THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA · THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FINAL AGENDA PWC 10-2015 Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:30 a.m. Council Chamber Niagara

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARAPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

FINAL AGENDA

PWC 10-2015Tuesday, July 14, 20159:30 a.m.Council ChamberNiagara Region Headquarters, Campbell West2201 St. David's Road, Thorold, ON

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3. PRESENTATIONS

4. DELEGATIONS

5. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION

5.1 PW 41-2015 3 - 88

Alternative Waste Management Technology Project Next Steps

5.2 PW 44-2015 89 - 95

Award of Tender 2015-T-106 (Contract RN 15-06) South Side High LiftSewage Pumping Station Upgrades, in the City of Niagara Falls

5.3 CLK 06-2015 96 - 98

Appointments to Subcommittees – Regional Niagara BicyclingCommittee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, HumberstoneLandfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill SiteCitizen’s Liaison Committee

(Appendix I of Report CLK 06-2015 may be found in the Closed Sessionarea.)

1

If you require any accommodations for a disability in order to attend and participate in meetings orevents, please let us know in advance so that arrangements can be made in a timely matter. Pleasecontact the Accessibility Advisory Coordinator at 905-685-4225 ext. 3252 [email protected]

6. CONSENT ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

6.1 PWC-C 27-2015 99 - 103

Regional Road 65 (Silver Street) PetitionTownship of West Lincoln

6.2 PWC-C 28-2015 104 - 105

Ministry of Transportation Response to City of Thorold CouncilResolution concerning Highway 406 and St. David's Road bike andpedestrian facilities

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. MOTION FOR CLOSED SESSION

9. CLOSED SESSION

9.1 CLK 06-2015 Confidential Appendix I - A Matter regarding PersonalMatters about Identifiable Individuals - Recommended CitizenAppointments to Subcommittees

10. BUSINESS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

11. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. inthe Council Chamber, Regional Headquarters.

12. ADJOURNMENT

2

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 1

REPORT TO: Public Works Committee MEETING DATE: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Alternative Waste Management Technology Project Next Steps

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Staff BE DIRECTED to continue to engage other neighbouring municipalities in discussions related to available capacity at their current/future alternative waste management technology facilities and/or future needs that could be addressed by partnering with Niagara Region on alternative technologies.

2. The Alternative Waste Management Technology project BE TERMINATED and subsequently be included as part of a future long-term waste management strategic plan, when initiated by the Region.

KEY FACTS

Niagara’s comparative assessment of alternative waste and biosolid management technologies was deferred for one year until mid-2015, at which time staff were to report back on next steps, considering the rationale for the original deferral and other project considerations or implications.

Niagara has waste disposal capacity at Regional landfill sites (to approximately 2047 at Niagara Road 12 Landfill and 2043 at Humberstone Landfill pending Environmental Assessment approval) and through a disposal contract with Walker Environmental Group which expires in 2031.

Niagara has sufficient land availability in the Region to 2031 to support land application of a minimum of 50% of the Region’s liquid biosolids and the Water and Wastewater Division will be reporting back to Council regarding the remaining 50% of the biosolids program.

Regional staff are participating in the Intermunicipal Waste Management Working Group which has the objective to “identify collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and timelines in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing - waste management policies, programs and/or facilities”, which includes alternative technology facilities.

Other jurisdictions such as City of Hamilton and City of Ottawa are undertaking alternative technology reviews, the results of which could be leveraged by Niagara.

Based on the case study research included in Appendix I, Energy from Waste facilities are identified as a preferred option in an integrated waste management system by municipalities, as an output of a strategic plan, which includes an extensive stakeholder engagement process.

3

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 2

CONSIDERATIONS Financial Niagara Region has a remaining 2015 operating project budget of approximately $200,000 for a consulting effort by HDR Inc., to complete the comparative assessment of alternative waste and biosolid management technologies under 2013-RFP-01. The project expenditure up to the point of deferral is approximately $85,000 for the following deliverables, which will be utilized in any further work by the Region and/or in any potential collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions:

i) Niagara Region waste and biosolids feedstock review;

ii) High level review of proven and new/emerging diversion and disposal technologies; and

iii) Development of draft pass/fail screening criteria, through workshops with members of Standing and Advisory Committees of Council, to short-list the technologies which were inventoried in the high level review, for detailed assessment in the next project phases.

The Waste Management Services Division would expect a 2015 operating budget surplus as a result of project termination. As per standard process, any surplus/deficit will be addressed in the year-end close out report. Staff will budget for the operating expenditure when the project is reinitiated as part of a long-term waste management strategic plan. There could be potential future financial impacts, upon completion of a long term strategic plan, including significant capital and operating costs, depending on the outcomes and the approved course of action. Table 1 of Appendix I summarizes the identified costs of various alternative technology projects in Canada, as a point of reference. Corporate Legal Services prepared and executed an agreement between the Region and HDR Inc. to address the 2014 project deferral and potential project termination. This agreement can be amended to reflect project termination. Governmental Partners In response to the Council direction “That Staff BE DIRECTED to engage other neighbouring municipalities in discussions related to available capacity at their current/future alternative waste management technology facilities and/or future needs that could be addressed by partnering with Niagara Region on alternative technologies”, as per report PW 4-2014, the following has transpired:

4

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 3

i) Regional staff have had discussions with City of Hamilton staff regarding the alternative technology work Hamilton has completed over the last few years and to discuss their planned next steps. Hamilton will be considering alternative technologies as part of their Solid Waste Management Master Plan review in the next few years. Hamilton’s profile is included in Appendix I, along with other case studies of municipal and private sector alternative technology initiatives.

ii) Regional staff will be participating in the Intermunicipal Waste Management Working Group (IMWG) which has an objective of identifying ‘collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and timelines in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing - waste management policies, programs and/or facilities’, which includes alternative technology facilities. The IMWG is being led by Region of Waterloo and their consultant SLR Consulting Ltd. Appendix III has the draft Working Group Terms of Reference and the participating jurisdictions, one of which is the City of Hamilton.

As part of municipal collaboration efforts, staff have shared the report outputs from the first phases of Niagara alternative technology project with the City of Hamilton and Waterloo Region staff. Public and/or Service Users Public engagement in Niagara’s alternative technology project has included Waste Management Advisory Committee member participation (six members at workshops and three workbook submissions) in the development of pass/fail screening criteria that would be used to short-list the technologies for detailed evaluation and life cycle assessment. In addition four members from other Advisory Committees and one Regional Councillor attended a workshop. However, based on the potential impact of the recommended course of action if the project continued, and municipal trends/experiences as contained in Appendix I, broader stakeholder input is critical. This report is recommending that the Alternative Waste Management Technology project be included as part of a future long-term waste management strategic plan, and therefore a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process would be undertaken. ANALYSIS

Background on 2014 Project Deferral As a result of Councillor requests and as noted in a number of reports and presentations to Council, Waste Management staff have been monitoring new and emerging alternative disposal technologies for future consideration over the past several years. However, a scientific review of alternative diversion and disposal technologies including analysis on viability and sustainability and recommendations for next steps required the retention of engineering consultants.

5

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 4

Originally as part of the Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan and then subsequently as a stand-alone project, Committee and Council approved completion of the review and issuance of a RFP for this work. In late 2013 HDR Inc. was retained to undertake a comparative assessment of alternative waste management technologies to determine what technology or combination of technologies is viable for implementation in Niagara. As there was potential for intersecting technologies, the project also included a technology review for processing municipal solid waste combined with biosolids. Appendix II contains the background on the development of the RFP for this project. The project was subsequently deferred for one year in mid-2014, based on three factors which are discussed below with updates where appropriate. 1. New Private Sector Proposal in Hamilton

Port Fuels & Materials Services Inc. (PFMSI) has submitted an Environmental Screening report to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for the siting of a gasification Energy From Waste (EFW) facility on land owned by the Hamilton Port Authority – see Appendix I for the case study on PFMSI. According to the report, this proposed private sector facility is not limiting its service area at this time and will include feedstock such as biosolids and municipal solid waste, which is consistent with Niagara’s target feedstock. The impact to Niagara has yet to be determined as the project is still going through approvals. Also, the Council of the City of Hamilton has directed staff to write to the MOECC Approvals Branch requesting that the Director:

1. “Elevate the Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc. proposed Energy-From-Waste Facility to a full Environmental Assessment, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act; or,

2. In the alternative, require the proponent, Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc., to provide the additional information and assessment work set out in Section 3 of the WSP Summary Report and bring this information and assessment work forward for stakeholder review and comment, and consideration by the Director before a final decision is made with respect to the elevation request.”

2. Proposed Regulatory Changes

The MOECC is pursuing regulatory changes to allow Ontario’s manufacturing industries to use alternative low-carbon fuels such as biomass or non-recyclable residual waste. However based on commentary from industry, municipal residual waste is not ideal feedstock and therefore this legislation may have limited impact on future municipal or public private partnership (P3) alternative technology projects.

6

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 5

3. Limited Input in Development of Criteria to Short-List Technologies

Limited input was received in the development of the pass/fail screening criteria to short-list the technologies that would proceed through a detailed evaluation phase. One Regional Councillor and 13 Advisory Committee members participated in the process, out of the 85 Standing and Advisory Committee members invited. The criteria that need to be considered are typically of a controversial or sensitive nature. One example of a controversial criterion is whether there is support for technologies that would need to import waste from outside region in order to be sustainable. A second criterion example which has become a very visible issue based on Ottawa’s termination of their agreement with Plasco over the past year, is the risk associated with implementing new/unproven technologies (e.g. pilot scale). The selection of short-listed technologies will narrow the options that are considered potentially viable for implementation by Niagara Region, and this will have economic, environmental and social implications over the long term (25 to 30 year period). The limited input was identified as a major concern by members of the Waste Management Planning Steering Committee (WMPSC) at the April 14, 2014 meeting. Project Considerations Based on Case Studies Case studies of alternative technology projects were compiled by staff in order to respond to two Councillor Information Requests:

i) March 2, 2015 WMPSC: Provide information respecting what other municipalities are doing regarding energy for waste and alternative technologies i.e. Peel and Durham; and

ii) January 7, 2014 PWC: Provide specific cases where composting causes no odour and case studies of municipalities that have alternative waste technologies that generate revenue (composting case studies were previously submitted in PWC 20-2014, July 15, 2014).

Appendix I contains the case studies which focus firstly on Ontario projects and secondly those across Canada. A profile which highlights the following parameters is included in the appendix:

Overview

Location

Type of Technology

Owner/Operator

Feedstock

Throughput (Capacity)

Energy Generation

Rationale

Planning Process

Cost Profile

7

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 6

Tables 1 and 2 below contain a further summary of this information for municipal facilities (current and proposed) and private public partnerships (P3). Table 1 Summary of Current and Proposed Municipal EFW Facilities

Municipality/ Project

Type of Technology and Status

Cost Profile

Current Municipal Facilities (owned by municipality and operated by a third party)

Durham-York Energy Centre

Technology: Mass burn Status: Started to accept residual waste February 2015; to be fully commissioned by August 2015.

• One-time capital cost: $255 million • Host community agreement (i.e. main access

road, energy park land, stormwater system etc.) etc.: $29 million

• Gross annual capital (e.g. major replacement, upgrades) and operating: $14.7million (excluding debt charges for one-time capital costs)

• Net annual capital and operating cost/tonne: $40.35/t or $5.65 million annually (excluding debt charges for one-time capital costs)

• 140,000 tonnes/year facility

Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility

Technology: Mass burn Status: The facility was built in 1988.

• One-time capital cost: $70 million • Net annual operating cost/tonne including debt

charges (for annual capital costs): $52.35/t (excluding tipping fee revenue which is not publicly available)

• 285,000 tonnes/year facility

Otter Lake Waste Management Facility, Halifax

Technology: Mechanical Biological Treatment Status: The facility was fully operational in 1999.

• One-time capital cost: not available • Gross annual capital costs (excludes initial one-

time capital) for MBT and disposal: approx. $8.9 million or $63.48/tonne

• Gross annual operating cost to operate the MBT and disposal facility : $14.5 million or $103.62/tonne and for MBT only, the gross operating cost/tonne is $62/tonne

• Gross MBT and disposal capital and operating cost/tonne: $167/t

• Tipping fee for IC&I waste: $125/tonne (with flow control)

• Net operating and annual capital cost for MBT and disposal: $95.68/tonne

• Contracted capacity of 173,000 tonnes/year 140,000 tonnes/year being processed

Proposed Municipal Facilities

Metro Vancouver Proposed Waste-to-Energy Facility

Technology: TBD Status: Currently in the potential site identification process; next step is the RFQ for technology and sites.

• Costs TBD by a competitive procurement process • Estimated one-time capital costs: $480 million

total or $1,400/tonne based on 370,000 tonne/year (includes $40 M for planning & procurement, permitting and financing, design and construction monitoring and land costs)

• Estimated net operating costs: $24.7 million or

8

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 7



Cost Profile

$76/tonne based on 370,000 tonne/year facility • Estimated annual capital costs: not available

Peel Energy Recovery Centre

Technology: Thermal Conversion Status: Peel issued the notice of study commencement for the Environmental Screening process in May 2014; new facility to be operational by mid-to-late 2020 (subject to change).

• Costs TBD by a competitive procurement process • Estimated one-time capital cost: not available • Estimated net capital (one-time and annual) and

operating cost/tonne: $121/tonne based on 300,000 tonne/year (includes debt repayment and contribution to lifecycle reserves)

• Estimated net operating cost/tonne: $35/tonne based on 300,000 tonne/year facility (excludes one-time and annual capital)

Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association (SAEWA)

Technology: TBD - Commercially demonstrated technology. Status: SAEWA will move forward with a Detailed Business Plan.

• Initial estimated total net capital (one-time and annual) and operating costs varies from $58/tonne for mass burn combustion to $114/tonne for plasma arc gasification (based on 50 year operating lifespan and varying tonnes/year depending on technology type); does not include GHG offsets or sale of heat

Table 2 Summary of Current, Proposed and Previous P3 Facilities (owned and operated by private company but agreements with municipalities to supply waste)



Cost Profile

Current P3 Facilities

Waste-to-Biofuel and Chemical Facility - Enerkem Alberta Biofuels and City of Edmonton

Technology: Gasification, Cleaning and Conditioning of Syngas, Catalytic Synthesis and Product Purification. Status: The plant has been operational since 2014.The project has not been operated in full capacity.

• City of Edmonton supplies 100,000 dry tonnes of RDF annually to facility.

• Enerkem one-time capital costs: $100+ million (proprietary to Enerkem)

• City’s one-time capital costs for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) preparation located at the Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility: $40 million

• Enerkem tipping fee charge to City: $50/tonne (approximately $4 million annually after factoring in contractual adjustments for residuals handling)

• City’s estimated operating costs for RDF production: $4 million/year (excluding annual capital costs)

• 50/50 sharing of the ownership of GHG reduction credits (credits available TBD and are currently sellable at $15 per tonne CO2e).

9

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 8



Cost Profile

Proposed P3 Facilities

Sault. Ste. Marie and Elementa Group

Technology: Waste Conversion to Electricity Status: Elementa’s pilot plant has now ceased operations. Elementa and the City have a Waste Supply and Reformation Agreement (for 10 years) for commercial facility. The original operational start date was April 1, 2011 with first full year of production by December 31, 2015. Elementa has not begun construction and has requested extensions with the most recent request going to Council on May 11, 2015 for approval.

• Estimated one-time capital cost: $30.6 million (based on construction beginning in 2010 and responsibility of Elementa), with a capacity of 35,000 tonnes. This cost will need to be updated.

• Annual capital costs: not available • The maximum the City has agreed to pay is $60

per tonne, plus an annual CPI adjustment, based on the original agreement date for a guaranteed minimum curbside residential waste supply of 12,500 tonnes, or the City will pay for the difference.

Previous P3 Facilities

Dongara Inc. and York Region

Technology: RDF Status: Restrictions in the use of the alternative fuel sources produced from waste in Ontario, combined with low natural gas prices, inhibited Dongara’s ability to market the pellets in Ontario. In 2013, Dongara ceased operations and in 2014, York terminated their agreement with Dongara.

• One-time and annual capital costs: not available • Dongara’s tipping fee charge to York Region was

$84/tonne (if pellets delivered to Ontario market) • Dongara’s tipping fee charge to York Region was

$100/tonne (if Dongara pellets delivered to Michigan Markets, based on 2005 costs)

Plasco and City of Ottawa

Technology: Plasma Gasification Status: The City of Ottawa terminated the agreement with Plasco in February 2015. Plasco could not meet financial/lending conditions as per the Waste Conversion Agreement.

• One-time and annual capital costs: not available • Plasco’s tipping fee charge to City of Ottawa

$83.25/tonne based on 2011 agreement for commercial facility

• Plasco could utilize the City’s landfill for disposal of any unsold slag/aggregate at $20/tonne

• The agreement had provisions for revenue sharing and marketing fee offered to the City

10

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 9

The case studies presented in Appendix I also include information on current and proposed privately owned EFW facilities. These include the current Emerald Group EFW facility (formerly Algonquin Power), located in Brampton, the proposed PFMSI facility in Hamilton, the proposed ENTEC-REM facility in Port Hope and the Grimsby Energy Incorporated (GEI) Anaerobic Digester which is scheduled to start construction in May 2015. Generally costs are not available for these private facilities. The exception to this is the Grimbsy Digester, however the digester is approved to only receive feedstock from non-municipal sources. Based on case study trends and observations, the municipal project considerations and implications include: 1. Events such as the termination of the Ottawa/Plasco agreement and Plasco’s

bankruptcy, ceasing operation of the Dongara Pellet Facility and the limited progress in the implementation of Elementa Group full scale facility in Sault Ste. Marie, indicate that implementation of alternative technologies is very complex and there is risk involved.

2. Based on the most recent EFW facility constructed in Ontario (Durham-York Energy

Centre), the one-time capital cost is $255 million and annual net operating costs exceed $5.6 million annually or $40/tonne (includes annual capital related expenditures but excludes debt charges for one-time capital) for a 140,000 tonnes/year facility. In addition to these EFW facility costs, there are host community agreement costs of $29 million (i.e. main access road, energy park land, stormwater system etc.) and a requirement for landfill disposal capacity for EFW residuals.

3. No net revenue generating municipal EFW projects currently exist based on financial

data provided through contacts and other information sources for the case studies in Appendix I. Net EFW costs are related to tonnage throughput and negotiated energy pricing. Recently, the Ontario Minister of Energy issued a directive that the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) shall, by the end of 2015, make an EFW procurement process for municipal projects that includes a standard nominal contract price of 8 cents per net kWh, along with other features and requirements.

4. The recommendation for municipalities to investigate or develop EFW projects is

generally a result of the completion of a long term waste management strategic plan. Strategic plans establish a planning framework and strategic direction for waste management over a planning period (i.e. 25 years) and include public consultation.

11

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 10

Next Steps Niagara staff will be monitoring and will report back on outputs from:

i) City of Ottawa will be developing a procurement strategy for residual waste management technologies after their Source Separated Organic Program Review is completed (anticipated by the end of 2015).

ii) City of Hamilton will be considering alternative technologies as part of their Solid

Waste Management Master Plan review (anticipated in 2016).

iii) Waterloo Region is completing a Thermal Treatment Feasibility Study (anticipated in late 2015).

iv) The Intermunicipal Working Group on Solid Waste Management (IMWG), led by the Region of Waterloo, is identifying collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and timelines in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing - waste management policies, programs and/or facilities, including EFW facilities.

v) The PFMSI private sector EFW facility in Hamilton will be continuing through the

MOECC approvals process which will determine the final feedstock and service area to be included in their Environmental Compliance Approval.

vi) Anticipated new waste reduction legislation may impact the amount of tonnage to be directed to alternative technology facilities, and will require additional consideration by Regional Committees/Council in terms of services and facilities that Niagara will continue to operate under a producer responsibly framework.

Following an evaluation of the outputs from the above projects, exploration of municipal partnerships and impact analysis of the anticipated new waste reduction legislation, staff will report back on proposed timing for the implementation of a long-term waste management strategic plan. Alternative technologies would be included as part of a strategic plan that would identify required infrastructure and program/services for the 25-30 year planning period. ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED 1. Continuation of the Comparative Assessment Project – Not Recommended If the project were to be reinitiated, the recommended criteria to short-list the technologies would need to be revisited and additional workshop sessions with Regional Council Standing/Advisory Committees would be needed at a minimum, to ensure higher level of participation.

12

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 11

Based on the current RFP scope of work and project agreement with HDR Inc., the next steps to be completed by HDR include:

Application of the screening criteria to define short list of technologies for detailed review;

Conduct workshops similar to those noted above, to develop evaluation criteria with associated weighting;

Present recommended evaluation criteria with associated weighting to WMPSC or directly to PWC based on timing and Council for approval;

Complete comparative evaluation of options including life cycle impact analysis;

Review alternative funding models (i.e. partnerships and shared infrastructure for potential option implementation); and

Prepare and present final report with recommended course of action.

