Technical Report Coordinator: Michael Cant TSH Engineers Architects and Planners. Workshop supported by. Natural Resources Ressources naturelles

Transcription

1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal April 2006 Technical Report Coordinator: Michael Cant TSH Engineers Architects and Planners Workshop supported by Natural Resources Ressources naturelles Canada Canada Environment Canada Environnement Canada

2 Municipal Waste Integration Network / Recycling Council of Alberta MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) OPTIONS: INTEGRATING ORGANICS MANAGEMENT AND RESIDUAL TREATMENT / DISPOSAL April 2006

3 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) OPTIONS: INTEGRATING ORGANICS MANAGEMENT AND RESIDUAL TREATMENT/DISPOSAL The Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA) encourages the use, adoption and copying of this publication for non-commercial use with appropriate credit given to MWIN and RCA. Although reasonable care has been used in preparing this publication, neither the publisher nor the contributors or writers can accept any liability for any consequences arising from the use thereof or information therein. The publication is available on MWIN s website ( and RCA s website ( This publication was undertaken with financial support from the Government of Canada provided through Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The members of the technical project team included: Project Management Michael Cant - Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited Subject Specialists Composting: Paul van der Werf - 2cg Inc. Anaerobic Digestion: Maria Kelleher - Kelleher Environmental Thermal Treatment: David Merriman - MacViro Consultants and Konrad Fitchner - Gartner Lee Limited Bioreactor and Sanitary Landfill: Neil MacDonald - CH2M Hill

4 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... viii PREFACE...x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... xi 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES REPORT FORMAT WORKSHOPS STUDY ASSUMPTIONS MUNICIPAL SIZES RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION DATA RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION WASTE QUANTITY PROJECTIONS FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ORGANICS DIVERSION EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MSW MANAGEMENT OPTIONS SOURCE SEPARATED ORGANICS AND MIXED WASTE COMPOSTING INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OF THE COMPOSTING PROCESS Pre-Processing Composting Post-Processing COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGIES Non-Reactor Composting Technologies Reactor (In-vessel) Composting Technologies APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATORY PERSPECTIVES WASTE STREAM QUANTITIES CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS - SSO AND MIXED WASTE Capital and Operating Costs - SSO Capital and Operating Costs Mixed Wastes Selection of Appropriate Technology Type by Community SOCIAL IMPACTS Social Acceptability Footprint and Land Use Employment Nuisance Impacts Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Renewable Energy Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions Other Emissions SUMMARY SSO Mixed Waste REFERENCES...37 i

5 4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION - SSO AND MIXED WASTE INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY PROCESSING STEPS ANAEROBIC DIGESTION DESIGN OPTIONS Single and Two Stage Digestion Systems Wet Versus Dry Anaerobic Digestion System Designs Thermophilic Versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion Systems Designs ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES Biogas Production Biogas Treatment and Energy Production Typical Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Plants ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO (Source Separated Organics) Cost Estimates for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing Mixed Waste SOCIAL IMPACTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES Social Acceptability Footprint and Land Use Employment Nuisance Impacts Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES Renewable Energy Emissions of Acid Gases, Smog Precursors, Heavy Metals and Other Contaminants of Concern APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITIES SUMMARY OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY FEATURES AND EFFECTS REFERENCES GLOSSARY OF TERMS DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: SANITARY LANDFILL INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Technology Description General Regulatory Requirements EVALUATION Waste Quantities and Composition Sanitary Landfill Facilities KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Land Area Consumption Landfill Airspace Consumption Water Air RENEWABLE ENERGY Energy Generation/Consumption SOCIAL Public Acceptance Siting Challenges ODOUR TRAFFIC OTHER IMPACTS COSTS...95 ii

