Step 1C: Alternative EFW Systems

Transcription

1 The Regional Municipality of Halton Step 1C: Alternative EFW Systems 30 May 2007 Regional Municipality of Halton 1151 Bronte Road, Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 Attn: The Office of the Manager for Purchasing Submitted By:

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction Introduction to Project Introduction to Step 1C Alternative EFW Systems Scenario Descriptions Base Case Scenario 1: Energy From Waste 100,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste Only Scenario 2: Energy From Waste 250,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton IC&I Waste (135,000 tpy) + Halton Biosolids (15,000 tpy) Scenario 3: Energy From Waste 500,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Scenario 4: Energy From Waste 800,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Scenario 5: Energy From Waste 1,200,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Comparative Evaluation SWOT Analysis Conclusions List of Tables Table 1-1: Base Case and Five EFW Scenarios for Inclusion in the Business Case Table 2-1: Alternative EFW Systems Table 2-2: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Analysis of Systems i May 30, 2007

3 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction to Project Halton Region s waste management program is about more than picking up garbage at the curb. Through its existing programs, such as the Blue Box and yard waste composting, Halton diverts around 43% of its residential waste out of the landfill. The Region is also considering rolling out its organics diversion program Region-wide in 2008 and if that program is implemented, Halton could divert 60% of its residential waste away from the landfill. Halton s Solid Waste Management Strategy presents recommendations geared towards extending the life of Halton s landfill by diverting more residential waste out of its landfill. One recommendation was to investigate Energy from Waste technology. In 1989, Halton received approval to create its Halton Waste Management Site (HWMS) through a decision of the Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act. The Board s approval followed guidelines and processes outlined in several pieces of provincial legislation, including the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The decision also included a number of conditions that the site must follow in order to operate. One of the conditions of approval states that Halton take all reasonable steps to implement an Energy from Waste (EFW) facility at the HWMS within eight years of operating the site. Halton s waste diversion efforts have outperformed original expectations which has extended the lifespan of its landfill. In 2002, at the request of the Region, the Minister of the Environment revised the EFW condition by allowing Halton to establish an EFW facility when required. This recognizes Halton s commitment to divert waste away from its landfill and protecting it as a valuable resource. When Halton Region decided to investigate the possibility of an EFW facility in the Region, Ontario municipalities were facing significant waste management challenges. In 2005, an independent study confirmed that there was a lack of landfill capacity in Ontario. The State of Michigan was exploring ways of restricting or stopping Canadian waste crossing the U.S. border and a consultant report commissioned by the City of Toronto and other municipalities listed the Halton Waste Management Site as one of 10 potential landfill sites that could be used as part of a contingency waste disposal option should the border close to Canadian waste. Developing new waste disposal facilities in Ontario is time consuming and expensive. As a result of the climate surrounding waste management in Ontario, Halton had the opportunity to consider taking a leadership role in Southern Ontario s waste management industry by potentially managing some of the waste that other Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) municipalities produce. A larger EFW facility in Halton could offer potential benefits due to the savings resulting from the size of the facility and the opportunity to generate additional revenues. By investing in a larger facility that could address Halton s solid waste needs (both residential and potentially Industrial, Commercial and Institutional waste), Halton could not only offer a timely solution to residential GGH long-term waste disposal challenges, but also protect its investment in its landfill site and leverage that investment to benefit the Halton community. 1-1 May 30, 2007