This alternative is not recommended until collaborative efforts through IMWG are explored, and the results from other municipal reviews/studies are complete. Alternative technologies are part of an integrated waste management system, and should be considered as part of a long-term waste management strategic plan. Further, the deliverable of a ‘recommended course of action’ as per the RFP, under this alternative, may not yield a result that meets the expectation of Council, based on discussions which have occurred at previous WMPSC and PWC meetings on this project. 2. Ceasing Investigation of Alternative Technologies – Not Recommended The alternative of ceasing investigation of alternative technologies is not recommended due to the need to evaluate options to ensure sustainable waste management systems and services are available to the Niagara Region over the long term. 3. Exploring Municipal Partnerships and Inclusion in Long-Term Waste Management

Strategic Plan – Recommended

In addition to the above case study considerations and implications, there is potential for a change (e.g. reduction) in the amount of waste that the Region and other jurisdictions currently manage due to anticipated new waste reduction legislation. Therefore, continued monitoring of alternative technology related municipal/P3 projects and exploring potential municipal partnerships are recommended next steps for the short to medium term. A long-term waste management strategic plan that will establish a planning framework and strategic direction for waste management for the Region over the next 25-30 years is recommended by staff. The plan, which would be initiated after the implications of new waste reduction legislation are identified, would include:

Identification of the required infrastructure and program/services for the 25-30 year planning period.

13

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 12

Development of vision, goals and targets and associated strategies, actions and measures to guide the Region’s waste management decisions on such matters as EFW facilities.

Development of an implementation plan, performance indicators and a process for monitoring and reporting.

Identification of innovative strategies and solutions for the management of the Region’s solid waste stream; to drive waste prevention and re-use; to maximize recycling, composting and energy recovery; and minimize disposal.

Preferred options should be selected based on lifecycle analysis using a sustainability framework that examines the economic, environmental and social impact of each alternative.

Due to the existing landfill disposal capacity at Regional landfill sites (to approximately 2047 at Niagara Road 12 Landfill and 2043 at Humberstone Landfill pending Environmental Assessment approval) and through a disposal contract with Walker Environmental Group which expires in 2031, there is sufficient time to complete a long-term waste management strategic plan and explore municipal partnerships. In addition, Niagara’s Biosolids Master Plan concluded that there is sufficient land availability in the Region to 2031 to support land application of the Region’s liquid biosolids. This currently accounts for 50% of the biosolids disposal program. The program remains sufficiently diversified to withstand weather and other conditions that would preclude the use of land application by contracting with the private sector to dewater the remaining 50% and creating a saleable soil amendment product utilizing the N-Viro method. The current contract runs until 2017 with enough merchant capacity to accommodate increased growth in the program. The Water and Wastewater Division will be reporting back to Council regarding the remaining 50% of the biosolids program. ORIGIN OF REPORT This report has been brought forward by staff to respond to Public Works and WMSPC Councillor Requests and to report back regarding next steps on the comparative assessment of alternative waste and biosolid management technologies project, as recommended in report PW 66-2014. OTHER PERTINENT REPORTS PWA 72-2011: Waste Management Strategic Plan: Areas of Priority, September

27, 2011

WMPSC-C 8-2013: Assessment of Alternative Waste Management Technologies: RFP Process and Project Milestones, February 25, 2013

WMPSC-C 40-2013: Overview of the Assessment of Alternative Waste Management Technologies Project, November 18, 2013

14

http://www.niagararegion.ca/council/subcommittee/SubCommittee%20Documents/WMPSC-C%208-2013.pdf




PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 13

PW 4-2014: Overview of the Assessment of Alternative Waste Management Technologies Project, January 7, 2014

WMPSC-C 13-2014: Screening Criteria for Alternative Waste Management Technologies Project, April 14, 2014

PW 66-2014: Alternative Waste Management Technologies Project, June 3, 2014

SUBMITTED & SIGNED BY: Ron Tripp, P.Eng, Commissioner Public Works Department

APPROVED & SIGNED BY: Harry Schlange Chief Administrative Officer

This report was prepared by Sherri Tait, Manager, Waste Management, in collaboration with Lydia Torbicki, Manager, Waste Policy and Planning and with assistance from Brad Whitelaw, Program Manager, Waste Policy and Planning and reviewed by and reviewed by Beth Brens, Manager, Program Financial Support, Paul Smeltzer, P. Eng., Director, Water and Wastewater Services and Catherine Habermebl, Director, Waste Management Services APPENDICES Appendix I Municipal and Private Sector Energy from Waste Case Studies Appendix II Background to Alternative Waste Management Technology Project Appendix III Intermunicipal Waste Management Working Group Terms of

Reference

15





http://www.niagararegion.ca/council/Council%20Documents/PW%2066-2014.pdf

http://www.niagararegion.ca/council/Council%20Documents/PW%2066-2014.pdf

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I

Appendix I - Municipal and Private Sector Energy from Waste Case Studies

PART A – OVERVIEW Case studies of municipal and private energy from waste (EFW) projects are profiled in this

Appendix in order to respond to two Councillor Information Requests:

i) March 2, 2015 WMPSC: Provide information respecting what other municipalities are

doing regarding energy for waste and alternative technologies i.e. Peel and Durham; and

ii) January 7, 2014 PWC: Provide specific cases where composting causes no odour and

case studies of municipalities that have alternative waste technologies that generate

revenue (composting case studies were previously submitted in PWC 20-2014, July 15,

2014).

The case studies focus on EFW facilities in Ontario and secondly those across Canada. Staff

gathered information for as many projects as possible; however this should not necessarily be

considered a complete list. Existing, planned and previous projects are broken down into the

following categories:

Municipal Projects

Municipal and Private Partnerships

Private Projects

The case studies include the following parameters (where information was available):

Overview

Location

Type of Technology

Owner/Operator

Feedstock

Throughput (Capacity)

Energy Generation

Rationale

Planning Process

Cost Profile

Below are the profiled facilities which are summarized in Table 1 and described in more detail

in Part B of this Appendix:

16


Three existing alternate waste management facilities that are municipally owned

(Durham-York Energy Centre (DYEC), Metro Vancouver EFW Facility and the Otter Lake

Waste Management facility in Nova Scotia).

Three planned municipal EFW projects (Peel Energy Recovery Centre, a new Metro

Vancouver EFW Facility and the Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association

project).

One existing facility that is as a result of a Public Private Partnership (P3) (Waste-to-

Biofuels Facility in Edmonton, Alberta).

One proposed P3 project (Elementa and the City of Sault Ste. Marie).

Two past P3 projects that ended as a result of the municipality terminating the

agreement (Plasco and the City of Ottawa and Dongara Inc. and York Region).

One private EFW facility (Emerald Group Energy-from-Waste Inc., in Brampton, ON).

Three proposed or future private facilities (Grimsby Energy Incorporated (GEI)

Anaerobic Digester, Grimsby, ON; Port Fuels and Material Services Inc., Hamilton, ON;

and ENTEC-REM Canada Inc., Port Hope, ON).

Key observations from the above projects include the following:

The most recent facility built in Ontario (DYEC) indicates capital costs can exceed $250

million plus annual net operating costs can exceed $40/tonne (not including debt

charges).

The recommendation for municipalities to investigate or develop EFW projects is

generally a result of the completion of a long term waste management strategic plan.

No net revenue generating municipal EFW projects exist based on financial data

provided through contacts and other information sources for the case studies.

The municipal studies and other initiatives related to alternative technologies, which are

summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail in Part C of this Appendix, include the

following:

City of Ottawa will be developing a procurement strategy for residual waste

management technologies after their Source Separated Organic Program Review is

completed (anticipated by the end of 2015).

City of Hamilton will be considering alternative technologies as part of their Solid Waste

Management Master Plan review (anticipated in 2016).

Waterloo Region is completing a Thermal Treatment Feasibility Study (anticipated in

late 2015). Waterloo is also leading an Intermunicipal Working Group on Solid Waste

Management (IMWG) that is identifying collaboration opportunities and specific

information needs, actions and timelines in order to determine the feasibility of jointly

17


implementing - waste management policies, programs and/or facilities, including EFW

facilities. The IMWG terms of reference and list of participating municipalities are

included in Appendix III.

Dufferin County has postponed the development of the Dufferin Energy Eco-Park and

intend to explore local solutions in the meantime to work towards a long-term method

of processing Dufferin County waste materials.

Halton Region’s 2006-2010 Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS) identified that

the Region consider and investigate EFW technologies as a means to manage the

residual waste stream that cannot be diverted through diversion programs once they

have been implemented. Halton Region Council agreed to postpone further

investigation into the possibility of an EFW facility in Halton for at least 5 years.

However, Halton Region updated their SWMS in 2011 for a 5 year period (2012-2016)

and it does not contain any recommendations with regards to EFW.

The Norfolk County Tom Howe landfill is scheduled to reach capacity in October 2015.

Through an RFP process, the County sought non-landfill waste disposal options for their

waste. Walker Environmental Group in partnership with Emerald Energy from Waste

Inc. was the successful bidder. When the Tom Howe landfill closes in October 2015,

waste from the county will be transferred to the Emerald Energy from Waste Inc.

facility in Brampton. Waste currently accepted in the County’s waste programs but is

not acceptable in the EFW facility will be disposed of at the Walkers’ South Landfill

facility in Niagara Falls.

Part D of this Appendix, inventories the biogas and biomass projects (non-farm) in Ontario in

addition to a few smaller alternative technology projects in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario.

18

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Table 1 Summary of Alternative Waste Management Technology Case Studies

Project/Technology Owner/Operator Feedstock/Capacity Status Cost Profile

Municipally Owned Projects

Current Municipal Facilities

Project: Durham-York Energy Centre Location: 1835 Energy Drive, Clarington, ON (Durham Region) Technology: Mass Burn

Owner: Durham (78.6%) and York Region (21.4%) Operator: Covanta under long term agreement (20 year plus option extensions up to 10 years).

Feedstock: Residential garbage (post-diversion) from Durham and York Regions that is collected by their collection contractors. Throughput: 140,000 tonnes/year (110,000 tonnes from Durham and 30,000 tonnes from York)

Currently in the commissioning stage and should commence commercial operations by August 2015.

One-time capital cost: $255 million

Host community agreement (i.e. main access road, energy park land, stormwater system etc.) etc.: $29 million

Gross annual capital (e.g. major replacement, upgrades) and operating: $14.5 million (excluding debt charges for one-time capital costs)

Net annual capital and operating cost/tonne: $40.35/t or $5.65 million annually (excluding debt charges for one-time capital costs)

Project: Metro Vancouver WTE Facility Location: South Burnaby, B.C. Technology: Mass Burn

Owner: Metro Vancouver Operator: Convanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC

Feedstock: Residual solid waste Throughput: 285,000 tonnes of residual waste (25% of the region's waste)

Operational since 1988 One-time capital cost: $70 million

Net annual operating cost/tonne including debt charges (for annual capital costs): $52.35/t (excluding tipping fee revenue which is not publicly available)

Project: Otter Lake Waste Management Facility Location: Otter Lake Landfill, Highway 103, Halifax, NS Technology: MBT

Owner: The Municipality of Halifax Operator: MIRROR NS under a long-term design/build/operate contract, which ends in 2024.

Feedstock: Residual waste. The province of NS banned paper, cardboard, recyclable containers, hazardous waste and compostable organics from landfills. The approved service area is Halifax Regional Municipality (Residential and ICI). Halifax has agreements with other nearby municipalities to receive each

The facility was fully operational in 1999.

One-time capital cost: not available

Gross annual capital costs (excludes initial one-time capital) for MBT and disposal: approx. $8.9 million or $63.48/tonne

Gross annual operating cost to operate the MBT and disposal facility: $14.5 million or $103.62/tonne and for MBT only,

19



other’s waste on an as needed basis but the requests must come from the Municipality itself. Throughput: Otter Lake received 134,500 tonnes of waste in Fiscal 2014/2015 and has a contracted capacity of 173,000 tonnes annually.

the gross operating cost/tonne is $62/tonne

Gross MBT and disposal capital and operating cost/tonne: $167/t

Tipping fee for IC&I waste: $125/tonne (with flow control)

Net operating and annual capital cost for MBT and disposal: $95.68/tonne

Planned Municipal Facilities

Project: Peel Energy Recovery Centre Location: 7795 Torbram Road, Brampton, ON Technology: Thermal Conversion Technology

Owner: Peel Region Operator: TBD third party contractor

Feedstock: Residual household waste (post-diversion material) and commercial waste from businesses within Peel. Throughput: Minimum 300,000 tonnes/year of Peel Region waste and up to 100,000 tonnes/year of commercial waste from within Peel Region.

Peel issued the notice of study commencement for the Peel Energy Recovery Centre Environmental Screening process in May 2014. The new facility is expected to be operational by mid-to-late 2020 (subject to change).

Costs TBD by a competitive procurement process

Estimated one-time capital cost: not available

Estimated net capital (one-time and annual) and operating cost/tonne: $121/tonne based on 300,000 tonne/year (includes debt repayment and contribution to lifecycle reserves)

Estimated net operating cost/tonne: $35/tonne based on 300,000 tonne/year facility

Project: Metro Vancouver New WTE Facility Location: TBD Technology: TBD

TBD Feedstock: Residual waste Throughput: 370,000 tonnes

Metro Vancouver issued a RFQ to select viable EFW vendors qualified to participate in subsequent phases of the process. This phase was completed in 2013. Currently under way is the potential site identification process. Next step will include an RFQ for technology and sites.

Costs TBD by a competitive procurement process

Estimated one-time capital costs: $480 million total or $1,400/tonne based on 370,000 tonne/year (includes $40 M for planning & procurement, permitting and financing, design and construction monitoring and land costs)

Estimated net operating costs: $24.7M or $76/tonne based on 370,000 tonne/year facility

20



Estimated annual capital costs: not available

Project: Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association (SAEWA) Location: TBD Technology: Commercially Demonstrated

It has not yet been determined if design, build, finance and maintain is better suited to SAEWA over that of other models like design, build, operate and maintain etc.

Feedstock: The initial business plan identifies primary waste sources which included municipal solid waste (from SAEWA members and non-members), as well as an opportunity to process bio-solids, combustible oilfield waste, railway ties and specified risk materials. Throughput: The initial business plan identifies quantities of the types of materials mentioned above to an amount of 366,032 tonnes per year (to be confirmed).

SAEWA will move forward with the Detailed Business Plan (DBP) and is well supported by the Province of Alberta. The DBP identifies timelines that are measured in months and even years. Some of the modules can be completed in concert with each other; i.e. siting and technology selection while others, regulatory and public consultation have longer time lines. SAEWA has learned from other similar initiatives that the predicted timelines are subject to external influences beyond their control.

Initial estimated total net capital (one-time and annual) and operating costs varies from $58/tonne for mass burn combustion to $114/tonne for plasma arc gasification (based on 50 year operating lifespan and varying tonnes/year depending on technology type); does not include GHG offsets or sale of heat

Public Private Partnerships (P3) (Privately Owned)

Current P3 Facilities

Project: Waste-to-Biofuel and Chemical Facility Location: Edmonton Waste Management Centre Technology: Gasification, Cleaning and Conditioning of Syngas, Catalytic Synthesis and Product Purification

Owner and Operator: Enerkem Alberta Biofuels (The City of Edmonton owns and operates the waste preparation facility, as part of the Integrated Processing and Transfer Station (IPTF) and the Advanced Energy Research Facility (AERF)

Feedstock: Non-recyclable and non-compostable sorted municipal waste. Throughput: The current facility is sized to process 100,000 dry tonnes of refuse derived fuel (RDF) annually (120,000 tonnes at as-delivered moisture content) - supplied by the City of Edmonton.

The plant has been operational since 2014.

City of Edmonton supplies 100,000 dry tonnes of RDF annually to facility

Enerkem one-time capital costs: $100+ million (proprietary to Enerkem)

City’s one-time capital costs for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) preparation located at the Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility: $40 million

Enerkem tipping fee charge to City: $50/tonne (approximately $4 million annually after factoring in contractual adjustments for residuals handling)

City’s operating costs for RDF

21



production: $4 million/year

50/50 sharing of the ownership of GHG reduction credits (credits available TBD and are currently sellable at $15 per tonne CO2e)

Proposed P3 Facilities

Project: Elementa and Sault Ste. Marie Location: Part of 903 Base Line, Sault Ste. Marie, ON Technology: Waste Conversion to Electricity

The Elementa Group (Sault Ste. Marie has a Waste Supply and Reformation Agreement for 10 years from commencement date of waste supply)

Feedstock: The City’s priority commitment is to try to supply 25,000 tonnes of curbside residential waste per year. However, its put-or-pay amount is 12,500 tonnes per year. Throughput: The Elementa facility was being designed to process 55,000 tonnes per year, subject to their final ECA.

Operated a pilot plant in the City of Sault Ste. Marie which has ceased operation. The original Agreement for a commercial facility between Elementa and Sault Ste. Marie was dated October 26, 2009. The commencement date for operations was supposed to be April 1, 2011, and the plant was to reach its full year of production by December 31, 2015. Elementa has requested extensions to these dates with the most recent extension going to Council for approval on May 11, 2015.

Estimated one-time capital cost: $30.6 million (based on construction beginning in 2010 and responsibility of Elementa), with a capacity of 35,000 tonnes. This cost will need to be updated.

Annual capital costs: not available

The maximum the City has agreed to pay is $60 per tonne, plus an annual CPI adjustment, based on the original agreement date for a guaranteed minimum curbside residential waste supply of 12,500 tonnes, or the City will pay for the difference.

Previous P3 Facilities

Project: Dongara Inc. and York Region Location: Northeast corner of Highway 407 and 27 in Vaughan, ON Technology: Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

Owner and Operator: Dongara Development Inc.

Feedstock: The facility was approved to accept municipal waste including post recycled residential domestic waste and admixture materials (solid non-hazardous solid industrial waste including polyfilm, carpet, petcoke and wood generated from industrial, commercial and institutional sources) and source separated Blue Box material (the facility also included a Blue Box materials transfer facility ). As per the 2006 agreement with Dongara, York Region

In 2006, York Region and Dongara Development Inc., entered into a partnership to process municipal residual waste using RDF technology. Due to restriction in the use of the alternative fuel sources produced from waste in Ontario, combined with low natural gas prices, it inhibited Dongara’s ability to market the pellets in Ontario. In June 2013, Dongara ceased operations. In 2014,

One-time and annual capital costs: not available

Dongara’s tipping fee charge to York Region was $84/tonne (if pellets delivered to Ontario market)

22



supplied 100,000 tonnes per year of residual waste and the balance of capacity would be sold to other customers. Throughput: As per the ECA, a maximum of 208,000 tonnes (not including admixture materials) could be received at the facility per year. Dongara indicated they needed 200,000 tonnes per year of waste to make the project financially viable.

York Region terminated their agreement with Dongara.

Project: Plasco and City of Ottawa Location: 4420 and 4460 Trail Road, Ottawa, ON Technology: Plasma Gasification

Owner and Operator: Plasco Energy Group Inc. (City of Ottawa and Plasco entered into a 20 year agreement (with option to extend five years, four times))

Feedstock: The following categories of municipal waste were permitted to be accepted at the demonstration facility.

Domestic waste originating within the City of Ottawa;

IC&I waste originating within the City of Ottawa;

Plastic and other non-hazardous, non-putrescible materials originating within the City of Ottawa that have been rejected from recycling and composting facilities; and

Automotive shredded residuals Acceptable waste at the commercial facility was subject to approval by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Under the agreement, the City was required to deliver 300 tonnes per day to either the demonstration or commercial facility.

The City of Ottawa terminated the agreement with Plasco in February 2015. As per the Waste Conversion Agreement, Plasco needed to confirm a first draw on such debt financing to fund the entire construction of the commercial facility; received a first draw on such debt financing of at least $3 million; and demonstrated a binding commitment to expend at least $5 million in order to manufacture components required for the commercial facility by March 31, 2013. Two extensions were approved by Council (August 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014). Plasco was unable to fulfill the conditions.

One-time and annual capital costs: not available

Plasco’s tipping fee charge to City of Ottawa $83.25/tonne based on 2011 agreement for commercial facility

Plasco could utilize the City’s landfill for disposal of any unsold slag/aggregate at $20/tonne

The agreement had provisions for revenue sharing and marketing fee offered to the City

Plasco leased the sites for $10,000 per year (subject to annual CPI)

23



The commercial facility was to provide the City of Ottawa access to 109,500 tonnes of processing capacity annually. Throughput: The Plasco demonstration facility was permitted to accept 85 tonnes/day of the above noted waste 365 days per year (31,025 tonnes/year). As per a December, 2011 staff report, the capacity of the commercial facility was to be 128,600 tonnes per year.

Private Facilities

Current Private Facilities

Project: Emerald Group (formerly Algonquin Power) Location: Highway 407 and Bramelea Road, Brampton, ON Technology: Mass Burn

Owner and Operator: Emerald Group

Feedstock: Solid non-hazardous waste from municipal (MSW) and IC&I sources from within Ontario (both inside and outside the GTA). Throughput: 500 tonnes/day

In operation since 1992. N/A


Future/Proposed Private Facilities

Project: Grimsby Energy Incorporated (GEI) Anaerobic Digester Location: 442 Sobie Road, Grimsby, ON

GEI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Town of Grimsby.

Feedstock: The input materials for anaerobic digestion will come from agricultural byproducts such as grass silage, corn, soy etc. The REA approval also allows for the introduction of post-consumer organic wastes in the form of Fats, Oils or Greases and will be pasteurized

Construction of the first phase of the plant is expected to begin in May 2015. Plant construction will be largely completed with 4 months. Commissioning and start-up will take a further 2 months with full power production occurring shortly thereafter.