6 5.10 SUMMARY DISPOSAL TREATMENT EVALUATION: BIOREACTOR LANDFILL INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Technology Description General Regulatory Requirements EVALUATION Waste Quantities and Composition Bioreactor Landfill Facilities KEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Land Area Consumption Bioreactor Landfill Airspace Consumption Water Air RENEWABLE ENERGY Energy Generation/Consumption SOCIAL Public Acceptance Siting Challenges ODOUR TRAFFIC OTHER IMPACTS COSTS SUMMARY DISPOSAL/TREATMENT EVALUATION: THERMAL TREATMENT INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES Introduction and Overview Established Technologies New and Emerging Technologies APPROVALS REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS WASTE STREAMS Quantities Composition COSTS Availability of Cost Information and Viability of Thermal Treatment Processes Estimates for Typical Facilities SOCIAL IMPACTS Social Acceptability Footprint and Land Use Employment Nuisance Effects Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Renewable Energy Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Other Emissions SUMMARY iii

7 8 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA BY POPULATION SIZE OVERALL SUMMARY Source Separated Organics (SSO) and Mixed Waste Composting Anaerobic Digestion Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor Landfill Thermal Treatment NEXT STEPS LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Waste Composition Appendix B Overview of Canadian Approval Requirements by Province Appendix C Survey Tables Appendix D Compost Facility Costs Appendix E Summary of Landfill and Bioreactor Unit Costs Appendix F Municipal Waste Incinerators Emission Limits Comparison Summary Appendix G 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 GHG Emissions Calculations LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Canadian Municipal Sizes... 4 Table 2.2 Residential Waste Generation in Canada (2002)... 5 Table 2.3 Municipal Information... 6 Table 2.4 Baseline Waste Quantities (tonnes)... 7 Table 2.5 Organics Diverted and Residual Treatment... 9 Table 2.6 Evaluation Criteria...10 Table 3.1 Waste Quantities for Population of 20, Table 3.2 Waste Quantities for Populations of 80, Table 3.3 Waste Quantities for Population of 200, Table 3.4 Summary of Capital Costs for Composting Technologies Table 3.5 Summary of Operating Costs for Composting Technologies Table 3.6 Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs Table 3.7 Summary of Operating Costs Table 3.8 Summary of Estimated Total and Amortized Capital Costs Table 3.9 Summary of Operating Costs Table 3.10 Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size (SSO) Table 3.11 Technology Types That Could Be Considered By Community Size (Mixed Waste) Table 3.12 Estimated Site Size for Selected Communities Table 3.13 Estimate of Employee Requirements per Municipality Size Table 3.14 Compost Facility Daily Traffic Impacts Table 3.15 Estimate of Net GHG Emissions for Composting SSO and Mixed Waste Table 3.16 Acid Gas Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared to Landfilling Table 3.17 Toxic Emissions from Composting of Organic Waste as Compared to Landfilling34 iv

8 Table 3.18 Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through SSO Composting Program Table 3.19 Summary of Evaluation Criteria for Management of Organics Through Mixed Waste Composting Program Table 4.1 Tonnage to Anerobic Digestion for Different Scenarios Table 4.2 Communities in United States Investigating Anaerobic Digestion for MSW Table 4.3 Companies Processing SSO and Mixed Waste in Anaerobic Digesters in Europe in Table 4.4 Existing and Planned Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Processing SSO and Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Table 4.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of One Stage Versus Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion System Designs Table 4.6 Advantages And Disadvantages of Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion System Designs Table 4.7 Composition of Biogas from BTA Digesters Table 4.8 Composition of SSO and Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Sent to Anaerobic Digestion For Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200, Table 4.9 Comparative Biogas Yield From Different Msw Materials (Barlaz) Table 4.10 Comparative Yields of Different MSW Feedstocks in Anaerobic Digestion Systems Table 4.11 Reported Energy Production, Internal Energy Use and Energy Available for Export at Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Table 4.12 Potential Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 And 200, Table 4.13 Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Source Separated Organics (SSO) Table 4.14 Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Mixed Waste Table 4.15 Reported Land Requirements for Selected Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Table 4.16 Approximate Space Requirement for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200, Table 4.17 Approximate Staffing Requirements for Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200, Table 4.18 Anaerobic Digestion Facility Daily Traffic Impacts Table 4.19 Potential Green and Renewable Energy Available for Export from Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Serving Populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200, Table 4.20 Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion Including and Excluding Carbon Sinks Table 4.21 Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors by Material for Anaerobic Digestion Compared to Landfill Table 4.22 GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario Table 4.23 Emissions Comparison Between Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Processes Table 4.24 Summary of Anaerobic Digestion of Source Separated Organics (SSO) and Mixed Waste (MW) Table 5.1 Examples of Landfills in Canada Table 5.2 Initial Waste Compositions Table 5.3 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 20, Table 5.4 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 80, Table 5.5 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 200, Table 5.6 Hypothetical Sanitary Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions Table 5.7 Land Area Consumption Requirements v

