data relate. This will help you to best match the data with the details of the MBT scenarios you are modelling.

Regulation of emissions from MBT

There are no mandatory requirements in European Union regulations that emissions from MBT are abated to certain levels. However, relevant guidance is provided on what should be achieved, in terms of emissions abatement, if Best Available Abatement Technology (BAT) is used:

1. Guidelines on fugitive emissions from plants incorporating biological waste treatment;

2. Guidelines on emissions from the combustion of biogas, which includes that produced from Anaerobic Digestion-based MBT plants.

Independent Review




Juniper

In relation to 1 and 2, the following guideline limits are provided in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Figure 2: EU guidelines emissions levels associated with the use of BAT

Parameter Emissions levels

Odour (OUE/Nm3) <500 - 6000

Ammonia (mg/Nm3) < 1 - 20

VOC (mg/Nm3) 7 – 201

Particulate Matter (mg/Nm3) 5 - 20

1. For low VOC loads, the higher end of the range can be extended to 50

Normal (N) conditions refer to 273K, 101.3 kPa Source: EC Reference Document on Best Available Technologies for waste treatment industries, Chapter 5, page 521 and 525, August 2005.

Figure 3: Emissions guidelines for the combustion of biogas in the EU

Pollutants/Parameters Biogas, mg/Nm3 Exhaust gases, mg/Nm3

AOX - (Adsorbable organically bound halogens) <150

Dust < 10-50

CO 100-650 1

NOx 100-500 2

SO2 < 50-500

H2S < 5

Hydrocarbons (VOCs) < 50 – 150

HCl < 10-30

HF < 2-5

Normal (N) conditions refer to 273K, 101.3 kPa and 5% O2. 1. When using spark ignition engines with low heat capacity (e.g. <3MWth) the value of 650 may be difficult to achieve. In those

cases, 1000 can be seen as more achievable.

2. When using pilot injection engines with low firing capacity (e.g. <3MW) the achieved values are 1000. The lower end of the range can only be achieved with abatement

Source: EC Reference Document on Best Available Technologies for waste treatment industries, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.6, August 2005.

So far in the EU, Germany has implemented strict regularly limits on MBT emissions that apply to all MBT plants operating in this country1. These limits are shown in Figure 15. We are aware of at least one case where the permitting authority in Germany has agreed stricter limits on certain species with the MBT plant operator. This is also shown in Figure 4.

1 Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2001, 30th Federal Immission Control Ordinance (30. BImSchV)

Independent Review




Juniper

Austria has “recommended” guideline limits to the permitting authority that cover a wide range of emissions from MBT. These limits are in Figure 15.

Environmental permits relating to aerobic type MBT in England and Wales are now covered under “Standard Environmental Permits” - Standard rules SR2008No18_5kte – nonhazardous. These standards require enclosed processing of the materials and only allow emissions via biofilters or similar proven technology. Apart from the mention of the need to abate odours and noise, there are no specific limits on air emissions. Such limits are set locally and therefore specific enforcements limits can be different for different MBT facilities in England and Wales.

Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands

Figure 4: Mandatory emissions limits for MBT plants in Germany

Germany (30. BImSchV)1

Target Values of the MBT Facility in Neumünster, Germany

Total Organic Carbon

Daily-mean (mg/m3) 20 15

½-h-mean (mg/m3) 40 40

Load2 (g/Mg) 55 55

Dust

Daily-mean (mg/m3) 10 7

½-h-mean (mg/m3) 30 15

N2O

Load1 (g/Mg) 100 100

Dioxins (ng/m3) 0.1 0.1

Odour (OU/m3) ≤ 500 ≤ 500

1. Conditions for reporting emissions in Germany refer to 273K, 101.3 kPa. No O2 limit is specified (no corrections for O2)

2. Emission of the pollutant applied to the weight of the waste input to the treatment plant (concentration*emission volume / waste input to MBT

3.

Figure 5: Guideline limits used in Austria

Austria

(MBA-Richtlinie - 2002)

Independent Review




Juniper

Total Organic Carbon

Daily-mean (mg/m3) 20

½-h-mean (mg/m3) 40

Load2 (g/Mg) 100

Dust


½-h-mean (mg/m3)

N2O

Load1 (g/Mg)

Dioxins (ng/m3) 0.1

Odour (OU/m3) ≤ 500

NOx


½-h-mean (mg/m3) 150

Ammonia (mg/m3) 20

Conditions for reporting emissions in Austria refer to 273K, 101.3 kPa, 5% O2.

MBT emissions data – summary information

There is a general paucity of information in the public domain relating to the emissions from MBT plants. This is not surprising considering that regulation of such emissions is still in its infancy in many countries as MBT is a relatively new technology approach.

Germany, Italy and Spain are the EU-leaders in terms of MBT plants that have been implemented and unsurprisingly the majority of the data available relates to facilities in these 3 countries, but for different configurations of MBT. The majority of the Spanish projects are based on AD and it is often the case that the outputs are used as soil improver rather than sent to landfill or used as fuel. Therefore the little data available for MBT in Spain would not fit the scenarios you are modelling.

Bio-stabilisation for landfilling

The majority of the MBT plants that operate in Germany are of the ‘bio-stabilisation’ variant because of the specific regulations in that country that requires intensive treatment of bio-outputs1 prior to landfilling. This variant of MBT is likely to be relevant to your Scenario 6: MSW is

1 Reference to AT4

Independent Review


Juniper

stabilised at an MBT plant, and subsequently sent to landfill. Generic schematics of this variant of MBT as used in Germany are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Specific plant implementations may vary as shown later.

Figure 6: Generic configuration for composting-based MBT plant in Germany

RDF

Landfill Intensive composting + maturation

MSW Mechanical Treatment

Dry recyclables Rejects

Stabilised Output

Losses (CO2 & Water)

Fugitive emissions Process gases Biofilter

Acid Scrubber + RTO

Source: Juniper schematic

Figure 7: Generic configuration for AD-based MBT plant in Germany

RDF

Anaerobic Digestion MSW

Mechanical Treatment

Metals Rejects Losses (CO2 & Water)

Landfill

Acid Scrubber + RTO

Maturation

Biogas to engines

Stabilised Output

Process gases Fugitive emissions Biofilter


It should be noted that the waste input to these types of MBT plants in Germany is typically residual waste that has been source segregated to remove food and green waste at the household as well as dry recyclables.

One concern may be the extent to which the solution being modelled in Scenario 6 would need to treat unsegregated kitchen and green waste as part of the input stream and hence how best to gauge the impact of this on the loading of emissions that would require abatement and indeed the effectiveness of the various abatement techniques. In this regard we note the extent of the source



Independent Review


Juniper

segregation varies from one municipality to another in Germany and we have visited MBT plants that treat a significant proportion of unsegregated MSW. These facilities also need to meet the strict limits on emissions. Therefore, provided that proven and sufficient abatement measures are specified, the data from the German plants should be relevant.

In Germany all MBT plants have to abate emissions from the intensive composting phase of the process using Regenerative Thermal Oxidisers (RTOs). These are more efficient at destroying VOCs and N2O than traditional biofilters1, but have high capital, operating and maintenance costs. As a result the emissions reported from Germany reflect the latest state-of-the-art MBT emissions abatement being used in the EU.

Outside Germany the bio-stabilisation variant of MBT is only widespread in Austria, which has similar requirements in terms of the bio-stability (respiratory index) of the bio-output for landfilling. There are plants utilising this variant of MBT in Italy, but the bio-stabilisation requirements in Italy2 are different from those in Germany and Austria.

The data in Figure 8 shows the information that is recorded (half-hourly, daily and monthly sampling as well as that from spot sample) in line with the requirements of the 30 BImSch (see Figure 4).