The original budget was for $4.5 million CAD (2007$). The construction budget will be updated for the 2015 market over the coming months. GEI does not charge tipping fees at this time. This is a revenue generating technology. GEI

24



Technology: Biogas The operation of this Facility is limited to receipt and processing of specific types of liquid and solid Biomass and does not include municipal solid waste. The approved service area for the Facility is the Province of Ontario. Throughput: The total amount of Biomass approved to be accepted at the Facility shall not exceed 12,800 tonnes per year, if the Facility generates 500 kilowatts of electricity (kWel) or 23,000 tonnes per year, if the Facility generates 1,000 kilowatts of electricity (kWel).

will be generating a return on investment for the Town of Grimsby that is not disclosed to the Public at this time. There are no operational costs to the Town’s budget.

Project: Port Fuels and Material Services Inc. Location: Pier 15, Hamilton, ON Technology: Gasplasma® and conventional direct plasma technology

Port Fuels and Material Services Inc.

Feedstock: As per the Environmental Screening report, the Gasplasma® technology will process the following but not limited to non-hazardous waste: IC&I; Construction and Demolition; RDF; MSW; Biomass; Biosolids (limited to 15% of waste input); Tires (limited to 20% of waste input); Liquid waste streams Accepted was for the direct plasma technology includes: Residual metals for recovery; and Contaminated soils/sludges Throughput: The proposed facility would receive up to 200,000 tonnes per year

PFMSI started the Environmental Screening process in April 2014 with the notice of commencement and the Environmental Screening report was submitted in December 2014

N/A

25



Project: ENTEC-REM Location: 1516 Wesleyville Road, Port Hope, ON Technology: Gasification technology

Owner and Operator: ENTECH-REM Canada Inc.

Feedstock: The proposed facility will accept municipal solid waste and IC&I waste.ENTEC-REM Canada Inc. indicates there is a sufficient amount of waste produced within a 75‐100 km radius of the proposed facility; however, they are focused on the waste produced as close to the facility as possible which would include Northumberland County and the surrounding areas. Throughput: The proposed facility will receive up to 165,000 tonnes per year.

In April 2014, ENTEC-REM indicated the project is currently under review by the MOECC as part of the Environmental Screening Process.In the summer of 2014, the City of Port Hope did not approve an application to change its Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw to allow construction of the facility at the proposed location. The company appealed and is going to the OMB.

The facility will be a private EFW facility and will utilize no public funds.

26

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Table 2 Municipal Alternative Waste Management Technology Studies and Related Initiatives

Municipality Overview

Waterloo Region The Region of Waterloo’s Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP), completed in 2013, established a strategy to guide waste management programs and services in the Region over the next 20 years. Through the WMMP, it was recommended that the Region further investigate thermal technology options (e.g. feasibility study, business case, life cycle analysis, and environmental impacts study). In 2014, SLR was retained by the Region of Waterloo to complete a Thermal Treatment and Energy Recovery for Residual Waste Management Feasibility Study.

Dufferin County Over the past decade, Dufferin County has investigated developing facilities to process waste locally. The facility/facilities were to be located at the Dufferin Eco-Energy Park (DEEP). In May 2014, it was recommended that the County postpone development of the DEEP until such time that technology and provincial political support are conducive to the project and continue to monitor opportunities for the site; and staff be directed to pursue opportunities with existing southern Ontario waste processing facilities as a long term solution for Dufferin County waste, beyond the current Contracts. They intend to explore local solutions in the meantime to work towards a long-term method of processing Dufferin County waste materials.

City of Hamilton A recommendation included in the 2012 Solid Waste Management Master Plan was to “…optimize the capacity of the Glanbrook Landfill site which may include consideration of alternative disposal technologies no later than the next five (5) year review…" With regards to current and or future reviews of alternative waste management technologies, the City has indicated that “at this time the alternative technologies review is being undertaken by the City’s wastewater division (Hamilton Water) as part of the City’s Biosolids Management Project. As part of this P3 Canada project alternative technologies will be investigated with the selection of the most appropriate technology being dependent on the proposals received. The City’s Biosolids Master Plan has identified thermal reduction as a possible option to manage the City’s biosolids.”

27


Municipality Overview

County of Northumberland

The County of Northumberland (County) completed a long-term Waste Management Master Plan (Master Plan) in 2014. With regards to alternative waste management technologies, the Master Plan recommended “that the County re-visit opportunities to utilize alternative disposal technologies in the mid to longer term once more development has occurred in the Ontario market.” The rationale for the timing was due to “the very long lead time to establish and operationalize Alternative Disposal Facilities (typically at least 10 years), the very high cost, and the fact the County must address a potential short-term landfill capacity issue, there is little justification to focus on alternative technologies at this time.”

Norfolk County The Norfolk County Tom Howe landfill is scheduled to reach capacity in October 2015. Through an RFP process, the County sought non-landfill waste disposal options for their waste. Walker Environmental Group in partnership with Emerald Energy from Waste Inc. was the successful bidder. When the Tom Howe landfill closes in October 2015, waste from the county will be transferred to the Emerald Energy from Waste Inc. facility in Brampton. Waste currently accepted in the County’s waste programs but is not acceptable in the EFW facility will be disposed of at the Walkers’ South Landfill facility in Niagara Falls. The agreement is for 10 years.

City of Ottawa City of Ottawa has completed a review of alternative technologies and issued a Request for Information seeking information from potential providers of technologies (other than landfill) for management of 109,500 tonnes of post-diversion residual waste. Council also approved the recommendation to develop a procurement strategy for residual waste management technologies to be completed after a Source Separated Organic Program Review is completed (expected to be completed by end of 2015). For submissions received under the RFI with regards to alternative disposal technologies, issued due to the termination of the Plasco agreement, capital costs from submissions ranged from $50 to $275 million with annual operating costs ranging from $3 to $75 million. The City received 37 submissions and 23 of them provided technologies that managed a post-diversion management stream that could reduce the amount going to landfill. The remaining were technologies or services that would replace or enhance elements of the City's existing waste management system without necessarily achieving the targeted 50% reduction in waste going to landfill as required in the RFI.

28

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I PART B – CASE STUDIES OF EXISTING, PLANNED AND PREVIOUS EFW FACILITIES

Municipal Projects

The following case studies outline municipally owned or municipally proposed EFW facilities.

1. Metro Vancouver EFW Facility

1.1. Overview

Metro Vancouver currently has an EFW facility, which was built in 1988. Metro Vancouver’s Integrated

Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) recommended expansion of waste to energy

technology beyond the existing facility.

1.2. Location

The existing EFW facility is located in south Burnaby, B.C. The proposed new facility location has not

been determined.

1.3. Technology

The existing facility is a mass burn technology and the proposed technology for the new facility is TBD.

1.4. Owner/Operated By

The existing facility is owned by Metro Vancouver and is operated and maintained by Covanta Burnaby

Renewable Energy, ULC.

1.5. Feedstock

Residual waste.

1.6. Throughput

The current facility processes 285,000 tonnes of residual waste (over 25% of the region’s waste).

The proposed facility would handle 370,000 tonnes. If the new facility is built, 280,000 tonnes would

continue to be processed at the existing facility and 50,000 tonnes would be sent to landfill.

1.7. Energy Generation

The existing facility generates steam and electricity. The steam is used to power a turbo generator with

the resulting electricity, enough to power 16,000 homes, sold to BC Hydro. The facility also recovers

about 8,000 tonnes of metals annually.

1.8. Rationale

As per Metro Vancouver’s website “In 2009, Metro Vancouver appointed independent consultants to

determine the best way to manage the garbage remaining after reuse and recycling. Their conclusion

was that a new waste-to-energy project was the best option based on cost, air emissions, and health

and environmental impacts. As a result, Metro Vancouver’s ISWMRP recommended expansion of waste

to energy.”

29


1.9. Planning Process

The existing facility was built in 1988.

In 2009, Metro Vancouver hired a consultant to analyze a range of treatment options for the region’s

waste. The consultants concluded a new EFW facility was the best solution and the Metro Vancouver’s

ISWRMP recommended EFW to manage the post diversion residual waste.

In July, 2011, the B.C. Ministry of Environment approved the ISWRMP, including the proposal for a new

EFW project, with a condition that all technologies and locations both in and outside of the region be

considered.

Metro Vancouver issued a Request for Quotation to select viable EFW vendors qualified to participate in

subsequent phases of the process. This phase was completed in 2013.

Ten submissions from companies were selected that had the proven ability to complete the project (out

of 22 responses).

The following companies were short listed.

Table 1.1: Metro Vancouver Short-Listed Companies

Respondent Core Technology

AECOM Mass-burn

AQUILINI Mass-burn

COVANTA 1 Mass-burn

COVANTA 2 Gasification

ENERGY ANSWERS Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)/Mass-burn

LEHIGH RDF/Cement Kiln

MUSTANG – JFE RDF/AD/Gasification

PLENARY Option 1 Mass-burn

TERMOMECCANICA Mass-burn

WHEELABRATOR/URBASER Mass-burn

Currently under way is the potential site identification processes, followed by the following next steps.

RFQ2: Technology and Sites

Shortlisted Proponents and Sites

Regulatory and Environmental Assessment Processes

Detailed Design/Construction

Commissioning and Operation

Monitoring

30


1.10. Cost Profile

As reported in the Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update, the operating expenditures in 2013

for the existing facility totaled $20.22 million with an additional $1.89 million in debt charges and Metro

Vancouver’s portion of energy revenues totaled $7.44 million. The net unit cost per tonne for operation

and maintenance including debt charge for one-time capital costs was $52.35 in 2013. Tipping fee

revenues are not included in this analysis. Tipping fee revenue is not publically available. The one time

capital cost was $70 million (built in 1988).

In April 2014, Metro Vancouver completed a business case for the new EFW facility. The Business Case

assumes a one facility solution.

The following cost table is presented in the Business Case.

Table 1.2: Cost Table Presented in the Metro Vancouver Business Case

Summary of Cost Analysis for Proposed WTE Capacity (2014$ and Capital Costs Escalated to

Mid-Point of Construction (early 2018) and O&M Escalated to Commissioning (Mid 2019))

Cost

Component

250,000 tpa 370,000 tpa

Year: (2014$) (2014$)

Capital Cost $394,000,000 $424,000,000

(2018$)

$480,000,000 $517,000,000 (2018$)

O&M

Cost/year

$18,000,000 $20,300,000

(2019$)

$24,700,000 $27,900,000 (2019$)

Capital

Cost/annual

tonne of

capacity

$1,700 $1,400

O&M

Cost/tonne

processed

$81 $76

Capital costs include $40 million for planning and procurement, permitting and financing, design and

construction monitoring and land costs.

The Business Case established that EFW provided a lower life‐cycle cost solution than landfill. In

determining the costs for landfill it did not include the costs for a transfer station operation and local

transportation costs to allow comparison to in region EFW assuming all garbage is transferred to the

EFW facility. Metro Vancouver will still require landfills to dispose of residue from the EFW facilities.

Municipal solid waste in the region can be directed to the Vancouver Landfill (owned by the City of

Vancouver) and Cache Creek Landfill (privately owned). As well, can be directed to any disposal facility

licensed by Metro Vancouver under the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal

Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw.

31

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Capacity at the Cache Creek landfill is expected to be reached at the end of 2016. The Vancouver

Landfill is currently slated for closure in 2037 to coincide with the expiry of Legal Agreements between

City of Vancouver, the Corporation of Delta and Metro Vancouver.

Landfill costs are excluded from the EFW business case and are the responsibility of the City of

Vancouver (for municipal landfill).

In Metro Vancouver’s ISWRMP, they indicate “Over a 30 year operating period, total revenue for the

new waste-to-energy facilities are projected to exceed the total expenditures resulting in a net

revenue.” In the more recent Business Case, it is not noted that the new facility would be a net revenue

generator.

Sources:

Metro Vancouver, Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste & Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP),

July 2010, http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-

waste/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/services/solid-

waste/SolidWastePublications/ISWRMP.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

Metro Vancouver, The New Waste-to-Energy Project. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-

waste/about/wte/pages/index.aspx

Metro Vancouver, Metro Vancouver New Waste-to-Energy Capacity Business Case, April 24, 2014.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/wte/Reports/NewWTEBusinessCase.pdf

Allen, Chris, Metro Vancouver, Waste-to-Energy Facility – 2013 Financial Update, April 28, 2014.

Contact:

Brent Kirkpatrick, Metro Vancouver

2. Durham-York Region Energy Centre

2.1. Overview

The Durham-York Energy Centre (DYEC) is the first EFW facility approved in Ontario in the past 20 years

and is a result of a joint project between the Durham and York Regions. The DYEC started accepting

materials earlier this year (February 9, 2015).

2.2. Location

The DYEC is located at 1835 Energy Drive, Clarington, Ontario in Durham Region.

2.3. Technology

The DYEC utilizes mass burn technology.

32

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/services/solid-waste/SolidWastePublications/ISWRMP.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1




http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/wte/pages/index.aspx

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/wte/pages/index.aspx

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/wte/Reports/NewWTEBusinessCase.pdf


2.4. Owner/Operator

The DYEC is publicly owned by Durham and York Regions. Ownership is based on the tonnage ratio of

capacity allocation: Durham 78.6% and York 21.4%.

2.5. Feedstock

As per the approved Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA),

only residential garbage from Durham and York Regions that is collected by their collection contractors

is accepted at the DYEC. The DYEC cannot accept garbage from other municipalities, sectors or private

haulers. Garbage received at the facility is pre-sorted (i.e. at the curb, public waste depots, transfer

station and at the DYEC) prior to being processed.

2.6. Throughput

The DYEC has a processing capacity of 140,000 tonnes (110,000 tonnes from Durham Region and 30,000

tonnes from York Region) of residential garbage/year.

Covanta is the designer, builder and operator of DYEC. Convanta is under a 20 year agreement plus

optional term extensions of up to 10 years for the operation of the DYEC.

2.7. Energy Generation Details

The DYEC generates approximately 14 MW (enough to power 10,000 homes) of net electrical energy on

a continuous basis. The electricity is sold to the Provincial grid as base load energy at the guaranteed

price of $0.08 per kWh inflation indexed for a 20 year-term. In the future, steam from the DYEC may be

used for district heating in the Clarington Energy Park located adjacent to the facility. It is estimated

steam produced could heat the equivalent of 2,200 homes.

2.8. Rationale

Durham and York Region did not have sufficient long-term waste disposal capacity. Previously, Durham

and York Regions spent considerable time and money attempting to establish and site new long-term

waste disposal capacity to manage their residual waste (after diversion) within their respective Regional

boundaries.

As per a Business Case for the DYEC that was prepared by Deloitte for Durham Region, an EFW was more

expensive than sending residual waste to Ontario landfill, “however, over time, the costs of the landfill

option outstrip the costs of the EFW because: (i) inflation is expected to be higher for the Other Ontario

Landfill option; (ii) EFW costs increase at a lower level of inflation; and (iii) EFW costs are partially offset

from the revenues generated by the facility. The EFW is also an asset that will have a residual value at

the end of 25 years, whereas no asset is involved with the Other Ontario Landfill option (it is just a

straight annual operating cost). The EFW option is also less sensitive to increases in haulage costs

because hauling distances are minimized. This is relevant because it demonstrates that the EFW option

provides greater cost certainty than the Other Ontario Landfill option.”

The Ontario landfill option assumed that Durham’s waste is disposed of at an existing landfill site in

Ontario within one day’s return drive of Durham (approx. 10 hours).

33

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Through Public consultation, the Region determined that a local landfill solution was not acceptable and

that continuing to transport waste to a landfill outside their jurisdictional boundaries was not

sustainable or would provide the security of a long-term stable solution.

As a result, Durham and York entered into contracts with the private sector to export residual waste.

The Region desired a Durham/York based solution.

The preferred solution as identified through the EA was Thermal Treatment of Mixed Solid Waste and

Recovery of Energy followed by Recovery of Materials from Ash/Char.


In 1998, Durham Region Works Committee directed the formation of two Committees, comprised of

staff and residents to recommend strategies for managing residential waste for 2000-2020. As a result, a

Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan was developed and endorsed by Regional Council. The

plan included recommendations to investigate EFW as an alternative to landfill for final disposal of

residential garbage.

In 2005, both Durham and York Regions initiated a joint EA to determine the “preferred alternative” for

managing residential garbage and EFW was selected. This solution was approved by both Councils in

2006. The EA was completed in 2009 and approved by the MOECC in 2010.

The facility is currently in the commissioning stage and should commence commercial operations by

August 2015.

2.10. Cost Profile

The table below outlines the costs associated with this facility.

Table 2.1 Costs Associated with DYEC

Cost Component Costs

One-Time Capital Costs $255 million

Host Community Agreement (i.e. main access road, energy park

land, stormwater system etc.)

$29 million

Gross Annual Capital (e.g. major replacement upgrades) and

Operating Costs

$14.7 million (2010$)

Revenue Generated from Sale of Electricity $8.5 million

Revenue Generated from Sale of Recovered metals $550,000

Net Annual Capital and Operation Costs $5.65 million

Net Annual Capital and Operation Costs/tonne $40.35

Federal gas takes revenues will be applied to retire the debt related to Durham’s share of the project

costs.

34

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I The DYEC was subject to a full EA but recent changes to the approval process mean EFW projects only

need to complete an Environmental Screening Process (unless the project gets bumped up to a full EA).

Sources:

Durham/York Residual Waste Study, Evaluation of “Alternatives to” and Identification of the Preferred

Residuals Processing System Recommendations Report, May 30, 2006.

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

Durham/York Residual Waste Study, Environmental Assessment Study Document, July 31, 2009.

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/Archive/pdfs/study/ea-study-docs/studydoc-july31/Durham-York-EA-

Study-Document-Revised.pdf

Durham York Energy Centre, Frequently Asked Questions,

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/FAQ/FAQ.aspx

Contact:

Gioseph Anello, Manager, Waste Planning and Technical Services, Durham Region

3. Otter Lake Waste Management Facility

3.1. Overview

The City of Halifax has implemented a front-end processing (FEP) and waste stabilization facility (WSF),

which pre-processes the waste and sorts out recyclable material via conveyors and sorters and

compostable materials by using various trammel screens and a 15 to 18 day aerobic composting

process. The residual waste (material not picked off the conveyor at the FEP and all the material sent

through the WSF) is placed in the residuals disposal facility (RDF) i.e. 2nd generation landfill cells.

In 2011, the WSF processed about 25% of the waste material being placed in the RDF. The WSF

stabilization process reduces the moisture content, and to some extent reduces the volatilization and

leachate potential of the waste material.

3.2. Location

Otter Lake Landfill, Highway 103, Halifax

3.3. Technology (Process)

All of Halifax’s waste not separated for recycling or organics collection is received at the Otter Lake

Landfill, from both residential and ICI sources, and offloaded at the FEP centre.

Staff removes white goods and other scrap metal and segregate for recycling.

Other large or bulky items, such as couches, carpet and mattresses are also removed from the incoming

waste stream and sent directly to landfill.

Any unacceptable material, such as propane tanks, is also removed at this time.

35

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

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/Archive/pdfs/study/ea-study-docs/studydoc-july31/Durham-York-EA-Study-Document-Revised.pdf

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/Archive/pdfs/study/ea-study-docs/studydoc-july31/Durham-York-EA-Study-Document-Revised.pdf

http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/FAQ/FAQ.aspx

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I The remaining waste passes through mechanical bag breakers and is screened in trammel screens with

particles smaller than 50mm transferred by conveyer directly to the adjoining Waste Stabilization

Facility building.

Particles between 50mm and 150mm are shredded and then transferred to the WSF.

Material over 150mm in size passes over conveyers for final hand removal of any materials

unacceptable for landfill before being sent to the RDF for placement in the landfill.

The material sent to the WSF is roughly composted to stabilize the organics over a 15 to 18 day period

using 14 aerated channels with 3 agitators which flip and move the material along the channel.

The processed material is then sent to the RDF for final disposal.

The RDF is a second generation, modern sanitary landfill equipped with a low permeability base liner,

leachate collection underdrain, leak detection system, and landfill gas collection and flare system.

3.4. Owner/Operator

The Municipality owns the Otter Lake Waste Management Facility and all operations are managed by

MIRROR NS under a long-term design/build/operate contract, which ends in 2024.

3.5. Feedstock

Halifax’s Integrated Solid Waste/Resource Management Strategy (ISWRMS) is based on separation of

waste at the source of generation. The province of Nova Scotia banned paper, cardboard, recyclable

containers, hazardous waste and compostable organics from landfills. So the idea is that none of this

material is supposed to be delivered to the Otter Lake Waste Management Facility.

The approved service area is Halifax Regional Municipality (residential and IC&I). Halifax has agreements

with other nearby municipalities to receive each other’s waste on an as needed basis but the requests

must come from the Municipality itself.

3.6. Throughput

Otter Lake received 134,500 tonnes of waste in Fiscal 2014/2015 and has a contracted capacity of

173,000 tonnes annually.

A 2011 review determined 135,250 tonnes of the 139,300 tonnes received at the Otter Lake Waste

Management Facility was landfilled in the RDF.


No energy is generated at this site presently.

3.8. Rationale

Realizing that some banned material would be delivered to the facility the FEP and WSF were

incorporated to mitigate the impact of that material.

36



The planning process essentially began in 1994 as the current landfill was nearing capacity. An extensive

community engagement process was conducted from which evolved Halifax’s ISWRMS. A key

component within the strategy to siting a landfill was the FEP and WSF.