4 To give Regional Council and the public critical background information on Energy from Waste, the Region retained a consulting team to develop an EFW business case. The objective of the business case is to present the implications of various options, including landfill; it is not to recommend a preferred option for EFW. With this information in hand, the general public, key stakeholders and Regional Council can make an informed decision on how to handle Halton s waste over the 40 year planning period from 2011 to The scope of the business case includes the following: 1. To develop a business case for a number of EFW systems, including a description of the different types of EFW technologies potentially suitable for Halton, based on best available technology. 2. To develop a process to compare various EFW systems considering opportunities, liabilities, risks, transportation impacts, environmental issues including air quality and health matters, regulatory and planning approvals and implementation schedules. 3. To develop a process to compare various EFW systems in enough detail that the Region can begin a comprehensive public consultation process and make a decision on an EFW system. 4. To develop a process for consulting with the community, including interested citizens, public groups, government agencies and stakeholders. Halton will begin its consultation program after the business case is developed and presented to Regional Council. 5. To develop and consolidate relevant information that will support a 40-year planning period and be used to evaluate relevant technical, environmental, scientific, human health and safety, financial and communications effects associated with an EFW system. If Halton decides to implement an EFW facility, it will need more detailed studies and evaluation in order to support any technical and site specific approvals processes, such as EPA investigations. 6. To identify alternative funding options and ways to deliver the project, including all acceptable partnership opportunities. The business case is made up of eight documents and presents information for identifying and moving forward with options for public consultation. Topics examined in this business case include: The amount of waste generated within Halton Region and Greater Golden Horseshoe area municipalities; What is in the waste Halton residents produce; Different transportation options for getting waste to an EFW facility, such as road or rail; Technology options, such as mass burn and advanced thermal treatment; Financing options; Capital and operating costs for the facility, as well as needed infrastructure and services; Sizes of possible EFW facilities; Identifying environmental, health and social implications of different EFW options; Requirements for approvals; Outlining criteria to use in evaluating options; and Outlining a public consultation strategy. 1-2 May 30, 2007

5 These elements were studied and are presented in a series of technical reports. Step 1A: Development of EFW Scenarios and Transportation Options Step 1B: EFW Technology Review Step 1C: Alternative EFW Systems Step 2: Comparative Evaluation Criteria Step 3: Financial Analysis Step 4A: Potential Health and Environmental Effects Step 4B: Regulatory Approvals and Planning Requirements Step 4C: Framework for Public Consultation 1.2 Introduction to Step 1C As outlined in the Step 1A Report, there are six options for consideration in the development of the Halton Business Case. The first is the base case, which assumes that the Region not develop an EFW facility and continue to use landfill as its sole means of managing post-diversion materials. In addition to the base case, there are five EFW scenarios under consideration (Table 1-1). In each scenario, the following assumptions are carried forward: Halton Residential Waste Halton Biosolids Halton IC&I Waste 100,000 tpy 15,000 tpy 135,000 tpy For the purpose of establishing potential quantities of waste that may be available for management from municipalities surrounding Halton, the provincially defined Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) was considered. Whether the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste comprises a percentage of the waste managed by the EFW facility will be conditional on the tipping fees established relative to alternatives within Ontario and neighbouring U.S. states. For the purposes of this Business Case, the IC&I wastes are an either/or situation such that if the IC&I wastes are not included in the quantities managed, the equivalent quantities would be replaced by wastes from other GGH municipalities. Table 1-1: Base Case and Five EFW Scenarios for Inclusion in the Business Case Scenario Quantity Managed/ Size of Facility (tonnes per year) Area/Sources Base 100,000 Halton residential only to HWMS 1 100,000 Halton residential only 2 250,000 Halton residential + Halton IC&I + Halton biosolids 3 500, ,000 Halton residential + quantities from Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Halton residential + quantities from Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH 1-3 May 30, 2007

6 Scenario Quantity Managed/ Size of Facility (tonnes per year) 5 1,200,000 Area/Sources Halton residential + quantities from Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH This report examines the possible technology and transportation options available under each of the EFW facility size options. It also includes a comparative analysis of each of the scenarios. 1-4 May 30, 2007

7 2. Alternative EFW Systems A description of the Base Case and the five EFW scenarios being examined for the Business Case is provided under Section 2.1. It includes details of the following: Quantities managed by the facility; Sources of material to the facility; EFW technology (as applicable) that could be used to process the waste; Throughput rates; Declaration that the emissions from the facility will be lower than A7 guidelines; and Transportation options for getting the material to the site. A summary of the options is provided in Table 2-1. In Section 2.2, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOTs) of each of the options are presented in table format. Table 2-2 summarizes each of the scenarios, including the Base Case, providing an easy comparison of each of the options being considered. 2.1 Scenario Descriptions Base Case Under this scenario, all of Halton Region s waste would continue to go to the Halton Waste Management Site (HWMS). No EFW facility would be built. The landfill would continue to fill at its current rate. The site would require expansion or would be closed by approximately If a 60% diversion rate is achieved by 2010, the landfill life can be extended to Scenario 1: Energy From Waste 100,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste Only Halton Region would establish an EFW facility to manage only the residential wastes generated within the Region. The facility could utilize either mass burn or any of the thermal conversion technologies in the marketplace including gasification, pyrolysis, plasma gasification or any of the hybrid thermal conversion approaches as outlined in the Step 1B report. 2-1 May 30, 2007

