COUNTY OF SIMCOE · 2018-02-13 · CCF Viability Assessment Task I Report GENIVAR 1-1 1....

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

ITEM FOR: CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

SECTION: Solid Waste Management

ITEM NO. CS 12-095

MEETING DATE: June 13, 2012

SUBJECT: Central Composting Facility Viability Assessment Report and Next

Steps

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT direction be provided to staff with respect to options presented on the timing of

commencement of the siting and procurement processes for development of a County Central

Composting Facility (CCF) as outlined within Item CS 12-095.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY:

The Waste Management Strategy considered two options with respect to organics processing;

either processing outside of the County or within the County. In the shorter term, the Strategy

recommended discussions with Hamilton and Aim Waste Management to determine their

capacity and potential to extend the existing contract. These discussions are well underway. In

the longer term, the Strategy recommended development of organics processing capacity within

the County. Through the Strategy process public input indicated support for processing within

the County as well as for the addition of pet waste and diapers to the program. The Strategy

recommended that a facility developed in the County be owned by the County with a design,

build, operate arrangement with a qualified vendor.

BACKGROUND:

As reported in CS 11-175 (November 2011) and CS 12-063 (April 2012), staff has been working

with Genivar Consulting which have completed a viability assessment as Task 1 of the Central

Composting Facility (CCF) project which is attached as Schedule 1.

A representative of Genivar Consulting will be in attendance at the June 13, 2012 Corporate

Services Committee to provide a presentation and answer questions with respect to the report

including the quantities and characteristics of organic material as it relates to facility sizing,

organic processing technologies including aerobic and anaerobic digestion, technologies for

contaminant removal, design considerations and cost estimates, facility site considerations,

procurement considerations, approvals required and timelines.

The consultant report, attached as Schedule 1, takes a very reasonable approach to facility sizing

which allows for capacity to include expected growth over a period of 25 years, thus allowing

merchant capacity to be made available to neighbouring municipalities in the interim which

would allow for some economies of scale and reduce the operating cost per tonne.

The report also identifies a number of processing technologies including opinions as to which

technologies could realistically incorporate the additional materials which Council has previously

indicated a desire to process (diapers, pet waste, sanitary products).

June 13, 2012 Corporate Services Committee CS 12-095

The document also contains a number of next steps required, if directed by Council to proceed

with development of a facility, including the procurement process required to obtain a design,

build and operate (DBO) vendor; and the required siting and approvals processes. It is noted that

these processes will require significant effort and resources to achieve which were not specifically

incorporated into the 2012 budget (see Financial Analysis section with respect to reserves). Staff

therefore provides two options for Council’s consideration with respect to the Central

Composting Facility project:

Option 1 – Commence Central Composting Facility project development as soon as possible.

This option would see the Central Composting Facility project move forward as soon as possible

in order to reduce our reliance on outside processing service and to potentially enable diversion of

diapers and pet waste. As indicated previously, this project will require significant effort and

resources to achieve. In order to minimize the consulting costs, staff recommends that a qualified

full time staff person be retained in order to manage the siting and procurement processes and

ultimately to oversee the development and operations at the facility. Should Council direct that

the Central Composting Facility project development commence as soon as possible, project work

could reasonably commence in the fall of 2012.

If Option 1 is selected by Council, staff provides the following recommendation:

THAT Option 1 be approved as the preferred option to commence Central Composting Facility

project work as soon as possible as outlined in Item CS 12-095;

AND THAT funding related to the project work be provided as outlined within Option 1 of the

financial analysis of Item CS 12-095.

Option 2 – Delay further development of the Central Composting Facility project until 2013,

pending budget approval.

If this option is selected, and budget approval provided in 2013, project work could reasonably

commence sometime in the second quarter of 2013. It is noted that delay of the project would

have an impact on the County’s future landfill capacity and/or disposal or processing costs to

external facilities as diapers and pet waste account for approximately 25% of the County’s

garbage stream. If Option 2 is selected by Council, staff provides the following recommendation:

THAT Option 2 be approved as the preferred option to delay further development of the Central

Composting Facility project until 2013, pending budget approval as outlined in Item CS 12-095.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:

The viability assessment report completed by Genivar Consulting was funded through the Solid

Waste Management Department 2011 and 2012 budgets.

In 2011, capital funding was allocated to the project which was not fully utilized and therefore there

is approximately $100,000 remaining in reserves for 2012.

Option 1 - Should Council direct staff to commence with Option 1, it is anticipated that the full time

equivalent would be funded through the 2012 Solid Waste Management operating budget, it is

June 13, 2012 Corporate Services Committee CS 12-095

estimated that the impact would be approximately $30,000 for the remainder of the year. Approval

for any additional funds required for land purchases would be sought through a future report to

Council.

Option 2 – Should Council direct staff to delay further development of the project, costs would be

included in the 2013 budget for Council consideration and there would be no impact to the 2012

budget.

SCHEDULES: The following Schedule is attached hereto and forms part of this Item:

Schedule 1 – Viability Assessment

Schedule 1 to CS 12-095

PREPARED BY: Willma Bureau, Contracts & Collections Supervisor

APPROVALS: Date:

Rob McCullough, Director of Solid Waste Management May 25,2012

Rick Newlove, General Manager Engineering, Planning and Environment June 6, 2012

Lealand Sibbick, Deputy Treasurer June 6, 2012

Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer June 6, 2012

County of Simcoe – Various Solid Waste Management Projects

RFP 2011-064

Central Composting Facility Viability Assessment Report

May 2012

Prepared for: County of Simcoe Solid Waste Management 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, Ontario, L0L 1X0 Prepared by: GENIVAR Inc. 600 Cochrane Drive, Suite #500 Markham, Ontario, L3R 5K3 Project No. 111-22931-00

Schedule 1 Corporate Services Committee Report CS 12-095 Page 1 of 47

600 Cochrane Drive, 5th Floor, Markham, Ontario L3R 5K3 Telephone: 905.475.7270 Fax: 905.475.5994 www.genivar.com

111-22931-00

May 23, 2012

County of Simcoe Environmental Services Department 1110 Highway 26, Midhurst, ON, L0L 1X0 Attention: Wilma Bureau, Contracts and Collections Supervisor

Re: County of Simcoe Solid Waste Management Initiatives Central Composting Facility Viability Assessment Final Report

Dear Wilma:

GENIVAR is pleased to submit our final report for the Central Composting Facility Viability Assessment Task I analysis.

Please contact Brian Oke at 905-475-8728 x18216 with any aspects regarding this report or any follow on work.

Yours truly,

GENIVAR Inc.

Brian Oke, P.Eng

Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Management


County of Simcoe Solid Waste Management Initiatives CCF Viability Assessment Task I Report Table of Contents

GENIVAR ii

Table of Contents

TRANSMITTAL LETTER

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................................................... III

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

2. QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORGANIC MATERIALS REQUIRING PROCESSING ............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Organics Characteristics ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Material Quantities and Sources ............................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 SSO ...........................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 L&Y Materials ............................................................................................2-1

2.2.3 IC&I Quantities ...........................................................................................2-1

2.2.4 Inclusion of Pet Waste and Diapers/Sanitary Products ...............................2-2

2.2.5 Effect of County Population Growth ...........................................................2-2

2.2.6 Summary of Material Quantities for Processing ..........................................2-3

3. ORGANICS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Overview of Organics Processing ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Aerobic Composting ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 The Aerobic Composting Process ..............................................................3-1

3.2.2 Aerobic Composting Technologies .............................................................3-2

3.3 Anaerobic Digestion .............................................................................................. 3-11

3.3.1 The Anaerobic Digestion Process ............................................................ 3-11

3.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion Technologies ........................................................... 3-12

3.4 Technologies for Contaminant Removal ............................................................... 3-14

3.4.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 3-14

3.4.2 Pre-Processing Technologies .................................................................. 3-14

3.4.3 Post-Processing Technologies ................................................................. 3-16

3.5 CCF Technology Assessment Summary ............................................................... 3-18

4. CCF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES ................................................... 4-1

4.1 CCF Design ............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Aerobic Composting Facility .......................................................................4-1

4.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion Facility .......................................................................4-2



GENIVAR iii

4.2 Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Total Annualized Costs ..............................................................................4-3

5. CCF SITING CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Site Size ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Services .................................................................................................................. 5-1

6. CCF PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) ............................................................ 6-1

6.3 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) ....................... 6-2

6.3.1 RFQ ...........................................................................................................6-2

6.3.2 RFP ...........................................................................................................6-2

7. FACILITY APPROVALS AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE .................................................. 7-1

7.1 Approvals ................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.1 Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) .......................................................7-1

7.1.2 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) ...........................................................7-1

7.1.3 Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) ......................................................7-1

7.1.4 Municipal Approvals ...................................................................................7-1

7.2 Implementation Schedule ....................................................................................... 7-1

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 8-1

Appendix A – CCF Mass Balances

Appendix B – CCF Design Sheets and Site Area Requirements



GENIVAR iiii

Glossary of Terms Acronyms used in this report are defined below.

Acronym Definition

AD Anaerobic Digestion

CCF Central Composting Facility

DBO Design-Build-Operate

DOPF City of Toronto‟s Dufferin Organics Processing Facility

EAA Environmental Assessment Act

EPA Environmental Protection Act

IC&I Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

L&Y Leaf & Yard

MOE Ministry of the Environment

O.U. Odour Units

OWRA Ontario Water Resources Act

RFP Request for Proposals

RFQ Request for Qualifications

SSO Source Separated Organics

SWMS Solid Waste Management Strategy

TS Total Solids


County of Simcoe Solid Waste Management Initiatives CCF Viability Assessment Task I Report

GENIVAR 1-1

1. Introduction In 2009, the County of Simcoe began a process to develop a Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS) for the next 20 years. The Strategy, which was approved by County Council in 2010, includes a comprehensive review of current waste management practices and future disposal and diversion options. In the fall of 2011 the County issued Request for Proposals (RFP) 2011-064 and awarded the work to GENIVAR, work which includes a viability assessment of a central composting facility (CCF) serving the County.

Simcoe County currently collects both Leaf & Yard (L&Y) materials, which are windrow composted at County facilities and source-separated organics (SSO), which are processed at the City of Hamilton‟s CCF through a contract with the facility operator (AIM Environmental Group). This Task I work stems from the SWMS recommendation that the County investigate the viability of a county-owned CCF, in particular given the longer term uncertainty of being able to process its SSO at the Hamilton facility or at other out-of-County locations.

The fundamental scope of this Task I work includes an organics processing technology review, development of capital and operating & maintenance cost estimates for the CCF and identification of siting considerations for the CCF. Task II scope depends on Council approval and direction but likely involves the development of procurement documents to identify CCF vendors and to solicit proposals for the design/build/operation of the CCF.

The balance of this report includes:

Section 2 - quantities and characteristics of the organic materials requiring processing;

Section 3 – organics processing technology review;

Section 4 – CCF design considerations and cost estimates;

Section 5 – CCF siting considerations;

Section 6 – CCF procurement considerations;

Section 7 – CCF approvals requirements and implementation timelines; and

Section 8 – conclusions and recommendations.



GENIVAR 2-1

2. Quantities and Characteristics of the Organic Materials Requiring Processing

2.1 Organics Characteristics Simcoe County‟s residential curbside organics program currently accepts the following Source Separated Organic (SSO) materials:

Paper plates Nuts and shells Waxed paper Meat and fish Tissue and paper towels Tea bags Microwave popcorn bags Coffee grounds and filters Paper cups Cold wood ashes Pet food Sawdust Food scraps Popsicle sticks Egg shells Dryer lint Bones Hair Fruits and vegetables Household lint

The SSO is collected in 45.5L green carts on a weekly basis.