The facility was fully operational in 1999.

3.10. Cost Profile

The following table outlines the available costs related to this facility.

Table 3.1 Otter Lake Waste Management Facility Costs

Cost Component Costs

One-Time Capital Costs N/A

Gross Annual Capital Costs (excludes

initial one-time capital)

Approx. $8.9 million

($63.48/tonne)

Gross Annual Operating Cost to

Operate FEP/WSF and Disposal Facility

$14.5 million ($103.62 tonne)

Gross Operating Cost/Tonne for

FEP/WSF

$62/tonne

Gross FEP/WSF and Disposal Capital

and Operating Cost/Tonne

$167/tonne

Tipping Fee for IC&I Waste $125/tonne (with flow control)

Net Operating and Annual Capital Cost

for FEP/WSF

$95.68/tonne

The removal of all collectible waste, IC&I waste, construction and demolition waste, mixed waste and

organic materials outside of the Halifax region is prohibited under flow control.

Sources:

Municipality of Halifax, Proposed By-law S-609, Respecting Amendment of By-law S-600, the Solid

Waste Resource Collection & Disposal By-law, Item 9.2, January 13, 2015.

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150203ca92.pdf

Contact:

Clayton Pemberton, City of Halifax

4. Peel Energy Recovery Centre

4.1. Overview

The Region of Peel has begun an Environmental Screening Process to support the planning phase of the

proposed Peel Energy Recovery Centre which will use an established thermal conversion (EFW)

technology.

37

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/150203ca92.pdf


4.2. Location

The proposed location for the new Peel Energy Recovery Centre is the Peel Integrated Waste

Management Facility (PIWMF) located at 7795 Torbram Road in Brampton. The Region currently sends

recyclable and organic waste for processing to this facility and it is also the transfer station where

garbage is loaded onto trucks to be sent to an out-of-Region landfill in Warwick, ON.

4.3. Type of Technology

In 2011, Peel Region completed a Long Term Waste Disposal Study which identified established thermal

conversion technologies, used in combination with landfill disposal, as the preferred long term residual

waste management option.

4.4. Owner/Operator

The Region has decided upon a Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) contract delivery model,

similar to Durham-York Region facility for a 20-30 year operating term.

4.5. Feedstock

The feedstock is residual waste that remains after reducing, reusing, recycling and composting of

household waste. Peel may accept commercial waste from businesses within Peel to help fund the

project.

4.6. Throughput

When the Peel Energy Recovery Centre is built, it will process a minimum of 300,000 tonnes per year of

garbage from Peel and up to 100,000 tonnes per year of Industrial, Commercial & Industrial (IC&I) waste

from within Peel Region.


The facility will be mass burn and the energy produced will be electricity. Based on the plans to build a

facility that will accommodate a minimum of 300,000 tonnes per year, Peel has projected approximately

27 MW of power, generating a total of about 195 million kilowatt hours per year will be produced

(approximately enough energy to power 27,000 homes a year).

4.8. Rationale

The results of a Long Term Waste Disposal Study completed in 2012 identified established thermal

conversion technologies, used in combination with landfill disposal, as the preferred long term residual

waste management option for Peel. The development of the facility is a central part of the Region’s

Waste Reduction and Recovery Strategy that aims to conserve, recover and effectively use resources

from Peel’s waste. It is estimated that with the establishment of the facility, it will reduce the overall

volume of waste being sent to private landfill by up to 90 per cent.

Previously, from 1992 to 2012, the Region held a contract with Algonquin Power Energy-form-Waste Inc.

(Algonquin Power), located in Brampton, to incinerate a portion of the Region’s garbage. The contract

expired in October 2012. The Region also sends waste to a private landfill in Warwick, ON and has a 25

year agreement (ending in 2032).

38

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Peel has indicated that “using an established thermal conversion technology provides the Region with

the best balanced solution, taking into consideration, social, environmental and economic factors.

Building a new Energy Recovery Centre offers the Region the opportunity to develop and benefit from a

reliable, long-term ‘made in Peel’ solution.” It is to be determined if the private sector landfill in

Warwick will be continued to be utilized by Peel Region and where the residual waste from the EFW will

be disposed.


In 2010, prior to the contract for processing a portion of Peel’s waste expiring with Algonquin Power,

staff were directed to review available waste disposal options and technologies and to recommend a

preferred disposal option.

In 2011, staff reported back to Council on the findings of the Long Term Disposal Study and Council

adopted the staff recommendation to utilize established thermal conversion technology as the

preferred long term waste disposal solution for the Region.

In May 2012, Peel Regional Council approved a short-term waste management strategy to redirect

160,000 tonnes annually to a private landfill in Warwick, Ontario prior to the building of the proposed

thermal facility instead of continuing to send residual waste to Algonquin Power. As per a report to

Council on March 21, 2012, the cost to send material to the private facility was $68.54/tonne (plus

applicable taxes, annual CPI and fuel adjustments) compared to $82/tonne (plus applicable taxes, annual

CPI and fuel adjustments) to send residual waste to Algonquin Power. The cost provided by Algonquin

Power included haulage and disposal of bottom ash to the Warwick, Ontario landfill.

In June 2013, Peel Region Council approved the plan to design, build, operate and maintain the Peel

Energy Recovery System and issued a RFQ to pre-qualify established thermal conversion technologies

and project teams to DBOM the Centre and to issue an RFP to the pre-qualified project teams inviting

them to submit proposals for the DBOM for a 20 to 30 year term.

In August 2013, the RFQs were issued and in April 2014, four respondent teams were prequalified based

on the RFQ submissions.

The following Respondent Teams have been prequalified to design, build, operate and maintain the Peel

Energy Recovery Centre using Mass Burn Combustion Technology:

Team 1:

Covanta Energy Corporation on behalf of a corporation to be incorporated under the name of

Covanta Peel Renewable Energy Ltd.

Martin GmbH; and,

Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. and Barton-Malow Canada on behalf of a legal entity to be registered

under the name Courtice Power Partners II.

39

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Team 2:

SNC-Lavalin Capital Inc.;

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group Inc.

SNC-Lavalin Inc.; and,

SNC-Lavalin Operations & Maintenance Inc.

Team 3:

Suez Environnement North America (SENA Canada Inc.)

Baumgarte Boiler Systems GmbH;

AECOM Canada Ltd.;

Bird Design-Build Construction Inc. and Black & McDonald Limited on behalf of a legal entity to be

registered under the name Bird-Black and McDonald Joint Venture; and,

SENA Solid Waste Holdings Inc. operating as SENA Waste Services.

Team 4:

Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.;

Urbaser S.A.;

Hitachi Zosen Inova, U.S.A., LLC; and,

KBR Inc.

In May 2014, the Region issued the notice of study commencement for the Peel Energy Recovery Centre

Environmental Screening Process. As part of the Environmental Screening Process, public consultation

and public information sessions were held.

Procurement and Approvals will be completed by early 2017. Design and construction is expected to

start in 2017 and the new Centre is expected to be operational by mid-to-late 2020. The facility will

operate for 30 years or more, with regular maintenance and periodic upgrades. The timelines noted are

subject to change.

4.10. Cost Profile

The cost of the facility will be determined by the results of a competitive procurement process. In a

report dated June 17, 2013 which was presented to Peel’s Regional Council on June 27, 2013, staff

estimated that the costs of a 300,000 tonne per year facility.

The table below shows the estimated costs, presented in the above report, that are associated with the

Centre.

40

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Table 4.1 Estimated Costs for Peel Energy Recovery Centre

Cost Component Costs (2013, $/t)1 Costs (2021, $/t)1

Operations and Maintenance $83 $97

Less Revenues for electricity3 and recyclable

metals

($48) ($56)

Net Operating Costs $35 $42

Debt Repayment2 $77 $90

Transaction Costs $2 $3

Sub Total $114 $134

Recommended Contribution to Lifecycle

reserves

$7 $9

Grand Total $121 $143

1 based on a 300,000 tonne per year facility, using mass burn technology, at the PIWMF

2 debt repayment based on capital cost that includes a 15% contingency allowance and financing costs

based on a 4.07% interest rate

3 electricity revenue based on a price of $0.08/kWh (2013$)

4 estimated costs have been rounded to the nearest dollar

Sensitivity analysis using a range of sizes, construction cost estimates and interest rates resulted in an

all-in costs ranging from $84 to $169 per tonne (2013$) according to the report.

Costs related to approvals and planning of the facility are to be determined.

Sources:

Peel Region, Peel Region Energy Recovery Centre Project Overview.

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PERC_Project_Overview_2013.pdf

Peel Reel Region, Peel Region Energy Recovery Centre Frequently Asked Questions.

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PERC_FAQs_2013.pdf

Peel Region Energy Recovery Centre website http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca

Peel Region, Peel Energy Recovery Centre Council Report, June 17, 2013.

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/Council_Report_Peel_Energy_Recovery_Centre.pdf

41

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PERC_Project_Overview_2013.pdf

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PERC_FAQs_2013.pdf

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Council_Report_Peel_Energy_Recovery_Centre.pdf

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Council_Report_Peel_Energy_Recovery_Centre.pdf

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Peel Region, Peel Region Energy Recovery Centre Long Term Waste Disposal Study, April 2012.

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Peel-Long-Term-Waste-Disposal-

Study-Report_Final-for-Website.pdf

Peel Region, Short Term Waste Disposal Agreement Negotiations Document 2012-225N Council Report,

March 21, 2013. http://www.peelregion.ca/council/agendas/pdf/rc-20120329/report-pw-c1.pdf

Contact:

Brian Van Opstal, Peel Region

5. Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association

5.1. Overview

The Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association (SAEWA) is a coalition of waste management

jurisdictions with an interest in implementing technologies to recover energy from residual waste and

reduce long-term reliance on landfill disposal.

The SAEWA is made up of 62 municipalities in Southern Alberta, encompassing 12 waste authorities and

commissions and it represents a large portion of the population of Southern Alberta outside of the

greater Calgary area.

SAEWA has completed a research study confirming the feasibility of establishing an EFW facility and also

issued a Request for Expression of Interest to gauge interest and support for such a facility.

An initial business plan was prepared by HDR Inc. for the SAEWA. The initial business case provided a

description of the proposed business (e.g. primary waste sources and quantities, costs and revenues,

project funding etc.); overview of key elements of risk (e.g. cost and revenue fluctuations, waste supply

competition); implementation program (e.g. pre-development tasks, recommended additional business

planning activities, resource requirements, budget, schedule).

5.2. Location

The optimal location of the facility will be suggested in the “Siting” module of the detailed Business Plan.

According to SAEWA, conventional thinking would have the facility sited at the center of mass haul;

similar to a bull’s eye on a dart board. In the siting exercise SAEWA will look at waste volumes and

opportunities to sell electricity (tie into the grid) as well as opportunities to sell other value added

products. The preferred location will be identified considering “willing host municipalities” in

conjunction with opportunities to maximize revenues from value added based sales.

42

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Peel-Long-Term-Waste-Disposal-Study-Report_Final-for-Website.pdf

http://www.peelenergyrecovery.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Peel-Long-Term-Waste-Disposal-Study-Report_Final-for-Website.pdf

http://www.peelregion.ca/council/agendas/pdf/rc-20120329/report-pw-c1.pdf



The SAEWA is looking at all commercially demonstrated technologies for the proposed EFW facility.

Based on a review completed (http://www.saewa.ca/media/saewa_summary_jan_27_2012.pdf), the

following technologies were recommended for further analysis:

Anaerobic digestion (limited feedstock);

RDF processing and combustion;

Mass Burn Combustion;

Gasification; and,

Plasma Arc Gasification.

5.4. Owner/Operator

At its 2015 AGM, SAEWA proposed a Governance Model to its general membership that was accepted in

principal. SAEWA is a unique collaboration of Rural and Urban Municipalities that is unpresented in the

Province of Alberta and possibly in all of Canada. SAEWA recognizes the importance of a sound

Governance Model that is familiar and acceptable to industry technology vendors and higher levels of

government. As SAEWA moves forward with the development of the DBP they will identify the best

corporate structure that meets the needs of SAEWA; it has not yet been determined if DBOFM is better

suited to SAEWA over that of other models like DBOM etc.

5.5. Feedstock

The initial business plan identifies primary waste sources which included municipal solid waste (from

SAEWA members and non-members), as well as an opportunity to process bio-solids, combustible

oilfield waste, railway ties and specified risk materials.

5.6. Throughput

The initial business plan identifies quantities of the types of materials mentioned above to an amount of

366,032 tonnes per year.

It is recommended in the initial business plan that a waste stream analysis and characterization be

completed to confirm waste streams and quantities, waste composition and energy value and assist

with securing waste supply commitments.

SAEWA has seen a fluctuation in its membership throughout its evolution. SAEWA recognizes that its

municipal driven membership is subject to budget constraints/considerations and changes in political

leadership. They see their membership numbers as leveling off and representative of municipalities that

realize our goal to be the right approach to waste management in the future. The Detailed Business Plan

will test their concept and inform SAEWA as it moves forward.


Details of the type and quantity of energy generated will be determined by the type of technology and

size of the facility that is built. There is an industry recognized formula that predicts energy generation

43

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I based on tonnages of waste utilized by individual technologies; those calculations can be found on the

SAEWA website (www.saewa.ca).

5.8. Rationale

The purpose of the EFW project is to explore the potential to develop a long-term, regional and

sustainable waste management solution that will see residual waste generated in Southern Alberta

utilized as a resource rather than simply a waste to be disposed of in a landfill.


The concept of developing the Energy from Waste Facility began in Vulcan County AB a number of years

ago and found traction about 3 years ago when SAEWA became a formal legal entity.

SAEWA has indicated it is difficult to predict how long these types of projects take to complete. SAEWA

is aware that other similar projects have taken over a decade to go from concept to completion and has

committed to following through. To SAEWA’s benefit they have 6 municipalities that would like to host

the facility and 24 technology vendors that want to do business with SAEWA. SAEWA indicated it would

be reasonable to suggest that SAEWA has already crossed some hurdles that have crippled similar

initiatives.

SAEWA will move forward with the Detailed Business Plan (DBP) and is well supported by the Province

of Alberta. The DBP identifies timelines that are measured in months and even years. Some of the

modules can be completed in concert with each other; i.e. siting and technology selection while others,

regulatory and public consultation have longer time lines. SAEWA has learned from other similar

initiatives that the predicted timelines are subject to external influences beyond their control. The

current timeline can be found on the SAEWA website as it was presented to the SAEWA AGM in

04/2015.

5.10. Cost Profile

The initial business plan identifies estimated net costs for various EFW based systems. Net costs varies

from $58/tonne for mass burn combustion to $114/tonne for plasma arc gasification based on a 50 year

operating lifespan and 328,500 tonne/year facility to 255,510 tonne/year facility respectively. These

estimates due not include greenhouse gas emissions offsets or sale of heat from an EFW as the potential

heat sales is dependent on the preferred site according to HDR.

The table below outlining estimated costs is found in the initial business plan.

44

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Table 5.1 Estimated Costs for Various EFW Systems for SAEWA

SAEWA was conservative in its value added estimates as they relate to GHG offset sales and the

potential for the sale of available steam for some technologies. SAEWA’s intent was to provide known

revenue streams/costs rather than conceptual ones.

The plan also includes an initial budget estimate for the business planning activities and project

development plan (i.e. regulatory requirements, siting process, communications plan and procurement

plan). The cost of these activities is estimated to be over $1.8 million.

Sources:

HDR Corporation for the Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association, Energy from Waste Project

Executive Summary, http://www.saewa.ca/media/14-09-17_SAEWA-Project-Development-Exec-

Summ.pdf.

HDR Corporation, for Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Association, Energy-from-Waste Research

Project Summary Report, January 27, 2012,

http://www.saewa.ca/media/saewa_summary_jan_27_2012.pdf

Contact:

Kim Craig, Chair

45

http://www.saewa.ca/media/saewa_summary_jan_27_2012.pdf


Public Private Partnership (P3)

The following projects are as a result of partnerships between municipal and private industry. Generally,

the private company designs, builds, operates, maintains the facility and is also responsible for the costs.

Through a formal agreement, the municipality sends a certain tonnage of material to the facility at an

agreed upon tipping fee.

6. City of Edmonton and Enerkem Alberta Biofuels

6.1. Overview

The City of Edmonton Waste-to-Biofuels and Chemicals Facility (inaugurated in June 2014), is part of a

larger collaboration between the City of Edmonton, the Government of Alberta, through Alberta

Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions, and Enerkem, under Enerkem Alberta Biofuels (EAB).

The initiative also includes a waste preparation facility, as part of the Integrated Processing and Transfer

Station (IPTF) and the Advanced Energy Research Facility (AERF). The IPTF sorts organic waste for

composting and prepares the RDF as feedstock for the Waste-to-Biofuels and Chemicals facility.

6.2. Location

Edmonton Waste Management Centre


Gasification, cleaning and conditioning of syngas, catalytic synthesis and product purification

6.4. Owner/Operator

The City of Edmonton owns and operates the AERF and the IPTF. EAB owns and operates the Waste-to-

Biofuel and Chemical Facility.

6.5. Feedstock

The City of Edmonton supplies annually a minimum of 100,000 dry tonnes (120,000 at as-delivered

moisture content) of non-recyclable and non-compostable sorted municipal waste. Enerkem has a 25

year supply agreement with the City of Edmonton.

6.6. Throughput

The current Waste-to-Biofuel and Chemical Facility is sized to process 100,000 dry tonnes of RDF

annually. Dry tonnes are the unit of measure for payment purposes. At as-delivered moisture content,

this would be about 120,000 tonnes.


The Waste-to-Biofuel and Chemical Facility is currently built to produce methanol but will later shift to

produce ethanol once ethanol conversion equipment is added (currently planned for 2016).

46

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Under the terms of the Waste-to-Biofuel and Chemical Facility agreement, Enerkem owns the produced

ethanol and the City has first right of refusal to purchase at market price.

The Waste-to-Biofuels and Chemicals Facility would be able to produce 38 million litres per year of clean

fuels and biochemical, when operating at full capacity.

6.8. Rationale

In the 1990’s, the only City-owned landfill was nearing capacity and no other landfill location was

developed due to public resistance. At that time, the City developed a 30-year strategic plan to focus on

waste diversion and recycling processes rather than landfilling. Recycling and composting infrastructure

was developed at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre.

In 2002, the City had an existing recycling and composting infrastructure in place to divert up to 60% of

residential waste from landfill and was looking to increase diversion rates and to capture remaining

energy and carbon in the remaining waste. This lead to the development of the Waste-to-Biofuel

project.


The timeline of project development is outlined below.

Review of global conversion technologies (2003)

RFQ with decision to work with Enerkem (2004)

Pilot Project to confirm key parameters (2004-2006)

Grant support from Alberta Government (2006)

Contractual Agreements and Environmental Permitting (2007-2008)

Regulatory Operating Approval (2009)

Groundbreaking (2010)

Plant Construction Start (2012)

Commissioning and Start Up (2014-ongoing)

6.10. Cost Profile

The capital costs related to this project are provided below.

Waste-to-Biofuels and Chemicals Facility - $100+ million (figures are proprietary to Enerkem)

Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility - $40 million (RDF feedstock preparation)

Advanced Energy Research Facility - $11 million

Alberta Innovates contributed $29 million to the overall Waste-to-Biofuels initiative

The tipping fee for the City is about $50 per dry tonne. The tipping fee will fluctuate with consumer price

index over the length of the contract.

The City is responsible for the capital and operating costs of the relevant processes in the IPTF (RDF

Feedstock Preparation). The City’s cost of RDF production is about $4 million per year. The City’s tip fee

cost annually will be about $4 million annually after factoring in contractual adjustments for residuals

47

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I handling. There is 50/50 sharing of the ownership of verifiable GHG reduction credits, which in Alberta

are currently sellable at $15 per tonne CO2e. Quantity of GHG credits available are to be determined.

Sources:

City of Edmonton, Fact Sheet – Waste-to-Biofuels Initiative,

http://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/documents/PDF/Fact_Sheet_June_2014.pdf

Contact:

Christian Felske Ph.D., PEng, City of Edmonton

7. City of Sault Ste. Marie and Enerkem

7.1. Overview

Elementa Group is a waste conversion technology company based out of the Niagara region, which

operated a pilot plant in the City of Sault Ste. Marie. The MOECC set the initial date of operation of the

pilot plant as January 24, 2008. The pilot project has since ceased, and Elementa is no longer at the

City’s landfill site.

7.2. Location

Part of 903 Base Line, Sault Ste. Marie


Waste conversion to electricity

7.4. Owner/Operator

The Elementa Group

7.5. Feedstock

The City’s priority commitment is to try to supply 25,000 tonnes of curbside residential waste per year.

However, its put-or-pay amount is 12,500 tonnes per year.

7.6. Throughput

The Elementa facility is being designed to process 55,000 tonnes per year, but this number is subject to

the final ECA. The design is not under the control of the City.


The energy use is being dealt with directly through Elementa. The facility will generate approximately 6

megawatts of electricity.

7.8. Rationale

The City noted that any waste diverted to this facility in the future will reduce the quantity of waste

being disposed in the City’s landfill, thus increasing the site life of their landfill.

Current projections indicate that the City’s has approximately 6-8 years of capacity left at their landfill.