8 Technically, the facility would be comprised of one 12.5 tonne per hour feed system. It would operate 350 days per year, 24 hours per day at 95% assumed up time. The pollution control system on the facility would meet or be lower than all A7 Guidelines for an EFW facility. As all of the material feeding the EFW facility would be sourced from Halton Region, the materials would arrive via truck only. Table 2-1: Alternative EFW Systems Scenario Quantity Managed (tonnes/yr) Mass Burn Advanced Thermal Treatment (1) Road Transportation Rail Transportation BASE CASE LANDFILL Halton residential only 100,000 N/A N/A EFW SCENARIOS Halton residential only 100,000 Halton residential + Halton IC&I (135,000 tonnes/year) + Halton biosolids (15,000 tonnes/year) Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH 250, , ,000 1,200,000 N/A Notes: (1) Advanced thermal treatment technologies include gasification, pyrolysis, plasma gasification, or combination systems N/A Not Applicable - Applies - Does not apply 2-2 May 30, 2007

9 2.1.2 Scenario 2: Energy From Waste 250,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton IC&I Waste (135,000 tpy) + Halton Biosolids (15,000 tpy) Halton Region would establish an EFW facility to manage the residential wastes generated within the Region. In addition, the facility would manage approximately 70-80% of the Region s estimated 175,000 tpy of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) wastes generated. Finally, the facility would also manage the approximately 15,000 tpy of wastewater treatment biosolids generated by the Region. The facility could utilize either mass burn or any of the thermal conversion technologies in the marketplace including gasification, pyrolysis, plasma gasification or any of the hybrid thermal conversion approaches as outlined in the Step 1B report. Technically, the facility would be comprised of one 31 tonne per hour feed system. It would operate 350 days per year, 24 hours per day at 95% assumed up time. The pollution control system on the facility means that emissions would be lower than A7 Guidelines for an EFW facility. As all of the material feeding the EFW facility would be sourced from Halton Region, the materials would arrive via truck only. IC&I waste from Halton Region is currently being transported outside of the Region. By potentially reducing the distance travelled there could be a potential reduction in emissions associated with transporting waste Scenario 3: Energy From Waste 500,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Halton Region would establish an EFW facility to manage the residential wastes and the biosolids generated within the Region. In addition, the facility would potentially manage approximately 70-80% of the Region s estimated 175,000 tpy of IC&I wastes generated. The facility would have capacity for an additional 250,000 tpy of waste from Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) municipalities. The facility could potentially have more capacity for waste from GGH municipalities depending on whether or not the IC&I wastes from the Region could be attracted to the facility. This would be conditional on market prices for other EFW or landfill options within Ontario and adjacent U.S. states. The facility would have to use a mass burn technology. There have not been any successful thermal conversion technologies using gasification, pyrolysis or plasma gasification developed at this size. Therefore, these types of facilities will not be considered under this scenario. Technically, the facility would be comprised of two 31 tonne per hour feed systems. It would operate 350 days per year, 24 hours per day at 95% assumed up time. The pollution control system on the facility would result in emissions being lower than A7 Guidelines for an EFW facility. The material arriving at the EFW facility sourced from Halton Region would arrive via truck only. The material from other GGH municipalities could technically arrive by truck or by rail. However, initial investigations into rail haul of small quantities over short distances suggests that it would be cost prohibitive and not viable, particularly in light of the need for rail transfer stations in neighbouring municipalities. This would be contingent on the sources of the 2-3 May 30, 2007

