Report to: General Committee-

Community Services & Environment                                         Date of Meeting: June 12, 2006

 

 

SUBJECT:                          York/Durham Waste EA Study – Comments on Consultants Draft Report on Preferred Incineration Options

PREPARED BY:               Claudia Marsales, Manager, Waste Management, ext. 3560

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

WHEREAS the Regions of York and Durham have released, for comment, a Waste EA Study – Comments on Consultant’s Draft Report on Preferred Incineration Options which assess four waste management systems to manage the Regions waste, which are;

 

System #1: Mechanical and Biological Treatment with Biogas Recovery and Land filling of Stabilized Materials (recyclables and organics removed from residue- landfill inert residue - Halifax system)

 

System #2a: Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with Recovery of Materials from the Ash (incineration of all incoming waste with metal recovery from the ashes, - landfill of ash; energy recovery from waste)

 

System #2b: Thermal Treatment of Alternative Fuel (recyclables removed from incoming waste then incineration; landfill of ash; energy recovery from waste)

 

System #2c: Thermal Treatment of Alternative Fuel with Biogas Recovery (recyclables and organics removed from incoming waste then incineration; landfill of ash, energy recovery from waste)

 

AND WHEREAS, on May 19, 2006, Markham staff submitted comments on the ‘Draft Report on Preferred Incineration Options’ supporting Option #1 as the system that provides maximum diversion of non renewable resources and has design flexibility to accommodate future increased diversion and reduced feedstock, and indicating that the maximum diversion of recyclables and non renewable resources out of the residue stream must be the paramount criteria for choosing a preferred long term waste management system,

 

AND WHEREAS at the May 30, 2006 meeting of the Joint EA Waste Management Group Option #2a was chosen as the preferred option with Option #2b included only as part of the future RFP process,

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Report “York/Durham Waste EA Study – Comments on Consultant’s Draft Report on Preferred Incineration Options which assess four waste management systems to manage the Regions waste be received,

 

AND THAT Council endorse staff’s May 19, 2006 comments on the York/Durham Waste EA Study – Comments on Consultant’s Draft Report on Preferred Incineration Options,

 

AND THAT the Joint Waste Management Group and the Region of York be informed that Option #1 remains the Town of Markham’s preferred Option for treating residual waste,

 

AND THAT the Region be requested that Option #2b be given equal consideration and opportunity for public comment as the preferred Option #2a,

 

AND THAT the Region be requested to increase public consultation and communication with the public and interested groups prior to the site selection process,

 

AND THAT a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Region of York, Durham Region, each of the Area Municipalities in the Regions of York and Durham, and the Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Not applicable

 


1. Purpose                     2. Background                      3. Discussion                        4. Financial        

 

5. Others (Environmental, Accessibility, Engage 21st, Affected Units)             6. Attachment(s)

 







Consultants Recommended Diversion Target: 60% by 2011 and 75% by 2045

 

The maximum diversion of recyclables and other non renewable resources out of the waste stream must be paramount to the planning process. In 2004, Markham Council established a target of 70% diversion by 2007.  We are currently diverting 68% of our waste and staff are assessing the potential for a ‘Zero Waste’ type program by 2010.  Input from recent discussions conducted in Markham indicated that residents are proud of their achievements and are willing to ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ even more if provided the tools and opportunity.

 

The EA Study’s recommended diversion targets of 60% by 2011 and 75% by 2045 are  conservative and indicates inadequate planning for projected waste flows in the context of future and potential waste reduction and recycling trends over the study timeframe.

 

In addition, the diversion targets place emphasis on residential curbside diversion and do not address diversion opportunities for ‘non-residential’ waste controlled by the Region such as commercial and small businesses, government operations and services such as Fire, Police, Administration, Works, Transit and Social Services. Aggressive and timely diversion targets and an implementation strategy for all waste accepted and controlled by the Region is needed.

 

EA Assessing 4 Systems

 

The EA Study assesses 4 different types of waste management systems for consideration:

 

v     System #1: Mechanical and Biological Treatment with Biogas Recovery and Land filling of Stabilized Materials ( A facility where any recyclables and organics would be removed and dry residue sent to landfill; similar to Halifax system)

 

v     System 2a: Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with Recovery of Materials from the Ash  ( all incoming waste incinerated with some metal recovery from the ashes, energy recovery from waste)

 

v     System 2b: Thermal Treatment of Alternative Fuel ( Recyclables removed from incoming waste then incineration of what’s left; energy recovery from burning residue)

 

v     System 2c: Thermal Treatment of Alternative Fuel with Biogas Recovery

 ( Recyclables and organics removed from incoming waste then incineration of what’s left; energy recovery from burning residue).