Leaf and Yard (L&Y) materials are separately collected in spring and fall. This collection will expand to four (4) collections per household each spring and five (5) collections per household each fall beginning in the spring of 2013.

2.2 Material Quantities and Sources 2.2.1 SSO

In 2011 the County collected approximately 11,000 tonnes of SSO from within the County, excluding the City of Barrie and the City of Orillia (see Section 2.2.6 below for a discussion on Barrie and Orillia SSO tonnages). Audits have revealed that this represents approximately 50% of the available SSO from residential sources.

2.2.2 L&Y Materials

In 2011 the County collected approximately 4,500 tonnes of L&Y materials curbside while approximately 8,500 tonnes of L&Y materials were dropped off at depots (total of 13,000 tonnes). County staff has indicated that they expect the L&Y quantities to continue to grow (by an estimated 25% +/-) as increased collection is being planned. Thus some 15,000 - 16,000 tonnes/yr of L&Y materials will require management.

The Cities of Barrie and Orillia collect L&Y materials however for planning purposes it is assumed that a new CCF in the County would not process L&Y materials collected in the Cities of Barrie and Orillia as this material is likely processed cost-effectively at Barrie and Orillia composting sites.

2.2.3 IC&I Quantities

Although the County is not currently responsible for the processing of a significant portion of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) organic materials, the County has indicated that an allowance of about 10% of a new CCF‟s capacity should be allocated for IC&I tonnage. It is expected that the IC&I feedstock would be virtually entirely SSO (i.e., no L&Y material).



GENIVAR 2-2

2.2.4 Inclusion of Pet Waste and Diapers/Sanitary Products

The SWMS prepared by Stantec indicated that there was strong support within the County to include pet waste and diapers/sanitary products in the SSO program. Both are compostable material categories; however, inclusion of these materials introduces plastic contamination due to people often placing pet waste in plastic bags and due to the composition of diapers/sanitary products (partly organic and partly plastic). Inclusion of these materials also introduces considerable odour potential due to the presence of ammonia and other odourous compounds. This CCF viability assessment looks at the impact of inclusion of these materials.

Extensive single family audits conducted seasonally for the County by Stantec in 2010 showed that pet waste and diapers/sanitary products represented about 25% of the garbage stream (by weight), which totalled about 38,000 tonnes in 2010. Thus these two organic material categories represent approximately 9,500 tonnes/yr of material. Assuming a capture rate (combination of participation rate and diversion by those who participate) in the order of 50%, it is estimated that some 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes/yr of additional material will be collected with the inclusion of these two categories in the SSO program.

GENIVAR is aware of at least one recent project in Ontario where approval for the SSO processing facility by the MOE included the condition that diapers/sanitary products not be included in the SSO stream. This condition was due to odour concerns. It is therefore strongly recommended that the County hold discussions with the MOE as soon as possible to gain their perspective on inclusion of these potential feedstock components. The pre-processing system at Toronto‟s Dufferin Organics Processing Facility (DOPF) has proven to be very effective at removing glass and plastic contaminants and in dealing with a feedstock that includes pet waste and diapers/sanitary products. If the County determines that pet waste and diapers/sanitary products can be included in their SSO program, a pre-processing system comparable to that at the DOPF is recommended (see Section 3.4). It is expected that with such a system final compost quality would not be compromised.

2.2.5 Effect of County Population Growth

The County is considering developing a CCF that serves its needs for at least 20 years. County staff has indicated that SSO growth is expected to match population growth in the County and that population growth is projected at 2.5% per annum. As a CCF would not likely be constructed and operational for at least 4-5 years it is proposed that the current SSO quantities developed above be escalated by 2.5% per year for 5 years, to yield the “initial” capacity requirement of the CCF at the time it becomes operational, and then for a further 20 years to yield the “ultimate” capacity of the CCF that would serve the County‟s SSO processing needs for 20 years after it becomes operational.



GENIVAR 2-3

2.2.6 Summary of Material Quantities for Processing

The following table provides a summary of the SSO quantities developed above.

Table 2.1 – Summary of SSO Quantities for Processing

Basis or Rationale SSO Quantity (tonnes/yr)

Current SSO Collection 11,000

Estimated impact of SSO program education/promotion 1,000

Allowance for IC&I tonnage (10%) 1,200

Inclusion of pet waste & diapers/sanitary products 4,500

Allowance for 5-years population growth at 2.5% per year (total of 13% after compounding).

2,300

Sub-Total (Initial SSO Capacity Requirements): 20,000

Allowance for additional 20-years population growth at 2.5% per year (total of 64% after compounding).

12,800

Total (Ultimate SSO Capacity Requirements): 32,800

These CCF capacities are in fairly close agreement with the SWMS, which stated that a CCF in the County would need capacity for approximately 18,000 – 25,000 tonnes/yr of SSO depending on program expansion to include pet waste and diapers/sanitary products, and an additional 10,000 tonnes/yr of L&Y materials. The SWMS states that over the 20-year planning period the total amount of SSO and L&Y materials could grow to 40,000 tonnes/yr.

For planning purposes the CCF design sheets and physical land area requirements developed in this report are based on SSO capacity of 30,000 tonnes/yr. This represents a 50% increase in the “initial” capacity estimate and is just slightly lower than the “ultimate” design capacity noted above. The capacity of 30,000 tonnes/yr was chosen to balance rewards due to economies of scale with the risks of constructing a facility that could ultimately prove larger than necessary.

Constructing a CCF that has 10,000 tonnes/yr of surplus SSO capacity will improve the economies of scale but only if that surplus capacity is filled. It is anticipated that a new CCF in Simcoe County could accommodate SSO quantities collected in the Cities of Barrie and Orillia as well. In 2010 the City of Barrie collected approximately 3,000 tonnes of SSO. It is estimated, based on the number of households that Orillia would contribute about 25% of the Barrie total or about 750 tonnes of SSO. Although longer term projections of SSO quantities that could be generated/collected in Barrie and Orillia are not available at this time, it seems likely that in the order of 4,000 - 5,000 tonnes/yr could be sourced from these two Cities within the next 5 years.

The 4,000 - 5,000 tonnes/yr from Barrie and Orillia represents almost half of the required surplus. With more and more municipalities initiating organics collection programs to improve their diversion rates, there appears to be both a growing need for organics processing capacity in Ontario and a growing shortage of available existing capacity in the province, thus the remainder of the surplus should be easily filled if the County were to offer their surplus as



GENIVAR 2-4

merchant capacity. Alternatively, the County could seek funding partners at the outset to allow the 30,000 tonnes/yr ultimate design capacity (or larger if necessary) to be constructed with full confidence the CCF‟s capacity will be filled.

As noted earlier, it is expected that the County will produce some 15,000 – 16,000 tonnes/yr of L&Y materials. For planning purposes, the CCF design sheets and physical land area requirements developed in this report are based on SSO capacity of 30,000 tonnes/yr (as noted above) and 15,000 tonnes/yr of L&Y material processing capability. As discussed later in this report, some of the L&Y material would be suitable for the SSO processing system‟s amendment needs.



GENIVAR 3-1

3. Organics Processing Technologies 3.1 Overview of Organics Processing In the context of processing household SSO to produce a compost product, the term “organics processing” typically involves either of two technology categories; aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion. Both of these technology categories have been long proven in Europe and, to a lesser extent, North America to successfully process SSO. Other processing technologies that could potentially process SSO, generally falling into the technology classification known as biofuels, are at various stages of development but are not proven at commercial scale.

Processing of Leaf and Yard (L&Y) materials to produce a compost product typically involves only aerobic composting. Aerobic composting of L&Y materials has been done successfully and cost-effectively for many years. Anaerobic digestion is not well suited to processing of L&Y materials because of the presence of wood/brush and the fact that most anaerobes are unable to readily degrade lignin.

With the inevitable presence of various types of contamination in SSO feedstocks and, to a much lesser degree, L&Y materials, organics processing also involves various contaminant removal technologies, including pre-processing and post-processing. Section 3.4 provides information on these technologies.

3.2 Aerobic Composting 3.2.1 The Aerobic Composting Process

Aerobic composting (composting) is an engineered biological process conducted in the presence of oxygen whereby naturally occurring microorganisms convert organic materials into compost, carbon dioxide, water, nitrate and sulphate compounds and heat. Process conditions such as carbon to nitrogen ratio and moisture levels are optimised and monitored throughout the process to satisfy product quality requirements and to minimize generation of odours.

The primary objective of the composting process is to stabilize the material from both a biological standpoint (reduced biological activity of the organic matter) and an agronomic standpoint (elimination of phytotoxicity). Since the composting process results in mass loss through decomposition of organic matter, evaporation and vapours, there can be an indirect objective, when seen as a benefit, of reducing the amount of organic material requiring management.

Composting is generally considered to have three distinct phases; high-rate, low-rate, and curing. Each phase is distinguished by the level of biological activity. The high-rate phase precedes the low-rate phase and is characterized by vigorous biological activity, rapid degradation of easily degradable compounds and high rates of heat generation. The high-rate phase is generally considered complete once thermophilic temperatures can no longer be sustained in the material mass. Typically time and temperature requirements to meet pathogen and vector attraction reduction are achieved during the high-rate phase.

The subsequent low-rate phase is characterized by diminished biological activity and heat generation, with continuing decomposition of organic matter.

The curing phase, also known as the maturation stage, is more related to the ultimate end use of the compost. Some end uses, such as container mixes at nurseries, require a very mature compost product. Agricultural applications, on the other hand, may not require a lengthy curing



GENIVAR 3-2

phase. At this point, biological activity is stable, as measured by respiration (oxygen consumption).

There is much debate as to the appropriate retention times for each of the high-rate, low-rate and curing phases. The shorter the retention time in each phase, the lower the facility cost since retention time typically translates into physical area requirements at a composting facility. However too short a retention time can lead to product instability, which in turn can affect product maturation requirements and can lead to odour generation. In the absence at this stage of a specific technology combined with specific material composition data and end product market targets, the following composting retention times are proposed in this report for aerobic composting of SSO:

High-rate phase and low-rate phase: total of 8 weeks combined

Curing phase: 12 weeks

Material storage phase: 24 weeks (allows for storage over winter and early spring, when product may not be shipped/sold)

The retention time for the individual high-rate and low-rate phases will typically vary during the combined 8-week period for these two phases. However at a minimum 2 weeks is recommended (should be specified) for the high-rate phase using a controlled, in-vessel composting technology that provides or allows for turning of the material. During the minimum 2-week high-rate phase, operations would be indoors with air capture directed to an odour control device. During the subsequent low-rate phase, operations would be indoors or could be outdoors if a system with a fabric cover that provides a measure of odour control (e.g. the Gore system – see Section 3.2.2) is used.

3.2.2 Aerobic Composting Technologies

In-Vessel Beds or Bays (with Mechanical Agitation)

Agitated beds compost materials in “bays” contained by long channels with concrete walls (Figure 3.1). A turning machine, traveling on top of the bays, agitates and moves the material forward (Figure 3.2). Forced aeration is provided through the floor of the channel; the top of the channel is open.

Most systems are operated in the positive aeration mode (air blown up through the pile) to avoid leachate and fines building up in the aeration manifolds, reducing the flow of air. To concentrate the process air to be treated for odours, some systems have plastic curtains around the perimeter of the bays (and in some cases, there is a drop ceiling to further contain odorous air). This reduces overall ammonia levels in the entire building, enabling operators to safely work around the perimeter of the bays (e.g. loading and unloading operations). It also helps to contain the moisture and ammonia being released from the composting materials, which contribute to corrosion of the building.

