Demolition Construction Material Recovery Facility Diversion Potential

Report on Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction Material Recovery Facilities Study
Prepared for
Metro Vancouver
4330 Kingsway,
Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8
Prepared by:
Richard Babcock, CPA, CMA
Randy Gue, P.Eng., MBA
Gente Strategies Inc.
3093 West 3rd Ave
Vancouver, BC V6K 1M9
March 2015
Photo: TAZ (sporkist) Flickr
1
Page 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Report Introduction and Context ............................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Study of Existing MRFs ................................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Report Structure ................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.0 Results from Research of DLC MRFS ...................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Summary Information about the Researched MRFs .......................................................................... 13
2.2 Products and Markets for Recovered Materials ................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Logistics and Pricing for End Products ............................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Land Clearing Debris .................................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.3 Regulations and Policies for Recovered Materials ......................................................................... 16
2.3 Diversion Potential for the MRFs ............................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Composition of Incoming Materials ..................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Level of Technology Used in Processing Materials ........................................................................ 20
2.3.3 Local Opportunities to Sell the End Products .................................................................................. 20
2.3.4 Quality of End Products and Customer Specifications ................................................................. 21
2.4 Regulatory Policies for Permitting and Operating a DLC MRF....................................................... 21
2.4.1 Permitting and Licensing.......................................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Regulations and Policies that Affect Diversion Rates ........................................................................ 21
3.0 DLC MRF Configurations and Economics ............................................................................................. 24
3.1 DLC MRF Configurations ................................................................................................................................ 24
3.2 DLC MRF Recycling Economics …………………………………………………………………………………. 25
3.3 Factors Affecting MRF Configurations ..................................................................................................... 28
3.3.1 Incoming Material Composition ............................................................................................................ 28
3.3.2 Annual Volume of Material ...................................................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 Markets & End Use for Recovered Materials .................................................................................... 30

Page 2

3.3.4 Capital Available ........................................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.5 Personal Preferences for Equipment................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Economics of automated DLC MRFs ......................................................................................................... 31
3.4.1 The Mass Balance Tool .............................................................................................................................. 33
4.0 Current State of DLC Diversion in Metro Vancouver ....................................................................... 34
4.1 Current Metro Vancouver DLC MRFs ....................................................................................................... 34
5.0 Criteria for Optimizing DLC Diversion in Metro Vancouver ......................................................... 36
5.1 Drivers for a Fully Automated DLC Infrastructure ............................................................................. 36
5.1.1 Effective tip fee structure by regulators ............................................................................................ 36
5.1.2 End Product Market Diversity and Demand ..................................................................................... 37
5.1.3 Processing Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1.4 Strategic Location of the Facilities Within the MV Region ......................................................... 40
5.1.5 Site Where a Facility Would be Built ................................................................................................... 41
6.0 Regulations and Policies to Facilitate Diversion of DLC ................................................................ 43
6.1 Regulating or Encouraging DLC Material to MRFs .............................................................................. 43
6.2 Encouraging Markets for DLC MRF produced products ................................................................... 44
References .............................................................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix 1: Individual questionnaire results ........................................................................................... 47
Appendix 2: Questionnaire summary sheet ............................................................................................... 48
Appendix 3: MRF Income results Example ................................................................................................. 59
Appendix 4: MRF Mass Balance Example .................................................................................................... 60

List of Tables
Table 1 Composition by Weight from MV Regional DLC and C&D Studies ................................................. 19
Table 2 Regulatory and Policy Initiatives for Diversion of DLC from Landfills ............................................ 23
Table 3 Overview of DLC MRF Plant Configurations ................................................................................... 28
Table 4 Example Financial Results of a Fully Automated DLC MRF............................................................. 32
Table 5 Summary of MV MRFs .................................................................................................................... 35
Table 6 Tip Fee Comparison in Regions Surveyed Versus MV .................................................................... 37
Table 7 Summary of Biomass Fuel Demand ................................................................................................ 38
Table 8 Population, Housing and Demolition in MV ................................................................................... 41
Table 9 Recommendation for Regulation and Policies ............................................................................... 45

Page 3

List of Figures
Figure 1 Simple DLC MRF ............................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2 Intermediate DLC MRF System ...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3 Sophisticated DLC MRF System ..................................................................................................... 27

11089287 Report on Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction Material Recovery Facilities Study
Page 4

Glossary of Acronyms

ADC: Alternative Daily Cover
AD: Anaerobic Digestion
C&D: Construction and Demolition
DLC: Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction Waste
EBITDA: Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
FOB Free on board
HDPE: High Density Polyethylene
HSPP: Howe Sound Pulp and Paper
MRF: Material Recovery Facility
OCC: Old Corrugated Cardboard
PEF: Processed Engineered Fuel
PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate

Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metro Vancouver (MV) commissioned Gente Strategies Inc. (Gente) to investigate the diversion potential
at existing material recovery facilities (MRFs) that process and recover materials originating from
demolition, landclearing and construction (DLC) activities. This report summarizes the salient findings of
that investigation including observations and recommendations on how regional regulations and policies
can affect the sustainability of the existing and potential new DLC MRFs.

MV’s “2012 Solid Waste Management Annual Summary” report estimates that a total of 358,961 tonnes of
DLC waste is still being disposed. The regional target for waste diversion is 70% by 2015. Successfully
diverting a larger amount of the DLC material generated within the MV region would bring MV much closer
to the 70% target. However, the effective diversion of DLC materials from landfills necessitates that there
be sufficient material recovery processing capacity in the region. A review conducted by the authors
regarding existing processing facilities in the MV region indicated that there is currently a lack of adequate
processing capacity. Therefore the Gente team was mandated to also provide the criteria for optimizing
diversion of DLC in the region through private industry incentives to increase capacity.

The report starts by studying a sampling of MRFs located in other jurisdictions. The MRFs canvassed in
North America represented a good geographic distribution of facilities and of various levels of processing
sophistication. The facilities surveyed included the following:

 Ecco Waste Systems Ltd., Calgary, Alberta
 City of Edmonton ‐ Waste Management Center, Edmonton, Alberta
 Countrywide Recycling Inc., Hamilton, Ontario
 Busy Beaver Recycling, Everett Washington
 Lautenbach Industries, Ferndale, Washington
 Recovery 1, Tacoma Washington
 Zanker Recycling Services, San Jose, California
 New Bedford Waste Services, New Bedford, Massachusetts
Gente experts also researched two DLC MRFs located in Europe:
 Beelen Recycling, Vlaardingen, Netherlands
 Otto Dorner, Hamburg, Germany
European MRFs were surveyed because this region is considered to be technologically advanced in terms
of diversion and recycling of DLC sourced materials. It was found that recovery rates for both the North
American and European facilities depended on several factors, including:

 Level of sophistication in facility sorting ‐ more throughput, better quality control of outputs, and
more automation improved recovery rates and cash flow for MRFs
 Local market opportunities for end products
 Incoming mix of DLC waste streams
 Regulations and policies encouraging the recovery of DLC materials over landfilling
Gente placed DLC MRFs into three categories based on their level of automation, sophistication, associated
diversion rate, and annual throughput. These included:

Page 6

 The simple DLC MRF consists of a tip floor and utilizes several employees to manually sort
materials into recyclables and disposables. Machinery employed in this operation consists of
moving equipment such as a front end loaders. Simple DLC MRFs typically process up to 25,000
tonnes per year of selective tip‐in products resulting in diversion rates in excess of 75%. Volumes
can be higher depending on the availability of clean homogenous material.

 The intermediate DLC MRF normally employs mechanical screening followed by a manual pick line
with a belt that moves material past stationary sorters that selectively remove recyclable
materials. Grinders are utilized on recovered wood materials to create woody biomass fuels. The
grinders are often mobile so that they can be utlized in other operations in order to justify their
capital cost. They process between 25,000 and 85,000 tonnes per year. Variable diversion rates
are possible depending on the tip‐in customer base. It is commonly expected to divert over 70%.

 A sophisticated DLC MRF uses numerous technologies to sort and separate recyclables. There are
often mutliple conveyor belt systems used to create different streams for end products. Manual
sorting by personnel is commonly employed after a significant amount of automated sorting has
already been performed on the incoming material. Diversion rates for highly automated MRF’s
are normally greater than 85% while processing greater than 80,000 tonnes per year.

Generally,the higher the level of sophistication, the higher the capital cost (often countered by higher
throughput), lower per tonne operating costs, better recovery rates and greater quality end products.

Criteria for success of a DLC MRF, regardless of sophistication includes:

 Easy access to transportation routes for moving materials into and out of the facility
 A location that is within a short distance from the source of DLC materials
 Storage areas that are large enough to provide a buffer for the fluctation of flow with both
incoming and outgoing materials
Finally, operators of successful DLC MRFs commonly seek out and accept materials from outside of the
construction and demolition waste streams that are source‐separated such as pure wood loads. This
improves diversion rates, reduces processing/sorting costs and is usually a material that can be resold at
a higher value.

The report also describes the current DLC infrastructure in the MV region. This assessment provides a
baseline from which the framework for optimizing DLC diversion in MV is developed. The most
sophisticated DLC operation in the region is at best categorized as an intermediate MRF because of its
heavy reliance on manual sorting and slow throughput for mixed C&D materials.

Based on the results of the research of DLC MRFs, combined with the industry expertise of the Gente
personnel, the criteria for having a sufficient DLC infrastructure that optimizes diversion is presented. The
analysis concluded that it was economically viable for at least two sophisticated DLC MRFs to operate at
strategically placed locations within the region. Because MV covers a large geographic area and transport
costs play a critical role in attracting waste, simpler satellite facilities or transfer stations could be
employed to accept waste and consolidate the material into bigger loads for transport to a more
sophisticated MRF.

Page 7

If there were two sophisticated MRFs adding to the regional infrastructure for processing DLC materials,
it is assumed that it would increase the capacity to handle up to 300,000 tonnes of material on an annual
basis. With an estimated recovery rate of 85% that would equate to 255,000 tonnes per year in increased
diversion of DLC materials. The overall regional diversion rate would be 66%, an increase of 8 percentage
points for the MV Region.

A summary financial model is presented that is based upon realistic, expert assumptions on key variables.
The key assumptions used in the financial analysis are listed below and consistent with the high‐level costs
and revenues that would be applicable to a highly automated DLC MRF in MV:

 The total annual throughput of 120,000 tonnes of mixed and selected loads
 The mix of DLC material tipped is typical for MV region
 Example tip fees for various incoming streams: mixed C&D tip fee $64/tonne, garbage fee
$80/tonne, primarily wood loads fee $45/tonne, and select wood fee $25/tonne
 Full time equivalent production labour = 24 people
 The plant is assumed operational 5 days per week for 1.33 shifts
 The hourly throughput of 52.39 tonnes
 Revenues for recyclables use local MV prices in place today
 The capital cost for the equipment is $10,000,000
 The capital cost of the building and site preparation is $5,000,000
 Reasonable estimates used for general and administrative expenses
In summary, an investment of approximately $15 million in capital will return about $4.45 million earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). This provides an attractive return for most
investors resulting in a payback period of 6.31 years of net income. Critical to this rate of payback is the
availability of reliable end markets for woody biomass. The MV region is fortunate that there are currently
ample opportunities to supply woody biomass with additional market potential in the future.

The model is presented so that readers can understand the key success factors for building and operating
a sustainable DLC MRF which will assist the region in achieving its stated diversion goals.

The key drivers for an adequately automated DLC infrastructure in MV are:

 Effective tip fee structure at disposal facilities to encourage diversion and reuse of
materials over landfilling
 Policies to direct construction and demolition material to DLC MRFs
 End product market diversity and demand to ensure markets exist for recovered materials
 The processing capacity in the MV region to match the volume generated
 The strategic location of processing facilities within the region so haulers are not
inconvenienced or incur significant extra costs to reach a MRF

Regulations and policies were examined in the study in terms of what is employed by other regions, what
works versus regulations that are less effective. Recycling requirements in municipal building and
demolition permits have served to increase recycling in some jurisdictions. A number of regions had flow
control measures in place restricting which haulers can transport DLC waste, where haulers could deliver
materials, or a combination of these policies. However, there wasn’t a strong consensus on the

Page 8

effectiveness of these regulations, given issues such as lack of monitoring and enforcement.

Many regions used a pricing incentive to encourage recycling. Landfills placed high surcharges on loads
that contained significant levels of recyclables which provided a market‐driven incentive that was more
easily monitored and enforced. There are no known studies done to indicate how effective this surcharge
strategy works but it is believed by most industry participants to have a positive effect on diverting
recyclable materials to MRFs within a specific region. It is possible that surcharges or higher disposal
tipping fees result in waste going to other disposal sites with lower tip fees, but it is felt to be less likely if
there are local MRF recycling options at a competitive price and enforced policies to direct DLC material
to DLC MRFs and recycling facilities such as those introduced by the City of Vancouver in late 2014.

It was noted that the Vancouver landfill pricing policy currently discounts construction and demolition
waste because it is used for landfill roads and structural applications. Privately owned landfills in and out
of the region also offer volume discounts for DLC materials. Low‐cost disposal options are a barrier to
recycling and recovering this material.

There were no significant policies or regulations found in the survey of other MRFs that encouraged the
use of recovered materials. This was identified as an opportunity to assist MRFs in the MV region to
develop markets for recovered materials. Recovered streams that could benefit from regulatory and policy
support include wood, inert materials and roofing materials.

