|
2.
REVIEW OF WASTE PROCESSING
& DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES – PROPOSED
WORK PLAN EXAMEN DES TECHNOLOGIES DE TRAITEMENT ET
D’ÉLIMINATION DES DÉCHETS – PLAN DE TRAVAIL PROPOSÉ |
Committee
recommendationS
That Council:
1)
Receive the information herein regarding the results of
the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for New & Proven Waste
Technologies.
2)
Approve the work plan set out herein for the
identification of a preferred long-term solution for the processing and
disposal of the City’s residual waste.
RecommandationS du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1)
Reçoive l’information ci-incluse concernant les
résultats de la Demande d’expressions d’intérêt (DEI) à l’égard des
technologies nouvelles et reconnues de gestion des déchets.
2)
Approuve le plan de travail énoncé ci-inclus visant à
déterminer la solution retenue à long terme pour le traitement et l’élimination
des déchets résiduels de la Ville.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager, Public Works and Services report dated 3 May 2007
(ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0011).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 22 May 2007.
Report
to / Rapport au:
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
3 May 2007 / le
3 mai 2007
Submitted
by/Soumis par:
R.G.
Hewitt, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint
Public Works and Services / Services et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne resource : Kenneth
J. Brothers, Director/Directeur
Utility Services/Services publics
613-580-2424 x 22609, ken.brothers@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF
WASTE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES – PROPOSED WORK PLAN
OBJET: Examen des technologies de traitement et
d’élimination des déchets – Plan de travail proposé
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1.
Receive the information herein regarding the results of
the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for New & Proven Waste
Technologies.
2.
Approve the work plan set out herein for the
identification of a preferred long-term solution for the processing and
disposal of the City’s residual waste.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
recommande au Conseil :
1. de
recevoir l’information ci-incluse concernant les résultats de la Demande
d’expressions d’intérêt (DEI) à l’égard des technologies nouvelles et reconnues
de gestion des déchets.
2.
d’approuver le plan de travail énoncé ci-inclus visant à
déterminer la solution retenue à long terme pour le traitement et l’élimination
des déchets résiduels de la Ville.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ottawa needs to
secure long-term processing and disposal capacity for its residual waste. Residual waste is what remains following the
at-source separation of reusable, recyclable and compostable materials from the
waste stream. Currently, Ottawa
residents, businesses and institutions generate approximately one million
tonnes of waste annually, with less than a quarter of the waste diverted from
landfill. The remaining residual waste
is primarily disposed of at one of five local landfills. Currently, demand for disposal capacity is
projected to outstrip supply within ten years, in the absence of significant
changes in waste generation and diversion rates or the approval of new disposal
capacity.
In 2004, the City
undertook an environmental scan of the technologies available for processing
and disposal of residual waste.
Technologies were divided into four process types: physical, biological, chemical, and thermal. In 2006, a Request for Expressions of
Interest (REOI) was issued to ensure that the full scope of technologies
had been identified, as several firms had approached the City about
technologies emerging in the market place.
While the REOI did
not identify any different technologies to those contained in the 2004 IWMMP
Phase II Report on System Options for the Long-term, additional
details were obtained regarding some of the technologies. Ten submissions were received in total. Table 1 presents the long list of processing
and disposal technologies available, and those represented in responses to the
REOI. Most, though not all of the
submissions, involved pre-processing of the waste using physical/mechanical
methods. Therefore, some firms are
listed more than once indicating proposed multi-stage processes.