Figure 8: Emission data as reported for bio-stabilisation MBT based on data sets from 5 facilities

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pa

rtic

ula

tes

Tot

al C

Pa

rtic

ula

tes

Tot

al C CO

SO

2

NO

2

N2

O

Tot

al C

(g

/tonn

eoi

f in

put

)

N2O

(g

/tonn

e o

fin

put

)

To

tal

Par

ticul

ate

N2

0

Tot

al C

HC

L

HF

H2

S

SO

2

NO

x

1/2-hourlyaverage

Daily average Monthlyaverage

Spot' samples

Em

iss

ion

s in

mg

/m3

(u

nle

ss s

tate

d o

the

rwis

e)

Min

Max

Source: Multiple (Data published by various municipalities and the facility operating company)

1 In some plants biofilters are still used to abate odours and other fugitive emissions from within plant building such as feed bunkers and mechanical processing buildings. 2 Italy standards for biostabilisation



Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 9: Min and Max of all data reported for bio-stabilisation MBT

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Partic

ulat

es

Total C CO

SO2

NO2

N2O

Total C

(g/to

nne

of in

put)

N2O (g

/tonn

e of

inpu

t)HCL

HFH2S

SO2

NOx

Em

issi

on

s in

mg

/m3

(u

nles

s st

ated

oth

erw

ise)

Min

Max

Source: (Data published by various municipalities and the facility operating company)

Producing an RDF from MBT

Essentially all MBT can produce RDF from the high calorific value material that is separated ahead of the biological stage of the process. This separation is necessary in some instances because of the need to reduce contamination to the biological stage as is the case for MBT based on wet anaerobic digestion, but it also can be because of the requirement in some EU states, mainly Germany and Austria to limit the organic carbon content of material going to landfill. Therefore as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, facilities configured to biostabilised waste for landfilling in Germany will also produce RDF.

Scenarios 3 and 4 to specifically produce RDF from MBT would fall under the category of MBT widely referred to as biodrying – moisture is driven off due to the biological activity of the waste. A generic schematic of this approach is shown Figure 10.

Biodrying in the configuration shown is operational at c. 6 plants in Germany, 1 plant in Belgium, 3 in the UK and more than 10 plants in Italy. The fines from these types of facilities may contain significant biodegradable material. The extent to which this is the case depends on process complexity and the degree to which such material is incorporated into the final RDF product. Many of the facilities of this kind that operate in Italy and the UK send the fines to landfill without further treatment. If treatment were to be required this would add costs, but unlikely to pose any



Independent Review


Juniper

particular issues in relation to the abated emissions load from an overall plant using proven abatement measures.


Dry recyclables

RDF Bio drying

Air emissions

Screening & Refinement

Rejects Losses

(mainly water and some CO2) Fines

Biofilter or RTO

MSW


Figure 10 shows data from two plants in Germany configured as biodrying MBT for which data was available. This data is from facilities taking German residual waste and using RTO as the emissions abatement.

Emissions data for dioxin and furan reported as Total Equivalent (TEQ) are summarised in FigureXXX.

Odour data is the most widely reported from MBT facilities and a summary of data from a number of sources we have assessed in compiling this briefing note is shown in Figure 14.

We were promised data from the supplier of the majority of the biodrying plants in Italy and the 3 in the UK, but this was not forthcoming in time for this briefing note. We feel that this additional data will be useful to you as it will cover a significant proportion of the biodrying plants operational worldwide. Also the data would be useful in helping you to compare the results from the use of biofilters rather than RTOs for emissions abatement as practiced in the majority of the Italian biodrying projects and the 3 facilities in the UK.



Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 11: Emission data as reported for biodrying MBT based on 2 data sets

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Particulates Total C Particulates Total C Total C(g/tonne of

input)

N2O (g/tonneof input)

Mercury(micro

gram/m3)

Ammonia Total HeavyMetals (micro

gram/m3)

Half-hourly average Daily average Monthly average Spot Samples

Em

issi

on

s in

mg

/m3

(unl

ess

stat

ed o

ther

wis

e)

Min

Max

Source: Multiple



Independent Review


Juniper


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Particulates Total C Total C (g/tonneof input)

N2O (g/tonne ofinput)

Mercury (micrograms/m3)

Ammonia Total HeavyMetals (micro

grams/m3)

Em

issi

on

s in

mg

/m3

(unl

ess

stat

ed o

ther

wis

e)

Min

Max

Source: Multiple



Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 13: Summary of emissions of dioxins and furans (TEQ) for bio-stabilisation & biodrying

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

Biostabilisation RDF

Em

issi

on

s in

ng

/m3

Min

Max

Source: Multiple



Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 14: Summary of emissions of Odour for MBT-bio stabilisation and MBT-biodrying

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Biostabilisation RDF

Em

issi

on

s in

OU

/m3

Min

Max

Source: Multiple



Independent Review




Juniper

MBT emissions data – Raw data for bio-stabilisation variants

Name of Facility Vorketzin Location Vorketzin Country Germany

Throughput (kTpa)

Total: 190 Residual MSW: 150

Commercial Waste: 30 Sewage Sludge: 10

To biological stage: 96

Technology IVC

Facility start-up 2005

Air emission abatement Composting: Acid Scrubber, RTO

Maturation: Biofilter Data 2006 2008 Continuous measurements: Annual average Half-hourly Particulates (mg/Nm3) 2.58 Total C (mg/Nm3) 15.13 Daily Average Particulates (mg/Nm3) 2.07 Total C (mg/Nm3) 15.15 CO (mg/Nm3) 1.89 SO2 (mg/Nm3) 24.92 NO2 (mg/Nm3) 14.23 Monthly average Total C (g/Mg) 49.83 43.3 N2O (g/Mg) 99.93 38.27 Data Points Data Points Spot' samples 1 2 3 1 2 3

Dioxines & Furans (ng/m3) 0.0004 0.001

5 0.002

Odour (OU/m3) 381 538 359 300 380 Odour (OU/m3) 230 320 Total Particulates (mg/Nm3) 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.1 Odour (OU/m3) 135 151 190 340 380 320

Independent Review




Juniper

Name of Facility Rhein - Lahn Location Singhofen Country Germany

Throughput (kTpa)


Commercial waste: 10 “Large” items:10

Technology IVC

Air emission abatement Dust filter

Acid Scrubber, RTO

Date of data 2005/2006 2008 Continuous measurements: 1 2 Half-hourly Particulates (mg/Nm3) 0.75 0.76 0.07 Total C (mg/Nm3) 2.16 5.06 10.2

Daily Average Particulates (mg/Nm3) 0.5 0.5 0.09 Total C (mg/Nm3) 2.25 5.1 10.2 CO (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3) NO2

(mg/Nm3) N2O(mg/m3)

Monthly average Total C (g/Mg) 19.9 28.5 N2O (g/Mg) 74 26.5 Spot' samples Yearly Average Daily Max Dioxins & Furans (ng/m3) 0.0005 Odour (OU/m3) 312 Odour (OU/m3) Total Particulates (mg/Nm3) 0.09 0.55 Odour (OU/m3) N20 10.1 72.8 Total C 10.2 43.9

Independent Review




Juniper

Name of facility Lübeck Location Lübeck Country Germany

Throughput (kTpa)


Commercial waste: 54 Sewage sludge: 26

Technology AD+IVC

Start-up 2006

Air emission abatement RTO

Date of data 2007 Continuous measurements Half-hourly Particulates (mg/Nm3) Total C (mg/Nm3)

Daily Average Particulates (mg/Nm3) 0.71 Total C (mg/Nm3) 7.9 CO (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3) NO2 (mg/Nm3) N2O(mg/m3) 14.88

Monthly average Total C (g/Mg) 48.41 N2O (g/Mg) 91.22 Spot' samples Dioxins & Furans (ng/m3) Below detection limit Odour (OU/m3) 366.67

Independent Review




Juniper

Name of Facility Schwanebeck Location Nauen Country Germany

Throughput (kTpa)

Total: 88.5 Residual MSW: 69

Commercial waste:12.5 Large Items: 7

Technology IVC

Start-up 2005

Air emission abatement RTO

Date of data 2006 Cont Measurements: 1 2 Half-hourly Particulates (mg/Nm3) Total C (mg/Nm3)

Daily Average Particulates (mg/Nm3) 1.388 Total C (mg/Nm3) 4.477 CO (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3) NO2 (mg/Nm3) N2O(mg/m3)

Monthly average Total C (g/Mg) 19.6 N2O (g/Mg) 29 Spot' samples 1 2 3 Dioxins & Furans (ng/m3) 0.0005 0.0004 Odour (OU/m3) 1059 749 707 Odour (OU/m3) Total Particulates (mg/Nm3) Odour (OU/m3) 297 315 223 N20 Total C CO (mg/Nm3) 3.5 5.4 4.5

NO2 (mg/Nm3) 50.9 59.4 52.8

SO2 (mg/Nm3) 18.2 19.4 22.9

Name of Facility Schöneiche

Independent Review




Juniper

Location Zossen Country Germany

Throughput (kTpa) Total:

Commercial Waste: 35 To biological stage: 145

Technology IVC

Start-up 2005

Air emission abatement RTO, Biofilter, Additional Biofilter and Acid Scrubber in Oct 08

Date of data 2008 Cont Measurements: Half-hourly Particulates (mg/Nm3) PM? Total C (mg/Nm3)

Daily Average Particulates (mg/Nm3) Total C (mg/Nm3) CO (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3) NO2 (mg/Nm3) N2O(mg/m3)

Monthly average Total C (g/Mg) 1.585 N2O (g/Mg) 0.006 Spot' samples Max Max + uncertainty Dioxins & Furans (ng/m3) 0.001 0.001 Odour (OU/m3) 120 180 Total Particulates (mg/Nm3) Odour (OU/m3) N20 Total C CO (mg/Nm3) NO2 (mg/Nm3) SO2 (mg/Nm3) Mercury (g /m3) Ammonia (mg/m3) Total Heavy Metals (g/m3) HCl 19.8 21.4 HF 3.7 (0.44) 3.95 (0.69) H2S 0.67 0.72 SO2 0.069 0.074 NOx 0.026 0.029

Independent Review




Juniper

needs to be abated might be different treat unsegregated is that Metro Vancouver ids the to county ounties in Germany.

require the For this preliminary appraisal, Dr Egan Archer visited two of KIVs reference plants in Slovenia on the 16th and 17th December 2008. Recommendations to visit these plants came from KIV, who facilitated the site visits. A 3rd plant in Slovenia (Elan) and another in Germany (Sulzbach) were also recommended by KIV’s staff for visits by Juniper, but no time was available to undertake these visits because of the tight timeline and limited budget allocated for this preliminary assessment. In our opinion it is important that both of these reference projects are visited in a full due diligence exercise.

The plants visited were Celje, which is being commissioned using a mixture of wood and SRF feedstock and the Vipap paper mill facility, which has operated for about 5 years processing a mixture of paper and wastewater sludges. Dr Archer also visited the Entsorga MBT facility that is producing the SRF from residual MSW that is now being processed at Celje.

Dr Archer also visited KIV’s Headquarters and Technology Centre in Vransko, Slovenia where the company carries out the research and development, design, engineering and fabrication of the key process elements for all their projects. During the course of our visit to Vransko, Dr Archer was able to interview key members of the KIV team involved in the design and implementation of the technology. He requested additional information as follow-on to items that were discussed in the interview with KIV’s management team. The assessment of any relevant information provided to us is included in this summary report.

Below we have commented on a number of topics. Our overall view on each is highlighted in blue text that follows immediately under each heading. The text that follows provides additional contextual information.

Overall initial views We have not identified any technical ‘stoppers’ during this initial review.

Areas where we feel KIV’s offering is strong in relation to the MWDA project

1. KIV has a relatively strong experience base compared to many other companies actively promoting novel technology aimed at small scale thermal processing of waste. We were impressed with their technical team and the general technical competencies of the management staff.

2. The technology configuration proposed for the RFW project has demonstrable operational track record. KIV appear to be very active with new projects and orders, indicating demand for what they have to offer.

3. They already have a long list of reference plants in a number of European countries. Data is available from most of these that underpins the strengths of KIV’s offering

4. Celje is a well engineered, state-of-the-art facility that can be used as a suitable reference for the relevant parties to see what KIV can deliver.

5. A suitably scaled test facility is available and has been used to trial Orchid’s SRF.

Independent Review




Juniper

6. Testing, plant design, plant engineering and fabrication of core process elements take place at a single purpose built facility.

Areas that will require more detailed assessment to gauge or confirm the extent to which they are positive for the MWDA bid

Scale: Implementing the technology at the required scale appears unlikely to be a source of significant technical risk, but this needs further more detailed consideration.

Availability: Plant availability at key reference plants has been satisfactory, but this will need to be reviewed in the context of the extent of your contractual commitments with MWDA.

Implementation timeline: The Company appears to have delivered key projects to time in a very satisfactory time frame, but they have never implemented a project in the UK, which could lengthen construction lead times as they develop contractual relationships with sub-contractors.

Scope of supply: The company is likely to be able to provide the full scope-of-supply including emissions abatement and energy recovery systems, control room facilities and software and data acquisition systems. But KIV’s ability to supply the specific requirements of the RfW project would need further investigation.

Emissions performance: The Company has relevant experience that gives some assurance that EU-WID compliance is unlikely to be an area of significant technical risk. However, this needs to be reviewed in the context of the specific gas cleaning train proposed for the MWDA project and other site-specific factors.

Resources: KIV appears to have good levels of resourcing for process design, engineering, project management and equipment fabrication. This however will require further assessment in the context of how they propose to deliver the RfW plant to the agreed delivery schedule. Also, one would need to consider what other contracts they may have to deliver within a similar time-scale, which could stretch resources and impact on their ability to deliver this project.

Areas we feel may constitute technical or bankability risks

Experience with waste: The Company does not yet have a reference project that has commercially processed SRF or similar waste derived fuel for an extended period of time.

Compatibility of technology with high CV SRF: Information available appears to indicate that processing relatively high CV (c. 14-19 MJ/kg) fuel might be less of an issue than one might assume. But the risk could be compounded by the processing capacity proposed for Celje and the RfW project.

Relevant trials with SRF: Trials so far with Orchid’s SRF have been limited. KIV told us that further trials will be needed before they can offer certain process guarantees.

Interface between KIV’s and Orchid’s supply: There appears to be no formal requirement in place as yet in relation to the specification of SRF that would be required by KIV for the RfW project. Evaluation of the risks with respect to Orchid achieving such requirements cannot therefore be considered at this time.

Reference plant data: We are concerned that at the time of evaluation of the remaining 4 bids by MWDA, RfW might still not have access to a strong suite of operational data from Celje to underpin your Bid.

Independent Review




Juniper

Process design: KIV’s less well known furnace design and configuration may be a source of some concern to the authority’s Technical Advisors because the performance characteristics about this type of system might not be readily verifiable using examples of data from elsewhere.

Process performance: No mass and energy balance information from a commercially relevant plant is yet available. This may have potentially serious implications for the assumptions that have been used in RfW’s base-case financial model.

Gasification and ROC qualification: There is no existing evidence that the KIV process could be deemed to be Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT), and hence qualify for ROC incentive, in the UK. In fact our current understanding of the Renewables Obligation suggests that pursuing an ACT labelling with Ofgem for KIV in the context of the RfW project would not be straightforward and may impact on project bankability (depending upon the assumptions included within the financial model provided to funders) and considerable impact on timetables. Although not strictly a technical or bankability issue, it should be noted that this could also adversely impact on planning and possibly also the probability of success in the contract.

Availability of information and data for this review

KIV cooperated fully with our work and this, we feel, is important for RfW’s bid. Because the company so far has relatively little UK visibility and the process is relatively new here, KIV’s track record overseas may come under heavy scrutiny by the various parties’ technical advisors, and for this, KIV’s cooperation to obtain necessary data and clarification will be a key factor.

KIV were able to provide in good time the majority of the information requested. At no time did we get the impression that the company withheld key facts from this initial appraisal of their technology offering. The discussions we held with them in Slovenia were well staffed with their senior management team. We also had access to a senior member of KIV’s engineering and design team. During the course of our site visits, we were allowed free access to plant operators.

Overall process concept

KIV has indicated to Juniper, in response to questioning during our site appraisal that they intend to provide a very similar process configuration for the RfW project to what they have implemented at many of their reference installations.

The process design at the Celje plant was cited as the most relevant example of what is proposed for the RfW project. We gathered from our discussions that KIV are proposing to supply the complete process train: the thermal conversion technology; a fully proven boiler/steam turbine configuration and a dry WID-compliant flue gas cleaning process. We understand that KIV has implemented this full scope of supply in at least two plants: Sulzbach, Germany and Celje, Slovenia.

Whilst the KIV thermal technology is proven in commercial operation, experience in processing SRF as opposed to biomass is very limited. We consider this latter aspect to imply certain technology risks.

It is our understanding that the process design would be finalised only after the completion of satisfactory trials at KIV’s own pilot facility with fuel material from Orchid and after the suppliers of the individual equipment packages have been finalised with RfW. Therefore, it is essential for RfW to continue to assess this risk and to structure your offer in such a way that you have a right of veto over all design, variations to specification and over the scope-of-supply being proposed.