In conclusion, the effective diversion of DLC materials from landfills necessitates that there be at least two
sophisticated DLC MRFs and that they be strategically sited in the eastern and western parts of the region.
This provides the MRF operators the benefits from the economies of scale while also providing affordable
hauling costs and competitive tipping fees for the haulers in the region. The affordable tipping fees are a
direct result of lower operating costs at the MRF stemming from the ability to manufacture quality end
products in a timely, efficient manner. In the end, this would be a strong support for any flow control
measures because haulers would benefit from tipping within the MV region. In the absence of price
incentives created by sophisticated DLC MRFs being available, any flow control measures affecting who
can collect DLC material or where DLC material can be delivered would need to be strongly enforced to be
effective. Such enforcement becomes more challenging as the number of private haulers and self‐hauling
businesses involved in construction, demolition, roofing, site clean‐up, and restoration increases.

Page 9

Strategy and Action Reason for action
Low‐cost disposal options are a barrier to recycling initiatives.
Support for DLC diversion ‐ Explore Similar to the strategy that the City of Calgary and MV use to
strategies to increase the cost of discourage banned recyclable materials going into the landfill,
disposal so it exceeds the cost of a market driven strategy where the cost of available disposal
recycling options (local or remote) is higher than the cost of recycling is
likely one of the most effective ways to support recycling.
This is a regulatory mechanism that directs material to
recycling facilities and assures a revenue stream. However,
Support for DLC diversion ‐ Building
this may not be as effective until there are one or more
and demolition permits requiring
facilities capable of accepting mixed loads for material
contractors to recycle.
recovery. Recommend this be phased in slowly to allow for
more recovery facility options to develop.
Supporting MRF produced products Giving preferred status to products that originate all or in part
‐ encourage the use of recycled or from recovery facilities, MV and other levels of government
recovered wood, aggregate, and can play an active role in the development of markets from
roofing materials in MV sponsored MRF produced products. Diverse local markets help to lower
projects through the RFQ and RFP the cost of local recycling and make it more competitive with
process. disposal options.
The Regulation and Enforcement Division of MV is well
Effective enforcement of facility
established and enforces bylaws that currently exist. The
licences – Ensure DLC operations
enforcement of lawful practices at recycling and disposal
comply with MV licences and
facilities is of critical importance for a competitive
bylaws.
environment that applies sound environmental practices.

Page 10

INTRODUCTION

1.1 REPORT INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Metro Vancouver (MV) has set a goal of increasing the regional waste diversion rate from 55% to a
minimum of 70% by 2015 and then to 80% by 2020. It is recognized by MV that demolition, land clearing
and construction (DLC) waste streams contribute significantly to the total volume of waste currently being
landfilled.

In order to address the need to increase diversion of the DLC waste steam, AET Consultants conducted a
monitoring program in 2011 at the request of MV. This monitoring program covered two of the major
landfills that receive most of the DLC material: the Ecowaste Landfill in Richmond and the Vancouver
Landfill in Delta. The monitoring program showed that the region disposes of approximately 86,318
tonnes of DLC waste at the Ecowaste Landfill and 192,454 tonnes at the Vancouver Landfill annually
(estimated tonnages are based on monthly data provided between December 2010 and November 2011).
This approximates 280,000 tonnes of DLC material per year going to these two landfills alone.

MV’s report “2012 Solid Waste Management Annual Summary” estimates that a total of 358,691 tonnes
per year of DLC waste are disposed. When combined with the AET study, the end result is that an
estimated additional 78,691 tonnes per annum are being disposed at other undetermined sites outside
the region (21.9%) and 280,000 tonnes at either of the two local landfills (78.1%).

Diverting all 358,691 tonnes would result in a total regional diversion rate of 69% for municipal solid waste.
While it is not possible to divert all of this DLC material from landfills, recovering significantly more of this
stream will bring the region much closer to achieving the overall 70% diversion target by 2015. The pie
chart below depicts the optimized result.

Page 11

With optimizing diversion in mind, MV commissioned Gente Strategies Inc. (Gente) to research and
analyze various DLC processing facilities with the goal of providing an understanding of the operational
infrastructure required in the MV region to effectively divert as much DLC as possible in a sustainable,
timely fashion and to estimate how much additional DLC material could be diverted with the appropriate
infrastructure.
1.2 STUDY OF EXISTING MRFS

As detailed above, MV’s ultimate objective is to significantly increase the diversion of materials originating
from the DLC markets. To address this objective, the writers of the report started by conducting surveys
of eight recycling facilities around North America as well as two facilities in Europe. These surveys were
conducted using a standardized questionnaire that can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. The
individual facility responses are also included in Appendix 1.

Based on that research and the industry expertise of the Gente team, this report describes:

 Key requirements for the effective diversion of DLC materials from landfills;
 An economic model for operating a viable DLC recycling facility; and
 Recommendations for government policies and regulations to support the objective of optimized
diversion of DLC materials.
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE

Section 2.0 of the report discusses the general findings from the facilities surveyed, regulatory and policy
environments these facilities operate under. This section also reports on the end markets for recovered
products and the diversion potential for the facilities.

Section 3.0 categorizes DLC Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) into three levels of sophistication. These
range from a simple system that utilizes manual labour and little automation, to a complex DLC MRF that
incorporates a high degree of automation. The section discusses the major factors that dictate the level
of sophistication for a MRF such as volume of materials, composition of incoming materials and end
markets for recycled and recovered materials.

While confidentiality issues prevented the writers from obtaining detailed economic data from the
companies surveyed, a reasonable estimate of capital and operating costs is presented based on Gente
expertise and firsthand knowledge of the report authors. A detailed financial modeling tool is provided
that supports the economic rationale required to construct and operate a highly automated, large scale
DLC MRF in the MV region.

Section 4.0 outlines the current state of DLC recycling in the MV region. The purpose of this section is to
provide some context and a baseline for the future development of an effective DLC processing
infrastructure in the MV region. To be effective, the authors assume the DLC processing infrastructure
must be sustainable and capable of achieving over 80% diversion of DLC materials generated in the region.

Section 5.0 itemizes the criteria for a regional DLC infrastructure that would optimize the diversion from
disposal. This section also discusses the other “key success factors” of the automated DLC MRFs,
particularly the strategic location within the MV region.

Page 12

The last part of the report, section 6.0, provides recommendations for regulatory and policy changes that
will facilitate the optimization of recycling and recovery rates of DLC in the MV region.

Page 13

RESULTS FROM RESEARCH OF DLC MRFS

Gente personnel contacted and surveyed eight different DLC MRFs located throughout North America and
two DLC MRFs located in Europe.

The facilities canvassed represented a significant range in processing size, technologies employed, tip fees,
and market opportunities for recovered materials. There were also distinctions between facilities
regarding the regulations and policy environments in which they operated. Appendix 1 contains the
responses from each facility based on a questionnaire that was used to extract the necessary information.
Appendix 2 contains a summary questionnaire, which collates responses from the individual
questionnaires.

The standardized questionnaire focused on five key areas:

1) General information about each MRF
2) Products and markets for recycled/recovered materials
3) Diversion potential for the MRF
4) Regulatory policies for permitting and operating a MRF
5) Regulations and policies for diverting DLC to MRFs

General comments on each of the five areas are discussed in the following sections.
1.4 SUMMARY INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCHED MRFS

The MRFs canvassed in North America represented a good geographic distribution of facilities as well as
representing various levels of processing sophistication. The DLC MRFs surveyed in North America
included:

 Ecco Waste Systems Ltd., Calgary, Alberta
 City of Edmonton ‐ Waste Management Center, Edmonton, Alberta
 Countrywide Recycling Inc., Hamilton, Ontario
 Busy Beaver Recycling, Everett Washington
 Lautenbach Industries, Ferndale, Washington
 Recovery 1, Tacoma Washington
 Zanker Recycling Services, San Jose, California
 New Bedford Waste Services, New Bedford, Massachusetts

Gente personnel also surveyed two European DLC MRFs, one in the Netherlands and one in Germany.
Both of these countries are considered advanced in terms of diversion and recycling of DLC sourced
materials. The two facilities are:

 Beelen Recycling, Vlaardingen, Netherlands
 Otto Dorner, Hamburg, Germany
The age of the facilities that were covered in the questionnaire ranged from two to twelve years. The
majority of the facilities were four to six years old.

Page 14

In terms of the level of equipment sophistication, the facilities ranged from intermediate to advanced and
volumes ranged from a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year to well over 100,000 tonnes per year. The
three basic levels of processing sophistication are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.

Some of these facilities are considering upgrading or adding equipment to improve recovery of materials
and ultimately generate more economic value from their businesses.

1.5 PRODUCTS AND MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS

Wood materials make up the largest fraction in the DLC stream and therefore are a focus for recovery with
all facilities. End markets for wood‐based products were highly dependent on the local opportunities that
existed close to the facility. Proximity of markets is relevant because cost of transporting products to
customers plays a big role in determining the viability of supplying the recovered wood products.

The single largest market for wood included biomass based fuels (woody biomass) used by pulp mills,
cement kilns, gasifiers, greenhouses and other energy from waste burners. Some fuel customers such as
gasifiers and greenhouses required that “manufactured" wood products such as medium density
fiberboard (MDF) and plywood not be included in the fuel product. In these instances, the fuel specification
for the specific technologies required that only "clean or white" wood be used.

There may also be restrictions on whether painted wood is allowed for use as fuel due to air quality
regulations. In practical terms, having less than 3% painted wood in the fuel product is acceptable.

Treated wood was found to be a challenge to recover. The authors are aware of some facilities in North
America that do recover energy from rail ties that are primarily treated with creosote but regulations often
restrict this material for use as a fuel. Most facilities that use biomass as a fuel are either not permitted
to use treated wood or simply do not want to accept it as a fuel. Other typical biomass applications such
as agriculture, landscape chips and animal bedding are also not an option for this specific stream.

Several other "clean or white" wood applications included agriculture uses, bedding for livestock,
production of fiberboard and landscaping.

A few of the DLC facilities surveyed (e.g. Ecco Waste) had set up a manufacturing operation to colourize
and bag clean pure wood as landscape chips (no treated wood or manufactured wood is used). This is a
good example of generating revenue through developing a market for their recovered material as opposed
to merely taking advantage of localized opportunities for woody biomass.

Concrete, bricks and gravel materials can be used as fill or in applications such as road base when
adequately screened to remove wood or plastic fines. A number of the facilities surveyed including
Countrywide in Hamilton and Beelen in the Netherlands took advantage of supplying local aggregate
markets with material recovered from the MRFs.

All of the researched MRFs recovered and monetized commodity materials. These include metals (both
ferrous and non‐ferrous), cardboard or old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and specific plastic streams
including the #1 high density polyethylene (HDPE) and #2 polyethylene terephthalate (PET).

Page 15

Whether or not roofing materials were accepted at the researched facilities was dependent upon the
existence of an end market for the material. For example, at Eccowaste in Calgary and in Edmonton, bins
of roofing materials are segregated from other incoming streams at the gate to allow for separate
processing. In Alberta there is a large market for the ground shingles for use in asphalt paving. Those
Alberta facilities are thus happy to receive the material, process it for selling to the paving companies. This
is not the case in other jurisdictions such as at Recovery 1 in Washington State where this facility did not
accept roofing materials because there is no viable market to sell this recovered product.
1.5.1 Logistics and Pricing for End Products

Logistics play a significant role in the cost effectiveness of shipping products derived from the processing
of DLC materials. As a rule of thumb, the end markets have to be less than 50 to 100 kilometers from the
MRF in order for the woody biomass, recycled aggregate, or PEF to be of economic value to the customers.
Wood and aggregate based products are price sensitive and hauling costs can make them too expensive
to be of economic value.

Trucking of woody biomass is the most common and yet least attractive mode of transportation because
of the cost and harmful effects on the environment from greenhouse gas emissions. Shipping materials
by barge or ship is far superior if the option is available. Much larger volumes can be shipped on a barge,
which results in lower hauling costs and better pricing for the customer. Barging also generates far less
greenhouse gas emissions when compared to how many truckloads it would take to ship the same volume
of materials.

The pricing for woody biomass fuel is dependent upon three key variables:

 The heat value of the fuel
 The customers’ specifications
 The supply and demand

The first variable is the key factor that differentiates woody biomass generated from forest product
residues versus the biomass generated from DLC. The former is generally considered a “cleaner” product
but normally has moisture content in the range of 40% to 60%. Given that the moisture content from DLC
biomass is 20% to 30%, the heat value of the DLC is much higher than that of biomass from forest products.
Assuming all other specifications to be equal, the DLC biomass is therefore much more valuable as a fuel
and more cost effective for the end user.

Of note is the situation with the vast supply of pine beetle wood from the B.C. Interior. The biomass from
the pine beetle forests has very low moisture content and thus has a heat value very comparable to DLC
woody biomass. However, the cost to transport that fuel to MV markets makes it less valuable to local
customers than the woody biomass from DLC.

Particle sizing is the key customer specification that affects the price of woody biomass. The smaller the
size required, the more expensive it is to manufacture. It is much more costly to create a 1”‐minus fuel
than a 3”‐minus fuel. Slower production and attrition to sawdust from added screening make the smaller
product much more costly to produce.

Page 16

Pricing for recycled aggregate from MRFs varied. Some MRFs were getting the material taken away for
free while others received close to market pricing in comparison to naturally occurring aggregate
materials. The pricing was a function of quality of materials produced by the MRF and proximity to end
users of the aggregate.