9 Table 5.8 Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years) Table 5.9 Landfill Leachate Summary (m 3 /tonne Waste Disposed) Table 5.10 Landfill Gas Summary (m 3 /tonne Waste Disposed) Table 5.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (tonnes eco 2 /tonne waste disposed) Table 5.12 Renewable Energy Summary (kw-hr/tonne waste disposed) Table 5.13 Traffic Summary Table 5.14 Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions Table 5.15 Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed) Table 6.1 Examples of Bioreactor Landfills in Canada Table 6.2 Initial Waste Compositions Table 6.3 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 20, Table 6.4 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 80, Table 6.5 Breakdown of Waste Disposal 200, Table 6.6 Hypothetical Bioreactor Landfill Sites for Evaluation of Organic Waste Management Summary of Key Parameters and Assumptions Table 6.7 Land Area Consumption Requirements Table 6.8 Bioreactor Landfill Operating Lifespan (Years) Table 6.9 Bioreactor Landfill Water Consumption Summary Table 6.10 Bioreactor Landfill Leachate Summary Table 6.11 Bioreactor Landfill Gas Summary (m/tonne Waste Disposed) Table 6.12 Bioreactor Landfill Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary (tonnes eco 2 /tonne waste disposed) Table 6.13 Bioreactor Landfill Renewable Energy Summary (kw-hr/tonne waste disposed)116 Table 6.14 Traffic Summary Table 6.15 Key Cost Parameters and Assumptions Table 6.16 Bioreactor Landfill Disposal Cost Summary ($/tonne Waste Disposed) Table 7.1 Summary of Representative Facilities Table 7.2 Waste Quantities for Population of 20, Table 7.3 Waste Quantities for Population of 80, Table 7.4 Waste Quantities for Population of 200, Table 7.5 Residual Waste Composition and Energy Content Table 7.6 Batch Process Starved Air Incinerator Financial Analysis Table 7.7 Semi-Continuous Starved Air (or Multiple Stage) Incinerator Financial Analysis153 Table 7.8 Mass Burn Financial Analysis Table 7.9 Thermal Treatment Facility Site Size Table 7.10 Thermal Treatment Facility Labour Requirements Table 7.11 Thermal Treatment Facility Daily Traffic Impacts Table 7.12 Renewable Energy Produced From Thermal Treatment Facilities Table 7.13 Residual Waste Greenhouse Gas Emissions Without Carbon Sequestration 159 Table 7.14 GHG Emissions from Different Population Sizes in Each Scenario Table 7.15 Emissions Comparison Between Combustion and Landfill Process Table 8.1 Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 20,000 Population Table 8.2 Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 80,000 Population Table 8.3 Summary of Evaluation Criteria for 200,000 Population vi

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Residential Waste Flow... 1 Figure 3.1 Mass Balance of Composting Process Figure 4.1 Typical Schematic for Anaerobic Digestion Plant Figure 4.2 Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion Figure 4.3 Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Variations Figure 4.4 Process Schematic for One Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Figure 4.5 Process Flow Chart for Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Figure 5.1 Range of Principal Technical Elements of a Landfill Figure 7.1 Summary of Principal Elements of Thermal Treatment Process vii