10 additional material. The Step 1A report examined the differences in emissions of the road haul and rail haul options into the facility. Depending on the rail haul option chosen, total emissions from transportation could be reduced Scenario 4: Energy From Waste 800,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Halton Region would establish an EFW facility to manage the residential wastes and the biosolids generated within the Region. In addition, the facility would potentially manage approximately 70-80% of the Region s estimated 175,000 tpy of IC&I wastes generated. The facility would have capacity for an additional 550,000 tpy of waste from GGH municipalities. The facility could potentially have more capacity for waste from GGH municipalities depending on whether or not the IC&I wastes from the Region could be attracted to the facility. This would be conditional on market prices for other EFW or landfill options within Ontario and adjacent U.S. states. There have not been any successful thermal conversion technologies using gasification, pyrolysis or plasma gasification developed at this size. Therefore, these types of facilities will not be considered under this scenario. The technology option would be limited to mass burn. Technically, the facility would be comprised of four 25 tonne per hour feed systems. It would operate 350 days per year, 24 hours per day at 95% assumed up time. The pollution control system on the facility would result in emissions being lower than A7 Guidelines for an EFW facility. The material arriving at the EFW facility sourced from Halton Region would arrive via truck only. The material from other GGH municipalities could technically arrive by truck or by rail. The viability of rail haul is greater with the larger quantity of waste, which would also likely have to come from further distances. However, the cost for the establishment of the transfer infrastructure may make rail haul less feasible than truck haul. Depending on the locations of the source material relative to the transfer points, the truck travel distance may be similar to traveling directly to the landfill Scenario 5: Energy From Waste 1,200,000 tpy Halton Residential Waste + Halton + Halton Biosolids + Halton IC&I Wastes + Wastes from GGH Municipalities Halton Region would establish an EFW facility to manage the residential wastes and the biosolids generated within the Region. In addition, the facility would potentially manage approximately 70-80% of the Region s estimated 175,000 tpy of IC&I wastes generated. The facility would have capacity for an additional 950,000 tpy of waste from GGH municipalities. The facility could potentially have more capacity for waste from GGH municipalities depending on whether or not the IC&I wastes from the Region could be attracted to the facility. This would be conditional on market prices for other EFW or landfill options within Ontario and adjacent U.S. states. There have not been any successful thermal conversion technologies using gasification, pyrolysis or plasma gasification developed at this size. Therefore, these types of facilities will not be considered under this scenario. The technology option would be limited to mass burn. 2-4 May 30, 2007

11 Technically, the facility would be comprised of five 30 tonne per hour feed systems. It would operate 350 days per year, 24 hours per day at 95% assumed up time. The pollution control system on the facility would result in emissions being lower than A7 Guidelines for an EFW facility. The material arriving at the EFW facility sourced from Halton Region would arrive via truck only. The material from other GGH municipalities could technically arrive by truck or by rail. The rail haul option is most feasible with this option as there are much larger quantities of waste, travelling to the site from further distances. The cost of establishing rail transfer points in other municipalities may still preclude it being more economically feasible than truck haul. Depending on the locations of the source material relative to the transfer points, the truck travel distance may be similar to travelling directly to the landfill. 2.2 Comparative Evaluation SWOT Analysis Outlined in Table 2.2 is a comparative evaluation of the Base Case and the five EFW scenarios described in Section 2.1. This information will be used when undertaking the systems evaluation. 2.3 Conclusions This report provides a summary of the options being carried forward for detailed investigation in the development of the Business Case. The only firm conclusions that can be drawn at this time is the restriction of the choice of EFW technology that can be used for the 500,000, 800,000, and 1,200,000 tpy facility being limited to mass burn and that rail haul is only an option for the three largest facility sizes as well. 2-5 May 30, 2007

12 Table 2-2: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Analysis of Systems Scenario Quantity Managed Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats BASE CASE LANDFILL Halton residential only 100,000 tpy No change to current system Easier to administer Continue to fill landfill at current rates Landfill would be full at end of 2023 Does not recover all potential energy in waste No opportunity to expand landfill life Need EA approvals for expansion or EA approvals for new landfill site earlier than required Closure of current landfill capacity will reduce Halton s landfill life 2-6 May 30, 2007