Recyclable materials like metals, cardboard and plastics generally have local markets as well as options to
ship overseas for recycling. Pricing for commodity materials like metals, cardboard and plastic are
dependent on world market pricing and facilities take the going price from brokers or end use consumers.
The quality control of these individual streams is somewhat loose and often based on visual inspection of
bales of material and tolerance for contamination of end users. Generally, contamination greater than
1%‐2% by weight raises concerns.

The revenues realized from these recyclable materials are quite important to the MRF operators because
it is inexpensive to recover these streams, thus the revenue from recovery goes primarily to profit.
1.5.2 Land Clearing Debris

Land clearing debris is any waste generated by the removal of logs, trees, brush or demolition material
from any site in preparation for land improvement or construction projects. All facilities surveyed, except
for the Zanker MRF in San Jose CA, discouraged haulers from bringing land clearing waste to their facilities
even though the acronym for the facilities is commonly DLC – “demolition, land clearing and construction”.
Land clearing debris can be used for some fuel applications, however, the high moisture content of land
clearing debris diminishes its heating value.

Land clearing debris can be redirected and used for producing compost or for use in anaerobic digestion
(AD) at other facilities. The Zanker facility in San Jose CA did have an AD facility on site, which is why they
accepted this material stream.
1.5.3 Regulations and Policies for Recovered Materials

According to the researched MRFs, there is little done on a regulatory or policy basis to specifically support
the use of recovered materials from DLC. In the researched jurisdictions, most of the policy and regulatory
efforts were directed at controlling waste flow and encouraging recycling through various upstream
mechanisms (see Section 6).

1.6 DIVERSION POTENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE SURVEYED MRFS

Diversion potential varies in every region and is dependent on options for recovered materials. In turn,
the marketability of recovered materials is dependent on:

 The composition of incoming materials
 The level of technology used in processing those materials
 Local opportunities to sell the end products
 The quality of the recovered products and their acceptance to customer’s specifications
Each of these factors is discussed below in separate sections.

Page 17

1.6.1 Composition of Incoming Materials
Within the various North American regions surveyed, the composition of incoming DLC did vary to a certain
degree. The biggest factor in creating this variance is the meaningful differences in construction practices
in the regions where the MRFs operate. Of particular note is the high wood content found in the MV
region versus that found in other jurisdictions within North America and in Europe.

The study completed in 2011 by the AET Consultant group analyzed the composition of the DLC stream in
the MV Region. Table 1 compares the results from the AET report to similar studies done in the other
regions surveyed in this report. Although informative, it should be noted that comparison of the
composition characterization data is challenging for several reasons:

 There was no consistent methodology applied to each study
 The categories of waste employed in each study varied between regions
 Some regions had specific streams measured in their DLC that were not present in others. For
example, MV does not have gypsum drywall in the DLC stream, while other regions do not ban this
material from landfill and it is present and counted
 Some regions do not include land clearing materials in the construction and demolition stream so
some surveys refer to C&D versus DLC, which is the term used throughout this report.
Regardless, it is important for the purpose of this report to show the results of the comparison due to the
effect those differences have on producing end products, particularly woody biomass. In MV, wood makes
up 55% of the DLC stream whereas Europe is the next closest with only 35% wood. The percentage of
wood in the DLC stream may affect the business case for DLC MRFs, depending on a number of variables
such as the value of recycled wood products. Outside of the price for metals recycling, woody biomass is
by far the most profitable market for DLC MRF operators, which equates to more opportunities in MV than
in other jurisdictions.

Page 18

Composition by Weight for MV DLC in 2011

Bulky Items <1%
<1%
Te~tiles Rubber <1%
Household Garbage <1% Miscellaneous <1%
Rubble/
Glass and Soil19%
Ceramics <1%
Miscellaneous
Building
Material <1% Wood 55%
Brick 1%
Metals 2%
ConcreteS%
Plastlc4%
Paper <1%
Land clearing <1%
Source: Metro Van • A.ET study, 2011

Page 19

Table 1 Composition by Weight from MV Regional DLC and C&D Studies

Composition % by weight*
Material MV Alberta Massachusetts Europe
Wood 55 34 31 35
Misc. building materials, 4 4 Not measured Not measured
ceramics/tiles/glass
Drywall 0 13 10 Not measured
Ferrous metals 1 1 5 4
Non‐ferrous metals 1 4 1
Hard Plastic and Film 4 5 2 4
Plastic
Mixed Paper <1 Not measured Not measured 4
OCC <1 14 Not measured 1
RDF (Lights Mix small Not Not measured Not measured 24
paper/film plastics) measured
Roofing materials (plus 8 11 11 3
other asphalt products)
Land Clearing 2 1 3
Other residual, rubble, 23 13 9 21
concrete and soil

Source: Metro Vancouver ‐ AET Study, 2011
Source: Alberta ‐ CG&S Report on Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste Characterization Study,
2000
Source: Massachusetts ‐ DSM Environmental 2007 Massachusetts Construction and Demolition Debris
Industry Study, 2008
Source: General composition C&D waste to EU sorting plants ‐ Peter Boer, 2014
Note: * some studies did not add up to 100% due to rounding errors or due to specific streams that were
not measured.

From our study done on the ten MRFs plus additional research on the topic, the authors found no detailed
composition studies that assessed the differences between loads originating from construction sites
versus loads coming from demolition activities. Based on opinions of MRF operators and industry experts,
a general statement can be made that demolition loads are usually higher in density due to increased
percentage of inert material such as concrete, rocks, sand, plaster, drywall, and glass.

None of the MRF operators that were surveyed kept track of the exact locations where loads of incoming
material originated. It is common practice to monitor loads arriving at the MRF as a quality control
measure on incoming materials.

The operators of DLC MRFs reported that it is a common practice to accept materials from outside of the
construction and demolition waste streams. They often seek out and accept commercial waste bins that
contain materials that have a high recycle content such as pure wood loads, metals and plastics. This
practice adds economic value to the organization and also improves recovery rates at their facilities. This

Page 20

practice is also beneficial to waste haulers who are the primary customers of DLC MRFs – as they now can
rely on one location for tipping. Having one place to tip waste saves time and is cost effective for haulers.
1.6.2 Level of Sophistication Used in Processing Materials

The highly automated facilities had more flexibility regarding the acceptance of varying composition of the
incoming DLC. These plants are designed to process materials at 50 tonnes per hour (or more) and
automatically separate the various factions of materials into their appropriate streams. Manual sorting of
materials is most often the last function of the process.

The most highly automated MRFs were the two located in Europe. In the survey, both of these facilities
reported diversion rates in excess of 90%, which is a reflection of the level of sorting sophistication as well
as the ability to find or develop markets for the recovered materials.

This is not to say that a “Simple MRF” cannot report high diversion rates. In fact, it is more likely that they
will report diversion rates in the 70% to 80% range because they attempt to attract a more homogenous
stream of materials at their respective sites. Only materials that can be readily recycled are accepted.
Volumes are generally lower as well so that economies of scale are not available and diversification of end
products is limited.

In both manually intensive and highly automated facilities, the most important link in the processing of
DLC is often the excavator operator feeding the sorting line. In the manually intensive facilities, this is less
important because materials are normally more pre‐selected at the tipping source and because the
process is inherently slower. The fully automated facilities rely upon high volume processing and thus the
operator feeding the line is the key role responsible for economic results of the plant.

Based on the survey feedback and Gente's experts, for every type and size of facility it is of utmost
importance that operators know their hauler customers and the type of materials that they normally tip
at their facilities. A good facility operator will closely monitor incoming material to try to ensure the
materials they are receiving contain higher percentages of known recyclable material for their operation.
Facility operators will often provide ongoing education and feedback to the haulers to ensure that their
mutual goals are aligned.
1.6.3 Local Opportunities to Sell the End Products

The survey found that the opportunities for woody biomass and other wood based products are largely
dependent on the proximity to the customers. For example, one of the largest consumers of woody
biomass from the MV area is Howe Sound Pulp and Paper (HSPP). HSPP is currently being supplied by
several MRFs in the region plus is accepting woody biomass from the pine beetle forests from B.C.’s
interior. Other customers in the MV region are Kruger, UBC and the two cement kilns owned by Lehigh
and Lafarge.

In comparison, Alberta MRFs do not have a large fuel consumer such as HSPP. In Alberta, the DLC MRFs
rely on other markets that do not exist in MV such as supplying cattle bedding.

The Beelen plant in Europe can illustrate another good example of a local opportunity that exists in
proximity to a MRF. They supply wood to a fiberboard plant in their region located close by their facility.
Harvest Power (Urban Wood Waste Recyclers) was also a big supplier to the Canfor fiberboard plant before

Page 21

it closed operations. The Harvest Power example illustrates the importance of having sustainable markets
for end products before an operator can justify investing capital in a sophisticated DLC MRF.
1.6.4 Quality of End Products and Customer Specifications

It is customer specifications for end products that drive the quality management initiatives at DLC MRFs.

The customer's quality requirements for woody biomass or Processed Engineered Fuel (PEF) products are
driven by a combination of operational requirements and environmental regulations. The operational
requirements are predicated upon the equipment (e.g. boilers, gasifiers) that will utilize the materials as a
fuel. Size, shape, product composition, wood treatments and moisture content are the more common
specification variables. As mentioned previously, sizing can make a product too expensive to manufacture.

As an example, the gasifier at Kruger requires a fuel material that is 3” minus in size and only pure wood
with no paints or glues. Manufactured woods (e.g. plywood), plastic, paper, treated wood or other
contaminants are not acceptable. Any MRF considering supplying an operation such as Kruger must
implement stringent quality control measures to ensure these specifications are met.

Ultimately, the specifications for PEF from DLC are established as a result of the air emission standards for
each region and the respective landfill disposal regulations. All researched jurisdictions have air quality
regulations in place that clearly establish the specifications that are allowable for all fuels including PEF.

Recyclable commodities like metals and wire have specifications that are a little less stringent. There may
be size restrictions on some items but this is more of a logistics issue than it is a product usability issue.
Handling and hauling costs are the key logistical factors. The customer here is the commodity recycling
firms and their pricing to the DLC MRF is structured to allow them to make a profit on the materials when
sold into the relevant commodity market.

1.7 REGULATORY POLICIES FOR PERMITTING AND OPERATING A DLC MRF

1.7.1 Permitting and Licensing
The regulatory policies to own and operate a DLC MRF were consistent throughout the areas studied. All
the facilities needed licensing, required heavy industrial use zoning, and required a public notification
process prior to approval for operations.

Specific regulations are also in place that restricts the material that can be accepted at the MRFs.
Hazardous materials are not allowed at DLC MRFs in any of the jurisdictions surveyed. There are very strict
guidelines for the handling of those hazardous materials that are occasionally found in loads. Those
regulations are provided by Worksafe BC in the MV region and with similar organizations in other regions.

1.8 REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT AFFECT DIVERSION RATES

In conducting the survey, the authors found no evidence of regulations or policies that support the use of
recovered materials from DLC MRFs; however, there are a number of different initiatives that are used by
governments to encourage diversion of wastes from landfill to MRFs.

Page 22

Skagit County in Washington State is an example of a region that attempts to control the flow of waste
through regulations. Skagit Ordinance 1218 is based on US Federal Court legal cases that gave the Counties
authority to regulate the flow of waste if they have a full disposal system that needs financial supports to
ensure ongoing viability. The County's attempt to monitor and enforce these ordinances is reported by
the survey respondents to be challenging and therefore not completely effective. The County only has
authority to regulate material once it arrives at a facility in or out of the County, whereas the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission has the authority to regulate haulers who transport DLC material.
Survey respondents believe the ineffectiveness of the regulatory program is due the lack of resources
dedicated to monitoring the flow of waste and the challenging task of tracking where bin loads of material
are going on a daily basis. Indeed, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has only one
investigator for enforcement across Washington State, soon to be two, and the investigator is supported
by seven safety inspectors who monitor various aspects of transportation regulations.

Landfill bans have been used effectively to increase recycling rates on specific streams. For example, MV
has banned a number of readily recyclable streams such as gypsum drywall. MV’s Integrated Solid Waste
and Resource Management Plan also intends to ban all wood from landfills in the region, starting in 2015
with a disposal ban on clean wood at MV and City of Vancouver disposal facilities excluding the
construction and demolition loads delivered to the Vancouver Landfill. Within the City of Calgary, landfills
have placed a significant surcharge of approximately 50% on this and other restricted streams if they are
found in loads. There are a number of wood waste recyclers in Calgary that are set up to accept and
recover this material.

Industry stakeholders and the authors believe that pricing is one of the most effective ways to encourage
recyclable material diversion from landfills. In most regions surveyed in the study, tip fees at landfills and
government controlled transfer stations is set at a very high rate so that it creates a business incentive for
private industry to build MRFs. Another pricing mechanism commonly used is to apply a surcharge for
materials that are known to be readily recyclable when they are tipped at landfills. This practice
encourages the material to be taken to appropriate facilities at a lower tip fee cost for beneficial recovery
of materials.

Facilities themselves had their own pricing strategies to attract desirable and easily recoverable materials
that could be sold back to the market at a premium. For example, "clean or white" wood is desirable in
most areas and has a discounted tip fee at most facilities surveyed.

Regulations with respect to air quality standards restrict the use of certain materials for use as a biomass
fuel in all regions surveyed. An example is woody biomass fuels have limits on the amount of glues, paints
or creosote that are allowed due to their respective effect on air emissions after combustion.