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3Rs AD APC BNQ BTA C&D CCME CHP CO 2 CH 4 C:N EC eco 2 EU EPA FCM FFA GHG GMF GVRD H 2 S HSW IC IC&I IMUS IPCC IWM kw-hr MWC MSW MW MWIN NG NRCan Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Anaerobic Digestion Air Pollution Control Le Bureau de normalisation du Quebec (Patented Process) Construction and Demolition Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Combined Heat and Power Carbon Dioxide Methane Carbon/Nitrogen Environment Canada Carbon Dioxide Equivalent European Union Environmental Protection Agency Federation of Canadian Municipalities Federal Fertilizers Act Greenhouse Gases Green Municipal Funds (Administered by FCM) Greater Vancouver Regional District Hydrogen Sulphide Household Special Wastes Industry Canada Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Integrated Manure System Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Integrated Waste Management kilowatt hour Mixed Waste Composting Municipal Solid Waste Mixed Waste (Unsorted MSW) Municipal Waste Integrated Network Natural Gas Natural Resources Canada viii

12 PGP PRRS psi RCA RDF RPS SMUD SCC SRF SSO STDC TEAM tpd TPY or t/y USDA USEPA VSS WTE Plasma Gasification Process Plasma Resources Recovery System pounds per square inch Recycling Council of Alberta Refuse-derived Fuel Renewable Portfolio Standards Sacramento Municipal Utility District Standards Council of Canada Solid Recovered Fuel Source Separated Organics Sustainable Technology Development Canada Technology Early Action Measures (Program under NRCan, IC and EC) tonnes per day tonnes per year United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency Volatile Suspended Solids Waste to Energy ix

13 PREFACE Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal will assist municipalities in moving their integrated waste management systems to the next level in order to further conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, produce energy, lessen dependence on landfills and improve social acceptability. The report provides evaluations of the following Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal options: composting; anaerobic digestion; sanitary landfill. bioreactor landfill; and thermal treatment; The indicators used in the evaluations included: environmental, social, economic, energy and greenhouse gases. The community sizes evaluated included populations of 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000. The study was completed under the leadership of the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA) with funding support from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). A Steering Committee was established to assist with the development of the project and included: Alain David, Environment Canada; Barry Friesen, Regional Municipality of Niagara; Bob Kenney, Nova Scotia Environment and Labour, Pam Russell, County of Northumberland; Raymond Gaudart, Kootenay Boundary Regional District; Ross Boutilier, City of Edmonton; Susan Antler, Composting Council of Canada; Molly Morse, Environment Canada; Sebnem Madrali, Natural Resources Canada; Dennis Jackson, Environment Canada; and Jody Barclay, Natural Resources Canada MWIN and RCA thank all contributors to the project and welcome any questions or comments you may have on the report. Sincerely, Maryanne Hill Executive Director MWIN Christina Seidel Executive Director RCA x

14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background According to Statistics Canada 1, over 30.4 million tonnes of waste was generated in Canada in This translates into 971 kg/person. Households accounted for 39% of this total, with the remainder generated in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector (IC&I) and the construction, renovation and demolition sector (C&D). In Canada, in 2002 households generated 12 million tonnes of waste or 382 kg/person or represented an increase of approximately 5% over Of the 12 million tonnes of residential waste generated in Canadian households, 2.5 million tonnes were diverted with 9.5 million tonnes being disposed of in landfills or thermal treatment processes. The amount disposed equalled 301 kg/person or an increase of approximately 2% over The amount of household waste diverted through recycling and composting in 2002 represented 81 kg/person and a 1.3% increase from Canada needs to improve the amount of residential waste that is diverted. In the late 1980 s, federal, provincial and municipal governments agreed to a target of 50% reduction in waste by weight per person by the year While a few communities have reached this goal; as a country we still dispose of more than 78% of our waste. There are a broad range of waste management technologies available to point the way and serve as a basis from which to build an integrated solid waste management system that can achieve greater diversion. This report, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal, builds on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Guide, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities (March 2004) by examining the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations for: composting; anaerobic digestion; sanitary landfill. bioreactor landfill; and thermal treatment; It comes at a time when many communities across Canada are developing MSW Management Plans as a means to determine how to cost-effectively reduce environmental impacts and conserve landfill capacity. Communities are realizing that in order to meet current and future MSW targets, they must think beyond their existing waste diversion programs and find innovative ways to recognize their 1 Statistics Canada, 2004, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government sectors, 2002, Catalogue No. 16F0023X1E, Ottawa. xi