|
Table 1:
Summary of Alternative Waste Technologies |
||
|
IWMMP Reports |
Submissions received in
response to REOI (Proponents) |
|
|
Process Type |
Technology |
|
|
Physical/ Mechanical |
“Dirty” Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) |
·
Evergreen Energy Corp. ·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd with Arbour Power ·
Waste Management of Canada Corp. ·
GSI Environmental Inc. |
|
Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF)
or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) |
·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd with Arbour Power ·
GSI Environmental Inc. |
|
|
Chemical |
Hydrogen Reformation &
Catalytic Conversion |
No submissions received. |
|
Thermal Cracking |
No submissions received. |
|
|
Acid Hydrolysis |
No submissions received. |
|
|
Biological |
Composting |
·
Waste Management of Canada Corp. ·
GSI Environmental Inc. ·
Evergreen Energy Corp. |
|
Digestion |
·
International Bio Recovery Corp. ·
WCI Waste Conversion |
|
|
Fermentation |
No submissions received. |
|
|
Thermal |
Gasification |
·
Greey CTS Inc. ·
KMW-Marbrex Municipal Biomass Partnership |
|
·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd. with Arbour Power |
||
|
Pyrolysis |
·
Ensyn Technologies Inc. |
|
|
Incineration[1] |
·
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. with Waste Management Canada Inc. ·
Evergreen Energy Corp. |
|
Having confirmed the long list of technologies available in the market place, the City must now undertake the process of reviewing and assessing the alternatives with the objective of selecting, siting, and obtaining Council approval for one or more facilities. Table 2 sets out the process recommended in this report.
|
Table 2: Recommended Work Plan |
|
|
Schedule |
Activity |
|
June – September 2007 |
Feasibility analysis and development of a short
list. |
|
October 2007 |
Public consultation on findings and draft short
list. |
|
November 2007 |
Report to PEC re: draft short list. |
|
December 2007 |
Report to Council. |
|
January – October 2008 |
Evaluation of short listed technologies, including
public consultation. |
|
November 2008 |
Report to PEC re: Recommended Residual Waste
Management Plan. |
|
December 2008 |
Report to Council. |
The remainder of this report discusses more fully the demand for residual waste processing and disposal capacity, the different types of technologies available, and the recommended approach for identifying a preferred solution. Work plan activities identified for 2008 are subject to amendment by Council in December 2007.
RÉSUMÉ
Ottawa doit trouver une solution à long terme pour le
traitement et l’élimination de ses déchets résiduels. Par déchet résiduel, on
entend ce qui reste après la séparation à la source des matières réutilisables,
recyclables et compostables du flux des déchets.
Actuellement, les résidents, les entreprises et les
institutions d’Ottawa produisent approximativement un million de tonnes de
déchets par année, moins d’un quart des déchets destinés aux décharges ayant
été réorientés.
Le reste des déchets résiduels est principalement
éliminé à une des cinq décharges locales. À l’heure actuelle, on s’attend à ce
que la demande à l’égard d’une solution d’élimination surpasse l’offre d’ici
dix ans s’il n’y a pas de changements importants aux taux de production et de
réorientation des déchets ou s’il n’y a pas approbation d’une nouvelle solution
d’élimination.
En 2004, la Ville a entrepris une analyse de
l’environnement sur les technologies disponibles pour le traitement et
l’élimination des déchets résiduels. Les technologies ont été réparties en
quatre types de méthodes de traitement : physique, biologique, chimique et
thermique. En 2006, on a présenté une Demande d’expressions d’intérêt
(DEI) pour veiller à ce que toutes les technologies disponibles aient été
déterminées, plusieurs entreprises ayant fait mention à la Ville de
l’apparition de nouvelles technologies sur le marché.
Bien que la DEI n’ait pas permis de déceler des
technologies différentes de celles contenues dans le Rapport sur les options
du système à plus long terme 2004 de la phase II du PDGID, d’autres
détails ont été obtenus concernant certaines des technologies. Dix propositions
ont été reçues au total. Le Tableau 1 présente la liste considérable des
technologies de traitement et d’élimination offertes ainsi que celles
représentées en réponse à la DEI. La plupart des propositions comprenaient un
prétraitement des déchets à l’aide de méthodes physiques/mécaniques. Ainsi, le
nom de certaines entreprises paraît plus d’une fois, indiquant les processus à
plusieurs étapes proposés.