It was evident from the survey of MRFs that the regulatory initiatives are driven at a municipal or regional
district level such as MV. Occasionally these local initiatives were supported by broader Province or State
goals. Table 2 below summarizes the findings from each facility canvassed regarding DLC diversion
regulation and policy initiatives.

Page 23

Table 2 Regulatory and Policy Initiatives for Diversion of DLC from Landfills

Facility City / Region Regulations County Regulations Province / State Regulations
Countrywide, Nothing N/A Nothing
Hamilton, Ont
Edmonton Recycle Tip fees lower for diverting N/A Under consideration to
Edmonton AB recyclable materials to control C&D but no action
recycling at city landfills, to date.
instead of disposal.
Ecco Waste City of Calgary landfill has a N/A Under consideration to
Calgary AB 50% surcharge on control C&D but no action.
recyclables including wood.
Lautenbach Nothing for DLC specifically Has flow control that Nothing
Skagit County and no landfill bans. restricts waste leaving the
Mt. Vernon, WA county as per County
Ordinance 1218.
Busy Beaver Nothing Has flow control on where Nothing
Snohomish County wastes can go ‐ use 90/10
Everett, WA rule. DLC with recyclables
must go to licensed MRF or
local landfill unless load
contains >90% recyclables
e.g. source separated wood
load.
Recovery1 Nothing See comment for Busy Nothing
Pierce County Beaver above.
Tacoma, WA
New Bedford Nothing Commonwealth of Mass. Nothing
Waste Services does not allow the direct
New Bedford, landfilling of C&D ‐ material
Massachusetts must go to a recycle facility
or leave the region.
Zanker Recycling Each city in the county has Nothing Cal State green building
Alameda County ordinances for recycling but code now has provisions
San Jose, CA not enforced effectively. that require C&D recycling.
Otto Dorner Nothing DLC landfill ban must go to Nothing
Hamburg, a MRF.
Germany
Beelen Recycling Nothing DLC landfill ban, must go to Nothing
Vlaardingen a MRF.
Netherlands

Page 24

DLC MRF CONFIGURATIONS AND ECONOMICS

1.9 DLC MRF CONFIGURATIONS

There are three main types of configurations for DLC recycle facilities based on sorting sophistication
levels. They are as follows:

1) Simple System with tip floor and manual sort
2) Intermediate System with some more sorting capabilities
3) Sophisticated System that is high throughput with mechanized sorting and automation
1.9.1 Simple DLC MRF System

The simplest DLC MRF consists of a tip floor, manual sorting of materials (i.e. “pickers”) and little
automation of processes. “Automation” in this type of facility is limited to some moving equipment,
maybe a conveyor and bins for segregating material. If there is a grinder employed, it is likely a mobile
unit so as to afford the operators with more opportunities to generate revenues from the grinder by
utilizing it for various applications. Getting an adequate financial return on the grinder is often not feasible
solely from a facility of this small size.

Recovered materials in this type of MRF are generally limited to the more valuable commodities such as
cardboard, metals, and possibly some select plastic streams. These commodities are often passed along
to other processors for recycling or recovery. If there are markets for select wood streams it is possible to
sort and direct the wood to these downstream users, which usually provides some savings over taking the
material to a landfill.

Recovery rates at these facilities can be extremely high – as much as 80% diversion. The diversion rate is
primarily dependent upon the quality and type of materials allowed into the MRF. With the lack of sorting
sophistication also comes the lack of throughput, thus limiting the impact that this type of facility can have
within a particular region's overall diversion rate.

A DLC infrastructure that relies on numerous “Simple MRFs” will have limited positive impact on the
region's diversion rate due to the lack of ability to accept and process mixed loads of material as well as a
lack of economies of scale that are available from larger, more sophisticated MRFs.

Figure 1 below shows the process flow of a typical Simple DLC MRF. These systems are typically used in
small markets and process 10,000 to 25,000 tonnes per year of DLC materials.

Page 25

Figure 1 Simple DLC MRF

1.9.2 Intermediate DLC MRF System

With incoming volumes of between 25,000 to 80,000 tonnes per annum, operators can justify making
additional investment in equipment to improve throughput and increase material recovery rates.

In this configuration, a tip floor is still employed to inspect incoming material. Sorting on the tip floor is
limited to, bulky or unwanted items. Materials sorted for disposal will be set aside and not processed
through the MRF.

From there a screen is used to remove fines such as sawdust, dirt, aggregate, metals and plastics. The
material then goes over a picking line where valuable and recyclable materials are manually pulled off the
line and sorted into their respective bins. The remaining fraction is primarily wood and it goes through a
stationary grinder. The grinder can be set to size the material based on customer specifications.

In some cases where the volumes are closer to the 80,000 tonnes limit, there is another screening system
utilized after the grinding to further sort biomass wood products into customer specifications. In the
smaller DLC MRFs (i.e. closer to 25,000 to 50,000 tonnes/year), the wood grinder is often a portable
machine that can be employed in other applications.

Recovery rates at these intermediate facilities are typically up to about 70%. As with all MRFs, this rate
can be impacted by the amount of presorted loads the MRF is able to attract. The higher proportion of
presorted loads will result in a higher recovery rate but may cost the operator in lost profits from metal
recycling because that is primarily one of the high value materials that will be removed with pre‐sorting.

Page 26

Figure 2 below illustrates an Intermediate DLC MRF System.
Figure 2 Intermediate DLC MRF System

1.9.3 Sophisticated DLC MRF System

Volumes of 80,000+ tonnes per year start to justify using a full‐scale sophisticated system to sort and
recover DLC materials. Several of the plants surveyed in this study such as Beelen (Netherlands) and Ecco
Waste (Calgary) can be considered sophisticated and capable of effectively processing up to 50 ‐70
tonnes/hour. This high throughput is accomplished with more mechanization that augments or
completely replaces the slower and cumbersome manual sorting processes. Screens, trommels, air density
separators, magnets, plastic sorters (e.g. T‐Tech’s) and wind shifters are the more common types of
automation employed. In some cases water baths are incorporated into a system to extract lighter
fractions.

Some MRF designs that are categorized as “fully automated” still employ a high number of manual
“pickers” on the sorting line. There are several installations where over 20+ pickers are employed on a
given shift. In cases where hourly labour costs are very low, this model can be viable and sustainable,
despite the common issues of high employee turnover and higher operating costs (i.e. labour). The trade‐
off between saving on capital costs and having higher operating expenses is the common reasoning for
adopting this approach.

Page 27

For the operator/owners, a greater financial return is realized from DLC MRFs that are “fully” automated.
This is due to:

1) Higher throughput capabilities
2) More diverse end product lines
3) Higher quality end products
4) Lower operating costs per tonne of material
5) Higher yield on recoverable materials (85%+)

Figure 3 illustrates a typical Sophisticated DLC MRF system.
Figure 3 Sophisticated DLC MRF System

1.10 DLC MRF RECYCLING ECONOMICS

The combination of volume and type of incoming material are key variables that will significantly impact
return on investment. Table 3 provides an overview of the basic economics of the three types of plants
discussed above. It is worth noting that the number of employees listed for the “sophisticated” MRF is
based on North American facilities, while the more highly automated European facilities typically employ
less than that number.

Page 28

Table 3 Overview of DLC MRF Plant Configurations

Facility Type Simple Intermediate
Sophisticated
Annual throughput 10,000 to 25,000 25,000 to 80,000
+ 80,000
tonnes/annum tonnes/annum
tonnes/annum
Diversion rate potential Up to 75% Up to 70%
85%or more
Capital costs (no building) $100,000 $0.8 to 1.5 million
$8 to 10 million
Processing building cost $500,000 est. $2 million est.
$6 million est.
Storage (based on large Not required $140,000 est.
$180,000 est.
engineered storage tent) (60'x100')
(60x160')
Equipment List Scale Scale Scale
Building Building Building
Tip area Tip area Tip area
Small Loader Excavator
Excavator
Bins Hopper, screen
Shredder
Picking line
Screen
Loader Air density separation
Bins Several magnets
Possible added
Picking lines
processing for wood
Loader
Bins
Possible added
processing for wood
Staffing (North American) 4 to 5 10 to 20 40 to 60
* Note: Achievable only with a significant amount of presorted homogenous loads.

1.11 FACTORS AFFECTING MRF CONFIGURATIONS

As outlined in Section 3.1 the configuration of recycling facilities for DLC can vary in level of sophistication.
The type of equipment employed is dictated by numerous factors and conditions such as:

1) Incoming material composition
2) Annual volume of material available to be processed
3) Markets & end use for recovered materials
4) Capital available for investment
5) Personal preference of plant equipment suppliers and/or operators on the recovery technologies
employed

Each factor is discussed separately in the following sections.
1.11.1 Incoming Material Composition

The expected nature and composition of the incoming material has a significant impact on facility design.
For example, when higher concrete, brick and aggregate content are normally found in the tipped
materials, there is sorting done to segregate these products before other DLC materials go over the
processing line. These heavier fractions are often set aside for processing through appropriate functions
such as crushing or simply loading out to end markets.

Page 29

This is also the case in facilities that receive a significant amount of presorted materials such as wood
loads. The facilities run this “clean” wood material through the plant on a dedicated shift to take
advantage of higher throughputs due to reduced manpower required for sorting. This usually results in
lower operating costs to produce woody biomass or other products.

Highly automated DLC MRFs do not require as much pre‐sorting of material at the construction or
demolition site. This is one of the main reasons for operators to spend the requisite capital to build an
automated MRF. It provides the MRF with a competitive advantage over those facilities where pre‐sorting
is a requirement. The haulers can haul mixed loads without spending the time and money to pick up
several bins from each site and then deliver them to different facilities. This makes the automated MRF
more attractive to their customers. Automation also lowers the variable operating costs at the MRF, which
is a key sustainability element of any operation.

Having a mixed feedstock material also opens up opportunities for the MRF operator with respect to end
markets for products. It often results in more revenues from the recycling of commodities such as ferrous
and non‐ferrous metals. With highly automated MRFs, the operators can readily accept mixed loads
because they have the advantage of high throughput with both mechanical and manual sorting over the
process line. The end result is that the recovery of metals can be a significant revenue source that has a
high profit margin because there is no further processing required on the metals. The fact that metal is so
valuable is the main driver in wanting to get as much metal tipped into the MRF as possible.

It is imperative that operators have a clear understanding of the composition of the incoming material
before starting the design of the MRF. The number, type and configuration of capital‐intensive equipment
will be derived from understanding the material that is to be processed. Mass balance tools and charts
are common instruments used in assessing incoming materials and their impact on facility design (see
Appendix 4 for an example mass balance diagram).
1.11.2 Annual Volume of Material

The annual volume of material to be processed has a huge impact on the facility design. The automation
required in a DLC MRF is a direct function of the annual volumes of material that are expected. In turn,
the annual volume available is dictated by the availability of material in the market place, which is a
function of population, growth, and competition for DLC and level of construction activity.

Facilities expecting 12,000 up to 25,000 tonnes/year of material cannot justify the cost of a highly
automated and mechanized plant. These facilities use a more simple approach with manual labour on a
tip floor being the most cost effective way to sort incoming materials. Lower volumes also limit additional
processing that could be done on the recovered materials and therefore limits the variability of end
products that can be sold to market.

Higher volumes of 25,000+ tonnes/year allow for some technology to be employed such as screens and
picking lines. Use of this equipment can improve recovery rates and allow for more variability in material
accepted at the facility. This leads to more opportunities to market end products from recovered
materials.

Volumes of 80,000 tonnes/year or more require more sophisticated sorting technologies and the
commensurate increase in capital that is needed to build the MRF. Operating costs are normally lower

Page 30

and recovery rates for DLC materials are at their highest levels. Of particular note is that variable operating
costs are found to be as much as 50% to 70% lower in highly automated facilities that process high volumes
in comparison to the manual labor‐intensive DLC MRFs. This is a significant fact when considering the
operation of the facility for optimum product mix and optimum capacity management.
1.11.3 Markets & End Use for Recovered Materials

Fundamental to the sustainability and success of a DLC MRF is its ability to provide products that are in
demand in their marketplace. Not only must the MRFs have the ability to sell useful products, MRFs must
also meet the product specifications of their customers. In all jurisdictions those specifications are
established in part to satisfy environmental restrictions as set by the regulatory authorities. Other
specification criteria are driven by the operational requirements of the customer.

For fuel products, be they 100% woody biomass or a blend of materials, the type and configuration of fuel
production equipment is going to be determined on the mix and volumes of individual product lines.

Of utmost importance to all Processed Engineered Fuel (PEF) customers is the heat value of the product
that they receive. For example, if there is ample supply of plastic to go into a PEF, then the operator will
spend the requisite capital to install the appropriate equipment to grind the plastic to meet the customer’s
specifications. This is because plastic has a much higher heat value than wood. Hence the more plastic
that is mixed in with the wood, the more valuable the fuel.

Drying equipment can be utilized in a DLC MRF to improve the heat value of woody biomass, particularly
if it is cost‐effective. If the sustainable demand warrants the capital investment, then drying equipment
may be inserted in the production process after the primary grinding is completed. The drier the woody
biomass fuel the higher the heat value, and thus the higher price that can be charged.
1.11.4 Capital Available

Even if the cost/benefit of a fully automated MRF projects an overriding economic feasibility for the plant,
it may not be enough to guarantee access to the right capital. Capital costs of equipment and technologies
for a high volume and automated plant are significant. If a building is also needed, then the capital
required can make the project unaffordable for many operators. Ideally, as in a few of the researched
facilities, the operators were able to lower the capital requirements by finding and repurposing an existing
building.