All agitated bays operate in a similar fashion. Feedstocks are mixed and loaded in the front end of the channel. Starting at the discharge end, the turner moves down the channel toward the front or loading end. With each pass, material is displaced a set distance toward the back of the channel until the materials are eventually discharged as compost that has met time and temperature requirements for pathogen and vector attraction reduction.

Depending on the turner, material is shifted approximately 2 – 4 metres with each turning. Dimensions of individual channels vary among the commercial systems with depths ranging from 1 – 2.5 metres and widths of 2 – 4 metres. Channel lengths typically range from about 60 –



GENIVAR 3-3

90 metres. Most applications use multiple channels and a single turning machine. Larger facilities (expanded by adding more bays) may have two agitating units.

Expandability of in-vessel bays is fairly straight forward requiring the construction of new bays typically adjacent to the existing bays. This technology lends itself well to expansion to suit growing tonnage because the individual bays can be constructed in relatively small capacity increments. However, as in-vessel bays are normally constructed indoors, expansion must either be planned (i.e., allowed for) with the originally constructed building or the building must be expanded at the same time as the new bays and consequently the technology is not considered particularly modular.

GENIVAR is aware of at least five vendors of proven turnkey agitated bay systems. In Ontario, LaFleche Environmental located in Moose Creek, operates an aerated, agitated 6 channel IPS (Siemens) system, which involves 21-25 days of enclosed, in-channel processing followed by 21 days of outdoor windrow composting for the curing phase. Universal Resources Recovery Inc. operates a 35,000 tonnes/yr (SSO) agitated channel composting system (technology provider not confirmed) in Welland.

Figure 3.1 – Example of In-Vessel Agitated Bed Technology (IPS/Siemens)



GENIVAR 3-4

Figure 3.2 – Example of In-Vessel Agitated Bed Material Turner (IPS/Siemens)

In-Vessel Horizontal Basin Reactors

Horizontal basin reactors are essentially open beds where material typically is agitated by a turning mechanism suspended from a bridge over the bed (Figure 3.3). Instead of individual channels that are characteristic of agitated bay systems (with the agitator riding on top of the channels), basin reactors have one open bed (up to 30 m wide) and a windrow height typically around 3 m. Generally, the material pile in the basin is defined as a rectangular windrow or extended pile. The material is moved by sectors, either longitudinally or laterally, using a travelling bridge over top of the basin, with turning mechanisms attached to the bridge. For these types of plants, turning mechanisms include inclined elevator belts, bucket wheels, turning paddles, and inclined or vertical Archimedean screws (auger-like).

Loading generally is carried out by means of conveyor belts, and the material is moved toward the discharge end with the successive turnings. During the last turning, the biomass is discharged onto a system of conveyor belts that transport the material to the maturation area or onto an open floor where transfer to the maturation area is achieved using a loader. The flooring of this type of plant is equipped with systems for the aeration of the biomass.

Expansion of in-vessel basins requires the construction of a new basin typically adjacent to the existing basin or across from it (thus sharing the feed hall). As in-vessel basins are constructed indoors, expansion must either be planned (i.e., allowed for) with the originally constructed building or the building must be expanded at the same time as the new basin and consequently



GENIVAR 3-5

the technology is not considered particularly modular. For systems with minimal feedstock growth likelihood, it may be beneficial to construct the original basin large enough for the expected future tonnage and not utilize the entire basin initially.

GENIVAR is aware of at least three vendors of proven turnkey in-vessel horizontal basin reactor systems. In Ontario, Miller Waste Systems designed, built and operates a 50,000 tonnes/yr in-vessel system in Pickering. This facility utilizes the Japanese Ebara technology which is the travelling bridge with turning paddle that incrementally agitates the composting material in the open wide bed.

Figure 3.3 – Example of In-Vessel Horizontal Basin Technology (Miller/Ebara)

In-Vessel Modular Tunnels / Biocells

Contained tunnel or biocell composting systems are modular; individual containers are added as volume increases. The number of units or modules determines the scale of operation. Although there are a few tunnel designs that have internal agitation, the majority of tunnel systems use a static composting method (i.e., there is no mechanical agitation while material is in the container or tunnel). Instead, agitation is provided when material is moved from one biocell to another or when unloaded.

Fans supply oxygen and remove moisture and heat. In most cases, air is introduced at the base of the material and flows up through the composting mass into a headspace at the top. In



GENIVAR 3-6

other cases, air is pulled through the material. In either aeration mode (positive or negative), process air is treated through an odour control device (typically a biofilter), sometimes housed in a separate container. What varies among the commercial systems is the type of container, size and details such as the control devices, loading equipment and leachate management.

Tunnel systems typically are made from either reinforced concrete (Figure 3.4) or stainless steel. Some systems are modeled after, or made from, steel solid waste roll-off containers, which provide a durable enclosure that is modular and moveable. As containers are filled, they are connected to a central air delivery manifold. Materials are composted as a batch. In typical operations containers are filled; after a period of time, e.g. 10 – 14 days, containers are unloaded so that its contents can be mixed and the moisture content adjusted if necessary. Some facilities use the tipper mechanism on a roll-off truck to unload the containers.

Figure 3.4 – Example of In-Vessel Biocell Technology (Christiaens)

Many assessments of composting technologies consider biocells to be advantaged over other technologies because of their inherent modularity (which allows relatively easy scale up with feedstock tonnage growth). Although this is the case for mobile-style containers designed for outdoor operation, many biocell systems are designed with the biocells contained within a larger building, which provides the tip floor, the mixing/feeding area and the product out-loading area. In this latter case there is better control of odours, which despite the enclosed nature of biocells are released with loading and unloading, and more convenient indoor operations albeit at a



GENIVAR 3-7

higher cost. In such a case, the modularity advantage is lost since the larger enclosing building must be designed to accommodate construction of any new biocells or the building must be expanded. All of the known biocell facilities in Ontario (see below) have the biocells located within a larger building.

GENIVAR is aware of at least fifteen vendors of proven turnkey biocell systems. In Ontario, there are several organics processing facilities that utilize three (3) different static biocell technologies including: the Christiaens technology (60,000 tonnes/yr Peel Integrated WM facility in Brampton, 60,000 tonnes/yr AIM Environmental facility in Hamilton and the 30,000 tonnes/yr Guelph facility), the Herhof technology (8,000 tonnes/yr Region of Peel Caledon facility), and the Orgaworld technology (100,000 tonnes/yr London facility and the 100,000 tonnes/yr Ottawa facility).

In-Vessel Vertical Reactors

Several vertical reactor or silo technologies were marketed in the 1980s for composting municipal biosolids. These systems employed a forced air technology (positive mode) and typically operated with two silos, one for fresh material and the second for material that had been composting for 10 to 14 days. Material was conveyed from the base of the first silo to the top of the second silo. The silos were steel-fabricated vessels. One system, which is still marketed in North America, designed a patented “air-lance” technology, with rigid plastic aeration “tubes” running vertically within the silo.

Vertical silos available today for composting municipal organics are normally passively-aerated, (i.e., there is no forced aeration). Instead, the material is contained in vertical, wire-mesh “cages” that enable air to flow through. The cages can be tall (e.g., 3 to 4 metres high) and long but are usually only about a metre wide. Therefore, the core of the composting mass is, at most, 0.5-0.6 metres from the air space that surrounds the cage. Some systems use composting chambers that draw air in the bottom and exhaust at the top, with air movement achieved using the chimney effect.

Owing to their physical size vertical reactors are quite modular and new units can be added as tonnage warrants.

Vertical silos need to be configured so that fresh (uncomposted) material being added at the top does not contaminate material that already has met pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements. This could occur via leachate from the fresh material seeping down into the compost that has met time/temperature requirements. One approach to avoiding the contamination situation is to have two silos (similar to the biosolids systems described above), with transfer of compost to a second silo prior to loading fresh material into the first silo.

Biosolids composting facilities using the vertical silo technologies were challenged by the difficulty in providing an even flow of air throughout the composting mass. Therefore, many of these operations were plagued with odour problems. This issue has not necessarily been resolved with facilities composting SSO. Like other static composting systems, the lack of physical agitation could slow down physical degradation of the composting materials.

GENIVAR is aware of only one vendor of vertical reactors with facilities operating on SSO (VCU Ltd.). The Emterra organics processing facility in Newmarket utilizes Vertical Composting Unit (VCU) vertical reactors as part of the overall aerobic and anaerobic processes at that facility, although we understand this facility may no longer be operating. A second vendor, TEG Environmental, is believed to have a vertical reactor system under construction in the U.K.



GENIVAR 3-8

Non-Fixed Enclosure Aerated Static Piles with Periodic Agitation

When composting facilities first began using silage storage bags for composting, marketed as “pods,” it was difficult to neatly classify this type of system. Essentially, this technology uses aerated static pile composting in a heavy-duty plastic (polyethylene) silage bag. Air is blown into the bags and exits through small ports on the sides of the bag.

The term “non-fixed enclosure aerated static pile” is used to distinguish it from in-vessel composting, which takes place in rigid enclosures (e.g., metal containers, concrete bays). A number of facilities composting SSO use this bag technology because it provides containment at a lower capital cost than rigid vessels. The active composting phase typically is followed by open windrow composting to accelerate breakdown of feedstocks that didn‟t physically degrade during the period without mechanical agitation. The bags are normally placed on a compacted surface (not necessarily paved). Materials are premixed and loaded into the bags using a mechanical ram or auger-like rotor. Typically, bags are installed on a slight slope so that leachate runs to one end and can be more easily managed.

A more engineered non-fixed enclosure aerated static pile composting system was introduced in Europe over a decade ago. The technology utilizes a patented membrane cover that is permeable to gaseous substances but retains odour emissions (Figure 3.5). Piles are built on a concrete pad with aeration trenches. An automatic winding device pulls the cover over the piles (Figure 3.6); the cover is sealed to the ground at the base of the piles, preventing air from escaping. Air is blown up through the piles. Odorous compounds, contained in condensation where the surface of the pile meets the membrane cover, are trapped and precipitate back into the pile, which essentially acts as a biofilter. A handful of composting facilities processing SSO have started using the membrane cover technology. It appears to be effective at odour treatment and provides containment, thus meeting the approval of local air quality regulators and site neighbours.

These bag systems require the bags, aeration equipment, a bag filler and equipment to pre-mix feedstocks. The membrane cover system is a package that includes the membrane covers, winder, controls and aeration equipment. A concrete pad (with aeration trenches or plastic piping) is needed.

These systems are readily and inexpensively expanded with addition of compost pad area and the bag system. Because of the relatively low initial cost of a compost pad, it is often built initially to accommodate the future expansion capacity.

In North America, the plastic bag systems are sold by distributors of Ag-Bag Environmental and Versa Corporation. In 2005, Engineered Compost Systems introduced a fabric covered aerated static pile composting system. Integrated Municipal Services (IMS), a division of the Walker Environmental Group, has a preferred supplier agreement with W.L. Gore for its North American composting facilities. There are several organics processing facilities operating in Ontario that utilize the Gore cover technology (which, unlike most bags or cover systems, provides a measure of odour control due to the nature of the fabric cover) including: the 75,000 tonnes/yr (40,000 tonnes/yr SSO and 35,000 tonnes/yr L&Y) IMS facility in Thorold, the Region of Peel‟s 45,000 tonnes/yr Chinguacousy windrow composting site, the 40,000 tonnes/yr All Treat Farms 32-row windrow composting facility in Arthur, and the 20,000 tonnes/yr Norterra facility in Kingston.



