HIGHLAND VALLEY LANDFILL An Innovative and Sustainable Landfill Solution

1
HIGHLAND VALLEY LANDFILLAn Innovative and
Sustainable Landfill Solution
Presentation to CWMA Conference Whats Next in
Waste Victoria, BC

• March, 30th 2007
• Presented by Dr. Tony Sperling, P.Eng.
• and Scott Ferraro, B.Eng

2
Overview

1. Overview of Highland Valley Landfill
2. GVRD Cache Creek Replacement
3. Cost Comparison
4. GHG Emissions
5. GHG Emission Reductions
6. Conclusions Questions

3
1. OVERVIEW OF HIGHLANDVALLEY LANDFILL
4

• Ashcroft Ranch Site
• 200 Ha greenfield site
• Rare bunch grass habitat
• Working cattle ranch
• 58 sites significant toFirst Nations

• Highland Valley Landfill
• 125 Ha brownfield site
• Barren overburden plateau
• Currently used as mined overburden dump site
• Small part of 6,000 Ha disturbed area

5
SiteLocation

• On Hwy 97C
• 325 km from Vancouver
• 19 km from Logan Lake
• 30 km from Ashcroft

HVL
6
HVC Objectives

• To maintain jobs and economic activity in region
  after mine closure
• Provide new revenue source for District of Logan
  Lake to offset loss of 800k in taxes
• To generate limited revenue from site that will
  help offset long term costs at mine site
• To create opportunity for green house gas
  emission reduction

7
Environmental Controls

• Commitment to state-of-the-art environmental
  management
• Triple lining system (HDPE, GCL, 1 m clay)
• Full leachate recirculation
• Aggressive landfill gas collection (75)
• Biocap control of fugitive methane
• Full LFG utilization, 18 MW of green power
• Comprehensive monitoring program
• Lowest GHG emissions
• Lowest smog emissions

8
Advantages of HVC Site

• Brownfield site already disturbed.
• No known endangered species.
• Not in Agricultural Land Reserve.
• Water table is 90 m deep.
• Virtually unlimited soil and rock resources stock
  piled.
• Heavy equipment will be available to move
  materials for many years.
• Nearest domestic drinking water wells 19 km away.

9
Regional Landfill Model

• Small landfills are inefficient and typically
  operate with lower level of environmental
  protection (unlined, no gas collection, etc.)
• Washington and Oregon have developed regional
  landfill facilities at Columbia Ridge and Rabanco
  Landfills that each receive over two million
  tonnes per year
• Highland Valley Landfill will enable all
  interested municipalities to close existing
  landfills and divert MSW residuals to this
  state-of-art facility
• Co-Operative management model proposed as
  possible method of ensuring price stability

10
2. GVRD CACHE CREEK REPLACEMENT
11
GVRD Expression of Interest

• Request for EOI issued by GVRD July 11, 2006 to
  replace 500,000 TPY Cache Creek landfill
• Cache Creek Landfill to close 2008 or 2009
• 23 proponents responded
• 9 incinerator proposals
• 6 landfill proposals
• 6 gasifier / pyrolysis proposals
• 2 other technologies
• Options being reviewed by GVRD Advisory Panel and
  consultants

12
3. COST COMPARISON
13
Disposal Cost per Tonne

• HVL expected to be lowest cost option for
  regional waste management solution, once transfer
  station, transport and revenue from energy sales
  considered.

14
Maximizing Sustainability Dividend on Capital
Invested

• Investment for HVL 85 million
• Power Production 18 MW
• Project Life 83 years

• Investment for Incinerator 435million
• Power Production 34 MW
• Project Life 50 years

• If goal is to produce power, what is the best
  solution?
• Incinerator, OR
• Bioreactor landfill and 15 million, 15 MW power
  upgrade at GVRDs Capilano Reservoir
• GVRD can produce 34 MW of GREEN power with 335
  million savings and less emissions.
• Get additional 33 years of SWM without further
  capital investment

15
Social and Environmental Considerations

• Waste disposal options need to be evaluated with
  triple bottom line approach for all of southwest
  B.C.
• What is annual CO2E emission?
• Does project provide a solution for small
  municipalities requiring waste disposal option?
• Does project provide opportunities for First
  Nations?
• How many jobs are created?
• How much will project impact air quality in
  Fraser Valley?