This strategy of moving into an existing building works as long as the location for the MRF is not overly
compromised. If the MRF is located in a remote area, haulers are less likely to travel extra distance to tip
at the facility.
1.11.5 Personal Preferences for Equipment

Operators of recycling facilities have a wide selection for the types of equipment that they can utilize to
sort and process DLC materials.

In the final design and equipment selection of a DLC MRF, personal preference is often a key selection
criterion of the facility operator. Ongoing relationships with equipment vendors will be a common
element in this regard.

Page 31

Notwithstanding personal preferences, it is important to note that the equipment selection process is
predicated more on the other factors such as incoming composition and volumes of material to process.

1.12 ECONOMICS OF AUTOMATED DLC MRFS IN METRO VANCOUVER CONTEXT

Table 4 below summarizes the projected financial results of a fully automated DLC MRF potentially located
in the MV region.

CAVEAT: It must be noted that all data in the financial summary sheet is for example only and does not
represent any particular configuration of the plants researched for this report. The assumptions used
are for example purposes only. The materiality of the results is reliable for the purpose of a high‐level
understanding of the expected financial returns from an automated DLC MRF. The assumptions used
are gleaned from the research and the industry expertise of the report’s authors.

The key assumptions used in the financial analysis are listed below and consistent with the costs and
revenues that would be applicable to a MV operation:

 The total annual throughput of 120,000 tonnes
 The mix of DLC material tipped is typical for MV region
 Weighted average tip fees of $52.16 into the plant.
 $30 per tonne prices utilized for PEF
 Full time equivalent production labour = 24 people
 The plant is assumed operational 5 days for 1.33 shifts
 The hourly throughput of 52.39 tonnes
 Revenues for recyclables use local MV prices in place today
 The capital cost for the equipment is $10,000,000
 The capital cost of the building and site preparation is $5,000,000
 Reasonable estimates used for general and administrative expenses

The average tip fee is based on a weighted average calculated from tip fees for various incoming streams
ie select wood fee $25/tonne, primarily wood loads fee $45/tonne, mixed C&D tip fee $64/tonne, and
garbage at $80/tonne.

Page 32

Table 4 Example Financial Results of a Fully Automated DLC MRF

Total tonnes tipped in 120,000
Net annual working hours 1,718
Shifts required 1.33
Throughput in tons/hour 52.40
Item/Description
Total Per ton total tons Yield rates
Tip in Revenues $6,258,600 $52.16 120,000
Recyclables Revenue: Metals $960,000 $8.00 4,800 4.0%
Recyclables Revenue: PEF $2,740,200 $22.84 96,240 80.2%
Operating cost: sorting Line ($1,332,611) ($11.11)
Operating cost: PEF shredding ($404,960) ($3.37)
Maintenance ($524,510) ($4.37)
GROSS MARGIN $7,696,719 $64.14

tipping fees landfills ($1,143,000) ($9.53) 18,960 15.8%
Transportation of Recyclables ($1,212,480) ($10.10)
Transportation to landfill (residuals) ($246,480) ($2.05)
General and Administration ($925,860.0) ($7.72)
EBITDA $4,168,899 $34.74

Interest Expense ($401,922) ($3.35)
Amortization ($1,250,000) ($10.42)
NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES $2,516,977 $20.97

A more detailed version can be found in Appendix 3.

In summary, an investment of approximately $15 million in capital will return over $4.40 million earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). EBITDA is widely used as a measure of
cash that an operation will generate, which provides investors with an expectation of how long it will take
to recover the cash invested in a capital intensive project. The example here provides an attractive return
for most investors resulting in a payback period of 6.31 years of net income. Whether or not this is an
attractive pay‐back period depends on several factors, many of which pertain to the investor’s appetite
for risk.

As can be readily seen in the above table, the importance of maintaining diverse and reliable markets with
strong demand for woody biomass is critical – particularly in the MV region. Even if the operator is able
to move the woody biomass for zero cost, it would make this business model far less attractive. This is
assuming that all other variables are held constant.

Page 33

1.12.1 The Mass Balance Tool
In order to effectively plan for what equipment to use in an automated DLC MRF, it is best practice to
utilize a tool like the mass balance flowchart. A mass balance tool uses an estimation of the composition
of anticipated incoming feedstock to a MRF and maps the flow of the streams of material as they are split,
shredded, sorted and ultimately recovered. This tool allows MRF plant designers to place and size the
equipment needed to optimize recovery of materials and create the most value by ensuring recovered
materials meet end users requirements and specifications.

The operator will utilize this type of tool to select equipment and design the layout of the plant. See
Appendix 4 for an example of a typical mapping tool that is utilized by DLC MRF designers.

Page 34

CURRENT STATE OF DLC DIVERSION IN METRO

VANCOUVER

1.13 CURRENT METRO VANCOUVER DLC MRFS

The Metro Vancouver area has a number of facilities scattered around the lower mainland that accept and
process DLC materials as well as select commercial waste streams (primarily waste loads exclusively or
with a very high percentage of wood).

Currently Harvest Power (Urban Wood Waste Recyclers) is the only facility that accepts and processes
significant amounts of mixed waste DLC loads. At their two facilities in Vancouver and New Westminster,
Harvest Power recovers metals, cardboard, some plastics and a significant amount of wood with an
intermediate level of sorting sophistication. The commodity materials are sold locally with the majority of
the woody biomass being barged to Howe Sound Pulp and Paper (HSPP) on the Sunshine Coast and trucked
to Kruger Products in New Westminster for use in their gasifier. Harvest Power has also shipped a Process
Engineered Fuel (PEF) to the two local cement kilns owned by Lafarge and Lehigh. The PEF product is a
mix of wood, plastics and roofing materials.

Cloverdale Fuels is the longest existing company in tenure and second in volume to Harvest Power.
Cloverdale is located in Langley off of 200th street and very close to the Golden Ears Bridge. Cloverdale
trucks their end products to customers as an added service.

The primary competitive tool utilized in the MV region is pricing for tipped materials. Logistics play a key
role in this regard as haulers are very sensitive to transport costs and turnaround times. With the lack of
automation in these plants, the options for marketable products are limited to biomass fuels and easily
recyclable materials such as metals and bottles.

A summary of MV facilities that accept DLC materials is shown below in Table 5.

Page 35

Table 5 Summary of MV MRFs

Facility Name Location Operation Details
Simple MRF located in Langley that accepts primarily
wood wastes, grinds and supplies various markets
Cloverdale Fuels Langley including agriculture, landscaping and biomass based
fuels. Cloverdale provides wood biomass fuel and has
the UBC gasification facility as a customer.
Simple DLC transfer station owned and operated by
Cloverdale Disposal Aldergrove New West Gypsum ‐ wood goes to Cloverdale Fuels to
be sold as an end product.
Eagle Disposal Mitchell Island Simple MRF doing manual sort on an indoor tip floor.
Operation similar to Inner City. Wood fraction goes to
Fraser Valley Disposal Surrey
Western Fiber.
Simple MRF with manual sorting on an outdoor
Inner City Mitchell Island surface ‐ metals and other readily recyclable streams
picked out.
Simple MRF with small pick line ‐ ongoing operation is
Mission Renewable* Mission
intermittent.
Simple MRF accepts loads that are primarily wood in
Vancouver composition. A grinder on site processes the material
Smithers Enterprises
south into a fuel that is shipped and used at Howe Sound
Pulp and Paper.

*Note: Not in the MV region but close enough to impact flow of DLC.

In addition to the facilities listed above, there are other companies that take source separated DLC
streams. These include concrete and asphalt recyclers as well as metal recyclers. For example, the
demolition of a residential home is usually done in two phases; the first phase is removal of the structure
and the concrete foundations, slabs are done in the second phase. The removed concrete is taken directly
to a company that recycles this material.

The list above may not be entirely inclusive. From time to time, other operations have popped up
throughout the MV region – some of which existed for specific opportunities – thus they ceased operations
when the opportunities ended. These are traditionally small and simple operations that have low
throughput but good recovery rates because of their focus on specific opportunities that have
homogenous or presorted loads.

In summary, the current level of processing capacity is very limited within the MV area without any
sophisticated facilities to handle highly comingled recyclable materials. Recovery rates of DLC material
could improve significantly with one or two properly designed facilities strategically located in the lower
mainland. The current infrastructure for DLC processing does not take advantage of the economies of
scale that large, automated plants provide, because capital cost is a restrictive barrier for many operators.

Page 36

CRITERIA FOR OPTIMIZING DLC DIVERSION IN

METRO VANCOUVER

It is clear that there needs to be more processing capacity added to the DLC industry in MV. The
intermittent addition of small, opportunistic operators is admirable from an entrepreneurial perspective,
but inadequate in providing the requisite sustainable infrastructure to optimize diversion.

This section of the report will provide criteria for the establishment of a DLC infrastructure that allows for
the optimization of DLC materials in the Metro Vancouver region.
1.14 DRIVERS FOR A FULLY AUTOMATED DLC INFRASTRUCTURE

The key drivers for an adequately automated DLC infrastructure in MV are:

1. Effective tip fee structure at disposal facilities
2. End product market diversity and demand
3. The processing capacity
4. The strategic location of processing facilities within the region
5. Policies to direct construction and demolition material to DLC MRFs

1.14.1 Effective tip fee structure at disposal facilities

If the tip fee at landfills is not high enough to create a business opportunity for the private sector to process
the DLC material, then diversion will be severely challenged. Apart from the lower DLC tipping fees at
disposal sites in and out of the region, the authors feel that MV has established a high enough garbage
disposal tip fee to provide ample incentive for the advent of privately controlled DLC MRFs.

Table 6 below illustrates survey results showing disposal pricing in the various regions compared with MRF
pricing. Pricing for Harvest Power is also shown in the Table 6 for comparison of pricing in the MV region.

Page 37

Table 6 MRF and Disposal Tip Fee Comparisons in Regions Surveyed Versus MV

Facility Standard Landfill Tip Fee for Tip Fee for
Disposal Fee $/t Mixed Loads at Wood Loads at
MRF $/t MRF $/t
Harvest Power (Intermediate 60 ‐ 108 50 to 81* 38
MRF)
Vancouver, BC
Countrywide, Hamilton, Ont 70 65 65
Edmonton Recycle, Edmonton 85 65 40
AB
Ecco Waste, Calgary AB 107 114 40 to 70
Lautenbach, Skagit County, 105 85 55
Mt. Vernon, WA
Busy Beaver, Snohomish 105 80 20
County,
Everett, WA
Recovery 1, Pierce County, 140 70 18
Tacoma, WA
New Bedford Waste Services, 100 80 70
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Zanker Recycling, Alameda 78 75 75
County
San Jose, CA
Otto Dorner, Hamburg, 85E 65E 65E
Germany
Beelen Recycling, Vlaardingen, 85E 65E 65E
Netherlands
*Loads containing more than 40% recyclable material

The table shows that almost every MRF discounts their tip fee compared to landfill option. A few of the
operators further discount tip fees for wood largely because it can readily be developed into woody
biomass and sold. This is a business decision that all private operators must make to balance incoming
volume and tip fee to maximize profit.

The business model for a DLC MRF is such that the single largest revenue source is always the tip fee for
materials. In order for a MRF operator to be competitive in attracting materials they must be able to offer
tip fees that facilitate haulers coming to their facilities.
1.14.2 End Product Market Diversity and Demand

Having sustainable markets for end products is a key factor in the operator’s’ decision to offer discounts
to attract materials.

Page 38

The MV region has ample demand for the end products that can be derived from DLC materials. There is
an estimated annual demand for over 300,000 tonnes for woody biomass fuel alone. This demand is
currently not being met and estimates show that only 30% to 40% of demand is being supplied.

There is a demand for an additional annual volume of alternative fuel of 80,000 to 100,000 tonnes from
the two cement kilns in the region (Lafarge and Lehigh). These facilities want to utilize a PEF product that
provides more heat value than a 100% woody biomass fuel. A small portion of this demand is currently
being met. Table 7 summarizes the approximate current MV demand for biomass‐based fuels.

Table 7 Summary of Current Biomass Fuel Demand

Facility Estimated Tonnage Quality Criteria
Demand per Year
Howe Sound Pulp and Paper 250,000+ All wood acceptable except treated
wood*, small proportion of
adhesives allowed, no metals,no
plastic
UBC Gasification Plant 30,000 Clean wood only, no adhesives,
paints or treated wood, no metals,
no plastics
Kruger Products 25,000 All wood acceptable except treated
wood*, small proportion of
adhesives allowed, no metals,no
plastic
Lafarge Cement Plant 50,000 All wood types acceptable except
treated wood, plastics desired
Lehigh Cement Plant 40,000 All wood types accepted including
small proportions of creosote
treated woods, plastics desired
* Treated includes wood that contains creosote, CCA or PCP

There are long standing discussions in the region to develop more District Energy programs using various
boiler and gasification technologies for wood biomass. Developers are cautious to get these projects off
the ground out of a fear of a lack of sustainable supply of biomass fuels.

Commodity materials such as metals and plastics all have readily available and open markets for MRF
operators. Non‐recyclable plastics can also be put into PEF that goes primarily to cement kilns.