GENIVAR 3-9

Figure 3.5 – Example of Non-Fixed Enclosure Aerated Static Pile Technology (Gore)

Figure 3.6 –Gore System Cover Winder



GENIVAR 3-10

Open Windrows or Static Piles

Additional secondary or low-rate processing is required after any of the in-vessel (high-rate) technologies described above. Curing is required following the low-rate phase. Many operations use aerated windrows or aerated static piles for the low-rate phase and for the curing step. It should be noted that permitting in Ontario of open (i.e. outdoor) windrow or static piles for the low rate phase is extremely unlikely primarily due to odour concerns. Consequently, unless these technologies are utilized in a building they are really only suited for the curing phase.

With aerated windrows, piles are built over in-floor trenches, and then turned either with dedicated windrow turners (Figure 3.7) or front-end loaders. Facilities with higher throughput demands increasingly are using windrow turners to move material more quickly.

Figure 3.7 – Example of Open Windrow Technology (with Windrow Turning Machine)

The primary distinction between windrows and aerated windrows is that the latter has forced aeration. This enables control of temperature and oxygen flow to the piles between turnings. However, the primary advantage is the ability to treat the odorous air via negative aeration and biofiltration, or through positive aeration and treatment of building air.

Aerated static piles are another option for low-rate processing (after high-rate processing in a vessel) and curing. Aerated static pile composting is comprised of forcing (positive) or pulling (negative) air through a trapezoidal compost pile. Agitation only occurs when piles are combined or moved to a different area for curing. To better manage odours, piles often are covered with a layer of finished compost or wood chips, which then are incorporated when the piles are moved.



GENIVAR 3-11

Windrow facilities with straddle turners (a turner which goes over the top of the pile) are limited in pile height by the height of the turner. Other turner technologies (e.g., elevating face) perform the turning function from the side and therefore pile height is less of a constraint. Generally speaking, however, to optimize the windrow composting process, pile height typically is limited to 3 to 4 metres. Many windrow turners have a watering attachment, which enables moisture to be added to the pile while turning.

Windrow systems are readily and inexpensively expanded with addition of compost pad area. Because of the relatively low initial cost of a compost pad, it is often built initially to accommodate the future expansion capacity.

3.3 Anaerobic Digestion 3.3.1 The Anaerobic Digestion Process

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological process that treats organic residuals in the absence of oxygen. Microorganisms that thrive in an anaerobic environment degrade the organic materials and produce methane as a by-product. The methane, in the form of biogas, which typically contains about 50-60% methane, 40-45% carbon dioxide and traces of other gases, can be captured and converted into energy.

AD is a common treatment technology for municipal wastewater solids, known as sewage sludge or biosolids. The process is also used to treat livestock waste, such as dairy and swine manure. There have been numerous advancements in the technologies and systems used for these applications. Over the years and primarily in Europe, AD evolved as a treatment system for the organic fraction in municipal solid waste. Whereas the AD technologies for municipal sewage sludge and manures revolve around treating a homogenous waste stream with high liquid content, the systems developed for SSO take into account the higher initial solids content of the materials to be processed. Co-digestion of biosolids and SSO is generally not done because of the typically higher metals content in biosolids which would compromise the ability to convert the SSO into a high grade compost product.

In the context of processing SSO, the primary objectives of the AD process are to stabilize the material and also to produce energy. As with composting, the AD process (in combination with aerobic composting – see below) results in mass loss through decomposition of organic matter, generation of biogas, evaporation and vapours, and thus there can be an indirect objective, when seen as a benefit, of reducing the amount of organic material requiring management.

The AD process is characterized by two phases, termed the “acid phase” (acidogenesis) and the “methane phase” (methanogenesis). The basis for the terminology is the sequence of events that typically take place in the biological conversion of organic compounds into methane and biomass under anaerobic conditions. In single-stage digestion processes, acidogenesis and methanogenesis occur concurrently in the same vessel while two-stage systems separate the acidogenesis and methanogenesis into separate, sequential reactor vessels.

The solids from the digestion process, known as digestate, need further processing if they are to be considered a finished, unrestricted or beneficial use product (compost) and this is normally accomplished through aerobic composting. Remarkably, anaerobic digestion draws carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from the SSO feedstock in generating biogas but essential agronomic nutrients (N, P and K) largely remain in the digestate making it suitable for compost production.

In this report, following an average retention time in a digester of about 2 weeks, it is required that the digestate would then be subjected to additional high-rate, low-rate and curing aerobic composting phases as described above for the aerobic composting process, as follows:



GENIVAR 3-12

High-rate phase and low-rate phase: total of 6 weeks combined (including a minimum 2 weeks high-rate processing as described above for aerobic composting)

Curing phase: 12 weeks

Material storage phase: 24 weeks (allows for storage over winter and early spring, when product may not be shipped/sold)

3.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion Technologies

There are a number of different AD systems and configurations utilized to process SSO. The most fundamental characteristic of, or distinction between, the AD technologies is the digester feed total solids (TS) content. “Wet” AD processes typically operate at <15%TS while “Dry” AD processes operate at >20%TS. Wet AD systems utilize tank-style digesters to accommodate the high liquid content while Dry AD systems utilize digesters that could be compared more to aerobic composting biocells except of course that they operate anaerobically. There is wide variation in the literature of biogas yields between the two approaches; it is GENIVAR‟s opinion that the two are comparable in terms of biogas yield.

Other distinctions between AD technologies include:

Number of stages – Single or Two-stage;

Operating temperature – mesophilic processes (about 34°C to 45°C) and thermophilic processes (about 45°C to 60°C).

Process flow – Continuous or Batch; and

Mixing Regime – Completely Mixed, Plug Flow, Static.

AD systems, especially wet AD, are more complex than dry AD systems or aerobic composting systems, owing to the need for slurry preparation, pumping and dewatering, but as stated earlier may be more effective at contaminant removal. Compared to aerobic systems, AD systems are somewhat more sensitive to feedstock throughput rate and composition variations and care must be taken to minimize these variations.

AD technologies vary in their modularity and expandability. Batch fed dry AD digesters are similar to aerobic biocells in physical layout and additional digesters can be added in relatively small capacity increments. With an indoor system the space for the new digester must either be planned (i.e., allowed for) with the originally constructed building or the building must be expanded at the same time as the new digester is added.

In the context of a relatively small capacity system such as would be the case for Simcoe County, wet AD systems are not particularly modular. A cost-effective system requires a minimum capacity wet pre-processing system and digester in the order of 20,000 tonnes/yr and expansion by one “module” would double the plant capacity. A related potential concern with a single, continuously fed wet digester system is that it is possible for the digester‟s anaerobic bacteria population to be killed due to a toxic spike in the feedstock or abrupt change in digester parameters and re-establishment of a viable bacteria population can take several months.

GENIVAR is aware of some twenty vendors of proven turnkey AD systems; the difference between the vendors typically being the specific configuration of their systems in terms of the technology distinctions noted above. In Ontario, AD technologies are complemented by subsequent aerobic composting of the remaining solid materials (or digestate). This is because



GENIVAR 3-13

the highest quality marketable compost consistent with the Ontario proposed „AA‟ standard is almost always desired and AD on its own will not achieve this objective.

In Ontario there are currently two (2) AD facilities designed to process municipal SSO; the Dufferin Organics Processing Facility (DOPF) in Toronto (Figure 3.8) and the Emterra facility in Newmarket. Both of these facilities utilize the single stage, wet, mesophilic „BTA‟ technology (represented in North America by Canada Composting Inc.). We understand that the Emterra facility may not currently be operating. Although there are no dry AD systems in Ontario or, to our knowledge in Canada, it is important to note that there are many vendors of dry AD systems and their systems are widely used in Europe.

The City of Toronto is currently constructing a new 55,000 tonnes/yr wet AD facility at its Disco Rd transfer station, also using the „BTA‟ technology. The DOPF is planned to be expanded from 25,000 tonnes/yr to 55,000 tonnes/yr once the Disco Rd facility is operational.

At the DOPF, SSO is pre-processed in a hydropulper to condition material for subsequent anaerobic digestion and to remove heavy (grit, glass) and light (plastic film) contaminant fractions. After contaminants are removed the remaining liquid/solids slurry is then anaerobically digested, dewatered following digestion and then the digestate is sent off-site for further high-rate, low-rate and curing phase processing. These latter functions occur off-site as the DOPF site is not large enough to accommodate them.

Figure 3.8 – Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility (DOPF in Toronto)



GENIVAR 3-14

3.4 Technologies for Contaminant Removal 3.4.1 Overview

SSO feedstocks inevitably contain contaminants (i.e., items that are not compostable) due to:

poor separation at source;

residents being allowed to set out materials in plastic bags (e.g., the Toronto Green Bin program); and/or

residents being allowed to set out materials that are most conveniently disposed of in plastic bags (e.g., pet waste) or that contain plastics (e.g., diapers).

Contaminant removal is a necessary step where organics processing of SSO targets to produce the highest quality marketable compost such as the Ontario proposed „AA‟ standard, since the presence of contaminants will affect the classification and value of the final compost. L&Y materials typically do not contain significant amounts of the contaminants noted above and composting of L&Y materials can generally be accomplished without extensive contaminant removal equipment (although product refinement or sizing requires equipment that is also used for contaminant removal).

There is a strong argument for contaminants to be removed as early in the organics processing steps as possible (i.e., favouring pre-processing) since the process by its nature will tend to break apart contaminants into smaller and smaller pieces making them more difficult to remove at later stages in the process. Additionally, contaminants containing hazardous waste (for example batteries) that are allowed to move through the process may leach out into the compost. Conversely, some argue that it is easier to remove contaminants at later stages in the process (i.e., favouring post-processing) as the material is dryer at this stage; conditions under which conventional screening and air classifying are more efficient.

3.4.2 Pre-Processing Technologies

Wet Pre-Processing Technologies

When it comes to removal of contaminants, it appears advantageous to create an aqueous state that naturally causes the heavy fraction to sink and the light fraction to float. It is generally accepted that wet separation processes achieve higher impurities removal compared to dry separation, however the processes are more laborious and therefore expensive. Dry separation processes leave higher concentrations of sand, glass splinters, plastic particles and other impurities in the final product.

There are several different wet pre-processing systems/approaches, almost exclusively utilized in European AD facilities. The wet pre-processing technologies were generally developed to pre-condition SSO feedstocks for wet AD processing (i.e., prepare the solids/liquid slurry suitable for pumping to digesters and subsequent digestion) however, they have with relatively minor modifications become effective contaminant removal technologies as well. Although these technologies are almost exclusively used at “wet” AD facilities, they could be used as a pre-processing step at an aerobic composting facility.

In Ontario, the AD facility operating at the City of Toronto‟s DOPF includes a BTA wet pre-processing system for the SSO feedstock, comprising a hydropulper (Figure 3.9) followed by a grit separator or hydrocyclone. SSO is conveyed into the hydropulper; a tank that houses a large mixer to “pulp” the SSO/process water mixture to prepare it for subsequent digestion. The plastic bags containing the SSO are torn open during the pulping cycle and float to the top of the



GENIVAR 3-15

tank along with other light fraction contaminants, and are captured with a raking mechanism then directed to disposal. Heavy fraction contaminants sink to the bottom of the hydropulper and are captured in a two-valve trap. Before being pumped to the digester, the suspended pulp is pumped to a surge tank and from there it is pumped through the hydrocyclone, which utilizes centrifugal forces to de-grit the pulp slurry. Any wastewater from this process is typically redirected (recirculated) back to the hydropulper step.