 

The consultant has recommended Option 2(a) - a large mass burn incinerator similar to the incinerator located in Brampton. The Brampton incinerator was designed to burn waste from the Toronto Pearson Airport in compliance with International Law and does not provide any ‘pre-cycling’ or removal of recyclable material prior to incineration.

 

Markham staff considered the four systems based on the following criteria: highest potential for diversion, best available technology (as opposed to proven technology), and design/process flexibility to accommodate future increased diversion and reduced waste. Table #1 below provides a summary of the proposed systems:

 

TABLE # 1

Proposed Systems

 

SYSTEM

DIVERSION

FLEXIBILITY

ENERGY RECOVERY

 1.Mechanical and Biological Treatment with Biogas Recovery  

High - Front-end removal of dry recyclables and organics

 

Highest Flexibility in changes to waste stream – can accommodate increased diversion – less waste

  Energy recovery  from  organic processing only

  2c Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel with Biogas Recovery

High - Front-end removal of dry recyclables and organics

Limited Flexibility - may require put or pay thresholds to guarantee waste input

  Energy recovery  from  non reusable and some recyclable materials

  2b Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel

Low-Front-end removal of selected dry recyclables

Limited Flexibility - may require put or pay thresholds to guarantee waste input

  Energy recovery  from  some reusable, recyclable  materials

  2a Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with Recovery of Materials from ash

None- No front-end removal of recyclables or organics. Some removal of steel from ash possible

Least flexible - requires minimum put or pay thresholds to guarantee waste input

  Energy recovery from reusable, recyclable materials.

 

Systems 1, 2b and 2c all include the recovery of recyclable material out of the waste stream prior to incineration/landfill and therefore provide the highest potential for diversion. In addition, these 3 systems have flexibility to accommodate decreasing or increasing waste tonnages.

 

System 2(a) does not provide for the recovery of recyclables prior to incineration.  This option ranks energy recovery from the incineration process of non renewable resources higher than recycling and reuse.  Input from the public consultation process ranked environmental considerations as the most important EA Study priority. Environmental considerations rank source reduction or diversion of non renewable resources through reuse or recycling as a priority over energy recovery. Energy produced from the burning of recyclables and non-renewable materials is ultimately a waste of energy.

  

In addition, System 2(a) appears to be the least flexible and has the highest fixed minimum tonnage thresholds of the 4 options. Such thresholds often result in “Put or Pay” requirements that may work against future diversion efforts.

 

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

 

The EA Study should also address the following socio-economic and environmental criteria in the technology selected and for the ultimate site selected:

 

     

·        Air emissions/smog – contribution to SO2, NOx, VOCs

·        Compatibility with Kyoto requirements – CO2 reductions

·        Effects on terrestrial environment – species at risk and habitat

·        Effects on aquatic environment – fish and fish habitat

·        Effects on heritage and cultural resources – heritage districts

·        Effects on natural resource production – agriculture, aggregate

·        Use of non-renewable resources – fuel concrete, steel

·        Compatibility with existing development – displacement, opportunity for expansion,    adjacent land uses

·        Compatibility with Municipal Policies and Plans – supports municipal planning and development objectives

 

Joint Waste Management Group recommend Systems 2a and 2b

 

At the May 30, 2006, meeting of the Joint Waste Management Group the following resolution was passed: (Attachment “B”)

 

    “The preferred system to manage the post-diversion or residue wastes is System 2a: Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with Recovery of Materials from the Ash

 

       Because new technologies may offer additional benefits an alternative for further consideration in the up coming competitive process is System 2b”

 

Regional Council will be considering this recommendation at its June 22, 2006 meeting. As a municipality with a progressive waste management program and a strong environmental focus, Markham Council has an interest in waste management issues affecting its residents.

 

Markham staff comments reflect that the Durham/York EA Study’s recommended diversion targets of 60% by 2011 and 75% by 2045 are too conservative and that the preferred system reflect that recycling and reducing waste must be the primary goal of any long term waste management system. 



[Insert text here]

 

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable


 


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The staff comments on the EA Study outlined in this report are consistent with Markham’s Mission Green goals and the Town’s goal of enhanced environmental protection.

 

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:

[Insert text here or delete section]

 

 

ENGAGE 21ST CONSIDERATIONS:

The staff comments outlined in this Report are consistent with Markham’s goal of enhanced quality community.

 

 

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

Development Services

 

 

RECOMMENDED

                            BY:    ________________________          ________________________

                                      Peter Loukes, P.,Eng                          Jim Sales

                                      Director, Operations                           Commissioner, Community

                                                                                                and Fire Services

 


 

ATTACHMENTS:


Attachment “A” – Staff comment letter to Region dated May 19, 2006

Attachment “B” – Draft Resolution for May 30th, 2006