1 / 33

Regional Organics Processing Facilities Study Summary and Next Steps

Regional Organics Processing Facilities Study Summary and Next Steps. Jennifer Morlock, CRWRP Chuck Smith, CH2M HILL. Presentation Outline. Background Study process summary Business Case Results Recommendations & Next Steps. Background: 2003 Regional Waste Study. 29%. 36 %. 25%. 26%.

dyan
Télécharger la présentation

Regional Organics Processing Facilities Study Summary and Next Steps

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Regional Organics Processing Facilities Study Summary and Next Steps Jennifer Morlock, CRWRP Chuck Smith, CH2M HILL

  2. Presentation Outline • Background • Study process summary • Business Case Results • Recommendations & Next Steps

  3. Background: 2003 Regional Waste Study 29% 36 % 25% 26%

  4. Kick-off Meeting 11 municipalities represented • Organics = defined broadly • Objective defined • Success defined

  5. No “Big Box Concept” at a single location • Calgary goal for waste diversion is 80/20 by 2020 – this is an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed • Take diversion to next level. Lead. Look to a progressive, sustainable future

  6. Update of current facilities and processes • Questionnaires distributed to members • Facilities identified • Movement of materials (paper and organics) identified • Regional quantities determined

  7. Organic and Paper Waste

  8. Paper Generation and Recycling Locations

  9. Compost Facility Capacities • 11,000 tpy green waste facilities • 8,000 tpy biosolids • 55,000 tpy ag waste

  10. Organics Processing Facilities

  11. Series of Workshops • Tools and Stand Alone Reports Presented • Best Management Practices • Organics • Paper • Maps of Suitable Land Inventories presented

  12. Series of Workshops Cont’d • Determination that • Recycling is the best practices for handling waste paper in the region • Composting makes the most sense for organics in the Calgary region • Ag wastes should be viewed as opportunities not impacts

  13. Series of Workshops Cont’d • Options Explored • Policies • Sharing equipment / staff • Joint marketing • Harmonizing collection methods

  14. Series of Workshops Cont’d • Triple Bottom Line • Decision Making Analysis applied to Facility Options

  15. OPTION 1A

  16. OPTION 1B

  17. OPTION 2

  18. OPTION 3

  19. Social and Environmental Factors • Public Trust • Sustainable end-product • Build upon existing programs • Diversion from landfill • Flexible future • Regional unity • Environmental impacts • Air quality • Localized facility impacts

  20. Preferred Facility Option

  21. Workshop Conclusion • Proceed with developing a business case for this multi-site option • Potential for partnering with local Ag waste processing operations to reduce the overall peak design capacity (for Airdrie and Foothills)

  22. Series of Workshops Cont’d 4. Presentation of business case

  23. OPTION 3

  24. Capital and Operating Cost Size Cap Cost Unit Cost Facility (tpy) ($MM) ($/t) East Calgary* 162,000 55 44 FRSC landfill** 7,200 3.2 77 Canmore/Banff** 5,800 2.6 80 Airdrie** 4,200 2.0 76 Notes: * 50 day enclosed facility ** 21 day enclosed facility

  25. Organic Processing Assumptions • Phase facility design • Expansion every 5 years over 20 year build-out • Initial processing capacity design at 60% of the projected 10th year peak month capacity • Residential organics recovery 72% • Biosolids included • IC&I Organic waste Capture 20% • Project growth at 1.6% per annum

  26. Ownership Structure • Airdrie and FRSC currently public • Calgary and Canmore potential private, public or combination (P3) • Airdrie & FRSC could include agreements with Ag waste facilities

  27. Ownership Structure Cont’d City of Calgary – Organics Facility RFP • Design/Build/Finance and Operate • Residential waste organics @ 55,000 tpy • 10 year operating contract w/ option for up to 5 year additional (one year renewable contracts) • City will provide land. Proponent has option to propose it’s own facility site

  28. Financing • Self-financing by the host • User fees / disposal taxes • Provincial and Federal grants and funds (Initial FCM funding received)

  29. Marketing Plan Initial elements include: • Benefit statement • Standards, quality, and reliable end product • Branding • Policies to promote purchase of organic waste products • An office, providing compost products, locations, and services • Educational information

  30. Recommendations • That CRP Executive Committee approve the establishment of a Regional Composting Committee of staff made up of practitioners and elected officials from the four facility-owned members (Foothills (FRSC), Airdrie, Canmore/Banff and Calgary) and at least one non-facility member (MD of Rocky View) • That this CRP Regional Composting Committee, do the following: • develop workable plans and written agreement to technology, resources, equipment, • agree on composting standards that will be adopted for regional saleable end products, • refine the initial marketing plan for the CRP products and services, • review and agree on ownership/operating/financing structure, and • work with the City of Calgary and its RFP process to ensure an integrated regional organic waste facilities system

  31. Recommendations (Cont’d) • That the Committee prepare a report which includes a more comprehensive go forward plan to CRP Executive Committee after the results of the City of Calgary’s Organics collection and processing facility RFP’s are analyzed and the City’s plans are better understood. This will likely be in March /April 2007, based on the City’s current project milestone schedule. • That CRP continue to pursue funding and allocate total funding to this project as follows: • FCM - up to $42,133 • CRP - up to $49,133 Up to $91,000 • That funding of up to a maximum of $20,000 only be budgeted for work up to the above noted March/April 2007 Report.

  32. Thank you… Questions & Discussion

More Related