The hydropulper / hydrocyclone combination at the DOPF has proven to be very effective at removing glass and plastic contaminants and in dealing with a feedstock that includes pet waste and diapers/sanitary products. If the County determines that pet waste and diapers/sanitary products will be included in their SSO program, a wet pre-processing system comparable to that at the DOPF is recommended, even if an aerobic composting technology is selected for the CCF.

It should be noted that the wet pre-processing system described above would capture as a residual the compostable bags currently required in the County‟s SSO program. If a County CCF were to utilize a wet pre-processing step a switch to use of plastic bags should be considered. This step would remove the requirement for residents to purchase special bags and therefore also has the potential to increase SSO participation and capture rates.

Figure 3.9 – Wet Pre-Processing Technology (BTA Hydropulper and Internal Mixer)

Rotary Drum Technologies

Rotary drums (sometimes called digesters) are often referred to as composting technologies because a number of solid waste composting systems in North America utilize a drum as the first stage of composting. However, rotary drums are not in and of themselves a composting technology; they must be used in tandem with another composting method. Rotary drums are popular because they serve several purposes; blending, size reduction without shredding, and screening. Over the typical 3-day retention time, the composting process is initiated, providing degradation of feedstocks, particularly food waste. Air is fed into the drum to aerate the



GENIVAR 3-16

material; process air typically is treated through a biofilter. As material exits the drum, it passes through a screen, removing contaminants.

Proponents of drums over mechanical shredding of composting feedstocks cite a better ability to sort contaminants, especially plastic, as it has not been reduced to small pieces that can keep passing through screening systems.

Rotary drum equipment essentially stands alone, replacing grinders or shredders and mixing equipment at a composting facility. There are usually in-feed and out-feed conveyors.

Rotary drums are not used at Ontario facilities to our knowledge; however, they are utilized at the Conporec (recently acquired by the SDD Group) Tracey Quebec facility. The Edmonton Composting facility utilizes 5 units each 5m in diameter x 74m in length to blend dewatered biosolids with the SSO feedstock.

Other Pre-Processing Technologies

Conventional screening equipment (example, trommels), size reduction and mixing equipment (examples, grinders, shredders, tub mixers) and vendor-developed proprietary variations on these equipment items are commonly used at AD (especially “dry” facilities) and composting facilities. These technologies are not generally used for contaminant removal but rather to prepare the materials for subsequent processing. It is possible, although not ideal due to health concerns, that contaminant removal via hand sorting can occur after the grinding/shredding/mixing step(s) and prior to the main process. Magnetic separation can be used at this stage to capture ferrous contamination.

3.4.3 Post-Processing Technologies The most typical post-processing system at facilities processing SSO and/or L&Y materials is screening, which is used for both contaminant removal and product refinement (sizing). Some facilities select trommel screens with small (6-9 mm) hole sizes, which may remove the majority of contaminants (although a caution is that the finer the screen size used on the back-end to separate contaminants, the more compost product is potentially lost with the overs fraction). Facilities composting SSO that is expected to have a fair bit of contamination (especially plastic) and that do not utilize a wet pre-processing step tend to use a combination of screens and air classification equipment. Most typical is use of a vibratory deck screen followed by de-stoning/air classification. In some cases, a vibratory conveyor is used ahead of the screen to optimize performance of the separation equipment.

Screens

Trommel screens (Figure 3.10) are the most widely recognizable screens at composting facilities. They are essentially a slightly inclined cylindrical drum that rotates, usually with variable speeds and have the advantage of simplicity of operation. Material is fed at one end of the rotating drum and tumbles through. Smaller particles (unders) fall through the screen openings. Large particles (overs) that remain in the drum are eventually discharged out the open end. Trommels have the ability to work at varying and higher moisture contents as the tumbling action of the materials inside the drum helps keep the screen holes clear, and brushes continually sweep the screen.



GENIVAR 3-17

Figure 3.10 – Trommel Screen

Star screens work by the action of a deck containing rows of spinning star-shaped discs. The spinning stars move the overs across the screen deck to the discharge end while the unders fall between the stars. The speed of rotation of the stars determines the separation size achieved. The particle size of the unders can be adjusted by changing the rotation of the stars. Stars are able to work at higher moisture contents, due to the mechanical rotation of the stars. However, that movement alone may not prevent moist materials from sticking to the stars and reducing screen effectiveness.

Deck screens use a flat mesh panel to separate particles of different sizes. The size of the mesh openings determines the particle size of the unders. Nearly all deck screens vibrate or oscillate in some manner. The vibration pattern bounces the bed of material along the deck, exposing the material to the screen surface. The overs move across the screen due to the vibration and the incline of the screen deck. One advantage of deck screens is that several decks of screen panels can be stacked vertically or sequenced horizontally to sort particles into more than one or two size fractions. The panel with the largest openings is first or sits on top. The unders that fall through land on a second panel with smaller openings for a second level of separation and so on, depending on the number of decks. While deck screens are not particularly well-suited to moist materials because the mesh tends to plug, an aggressive vibration stroke, or the addition of hole clearing devices like ball decks that bounce balls against the screen as it vibrates, can minimize plugging.



GENIVAR 3-18

Air Classifiers

Air separation uses an air current to separate materials according to their density. The size and shape of the particles also are important factors. There are two separate applications of air classification technology being used for final product refinement. The first is strictly air separation, targeted at separating film plastic from a compost product. The second is de-stoning, which separates the light (film plastic) and heavy (glass, stones) fractions from the compost product through a combination of air flow and mechanical vibration of material. The same air classification and density principles are used in both cases.

In a conventional vertical air separation system, mixed materials are fed into a chute with an upward-flowing stream of air generated by a blower. The light materials are carried with the air; the heavy materials fall down into a bin or onto a conveyor belt. As the air stream continues with the light particles entrained, it enters into a cyclone, where the air velocity slows, causing the heavier particles to settle out. A cyclone is not an absolute requirement to collect the light particles, although they are particularly efficient when it comes to small particles like powders and dust, and where the exhaust air is treated to remove plastic and cellulosic particles.

For final product refinement, air classification generally has not been effective at removing plastic from the finer product, or unders, from the initial product screening. These systems can have difficulty differentiating light plastic from light compost.

Air Classification with De-stoning Technology

The basic principle of a de-stoner, also known as vibratory density separators, is to separate the fraction that is heavier than the final product, such as glass, stones and metal, from the lighter fractions, in this case finished compost and film plastic. Destoners utilize a combination of vibratory action and forced air streams, essentially fluidizing and stratifying material according to the differences in their densities. Material is flowed over an inclined, vibrating screen covered deck. A steady air flow stratifies the light and heavy fractions, with the lighter material “floating” above the deck, and the heavier material traveling on the conveyor and out. The decks have adjustable angles (degree of inclination) that are a key variable in the success of particle separation. Other variables include the feed rate of the material, depth of the bed of material on the deck, and air flow rate.

3.5 CCF Technology Assessment Summary The County has expressed an interest in exploring a variety of organics processing technologies that will meet their needs giving consideration to the following assessment criteria:

Material quantities and processing capability requirements;

Ability to be expanded as growth and processing demands increase in the future;

Regulatory requirements and specifications;

Risk management;

Proven environmental performance; and,

End products and markets.

Table 3.1 provides a summary discussion and comparison of the various technologies described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 giving consideration to the above assessment criteria.



GENIVAR 3-19

It should be noted that experience with municipal procurement of SSO processing systems in Ontario has shown that responses to an RFP will not likely include multiple vendors of each technology. Rather, it is expected that at best one or perhaps two vendors of any one technology will respond and that vendors of all technologies will not likely respond. It is therefore recommended that the County not limit competition by selecting a single “preferred” technology at this stage.

As shown in Table 3.1, only one of the identified aerobic composting technologies (vertical reactors or vertical composting units as they are sometimes referred to) is not recommended. Two other technologies (non-fixed enclosure aerated static piles and open windrows) are recommended for specific applications only.

It is important to note that a successful CCF will involve much more than just selection of a suitable and proven technology. It requires, at a minimum, a combination of:

a suitably sized and located site;

an experienced contractor that has assembled a qualified vendor team with design, construction, operating and material (and energy if applicable) marketing experience in the organics processing context; and,

a facility design, operating plan and marketing plan that address both the requirements to generate a high quality product and the risks associated with composting facilities.

These requirements and objectives would be integral to an RFP‟s specifications and the proposals evaluation methodology.

Ultimately, it is recommended that appropriate due diligence be conducted as part of the RFP process. This would involve requiring proponents to demonstrate, usually through provision of reference facility information as well as a detailed technical discussion of the proposed system design, that key assessment criteria such as those shown in Table 3.1 have been successfully met or addressed.


Table 3.1 - Summary of Organics Processing Technology Comparison

In-Vessel Bays w/

Mechanical Agitation

In-Vessel Horizontal

Basin Reactors

In-Vessel

Modular Biocells

In-Vessel

Vertical Reactors

Non-Fixed Enclosure

Aerated Static PilesOpen Windrows Wet AD Dry AD

Regulatory Requirements

Functional requirements necessary to meet all applicable regulations/guidelines include:- enclosed for odour control (high-rate and low-rate phases)- must provide forced aeration (aerobic technologies) and active turning during the high-rate phase- must enable control of key process parameters through aeration, temperature and moisture control (high-rate and low-rate phases)- must have ability to meet pathogen reduction requirements (temperature/time) and avoid cross-contamination

Yes(if located indoors for

odour control; pathogen requirements dictate

retention time)


odour control; pathogen requirements dictate

retention time)

Yes(must move material from one biocell to another to achieve active turning

requirements; pathogen requirements dictate

retention time)


odour control; must move material from one VCU to another to achieve mixing requirements; pathogen

requirements are debatable (must move to a new VCU once pathogen

requirements met)

No(if proposed for high-rate phase active turning and

odour control requirements not

practically met; pathogen requirements dictate

retention time, technology remains viable for low-rate

phase)

No(high-rate and low-rate

requirements not practically met unless conducted indoors;

technology remains viable for curing phase)

Yes(if combined with aerobic technology to complete

the high-rate phase)

Yes(if combined with aerobic technology to complete

the high-rate phase)

Material Quantities and Processing Capability

Requirements

Technology is proven to be successfully operating for at least 3 years on the quantiies and feedstocks anticipated for Simcoe CCF Yes Yes Yes

No(Ontario facility was known

to be problematic and is believed to not be

operating. No known facilities in Europe.)

Yes(if used for SSO low-rate

and curing or L&Y material composting)

Yes(if used for SSO curing or L&Y material composting)

Yes Yes

Ability to be Expanded with Growing Tonnage

Technology is modular readily allowing expansion and module size is consistent with quantities (initial, expanded) anticpated for Simcoe CCF

No(see text for explanation, no advantage over other competing technologies)



- Yes Yes



Availability and reliability. Proven technology with vendor support for troubleshooting and maintenance Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes

Yes(not proven in Canada or

Ontario however)

Ability to accommodate fluctuations in SSO quantities and composition and varying levels of contamination.