Independent Review


Juniper

Configuration of the core process elements

KIV’s standard process design is fully demonstrated in commercial operation. Our preliminary view is that this is unlikely to be an area of high technical risk, as the company does not intend to make any significant design changes to core systems.

However it should be noted that KIV’s furnace design is relatively unusual: individually operated twin, air cooled, moving grates are housed in a single chamber and are fed individually by twin screw conveyors (see Figure 16). But we are satisfied that this unusual design should not be a particular concern because this is KIV’s standard furnace configuration, which they have implemented at relevant scale in multiple reference plants for which substantial operational data appears to be available.

For example, KIV’s Celje reference plant has twin 9 MW furnaces and KIV’s largest WID compliant plant in Sulzbach, Germany has twin 11.5 MW furnaces. The Vipap plant Juniper visited has twin 7.2 MW furnaces.

Figure 15: Two sets of independent grate hydraulics for the twin grates at the Vipap plant

Source: Juniper photograph

It is possible that the contracting Authority’s or Lender’s technical advisor may be unfamiliar with KIV’s unconventional process design and therefore might have initial concerns about its robustness. We feel that such potential concerns can be addressed proactively through a fuller assessment of the pros and cons of KIV’s furnace configuration, using the data available, to make the case that the process configuration is tried, tested and deliverable. RfW may wish to consider commissioning such analysis for inclusion in a Technical Briefing Note as an Appendix to your Bid Documentation.



Independent Review




Juniper

Experience and resources

KIV has significant experience with the technology that is being proposed for the RfW project for MWDA. Their resources to trial a range of feedstock, design, engineer, fabricate and implement their standard system are also impressive and a key strength. But we have already pointed to the potential of their resources being stretched in the likelihood that they have to deliver other projects on a similar timeframe as the RfW project.

KIV has been in business for more than 60 years, but many of these years were in the metal fabrication business rather than with their thermal technology. With the latter, most of the significant work appears to have been completed in the last 20 years or so.

The six-man management team boasts an impressive 98 years as KIV employees between them and we understood during our appraisal of the facilities at Vransko that many of the design, engineering and fabrication staff have more than 10 years of experience with the company.

KIV’s ability to: facilitate pilot trials for a wide range of feedstock; undertake process design; remotely monitor key reference plants; engineer and fabricate many of the core components of their process is advantageous in the context of project delivery. We also feel that their capability to fully trial feedstock is a significant plus that is invaluable in the context of developing a project to treat waste derived fuel in the UK.

Based on our discussions with members of the KIV team and information provided to us it is apparent that the company has grown significantly in size in the last few years. The rapid increase in turnover since 2006 seems to have been a direct result of this. We wanted to get an initial sense of whether this high level of growth was attributable to KIV undertaking more or larger projects in 2007/8 relative to previous years and therefore whether the company had sufficient resources to underpin projects moving forward, as we understand that further significant growth is planned for 2009. At this stage we can gather relatively little conclusive evidence from the information provided and feel that KIV’s ability to resource the project proposed by RfW needs further detailed evaluation, particularly as they have made it clear to us that their preference would be to design, engineer and fabricate the first UK projects in Slovenia.

Provenness and track record

KIV’s reference plant base is strong. Since the early 1990’s KIV has supplied c.13 reference plants in 3 different countries to process various wastes and in the last 10 years alone more than 150 biomass boilers in more than 10 countries. However, the company is yet to process SRF on a commercial basis and this is a contingent risk for the RfW project.

KIV’s experience with processing municipal waste derived fuel (SRF/RDF) is so far very limited. Their flagship reference plant in Celje is being commissioned and received its first SRF input the day Juniper visited the plant. We understand from conversations with the KIV team that commissioning at this plant is expected to continue for some months into 2009 and therefore relevant performance data is not yet available for review. Some of the key issues that would require verification in a fuller due diligence exercise would be the:

availability of the KIV process in handling the Entsorga SRF;

throughput of SRF versus design;

extent to which SRF is being mixed with wood;

variability of composition of the SRF being received from the Entsorga MBT plant;

Independent Review




Juniper

ability of the facility to comply with the EU-WID emissions limits;

energy efficiency of conversion.

Despite their lack of experience with treating SRF/RDF, KIV’s technology has been used to process various ‘difficult wastes’ including: paper sludge; a mixture of packaging, municipal and hospital wastes and a mixture of polyester, epoxy polyamide, foil and packaging waste. It is apparent from the contextual information we received during our site appraisal that these plants have operated with a high level of availability (> 85%) for at least 5 years. Whilst we consider this experience as being relevant to KIV’s overall track record (as it can be used to demonstrate the wide range of CV and composition of waste feeds KIV’s technology can handle), a fuller assessment of the actual track record of key reference plants would be required for us to be satisfied that this element of KIV’s experience can substantially alleviate technology risks associated with processing a waste derived fuel.

Crucially, KIV has access to data from key reference plants. In fact during our visit to Vransko, the engineers showed us their remote link to real-time plant data in Sulzbach. We regard this as a key positive in helping the company to troubleshoot, refine and optimise their process offering for future projects.

Scope-of-supply

KIV’s main experience relates to their boiler technology. However, their recent waste projects suggest that they can provide the full scope of supply. This is a positive aspect for the RfW project as interface and process integration risks involving more than one supplier can be avoided.

KIV’s preferred strategy is to provide the full scope of supply for the thermal waste treatment plant for RfW. We understand that the company has provided the full scope for their recent waste projects including Sulzbach, Elan and Celje. Based on what we saw during our site appraisal at Celje it is evident that KIV is specifying state-of-the-art gas cleaning and CHP technology alongside their thermal technology.

More Public Authorities in the UK are requiring contractors to specify all sub-contractors in order to validate the extent to which potential interface issues have been de-risked. Therefore, further assessment of KIV’s scope-of-supply would be needed in the context of specific sub-contractors they may identify for the RfW project. This will be to ensure that the arrangements are in keeping with the contract terms and that the sub-contractors have sufficient track record and experience to underpin their own supply. KIV has not done a project in the UK and therefore this could raise some potential issues as some of their subcontractors might not be well known here.

Reliability of key process elements

One focus of our questions to KIV was the reliability of key process elements such as grate bars, refractory and fuel feeding system. Whilst in this preliminary review there did not appear to be major issues with regard to these process elements at key reference plants, further more specific assessment would be needed in a fuller Due Diligence exercise. This fuller assessment will need to consider items that should include, but not be limited to:

the robustness of the twin-screw feeder arrangement used by KIV (see Figure 16) to feed SRF into the furnace;

the reliability of grate bars and change-out frequency;

Independent Review


Juniper

the reliability of the refractory and track record of the refractory supplier;

secondary fuel burner arrangements;

the reliability of the CHP system proposed.

Figure 16: KIV standard dual screw feeder arrangement

On line at Celje Being fabricated at Vransko

Source: Juniper photograph (left) and KIV’s photograph (right)

Feedstock

The extent to which the feedstock is defined for the RfW project, trials conducted with SRF and potential areas of risk associated with it are addressed in separate topics below.

Quality of SRF input required

More information is needed to ascertain whether Orchid would have any issues meeting KIV’s fuel specification requirements.

KIV provided Juniper with details of the SRF composition that is expected from the Entsorga facility. The specifications include: particle size; bulk density; moisture content and calorific value. Such requirements are not unusual and, based on our knowledge of similar fuel specifications being demanded by end-users in the waste sector, KIV’s requirements might be less onerous than most.

Both KIV and Orchid, during our site visits, made reference to the fact that the SRF specification for Celje is a good yard-stick by which one could gauge the SRF composition that Orchid will have to meet. However, we note the Celje fuel is to be mixed with sewage sludge to ensure that the input meets the 13.5 MJ/kg design criteria. In our view a high priority for RfW is an evaluation of KIV’s requirements for processing the higher CV input envisaged from Orchid in relation to what is achievable with the Orchid process. It seemed to us in this preliminary review that there had so far been insufficient focus on this parameter. In our opinion as long as the quality of input required by KIV for the RfW project remains undetermined, there will remain a significant level of technical and bankability risks.



Independent Review




Juniper

Range of CVs with which the process can operate

KIV has highly relevant processing experience with a wide range of CV wastes. This experience should help alleviate some of our concerns about the technical risks associated with processing Orchid’s SRF. However, operating a project using relatively high CV at the capacity proposed for RfW has not yet been achieved. This could involve a number of engineering issues in relation to the design, which require more detailed consideration in a fuller Due Diligence review.