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

16 The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through an SSO program, based on the 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 population figures: facility throughput ranges from 3,000 to 30,800 tonnes; total operating cost ranges between $100,000 and $1,480,000; footprint size requirements vary between 0.23 ha and 2.3 ha; quality of processed organics is high; potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and average public acceptability with negative social impact from odours. In general SSO composting has a positive impact as it removes wastes from the disposal stream and produces a beneficial product which can be reintroduced into the soil. In general, it is found that all composting technologies can be used for incoming tonnages. The selection of a suitable composting technology will be the result of a cost-benefit analysis that evaluates the merits of a particular technology versus the costs and potential negative environmental and social impacts. The selection of a technology will be largely a function of being able to manage potential negative social and environmental impacts and deciding if these can be passively managed (i.e., typical in non-reactor type composting systems) or need to be actively managed (i.e., typical in reactor type composting systems). The key determiner of technologies will be the site that is proposed to be used. The buffer area in terms of distance and population size of potential receptors of negative impacts will drive this decision-making process. Therefore in areas with access to remote sites, a non-reactor based system can be contemplated and developed. In heavily populated areas this is more challenging and therefore, a reactor based system will likely be selected. For the communities selected the 20,000 and possibly the 80,000 person population can choose from all available technologies and can seriously consider the use of a non-reactor type composting system. The 200,000 person population is unlikely to have remote locations in which to build a non-reactor style facility and unless it has access to a remote site some distance away it will likely opt for a reactor style composting facility. In terms of costs, this means that smaller communities have the potential to develop a SSO program on a cost effective basis through the selection of a non-reactor composting technology. For larger communities, the costs will likely be higher but they will have the tax base to support this type of development. The following is a summary of the evaluation criteria for the management of organics through a mixed waste composting program based on 20,000, 80,000 and 200,000 populations: facility throughput ranges from 6,000 to 60,000 tonnes; total operating cost ranges between $249,000 and $3,462,000; footprint size requirements varies between 0.45 ha and 4.5 ha; quality of processed organics can be defined as low-medium; potential environmental impacts are lower than landfills; and average public acceptability. xiii

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

18 Anaerobic digestion has a significant benefit from a greenhouse gas point of view. It produces methane from the degradation of organic waste in a controlled environment. The methane can be used to displace fossil fuels. In addition, it avoids the production of this methane over a much longer period in a landfill, where its maximum energy potential would not be realized. The social impacts of anaerobic digestion are considered similar to those of composting, and are less significant that those of thermal processing or landfilling. The energy benefits of anaerobic digestion are smaller than those of thermally processing the same amount of material. Key features of anaerobic digestion are summarized below. Organic biodegradable waste is broken down without oxygen (anaerobic) to produce methane gas, carbon dioxide, water and digestate, which is composted. Can divert all or most organic materials and biodegradables food, garden waste, some papers. Applicable to 40% to 50% of the municipal waste stream Plants with capacitates of 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes/yr work well in Europe. There is little track record for larger plants currently in operation. Diverts organic waste from landfill, minimizing generation of acidic leachate and methane. Generates methane under controlled conditions. Biogas can be used as an energy source, displacing other sources of power. Net energy generator, with 50% (wet plants) to 80% (dry plants) available for export Anaerobic digesters require less space than composting facilities to process the same tonnage. The small footprint is one of the advantages of the technology. Employment requirements are modest, with a requirement for about 6-9 staff for a facility to process 25,000 tonnes/year. Nuisance impacts include traffic (similar to other waste management methods) and odours (controlled by bio-filters, but occasional releases expected). Green and renewable energy benefits are positive attributes Costs decrease dramatically towards 50,000 tonnes/yr. Greatest economies of scale are experienced at a digestion plant size of 100,000 tonnes/yr (mixed waste from population of 800,000 or source separated waste from population of 1.1 million). Methods to digest mixed waste effectively are currently being explored. Need cost-effective technology development for small communities. xv