Yes(may require a wet pre-processing step for high

contamination levels)





-

NA(quantity/composition

fluctuations and contamination are greater

concerns earlier in the process)

NA(quantity/composition

fluctuations and contamination are greater

concerns earlier in the process)

YesYes

(may require a wet pre-processing step for high


Not prone to system upsets Yes Yes Yes - Yes YesPotentially

(preferable to have multiple digesters)

Yes

Abillity to control/manage odours

Yes(if located indoors with air capture and odour control

device)


device)


device)

-

Yes(if used only for SSO low-

rate and curing or L&Y material composting)

No(not considered an issue if used only for SSO curing

or L&Y material composting)

Yes(if located indoors with air capture and odour control device; digesters can be

outdoors)


device)

Ability to meet compost guidelinesYes

(if part of a complete system designed to do so)

Yes(if part of a complete

system designed to do so)


system designed to do so)-









Ability to generate energy products and associtated revenues NA NA NA - NA NA Yes Yes

Comparator

Aerobic Composting Anaerobic Digestion

End Products and Markets

Risk Management

Description and Requirements



GENIVAR 4-1

4. CCF Design Considerations and Cost Estimates 4.1 CCF Design 4.1.1 Overview

In developing cost estimates for various composting and AD facilities (see Section 4.2 below) GENIVAR has developed mass balances and design sheets, which form the basis for the cost estimates. Appendix A contains a mass balance sheet for both an aerobic composting facility and an AD facility. Appendix B contains a design sheet for both an aerobic composting facility and an AD facility. These mass balance and design sheets are for 30,000 tonnes/yr SSO processing facilities; the “ultimate” design capacity established in Section 2.

The design sheets do not include for the L&Y materials processing, except for the amounts that would be utilized as amendment in the SSO processing. The amount of amendment required could theoretically consume most of the L&Y materials although leafy and fine brush material included in the County‟s L&Y materials would not be suitable for amendment as porosity is an important aspect of amendment. The L&Y materials processing would be achieved using the cost-effective outdoor windrow composting approach as discussed in Section 3 and would only need addition of a suitably sized windrow composting pad and product storage area (necessary windrow turning and screening equipment is already included in the design sheets and cost estimates). The impact to the cost estimates of the L&Y windrow composting components is discussed in Section 4.2.

4.1.2 Aerobic Composting Facility

A summary of the design basis and components for the aerobic composting facility as described in Appendices A and B follows:

For the 30,000 tonnes/yr aerobic composting CCF, an estimated 10,000 tonnes/yr of amendment plus 5,000 tonnes/yr of recycled screenings are required.

Enclosed tip floor suitable for 2-days storage of SSO, amendment and recycled screenings.

Pre-Processing via hydropulper and hydrocyclone (example, BTA technology). Centrifuges to dewater.

High-rate processing via in-vessel bay with agitation (example, Miller Ebara system), 4 weeks retention time. All indoors including in-vessel bay and loading and unloading areas.

Low-rate processing via outdoor windrows with Gore cover, 4 weeks retention time (plus additional area for emergency SSO processing should the high rate system be temporarily unavailable).

Curing via outdoor windrows, 12 weeks retention time.

Outdoor storage area, 24 weeks storage volume.

Miscellaneous large equipment items include windrow turner, post-processing screening, stacker.

Engineered biofilter (example Biorem) with exhaust stack, 6 ac/hr in enclosed areas.

Wastewater treatment not provided (assume on-site holding tank, off-site treatment).



GENIVAR 4-2

4.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion Facility

A summary of the design basis and components for the AD facility as described in Appendix A follows:

For the 30,000 tonnes/yr AD CCF, an estimated 9,000 tonnes/yr of amendment plus 3,000 tonnes/yr of recycled screenings are required.

Enclosed tip floor suitable for 2-days storage of SSO, secondary tip floor for digestate, amendment and recycled screenings.

Pre-Processing via hydropulper and hydrocyclone (example, BTA technology). Centrifuges to dewater.

AD using wet, mesophillic, single stage technology (example, BTA technology). Approximately 2 weeks average retention time in digester.

High-rate processing via in-vessel bay with agitation (example, Miller Ebara system), 2 weeks retention time. All indoors including in-vessel bay and loading and unloading areas.

Low-rate processing via outdoor windrows with Gore cover, 4 weeks retention time (plus additional area for emergency SSO processing should the preliminary high rate AD system be temporarily unavailable).

Curing via outdoor windrows, 12 weeks retention time.

Outdoor storage area, 24 weeks storage volume.

Miscellaneous large equipment items include windrow turner, post-processing screening, stacker.

Engineered biofilter (example Biorem) with exhaust stack, 6 ac/hr in enclosed areas.

Wastewater treatment not provided (assume on-site holding tank, off-site treatment).

Biogas clean-up and cogeneration package for electricity generation.

4.2 Cost Estimates 4.2.1 Capital Costs

Through organics study work for various Ontario municipalities and through involvement with CCF procurement processes for both aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, GENIVAR has compiled costing information for both of these technologies. This information was used to develop cost estimates for specific facility capacities. It is GENIVAR‟s opinion that there is little value in presenting published “actual” costs for technology/system comparison purposes because there are usually many project differences (project date, project scope, economic climate, bid competition differences, project location and currency, cost of processing alternatives, etc.) making a direct comparison of costs impossible or misleading.

Figure 4.1 provides capital cost curves based on estimated capital costs for both aerobic composting and AD facilities. These curves show capital costs (Y-axis) as a function of plant capacity (X-axis) and range from fairly small facilities in the order of 20,000 tonnes/yr to fairly large facilities in excess of 100,000 tonnes/yr. Although the County‟s CCF needs are in the order of 30,000 tonnes/yr, the broader range of CCF capacities is shown to demonstrate the economies of scale that are expected.

There are some considerations respecting the curves shown in Figure 4.1 as follows:



GENIVAR 4-3

The capital costs estimates developed by GENIVAR are for SSO processing facilities and do not include for the processing of L&Y materials, except for the amounts that would be utilized as amendment in the SSO processing (see Section 4.1 for quantities). As noted in Section 4.1, the amount of amendment required could theoretically consume most of the L&Y materials (more so for composting than AD as the latter requires less amendment because digestion has reduced the amount of material requiring subsequent aerobic composting). Given that a sizeable portion of the L&Y materials can be used for amendment and that the processing of the remainder requires relatively inexpensive open windrow pads, an estimated 5% increase in the capital costs should account for L&Y composting on the same site.

The capital cost curves do not include for the cost of land for the site.

The AD cost curve is based on a wet AD system that employs the wet pre-processing step as this is an integral step to wet AD facilities. The composting cost curve is based on facilities that do not have a wet pre-processing step. In the County‟s case where inclusion of pet waste and diapers/sanitary products is desired, a wet pre-processing step is recommended for a composting facility. With inclusion of wet pre-processing equipment, the composting capital cost curve would essentially align with the AD cost curve (particularly in the 20,000 tonnes/yr to 40,000 tonnes/yr range).

The capital cost curves are estimated to be accurate to +/- 20%. This reflects the level of engineering that has been conducted to arrive at the cost estimates (i.e., only conceptual to preliminary) as well as the variety of technologies/vendors that could be involved.

The capital cost curves show that a 30,000 tonnes/yr CCF will have a capital cost in the order of $35 million.

4.2.2 Total Annualized Costs

Figure 4.2 provides a total annualized cost curve for the CCF, expressed in $/tonne. Important considerations regarding Figure 4.2 are as follows:

The “total annualized cost” curve includes annualized capital, annual operating & maintenance cost estimates and estimated revenues. This cost curve depicts the total cost of the CCF if financed by the County. Capital costs were annualized based on an average amortization period of 20 years and a municipal cost of borrowing interest rate of 4%. GENIVAR feels a longer amortization period would not be appropriate for a composting facility due to the nature of these operations (high wear on equipment, corrosive wear on equipment and structures).

The curve is representative of either technology because although the capital costs for the AD facility are higher than for aerobic composting (see Figure 4.1) this is generally offset by energy revenues. Energy revenues assume sale of electricity at the current FIT pricing for mid-size biogas facilities of $0.147/kW-hr.

The cost curve is estimated to be accurate to +/- 20%. This reflects the level of engineering that has been conducted to arrive at the cost estimates (i.e., only conceptual to preliminary) as well as the variety of technologies/vendors that could be involved.

The annualized cost curve shows that a 30,000 tonnes/yr CCF will have a total annualized cost in the order of $160/tonne. The annual cost, if the amortized capital component is not included, is in the order of $80/tonne.


Anaerobic Digestion

Aerobic Composting

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

Cap

ital

Co

st (

$ M

illio

n)

Capacity (Tonnes / year)

Figure 4.1 - Capital Cost Curves


$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

Tota

l Co

st P

er

Ton

ne

Capacity (Tonnes / year)

Figure 4.2 - Annualized Cost Curve

Anaerobic Digestion or Aerobic Composting



GENIVAR 5-1

5. CCF Siting Considerations 5.1 Site Size The CCF design sheets provided in Appendix A develop the approximate physical area for the individual processing components and buildings for both a composting CCF and an AD CCF, then recommends a typical configuration and site size for all of the components/buildings. A 100m buffer is then placed around the processing components to yield a recommended total site size.

The 100m buffer is the minimum recommended for potentially odourous composting operations. It will be difficult to meet the MOE‟s guideline of 1 odour unit (O.U.) at the nearest receptor (taken as the property line to be conservative) without a buffer of at least 100m around the CCF components. The design sheets and cost estimates in this report are based on use of an engineered odour control device with an exhaust stack, nevertheless dispersion over a large site is typically required to meet the 1 O.U. requirement even with a stacked biofilter.

As shown in Appendix A, the site size for a 30,000 tonnes/yr aerobic composting CCF is about 13 hectares while a 30,000 tonnes/yr AD CCF is also about 13 hectares. As noted in the Section 4 discussion, the design sheets do not include for outdoor windrow composting of the County‟s L&Y materials, except for the L&Y material that can be used as amendment. It is estimated that the 13 ha site size should be increased to 15-16 ha to accommodate this function.

In general, composting facilities will always benefit from being as large as possible. A key to successful operation and community support is to minimize odour complaints and this, in addition to diligent operations, is benefited greatly by having a large site with strategic placement of composting infrastructure on the site (taking advantage of prevailing winds for example). The site size noted above of 16 ha or about 40 acres should be considered the minimum acceptable.

5.2 Services The proposed facility would require sanitary service (if a sanitary sewer is not available then holding tanks and/or on-site treatment would be required), water supply, electrical service and possibly gas service for HVAC equipment. It is proposed to review with the County the availability of these services during the Project 5B CCF siting work.



GENIVAR 6-1

6. CCF Procurement Considerations 6.1 Overview As discussed in Section 3.1, the complete system making up a CCF will be comprised of more than just one technology. It could involve by way of one example, a pre-processing technology, an AD technology for part of the high-rate phase, an in-vessel composting technology for the remainder of the high-rate phase, another composting technology for the low-rate and curing phases and still other technologies for post-processing.

Realization of a County-owned CCF will almost certainly involve procurement through a design-build-operate (DBO) RFP and it is important to realize that the complete system offered by a DBO contractor may not perfectly match the County‟s individual technology preferences. The DBO contractors will likely have pre-established and preferred team members (technology vendors) and although the RFP can dictate to a certain extent County preferences through the specifications, it is generally not advisable to dictate to the extent that a DBO contractor is forced to assemble team members with whom he has no prior experience. DBO contractors may have concerns standing by project guarantees in this case and thus choose to forgo on submitting a proposal.

Another consideration is that the procurement process may not attract the vendors of specific technologies. For example, “dry” AD is common in Europe but GENIVAR is not aware of any such facilities in Canada nor have we seen proposals based on dry AD in response to RFPs for an Ontario facility. Fortunately as noted in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, there is a good representation in Ontario of most aerobic composting technologies as well as anaerobic digestion (“wet” AD, in the case of the latter).