Residuals, concrete, fines and rubble are the next largest stream according to studies done on MV DLC
composition. In addition, some wood fines can be generated through the mechanical processing of wood.
Sophisticated MRFs are better equipped to separate the fines into aggregate, wood, and plastics and
access aggregate and fuel markets for these fractions where available, as is the case at Beelen in the
Netherlands. Otherwise, commingled fines would generally go to alternative daily cover (ADC) instead of
being recycled. Finding markets for aggregate materials in the MV region can be a little more challenging
due to the abundance of relatively cheap natural aggregate and could benefit from the assistance of MV

Page 39

and the municipalities. By specifying even the partial use of recovered aggregates in publically bid
construction projects, it would assist the MRF operators by providing a market for these materials.

Roofing materials is another stream that represents an opportunity for more use in the MV region.
Currently there is one company in the region that specializes in taking only roofing tear‐off materials. This
company has challenges finding an outlet for all the material that they collect. When the company was
operating, most of the material was used in asphalt paving but the percentage used was lower than was
currently available, leaving an over‐supply in the market. A limited amount of roofing material can also
be used in fuel for cement kilns but this material cannot compete with higher heat value materials at the
same price.
1.14.3 Processing Capacity

Based on MV’s report “2012 Solid Waste Management Annual Summary” estimating that a total of
358,691 tonnes per year of DLC goes to landfills, there is ample volume available for the development of
at least two fully automated facilities. Based on logistical constraints and possible issues related to siting
concerns from local stakeholder, these two facilities would most likely be capped at a combined processing
capacity of 300,000 tonnes per year. With an estimated recovery rate of 85% that would equate to
255,000 tonnes per year in increased diversion of DLC materials. The pie chart below depicts the regional
diversion potential of having two sophisticated DLC MRF’s within MV.

The remaining volumes could be handled by several smaller, semi‐automated facilities that would
augment the larger facilities. Some of the smaller facilities could act as transfer stations that feed the
larger, automated operations.

Page 40

1.14.4 Strategic Location of the Facilities Within the MV Region
The location of the DLC facility within the MV region will dictate the volume of material that is logistically
available for the MRF. This volume will in turn dictate the size and complexity of the facility.

Zoning bylaws necessitate that any high speed MRF must be located on industrial land due to the fact that
it is considered a manufacturing business. This zoning issue limits options for locating the MRFs in the MV
region. To expedite the siting process, it would be strategic to place the facility on any location that already
has the necessary licenses and permits to accept DLC material.

The strategic location of the automated DLC MRFs is in part driven by population dispersion and
development patterns in the region. Coupled with the fact that hauling costs are a key driver in the DLC
recycling industry, it makes sense to build facilities as close as possible to where the most construction
and demolition are going to occur.

The most strategic location for a fully automated DLC MRF in Metro Vancouver would be on either the
Ecowaste Landfill in Richmond or the Vancouver Landfill in Delta. Ecowaste is currently the largest dry
landfill in the region with permitted annual volumes of over 200,000 tonnes. Ecowaste is also very close
to the Vancouver Landfill, where approximately 198,000 tonnes of DLC material are tipped each year. The
economics of having the MRF at a landfill are augmented by the fact that the residuals do not have to be
transported to a different location. If a wood disposal ban was implemented, situating a fully automated
DLC MRF on the landfill(s) would be an ideal location because material would not have to be re‐directed.
.

The Harvest Power plant in New Westminster is a good location for attracting materials from the eastern
side of Vancouver and the eastern municipalities west of the Port Mann Bridge. Some material from Surrey
and Langley also gets tipped at Harvest Power in New Westminster but the long haul and bridge tariff on
the Port Mann Bridge are an impediment. The volumes in the New Westminster area are limited due the
access challenges for truck traffic in and out of that area. This is offset somewhat by the MRF being on the
Fraser River and having barging capabilities for shipping woody biomass.

Table 8 below would indicate that a high speed DLC MRF would be well placed in Surrey, preferably within
close proximity to the Golden Ears Bridge. This location also provides easy access for the municipalities of
Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. The census data indicates that 39.2% of the
MV population is from these municipalities. In addition, 58.7% of the population growth and 44% of the
housing starts over the past five years have occurred in those municipalities.

Page 41

Table 8 Population, Housing and Demolition in MV

Population, Housing and Demolition in Metro Vancouver
Housing
% of Population Housing Starts 5 Demolitions 5
Catchment Cumulative Municipality % of 5 Year Population Growth by Year average to year Average to
rating Population Population Population Growth 2006 to 2011 Municipality 2012 2012
Surrey 1 468,251 468,251 20.2% 73,275 37.2% 3,767 393
Langley 1 25,081 493,332 1.1% 1,475 0.7% 156 9
Township of Langley 1 104,177 597,509 4.5% 10,451 5.3% 918 80
Pitt Meadows 1 17,736 615,245 0.8% 2,113 1.1% 84 6
Maple Ridge (District) 1 76,052 691,297 3.3% 7,103 3.6% 433 58
Coquitlam 2 126,456 817,753 5.5% 11,891 6.0% 1,283 95
Port Coquitlam 2 56,342 874,095 2.4% 3,655 1.9% 228 31
Port Moody 2 32,975 907,070 1.4% 5,463 2.8% 150 3
New Westminster 2 65,976 973,046 2.9% 7,427 3.8% 423 61
Anmore 2 2,092 975,138 0.1% 307 0.2% 16 1
Belcarra 2 644 975,782 0.0% ‐32 0.0% 2 1
Burnaby 2 223,218 1,199,000 9.6% 20,419 10.4% 1,384 333
North Vancouver 3 48,196 1,247,196 2.1% 3,031 1.5% 329 69
N.Vancouver District 3 84,412 1,331,608 3.6% 1,850 0.9% 286 81
West Vancouver 3 42,694 1,374,302 1.8% 563 0.3% 178 86
Richmond 4 190,473 1,564,775 8.2% 16,012 8.1% 1,682 221
Delta 4 99,863 1,664,638 4.3% 3,140 1.6% 355 70
Vancouver 4 603,502 2,268,140 26.1% 25,461 12.9% 3,930 894
White Rock 4 19,339 2,287,479 0.8% 584 0.3% 134 28
Bowen Island 4 3,402 2,290,881 0.1% 40 0.0% 22 2
Electoral Area "A" 5 13,035 2,303,916 0.6% 1,985 1.0% 225 0
Indian Reserves 5 8,094 2,312,010 0.3% 544 0.3% 0 0
Lions Bay 5 1,318 2,313,328 0.1% ‐10 0.0% 1 0
2,313,328 196,747 100% 15,986 2,522
Source Population as per 2011 Census Bulletin Report and MV Housing Data Book April 2013
1.14.5 Facility Siting

One of the most important factors in locating a MRF is close access to established truck routes. Main
arteries allow trucks to move quickly to the facility, which is a key consideration for a truck hauler when
deciding on the fastest turnaround time for their vehicles.

The size of the land available for the DLC MRF is one of the obvious variables to consider when locating a
facility. The larger the piece of land, the more manageable are the logistics for truck traffic, storage of
materials (both incoming and recovered products), maintenance facilities and storage of heavy moving
equipment.
1.14.6 Policies to Direct Construction and Demolition Waste to C&D MRFs and Recycling
Facilities
Municipalities can support the diversion of DLC material to MRFs and away from disposal sites at the time
of issuing building, development, or demolition permits, as some municipalities in the Metro Vancouver
region have started to do.

A wood disposal ban can take various forms. Applying a surcharge for disposal of loads containing wood
is a market‐based approach used in various jurisdictions, similar to the surcharges that Metro Vancouver
and the City of Vancouver apply at their facilities for other banned materials. Alternatively, a complete

Page 42

ban on landfilling DLC material is most effective when adequate processing capacity for mixed DLC loads
is in place to handle the added volume conveniently.

These regulations and policies are described further in the following section.

Page 43

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES TO FACILITATE

DIVERSION OF DLC

As detailed in Section 2.5 of this report, the authors found a wide variety of regulatory and policy
approaches to encouraging the diversion of DLC materials from landfills. It was found that there was no
uniform approach and it was evident that the regulatory initiatives are driven at a municipal or regional
district level such as MV.

There are two main ways for regulations and policies to assist in the diversion of DLC materials:

1. By regulating or encouraging through policy the flow of material from DLC sources to MRFs; and
2. By facilitating the development of markets for end products from a DLC MRF.
1.15 REGULATING OR ENCOURAGING DLC MATERIAL TO MRFS

There are a few viable ways to regulate or encourage DLC materials to be directed to MRFs and away from
landfills. One approach is to support the diversion of DLC material at the time of issuing building or
development permits. If a builder or developer does not adequately divert materials to a recycling facility,
they pay a premium on their permits via a non‐refundable deposit. The deposit must be of consequence
but not so severe as to limit the development in the region, which would be contrary to its purpose.
Various metrics can be established to ensure diversion goals are met with MRFs issuing certificates of
receipt of materials as proof of waste diversion.

A similar approach could be adopted at the demolition stage of a development project. The demolition
permit could restrict where the materials can be taken with a cost penalty for non‐compliance.

A simpler, market based approach is to apply a surcharge at landfills for recyclable materials as is done in
Calgary. This provides a market incentive to divert recyclable materials but still allows for disposal if an
economically viable recycle option is not available. This is also done at MV and City of Vancouver disposal
facilities with loads containing more than 5% materials that are classified as recyclable. In the case of
these types of loads, a 50% surcharge is levied based on visual inspection.

A complete ban on landfilling DLC material is a viable option. The ban would be most effective when
adequate processing capacity for mixed DLC loads is in place to handle the added volume conveniently.
Private enterprise would look at this from a slightly different viewpoint. A complete wood disposal ban
implemented by MV would help justify spending the capital to build a fully automated facility with
assurance of DLC supply.

It is worth mentioning that currently the landfills accepting DLC material in the Metro Vancouver region
have a "disincentive" pricing structure in place for construction and demolition waste recovery. The
current price charged is a significant discount to the full landfill garbage tip fee price of $109/tonne. In
addition, Ecowaste offers volume discounts programs to their customers. It has been reported that private
transfer stations and recycling facilities actually ensure wood and other DLC waste are in loads sent to the
landfill to get the discounted rate. The effect that this pricing structure has on recovery of DLC materials
in the MV area is significant.

Page 44

Given the current demand for woody biomass fuels and the fact that an estimated 358,000 tonnes of
materials are still being landfilled, the authors believe that current tip fee pricing of $109/tonne already in
place in MV region provides ample incentive for private industry to invest in a sophisticated MRF. As per
the example business model in Table 4, a weighted average tipping fees of $52.16/tonne at a sophisticated
DLC MRF provides an attractive financial return largely due to the use of effective automated technology
that increases throughput and recovery rates.

There is certainly a “chicken and egg” scenario in play. Effective collaboration that serves the needs of
both groups in this case, MV and private enterprise, could readily overcome the dilemma of how to bring
in a wood ban while private industry ramps up DLC processing capacity.

1.16 ENCOURAGING MARKETS FOR DLC MRF PRODUCED PRODUCTS

Encouraging the development of diverse and robust markets is a key way to increase revenues and keep
the overall cost of DLC MRFs low. Consequently, tipping fees at DLC MRFs can be lower than the tipping
fee at disposal facilities, providing a market‐based incentive for recycling.

The authors’ knowledge of the marketplace indicates that there is currently unmet demand from local
cement plants and pulp mills for quality biomass. Interviews with the end‐users of woody biomass (HSPP,
LaFarge) confirms this shortfall in supply. Furthermore, future district energy projects and novel uses such
as bio‐coal production (bio‐coal is a coal like material produced from biomass) will present an additional
demand for this material. As the supply of biomass becomes more reliable, markets will continue to grow
for this renewable energy source. Therefore, it is projected that the demand for woody biomass will not
present a significant risk to MRF operators. This conclusion assumes that the woody biomass produced
meets the specifications required by the pulp mills, cement kilns and other end users.

Based on current market knowledge of the authors, it is believed that there are also ample end use market
opportunities for metal, OCC and some plastics. Concrete and asphalt when source separated also have
good outlets established for recovery of these materials.

The main challenge for new facilities located in the MV region will be to find markets for inert fine material
such as fines (dirt and sand) and rocks. Improved diversion of these materials could be accomplished with
regulations and policies that enhance end markets for them. For example, a regulatory authority that is
also involved with construction projects could specify that a certain amount of fill material required on a
job must come from recycled materials.

Another product that is often produced by a MRF is a PEF (also referred to as in other jurisdictions as
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)). The PEF stream is often made up of more challenging to recycle combustible
materials such as non‐recyclable plastics, wood, cardboard, and asphalt materials. Cement kilns are a good
target consumer for this product and fortunately the lower mainland has two consumers of PEF at present.
It should be noted that MV has been supportive in the development of this specific market to date.

Table 9 below summarizes specific regulatory or policy actions MV should consider to encourage more
diversion of DLC MRF materials.

Page 45

Table 9 Recommendations for Regulation and Policies

Strategy and Action Reason for action
Low‐cost disposal options are a barrier to recycling initiatives.
Support for DLC diversion ‐ Explore Similar to the strategy that the City of Calgary and MV use to
strategies to increase the cost of discourage banned recyclable materials going into the landfill,
disposal so it exceeds the cost of a market driven strategy where the cost of available disposal
recycling options (local or remote) is higher than the cost of recycling is
likely one of the most effective ways to support recycling.
This is a regulatory mechanism that directs material to recycling
facilities and assures a revenue stream. However, this may not
Support for DLC diversion ‐ Building
be as effective until there are one or more facilities capable of
and demolition permits requiring
accepting mixed loads for material recovery. Recommend this
contractors to recycle.
be phased in slowly to allow for more recovery facility options
to develop.
Supporting MRF produced products Giving preferred status to products that originate all or in part
‐ encourage the use of recycled or from recovery facilities, MV and other levels of government can
recovered wood, aggregate, and play an active role in the development of markets from MRF
roofing materials in MV sponsored produced products. Diverse local markets help to lower the
projects through the RFQ and RFP cost of local recycling and make it more competitive with
process. disposal options.
The Regulation and Enforcement Division of MV is well
Effective enforcement of facility
established and enforces bylaws that currently exist. The
licences – Ensure DLC operations
enforcement of lawful practices at recycling and disposal
comply with MV licences and
facilities is of critical importance for a competitive environment
bylaws.
that applies sound environmental practices.