19 Sanitary Landfill Increasing wide-spread adoption of waste minimization practices and the evolution of progressively more sustainable waste management technologies, will contribute to a trend away from the historical necessity for disposal of wastes. However, given the current status of waste generation and waste management policies, practices and technologies, there remains a need for technologies to allow disposal of residual waste materials. This section of the report evaluates and describes the current status of typical sanitary landfill technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on sanitary landfills. While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, the preceding evaluation shows that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from sanitary landfill disposal is practiced: Increased effective operating lifespan of sanitary landfills serving the community; Minor increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at sanitary landfills serving the community; Notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from sanitary landfills serving the community; Reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at sanitary landfills serving the community; Reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to sanitary landfills serving the community; and, Small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving the community. Bioreactor Landfill This section of the report evaluates and describes the current status of the bioreactor landfill as an emerging waste treatment technology and explores the effects that organic waste management activities would be expected to have on bioreactor landfills. The bioreactor landfill is a new technology evolved from contemporary landfill design that is being developed in response to public demand for innovation to achieve more sustainable approaches to waste disposal. Bioreactor treatment of solid wastes involves design, construction and operation of a landfill cell that is specifically engineered to enhance the decomposition of wastes through careful manipulation of conditions within the site. In essence, bioreactor technology provides a method of processing or treating wastes within the confines of a tightly controlled landfill cell. xvi

20 While it is clear that organic waste management activities cannot currently eliminate the need for disposal of some components of the waste stream, it is concluded that the following can be expected in communities where diversion of organic wastes from bioreactor landfill disposal is practiced: increased effective operating lifespan of the bioreactor landfill serving the community; increased consumption of water for contribution to a bioreactor landfill serving the community; increases in the total quantity of leachate generated at a bioreactor landfill serving the community; notable reductions in overall emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from a bioreactor landfill serving the community; reductions in the potential for renewable energy generation at a bioreactor landfill serving the community; reductions in the annual number of vehicle trips to a bioreactor landfill serving the community; and, small increases in unit costs for waste disposal at sanitary landfills serving the community. Evaluation results of bioreactor landfills are in strong parallel to those of the sanitary landfill in the context of the effects of organic waste management activities, it interesting to note the following in comparison of the two types of landfills: The unit land area consumption of bioreactor landfills is 17 to 22% less than that of sanitary landfills of equivalent disposal capacity. This is due to the significantly higher insitu waste density that is achieved in bioreactors. The unit leachate generation rates for bioreactor landfills are significantly less than those of the corresponding sanitary landfills. While seemingly counterintuitive, this result arises from the significantly shorter timeframes that leachate management is required at bioreactor landfills and is also influenced by the smaller unit surface area footprint of bioreactors. The unit gas generation rates at bioreactor landfills are significantly more than those at sanitary landfills, while the unit emission rates are significantly less (assuming gas collection at both types of sites). This relationship is also evident in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. This is due to the higher rates of gas recovery that are evident at bioreactor landfills and the shorter gas generating period focussed earlier in the facility s lifespan. The potential for renewable energy recovery at bioreactor landfills is significantly better than at equivalent sized sanitary landfills equipped with gas collection systems. This is also due to the higher rates of gas recovery that are evident at bioreactor landfills and the shorter gas generating period focussed earlier in the facility s lifespan. Unit costs for disposal of waste in medium to large size bioreactors are less than those for disposal of waste in equivalently sized sanitary landfills. The primary influencing factors for this are the increased airspace utilization and shorter post-closure management period of bioreactor landfills as compared to sanitary landfills. xvii