13 Scenario Quantity Managed EFW SCENARIOS Halton residential only 100,000 tpy Halton residential + Halton IC&I + Halton biosolids 250,000 tpy Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats 10,000 tpy of ash only to landfill Extends landfill life by 117 years Recovers energy value from unrecyclable materials Generates excess energy for sale to the grid Can recover additional metals from the ash 25,000 tpy of ash only to landfill Extends landfill life by 39 years Recovers energy value from unrecyclable materials Generates excess energy for sale to the grid Can recover additional metals from the ash Still require landfill for peaks Need additional tonnes during low generation periods Still require landfill for peaks Need additional tonnes during low generation periods Could manage leachate within cooling system of EFW facility Could establish synergistic businesses around site to use steam Potential to provide service to IC&I sector Can manage biosolids Could manage leachate within cooling system of EFW facility Could establish synergistic businesses around site to use steam Could reduce distance travelled by IC&I wastes currently going to disposal outside the Region Would require new EA Approval May not attract IC&I tonnes without differential pricing Cross subsidized pricing may result in residential customers paying more Would require new EA Approval 2-7 May 30, 2007

14 Scenario Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Quantity Managed 500,000 tpy Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats 50,000 tpy of ash to landfill Extends landfill life by 13 years Recovers energy value from unrecyclable materials Potential to utilize rail transport into the site Generates excess energy for sale to the grid Can recover additional metals from the ash Rail transport not likely economically viable with small quantities and short haul distances May not show environmental improvements with rail haul if distance to rail transfer point high relative to straight distance to the EFW facility May require all wastes to be hauled in by truck to be economically viable to GGH municipalities Requires intermunicipal agreements Higher initial capital costs Can reduce costs to Halton s residents through economies of scale of EFW facility Potential to provide service to IC&I sector Can manage biosolids Could manage leachate within cooling system of EFW facility Could establish synergistic businesses around site to use steam Could reduce distance travelled by IC&I wastes currently going to disposal outside the Region May not attract IC&I tonnes without differential pricing Cross subsidized pricing may result in residential customers paying more Requires rail transfer stations in other municipalities Not in line with original EA Approvals Would require new EA Approval 2-8 May 30, 2007

15 Scenario Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Quantity Managed 800,000 tpy Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats 80,000 tpy of ash to landfill Extends landfill life by 2.6 years Recovers energy value from unrecyclable materials Potential to utilize rail transport into the site Generates excess energy for sale to the grid Can recover additional metals from the ash Rail transport not likely economically viable with small quantities and short haul distances May not show environmental improvements with rail haul if distance to rail transfer point high relative to straight distance to the EFW facility May require all wastes to be hauled in by truck to be economically viable to GGH municipalities Requires intermunicipal agreements Higher initial capital costs Can reduce costs to Halton s residents through economies of scale of EFW facility Potential to provide service to IC&I sector Can manage biosolids Could manage leachate within cooling system of EFW facility Could establish synergistic businesses around site to use steam Could reduce distance travelled by IC&I wastes currently going to disposal outside the Region May not attract IC&I tonnes without differential pricing Cross subsidized pricing may result in residential customers paying more Requires rail transfer stations in other municipalities Not in line with original EA Approvals Would require new EA Approval 2-9 May 30, 2007

16 Scenario Halton residential + Halton IC&I, biosolids and/or other municipalities in GGH Quantity Managed 1,200,000 tpy Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Recovers energy value from unrecyclable materials Potential to utilize rail transport into the site Generates excess energy for sale to the grid Can recover additional metals from the ash Landfill fills at faster rate than current landfilling only scenario (120,000 tpy of ash to landfill) Landfill life decreases by 2.6 years Need landfill expansion or new landfill by 2020 Can reduce costs to Halton s residents through economies of scale of EFW facility Potential to provide service to IC&I sector Can manage biosolids Could manage leachate within cooling system of EFW facility Could establish synergistic businesses around site to use steam Could reduce distance travelled by IC&I wastes currently going to disposal outside the Region May not attract IC&I tonnes without differential pricing Cross subsidized pricing may result in residential customers paying more Requires rail transfer stations in other municipalities Not in line with original EA Approvals Would require new EA Approval 2-10 May 30, 2007