6.2 Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) REOIs are typically used as a non-committal means of generating interest amongst vendors in a specific project and identifying the vendors and their capabilities applicable to a specific initiative. The REOI would not involve an evaluation of vendors; it is a data dissemination and gathering step. Note that in our opinion there is usually little value in requesting capital cost estimates at an REOI stage because too many project details are not yet resolved, resulting in not particularly useful cost estimates that are highly qualified and/or that are presented as a very wide range.

An REOI would likely have the following basic components:

Background Information

Request for Vendor Information

Question/Response Forum

If the County determines/satisfies for itself the questions that would have been posed in the Question/Response Forum, we do not feel an REOI step is warranted. However, if the County forgoes on an REOI step, it is recommended that informal discussions or presentations from potential technology vendors be held to address any questions the County may have.



GENIVAR 6-2

6.3 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP)

6.3.1 RFQ

RFQs are used to identify and select qualified vendors who will in turn be invited to respond to an RFP. As noted earlier, our experience suggests that the number of Respondents to an RFP for a CCF in the County (or anywhere in Ontario for that matter) will not likely be very high and thus the need for short listing a group of qualified vendors through an RFQ process is not warranted.

6.3.2 RFP

RFPs are used to identify a preferred vendor for a specific, well defined project. The RFP needs to contain details on the project such as; relevant background or overview information, project scope including the split of responsibilities between parties (owner, vendor, others), specifications, site information, the expected format of submission, how the proposal is going to evaluated, etc. The submissions received need to contain sufficient details to clearly communicate; the qualifications of the vendor (if not already provided through an RFQ process), the schedule for delivering the project and how the vendor will (as applicable) manage, finance, design, construct, operate and maintain the project.

For a major municipal project such as even a relatively small-scale CCF, municipalities need to be confident that all RFP invitees have the interest, experience, expertise, competence, financial support and capacity to ensure project success. At an RFP stage the above “qualification” items need to be provided and technical details need to be provided in the submissions to address the requirements stated in the RFP.

A high level (not comprehensive) list of suggested qualification and technical information categories included in an RFQ and an RFP applicable to a CCF would include:

- Corporate (company) Capabilities

- Project Team (people) Experience and Capability

- Financing Capability

- Reference Facility Information

- Description of the Proposed Facility

- Facility Layout

- Main Equipment List

- Electrical and Mechanical System Drawings (Conceptual)

- Mass and, if applicable, Energy Balance

- Facility Development Plan, Approvals and Schedule

- Operating Plan

- Product Marketing Plan

- Residue Management



GENIVAR 7-1

7. Facility Approvals and Implementation Timeline 7.1 Approvals Fundamental to the implementation schedule is the timeframe required for various approvals.

7.1.1 Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)

In the case of a CCF Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) approval is required for a facility transferring for final disposal more than 1,000 tonnes/day of residual waste. Even for a 30,000 tonnes/yr CCF with 20% residual the total quantity of residual waste transferred would only be in the order of 6,000 tonnes/yr or about 24 tonnes/day, thus EAA approval is not required.

7.1.2 Environmental Protection Act (EPA)

Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Waste Processing under Section 27 of the EPA and an ECA (Air and Noise) under Section 9 of the EPA will be required. Applications for these amendments/approvals must be accompanied with a Design and Operations report, an Environmental Study report (including a hydrogeological assessment and drainage study) and, in the case of the ECA (Air and Noise) an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM) report. The latter would include an Odour Impact Assessment to demonstrate the CCF will meet the Ministry‟s 1 O.U. requirement.

7.1.3 Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)

The proposed facility would require approval under the OWRA for sewage works and the storm water management plan.

7.1.4 Municipal Approvals

Standard municipal approvals such as building permit and Site Plan approval would be required; these would likely be secured by the design-build contractor possibly with the County‟s assistance.

With respect to official plans and zoning requirements, the Planning Act establishes land use by means of official plans at both the county and township level and zoning by-laws at the township level. A D4 study would be required to support these planning applications.

7.2 Implementation Schedule GENIVAR generally concurs with the schedule provided in the SWMS (Table 7-2 of that document), which shows an approximate timeline of 4-5 years to fully implement a CCF in the County. A few considerations and comments regarding the SWMS Table 7-2 follow:

Approvals are shown being secured in advance of facility construction. Often this step occurs more in parallel with construction, saving time. Nevertheless, the schedule as shown is more conservative and our experience with solid waste management infrastructure procurement is that aggressive schedules are rarely met.

The nine (9) quarters shown for construction and commissioning is felt to be conservative (longer than necessary), but as noted above we concur with a conservative schedule.

The CCF siting task is shown mostly in advance of the RFP process. This is critical. Meaningful responses to an RFP will only be realized if the RFP contains detailed information on the selected site.



GENIVAR 8-1

8. Conclusions and Recommendations It is concluded that a CCF is viable for the County. There are many available proven aerobic and anaerobic processing technologies operating worldwide and in fact a good cross-section of both aerobic and anaerobic technologies operating in Ontario. It is recommended that the County not limit future competition (in an RFP for example) by selecting a single “preferred” technology at this stage.

A fundamental dilemma faced by the County in developing its own CCF is that a CCF sized for the available tonnage from the County only (initially in the order of 20,000 tonnes/yr of SSO) is fairly expensive on a $/tonne basis and does not take advantage of economies of scale. It is recommended that the County consider developing a CCF with capacity for approximately 30,000 tonnes/yr. At this capacity economies of scale are somewhat improved and the capacity should serve the County‟s projected needs for 20 years. Until such time that the County can provide the full 30,000 tonnes/yr of SSO, the 10,000 tonnes/yr capacity “surplus” needs to be filled and it is recommended that the County initiate discussions with the Cities of Barrie and Orillia and/or other neighbouring municipalities as potential feedstock sources. This could involve seeking funding partners at the outset to allow the entire 30,000 tonnes/yr design capacity (or larger if necessary) to be constructed with full confidence the CCF‟s capacity will be filled.

The County‟s Solid Waste Management Strategy indicated that there was strong support within the County to include pet waste and diapers/sanitary products in the SSO program. This will increase the SSO quantities and increase diversion with the corresponding drop in garbage quantities. It should be noted however that GENIVAR is aware of at least one recent project in Ontario where approval for the SSO processing facility by the MOE included the condition that diapers/sanitary products not be included in the SSO stream. This condition was due to odour concerns by the MOE. It is therefore strongly recommended that the County hold discussions with the MOE as soon as possible to gain their perspective on inclusion of these potential feedstock components.

If the County determines that pet waste and diapers/sanitary products will be included in their SSO program, the County‟s initial available SSO tonnage of approximately 20,000 tonnes/yr would be made up of 20-25% pet waste and diapers/sanitary products. There is a concern that 20-25% of the feedstock has very high odour potential and has a high contaminant level (plastics). The most effective approach to dealing with pet waste and diapers/sanitary products is with addition of a wet pre-processing step. The wet pre-processing system (hydropulper / hydrocyclone combination) at Toronto‟s DOPF has proven to be very effective at removing plastic contaminants and in dealing with odours from a feedstock that includes pet waste and diapers/sanitary products. Therefore a wet pre-processing system comparable to that at the DOPF is recommended, even if an aerobic composting technology is selected for the CCF.

A wet pre-processing system will effectively capture plastic bags and contaminants but will also capture compostable bags. This should be considered when establishing the type of acceptable bags in the SSO collection program.

It is recommended that the County develop and issue an RFP for the CCF. Other procurement devices including an REOI and/or an RFQ are not considered necessary. The County should strive to maximize competition in an RFP process however, and it is important to understand vender preferences and capabilities and incorporate these preferences, if acceptable to the County, into their procurement documents. Vender preferences and capabilities would be identified through an REOI process and thus if the County forgoes an REOI step it is



GENIVAR 8-2

recommended that informal discussions or presentations from potential technology vendors be held to gain their perspective on the County‟s planned CCF.

It is recommended that the County conduct audits to gain a good understanding of the SSO composition and the L&Y material composition and seasonality. This will be fundamental information in an RFP for a CCF.

It is recommended that the County initiate the CCF siting process as this will be fundamental to the next steps in procuring a CCF. A minimum site size of 16 ha or about 40 acres is recommended. An even larger site will greatly improve the ability to meet the MOE‟s property line odour level requirements.


Appendix A

CCF Mass Balance Sheets


Table A1 - Mass Balance for 30,000 tpy Aerobic Composting FacilityAerobic Composting Facility with Wet Preprocessing Step

Sequential Unit Operations

Receiving Preprocessing Receiving & Blending Biological High Rate Biological Low Rate Curing, Finishing, Storageprocess / technology ---> Main Tip Floor hydropulp + hydrocyclone Secondary Tip Floor aerobic composting (A.C.) A.C. + 3-cut screening windrow cure and store

t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O %Inputs SSO 577 100 68 577 32 68

City Water 289 16 100Recirc Process Water 966 53 98PulpPressate 340 54 70Amendment 200 32 50Material Blend 633 100 60 538 100 60+ 3" screenings- 3" screenings 93 15 45- 1" screenings 225 100 45

sub-total: 577 100 1,832 100 633 100 633 100 538 100 225 100

Outputs SSO 577 100 68Effluent 425 23 98Recirc Process Water 966 53 98Mass Loss (gases, vapour) 95 15 ?? 127 24 ?? 68 30PulpPressate 340 19 70BiogasResidue 101 6 25 31 6 45Material Blend 633 100 60 538 85 60+ 3" screenings (residue) 62 12 25- 3" screenings 93 17 45- 1" screenings (product) 225 42 45 158 70 38

sub-total: 577 100 1,832 100 633 100 633 100 538 100 225 100

Normal Operations - receive over 6 days/wk - pulp over 2 shifts, 6 d/wk - receive pressate over 6 - 4 weeks retention time in - 4 weeks retention time - 3 months curing in windrows Timing / Sizing - process over 6 days/wk - dewater over 2 shifts, days, process over 7 days agitated channels in windrows (outdoors if 3-6 months storage (bothAspects - 2.5-days storage 6 d/wk - receive amendment over 5 - process over 24/7 covered with Gore fabric, outdoors)

(includes for contingency) days, blend in over 7 days otherwise indoors)- 1-day storage for pressate - trommel screening- 2-days storage for amend't

Sequential Unit Operation --->


Table A2 - Mass Balance for 30,000 tpy Anaerobic Digestion FacilityWet AD with Aerobic Composting Back End

Receiving Preprocessing Biological High Rate Receiving & Blending Biological High Rate Biological Low Rate Curing, Finishing, Storageprocess / technology ---> Main Tip Floor hydropulp + hydrocyclone AD + dewatering Secondary Tip Floor aerobic composting (A.C.) A.C. + 3-cut screening windrow cure and store

t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O % t/wk wt % H2O %Inputs SSO 577 100 72 577 31 72