48

http://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/documents/PDF/Fact_Sheet_June_2014.pdf

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I The City is currently completing an EA to expand the landfill, assuming an operating scenario without

Elementa. If it does succeed, then the City will have increased diversion that will increase the longevity

of the landfill.


The City and Elementa have a 10 year agreement, which has been subject to a number of extensions

since being introduced to the City in 2006.

The commencement date for operations was supposed to be April 1, 2011, and the plant was to reach

its first full year of production by December 31, 2015; however, both of these dates were not met.

Elementa has not begun construction and have requested an additional extension, which is currently

being reviewed by staff. Elementa’s request for an additional extension is slated for Council approval on

May 11, 2015.

In October 2014, Elementa closed a land deal with the City acquiring 15 acres of property located in the

west end of the city to build the energy from waste commercial plant.

As of late 2014, Elementa had not received an ECA but the environmental screening had been

completed.

7.10. Cost Profile

The facility was estimated to cost $30.6 million to build, based on construction beginning in 2010. This

cost is borne by Elementa and will need to be updated.

The proposed facility is private, and therefore, none of the operating and maintenance costs will be

borne by the City. These costs are not available.

The City will pay a flat tipping fee adjusted to CPI. The maximum the City agreed to pay was $60 per

tonne, plus an annual CPI adjustment, based on the original agreement date.

The City’s agreement stipulates a guaranteed minimum curbside residential waste supply of 12,500

tonnes, or the City will pay for the difference.

Sources:

Elementa Group Website http://www.elementagroup.com/MunicipalSolutions/SaultSteMarie.html

Contact:

Catherine Taddo, City of Sault Ste. Marie

49

http://www.elementagroup.com/MunicipalSolutions/SaultSteMarie.html

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I 8. City of Ottawa and Plasco Agreement

8.1. Overview

In December 2012, City of Ottawa and Plasco entered into a 20 year agreement (with option to extend

five years, four times) for Plasco to process the City of Ottawa’s residential solid waste. The agreement

with Plasco was terminated in early 2015.

8.2. Location

The facilities are located on City land at 4420 Trial Road and 4460 Trail road. The land was leased to

Plasco by the City of Ottawa.

8.3. Technology

Plasma Gasification

8.4. Owner/Operator

Plasco Energy Group Inc.

8.5. Feedstock

As per the ECA, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), the following

categories of municipal waste were permitted to be accepted at the demonstration facility.

Domestic waste originating within the City of Ottawa;

IC&I waste originating within the City of Ottawa;

Plastic and other non-hazardous, non-putrescible materials originating within the City of Ottawa

that have been rejected from recycling and composting facilities; and

Automotive shredded residuals

Although the demonstration facility was permitted to take IC&I waste, priority was given to the City of

Ottawa solid waste.

Plasco would have the ability to process non-city solid waste at the commercial facility, subject to

approval by the MOECC but Plasco was bound to ensure that the City’s committed waste processing

capacity was retained first. Under the agreement, the City was required to deliver 300 tonnes per day to

either the demonstration or commercial facility.

The commercial facility was to provide the City of Ottawa access to 109,500 tonnes of processing

capacity annually.

8.6. Throughput

The Plasco demonstration facility was permitted to accept 85 tonnes/day of the above noted waste 365

days per year (31,025 tonnes/year).

As per December 2011 staff report, the capacity of the commercial facility was to be 128,600 tonnes per

year.

50


8.7. Rationale

In conjunction with the City’s approved waste diversion targets, it was anticipated that the agreement

with Plasco would help the City achieve its solid waste management goal of extending the life of the

City-owned Trail Road Landfill by an additional 28 years with a projected closure date of 2070. The

City’s deferred costs for the same time period of finding a location for and building a new landfill, are

estimated at $250 million dollars (in 2012 dollars).

The City’s Trail Road landfill would still be utilized as noted in the December 2011 report, “regardless of

the success of aggressive diversion programs and implementation of agreements with Plasco, residual

waste will continue to be generated and require appropriate disposal. For example, non-combustible

residuals, non-hazardous ash and slag from the Plasco treatment process will need a location for

disposal.” In addition, staff noted that waste generation rates vary over the course of the year and it

would not be cost-effective to oversize the Plasco facility to handle these fluctuations. Plasco will need

to direct waste to landfill during scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.


In 2005, City of Ottawa Council authorized staff to enter into a partnership agreement with Plasco for

the construction and development of a pilot demonstration plant at the Trail Road Waste Facility. The

facility was built in 2006 and 2007. The plant commenced operation in 2007.

A demonstration facility was designed to provide Proof of Concept for a commercial scale facility.

In 2008, a letter of intent was signed by representatives which set out the terms and conditions under

which a long-term agreement for a full-scale waste conversion facility could be executed. Also in 2008,

Council authorized staff to negotiate and execute a long-term waste disposal agreement.

As noted, in the Report to Environment Committee and Council on December 5, 2011, operational

liability on a continuous basis was not fully demonstrated by Plasco.

At the time, Plasco also indicated it secured investors to build, commission and if necessary,

decommission a full-scale commercial facility.

In 2011, Plasco conducted an Environmental Screening Assessment for the conversion of the pilot

demonstration facility to a permanent demonstration facility.

Under the agreement, certain conditions relating to lending arrangements had to be fulfilled by Plasco

by March 31, 2013. As per Article 4.1 of the Waste Conversion Agreement, Plasco needed to confirm

they had secured necessary financing to fund the entire construction of the commercial facility; received

a first draw on such debt financing of at least $3M; and demonstrated a binding commitment to expend

at least $5M in order to manufacture components required for the commercial facility. Two extensions

were approved by Council. The first extension was until August 31, 2013 and the second to December

31, 2014. Plasco was unable to fulfill the conditions and in February 2015, the agreement with Plasco

was terminated by the City. Plasco has filed for bankruptcy.

51

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I At the August 2013 Committee meeting direction was provided to Ottawa staff to review waste

processing technologies and that if Plasco did not fulfill the requirements as set out in Article 4.1, City

staff were directed to commence a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) process for alternative

technologies to manage the City’s residual solid waste. A technology review was prepared by HDR and

presented at the same meeting the recommendation to terminate the agreement with Plasco was

brought forth.

On January 5, 2015 a Request for Information (RFI) was released by the City seeking information from

potential providers of technologies (other than landfill) for management of 109,500 tonnes of post

diversion residual waste.

The RFI was issued and closed in February and 37 submissions were received. According to the City

report, dated February 15, 2015, 23 submissions provided technologies that manage a post-diversion

management stream that could reduce the amount of residual waste going to landfill, while the

remaining 14 were for technologies or services that would replace or enhance elements of the City’s

existing waste management system without necessarily achieving the targeted 50% reduction in waste

going to landfill as required in the RFI.

Of the 23 submissions received that were focused on post-diversion residual waste, five were direct

combustion, nine were gasification, six were plasma arc gasification, six were pyrolysis , three were

waste to liquid fuel and one was a hydrolysis technology.

According to the City’s report, only four of the firms representing the above technologies provided

documentation that demonstrated they are processing MSW at a commercial sized facility.

At the February 2015 Environment Committee meeting, it was recommended that a procurement

strategy for residual waste management technologies be developed and brought back to Committee

and Council in a report when the review is finalized. This strategy will be developed after a Source

Separated Organic Program Review is completed which is expected to be completed by the end of 2015.

8.9. Cost Profile

As per the agreement, the City of Ottawa would pay $83.25/tonne (2011$) (subject to annual CPI

adjustments) for waste delivered and processed at the commercial facility once operations commenced.

The tipping fee for the demonstration facility was identified as $43.23/tonne (2011$) (subject to annual

CPI adjustments). The fee was lower than in the case of the commercial facility in recognition that the

City will have to be flexible in the delivery of varying tonnages, as requested by Plasco, to the

demonstration facility.

In addition, Plasco could utilize the City’s landfill for disposal of any unsold slag/aggregate at a tipping

fee of $20/tonne.

The agreement had provisions for revenue sharing should have Plasco revenues exceeded $34,100,000

in any one year (figure was subject to adjustment).

52

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Also in recognition of the City’s commitment to the partnership, Plasco offered the City a marketing fee

to a total of $18 million with a maximum annual of $3 million to be paid based upon $5 per tonne for all

processing carried out in North America by Plasco (excluding the first proposed site to be constructed in

California as this facility was proposed prior to the agreement with the City).

Plasco leased the sites for the two facilities from the City of Ottawa. As per the agreement, Plasco was

responsible for paying $10,000 per year for each site (subject to annual CPI adjustments).

In 2011, the City completed a financial impact analysis related to the agreement. The table below was

presented in the December 2011, staff report.

Table 8.1 Financial comparison of Status Quo Scenario and Plasco Long Term Waste Processing

Scenarios: Net present value (benefit) cost in $2012 millions Based on 40-Year Agreement Term

Scenario

Element

Status

Quo at

Trail

Landfill

Plasco

Agreement

“Limited

Success”

Plasco

“Ottawa

Success”

Scenario

Plasco

“Worldwide

Success”

Scenario

Notes

Solid Waste

Processing

Costs

150.8 349.4 349.4 349.4

Under all Plasco scenarios Trail Road

Landfill costs are reduced, & tipping

fees are paid to Plasco on a per tonne

basis.

New Revenue

Stream - (0.8) (12.7) (24.3)

Revenue sharing from Plasco’s Ottawa

Commercial Facility, marketing fees

from opening of new facilities

worldwide, rental revenue paid to City

for use of land for Demonstration and

Commercial Facilities.

[A] SUBTOTAL

Operating

Impacts

150.8 348.6 336.7 325.1

Capital

Investment re

Existing Trail

Road Landfill

Site

41.6 21.5 21.5 21.5

Capping costs for Trail Road Landfill

and closure costs under the Status

Quo scenario.

Capital

Investment for

New Landfill

Site

248.4 - - -

Under Status Quo scenario the Trail

Road Landfill closes in 2042 and a new

landfill site is required. Under all

Plasco scenarios the Trail Road Landfill

site life is extended 28 years to 2070

53


[B] SUBTOTAL

Capital Investment

Impacts

290.0 21.5 21.5 21.5

[C] Remaining Life

of Landfill at

Year 40

(182.5) (73.0) (73.0) (73.0)

Assuming diversion targets

in Ottawa’s Waste Plan are

achieved, Trail Road

Landfill has 30 years life

remaining. With a

successful Plasco

implementation, the

landfill’s lifespan will be

extended by 28 years.

TOTAL (NPV)

[A]+[B]+[C] 258.3 297.1 285.2 273.6

Variance from

Status Quo - 38.8 26.9 15.3

*Assumptions:

Ongoing operating costs increase at the rate of CPI estimated at 2% per annum

Capital construction costs increase at the rate of the construction price index at 3% per annum,

land costs increase at the rate of 10% per annum per review of comparable assessment data

Discount rate of 4.25% per annum was applied to arrive at 2012 $ values

Plasco’s Commercial Facility becomes operational mid-2014 with full processing capacity at 2016

Trail Road Landfill Operating Cost savings realized from 2017 forward

Landfill life figures received were provided by third party engineering experts

Staff noted that in the December 2011 report that “operating costs under a Plasco contract exceed the

continuing operations of the City’s Trail Road Landfill. However, this is a reflection of the added capital

costs embedded in the tipping fees payable to Plasco for development of its facility. These are largely

offset as the City’s capital outflow is reduced by approximately $270 million in 2012 dollars within the

next 30 years. Trail Road operating savings of over $80 million in current dollars would be realized over

the 40-year agreement. Lastly, the potential for new revenue streams for the City would be possible

under a Plasco agreement as the City would share in Plasco’s success and be rewarded for its

commitment to new alternative technology for waste disposal.

When viewed under a forty-year timeframe, the net present value figures suggest that there is only a

marginal cost of between roughly $400,000 and $950,000 per year to the City for adopting agreements

based on the framework in Document 1.”

For submissions received under the RFI which was issued in January 2015, the capital costs ranged from

$50 to $275 million with annual operating costs ranging from $3 to $75 million.

54

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Sources:

Ministry of Environment, Amended Certificate of Approval, Waste Disposal Site, Number 3166-6TYMDZ,

October 24, 2011. http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/Plasco%20-

%20Waste%20Final%20signed.pdf

Letter to Mr. Raymond Floyd, Plasco from Kent Kirkpatrick, City of Ottawa, Re: City of Ottawa

Environment Committee Meeting and Plasco Long-Term Waste Conversion Agreement made the 15th

day of December, 2012, as amended, February 5, 2015.

http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/276723/File_Document_3_Letter_to_Mr_R_Floyd_pdf_Item_UPDATE

_ON_PLASCO_LONG_TERM_WASTE_CONVERSION_AGREEMENT_Meeting_City_Council_Date_2015_02

_25_10_00_00

City of Ottawa, Plasco Long-term Waste PROCESSING Agreements Report to Environment Committee,

December 5, 2011. http://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2011/12-

14/ec/Plasco%20Report-En.htm

City of Ottawa, Update on Plasco Long-Term Waste Conversion Agreement Report to Environment

Committee, February 10, 2015.

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=326523

Contact:

Matthew Kavanagh, City of Ottawa

9. York Region and Dongara Developments Inc. Partnership

9.1. Overview

In 2006, York Region and Dongara Development Inc., entered into a partnership to process municipal

residual waste using RDF technology. Due to restriction in the use of the alternative fuel sources

produced from waste in Ontario, combined with low natural gas prices, it inhibited Dongara’s ability to

market the pellets in Ontario. In June 2013, Dongara ceased operations. In 2014, York Region terminated

their agreement with Dongara.

9.2. Location

The Dongara Pellet Facility was located in Vaughan, Ontario at the northeast corner of Highway 407 and

27.

9.3. Technology

The facility uses RDF technology. The facility was designed to processes municipal residential waste by

removing recyclable materials and then grinding and compressing the remaining processed waste into

pellets to be burned as an industrial energy source.

9.4. Owner/Operator

Dongara Development Inc.

55

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/Plasco%20-%20Waste%20Final%20signed.pdf

http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/Plasco%20-%20Waste%20Final%20signed.pdf

http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/276723/File_Document_3_Letter_to_Mr_R_Floyd_pdf_Item_UPDATE_ON_PLASCO_LONG_TERM_WASTE_CONVERSION_AGREEMENT_Meeting_City_Council_Date_2015_02_25_10_00_00



http://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2011/12-14/ec/Plasco%20Report-En.htm

http://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2011/12-14/ec/Plasco%20Report-En.htm

http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=326523


9.5. Feedstock

As per the ECA, the facility was approved to accept municipal waste including post recycled residential

domestic waste and admixture materials (solid non-hazardous solid industrial waste including polyfilm,

carpet, petcoke and wood generated from IC&I sources) and source separated Blue Box material. The

facility also included a Blue Box materials transfer facility used for the receipt, temporary storage and

transfer of source separated recyclable materials.

As per the 2006 agreement with Dongara, York Region supplied 100,000 tonnes per year of residual

waste and the balance of capacity would be sold to other customers.

9.6. Throughput

As per the ECA, a maximum of 208,000 tonnes (not including admixture materials) could be received at

the facility per year. Dongara indicated they needed 200,000 tonnes per year of waste to make the

project financially viable.


Potential energy markets for the pellets included greenhouses, gasification plants or as a coal

replacement in various combustion processes. Dongara encountered difficulties with the MOECC around

designating the final product as a resource product rather than a waste. The pellets were classified by

MOECC as waste and all end users were required to be designated as waste management facilities and

hold waste facility ECAs in order to use the pellets. This restriction, combined with low natural gas

prices, inhibited Dongara’s ability to market pellets in Ontario.

The MOECC is proposing changes to legislation so facilities are not required to be designated as waste

management facilities in order to use alternative fuel sources made from waste.

9.8. Rationale

The Dongara proposal to make pellets from curbside residual waste reduced the Region’s long-term

landfill needs. Staff recommended acceptance of the Dongara proposal in 2005 given the inability to

source landfill capacity in Ontario, the long-term uncertainty of shipping waste to the United States and

the cost of other waste diversion programs at the time.

York Region was looking for more “sustainable alternatives” as opposed to reliance on landfill disposal.

Part of the movement to investing in new technologies was spurred by a lack of available landfill

capacity and the need to consider more local alternatives.


In September 2003, the Region issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an alternative to landfilling waste

that would be operational before the end of York Region contract with a private sector landfill located in

Michigan.

56

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I In April 2004, York Region Council selected Dongara as the successful proponent to the RFP and staff

were directed to enter into commercial negotiations and report the results.

In December 2005, staff were authorized to prepare contract documents with Dongara Developments

Inc. to receive 100,000 tonnes of residual waste per year and convert it to alternative fuels for a contract

term of 20 years commencing January 1, 2008.

In November 2006, Regional Council signed a contract with Dongara Developments Inc.

The facility started operation in July 2008 with full production started in late 2008.

9.10. Cost Profile

The table below outlined the York Region costs associated with this project as outlined in the initial

Dongara proposal and the 2005 council report.

Table 9.1 York Region Costs As Outlined in Initial Dongara Proposal

Options 2005 Cost/Tonne Total Budget Including

Impact on Other

Transfer Fees

Landfill in Michigan $69 $69

Dongara pellets delivered to

Ontario Market

$73.50 $77.86

Dongara pellets delivered to

Michigan Markets

$100 $104.36

In a 2008 report to Council, the cost for Dongara (pellets delivered to Ontario Market) was identified at

$84 per tonne compared to $65/tonne tipping fee for residual waste sent to the Green Lane Landfill

owned by the City of Toronto. York Region’s contract with the private sector landfill in Michigan ended

in 2008 and a disposal contract was signed with the City of Toronto. The Region’s contract with the City

of Toronto enables shipping 80,000 tonnes of residual waste per year until 2017 (with an option to

extend until 2022), with a put or pay minimum of 25,000 tonnes per year at an approximate cost of

$65/tonne (including haulage). The Region is expecting to continue to direct waste to Green Lane until

contract expiry in 2022 and has also committed 30,000 tonnes of waste to the DYEC in a put or pay

contract with Durham Region and Covanta (operator of the facility). The facility is currently in the

commissioning stage and should commence commercial operations by August 2015. In addition,

approximately 12,400 tonnes/year is going to the Algonquin Power EFW facility in Brampton and 57,600

tonnes/year to a privately owned facility (Covanta). These contracts are set to expire in 2028. The

cost/tonne at these facilities are unknown.

York Region has sufficient disposal capacity until 2022 and has identified a need for a detailed

assessment of long-term residual waste management options to address long-term needs for additional

capacity to manage residual waste materials.

57

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Sources:

York Region, Residuals Management Strategy, November 2013. http://sm4rtliving.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2014/06/Residuals_Management_Strategy.pdf

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Dongara Pellet Factory Environmental Compliance

Approval Number 3013-6J5J5S http://www.environet.ene.gov.on.ca/instruments/1092-6C9NUH-14.pdf

York Region, Dongara Pelletization Facility Process Start-Up Report No. 6 of the Solid Waste

Management Committee Regional Council Meeting of October 23, 2008.

http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt%206%20cls%203-26.pdf

York Region, Dongara Contract RFP P-03-81 Report No. 8 of the Solid Waste Management Committee

Regional Council Meeting of December 15, 2005


Private Facilities

The following section highlights current and proposed facilities that are owned by private companies.

10. Emerald Group (formerly Algonquin Power Energy from Waste Inc.)

10.1. Overview

The Emerald Energy from Waste Inc. facility is an EFW facility located in Brampton. The Region of Peel

previously sent their MSW to this facility. Currently the facility receives waste from other municipalities

and the IC&I sector. Emerald Energy from Waste Inc. purchased the facility in 2014.

10.2. Location

The facility is located intersection of Highway 407 and Bramalea Road in Brampton Ontario.

10.3. Technology

The facility uses mass burn technology.

10.4. Owner/Operated By

The facility is a privately owned facility. Emerald Energy from Waste Inc., owns and operates the facility.

10.5. Feedstock

Solid non-hazardous waste from municipal IC&I sources from within Ontario.

10.6. Throughput

500 tonnes per day.

58

http://sm4rtliving.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Residuals_Management_Strategy.pdf

http://sm4rtliving.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Residuals_Management_Strategy.pdf

http://www.environet.ene.gov.on.ca/instruments/1092-6C9NUH-14.pdf





Approximately 2,200 tonnes of ferrous metal are recovered from the facility annually. The facility

produces up to 9 MW of electricity (powers up to 6,000 homes) and provides steam to a nearby paper

mill.

10.8. Rationale

Not available.


As per the Emerald Groups website, the timelines for the facility are below:

1984 Initial Design

1988 Environmental Assessment Process initiated

1990 Construction started on modular 4-unit facility

1992 Facility achieved operational status in April, known as Peel Resource Recovery, Inc. (PRRI), a

Brampton-headquartered company, starts processing municipal solid waste from the Region of

Peel.

1998 Facility purchased by KMS, facility was renamed KMS Peel

1999 Second EA initiated to add a fifth unit and Selective Catalytic Reduction System.

2001 Fifth unit and Selective Catalytic Reactor started up

2002 Facility purchased by Emerald Energy Income Fund, facility renamed Algonquin Power Energy

From Waste Inc.

2010 Refurbishment of boilers and air pollution control equipment to keep the facility state-of-the-art,

ensuring 20 more years of reliable operation

2012 Facility obtains permit to receive both municipal and industrial, commercial, institutional waste

from Ontario sources, from within and outside the Greater Toronto Area.