|
Tableau 1 :
Résumé des technologies de rechange relatives aux déchets |
||
|
Rapports
sur le PDGID |
Propositions
reçues en réponse à la DEI (proposants) |
|
|
Type
de traitement |
Technologie |
|
|
Physique/ mécanique |
Installation
de récupération des matières « sales » (IRM) |
·
Evergreen Energy Corp. ·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd et Arbour Power ·
Waste Management of Canada Corp. ·
GSI Environmental Inc. |
|
Combustible
dérivé des déchets (CDD) ou combustible solide récupéré (CSR) |
·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd et Arbour Power ·
GSI Environmental Inc. |
|
|
Chimique |
Reformage
de l’hydrogène et craquage catalytique |
Aucune
proposition reçue. |
|
Craquage
thermique |
Aucune
proposition reçue. |
|
|
Hydrolyse
acide |
Aucune
proposition reçue. |
|
|
Biologique |
Compostage |
·
Waste Management of Canada Corp. ·
GSI Environmental Inc. ·
Evergreen Energy Corp. |
|
Digestion |
·
International Bio Recovery Corp. ·
WCI Waste Conversion |
|
|
Fermentation |
Aucune proposition reçue. |
|
|
Thermique |
Gazéification |
·
Greey CTS Inc. ·
KMW-Marbrex Municipal Biomass Partnership |
|
·
MCW Light Heat Cool Ltd. et Arbour Power |
||
|
Pyrolyse |
·
Ensyn Technologies Inc. |
|
|
Incinération[2] |
·
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. et Waste
Management of Canada Corp. ·
Evergreen Energy Corp. |
|
Après avoir confirmé la longue liste de
technologies offertes sur le marché, la Ville doit maintenant examiner et
évaluer les différentes options en vue de choisir au moins une installation,
son emplacement et obtenir ensuite l’approbation du Conseil à cet égard. Le
Tableau 2 présente le processus recommandé dans ce rapport.
|
Table 2 : Plan de travail
recommandé |
|
|
Calendrier |
Activité |
|
juin-septembre 2007 |
Analyse
de faisabilité et établissement d’une courte liste des technologies retenues |
|
octobre 2007 |
Consultation
publique sur les constatations et la courte liste provisoire |
|
novembre 2007 |
Rapport
au CUE au sujet de la courte liste provisoire |
|
décembre 2007 |
Rapport
au Conseil |
|
janvier-octobre 2008 |
Évaluation
des technologies retenues sur la liste, y compris une consultation publique |
|
novembre 2008 |
Rapport
au CUE au sujet du Plan de gestion des déchets résiduels recommandé |
|
décembre 2008
|
Rapport
au Conseil |
Le reste du présent rapport aborde
plus en détail la demande d’une solution de traitement et d’élimination des
déchets résiduels, les différents types de technologies offertes et l’approche
recommandée pour déterminer une solution de choix. Les activités du plan de
travail déterminées pour 2008 sont sujettes à modification par le Conseil en
décembre 2007.
BACKGROUND
In considering the next steps in this process, it is important to understand the economic context of waste management in Ottawa. The following sections outline the supply and demand forces at play.
Demand for Waste Processing and
Disposal Capacity
Ottawa has a
residential diversion target of 60% and achieved approximately 32% diversion in
2006.[3] The 60% target should be achieved with
implementation of the Source Separated Organics (SSO) program in late 2008,
however disposal capacity will still be required for the remaining 40% residual
waste. Table 3 identifies how
residential waste is currently managed.
|
Table 3: Management of
Ottawa’s Residential Waste, 2005 |
|
|
Landfill |
Tonnes |
|
Waste Generated |
310,878 |
|
Waste Diverted[4] |
97,891 |
|
Waste Disposed |
212,987 |
|
City’s Trail Waste Facility |
140,060 |
|
WM Carp Landfill[5] |
70,995 |
|
Other Landfill |
1,932 |
Source: Solid Waste Services
The City recently
secured an 8.2 million m3 expansion to the Trail Waste Facility
(TWF) to meet demand for the residential sector for approximately 20-30 years[6].
The City’s
industrial, commercial, and institutional (IC&I) sector is estimated to
divert approximately 20% of its waste.
The City is presently examining means for enhancing waste minimization
and diversion in the IC&I sector.
However, it is unlikely that this sector will achieve a 60% diversion
rate without significant intervention at the Provincial and Federal levels of
government. Currently, this sector
disposes the majority of its waste at the privately owned Waste Management
Canada Inc. (WM) Carp Landfill, the Waste Services Inc. (WSI) Navan landfill,
and to a lesser extent, the Laflèche Landfill (located outside the City), and
the City’s own Trail Waste Facility and Springhill Landfill.