During this appraisal Orchid indicated to us that the SRF they wish to produce for utilisation by KIV would have calorific values in the range 16-17 MJ/kg. This type of feedstock would pose particular challenges for conventional moving grate incinerators, potentially requiring high capital cost water-cooled variants. We therefore wanted to establish whether the KIV technology has been used to process such high CV wastes and whether there were any specific aspects of their process design that were particularly beneficial in this regard.

During questioning by Juniper, it was apparent that KIV were fully aware of the particular advantages of their process design, which they explained was specifically engineered so that gasification thermodynamics were (with reported Lambda, λ, values c. 0.67) prevalent in the primary waste conversion zone of the reactor. They pointed to the fact that the quasi-gasification mode of operation was fundamental to the process’ ability to handle relatively high CV waste feedstock (c. 17-20 MJ/kg) without the need for forced cooling (usually using water cooling) of the grates as would be necessary for more conventional incineration systems.

We have now seen data from one of KIV’s plants that process wastes with CVs above 17 MJ/kg: Elan, Slovenia (16-19 MJ/kg). We were also informed that their reference plant in Sisak, Croatia, also takes feedstock with high CV, but no data was made available to us for this review. Operating availability data provided for Elan, indicates that the plant was offline for unscheduled maintenance for about 8 days since full operation started in 2002. This is impressive, but we note that the Elan plant is not operated continuously throughout the year because of lack of waste. The data provided showed that in 2008 Elan operated for c. 3,200 hours. Notwithstanding the apparent high level of availability since operation started in 2002, more detailed assessment would be needed to provide assurances that KIV’s process can operate with high CV waste as per design in a reliable and continuous manner.

Data from the Vipap plant, which treat wastes (paper sludge + sewage sludge) of CV 7-8 MJ/kg also shows that the technology has operated at this plant satisfactorily.

Celje has been cited as an important reference plant to demonstrate that the KIV process can handle high CV waste input. We do not fully accept this, since we note from data provided by KIV that this plant is designed for an input of 13.5 MJ/kg. Although the SRF from Entsorga is expected to have a CV 16-18 MJ/kg this is to be mixed with sewage sludge in normal operation, which is expected to have a CV of c. 1-3 MJ/kg.

Full scale operation with SRF

On the one hand we have little concern that KIV can implement their core technology at the scale required for the MWDA project; but on the other hand, the technology has yet to be operated at scale on a full commercial basis with SRF of the type proposed as input. Further, more detailed assessment will be necessary to determine whether the scale required in combination with the SRF CV envisaged, will compound technical risk.

Independent Review




Juniper

Whilst data from Celje may be beneficial in this regard, we noted earlier in this report that this plant is designed for much lower CV operation, c. 13.5 MJ/kg.

We understand that the KIV plant proposed for MWDA will utilise an 18MW furnace using their standard twin grate arrangement. Clearly KIV has supplied both waste and biomass plants at capacities similar to and greater than that required for the RfW project. In this regard we feel that the company’s ability to design, engineer, fabricate and implement the technology at the scale can be considered to be adequately demonstrated.

KIV has shared with us some Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model results of what appears to be their core thermal technology. The company had told us during questioning that CFD was a key aspect of their process scale-up. It was also used to verify WID compliant gas residence times and processing temperatures as well as help with certain process optimisation. The data provided to us about their CFD work is very limited and seems to show only the modelled gas phase velocity profiles. In a fuller technical appraisal we would also wish to see the CFD work they might have been undertaken in relation to temperature distribution, key species distribution (O2, CO etc.) as well as particle dispersion to determine whether any of these could be a potential issue in a full scale plant.

Pilot trials with Orchid’s SRF are also very relevant to operating at full scale. Our views on the trials conducted so far are in the next item of this summary.

In summary, while individually scale and feedstock have low and low-moderate technical risk respectively, combined, the risks could range from low to high. We recommend that this should be reviewed in some detail once trails with Orchid’s SRF have been completed (see below).

Trials with Orchid’s SRF at Vransko

The availability of a WID-compliant test plant, including gas cleaning train, for trialling Orchid’s SRF at KIV’s headquarters is a significant plus associated with selecting this company over others as the thermal technology supplier. KIV’s feedback on the trials conducted so far is promising, but they commented to us that further extended trials are needed. This has implications in terms of getting sufficient feedstock to Slovenia in good time. An area of concern is that the final outcome of the trials could result in tight acceptance limits for the SRF, which could prolong contract negotiations or, in the worst case result in them not being a viable supplier of the thermal technology. But the evidence that exists thus far suggests that KIV perceives the technical risks associated with processing Orchid’s SRF to be low, which is positive for RfW’s project. Notwithstanding this, the need for further trials is a material risk factor and we recommend that RfW should have a series of contingency arrangements.

Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 17: KIV pilot plant at Vransko

Source: KIV

KIV’s pilot plant is closer in scale to their commercial plants than is usually the case for many suppliers marketing novel thermal conversion processes. Scale-up is about an order of magnitude from pilot scale to the proposed commercial plant for RfW and we understand the plant is designed to test material with CV up to 20MJ/kg and up to 55% moisture.

KIV provided is with a report titled “Preliminary report on test incineration trial with waste provided by Orchid Recycling” as part of this review. This report relates to trials conducted at KIV’s pilot plant on the 18th November 2008 for 6 continuous hours with SRF (c. 450 kg) transported to Slovenia1.

The information seems to indicate that specific trial parameters such as the temperature achieved when processing SRF, the extent of SRF burnout and emissions of carbon monoxide and VOCs were acceptable. KIV’s preliminary conclusion is that the SRF can be treated within WID’s requirements. Despite KIV’s conclusion we feel further assessment in a fuller due diligence exercise would be needed about the following:

Full compositional analysis of the SRF used in the trials. This should be sampling of the material received rather than typical data of sent material from Orchid because of the possibility of moisture changes and biodegradation during storage and transport;

Confirm that there are no issues with feeding the SRF;

Composition of the process off gases, prior to cleaning;

Full emissions data (we understand that this will follow in the official report);

Proof of WID-compliance in terms of the residence time.

1 This can be contrasted with trials at KIV using SRF from the Entsorga’s MBT, which KIV told us was carried out over 4 days with c. 2.5 tonnes of SRF.



Independent Review




Juniper

Is KIV’s process gasification? Is the process certain to obtain ROCs?

Low risk to RfW considering the base-case requirement is for a WID-compliant boiler.

It is not self-evident that KIV’s preferred reactor configuration, where the primary waste conversion zone and the secondary combustion zone takes place concurrently in the same reactor, would be regarded as gasification in the UK. There is significant uncertainty whether KIV’s process could indeed be classed as gasification.

KIV themselves do not appear to be promoting their process as gasification. They have not considered until very recently conducting tests to verify whether their process could be compliant with UK requirements.

But we do note that there is scope to sample syngas at KIV’s pilot plant in Vransko because of the physical separation between the primary and secondary thermal stages at this plant.

Even if KIV were to get confirmation that their process is gasification, it does not follow that the electricity generated will qualify for double, rather than, single ROCs. This would require achieving the requirements of calorific value in the syngas as set out in Ofgem’s recent consultation in which the relationships between the calorific value of the syngas and qualification for single or double ROCs is stipulated.

The benefits of ROCs to the project, though not a technical factor, will need more careful assessment in the context of a number of technical and commercial risk factors. These would include: the possibility that KIV may need to change their preferred process configuration to one in which the primary and secondary zones are separated thus invoking additional technical risk; the quality of SRF that Orchid can supply on a sustained basis; the results of the ROC consultation and thus the actual value of ROCs to the project financials.

We understand that RfW’s modelled base-case scenario is for a WID-compliant boiler rather than a compliant gasifier. KIV should be able to meet the former requirement with ease. If on the other hand RfW requires KIV to demonstrate that what they are proposing is gasification that can meet Ofgem’s requirements, then we regard that as a very real contingent uncertainty for the project and thus more detailed, separate independent evaluation of any measurements or calculations made by KIV would need to be conducted, which is outside the scope of this review.

Plant availability

Data we have seen shows that plant availability at key projects has been satisfactory in the context of RfW’s base-case position that requires the proposed plant for MWDA to operate for 8,000 hours per annum. But these projects handle different feedstock than that proposed for the MWDA project. In addition this would be KIV’s first UK project.