2014 Purchased by Emerald Energy from Waste Inc.

10.10. Cost Profile

Not available.

Sources

UPAK Website - http://www.upak.net/UPAK_-_Energy_From_Waste.html#sthash.hdsA7NxZ.dpuf

Emerald Energy from Waste Inc. website. http://www.emeraldefw.com/overview.php

11. Grimsby Energy Incorporated Anaerobic Digester

11.1. Overview

Grimsby Energy Incorporated (GEI) has been approved under the Ministry of Energy for a Renewable

Energy Approval to construct, install, use, operate, maintain, and retire a Class 3 anaerobic digester

facility.

59

http://www.upak.net/UPAK_-_Energy_From_Waste.html#sthash.hdsA7NxZ.dpuf

http://www.emeraldefw.com/overview.php


11.2. Location

442 Sobie Road, Grimsby


Anaerobic Digestion

11.4. Owner/Operator

GEI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Town of Grimsby.

11.5. Feedstock

The input materials for anaerobic digestion will come from agricultural byproducts such as grass silage,

corn, soy etc. The Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) also allows for the introduction of post-consumer

organic wastes in the form of fats, oils or greases (FOGs), and will be pasteurized to accommodate

introduction into the digestion process.

The operation of this facility is limited to receipt and processing of the following types of liquid and solid

Biomass:

Tier One Biomass: swine manure; mature poultry manure; cattle manure; grape pomace; corn

silage; silage of all types of grasses; organic waste from grocery stores and bakeries, dairies and

facilities that process dairy products; fruit and vegetable wastes; wastes from cereal and grain

processing facilities, oil seed processing facilities, breweries and distillers grain; glycerin; and

herbaceous plant material from greenhouse, nurseries, garden centres and flower shops.

Tier Two Biomass: Paunch manure; FOGs; and organic waste matter produced in a dissolved air

flotation (DAF) process used for the treatment of wastewater from facilities where food or feed is

processed or prepared. FOGs, of plant and animal origin, and accompanying food residuals

collected from grease interceptors and/or grease traps at food production, food processing and/or

food wholesale and retail facilities.

The approved service area for the facility is the Province of Ontario. All products will be produced and

consumed in Ontario. Electricity will be generated and supplied into Ontario’s electrical grid.

11.6. Throughput

The total amount of biomass approved to be accepted at the facility shall not exceed 12,800 tonnes per

year, if the facility generates 500 kilowatts of electricity (kWel) or 23,000 tonnes per year, if the facility

generates 1,000 kilowatts of electricity (kWel).

The maximum daily amount of biomass approved to be accepted at the facility shall not exceed 63

tonnes per day, averaged annually.

60


11.7. Energy Generation Details (who uses the energy and who is end user or end market)

The facility’s two biogas reciprocating engine generators will have a capacity to produce 1,000 kilowatts

(1MW) of electricity for the grid and will be constructed in two phases of 500kW each.

It is GEI’s intent to not only produce electricity for injection into the grid, but to support the local farm

community.

No electricity will be generated from non-renewable resources.

11.8. Rationale

The Town of Grimsby selected anaerobic digestion (AD) after review of solar, wind and digestion

technology. The evaluation was taken over a three year period, and involved detailed review of the

performance of the base technologies. It was determined that the maximum reliability of the

technology would be seen from AD. The AD process works 24 hours a day/7days a week, providing a

consistent, continuous, and sustained conversion of biological mass to biogas and hence generation.

This translates into a sustained and predictable operation allowing for maximized financial return for the

Town of Grimsby by consistently predicting the revenue supplied through the conversion of the biomass

material.


The planning process began in 2007 with Municipal business cases. The required Provincial approvals

began in 2010 with the REA process. This took the Ontario authorities and GEI five years to complete.

The project has received a FIT contract (F-000610-BIG-130-302). A Connection Impact Assessment has

been completed and an Offer to Connect has been received by GEI from the local distribution company,

Grimsby Power Incorporated, another wholly owned subsidiary of the Town of Grimsby.

The Anaerobic Digester received the REA on October 1, 2014 (#8541-9HSGG3) and no federal

government approvals are required for this project.

GEI is funded in part by operations of its parent company, Niagara Power Incorporated. Niagara Power

receives its funds from a diverse portfolio of businesses in the regulated and non-regulated energy

market. The majority of funding is factored into the business case as a loan instrument from a

traditional financial institution.

Construction of the first phase of the plant is expected to begin in May 2015. Plant construction will be

largely completed with 4 months. Commissioning and start-up will take a further 2 months with full

power production occurring shortly thereafter.

61


11.10. Cost Profile

The original budget was for $4.5 million. This was a 2007 number. The construction budget will be

updated for the 2015 market over the coming months.

GEI does not charge tipping fees at this time.

This is a revenue generating technology. GEI will be generating a return on investment for the Town of

Grimsby that is not disclosed to the Public at this time. There are no operational costs to the Town’s

budget.

Sources:

Grimsby Energy Inc. Website: http://grimsbyenergy.com/projects.htm

Ministry of the Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval #8541-9HSGG3

Grimsby Energy Inc. Anaerobic Digester Project Description Report

James Detenbeck, Director & Project Manager

12. Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc. Facility (PFMSI)

12.1. Overview

PFMSI is proposing a private sector EFW facility on Hamilton Port Authority Lands in Hamilton, Ontario.

PFMSI has submitted an Environmental Screening report to the MOECC for approval.

12.2. Location

The proposed facility will be located at Pier 15 in Hamilton, Ontario which is Hamilton Port Authority

land.


PFMSI is proposing a Gasplasma® EFW facility. According to an open letter dated April 9, 2015 from

Robert M. Clark, Chief Operating Office at PFMSI, the proposed facility will convert waste into raw

synthetic gas (syngas) and clean the syngas with plasma technology. PFMSI has stated on their website,

the resulting clean syngas can be used directly for the production of heat and/or generation of

electricity or to substitute natural gas. The facility will also use conventional direct plasma technology.


Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc.

62

http://grimsbyenergy.com/projects.htm


12.5. Feedstock

As per the Environmental Screening report, the Gasplasma® technology will process the following but

not limited to non-hazardous waste:

IC&I

Construction and Demolition

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

Municipal Solid Waste

Biomass

Biosolids (limited to 15% of waste input)

Tires (limited to 20% of waste input)

Liquid waste streams

Accepted was for the direct plasma technology includes:

Residual metals for recovery

Contaminated soils/sludges

According to the Environmental Screening report will accept waste from the local Hamilton area; the

Province of Ontario and PFMSI will source other material as required from all of Canada.

A Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) will be included to process residual waste to recover any metals,

glass and dense plastics as recyclable materials.

12.6. Throughput

The proposed facility would receive up to 200,000 tonnes per year of non-hazardous waste.


The technology converts waste to a clean syngas that can be used directly for production of heat and/or

generation of electricity or to substitute natural gas. Other output is Plasmarok®, which according to

PFMSI is a product that can be used in the construction industry.

The proposed facility will generate 150,000,000 kwh/year of energy (equivalent to 17,000 homes).

12.8. Rationale

According to the Environmental Screening report, PFMSI indicated the “waste generation in Ontario is

outpacing available landfill capacity. Waste diversion in Ontario is increasing so too is the population,

resulting in a proportionate amount of growth in the waste generated. Developing local solutions to

address waste management is environmentally responsible, financially sound, and provides for secure

waste management for the province. There is potential within the Province of Ontario for new,

emerging technologies focused on EFW, such as the Gasplasma® technology proposed by PFMSI, to

meet the social and environmental need and the goals of reducing the amount of post diversion waste

sent to landfills in Ontario or exported across the border.”

63



PFMSI started the Environmental Screening process in April 2014 with the notice of commencement and

the Environmental Screening report was submitted in December 2014.

12.9.1. Summary of City of Hamilton Council Reports on PFMSI Project

1. Environmental and legal consultants, WSP Inc. and Garrod Pickfield, respectively, were

retained by the City of Hamilton to provide a peer review of PFMSI’s technical reports which

were submitted with the ESR. City of Hamilton staff then submitted a report to General

Issues Committee on April 15, 2015 with associated recommendations, and the following

was approved at Council on April 21, 2015:

“That staff be directed to write to the Director, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

(MOECC) Approvals Branch requesting that the Director:

(a) Elevate the Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc. proposed Energy-From-Waste Facility

to a full Environmental Assessment, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act; or,

(b) In the alternative, require the proponent, Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc., to

provide the additional information and assessment work set out in Section 3 of the WSP

Summary Report and bring this information and assessment work forward for stakeholder

review and comment, and consideration by the Director before a final decision is made with

respect to the elevation request.”

The recommendations are based on the below and other considerations in the staff report

to General Issues Committee:

“A complete independent multi-disciplinary technical review of the PFMSI proposal

and Environmental Screening Report was undertaken by the firm of WSP Canada

Inc. The WSP Canada Inc. report concludes that there is potential for environmental

impairment if the project proceeds and that a number of outstanding issues need to

be addressed before a decision can be made about Environmental Approval. The

issues identified “not only raise questions about the technical feasibility of the

project but have a cascading impact on the EA work completed in the area of air

quality; they present a need for additional study before EA approval should be

considered.”

2. Hamilton’s Medical Officer of Health, Public Health Services (PHS) submitted an information

report to the City’s Board of Health on April 20, 2015, noting concerns based on results from

the following:

PHS retained Golder Associates, an engineering consultant, to perform a peer review of

the Air Quality Assessment, which was part of the ESR.

PHS requested scientific and technical advice from Public Health Ontario on the validity

of the Human Health Risk Assessment that was also included as part of the ESR.

64


Next steps noted in the PHS report included:

“Based upon the concerns identified above, the Medical Officer of Health will be submitting

a letter to the Director of Approvals of the MOECC asking to identify a process through

which the proponent can address these concerns, which could include an individual

environmental assessment. PHS would be a willing participant in the process identified by

the MOECC or through voluntary discussions with the proponent to resolve these

outstanding issues.”

12.10. Cost Profile

Not available.

Sources:

Port Fuels and Material Services Inc. website - http://www.pfmsi.net/

Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc., Hamilton Energy-from-Waste Project Environmental Screening

Report, December 2014. http://media.wix.com/ugd/ef240d_e984776760ea47d3af1d6caf9cdaefa1.pdf

City of Hamilton, Port Fuels and Materials Services Inc. (PFMSI) Energy-from-Waste/Gasification

on Port Lands (LS15004(a)/PED15023(a)) (City Wide) Report to General Committee, April 15,

2015.

City of Hamilton, Review of Gasplasma Plant Proposal from Port Fuels & Materials Services Inc. -

BOH15012 (City Wide) Report to City’s Board of Health, April 20, 2015.

13. ENTECH-REM Proposal

13.1. Overview

ENTECH-REM Canada Inc. is proposing the Port Hope Waste Management, Recycling and Power

Generation Facility to be located in Port Hope within Northumberland County.

13.2. Location

The location of the proposed facility is 1516 Wesleyville Road in Port Hope, ON.

In the summer of 2014, the City of Port Hope did not approve an application to change its Official Plan

and Zoning Bylaw to allow construction of the facility at the proposed location. The company appealed

and is going to the OMB.

They are also proposing a facility in Brant County/Brantford. According to their website, site locations

have been identified and are being reviewed.

65

http://www.pfmsi.net/

http://media.wix.com/ugd/ef240d_e984776760ea47d3af1d6caf9cdaefa1.pdf


13.3. Technology

Gasification technology.


ENTECH-REM Canada Inc. will own and operate the proposed facility.

13.5. Feedstock

The proposed facility will accept municipal solid waste (MSW) and IC&I waste.

ENTEC-REM Canada Inc. indicate there is a sufficient amount of waste produced within a 75‐100 km

radius of the proposed facility; however, they are focused on the waste produced as close to the facility

as possible which would include Northumberland County and the surrounding areas.

ENTEC-REM Canada Inc. state that the County of Northumberland has indicated that if the company can

offer a feasible solution with competitive tipping fees then this would be very advantageous and would

get serious consideration. The County of Northumberland is currently undertaking an EA to expand their

Brighton Landfill. If approve, they will have capacity until 2024.

13.6. Throughput

The proposed facility will receive up to 165,000 tonnes per year.


ENTECH-REM Canada Inc. indicates that the facility will divert up to 25,000 tonnes of recyclable

materials per year and that the facility will thermally converts up to 140,000 tonnes per year to produce

15.3 MW of electricity for distribution to the local grid, which is enough electricity for 11,000 homes

24/7, 350 days per year

13.8. Rationale

According to ENTEC-REM Canada Inc., the proposed facility “provides a sustainable alternative to

current solid waste management practices. The project is a single destination capable of processing

MSW and IC&I waste that would have been otherwise gone to landfill.


The Environmental Screening Process officially began in December 2009 with the Notice of

Commencement. In September 2013 the Notice of Completion for the Environmental Screening Process

was published.

In April 2014, ENTEC-REM Canada Inc. indicated the project is currently under review by the MOECC as

part of the Environmental Screening Process.

13.10. Cost Profile

The facility will be a private EFW facility and will utilize no public funds.

Sources:

66

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I ENTECH-REM Canada Inc., Environmental Screening Report – Waste Management, Recycling and Power

Generation Facility, 1516 Wesleyville Road, Port Hope, Ontario, September 2013. http://www.rem-

wesleyville.com/pdf/ESR/ENTECH-REM%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report.pdf

REM, Port Hope Waste Management, Recycling and Power Generation Facility, Corporate and Project

Overview, April 2014. http://www.rem-wesleyville.com/pdf/CorporateandProjectOverview.pdf

MacDonald, Valerie, Northumberland Today. Energy from waste pre-hearing set in Port Hope, February

3, 2015. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/02/03/energy-from-waste-pre-hearing-set-

in-port-hope

PART C - MUNICIPAL ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY STUDIES AND RELATED

INITIATIVES

1. Region of Waterloo

1.1. Overview

The Region of Waterloo’s Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP), completed in 2013, established a

strategy to guide waste management programs and services in the Region over the next 20 years.

Through the WMMP, it was recommended that the Region further investigate thermal technology

options (e.g. feasibility study, business case, life cycle analysis, and environmental impacts study).


As part of the WMMP study, all available technologies were considered and evaluated and were subject

to public consultation. Technologies included were landfilling, mechanical, biological and thermal

processes, and including energy recovery and resource recovery potential.

According to the WMMP, thermal treatment was determined to be the best performing option based on

the evaluation criteria and was the preferred option of those participating in public consultation.

According to a document titled “What are the options when our landfill is full?” released by the Region

of Waterloo (http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/DOCS_ADMIN-

1784003-v1-WMMP_Thermal_Treatment_Recommendation_Information-1.pdf ) “with 15-20 years of

capacity left in their current landfill and at this stage on the Region’s planning horizon, further study is

required to examine the different types of thermal technologies available, understand the potential to

incorporate thermal treatment into the Region’s current waste diversion programs, and explore the

business case for the implementation of thermal treatment by the Region of Waterloo.”

It was identified in the WMMP that “the Region should continue to consider policy options for residual

waste management that could extend the life of the landfill and/or support the treatment of residual

waste at a Thermal Treatment facility within or outside Waterloo Region’s borders”

1.3. Additional WMMP Recommendations

Further to the above noted recommendation within the WMMP, it is also recommended that the Region

continue pursuit of opportunities with the Water Services Division to maximize synergies for processing

67

http://www.rem-wesleyville.com/pdf/ESR/ENTECH-REM%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report.pdf

http://www.rem-wesleyville.com/pdf/ESR/ENTECH-REM%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report.pdf

http://www.rem-wesleyville.com/pdf/CorporateandProjectOverview.pdf

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/02/03/energy-from-waste-pre-hearing-set-in-port-hope

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/02/03/energy-from-waste-pre-hearing-set-in-port-hope

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I and disposal of residual waste and biosolids; adopt a waste hierarchy that includes “Recovery” as the 4th

R and consider recovery of energy and resources above waste disposal and to establish an inter-

municipal working group to explore potential partnership opportunities.

The Region’s landfill located in Waterloo is expected to reach capacity in 16-20 years.

1.4. Next Steps

In 2014, SLR was retained by the Region of Waterloo to complete a Thermal Treatment and Energy

Recovery for Residual Waste Management Feasibility Study. As per the Waterloo Region Request for

Consulting Services (C2014-19), the study will:

a. “Review and document the Region’s relevant waste generation rates, waste composition data,

diversion program data, and current operational configuration to gather background

information necessary to carry out the feasibility study.

b. Develop Terms of Reference for an Intermunicipal Working Group and convene meetings and

workshops for the group to explore opportunities and advance discussion regarding

opportunities for collaboration and partnership, including policy considerations, for the

management of residual waste and waste diversion.

c. Review and document those factors which are outside of the primary waste management

mandate of the Region, including but not limited to initiatives underway in neighbouring

jurisdictions, the current regulatory climate, including the impact of the proposed Waste

Reduction Act, and considerations related to revenue from energy generation.

d. Determine the potential barriers to the implementation of thermal treatment technology with

energy recovery either by the Region or in partnership with a third party.

e. Determine the required changes to Regional waste management policies, programs and

practices necessary to allow for the successful implementation of thermal treatment technology

with energy recovery.

f. Assess the relative benefits of utilizing recovered energy for electricity generation and/or district

heating.”

The study outcomes are anticipated to be presented to Waterloo Regional Council in the fall of 2015.

As noted in the above study outcomes, Waterloo has hosted one meeting of the Intermunicipal Working

Group in October 2014.

The goals of the meeting were to share information, develop a Terms of Reference for the working

group and explore specific opportunities for collaboration (i.e. research/information sharing, policy,

programs/public education and EFW)

68

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I A technical memorandum is currently being finalized for the feasibility study which will include a

summary of the meeting. The second meeting of the working group is anticipated to be in the fall of

2015.

The following municipalities are participating in the Intermunicipal Working Group

Staff from the following municipalities attended the meeting Municipal members from the following

areas are members:

• City of Brantford

• City of Guelph

• City of Hamilton

• City of London

• City of Toronto

• County of Brant

• County of Oxford

• Niagara Region

• Norfolk County

• Peel Region

• Region of Waterloo

• Wellington County

Sources: Region of Waterloo Waste Management Master Plan, Final Master Plan Report, November 2013,

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/FinalWMMPreport.pdf.

Region of Waterloo, What are the options when our landfill is full?, January 8, 2015,

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/DOCS_ADMIN-1784003-v1-

WMMP_Thermal_Treatment_Recommendation_Information-1.pdf

Contact: Donna Serrati, P.Eng. | Manager, Engineering & Programs

2. Dufferin County

2.1. Overview

Over the past decade, Dufferin County has investigated developing facilities to process waste locally.

The facility/facilities were to be located at the Dufferin Eco-Energy Park (DEEP). The DEEP is located on

200-acre site in the northeast corner of the Town of Grand Valley. The County has investigated and

pursued several technologies, including gasification, anaerobic digestion for a bio-gas energy facility and

a SSO facility, in partnership with York Region (this partnership ended in May 2014).

The projects all faced financial challenges and due to the limited amount of feedstock produced by the

County, there was not sufficient volume to operate a full-scale facility without considering the

importation of waste. Technologies do not appear to have progressed to allow the operation of a small

69

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/FinalWMMPreport.pdf

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/DOCS_ADMIN-1784003-v1-WMMP_Thermal_Treatment_Recommendation_Information-1.pdf

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/DOCS_ADMIN-1784003-v1-WMMP_Thermal_Treatment_Recommendation_Information-1.pdf

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I scale facility that is financially viable for the County. Dufferin generates approximately 6,400 tonnes of

garbage, 6,200 tonnes of recyclables and 3,000 tonnes of organics per year. Dufferin would have to

import waste.

In May 2014, it was recommended that the County postpone development of the DEEP until such time that technology and provincial political support are conducive to the project and continue to monitor opportunities for the site; and staff be directed to pursue opportunities with existing southern Ontario waste processing facilities as a long term solution for Dufferin County waste, beyond the current Contracts.

2.2. Next Steps According to Dufferin County, the idea of a local solution for Dufferin County Waste is alive and well, but

no further work has been performed regarding the DEEP since May 2014. They intend to explore local

solutions in the meantime to work towards a long-term method of processing Dufferin County waste

materials.

Source:

Dufferin County, DEEP Update – Proposed Dufferin/York SSO Facility – May 2014 Report to

Community Development Committee, May 27, 2014.

http://www.dufferincounty.ca/files/uploads/2014-05-27_Community_Development_agenda.pdf

Contact:

Scott Burns, P.Eng., C.E.T., Director of Public Works and County Engineer

3. Halton Region

3.1. Overview

Halton Region’s 2006-2010 Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS) identified that the Region

consider and investigate EFW technologies as a means to manage the residual waste stream that

cannot be diverted through diversion programs once they have been implemented. It was identified also

that the EFW recovery facility would significantly extend the life of the Region’s landfill.

In 2007, a report was taken to Council outlining a completed Energy from Waste Business Case.

According to the report, the objective of the business case was to present the implications of various

options, including landfill and not intended to recommend a preferred EFW or specific approach on how

to manage Halton’s waste.

3.2. Council Direction

It was recommended that staff be authorized to undertake a public consultation with regards to the

business case, however, Halton Region Council agreed to postpone further investigation into the

possibility of an EFW facility in Halton for at least 5 years. According to the amended recommendations,

Halton would instead focus on working with other municipalities and the Province to develop and

effective waste reduction and diversion initiatives that would promote environmental sustainability.