Both the WM and
WSI landfills are nearing capacity and the firms have requested amendments to
their Certificates of Approval to permit their expansions. However, there is no certainty that either
will secure the scale of expansions that were requested, or that expansion
plans will be realized before a shortfall in capacity occurs. In the absence of those approvals, both
facilities would likely close by 2011.
Figure 1 illustrates the declining capacity and closure of these two
facilities, and the potential impact on TWF if Council permitted the large
scale disposal of IC&I waste to address the shortfall in locally available
disposal capacity.
Figure 1: Projected Waste Processing and Disposal
Capacity (Supply versus Demand)
Supply of Waste Processing and
Disposal Capacity
As noted above, the City has the legislated responsibility to ensure residential waste collection and disposal. Accordingly, the City secured an expansion to Trail Waste Facility and, through this study, will identify and select one or more long-term waste processing and disposal options.
With the exception of the Yellow Bag program, the City currently does not have a role in IC&I waste management - collection, processing, or disposal. These services are supplied by the private sector in a competitive market, which has recognized the pending shortfall in capacity, and is seeking to address this issue through the Environmental Assessment process. While the City allows for the disposal of IC&I waste at its two municipal landfills, individual businesses and institutions have the right to send their waste to other facilities, and do so regularly.
Without community and regulatory support for the City to assume greater control over IC&I waste flows, the City is not in a position to guarantee waste volumes to any particular technology, process, or scheme beyond what it manages for the residential sector. There is no guarantee that if the City were to build a waste processing facility to serve the IC&I sector that the waste will go there and be economically viable for the City to support.
DISCUSSION
Ottawa’s 2002 Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) and solid waste industry best practices are rooted in the theory of the hierarchy of waste and waste management, as shown in Figure 2. The IWMMP outlines several steps required to implement the hierarchy of waste model including the following:
·
Examine means for extracting any remaining resources
from the waste stream (i.e. from mixed wastes originating from high density
residences).
·
Examine means for harnessing the caloric (energy)
value contained in the balance of the waste stream.
·
Secure long-term capacity for the disposal of residual wastes.
The balance of this report focuses on describing the results of work carried out to date, and outlining a work plan for the development of a Residual Waste Management Plan that will address the bottom three tiers in the Hierarchy.
Figure 2: Hierarchy of Waste and Waste Management
Since completion of the IWMMP, staff have undertaken studies and implemented various measures in accordance with direction received from Council. Key achievements to date include the following:
· Obtained Certificate of Approval amendment for Trail Waste Facility (TWF) expansion of 8.2 M m3.
· Commissioned and now operating Trail Road Gas to Electrical Energy Project (5 MW).
·
Completed the Phase II Report on System Options for
the Longer Term,
2004. This report sets out the results of a scan of the market
place, and identifies the broad range of technologies available for the
processing and disposal of wastes.
· Issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for New & Proven Technologies for Waste Management, 2006. The REOI was issued to solicit interest from the market place and to ensure that no technologies had been overlooked.
· Entered into a demonstration project partnership with Plasco Energy Group for 85 tonne per day gasification facility. Construction of the facility is nearing completion.
· Responded to Draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Carp and Navan landfill expansions, with continued monitoring and input to the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Refer to reports ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0011 and ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0005 for more details.
Phase
II Report On System Options for the Longer Term, 2004
The 2004 report overviews various new and emerging post-diversion residual mixed waste management technologies. Technologies are divided into four categories: physical, biological, thermal, and chemical. The following is a summary description of each, with examples. It is not uncommon for these technologies to be used in combination to enhance process efficiency and effectiveness.
Physical – mechanical processes used to remove recyclables and contaminants from the waste stream before further processing (e.g. “dirty” material recovery facilities (MRFs)); and processes used to convert the waste into a more useful form (e.g. drying and compressing into pellets to become Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)).
Biological – processes that use microbes to change the waste to a more useful form (e.g. digestion or composting to produce compost and fertilizer, and fermentation to produce ethanol).
Chemical – processes used to convert the waste into commercial fuels and chemicals, with energy generation as a by-product of production, not the objective of the processing (e.g. acid hydrolysis can be used to produce furfural, formic acid, and levulinic acid).
Thermal – processes that use heat to break down the waste, and in some cases to generate a combustible syngas for use as a fuel or chemical feedstock (e.g. incineration, plasma gasification, and pyrolysis).