Page 46

REFERENCES

AET 2011 AET Consultants: 2011 Demolition, Land‐clearing and Construction Waste Composition
Monitoring, December 2011.

ETC 2009 Christian Fischer, Mads Werge: EU as a Recycling Society, European Topic Centre
on Resource and Waste Management, April 2009.

W 2009 Dan Eatherley, Steve Slater: Good Practice in Construction and Demolition Materials
Recovery Facilities. WRAP, October 2009.

BIS 2011 Bio Intelligence Services: Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition
Waste – SR1, February 2011

ENV 2012 Beauchemin, Paul, Tampier, Martin, McCloy, Brian: Biomass Availability Study for District
Heating Systems. Envirochem Services Inc., January 2012

CGS 2000 CG&S: Alberta Report on Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste Characterization
Study, December 2000

DSM 2008 DSM Environmental 2007 Massachusetts Construction and Demolition Debris Industry
Study, May 2008

CEN 2013 Housing Data, Metro Vancouver Housing Data Book, April 2013

Page 47

APPENDIX 1: INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

RESULTS
See separate attachment

Page 48

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY SHEET

FACILITIES SUMMARY
Various Locations
1. MRF General Information

Type of facility Varied ‐ see individual surveys
Year of construction Facilities surveyed ranged in age from 1992 to 2014
with most of the facilities being built or last modified
around 2010 to 2011.
Past technology used if any Most facilities were built with only a few seeing
(e.g. record of upgrades) modifications.
Present technology used ‐ The technology for sorting DLC and commercial wastes
describe process ranged from highly manual to a combination of manual
and automated sorting systems. The drivers for more
automation were primarily related to reducing labor
costs and increasing throughput, which also affects
total processing cost.
The simplest systems consisted of a tip floor and
receiving hopper fed by an excavator or loader. The
material is usually screened to remove fines that are
considered to be mixed waste of little to no value.
From the screen, material flows to a manual pick line
where low paid workers selectively remove materials
of value for recycle or reuse. Residuals from the picking
line generally are sent to landfill for disposal. These
systems generally cost fewer than two million dollars
and throughput is usually under 50,000 mt per year.
The more sophisticated systems consist of a tip floor
and feed hopper that feeds a shredding system to size
reduce material to a more manageable size for
automated sort equipment such as wind sifters or air
separators. The size‐reduced material is passed over a
screen as done with the cheaper facilities to remove
unusable fines. Air separators are used to segregate
the single stream into different fractions of material
called lights, mediums and heavies. Heavies drop out
and usually consist of rocks and metal ‐ metal recovery
is done on this stream. The lights and mediums

Page 49

streams go to separate pick lines and are more easily
sorted for recovery. As mentioned these sophisticated
systems are more costly to install however, being
offset by increased throughput and usually improved
recovery rates

The sophisticated system described above can have

many variations and take different approaches to
sorting mixed streams. Designers need to consider the
character of incoming wastes when designing systems
and the products that the recycle facility wants to
produce. Designers of recycle facilities also may have
a preference for a particular approach ‐ for example
some plants use a water bath to segregate heavies
from a stream while other designers feel water baths
create operational headaches.
Future or emerging A few of the facilities were considering adding a "star
technology being screen" to the fines that are separated at the
considered? beginning of the process. They felt this stream still
contained a recyclable component that was being
inadvertently "kicked out" of the process and recovery
rates of particularly wood could be improved with the
employment of a star screen.
European plants are considering optical sorters to
lower labour costs and improve throughput.
There is also work on robotic sorters that can recognize
and pick material off a sort line at a much greater
speed and without breaks etc.
What is motivating the As mentioned above, the technology improvement
technology updates at the was being considered to improve recycle rates and
MRF if any? capture more material being landfilled at a high cost.
Cost savings in the ultimate motivating driver for the
improvements.
Owner/contact Varied ‐ see individual surveys
Plant manager/phone Varied ‐ see individual surveys
#
Website Varied ‐ see individual surveys
Regulator contact Varied ‐ see individual surveys

Page 50

2. MRF Products and Markets

What products does the MRF All MRF facilities targeted a number of common
produce? streams which included the following:
 Metals ‐ Ferrous
 Metals ‐ Non‐Ferrous
 Cardboard or OCC
 Plastics ‐ particularly highly recyclable #1 and #2
 Fines material for fill
 Concrete and rocks for road base or other similar
applications
 Gypsum is collected where not landfill banned

Wood, a very large part of most incoming DLC and

Commercial streams, had varying markets depending
on the outlets available to the facility. The markets
available were highly dependent on transportation
distances with most not transporting material more
than about 100 km from the facility.
The uses for wood included the following options:
 Wood based fuel for pulp mills
 Wood based fuel for greenhouse boilers
 Wood used to produce chip board
 Wood fuels with lower valued plastics (mixed 4 to
7) for fuel to cement kilns.
 Wood chips for landscaping (colorant added)
 Wood chips for cattle bedding in winter.
 Wood for digester
 Wood for co‐generation facility to produce
electricity
 Wood for other agriculture purposes.

Roofing material was collected by a few facilities.

Some were grinding and then using in paving while
others used it in the fuel mix with wood discussed
above.
One facility surveyed also collected and recycled
carpet.

Page 51

What quality criteria do the Metals ‐ Ferrous: Depends on criteria set by local

current markets accessible to recycler and can vary between locations. Some
the MRF require? recyclers do not want to accept wire like material,
which could force facility to shear material to make it
acceptable.
 Metals ‐ non‐ferrous ‐ Again depend on criteria
set by local recycler and can vary between
locations.
 Cardboard or OCC: Bailed and must be free of
contamination although some is tolerated.
 Plastics ‐ #1 and #2 ‐ Bailed and for the most part,
free of contamination although some is tolerated.
Lots of issues in the past with large contamination
issues in bails of plastic which results in cutting off
of export markets.
 Concrete and rocks: generally free of other
contaminants.

Wood quality criteria are highly dependent on end

users need and the application.
Wood for fuel in a pulp mill is generally free of
plastics and ground to 3" minus.
Wood for fuel in a cement kiln, plastic addition is
encouraged however material must be ground much
finer from 1' minus and lower depending on user.
Wood fuel can also be used for greenhouse boilers
and generally must be 100% wood.
Wood used in fuels must not contain any mercury
based paints.
For the remainder of the uses, most require about a
2" minus material however wood for landscape
chips, use in a digester and agriculture applications
must be made up of pure wood commonly referred
to as pure wood. No manufactured wood such as
plywood are acceptable in these applications ‐ this
requires MRFs to sort wood further by separating
pure wood from manufactured woods.
Are there regulatory policies Regulatory policies were highly variable depending
in place that support markets on locations. Many counties in Washington state had
for recovered DLC materials? flow control regulations. We were advised that these
varied in effectiveness as they are very hard to police.

Page 52

Other locations surveyed had no policies while in

Alberta local authorities tried using pricing as an
incentive to drive recycling and recovery. Surcharges
on some publically owned landfills for recyclable
materials combined with cheaper tip fees for
recyclable waste is used to entice recycling.
In Europe there are more restrictive landfill bans and
directives that prevent DLC materials from going to
landfill or even being incinerated prior to going to a
sort facility.
How do the products compare The Vancouver market offers a number of
to quality criteria for markets opportunities for recovered materials. Metals,
accessible to the Metro plastics, cardboard, concrete and asphalt all have
Vancouver region? readily available markets for these products of
recovery.

There are a number of options for wood primarily in
the fuel markets. Facility equipment can be easily
tailored to meet the quality criteria of the market
place.

What is the approximate Most facilities seemed to cover a 100 km radius for
geographic range of the the wood based products.
market for recovered MRFs with access to water and barge loading
materials? facilities have the opportunity to ship even further
distances economically.
For metals, plastic and cardboard, these could go in
containers overseas.
Roofing material if collected and processed was
similar to wood with about a 100 km radius but could
be transported further due to its higher value when
used in paving applications.
What are the market prices Metal ‐ ferrous range from $160 to $190/tonne
for MRF recovered materials? Metals ‐ non‐ferrous mix $1.80 to $2.80/ pound
Plastic #1 and #2: $0.25 per pound
Cardboard ‐ $100/tonne
Wood pricing is highly variable and depends on
supply and demand, application being sold into and
the transport costs to get the product to the user.

Page 53

Revenue from wood sales netted the recycle facility
after transport costs from zero dollars (essentially no
revenue ‐ just cost of disposal avoidance) to up to
$20/tonne revenue.
Aggregate materials revenue ranged from $0 to up to
$12/tonne at FOB the MRF.
What are the market prices The commodity pricing for materials such as metal,
for alternative materials that plastic and cardboard have no direct competition, as
compete with MRF recovered there are no direct competitors for these recycled
materials? materials. They are all based on market pricing for
recycled streams.
It was generally felt by most facilities that the wood
streams being supplied were at prices very close to
virgin streams of the same material where
competition existed.
Aggregate and fill materials were usually sold at a
discount to virgin materials.
What other end‐use market Most facility owners felt they were servicing all the
options are there for end use markets available to them within the
recovered materials that are geographic area they could ship too.
not currently being supplied Facility owners are always looking for other off take
and why? opportunities and some were working on new
opportunities ‐ for example the Ontario facility was
trying to develop a fuel stream for a newly
constructed waste to energy facility.
Tonnage of products with Tonnages varied substantially between facilities and
‘proven’ markets (i.e. no depended on throughput of recycle facility; options
regulatory barriers to use, for off take of products depending on local market
diverse customer base, demand for various applications of materials,
quality comparable to particularly wood.
alternative materials,
generates revenue).
Tonnage of products with There were not a lot of variable market situations.
‘variable’ markets. (i.e. There were some seasonal products that were noted
regulatory barriers to use, few at several facilities. Wood for animal bedding was a
customers, contamination winter product while wood for landscaping was more
concern to users, seasonal of a spring product.
demand, easily substitutable,
customers receive material
for free, at low cost, or with
compensation).

Page 54

3. MRF Diversion Potential

Are there bans to disposal for Generally there were no disposal bans for DLC,
DLC materials? however, pricing was used to encourage recycling as
previously discussed.
Many counties in Washington state try to use flow
control but most operators there feel it does not work
well because it is too hard to monitor and enforce.
How are they enforced? Not very well where there is flow control. The more
private haulers in the market, the more difficult to
monitor and control.
Does the jurisdiction have any Some jurisdictions did but most did not. See comment
DLC material flow control above regarding Washington state.
measures?
What are the tipping fees for Pricing varied significantly between various jurisdictions
various categories of materials
as well as rates for various materials. Some facilities
accepted at the MRF, and how chose to have a one price for everything structure (more
do these compare to tipping common in Europe) whereas others had different rates
fees at competing disposal for different materials streams.
sites? Mixed loads or comingled wastes ranged from as low as
$65/tonne to over $110/tonne ‐pricing likely driven by
other local landfill options and any discount necessary
to attract customers.
Many locations had a price for exclusively wood loads at
a discount of $20$55/tonne because these loads are
less costly to process and have the best end use
markets.
The MRFs that accepted roofing materials had tip fees
ranging from $40 to $90/tonne.
How many haulers deliver DLC This ranged from a dozen to hundreds. Generally the
waste to the MRF? larger the facility, the more haulers.
In addition, some facilities also have an associated bin
business ‐ this means deliveries are made by both
internally generated business as well as third‐party
haulers.
What is the reliability of Facilities do not have formal contracts with suppliers.
feedstock? Is it variable by Some large suppliers do get preferential volume
season? Does the MRF have

Page 55

feedstock contracts? discounted pricing, which is conveyed in letters or

emails.
Volumes can be seasonal and fluctuate with
construction activity during the seasons. Stages of
construction also generate different load compositions
with more wood generally coming at the beginning of a
project.
What is the total annual input Facilities surveyed varied from 25,000 to about 150,000
tonnage? mt per year.
What are the categories of Most facilities had restrictions on incoming materials
accepted materials and load versus setting specific tolerance levels.
quality (i.e. contamination All facilities did not accept the following:
tolerance levels)?
 Asbestos containing materials
 Painted wood containing mercury
 Putrescible or household waste materials
 Some did not accept treated wood
 No banned materials
 No hazardous waste
One facility wanted a min of 75% recyclable material for
acceptance but they seemed to be the exception.
What is the typical material Most facilities had no idea on load compositions and
composition of different loads others could only give estimates on composition based
by source (residential, on observation and measures of outgoing streams.
commercial) and activity Commercial streams were an integral portion of the
(construction, demolition or incoming stream to the facilities and were the most
renovation)? likely to be source separated or pure single stream
materials such as a load of wood only. Facilities often
use lower pricing to encourage single stream wood
loads. These loads are the most desirable because they
require the least amount of processing effort and cost
to the facility operator.
Construction loads varied depending on project stage.
Renovation and demolition streams were likely to be
the most comingled stream of various components.
Where estimates were available, about half to two
thirds of incoming material was wood, yet it could be a
lower percentage. The main factor impacting this
number was the facility’s desire to attract pure wood
loads from the market.