70

http://www.dufferincounty.ca/files/uploads/2014-05-27_Community_Development_agenda.pdf


3.3. Next Steps

Halton Region updated their SWMS in 2011 for a 5 year period (2012-2016) and it does not contain any

recommendations with regards to EFW but rather focused on implementing initiatives (i.e. reduced bag

limit, expand Blue Box materials and capacity, enhanced multi-residential diversion, textile reuse

communication, expand HHW events and enhanced public outreach) to achieve a waste diversion goal

of 65% by 2016.

Sources:

Halton Region Report No. PPW80-70 Energy from Waste Business Case, May 30, 2007.

http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=27829

4. City of Hamilton

4.1. Overview

The City of Hamilton has undertaken previous studies to consider the establishment of an EFW type

facility. In the 2012 Hamilton Solid Waste Management Master Plan (SWWMP), it states “In recent

years, the City of Hamilton has undertaken a number of studies to consider the establishment of an EFW

type facility. This has included in the Hamilton Niagara Waste Plan process (2005 to 2009), as well as

most recently, the Hamilton Utilities Corporation (HUC) proposal (2010) to establish an EFW facility in

conjunction with the use of the Glanbrook Landfill. The HUC study has been used as the basis for

determining the net effects of an EFW facility for this disposal scenario, as it was a very recent and

comprehensive report with detailed financial information. A number of different scenarios were

evaluated in the HUC study that considered facility size, use of ash for landfill cover and aggregate and

for different diversion scenarios. For the purposes of this evaluation, the base case scenario of a 100,000

tonne/year facility with 65% diversion was used, and the evaluation includes a broader range of waste

conversion or Alternative Disposal Technologies (ADT) than simply incineration”.

The SWWMP looked at the environmental, social and economic net effects and concluded that “the

evaluation of the disposal scenarios determined that there were greater net effects from the ADT

scenario than the Glanbrook Landfill scenario. However, the Glanbrook Landfill is a finite resource that

will eventually reach capacity whether it is used with or without an ADT facility. Therefore, the City will

eventually need to consider establishing additional long-term disposal capacity and this process

will need to begin within the 25-year planning period. By implementing the enhanced diversion

scenario, remaining landfill capacity is in the order of 33 years. Therefore, the immediate ‘need’ for

additional capacity has not been established, especially in the context of Environmental Assessment Act

approval requirements.”

4.2. Recommendation

A recommendation included in the 2012 SWMMP was to “…optimize the capacity of the Glanbrook

Landfill site which may include consideration of alternative disposal technologies no later than the next

five (5) year review.

71

http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=27829

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Glanbrook can continue to serve the disposal needs of the City recognizing that its capacity is finite and

at some time consideration of alternatives will be necessary. New technologies should be monitored to

potentially replace or extend the life of the Glanbrook Landfill. These alternative disposal technologies

(ADTs) may include any or combinations of:

energy from Waste (incineration, gasification, pyrolysis)

waste stabilization (a process to reduce leachate and landfill gas)

mechanical separation (removal of recyclables and compostables before waste is landfilled)

other new technologies”

According to City, “in general terms, the City did not move forward with the HUC project since at that

time (~2010) there was not an imminent need for landfill space. It was referred to the Solid Waste

Management Master Plan review process.” Based on the City’s last calculation (2014), the Glanbrook

Landfill has site capacity to 2043.

4.3. Next Steps

With regards to current and or future reviews of alternative waste management technologies, the City

has indicated that “at this time the alternative technologies review is being undertaken by the City’s

wastewater division (Hamilton Water) as part of the City’s Biosolids Management Project. As part of this

P3 Canada project alternative technologies will be investigated with the selection of the most

appropriate technology being dependent on the proposals received. The City’s Biosolids Master Plan

has identified thermal reduction as a possible option to manage the City’s biosolids.”

Sources:

City of Hamilton Solid Waste Management Master Plan Review - Solid Waste Management Master Plan,

March 2012

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/WasteManagement/SolidWasteManagementM

asterPlan/

Contact:

Emil Prpic, City of Hamilton

5. County of Northumberland

5.1. Overview

The County of Northumberland (County) completed a long-term Waste Management Master Plan

(Master Plan) in 2014. The stated objectives for the development of the Master Plan were a) to review

current waste management programs and propose alternative methods of practical and sustainable

waste management service delivery, including a plan to meet or exceed the provincial waste diversion

target of 60%; and b) to identify and review practical and sustainable residual waste disposal options.

72

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/WasteManagement/SolidWasteManagementMasterPlan/

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/WasteManagement/SolidWasteManagementMasterPlan/

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I The County’s only operating landfill, in Brighton, Ontario, will reach capacity in 2016 based on the

current approval. The County submitted an EA in 2014 proposing an expansion of the landfill. If

approved, the capacity would be extended to approximately 2024.

5.2. Recommendations

With regards to alternative waste management technologies, the Master Plan recommended “that the

County re-visit opportunities to utilize alternative disposal technologies in the mid to longer term once

more development has occurred in the Ontario market.”

The rationale for the timing was due to “the very long lead time to establish and operationalize

Alternative Disposal Facilities (typically at least 10 years), the very high cost, and the fact the County

must address a potential short-term landfill capacity issue, there is little justification to focus on

alternative technologies at this time.”

The Master plan also recommended, pending the result of the Brighton Landfill Expansion EA approval

process, that the County requires a residual disposal strategy be developed in either the short term, if

no expansion is obtained; or in the mid-term (4-6 years) if the landfill expansion is approved. The Master

Plan indicated exporting waste is the only feasible short-term option if the EA is not approved.

Source:

Northumberland County, County of Northumberland Waste Management Master Plan Final Report,

February 2014.

http://www.northumberlandcounty.ca/en/departments_publicworks/wm_master_plan.asp

6. Norfolk County

6.1. Overview

In Norfolk County’s Solid Waste Management Master Plan (Master Plan), it stated that existing landfill

capacity at the Tom Howe Landfill would be depleted by October 2015, and it was not likely siting a new

landfill within the County would be successful. It was recommended in the Master Plan that the County

consider alternative disposal technologies.

In 2011 an EFW Business Plan was completed and in 2012 a REOI was issued for potential technology

provides for the management of residual waste generated within the County. As a result of a Request

for Pre-Qualification from potential technology providers, select companies were invited to respond to

a County issued RFP.

The County sought proposals for a non-landfilling waste disposal option for their waste through the RFP.

The Walker Environmental Group Inc., which was submitted in partnership with Algonquin Power

Energy from Waste Inc. (now Emerald Energy from Waste Inc.), was the successful bidder. Based on

estimated tonnes (14,175 tonnes per year of curbside collected residual waste and approximately 4,175

tonnes of transfer waste), the cost would be approximately $2.4 million (Net HST).

73

http://www.northumberlandcounty.ca/en/departments_publicworks/wm_master_plan.asp

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I As noted in the report to Council-in Committee on September 16, 2014, some materials collected by the

County are not acceptable at the EFW. The unacceptable materials will go to the Walker Environmental

Group, South Landfill facility in Niagara Falls.

The agreement with the Walker Environmental Group is for 10 years.

Source:

Norfolk County, Request for Proposal Results – PW-ES-14-01, Alternative Technology for Management of

Waste Report PW-14-65 to Council-in-Committee Meeting, September 16, 2014.

https://norfolk.civicweb.net/document/149039/PW%2014-

65.pdf?handle=83549AAF5BAA4183A4E1CD5AC31595B9

7. City of Ottawa

The City of Ottawa is also conducting a review of alternative disposal technologies which is presented in

City of Ottawa and Plasco Agreement case study on page 33.

PART D - OTHER ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

In addition to the above noted case studies, staff are aware of the following facilities:

1. Quebec EFW Facilities (pre 1995)

Quebec has three EFW (mass burn/incineration) facilities that accept MSW and they are of varying size

and age. The following facilities were built in the 1970s and 1995.

L’incinerateur de la Ville de Quebec

L’incinerateur de la Ville de Levis

MRC des Iles de la Madelaine

2. Alberta EFW and N-Viro Facilities

Wainwright EFW Facility

According to the Wainwright EFW Facility website, the facility processes around 3,000 tonnes per year

and was originally built for MSW but it was too wet and not efficient, without plenty of sorting, so to

offset the costs, the facility started to accept biomedical waste.

N-Viro (Walker Environmental Group)

According to the N-Viro website, the Banff N-Viro plant is situated at the current WWTP location and

started operation in 2013. The plant processes organic waste material sourced from Banff and has the

ability to process other municipal waste as agreed to by the Town of Banff.

74

https://norfolk.civicweb.net/document/149039/PW%2014-65.pdf?handle=83549AAF5BAA4183A4E1CD5AC31595B9

https://norfolk.civicweb.net/document/149039/PW%2014-65.pdf?handle=83549AAF5BAA4183A4E1CD5AC31595B9

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I N-Viro and the Town of Banff have reached an agreement where the Town of Banff will own the plant

and N-Viro will manage and staff the facility.

This plant produces 5,000 tonnes of product (fertilizer) per year.

3. Ontario N-Viro Facility

Niagara Biosolids Corporation

Niagara Region and Walker Industries formed a 50/50 Joint Venture called Niagara Biosolids Corporation

(NBC) which uses the N-Viro process. NBC owns the contract with Niagara Region and owns the facility

in Thorold, ON.

4. Ontario Biogas And Biomass Facilities

Non-farm based biogas and biomass projects in Ontario are inventoried in the following Tables D.1

and D.2.

75


Table D.1 Inventory of Biogas Projects (excluding farm-based) in Ontario

Biogas Project Address

Public or Private Facility

Date of Operation

or Estimated

Date of Operation

Feedstock Type/ Source (Service Area)

Redirecting Material

from Municipal Organics?

CCI Dufferin and Disco Road Organics Processing Facilities CCI BioEnergy (CCI) operates the Dufferin and Disco Road Organics Processing Facilities using CCI's technology platform, the BTA® Process. The Dufferin site has been decommissioned for expansion purposes. It should be completed in the next 2 years. The plans for the biogas produced at the Dufferin location are co-generation with electricity and heat and to feed it back into the operations, displacing the need to purchase hydro and natural gas that is being purchased. The plans for the biogas produced at the Disco Road location are co-generation with electricity and heat and to feed it back into the operations, displacing the need to purchase hydro and natural gas that is being purchased. There is the possibility of upgrading the excess gas at the Disco Road operations to natural gas quality (“biomethane”) and use it internally to offset natural gas purchases and as a fuel in the waste collection fleet or putting in another generating engine and selling the excess heat to a surrounding industry.

35 & 75 Vanley Crescent (Dufferin) and 120 & 150 Disco Road, Toronto, ON http://www.ccibioenergy.com/projects/toronto-success/toronto-disco-road http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects

Public (owned by the City of Toronto)

2002 and re-opened in 2018 (Dufferin) 2013 (Disco Road)

Acceptable feedstock includes:

Source-separated organics collected in Toronto’s residential and commercial Green Bin Program.

Volumes: Will be able to accept up to 55,000/tonne/year at Dufferin, when expansion completed. At Disco Road, they are able to accept up to 75,000 tonnes/year. Service area includes: City of Toronto’s Green Bin program only

Yes (Toronto)

76

http://www.ccibioenergy.com/projects/toronto-success/toronto-disco-road





http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects






Date of Operation

or Estimated

Date of Operation




Chatsworth/Georgian Bluffs The anaerobic digester is a two stage process with a 100m

3 hydrolysis tank and 1,000m

3

digester. The fuel supplies a 100kW Martin Machinery generator.

62111 Side Rd 3, Owen Sound, ON http://www.chatsworth.ca/content/biodigester http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects

Public (co-owned by Township of Georgian Bluffs and Chatsworth

2011 Acceptable feedstock includes:

biosolids grease trap waste source separated organics (licensed to accept, but only

if it is pre-processed) dried dog food other organics. No on-site storage, so delivery is about once a week, smaller loads are better. The size of truck would be a limitation. Volumes: Depends on the material: can accept about 8/9 tons of solids; can accept about 40 cubic metres of liquids (13,000 tonnes/year) Service area includes: restaurants, farms, etc. throughout Ontario

No

Seacliff Energy Ltd. Anaerobic digester produces biogas to provide fuel for power generation at the plant, and electricity for Hydro One grid. In addition to the electricity generated, the thermal heat is used to support adjacent greenhouses. The digestate by-product is used as an organic, pathogen-free nutrient fertilizer by agriculture and commercial customers.

1200 Mersea Road 1, Leamington, ON http://www.bio-enpower.com/reference-facilities/seacliff-energy-ltd http://seacliffenergy.com/ http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects

Private 2011 Acceptable feedstock includes:

Syrups

Daf sludges

Carbonated drinks

Chocolate

F.O.G. (fats, oils, greases)

Dairy products

General organics

Vegetables & Fruits

Grocery products

Slaughter house bi-products

Grains

Currently not licensed to take municipal SSO, but are in the process of amending their ECA to accept it.

Volumes: Can accept up to 45,000 tonnes annually Service area includes: food processing companies, farms, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. throughout Ontario

No

77

http://www.chatsworth.ca/content/biodigester






http://www.bio-enpower.com/reference-facilities/seacliff-energy-ltd





http://seacliffenergy.com/

http://seacliffenergy.com/







Date of Operation

or Estimated

Date of Operation




Woolwich Bio-en Inc. Industrial biogas facility using all food waste as feedstock. The CHP's produce 2.852 MW of electricity under a Feed-in Tariff contract with Ontario Power Authority

50 Martin's Lane, Elmira, ON http://www.bio-enpower.com/reference-facilities/our-home-plant http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects


organic biodegradable liquid or solid clean or contaminated waste

source separated organics (licensed to receive and process, but currently not accepting any SSO, at this time)

Volumes: Up to 70,000 tonnes/year Service area includes commercial food waste (grocery, restaurants) throughout Ontario (1 to 1.5 radius)

No

Harvest Power Ontario Uses low solids anaerobic digestion technology to turn mixed food scraps into electricity and fertilizer granules.

1087 Green Valley Rd, London, ON http://www.harvestpower.com/locations/on_london/ http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects

Private Fall 2013


Organic food waste materials, including meat, dairy, liquids, and packaged food items on pallets, from commercial businesses or haulers only

Not licensed to take municipal SSO

In the process of being licensed to accept bio-solids by this summer

Volumes: Up to 65,000 tonnes/year, but permitted to receive up to 190,000 tonnes/year (would need to add another annimex tank) Service area includes: businesses/ institutions located in south-western Ontario

No

78

http://www.bio-enpower.com/reference-facilities/our-home-plant







http://www.harvestpower.com/locations/on_london/












Date of Operation

or Estimated

Date of Operation




Centre for Agricultural Renewable Energy and Sustainability (C.A.R.E.S.) Installed a 1,527m3 anaerobic digester in 2010 to provide a medium to develop new methods and technology, train students and farmers and strengthen the renewable energy sector.

University of Guelph’s Ridgetown Campus Ridgetown, ON http://www.ridgetownc.com/cares/ http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects


Pumpable food waste from the on-campus' organic waste.

Dairy and swine manure

Crude glycerol from its biodiesel plant (off-campus). Volumes: 25-30 cubic meters of on-campus and 25-30 cubic meters off-campus, weekly Service area includes: on-campus and off-campus (i.e. restaurants) from haulers

No

Bayview Flowers Greenhouse Anaerobic digester produces biogas to fuel a 250kW Scania generator as well to burn in a retrofitted boiler. Electricity is sold to the electrical grid and heat is used in the greenhouse operation.

3764 Jordan Road, Jordan, ON http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects

Private In 2007, Bayview installed a 1,200m

3

anaerobic digester with the involvement of PlanET Biogas.


Manure

Grape pumice

Tulip bulbs

Other organic materials. At the end of the summer 2015, there are plans on expanding to include FOG and other pasteurized materials. Volumes: 4,000-6,000 tonnes/year Service area includes: Niagara area only

No

Vandermeer Greenhouse Anaerobic digester produces biogas to fuel a GE Jenbacher engine, which produces 335 kW electrical and 402 kW thermal energy. The electricity generated is used in the greenhouse with the surplus sold to Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro. The heat from engine is used in the greenhouse.

2021 Four Mile Creek Rd, Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON http://www.vandermeergreenhouses.ca/innovations.html http://www.biogasassociation.ca/bioExp/index.php/projects


5,000 tonnes of grape pumice annually

Greenhouse clippings

Other organic material as available. Service area includes: farmers and processors in the Niagara area are currently disposing on land without treatment.

No

79

http://www.ridgetownc.com/cares/

http://www.ridgetownc.com/cares/







http://www.vandermeergreenhouses.ca/innovations.html






PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015 Appendix I Table D.2 Inventory of Biomass Projects (excluding farm-based) in Ontario

Biomass Project Address and Contact

Information

Public or

Private Facility

Date of Operation or

Estimated Date of

Operation




Ecostrat and General Biofuel Purchase, manufacture and distribute wood by-products, renewable fuels and biomass (virgin and composite wood fuels).

60 St Clair Ave. E Suite 404, Toronto, Ontario http://www.ecostrat.com/biofuel-company.php


Woody products

C&D and post-industrial wood pallets Service area includes: North America

Yes (County of Simcoe C&D coated wood waste)

Protocol Biomass Corporation Wood biomass pellet production designed to service European power generation markets.

Prescott, ON Private Fall 2015 Protocol Biomass expects to produce 340,000 tonnes per year, with the plant having a top capacity of 375,000 tonnes. The industrial pellets will be comprised of about 75 percent hardwoods, with the remainder from softwood. The company expects to utilize around 80 percent round wood, with the remainder chips.

No

Rentech (Wawa & Atikokan) Rentech is converting a former oriented strand board processing mill in Wawa for production of approximately 450,000 tonnes of pellets annually. The majority of the output from this facility will be sold under a long-term contract to Drax, with the remaining 50,000 tonnes available for sale to Drax or other customers.

Rentech is converting a former particle board processing mill from Atikokan, Ontario, located just 18 kilometers from the OPG power station for production of approximately 100,000 tonnes of pellets annually. The facility will supply 45,000 tonnes of pellets annually to OPG, with the balance available for sale to OPG or other customers.

Wawa and Atikokan, ON

Private Not Available The Wawa facility is expected to consume approximately 890,000 tonnes of certified sustainably-managed Crown fibre annually. The Atikokan facility is expected to consume approximately 200,000 tonnes of Crown fibre annually.

No

80

http://www.ecostrat.com/biofuel-company.php




Biomass Project Address and Contact

Information

Public or

Private Facility

Date of Operation or

Estimated Date of

Operation




Woodland Biofuels Inc. The Company has completed construction of its Sarnia, Ontario demonstration plant. The plant utilizes the Catalyzed Pressure Reduction (CPR) technology. CPR accomplishes efficient conversion of renewable feedstock into ethanol, via three major phases: 1. Gasification of Biomass into Synthesis Gas -

Gasification is widely used in the chemical, petroleum refining and steel industries, as well as generation and cogeneration processes.

2. Catalyzed Chemical Reactions to Convert Synthesis Gas into Ethanol - Catalysts and catalyzed reactions are the backbone of the chemical manufacturing industry, accounting for 60% of all chemicals produced today, in 90% of chemical processes.

3. Distillation of Ethanol - Distillation technology is well established, used wherever purified chemicals are needed.

Bio Industrial Innovation Centre (demonstration plant) 1086 Modeland Road, Sarnia, ON http://www.woodlandbiofuels.com/index.html

Private Construction of the demonstration plant is complete and commissioning of the plant has begun. Production of ethanol was expected in 2013; however, they have not run as an integrated operation for any length of time. The commercial phase of the operation is contingent upon the results of the demonstration plant.

Acceptable feedstock at the demonstration plant is wood chips only. For the commercial plant operation, the acceptable feedstock may include:

Damaged and diseased forest materials

Wood chips, sawdust, bark, end-cuts

Forest slash

Urban wood waste, trimmings, branches

Industrial wood waste, pallets, wire reels

Demolition wood

Municipal solid waste

Cardboard

Paper

Corn stover, stalks, cobs

Bagasse

Switchgrass

Food processing waste materials Service area includes: North America

Not at the demonstration plant.

81

http://www.woodlandbiofuels.com/process-overview.html

http://www.woodlandbiofuels.com/process-overview.html

http://www.woodlandbiofuels.com/index.html




PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix II

Appendix II Background to Alternative Waste Management Technology Project As a result of Councillor requests and as noted in a number of reports and presentations to Council, Waste Management Services (WMS) staff have been monitoring new and emerging alternative disposal technologies for future consideration over the past several years.

However, a scientific review of alternative diversion and disposal technologies including analysis on viability and sustainability and recommendations for next steps required the retention of engineering consultants. Originally as part of the Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan and then subsequently as a stand-alone project, Committee and Council approved completion of the review of alternative waste management technologies and issuance of a RFP for this work. As per PWA 72- 2011 Waste Management Strategic Plan – Areas of Priority, September 27, 2011 the Long Term Waste Management Strategic Plan RFP was reduced to three key projects which reflect core requirements related to:

i. Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) Blue Box funding requirements – completion of the Blue Box Recycling Plan, and

ii. Commitments as outlined in Council reports/presentations and Councillor requests: - Residential waste diversion rate target review and - Review of alternative waste management technologies.