Within each technology, various approaches were investigated. The 2004 report summarizes the emissions released, residues and energy produced, and the status of their commercialization, cost, and public acceptance.
REOI
for New and Proven Technologies for Waste Management, 2006
In June 2006, Council directed staff to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for the provision of technologies to manage the City’s residential and IC&I waste. The REOI was issued in July 2006 with submissions due October 2006. Two categories of submissions were solicited:
Category A – Technologies for managing post-diversion mixed residual waste.
Category B – Technologies for improving the City’s diversion program.
Ten submissions were received—five in each category. Table 4 presents a summary of the submissions.
|
Table 4:
Summary of REOI Submissions |
|
|
Firm |
Proposed
Technology and Purpose |
|
Category
A – Disposal Technologies |
|
|
Evergreen
Energy Corp. |
Mixed
waste processing facility to recover recyclable materials, aerobic composting
to dry organic fraction, combustion of dried organics to recover energy. |
|
Greey
CTS Inc. |
Mixed
waste gasification energy-from-waste facility with some pre-processing of
waste. |
|
KMW
Mabarex |
Mixed
waste gasification energy-from waste facility with some pre-processing of
waste. |
|
MCW
Light Heat Cool & Arbour Power |
Front-end
processing system to recover recyclable material and produce an SRF
(pellets), which can be used as a fuel for a fluidized bed gasification
energy-from-waste facility. |
|
Wheelabrator
Technologies Inc. |
Mixed
waste mass burn incineration energy-from-waste facility with back-end
processing of the ash to recover metals. |
|
Category
B – Processing Technologies |
|
|
Ensyn |
Fluidized
bed flash pyrolysis system that converts biomass into bio-oil, char, and
syngas. |
|
Waste Management Canada Inc. |
Tunnel composting system to produce biomass fuel or
compost. |
|
GSI Environmental Inc. |
Enclosed in-vessel aerobic composting system to
produce compost. |
|
WCI Waste Conversion |
Auto Thermal aerobic digestion (ATAD) with wet
pre-processing to produce liquid/solid fertilizer products |
|
International Bio Recovery Corp. |
Auto Thermal aerobic digestion (ATAD) with wet
pre-processing to produce liquid/solid fertilizer products |
In general, the thermal waste technologies submitted can reduce the volume of waste by upwards of 90%. Published reports indicate the capital costs of these approaches to be in the range of $150-$230 million for conventional incineration, and $195-$230 million for gasification technologies. Ballpark estimates provided in the REOI submissions tended to be lower than published figures and varied upon the size of facility proposed, which was not consistent.
The submissions received quoted diversion rates between 82-99%, depending upon the amount of contaminant material assumed in the waste stream. Capital cost estimates provided by some of the vendors ranged from $27-$65 million, with the same qualifier noted above.
The submissions contained varying levels of detail regarding their proposed solutions. However, information was obtained that will prove useful in the further review and analysis of options available in the market place. In most cases, more detailed information is still required.
Short
listing of Waste Technologies
Having confirmed the long list of options available, the next step will be to screen the options and develop a short list to undergo detailed evaluation.
For each technology, data gaps will be identified and addressed through a combination of literature review, discussions with vendors, host municipalities, and companies using the various approaches, and the sharing of information with other municipalities undertaking similar reviews (e.g. Edmonton). Furthermore, staff will identify how each technology is currently applied and its relevancy to the processing of mixed and source separated wastes generated in Ottawa. The objective of this exercise will be to determine on a pass/fail basis whether:
· The technology has demonstrated consistent and effective processing or disposal of both residential and IC&I waste streams.
· The technology has operated at a scale that lends confidence to its application to a City producing over 1M tonnes of waste per year.
·
There is good evidence to suggest that the technology
will be approved for large-scale application by the Provincial Ministry of the
Environment within the timeframe required.
If a technology cannot meet all of the criteria, it is recommended that it not be carried forward for further review. The key to successful completion of this exercise will be the clear documentation of all findings, and the provision of draft materials to vendors and the public for review and comment before final recommendation of a short list to Council. Plasma gasification will be carried forward automatically as it is the approach to be employed by Plasco Energy at its demonstration facility at TWF.