16
4. GHG EMISSIONS
17
Our Changing Climate
Source IPCC, Climate Change 2007
The Physical Science Basis
18
Global Climate Change
19
BCs GHG Emissions
20
Emissions from Incinerator

• Total Emissions
• For 500,000 TPY MSW CO2E average emissions of
  approx 450,000 TPY or 0.9 tonnes CO2E per tonne
  MSW
• Equivalent GHG emissions of almost 100,000 cars
  per year
• Significant NOx and SOx emissions in Fraser
  Valley air shed

21
Emissions from Conventional Landfill

• Total Emissions
• For 500,000 TPY MSW CO2E average emissions of
  approx
• 200,000 TPY or 0.4 tonnes CO2E per tonne MSW
• Equivalent to emissions of almost 45,000 cars per
  year
• Average emissions based over operational lifespan
  (approx 90 yrs) and post closure (25 yrs)

22
Emissions from HVL Bioreactor

• Total Emissions
• For 600,000 TPY MSW CO2E average emissions of
  approx
• 260,000 TPY or 0.43 tonnes CO2E per tonne MSW
• Equivalent to emissions of almost 60,000 cars per
  year
• Average emissions based over operational lifespan
  (approx 90 yrs) and post closure (25 yrs)

Source USEPA, http//www.epa.gov/garbage/landfill
/facultative.htm
23
Trucking Emissions
24
5. GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS
25
Landfill Gas Capture Utilization

• HVL aims for 85 capture, achievable with well
  designed LFG collection system and geomembrane
  closure
• Utilization via CAT ICE to produce 18MW
• Investigating purifying LFG to pipeline grade CH4
  or as fuel source for landfill fleet with
  QuestAirs PSA technology

26
Fugitive Emission Reduction

• Large volumes of fugitive emissions from
  landfills occur during operational stages
• Difficult / impossible to collect LFG from an
  operational lift
• LFG that isnt collected vents to atmosphere
  through intermediate cover
• Biocover can be used as intermediate cover to
  oxidize CH4 to CO2
• CH4 has 21 times the global warming effect as CO2

27
Biocover

• Fugitive methane can be oxidized by
  methanotrophic bacteria living in Biocover
• Biocover is comprised of fully stabilized compost
  mixed with bulking agent (wood chips, soil etc)
• Compost can be made from greenwaste, food waste
  or biosolids
• Biocover 0.3m thick can oxidize 80 of fugitive
  methane emissions
• Used in place of or added to intermediate cover

28
Emission Summary
Total CO2E Emissions for 600,000 TPY
MSW Bioreactor Vs Incinerator
29
6. CONCLUSIONS QUESTIONS
30
Key Conclusions

• Highland Valley Landfill will provide a long term
  solution for managing MSW residuals in B.C.
• HVL will provide a higher level of environmental
  protection than Ashcroft Project and will be on
  a brownfield site
• System costs will be low, about 50/tonne with
  transfer and trucking included
• Coupled with Capilano hydro upgrade, project can
  deliver 33 MW of GREEN power while saving 335
  million in capital relative to incinerator
• GHG emissions in B.C. can be reduced by more than
  300,000 tonnes if GVRD elects HVL rather than
  incineration

31
Playing Devils Advocate

• Major advances in landfill technology with
  bioreactor, biocover and horizontal collectors
• Directing organics to the landfill realizes the
  following benefits
• biodecomposition produces methane
• methane is captured to produce energy or fuel
• presents alternative solution for managing
  enormous amounts of organics in major
  metropolitan centres (e.g. half million tonnes in
  GVRD)
• Is incineration the right solution?
• Bioreactor landfills produce 50 less GHGs
• Bioreactor landfills require 75 less capital
• Bioreactors sequester fossil fuel carbon

32
Thank you from Sperling Hansen Associates
Engineering Better Solid Waste Management
Systems Today for a Cleaner Tomorrow
33
Factoring in Energy Recovery Offsets
Net CO2E Emissions Per MW
Net CO2E Emissions for 600,000 TPY MSW