21 Thermal Treatment This section of the report provides a description and evaluation of the thermal treatment disposal option. Thermal treatment can be applied to the residual waste stream remaining after recycling and composting to recover renewable energy. The section provides a description of the various thermal treatment technologies and approval requirements for these technologies are discussed. The various waste streams including both quantities and composition within the scope of the study are identified and considered. An evaluation of the available thermal treatment options in terms of costs, social impacts and environmental impacts is provided. Managing waste via thermal technologies involves high temperature processing of waste materials to reduce the quantity of material requiring disposal; stabilize the material requiring disposal; and recover energy and potentially, material resources. The key findings from this analysis are as follows: Thermal processes significantly reduce the amount of material requiring landfill disposal. Typically, 90% by volume and 70-75% by weight. Thermal processes provide the opportunity to recover renewable energy from waste materials. Typically, 450 to 500 kwh of electricity per tonne of waste processed. If a suitable heat load is available, an equivalent amount of heat can be recovered in addition to the electricity. Given the size of communities considered in this study, starved air or multi-stage incinerators are likely the most appropriate thermal treatment technology. For the smallest communities, batch process systems are likely the most appropriate. New and emerging technologies such as plasma gasification are generally not yet commercially available or proven on a full scale. Thermal treatment is a costly waste treatment alternative and comparable to anaerobic digestion. It is more costly than landfill disposal. Generally, larger facilities are less costly on a per tonne basis. Any municipalities considering thermal treatment should consider partnering with neighbouring municipalities in order to build a large facility and obtain cost savings through economies of scale. Three alternative waste management systems considered: Baseline after removal of recyclables, all residual waste proceeds to thermal processing; Source Separated Organics in addition to recyclables, source separated organics are diverted from the baseline stream and the remaining residuals are thermally processed; and Mixed Waste the baseline stream is composted or digested and the remaining residuals are thermally processed. These alternative systems generate significantly different quantities of materials requiring disposal from a given size of municipality. On the other hand, there is relatively little difference in the energy content of material resulting from these three alternative systems. Thermal treatment facilities can be sited, as a compatible land use, in an industrial area. This significantly reduces the social impact associated with siting these types of facilities. People tend to be concerned about the air emissions from thermal treatment facilities. With the utilization of start-of-the-art air pollution control technology, these emissions are xviii

22 far lower than they were historically and far lower than from many other industrial facilities. Depending upon the assumption made with respect to waste composition and the ability of a landfill to sequester carbon, thermal treatment can serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill. Thermal treatment generates more emissions of air contaminants compared to landfill. On the other hand, landfill generates more contaminants to water than thermal treatment. Next Steps A key part of the project was the delivery of two workshops (one in Mississauga, Ontario on February 23, 2006 and one in Calgary, Alberta on March 2, 2006). The workshops had two objectives: share information with participants on leading edge, non-traditional residual municipal solid waste options, including consideration of environmental impacts, energy recovery, greenhouse gas emissions, social and environmental impacts; and seek advice on the applicability of the technological options at the municipal level; in particular, any barriers, potential opportunities and information gats. Approximately 100 people attended the two workshops, representing urban and municipal interests, were presented with highlights of five technology options including composting, anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment, sanitary landfill and enhanced treatment landfill. Participants then assessed the degree of community interest in the adoption of the technology, identified barriers that might need to be addressed in making the decision to adopt the technology and offered suggestions to overcome the barriers. The participants identified organics management and residual treatment activities the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or organizations could support and these included: research and development supported by awareness and education; leadership in research, education, communication and regulation is required at the federal and provincial government levels; use regulatory tools to influence research, development and implementation of new technologies; simplify siting/approvals regulations and adopt favourable/supportive policies; providing funding/financial incentives for waste reduction, GHG reduction and particular technologies; and conduct research and development and demonstration of the technologies. MWIN and RCA encourage the federal and provincial governments to support the activities suggested by the participants. xix