The above review will occur between now and September, with results presented for public review in October. A report on the results of the research and consultation process will be tabled at Planning and Environment Committee in November, and at Council in December for approval of the short list.
Development of the Residual Waste Management Plan
Following approval of a short list by Council, work will commence on development of a Residual Waste Management Plan. This will be a significant undertaking, comprised of the following activities:
· Development of projected waste generation and disposal rates based upon the scope of IC&I diversion methods approved for funding by Council in Q4 2007 and implementation of a residential SSO program.
· Identification of one or more potential sites upon which to evaluate the alternative technologies.
· Development of alternative waste management systems comprising one or more technologies to deal with all three requirements: mixed waste processing, energy recovery, and final residual disposal.
· Triple bottom line analysis of the short listed technologies and systems (economic, social and environmental), including the Plasco demonstration facility.
· Analysis of potential impacts on existing and planned municipal waste diversion, collection, and disposal systems for both the residential and IC&I waste sectors.
· Analysis of the potential market share and viability for the technology and system within a competitive waste service industry.
· Extensive public consultation on the potential impacts of the alternative technologies.
· Development of a phased implementation plan for the preferred technologies and management system.
·
Report on the evaluation and consultation processes and
recommended approach to Committee and Council.
Figure 3 identifies the proposed timeline for this study, and how it relates to on-going and planned solid waste initiatives. Due to the wide scope of the project, work that is not dependent upon the development of the short list will commence as soon as the required inputs are available (e.g. development of waste generation scenarios and projections.)
|
Figure 3: Solid Waste Initiatives |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
||||||||||
|
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
||
|
Rethink Garbage Campaign |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IC&I 3R Strategy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSO Program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review of Waste Technologies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residual Management Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Landfill Management Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EA for Waste Facility(ies) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plasco Demonstration Project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navan EA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carp EA[7] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design & Construction |
|
Implementation |
The study will likely require establishment of one or more advisory committees, and several meetings with key stakeholder groups. The proposed timeline of one year is considered to be aggressive given the time required to undertake effective consultation. Every effort will be made to balance the needs of the community with the need to effect a timely conclusion to this study.
This
project will require significant consulting assistance, and funding within the
2008 capital budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no immediate environmental consequences associated with the adoption of this report.
Solid waste management is essential to maintaining public health and sanitation. In protecting public health through the provision of centralized waste collection, processing, and disposal services, some environmental impacts are anticipated. Every reasonable effort will be made to mitigate potential impacts through responsible and progressive design, system operation in accordance with regulated and design requirements, regular monitoring of emissions, and redress of any problems in a timely and responsible manner to prevent harm to the natural and built environment.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no immediate implications for the rural community.
Due to the scale of waste to be managed, and a traditional difficulty in siting waste management facilities, it is anticipated that a new facility may be sited at one of the existing waste disposal sites, or within their immediate vicinity. All of the existing landfills lie in the rural area. Some of the technologies under consideration may be suitable for an urban setting, particularly those generating energy. The study scope will include options for urban siting of the technologies.
CONSULTATION / PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The IC&I 3R study Stakeholder Advisory Committee was informed of the drafting and proposed tabling of this report and its general content including, specifically, members representing Friends of Mer Bleue, the Coalition Against the Expansion of the Carp Landfill, the Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Business Advisory Committee. Mention of these studies was previously made in the 27 March 2007 report to the Planning and Environment Committee on the status of the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (report ACS2007-PWS-UTL-0006).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No new monies are required for 2007. Based on the recommended work plan, funding implications will be identified in the staff report to Council in December 2007.
This initiative has significant implications on the City’s Long Range Financial Plan in that any new or expanded facility will have associated cost impacts. These costs cannot be calculated at this time.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Draft Report on Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for New & Proven Technologies for the Management of Waste, MacViro 2006 – On file with City Clerk.
Document 2
– Phase II Report on System
Options for the Longer Term, MacViro 2004 – On file with City Clerk.
DISPOSITION
The Public Works and Services Department will carry out the screening of the long list of alternatives and report back to the Planning and Environment Committee with the results of its analysis in November 2007.
The Public Works and Services Department will commence work on the development of a Residual Waste Management Plan as soon as possible, and report back to the Planning and Environment Committee with the results of its analysis in November 2008.