We have reviewed availability data from 3 of KIV’s plants. This information was provided to us under confidentiality constraints because the operators would, understandably, be concerned about the release of some of this information into the public domain. The extent to which the performance of each of these individual plants demonstrates the operational reliability and maintenance requirements of the KIV process varies, but we are satisfied that the data provided to us does not indicate any serious issues in relation to the performance of these reference plants, indeed the data from two of these indicates that the KIV process is capable of operating with high availability on relatively difficult waste streams. We would also comment that such operational data from ‘real’ reference plants is not available for many competing technologies and thus this is an advantage for KIV.

Independent Review




Juniper

This is an encouraging indication that KIV’s technology can provide an assurance that the process design is well established. The company showed that they are well aware of the robustness of design that is needed to underpin 8,000 hours of operation per annum. Since we assume that meeting the Client’s availability requirements is a key contractual parameter, it is likely that this factor will need further evaluation notwithstanding the early positive indication.

We understand that KIV has guaranteed 8,000 hours per annum operation at Celje within the first year of operation. An appraisal of Celje’s performance at a suitable time after full commissioning (expected to be at the end of January 2009) should be conducted to ascertain progress. The financial underpinning of such guarantees is outside the scope of this preliminary appraisal.

Construction and commissioning timelines

Information from KIV suggests that key reference plants have been implemented on time. Such claims would need validating in the context of a fuller Due Diligence.

KIV has provided information about plant implementation at Celje and Sulzbach, two relevant and at-scale WID-compliant plants, to demonstrate that they can deliver projects to a scheduled timeline.

We have been told that the construction of Celje was completed in 20 months after signature of contracts and in accordance with the scheduled timeline proposed by KIV. Celje incorporates full District Heating capabilities and its delivery included two gas-fired back-up boilers and a full “heating station” (installation, heat exchangers for District Heating, pumping station and connections). As such the timeline in which we were told it was delivered is impressive.

Celje is expected to be fully commissioned by early February 2009, i.e. c. 4 months after the completion of construction

We were informed that the Sulzbach plant took 16 months to complete and full commissioning lasted a further 3 months to March 2007. We were also told that the plant was delivered to schedule.

We regard these achievements as particularly satisfactory for this type of process technology, although we would require sight of actual Gantt charts and other verification in a full due diligence exercise.

Mass and energy balance

KIV cannot currently provide any directly relevant data from a commercial plant. We regard this as a significant bankability risk, since robust mass and energy balance assumptions will be needed to underpin the plant financials. We therefore recommend that as part of a full due diligence exercise, a review of RfW’s financial model for the MWDA project is conducted (this being outside the scope of this preliminary assessment). We would point out that if this uncertainty is not addressed before contractual commitment with the client, RfW would expose itself to a very significant contingent financial risk.

Nevertheless, mass balance data from the preliminary pilot trials with Orchid’s SRF is available as well as that from trials with fuel from the Entsorga plant. Certain data from these two trials were made available to us for this preliminary assessment. No specific concerns were evident in this data with regard to the level of organic carbon burnout, the quantity of bottom ash or gas cleaning residues.

Independent Review




Juniper

In the absence of data from Celje, fuller trials with Orchid’s SRF should provide more valuable data and a level of reassurance about the quantities of inputs and outputs that would need to be managed. But because data collected over an extended period of operation and under process operating dynamics (within a commercial facility) that most closely mirror what is being proposed for MWDA will be considered more robust, a follow-on appraisal that includes relevant data from Celje is highly desirable, not least in the context of securing project funding.

Emissions performance

Our preliminary view is that emissions abatement is not likely to be an area of significant concern. Although KIV’s experience in supplying WID-compliant plants is so far relatively modest, they have supplied emissions abatement for many of their projects in the waste and biomass sectors. We view the emissions abatement measures implemented at Celje is one of the more extensive that we have encountered in the MSW treatment sector.

Many of KIV’s reference plants (waste and biomass) have now operated for sometime in countries like Germany where emissions regulations are stringent. Emissions abatement experience was a focus in our questioning when we interviewed KIV’s staff. It appears that there has been no issue with emissions control at KIV’s plants as no issue was highlighted to us. This needs to be confirmed in a fuller due diligence appraisal of this aspect of the company’s supply and the plants operational track record.

At Celje, KIV’s implementation of activated carbon and sodium bicarbonate scrubbing, ceramic filtration as well as fixed bed carbon polishing and extensive flue gas recirculation (said to be c. 30%), is highly likely, in our view, to abate emissions well within EU-WID limits.

KIV provided us with a ‘print screen’, taken on 21st January 2009, of the Celje control room recording of continuous emissions data. Measurements of dust, HCL, HF, SO2, NOx, TOC and CO can be seen in the print-screen provided to us. These appear to show half-hourly measurements for an 8-hour period, which are significantly lower than EU-WID values. But since it is unclear whether these measurements have been fully normalised we would caution that they cannot yet be formally compared directly with EU-WID or the nature of the feedstock being processed at the time. Despite these shortcomings in this relatively limited emissions data related to the early stages of plant operation, the fact that continuous data is being collected means that this aspect of the process can be more readily appraised in a fuller Due Diligence exercise that will also need to take into account emission measurements for dioxins (based on TEQ), total heavy metals as well as total Cadmium, Mercury and Thorium.

We also understand that KIV has their own patent for a gas cleaning technology, which indicates that the company is more than just a passive abatement equipment supplier and has developed some degree of systems know-how. We were favourably impressed with the company’s know how in this area though we understand that they aim to use subcontractors to supply core emissions abatement elements

Impact of plant

The Celje plant is a state-of-the-art, well engineered, modern facility that sits a few hundred metres from the nearest dwellings and commercial district. We regard the Celje plant (see Figure

Independent Review


Juniper

18) as a relevant and suitable reference facility, in contrast to many similar scale sites of this type, to use as a reference installation for the MWDA project.

Relative to other more conventional types and scale of thermal MSW processing plants in the UK, the Celje facility has a low visual profile. The plant is accommodated in a building of 22 metres in height and 2100m2 area, though we agree with KIV that the overall landtake at this site is significantly more than that that might be required for a similar KIV plant for the MWDA project. We understand from Orchid and KIV that the Celje landtake can accommodate both the KIV thermal process and 3 lines of Orchid MHT process.

Figure 18: The Celje process plant

Source: KIV



Independent Review


Juniper

Figure 19: Inside the Celje plant – KIV’s furnace in foreground

Source: KIV

Although the stack height for this location is relatively low (25m), this element of the plant will have to be assessed more fully in the RfW project context, the specific local Environment Agency’s requirements in Merseyside and the specifics of the site.

Our observations made during the visit to the KIV plant at the Vipap paper mill, which has been operating for about 5 years, indicate that the company’s references appear well engineered.




Appendix C

Sensitivity Analysis


A Compa ra t i ve Ana l ys is o f Opt ions f or Ma na ge me nt o f Waste Af te r Rec yc l ing

(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C1 -

Appendix C

Sensitivity Analyses

1. Introduction

In this report, eight integrated waste management scenarios were developed to facilitate the comparison of

environmental and financial parameters across various configurations of waste-to-energy (WTE), mechanical

biological treatment (MBT) and landfilling. While it is not possible to identify every possible configuration that

could be implemented by Metro Vancouver, the scenarios represent a broad range of possible systems, from

the construction of new WTE capacity, to extensive use of MBT, to maintaining a focus on landfilling.

The scenarios rely on various assumptions and predictions about future conditions, such as the demand for

district heating and the GHG intensity of electricity. Values selected for these assumptions are based on

current conditions and the most probable future conditions; these form the base case for the analysis.

However, where conditions might change in the future or where greater uncertainty exists, sensitivity

analyses were conducted to identify the impact that changing those variables would have on the results.

The following outlines the three key areas for the sensitivity analyses:

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;

Emissions of common air contaminants (CACs)

Financial (levelized cost, cash flows and accounting costs)

1.1 GHG Emissions

1.1.1 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Landfill Gas Capture Rate

The base case presented in the report used a landfill gas (LFG) capture rate of 75% for both the Vancouver

Landfill and the out of region landfill. A sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the capture rates for

both landfills from 60% to 90%. The capture rate was varied for each landfill independently, and then

concurrently for both landfills. The results are in shown in Figure 1 through Figure 3.