City Water 289 16 100Recirc Process Water 966 53 98Pulp 1,731 100 94Digestate 179 43 75Amendment 178 43 50Material Blend 418 100 60 356 100 60+ 3" screenings- 3" screenings 62 15 45- 1" screenings 149 100 45

sub-total: 577 100 1,832 100 1,731 100 418 100 418 100 356 100 149 100

Outputs SSO 577 100 72Effluent 511 30 98Recirc Process Water 966 56 98Net Mass Loss (gases, vapour) 63 15 84 24 45 30Pulp 1,731 94 94Digestate 179 10 75Biogas 75 4 satResidue 101 6 25 21 6 45Material Blend 418 100 60.0 356 85 60+ 3" screenings (residue) 41 12 25- 3" screenings 62 17 45- 1" screenings (product) 149 42 45 104 70 38

sub-total: 577 100 1,832 100 1,731 100 418 100 418 100 356 100 149 100

Normal Operations - receive over 6 days/wk - pulp over 2 shifts, 6 d/wk - AD over 24/7 (17 days - receive digestate over 7 - 2 weeks retention time in - 4 weeks retention time - 3 months curing in windrows Timing / Sizing - process over 6 days/wk - pump to storage tank average HRT) days, process over 7 days agitated channels in windrows (outdoors if 3-6 months storage (bothAspects - 2.5-days storage (oversized for weekend) - dewater over 24/7 - receive amendment over 5 - process over 24/7 covered with Gore fabric, outdoors)

(includes for contingency) - pump to digester over 24/7 days, blend in over 7 days otherwise indoors)- 1-day storage for digestate - trommel (or similar)- 2-days storage for amend't screening

Sequential Unit Operation --->

Sequential Unit Operations


Appendix B

CCF Design Sheets and Site Area Requirements


Table B1 - Aerobic Composting Facility Design Basis

Item 30,000 tpy Aerobic Composting Facilitywith Wet Preprocessing Step

Main Receiving Tip Floor

approx number of transfer trailers / day @ 30 tonnes each assume 0, but allow for in tip floor design

approx number of direct haulers / day @ 2 tonnes each approximately 55-60 / day (550-600 t/wk, 110-120 t/day)

approx number of direct haulers during peak hour 11

number of 8m truck doors/bays recommended 2

min bldg depth (22m trailers fully inside + pit/screw feed) estimate 27m

area of tip building (width for truck bays plus surplus area) estimate 27 x 20 = 550 m2

secondary area for material storage (2 days storage) (160 tpd x 2 d) / 0.5 t/m3 / 3m ht x 1.5 = 350 m2

Preprocessing, Dewatering, Material Loadout

technology assumption wet pre-processing (ex. BTA), centrifuges

# of pulpers, hydrocyclones, degritters recommended 2

pulper and dewatering building area estimate (20m x 20m) + (20m x 10m) = 600 m2

Pressate/Amendment Receiving & Blending Tip Floor

tonnes of pressate/day approx 340 t/wk / 6 days/wk = 57 tpd

volume of pressate @ 800 kg/m3 and 1 day storage 57 tonnes / 800 kg/m3 = 70 m3

area required for pressate (2.5m avg pile height) 70 m3 / 2.5m = 28 m2

tonnes of amendment + screenings/day approx 293 t/wk / 5 days/wk = 59 tpd

volume of admendment @ 550 kg/m3 and 2 days storage 2 x 59 tonnes / 550 kg/m3 = 213 m3

area required for amendment (2.5m avg pile height) 213 m3 / 2.5m = 85 m2

area of bldg (receiving, storage, mixing, high rate feed) estimate (28m2 + 85m2) x 2.5-3 = 300 m2

Biological High Rate Processing

technology assumption in-vessel bay with agitation (ex. Miller Ebara)

retention time (composting period) 4 weeks

tonnes of pressate + amendment (in 4 weeks) (340 + 293) t/wk x 4 = 2,530 t

combined material density 0.54 (800) + 0.46 (550) = 675 kg/m3

volume of blended material (in 4 weeks) 2,430 t / 0.675 t/m3 = 3,750 m3

in-vessel bay size (total area) 3,750 m3 / 2.1 m height = 1,780 m2

in-vessel bay size (typical dimensions) 22m x 40m = 880 m2 each

number of bays required 1,7800 / 880 = 2 +/- (1 block of 2 bays)

area of in-vessel bays including walkways, etc. 2 x 28m x 40m = 2,200 m2

area of in-vessel bay central loading area 1 x 28m x 11m = 300 m2

area of in-vessel bay outloading area 2 x 28m x 14m = 800 m2

Wastewater Treatment assume direct to sewer

Other (staff areas, lab, elect/mech, storage, etc.) estimate 300 m2

Biofilter

technology assumption stacked biofilter (ex. Biorem) @ 150 m3/hr per m2

approx air flow to biofilter (process areas x 6 ac/hr +/-) [(1,800 x 10)+(3,300 x 7)] x 6 = 246,600 m3/hr

area required (including humidification tower, stack, etc.) (246,600/150) x 1.1 = 1,800 m2

Biological Low Rate Processing

technology assumption outdoor windrows with cover (ex. Gore)

Low Rate composting period 4 weeks

tonnes of material (over the composting period) 533 t/wk x 4 wks = 2,150 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during process) 620 kg/m3

volume in windrow pad 2,150 t / 0.62 t/m3 = 3,470 m3

windrow x-sectional area (roughly trapazoidal) 6m base, 2m at top, 2m high = 8 m2

total windrow length 3,470 m3 / 8 m2 = 434 m

# of windrows (125m pad, 110m windrows) 434 m / 110 m = 4 + 1 for turning = 5

pad length (4m gap between 6m windrows) 5 x 10m = 50 m + 5m each end = 60 m

pad area required 125m x 60m = 7,500 m2

product screening, coning, staging area estimate 125m x 30m = 3,800 m2

Curing Phase

technology assumption outdoor open windrows

curing period 12 weeks

tonnes of material (over the curing period) 225 t/wk x 12 wks = 2,700 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during curing) 500 kg/m3





pad length (4m gap between 7m windrows) 5 x 11m = 55 m + 5m each end = 65 m


Product Storage & Loadout

storage period 24 weeks

tonnes of material (over the storage period) 158 t/wk x 24 weeks = 3,800 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during storage) 450 kg/m3

volume to be stored 3,800 t / 0.45 t/m3 = 8,430 m3

average storage height 5m

storage area required 8,430 m3 / 5 m = 1,700 m2

Sum of Above Areas (rounded up to nearest 100 m2) 27,600 m2

Typical Configuration of Above Area 150 m x 184 m

Configuration with 100 m On-Site Buffer 350 m x 384 m

Total Site Area Requirements 13.4 ha


Table B2 - Anaerobic Digestion Facility Design Basis

Item 30,000 tpy AD Facilitywith Aerobic Composting Back End

Main Receiving Tip Floor

approx number of transfer trailers / day @ 30 tonnes each assume 0, but allow for in tip floor design

approx number of direct haulers / day @ 2 tonnes each approximately 55-60 / day (550-600 t/wk, 110-120 t/day)

approx number of direct haulers during peak hour 11

number of 8m truck doors/bays recommended 2

min bldg depth (22m trailers fully inside + pit/screw feed) estimate 27m

area of tip building (width for truck bays plus surplus area) estimate 27 x 20 = 550 m2

secondary area for material storage (2 days storage) (160 tpd x 2 d) / 0.5 t/m3 / 3m ht x 1.5 = 350 m2

Preprocessing, Dewatering

technology assumption wet pre-processing (ex. BTA), centrifuges

# of pulpers, hydrocyclones, degritters recommended 2

area required for storage tank for 24/7 digester feed (outside) estimate = 200 m2

pulper and dewatering building area estimate (20m x 20m) + (20m x 10m) = 600 m2

Biological High Rate Processing (anaerobic phase)

technology assumption wet, mesophilic, single stage (ex. BTA)

retention time (average) 2 weeks

area required indoors for heat exchangers, pumps, piping, etc. estimate 15m x 20m = 300 m2

number of digesters and size (based on Toronto facility) 2 @ 17m diameter

area for 1 digester, bldg setback, flare, compressor 35m x 40m = 1,400 m2

area required for additional digesters 1 x (30m x 30m) = 900 m2

total outdoor area with allowance for secondary containment (1,400 + 900) m2 x 1.2 = 2,700 m2

area required for gas clean-up and cogen system estimate 200 m2

Digestate/Amendment Receiving & Blending Tip Floor

tonnes of digestate/day approx 179 t/wk / 7 days/wk = 26 tpd

volume of digestate @ 800 kg/m3 and 1 day storage 26 tonnes / 800 kg/m3 = 32 m3

area required for digestsate (2.5m avg pile height) 32 m3 / 2.5m = 13 m2

tonnes of amendment + screenings/day approx 240 t/wk / 5 days/wk = 48 tpd

volume of admendment @ 550 kg/m3 and 2 days storage 2 x 48 tonnes / 550 kg/m3 = 175 m3

area required for amendment (2.5m avg pile height) 175 m3 / 2.5m = 70 m2

area of bldg (receiving, storage, mixing, high rate feed) estimate (13m2 + 70m2) x 2.5-3 = 200 m2

Biological High Rate Processing (aerobic phase)

technology assumption in-vessel bay with agitation (ex. Miller Ebara)

retention time (composting period) 2 weeks

tonnes of digesate + amendment (in 2 weeks) (179 + 240) t/wk x 2 = 840 t

combined material density 0.43 (800) + 0.57 (550) = 660 kg/m3

volume of blended material (in 2 weeks) 840 t / 0.66 t/m3 = 1,270 m3

in-vessel bay size (total area) 1,270 m3 / 2.1 m height = 600 m2

in-vessel bay size (typical dimensions) 22m x 27m = 594 m2 each

number of bays required 600 / 594 = 1

area of in-vessel bays including walkways, etc. 1 x 28m x 27m = 800 m2

area of in-vessel bay central loading area 1 x 28m x 11m = 300 m2

area of in-vessel bay outloading area 1 x 28m x 14m = 400 m2

Wastewater Treatment assume direct to sewer

Other (staff areas, lab, elect/mech, storage, etc.) estimate 300 m2

Biofilter

technology assumption engineered biofilter (ex. Biorem) with stack @ 150 m3/hr per m2

approx air flow to biofilter (process areas x 6 ac/hr +/-) [(2,000 x 10) + (1,500 x7)] x 6 = 183,000 m3/hr

area required (including humidification tower, stack, etc.) (183,000/150) x 1.1 = 1,300 m2

Biological Low Rate Processing

technology assumption outdoor windrows with cover (ex. Gore)

Low Rate composting period 4 weeks

tonnes of material (over the composting period) 356 t/wk x 4 wks = 1,420 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during process) 620 kg/m3





pad width (4m gap between 6m windrows) 4 x 10m = 40 m + 5m each end = 50 m


product screening, coning, staging area estimate 125m x 30m = 3,800 m2

Curing Phase

technology assumption outdoor open windrows

curing period 12 weeks

tonnes of material (over the curing period) 149 t/wk x 12 wks = 1,790 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during curing) 500 kg/m3





pad width (4m gap between 7m windrows) 4 x 11m = 44 m + 5m each end = 55 m


Product Storage & Loadout

storage period 24 weeks

tonnes of material (over the storage period) 104 t/wk x 24 weeks = 2,500 t

material density (average, allowing for mass loss during storage) 450 kg/m3

volume to be stored 2,500 t / 0.45 t/m3 = 5,550 m3

average storage height 5m

storage area required 5,550 m3 / 5 m = 1,100 m2

Sum of Above Areas (rounded up to nearest 100 m2) 26,300 m2

Typical Configuration of Above Area 150 m x 1750 m

Configuration with 100 m On-Site Buffer 350 m x 375 m

Total Site Area Requirements 13.1 ha


COUNTY OF SIMCOE · 2018-02-13 · CCF Viability Assessment Task I Report GENIVAR 1-1 1....

Documents

Transcript of COUNTY OF SIMCOE · 2018-02-13 · CCF Viability Assessment Task I Report GENIVAR 1-1 1....