23 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background According to Statistics Canada 2, over 30.4 million tonnes of waste was generated in Canada in This translates into 971 kg/person. Households accounted for 39% of this total, with the remainder generated in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector (IC&I) and the construction, renovation and demolition sector (C&D). In Canada, in 2002, households generated 12 million tonnes of waste or 382 kg/person or represented an increase of approximately 5% over Of the 12 million tonnes of residential waste generated in Canadian households, 2.5 million tonnes were diverted with 9.5 million tonnes being disposed of in landfills or thermal treatment processes. The amount disposed amounted to 301 kg/person or an increase of approximately 2% over The amount of household waste diverted through recycling and composting in 2002 represented 81 kg/person and a 1.3% increase from The general flow of MSW in Canada is shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 Residential Waste Flow Canada needs to improve the amount of residential waste that is diverted. In the late 1980s, federal, provincial and municipal governments agreed to a target of 50% reduction in waste by weight per person from 1998 levels by the year While a few communities have reached this goal; as a country we still dispose of more than 78% of our waste. The responsibility for waste management largely rests at the municipal level. There are a broad range of waste management technologies available to point the way and serve as a basis from which to build an integrated waste management system that can achieve greater diversion. The difficulty for municipal leaders is sorting through the options and deciding on the best course of action for their communities. 2 Statistics Canada, 2004, Waste Management Industry Survey: Business and Government sectors, 2002, Catalogue No. 16F0023X1E, Ottawa. 1

24 With this in mind, the Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities 3 was released in The project was carried out with the leadership of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) with significant funding and supportive direction on content from Environment Canada (EC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and the Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change. The FCM Guide and accompanying Workbook provide an overview of integrated solid waste and resource management information, policies, and technologies. The primary audience for the FCM tools were solid waste managers, particularly in smaller communities, which tend to have fewer staff and experts available in the waste field. This report, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and Residual Treatment/Disposal, builds on the FCM Guide by examining the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations for: composting; anaerobic digestion; sanitary landfill. bioreactor landfill; and thermal treatment; It comes at a time when many communities across Canada are developing MSW Management Plans as a means to determine how to cost-effectively reduce environmental impacts and conserve landfill capacity. Communities are realizing that in order to meet current and future MSW targets, they must think beyond their existing waste diversion programs and find innovative ways to recognize their waste as a resource. To this end, many communities are turning to organics management programs to reduce their reliance on residual treatment/disposal technologies. 1.2 Goals and Objectives The MSW Options Report explores different MSW management options for three community sizes: 20,000, 80,000 and 200,0000. It caters to a similar audience as the FCM Guide and is intended to bring a greater understanding on the environmental, social, economic, energy recovery/utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations of MSW management. In addition, the report aims to demonstrate the interrelationships between the management of organics and residuals. It is intended to build knowledge and share information on existing waste diversion and organics management options and emerging residual treatment technology options with a focus on energy recovery and GHG emission reductions. This work was lead by the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) and the Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA), with funding and guidance being provided by Environment Canada (EC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The report attempts to provide municipalities with the information and tools necessary to achieve a higher level of environmental quality in the area of MSW management, which will in 3 Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Solid Waste as a Resource Guide for Sustainable Communities, March

25 turn enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, preserve our natural environment, and advance our long-term competitiveness - improving Canadians quality of life. It is our vision for Canada to have developed a family of waste-derived bioenergy technologies that provide publicly accepted, sustainable solutions to waste management. To achieve this vision, society must recognize the value of waste as a biomass feedstock and not as something to be discarded. Sustainable technologies must be developed to convert wastes to energy in an environmentally sound and economically attractive manner. Overall, the focus of this report is to assist municipalities with taking their integrated waste management systems to the next level in order to further conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, produce energy, lessen dependence on landfills and improve social acceptability. 1.3 Report Format The report is divided into the following sections: Section 2 - Study Assumptions; Section 3 - Source Separated Organics and Mixed Waste Composting; Section 4 - Source Separated Organics and Mixed Waste Processing Using Anaerobic Digestion; Section 5 - Sanitary Landfill; Section 6 - Bioreactor Landfill; Section 7 - Thermal Treatment; Section 8 - Summary In Section 2, the assumptions used by each of the technologies are outlined to provide the basis of each evaluation. In sections 3 through 7, each of the five technologies is assessed using the study assumptions outlined in Section 2. Finally, Section 8 provides an overall summary of the findings of the five technologies. 1.4 Workshops The findings of this report were presented in two workshops; one in Toronto on February 23, 2006 and the other in Calgary on March 2, The input received from the participants in these workshops is summarized in a separate report. A copy of the report can be downloaded from the following websites: 3