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C2 -

Figure 1 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Vancouver Landfill LFG Capture Rate

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Base Case VLF Capture = 75% VLF LFG Capture = 60% VLF LFG Capture = 90%

Figure 2. Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Out of Region LFG Capture Rate

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Base Case Out-of-Region Capture = 75% Out of Region LF LFG Capture = 60%

Out of Region LF LFG Capture = 90%



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C3 -

Figure 3. Combined Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to LFG Capture Rate

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Base Case VLF Capture = 75% Total LFG Capture = 60% Total LFG Capture = 90%



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C4 -

1.1.2 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to GHG Intensity of Electricity

The base case used a GHG intensity value of 22 tonnes CO2e/GWh of electricity, based on the standards

used by public sector organizations to establish their GHG inventories through British Columbia’s Provincial

Government Bill 44.1 The sensitivity of GHG emissions to the intensity of electricity was tested by varying the

value from 0 tonnes CO2e/GWh to 100 tonnes CO2e/GWh. The lower value was chosen to reflect the current

energy policies, which call for no net GHG emission from new electricity capacity. The higher value was

chosen to reflect the possible effect of new methods for accounting for electricity imports. The results are

shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to GHG Intensity of Electricity

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Electricity GHG Intensity = 22 t/GWh Electricity GHG Intensity = 0 t/GWh

Electricity GHG Intensity = 100 t/GWh

1 British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). (2007). Bill 44 – 2007, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. Accessed

March 6, 2009. http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/1st_read/gov44-1.htm



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C5 -

1.1.3 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Uptake of District Energy

The base case used an uptake rate of 90% for the hot water produced by the in-region WTE facilities

(starting at 50% uptake in year 1 of operations, and increasing at 5% per year until 90% was reached). To

test the impact of this variable on GHG emissions, the uptake rate was varied from 50% to 100%. Electricity

generation remained fixed at 20% efficiency for the in-region WTE facilities. The results are shown in Figure

5. As only Scenarios 1 and 2 have district energy, only these two scenarios show any variation.

Figure 5. Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Uptake of District Energy

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Base Case DE Utilization = 90% DE Utilization = 50 % DE Utilization = 100%



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C6 -

1.1.4 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Type of WTE Energy Output

A variation on Scenarios 1 and 2 was also tested. This variation was based on the new in-region WTE

facilities being optimized for maximum electricity production, with no district heat. In these variations, the new

in-region WTE facilities were modeled as having the same efficiency as the out of region WTE facilities (i.e.,

27% of the incoming energy converted to electricity). The impact of this variation on the net GHG emissions

is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. GHG Emissions With Maximized Electricity Production from In-Region WTE Facilities

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Base Case (Capture = 20% as electricity, 70% as heat)

All Electricity (Capture = 27% as electricity, 0% as heat)



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C7 -

1.1.5 Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Type of Heating Displaced

Another variable that was used to test the sensitivity of scenario GHG emissions was the ratio between

electric and natural gas heating in the buildings connected to the district energy system. The base case used

the currently estimated split of 60% electric and 40% natural gas. The sensitivity analysis tested the effects

of increasing electricity to 80% (20% natural gas) and the effects of increasing natural gas to 80% (20%

electricity. Changing the ratio of displaced heating types affected only Scenarios 1 and 2, since only those

two scenarios used district energy. Increasing the amount of electric heating increased scenario GHG

emissions by 88,000 to 132,000 tonnes. Increasing the amount of natural gas heating decreased scenario

GHG emissions by 44,000 to 66,000 tonnes.

Figure 7. Sensitivity of Net GHG Emissions to Type of Heating Displaced

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

Sc

en

ari

o G

HG

Em

iss

ion

s (

ton

ne

s C

O2

e)

Displaced heating = 60% electric, 40% natural gas

Displaced = 20% electric, 80% natural gas




(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C8 -

1.2 CAC Sensitivities

The same sensitivity analyses described in Section 1.1 were performed for NOx emissions, which were used

as a proxy for other CAC emissions. The results are shown in Figure 8 to Figure 12. Note that these results

are for emissions in the LFV only, as CAC emissions have the greatest effect on regional air quality.

Figure 8. Sensitivity of LFV NOx Emissions to Vancouver Landfill LFG Capture

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse of RDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

LF

V N

Ox

Em

iss

ion

s

(kg

NO

x)

Base Case VLF Capture = 75% VLF LFG Capture = 60%

VLF LFG Capture = 90%




(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C9 -

Figure 9. Sensitivity of LFV NOx Emissions to GHG Intensity of Electricity

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

LF

V N

Ox

Em

iss

ion

s

(kg

NO

x)

Electricity GHG Intensity = 22 t/GWh Electricity GHG Intensity = 0 t/GWh

Electricity GHG Intensity = 100 t/GWh


Figure 10. Sensitivity of LFV NOx Emissions to District Energy Utilization

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

LF

V N

Ox

Em

iss

ion

s

(kg

NO

x)

Base Case DE Utilization = 90% DE Utilization = 50 % DE Utilization = 100%




(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C10 -

Figure 11. LFV NOx Emissions With Maximized Electricity Production from In-Region WTE Facilities

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling

LF

V N

Ox

Em

iss

ion

s

(kg

NO

x)

Base Case (Capture = 20% as electricity, 70% as heat)

All Electricity (Capture = 27% as electricity, 0% as heat)


Figure 12. Sensitivity of LFV NOx Emissions to Displaced Heating Types

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

Large newWTE

Moderatenew WTE

In-regionuse ofRDF

productfrom MBT

Out ofregion use

of RDFproduct

from MBT

Wasteexported

out ofregion to

WTE


Maximizelocal

Landfilling


Landfilling

LF

V N

Ox

Em

iss

ion

s

(kg

NO

x)

Displaced heating = 60% electric, 40% natural gas Displaced = 20% electric, 80% natural gas





(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C11 -

The sensitivity analyses show that the LFG capture rate for the Vancouver Landfill has the potential to

increase or decrease the NOx emissions from all scenarios. The GHG intensity of electricity does not affect

local NOx emissions. The level of district heating uptake and the types of energy displaced by district heating

affect only Scenarios 1 and 2, and can cause the NOx emissions to increase or decrease, depending on the

values used. Optimizing the WTE facilities for electricity generation only would result in higher local NOx

emissions, since there would be less displacement of natural gas combustion.

1.3 Financial Model Sensitivities

1.3.1 Levelized Costs

1.3.1.1 District Energy Uptake

The existing Metro Vancouver WTE facility receives revenue from electricity and commercial steam sales.

Future WTE facilities have been modeled as providing electricity and heat to district energy systems. The

demand for district energy will depend largely on the location of the WTE facilities, the types of user

(residential or commercial), and the need to construct new infrastructure or retrofit existing infrastructure to

support a district heat distribution system.

The base case used a 90% uptake for the energy, starting at 50% uptake in year 1 of each facility, and

increasing at 5% per year up to 90%. Table 1 and Figure 13 provide the levelized costs for the base case

and also show the sensitivity when the district heat is held steady at 50%, with no increase over time. The

use of 50% as a starting point is based on findings from Rambøll, a Danish consultancy engaged to provide

information about European WTE facilities. Rambøll reports that without guaranteed sales of at least 50% of

the energy output, a WTE facility would not be built to be optimized for district energy, and would instead be

built to optimize electrical output.2 In this analysis, all other parameters remained fixed at base case values.

Table 1. Sensitivity Analysis for District Heat Uptake

Scenario Base Case (50% uptake in year 1, increasing at 5% per

year to 90%)

Sensitivity Analysis (50% uptake in year 1, held

steady)

Difference from Base

Case ($/tonne)


Case

(%)

Scenario 1 $29.42 $33.09 $3.67 12% Scenario 2 $33.05 $36.08 $3.02 9% Scenario 3 $41.85 $41.85 $0 0% Scenario 4 $43.51 $43.51 $0 0% Scenario 5 $41.80 $41.80 $0 0% Scenario 6 $71.59 $71.59 $0 0% Scenario 7 $34.52 $34.52 $0 0% Scenario 8 $34.77 $34.77 $0 0%

2 Ramboll, Personal Communication, 2009



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C12 -

Figure 13. Sensitivity Analysis for District Heat Uptake

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

1 Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region

use of RDFproduct

from MBT

4Out of

region useof RDF

product ofMBT

5Waste

exportedout of

region toWTE

6Local

landfilling ofMBT

product

7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize

out ofregion

landfilling

Le

ve

lize

d C

os

t(2

00

8$

/to

nn

e)

As only Scenarios 1 and 2 make use of district energy, they are the only scenarios affected in this sensitivity

analysis (although Scenario 5 also includes WTE, it does not make use of district energy; therefore, no

change occurs). Both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 see an increase in price. A greater change is seen in

Scenario 1, because more of the MSW is treated by WTE in Scenario 1 than in Scenario 2.