The approved report recommendation consisted of:

‘That staff be authorized to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for consulting services for the completion of a review of the viability of alternative waste management technologies for consideration in Niagara Region.’

The project was defined as a comparative assessment of alternative waste management technologies to determine what technology or combination of technologies is viable for implementation in Niagara. The scientific/engineering assessment was to address previous WMPSC requests and a number of other deliverables as per the RFP. The end result was to identify a recommended course of action for Niagara. The report contained the main project deliverables as follows:

i. ‘High-level review of proven and new/emerging diversion and disposal technologies currently available to manage Niagara Region’s waste, and potentially waste and biosolids;

ii. Comparative assessment of alternative technologies that are viable for potential implementation in Niagara;

82

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix II

iii. Assessment of life cycle impacts of each technology using a sustainability

framework (economic, environmental and social impacts);

iv. Review of opportunities for private and public sector partnerships; and

v. Recommendations for next steps. The high-level review would be carried out for all technology options. The assessment and detailed evaluation phases would only be completed on the short-list of technologies that have passed the pass/fail screening step. The screening and evaluation criteria (and associated weighting) used to evaluate the technologies will be finalized with input from WMS staff and Committees (WMAC, WMPSC and PWC). Preliminary examples of pass/fail screening criteria could include the following:

Demonstrated viability (commercial or pilot scale);

Compatibility with existing diversion programs; and

Applicability to Region’s waste.

Preliminary evaluation criteria are expected to include the following, as a minimum:

Capacity requirements relative to projected tonnages and flexibility to handle feedstock changes;

Capital and operating costs and revenues, comparison to current disposal costs and other public/private disposal options available to Niagara;

Siting and approval considerations/requirements;

Energy use, greenhouse gas emissions;

Value of energy outputs (electricity, heat) and marketed products and evaluation of market demand;

Waste diversion and energy recovery potential; and

Allocation of risk - financial, operational, and environmental.’ Two formally documented requests from WMPSC, which preceded the project and related Council report PWA 72- 2011, included: 1. Councillor Information Requests

Waste Management Planning Steering Committee (WMPSC) Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 Minute Item #18: Provide information respecting alternate technology (prognosis of when available and viable) and sustainability (do we have enough waste to sustain alternate technology). (Councillor Baty and Councillor Henderson)

83

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix II

2. WMPSC May 18, 2010 meeting

WMPSC comments/request regarding the long term plan draft Terms of Reference:

‘The proposed plan was well received and supported by WMPSC. In terms of specific comments, it was suggested that the plan also incorporate the following:

i) Review of opportunities for private and public sector partnerships, specifically in terms of investments in technology;

ii) Discussions on what disposal and recycling infrastructure assets should be owned by the Region, as related to the transition to full Extended Producer Responsibility and the Region acting as a service provider on behalf of industry;’

84

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix III

IMWG 2014 20 | P a g e

Appendix III

Draft Intermunicipal Waste Management Working Group Terms of Reference

Background

Municipalities across Ontario undertake waste management planning to determine a

long term, sustainable approach to managing waste generated within their boundaries.

Planning at the municipal level largely focuses on developing reduction, reuse, recycling

(diversion) and residual waste disposal programs for waste materials generated by

single and multi family residential units. Industrial, commercial and institutional wastes

are managed to a lesser extent or not at all by many municipalities.

Historically in Ontario, residual waste has been managed almost exclusively through

landfilling, either within a particular municipality or exported to a public or privately

owned site elsewhere. More recently, Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities have also

been utilized or are in the approvals process. Facilities in the Regional Municipalities of

Peel and Durham/York are examples of this. The Region of Waterloo, among others, is

considering the feasibility of EfW as part of its approach to managing residual waste.

As part of its waste management planning process, in 2012 the Region of Waterloo

convened a meeting of an Intermunicipal Working Group to share information about its

operational and planning processes, as well as to explore opportunities for collaboration

and/or partnerships on future policies and program initiatives. The group was

comprised of municipal waste management staff from communities who were

geographically close to the Region. At the meeting, participants indicated an interest in

continuing to meet and explore opportunities to collaborate that are “sensible, financially

beneficial, and politically feasible.1”

Vision

The purpose of the Intermunicipal Working Group on Solid Waste Management (IMWG)

is to exchange information and advance collaboration opportunities that are sensible,

financially beneficial and politically feasible.

1 Region of Waterloo Waste Management Master Plan Interim Report 2, January 28, 2013, Appendix F

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/IR02_Final.pdf

85

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/resources/IR02_Final.pdf

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix III

IMWG 2014 21 | P a g e

Goal

The goal of the IMWG is to develop a network of municipal solid waste management

professionals to share information and identify policy, program and/or facility partnership

opportunities that are sensible, financially beneficial and politically feasible to benefit (all

or some) member municipalities.

Objectives

The following objectives are specific actions that will be taken to advance the vision and

goal of the group.

Meet to exchange information about all aspects of municipal solid waste

management planning.

Identify collaboration opportunities and specific information needs, actions and

timelines in order to determine the feasibility of jointly implementing - waste

management policies, programs and/or facilities.

Seek regular updates regarding anticipated and recent regulatory changes.

Document meetings accurately in order to maintain group “memory”.

Membership and Participants (including map)

As a starting point, municipal representatives from the following areas will be members:

City of Brantford

City of Guelph

City of Hamilton

City of London

City of Toronto

County of Brant

County of Oxford

Norfolk County

Region of Peel

Region of Waterloo

Wellington County

86

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix III

IMWG 2014 22 | P a g e

These municipalities share geographic proximity and/or demographic similarities and/or similar waste management approaches to the Region of Waterloo. Over time, IMWG membership may change, as opportunities to meet the vision, goal and objectives of the group evolve.

It is also envisioned that from time to time, additional participants may attend meetings,

including representatives of regulatory agencies, trade associations, municipal

organizations, suppliers, and/or consulting firm staff to provide topical information.

Confidentiality

Information provided and discussion at these meetings is to be held in confidence by

those participating.

Information Sharing

At some point, members may wish to consolidate information in a secure central

repository, and post materials generated as a result of meetings for easy retrieval.

Meetings

The group will meet at least once per year, and more frequently as needed. At the end

of each meeting, if possible, a host municipality, agenda items, and timeframe for the

next meeting will be identified. The host municipality will follow up with scheduling and

agenda development. Municipalities may wish to team up to host a meeting.

It is anticipated that each meeting will be one day in length with agendas covering a

range of waste management related topics such as the regulatory environment, policy

and program approaches, technology alternatives, and facility tours, among other

things.

Meeting details, agendas and any supporting material will be circulated at least two

weeks in advance of each meeting by the meeting host.

The host municipality will be responsible for arranging for a meeting space and

hospitality options, chairing and documenting the meeting. The meeting host will also

87

PW 41-2015 July 14, 2015

Appendix III

IMWG 2014 23 | P a g e

be responsible for distributing materials following the meeting and any necessary follow

up activities.

November 2014

88

PW 44-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 1

REPORT TO: Public Works Committee MEETING DATE: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Award of Tender 2015-T-106 (Contract RN 15-06) South Side

High Lift Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades, in the City of Niagara Falls

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Contract 2015-T-106 (Contract RN 15-06) – South Side High Lift Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades BE AWARDED to the lowest bidder, BECC Construction Group, at their bid price of $6,549,705.10 (including 13% HST).

2. That Engineering Fees (for Contact Administration & Inspection, Testing and Commissioning, Record Drawings, and Warranty Period Services) BE AWARDED to WSP Canada Inc. (WSP), at a price of $369,325.18 (including 13% HST) and that the Engineering Agreement with WSP BE EXTENDED to include the above-mentioned services.

3. That the costs associated with this project BE CHARGED against Project ZSW0118/SW1267 – PS Improvement Program (South Side High Lift SPS Upgrade).

4. That the gross budget for the South Side High Lift SPS Upgrade project BE INCREASED in the amount of $750,689.01 and BE FUNDED from Wastewater Capital Variance Reserve project (CVRSEW) to accommodate the shortfall of funds needed to award the construction upgrade.

KEY FACTS

Electrical and mechanical upgrades are needed at the South Side High Lift Sewage Pumping Station (South Side High Lift SPS) in the City of Niagara Falls to meet current Regional standards.

A public tender process was initiated and a total of 8 bids were received with the lowest bid being $5,796,199.20 (excluding taxes).

The gross budget for South Side High Lift SPS Upgrade requires an increase of $750,689.01 (after removing the refundable portion of HST, as shown in Appendix B) through a transfer from the CVRSEW project to be able to proceed with the award of the tender to BECC Construction Group.

89

PW 44-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 2

CONSIDERATIONS Financial

The total cost estimate for the South Side High Lift SPS Upgrade is $6,650,689.01 (including 1.76% non-refundable HST). To date, Council has approved a project budget in the amount of $5,900,000 for this initiative. As a result, there is a budget shortfall in the amount of $750,689.01. Staff recommends that the budget shortfall be funded from CVRSEW.

Costs for engineering, design and construction services are funded by project SW1267 as shown in Appendix B.

Corporate

Contract award requires resources from Legal Services and Corporate Services in order to execute the required contract documents. Water and Wastewater Engineering staff will be providing resources throughout the project in order to manage the contract with assistance from Corporate Services on contract/project payments.

Governmental Partners

The City of Niagara Falls’ Municipal Works and Building Service Divisions were engaged on this project through drawing revision and issuance of the building permit.

Ontario Power Generation’s Property Management Division was consulted in drawing review.

Public and/or Service Users

Serves the population under the catchment area of the South Side High Lift SPS in the City of Niagara Falls.

The upgrades will positively impact the South Side High Lift SPS in its ability to accommodate flows from the population in this area.

Design improvements are required to meet current regulations and maintain reliable operation of the South Side High Lift SPS.

Nearby lands are occupied by commercial retail, industrial, residential, and the hydro canal.

Due to the nature and location of the construction project, it not anticipated that there will be impacts to the public or local businesses during construction. Construction activities will be monitored and should any issues arise, the project

90

PW 44-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 3

team will respond as appropriate. The duration of construction is estimated to be from September 2015 to January 2017.

ANALYSIS The major mechanical and electrical upgrades under this project include replacement of sewage pumps, standby generator, electrical systems, transformer, valves and piping, etc. A public tender process was initiated to obtain tenders for the South Side High Lift Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades. A total of eight (8) tenders were received and were publicly opened on June 9, 2015. Three (3) of those tenders were reserved. Upon review by the Region’s Purchasing Services Team, two (2) of the reserved bids were found to be non-compliant (as a qualified bid and an incomplete bid) and were rejected. Purchasing Services determined that one (1) of the reserved bids was compliant. A continuation of the public tender opening process took place on June 15, 2015 in order to open the single remaining reserved bid. In accordance with the Region’s Procurement By-Law, Schedule B: Responses for Administering Irregularities Contained in Bids, mathematical errors in the received bids were corrected, and any corrections are noted in Appendix A under the corrected tender price. The correction in revised tender prices did not change the final outcome of the tender results. The Region’s consultant, WSP, reviewed conformance of the tenders received and analyzed the submitted tender prices. On the basis of their review and analysis, WSP, has recommended award of this construction contract to BECC Construction Group Ltd. At the time of the design assignment Request for Proposal (RFP), the scope of work included both design and construction phase engineering services. Consultant proposals were evaluated on the strength of their technical proposal and the competitiveness of their financial proposal. The WSP proposal received the highest overall score, with a strong technical proposal and a competitive financial proposal. Due to project-specific budget constraints, only the design portion of the work was awarded at the close of the RFP, with commitment to award the construction phase engineering services in the future. The RFP required that all financial proposals include a set number of inspection hours (full-time inspection for a 12-month construction phase, starting in 2013). Due to the turnaround time on approvals and changes in project scope during design, construction is estimated to start in 2015 and the duration is estimated at 15 months. The Contract

91

PW 44-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 4

Administration & Inspection fees from WSP’s original competitive proposal were pro-rated on the basis of the extended construction duration and in consideration of inflation. ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED Although alternatives are limited on the upgrade of an existing sewage pumping station, design options for improving the electrical system and station’s sewage piping were reviewed as part of the design process. ORIGIN OF REPORT This report is being brought forward by staff as a result of our purchasing policy and procurement By Law No. 95-2014 which requires a report to be brought before Council to award a project in excess of five million dollars. OTHER PERTINENT REPORTS None.

SUBMITTED & SIGNED BY: Ron Tripp, P.Eng., Commissioner Public Works Department


This report was prepared by Kathleen Hum, Project Manager and reviewed by Sunil Sharma, P.Eng., Manager, Design & Construction, and Joe Tonellato, P.Eng., Associate Director, Water & Wastewater Engineering, in consultation with Michael Leckey, Program Financial Analyst, Water & Wastewater, Michael Breadner, Senior Budget Analyst, Jason Burgess, Director Procurement and Strategic Acquisitions, and Paul Smeltzer, P.Eng., Director, Water & Wastewater Services. APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Bids Received 5 Appendix B Total Estimated Project Cost 6 Appendix C Key Map of South Side High Lift SPS 7

92

PW 44-2015July 14, 2015

Appendix A

Bidder Tender Price Corrected Tender PriceBECC Construction Group (Brampton) $5,796,198.00 $5,796,199.20

H.I.R.A. General Contractors (St. Thomas) $5,860,716.40 No Correction

Baseline Constructors Inc. (Waterloo) $5,981,800.00 No Correction

Sona Constructor Inc. (Hamilton) $6,021,283.00 $6,021,288.90

Torbear Contracting Inc. (Woodbridge) $6,101,714.00 $6,101,714.30

Jeviso Construction Corporation (Vaughan) $6,345,079.00 $6,363,669.40

T.R. Hinan Constractors Inc. (Fonthill) Non-compliant bid Non-compliant bid

Varcon Construction Corporation (Brampton) Non-compliant bid Non-compliant bid

Appendix A

Summary of Bids Received

93

Estimated Project Cost

(a) Contract 2015-T-106 (RN 15-06) (including $526,927.20 contingency) 5,796,199.20$

(b) Subsurface Investigation (to identify utility/infrastructure conflicts) 8,893.00$

(c) Consulting Engineering Services

i. Design 249,597.50$

ii. Contract Administration & Inspection 326,836.45$

(d) Materials Testing 45,000.00$

(e) Project Management (In House) 50,000.00$

(f) Miscellaneous 60,000.00$ (g) Estimated HST (1.76%) (Applicable Items) 114,162.86$

Total Estimated Project Cost (Gross) 6,650,689.01$

APPENDIX B - TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

PW 44-2015

Contract No. 2015-T-106 (RN 15-06)

South Side High Lift Sewage Pumping Station Upgrade

In the City of Niagara Falls

94

±

Ð"î""

!!2 !!2

!!2

!!2

!!2 !!2!!2

!!2

!!2 !!2

!!2 !!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2 !!2

!!2

!!2

"!;Î

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!¤!2!!2

³±SPS

³±SPS

Ramp

McLeod Road

Oakw

ood D

rive

Dorchester Road

Quee

n Eliz

abeth

Way

Jill Drive

Montrose Road

Margaret Street

Jubilee Drive

Water

s Ave

nue

Warden Avenue

Fern Avenue

Caledonia Street

Oldfield Road

Pin Oak Drive

Hagar Avenue

Dunn Street

Winston Street

Devon Drive

Kinsmen Court

Canadian Drive

Ann StreetMerritt Avenue

Hawkins Street

Cooper Drive

Buck in gha m Drive

Valiant Street

Adams Avenue

Whitman Avenue

Bonnie Street

Sunhaven Drive

C harnwood Avenue

Churchill Street

Redh

aven

Crescent

Wilson Crescent

Sunrise Court

Barbara Drive

Natha

n Cres

cent

Douglas Street

Leawood Court

Regent Court

Ramp

Ramp

Ramp

Ramp

Ramp

Ramp

Quee

n Eliz

abeth

Way

South Side High Lift S.P.S.

0 170 34085 Meters

© 2014 Niagara Region and its suppliers. Projection is UTM, NAD 83, Zone 17. This map was compiled from various data sources and is current as of June, 2015.Niagara Region makes no representations or warranties whatsoever, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency or otherwise of the information shown on this map.

N

³±SPS Sewage Pumping Station!!2 Sanitary Access Chamber!¤!2 Combined Sewer Overflow"!;Î Outfall

Force MainSanitary Gravity PipeCombined Sewer OverflowArterial RoadsHighwaysLocal RoadsLand Parcels

Appendix C

Hydro Canal

South Side High LiftSewage Pumping Station UpgradeContract No. 2015-T-106 (RN 15-06)

Legend

95

CLK 06-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 1

REPORT TO: Public Works Committee MEETING DATE: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Appointments to Subcommittees – Regional Niagara Bicycling

Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, Humberstone Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill Site Citizen’s Liaison Committee

RECOMMENDATIONS That the recommendation contained in Confidential Appendix I to Report CLK 06-2015 BE APPROVED confirming the citizen appointments for the remainder of this term of Council to the Regional Niagara Bicycling Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, Humberstone Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill Site Citizen’s Liaison Committee. KEY FACTS The following are key points for consideration with respect to this report:

On May 21, 2015 Council authorized staff to advertise for citizen appointments to Regional subcommittees, as required, and in accordance with the applicable terms of reference, for the remainder of this term of Council;

The practice has been for the staff representatives responsible for a subcommittee to meet with all or some of the Regional Councillors appointed to that subcommittee for the purposes of reviewing the submitted applications and recommending candidates for appointment.

This report contains the recommended selection of candidates for appointment to the Regional Niagara Bicycling Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, Humberstone Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill Site Citizen’s Liaison Committee.

CONSIDERATIONS Financial The financial implications relating to the appointment process of advisory committee members include the use of administrative resources, staff and Councillors’ time required to meet and review applications and conduct interviews when required.

96

CLK 06-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 2

Corporate All relevant departments will be advised of Council’s decision on this matter. Governmental Partners All relevant governmental partners will be advised of Council’s decision on this matter. Public and/or Service Users Advisory committees provide a platform to maximize community participation and engagement in local government. Confidential Appendix I may be considered in the absence of the public under Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, because it deals with personal matters about identifiable individuals. ANALYSIS At the Council meeting of May 21, 2015, Council approved the following recommendations from Report CLK 01-2015 with respect to the recruitment process for subcommittee members:

1. That the current subcommittee appointments BE EXTENDED to July 31, 2015 in order to facilitate a recruitment process for subcommittee members;

2. That staff BE AUTHORIZED to advertise for citizen appointments to Regional

subcommittees, as required and in accordance with the applicable terms of reference, for the remainder of the 2014 to 2018 term of Council;

The practice has been for the staff representatives responsible for a subcommittee to meet with all or some of the Regional Councillors appointed to that subcommittee for the purposes of reviewing the submitted applications and recommending candidates for appointment. The staff representatives and Councillors responsible for the Regional Niagara Bicycling Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, Humberstone Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill Site Citizen’s Liaison Committee met to review the submitted applications and their recommended appointments are attached as Confidential Appendix I to this report for consideration. ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED None.

97

CLK 06-2015 July 14, 2015

Page 3

ORIGIN OF REPORT This report was prepared as a result of the direction to staff under Report CLK 01-2015. OTHER PERTINENT REPORTS CLK 07-2014, dated July 16, 2014, respecting Region of Niagara Committees. CLK 01-2015, dated May 21, 2015, respecting Review of Committee Structures and Processes.

SUBMITTED & SIGNED BY: Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk Administration


This report was prepared by Natasha Devos, Deputy Regional Clerk, and reviewed by Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk. APPENDICES Confidential Appendix I Recommended Citizen Appointments to the Regional Niagara

Bicycling Committee, Waste Management Advisory Committee, Humberstone Landfill Site Public Liaison Committee, and Niagara Road 12 Landfill Site Citizen’s Liaison Committee (Distributed under separate cover to members of Council only.)

98

Public Works Department 2201 St. David’s Road, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7

Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-641-5208

www.niagararegion.ca

Memorandum PWC-C 27-2015

Date: Tuesday July 14, 2015 To: Public Works Committee From: Nick Palomba, P.Eng., Director of Transportation Services Subject: Regional Road 65 (Silver Street) Petition Township of West Lincoln In response to the petition (attached) submitted by Mrs. Melissa Jefferson, staff have undertaken the necessary studies and met on site with Mrs. Jefferson and Mayor Douglas Joyner to discuss potential countermeasures to deter speeding. A speed limit reduction was not recommended by staff and discussed with Mrs. Jefferson. Countermeasures to reduce operating speeds on Regional Road 65 (Silver Street) were discussed with all. These countermeasures include:

Double yellow lane markings throughout the rural cluster of Abingdon

Electronic speed limit display signs for both eastbound and westbound direction

Signage for the Caistor Community Centre

Advance, enlarged street name signing for Abingdon Road

School bus signing

Enhanced “Abingdon” rural cluster signs

Farm vehicle (slow moving vehicle) signage for Regional Road 65 (Silver Street)

Request for police enforcement. All were in favour of the countermeasures recommended. Staff will also continue to monitor this section of roadway after the implementation of the countermeasures to determine if vehicle speeds and the overall safety of the roadway have improved. Respectfully submitted and signed by, Nick Palomba, P.Eng. Director of Transportation Services Attachment

99

100

101

102

103

104

105