1.3.1.2 Electricity Price

In BC Hydro’s 2006 Open Call for Power, the average price of electricity adjusted for firm delivery to the

Lower Mainland was valued at $88/MWh3. Increases in the value of electricity are expected for future calls.

The current call for electricity by BC Hydro (the 2008 call) is still in progress and no contracts have been

awarded. Long term supply contracts with BC Hydro tend to show declining prices over time in real terms.

However, it may be possible to enter into shorter contracts and re-contract at higher real prices at intervals

(e.g., every 15 years) over the 35 year planning period. On this basis, the base case used $100/MWh as the

price of electricity, with 0% real inflation.

3 BC Hydro Conservation Review Summary Report. (2007). Accessed May 30, 2009.

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_2007_conservation_potential_review_summary_report.Par.0001.File.info_2007_conservation_potential_review_summary_report.pdf



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C13 -

The sensitivity analysis examined the effects of reducing the value of electricity to close to the current price

of $90/MWh. The real inflation rate was kept at 0%. For Scenarios 4 and 5, the tipping fee paid to private

sector operators was increased by 10%, in line with the decrease in electricity revenue. The results of this

sensitivity along with the base case are shown in Table 2 and Figure 14.

Table 2. Sensitivity Analysis for Electricity Price

Scenario Base Case ($100/MWh)

Sensitivity Analysis ($90/MWh)


Case ($/tonne)


Case

(%)

Scenario 1 $29.42 $31.27 $1.86 6% Scenario 2 $33.05 $34.58 $1.53 5% Scenario 3 $41.85 $41.85 $0 0% Scenario 4 $43.51 $44.75 $1.24 3% Scenario 5 $41.80 $43.08 $1.29 3% Scenario 6 $71.59 $71.59 $0 0% Scenario 7 $34.52 $34.52 $0 0% Scenario 8 $34.77 $34.77 $0 0%

Figure 14. Sensitivity Analysis for Electricity Price

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

1 Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region

use of RDFproduct

from MBT

4Out of

region useof RDF

product ofMBT

5Waste


WTE

6Local

landfilling ofMBT

product

7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize

out of regionlandfilling

Le

ve

lize

d C

os

t(2

00

8$

/to

nn

e)



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C14 -

1.3.1.3 Energy Output Type

In addition to testing the effects of the degree of district energy utilization and electrical prices on the

levelized system costs, two variations of Scenarios 1 and 2 were developed to investigate the difference

between WTE facilities optimized for district energy and facilities optimized for electricity production. The

variations keep Scenarios 1 and 2 the same in all respects, except that the new WTE facilities would be built

to achieve 27% electrical efficiency, with no steam or hot water sales. These are the same energy output

parameters used for the out of region WTE facilities. The resulting changes to the levelized system costs are

shown in Table 3 and Figure 15.

Table 3. Sensitivity Analysis for Energy Output Type

Scenarios Levelized System Cost

Difference from Base Case ($/tonne)

Difference from Base Case

(%)

Scenario 1 (20% electrical, 70% heat)

$29.42

Scenario 1 variation (27% electrical)

$32.56 $3.14

11%

Scenario 2 (20% electrical, 70% heat)

$33.05

Scenario 2 variation (27% electrical)

$35.59 $2.54

8%

As can been seen from the results, reducing the amount of energy captured from 90% to 27% has an impact

on the levelized system costs, particularly in Scenario 1, where a larger portion of the MSW is treated by

WTE. The difference is in the same range as the differences observed when district heating is limited to 50%

uptake, but is larger than the difference observed when electricity prices are reduced to $90/MWh.



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C15 -

Figure 15. Sensitivity Analysis For Energy Output Type

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

1 Large new

WTE

2Moderatenew WTE

3In-region

use of RDFproduct

from MBT

4Out of

region useof RDF

product ofMBT

5Waste


WTE

6Local

landfilling ofMBT

product

7Maximize

locallandfilling

8Maximize

out of regionlandfilling

Le

ve

lize

d C

os

t(2

00

8$

/to

nn

e)

1.3.2 Cash Flow

The cash flow under the three sensitivity conditions was also examined. Figure 16 and Figure 17 display the

cash flows comparing the results of the base case to each sensitivity analysis for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C16 -

Figure 16. Scenario 1 Cash Flow Sensitivity

-$50,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

$2

00

8 (

Th

ou

san

ds)

Base case Reduced district energy uptake $90/MWH Electricity only

Figure 17. Scenario 2 Cash Flow Sensitivity

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

$2

00

8 (

Th

ou

san

ds)




(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C17 -

None of the sensitivity results show a substantial impact on the cash flow pattern. Cash flows in each

scenario are the same as the base case until 2015, when new WTE capacity is added to the system. At this

point, the results of the sensitivity analysis diverge as follows:

Holding the uptake of district energy constant at 50% of the output has an effect starting in 2016. From

2016 onwards, the cash flows are higher every year through the planning period when the district energy

uptake is reduced compared to the base case.

A reduction in the electricity price to $90/MWh increases the cost relative to the base case starting in

2015 and throughout the planning period.

The annual cash flows of the electricity-only variations are lower than the base case scenarios from 2015

to 2017 inclusive. This is because the electricity-only facilities are modelled as selling 100% of the

electricity from the start of operations, whereas the electricity/district energy facilities are modeled as

having a gradual increase in district energy sales. The cash flows for the electricity-only scenarios

become higher than the base case scenarios in 2018 (district energy sales are at 65% at this point).

From that point onwards, the cash flows for the electricity-optimized scenarios remain higher than their

base case counterparts. This is because electricity has been modelled with 0% real inflation, and natural

gas has been modelled with 1% real inflation (meaning that revenue from district energy sales increase

faster than revenue from electricity sales). The cash flows for the electricity-only scenarios remain lower

than Scenarios 3-8, except in years when refurbishment of the WTE facilities is required (2040 for both

scenarios and 2045 for Scenario 1 and its variation). Unlike the base case Scenario 1, the electricity-only

Scenario 1 does not have any years with negative cash flow.

1.3.3 Accounting Costs

The accounting costs under the three sensitivity conditions were also examined. The accounting costs

comparing the base case results to the results of each sensitivity analysis for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are

shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19.



(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C18 -

Figure 18. Scenario 1 Accounting Cost Sensitivity

-$10

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

Nom

inal

$ (

Tho

usan

ds)


Figure 19. Scenario 2 Accounting Cost Sensitivity

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

No

min

al $

(T

ho

usa

nd

s)




(108052_appc_09-jun9.doc) - C19 -

None of the sensitivity results show a substantial impact on the accounting costs pattern. Cash flows in each

Scenario are the same as the base case until 2015, when new WTE capacity is added to the system. At this

point, the results of the sensitivity analysis diverge as follows:

Holding the uptake of district energy constant at 50% of the output has an effect starting in 2016. From

2016 onwards, the accounting costs are higher every year throughout the planning period when the

district energy uptake is reduced compared to the base case.

A reduction in the electricity price to $90/MWh increases the cost relative to the base case starting in

2015 and throughout the planning period.

The variations of Scenarios 1 and 2 for electricity production only are lower than the base case costs

from 2015 to 2017 inclusive, because the electricity-only facilities are modelled as selling 100% of the

electricity from the start of operations; whereas the electricity/district energy facilities are modeled as

having a gradual increase in district energy sales. The accounting costs for the electricity-only scenarios

become higher than the base case scenarios in 2018. The accounting costs for the electricity-optimized

scenarios remain higher than their base case counterparts throughout the analysis period. The

accounting costs for Scenarios 1 and 2 (and their electricity-only variations) are higher than the

accounting costs for Scenarios 7 and 8 through 2029 because WTE capital costs are being paid off up to

that point. In 2030, the accounting costs for the scenarios with in-region WTE facilities (both base case

and electricity-only) become the lowest of all scenarios and remain that way until the end of the analysis

period.