Page 56

Plastics ranged from 5‐10% of the incoming materials,
and metals, cardboard, fines and aggregates all
contributed under 10% each and varied depending on
the source.
How does the typical material Most of the areas surveyed had similar load
composition compare to the compositions in comparison to the Metro Vancouver
composition of loads in Metro area for DLC streams. The commercial streams that
Vancouver? typically result in single homogenous loads are also
available in Vancouver.
European building materials are different in comparison
to North American materials so load compositions
would not be as comparable.
What are the processing Challenges most commonly identified were as follows:
challenges for each type of  contamination in loads ‐ customer education and
load by source and activity? feedback helps
 controlling fines and dust issues
 staffing for sort lines
 getting all the valuable materials separated in
comingled streams

Are there categories and types Most facilities did not stop taking any specific
of loads that are no longer materials.
accepted? Why not?
What are the recovery levels The recovery levels for most facilities were obviously
for the various categories of largely dependent on availability of economically
accepted load quality (e.g. feasible end markets for their streams.
pre‐sorted loads, mixed loads Most facilities are getting at least 75% recovery rates
with less than a specified with some getting 85% and better. Higher recovery
percentage of contamination, rates are enhanced by acceptance of single
mixed loads with a higher homogenous loads of materials like straight wood or
level of contamination, etc.)? roofing. In these loads, recycle rates are typically over
Provide for each category. 95% and up to essentially 100%.
Source and activity most likely As discussed above, homogenous loads will naturally
to generate each category of yield the highest diversion rates. With some selection
load quality. and screening processes, loads of commercial waste can
also yield higher recovery levels. Demolition and
construction tend to be the most comingled and
therefore more costly and difficult to perform recovery
processes.
Diversion rate of DLC MRF – to Varied from an unacceptable 40% (operators want to
proven markets. get to 80% to over 90%).

Page 57

Diversion rate for DLC waste in Most MRFs surveyed were performing on par with other
the jurisdiction. local facilities.

4. MRF Regulatory Policies

Are there any regulations In most cases the facility required a permit issued
related to operation or by the regulating body such as Ministry of the
licensing of MRFs? Environment and a business license.
What are the zoning or land use Usually Industrial or Heavy Industrial zoning was
requirements for siting a DLC required to site a MRF.
MRF?
Does the MRF have to go In most cases there was a public notification
through a public notification process and meeting(s).
process before the site is
approved?
What is the hourly wage for the Varied from $12 to $15/hr and from 8 to more than
MRF sorters, and how many 20 on the pick line depending on the size of MRF.
sorters work on each shift? Sorting is a difficult job and it is hard to keep good
people ‐ there is a high turnover.
Some companies use bonus incentives to
encourage people to stay while another company
contracts the work out to a company that works
with "in‐trouble" youth to provide them with a job.
How many staff and hourly Numbers of total hourly and staff was highly
work at the facility? dependent on size and throughput of facility.
Sorters were usually the largest part of the
workforce. Several mobile equipment operators
were employed as well as several maintenance and
electrical personnel. A person to operate the scale
and basic office staff for billing etc. are also
needed.
Often facility owners did their own business
development on outgoing materials and managing
the incoming customers. Larger facilities did have
additional staff to do sales as well.
What is the cost of energy in Power ranged depending on location but was
the MRFs jurisdiction? around $0.06 to $0.08/Kw‐hr [in Netherlands it is
0.28/kwh]

Page 58

How much effort is invested in Not a lot of effort is invested on a day‐to‐day basis
marketing and finding for most facilities. Owners' network, go to
customers for recovered occasional conferences to generate new leads.
materials? Markets are limited to a geographic radius.
What are the MRF gross Business model to be developed separately.
production costs for products
comparable to the quality
criteria for markets accessible
to the Metro Vancouver
region? (e.g. capital and
operating expenses per tonne
received, not including the
cost of land)?
What is the split in revenue Most facilities get the bulk of their revenue from
between tipping fees, product tip fees ranging from 60‐80%. The remainder is
sales, and other revenues? mostly product sales.
Metal recycling and cardboard does provide a good
stream of income.

Page 59

APPENDIX 3: MRF INCOME RESULTS EXAMPLE

URBAN WOOD PLANT REVENUE CALCULATION
Due to unknown exact cost for labour and equipment we can only submit the operational cost estimate
working labour cost per

YELLOW TO BE FILLED IN Labour hours hour & machines Shifts Fuel /kW cost cost per year cost per ton Throughput /HR
ltr&hours C ost per shift 120,000 52.39
Plant Supervisor 1 2000 $ 37.50 $ 75,000.00 1.33 $ 100,000.00 $ 0.83
Wheelloader Operator 1 2000 $ 34.38 $ 68,750.00 1.33 $ 91,666.67 $ 0.76
Wheel loader cost per hr 1718 $ 30.00 $ 51,540.00 1.33 $ 68,720.00 $ 0.57
Wheelloader fuel consumption 1718 25.0 $ 42,950.00 1.33 $ 1.25 $ 57,266.67 $ 0.48
Excavator Operator 1 2000 $ 34.38 $ 68,750.00 1.33 $ 91,666.67 $ 0.76
Excavator cost per hr 1718 $ 25.00 $ 42,950.00 1.33 $ 57,266.67 $ 0.48
Excavator fuel consumption 1718 20.00 $ 34,360.00 1.33 $ 1.25 $ 45,813.33 $ 0.38
Post sorting after Drum screen 4 2000 $ 22.50 $ 180,000.00 1.33 $ 240,000.00 $ 2.00
Post sorting QC 6 2000 $ 22.50 $ 270,000.00 1.33 $ 360,000.00 $ 3.00
C onsumables labour general 13 2000 $ 1.00 $ 26,000.00 1.33 $ 34,666.67 $ 0.29
Mechanic included in maintenance cost

kW/hr kW/total per shift
Power cost including woodline 900 1718 average load 1,546,200 1.3 $ 0.09 $ 185,544.00 $ 1.55
Total operational cost per ton for sorting plant $ 1,332,610.67 $ 11.11
Operational cost WOOD LINE

Sorters on sortline 4 2000 $ 22.50 $ 180,000.00 1.3 $ 240,000.00 $ 2.00
Wheelloader Operator 1 2000 $ 22.50 $ 45,000.00 1.3 $ 60,000.00 $ 0.50
Wheel loader 1718 $ 25.00 $ 42,950.00 1.3 $ 57,266.67 $ 0.48
Wheelloader fuel consumption 1718 15.0 $ 25,770.00 1.3 $ 1.25 $ 34,360.00 $ 0.29
C onsumables labour general 5 2000 $ 1.00 $ 10,000.00 1.3 $ 13,333.33 $ 0.11
Total cost operational for wood shredding line per ton based on equal tonnage processed $ 404,960.00 $ 3.37
Operational cost for the sorting plant including wood shredding plant $ 14.48
Repair & maintenance cost average over 15 years $ 4.37
Financial cost per year Ton per year

120,000.0
Investments sort Depreciation in
Description line + wood line Average interest years Debit per year
Plant investment $ 10,000,000.00 10 $ 1,000,000.00
Interest on plant
(average
interest) $ 10,000,000.00 6.00% $ 255,948.95
Invest Buildings
& Site $ 5,000,000.00 20 $ 250,000.00
Interest
Buildings & Site
(average
interest) $ 5,000,000.00 6.00% $ 145,973.44
maintenance
Building & Site $ 5,000,000.00 6.00% $ 300,000.00
Financial cost
per year $1,951,922.39 $ 16.27
Total cost operational for wood shredding line per ton based on equal tonnage processed $ 14.48
Maintenance cost per ton average over 15 years $ 4.37
Total cost per ton $ 35.12
material sales
Total inbound Percentage 120,000 Tip in Price Recovery recovered tons tonage to landfill per ton total yield yield per ton
Aggregates 5.00% 6,000 $64 75% 4,500 1,500 -$ 10.00 -$45,000
Natural ADC 0.00% 0 $64 25% 0 0 $ - $0
Wood 60.50% 72,600 $45 90% 65,340 7,260 $ 30.00 $1,960,200
Select Wood 5.00% 6,000 $25 100% 6,000 $ 30.00 $180,000
Demolition $45 90%
Plastics including 10.00% 12,000 $64 100% 12,000 0 $ 30.00 $360,000
PVC 2.00% 2,400 $64 0% 0 2,400 $ - $0
Ferrous 3.00% 3,600 $64 100% 3,600 0 $ 150.00 $540,000
Non Ferrous 1.00% 1,200 $64 100% 1,200 0 $ 350.00 $420,000
Paper & C ard 0.50%
board 600 $64 100% 600 0 $ 100.00 $60,000
Garbage 10.00% 12,000 $80 50% 6,000 6,000 $ 30.00 $180,000
Other 3.00% 3,600 $64 50% 1,800 1,800 -$ 3.00 -$5,400
100.00% 120,000 101,040 18,960 $3,649,800 $ 36.12
Recovery rate 84.2% 15.8%
Total absorbed cost per ton ($35.12)
tons/year Ton material sales total Per ton

Tipping fee to site 120,000 $ 52.16 $6,258,600 $52.16 $52.16
Revenue end products to market 120,000 101,040 $ 36.12 $3,649,800 $30.42 $30.42
Landfill air Space Savings from compressed materia 0% 101,040 $ - $0 $0.00 $ -
Delivery costs of finished products 101,040 -$ 12.00 ($1,212,480) ($10.10) ($10.10)
Disposal cost residual per ton to landf 120,000 18,960 -$ 60.00 ($1,092,600) ($9.11) ($9.11)
Transport cost to landfill 18,960 -$ 13.00 ($246,480) ($2.05) ($2.05)
General C ontingency for Admin and miscellaneous (percentage of tip-in) -10.0% ($625,860) ($5.22) ($5.22)
PEF market yes

Net Revenue per ton Ton/year $ 20.97
Net Income per year 120,000 $ 2,516,976.95
EBITDA per year 120,000 $ 4,468,899.33

Page 60

APPENDIX 4: MRF MASS BALANCE EXAMPLE

Material flow calculations Change all % in yellow to create multiple processing scenarios
Feeder / Size Reducer 3-D Trommel -50 Screen
Input material Negative <16" Negative

INFEED R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%] R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 3.000 t/h 5.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 100.0% 3.000 t/h 5.0% Aggregates 3.000 t/h 5.00% 25.0% 0.750 t/h 10.7% 2.250 t/h 4.2%
Natural ADC 6.000 t/h 10.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 6.000 t/h 10.0% Natural ADC 6.000 t/h 10.00% 25.0% 1.500 t/h 21.5% 4.500 t/h 8.5%
Wood 33.000 t/h 55.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 33.000 t/h 55.0% Wood 33.000 t/h 55.00% 5.0% 1.650 t/h 23.6% 31.350 t/h 59.1%
Plastics including film 7.200 t/h 12.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 7.200 t/h 12.0% Plastics including film 7.200 t/h 12.00% 10.0% 0.720 t/h 10.3% 6.480 t/h 12.2%
PVC 1.200 t/h 2.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 1.200 t/h 2.0% PVC 1.200 t/h 2.00% 10.0% 0.120 t/h 1.7% 1.080 t/h 2.0%
Ferrous 1.800 t/h 3.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 1.800 t/h 3.0% Ferrous 1.800 t/h 3.00% 15.0% 0.270 t/h 3.9% 1.530 t/h 2.9%
Non ferrous 0.600 t/h 1.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.600 t/h 1.0% Non ferrous 0.600 t/h 1.00% 15.0% 0.090 t/h 1.3% 0.510 t/h 1.0%
Paper & Cardboard 2.400 t/h 4.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 2.400 t/h 4.0% Paper & Cardboard 2.400 t/h 4.00% 10.0% 0.240 t/h 3.4% 2.160 t/h 4.1%
Garbage & organics 3.000 t/h 5.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 3.000 t/h 5.0% Garbage & organics 3.000 t/h 5.00% 40.0% 1.200 t/h 17.2% 1.800 t/h 3.4%
Other 1.800 t/h 3.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 1.800 t/h 3.0% Other 1.800 t/h 3.00% 25.0% 0.450 t/h 6.4% 1.350 t/h 2.5%
0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 60.00 t/h 100.00% 0.000 t/h 100.0% 60.000 t/h 100.0% Total 60.000 t/h 100.0% 6.990 t/h 100.0% 53.010 t/h 100.0%
Drum Air - Heavy / Medium
Heavies Negative Mass Balance

Continued
R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 2.137 t/h 0.00% 99.0% 2.116 t/h 43.7% 0.021 t/h 0.0%
Natural ADC 4.275 t/h 0.00% 5.0% 0.214 t/h 4.4% 4.061 t/h 9.4%
Wood 28.215 t/h 0.00% 1.0% 0.282 t/h 5.8% 27.933 t/h 64.7%
5.832 t/h 0.117 t/h 5.715 t/h

Plastics including film 0.00% 2.0% 2.4% 13.2%
PVC 0.972 t/h 0.00% 25.0% 0.243 t/h 5.0% 0.729 t/h 1.7%
Ferrous 1.377 t/h 0.00% 98.0% 1.349 t/h 27.9% 0.028 t/h 0.1%
Non ferrous 0.459 t/h 0.00% 85.0% 0.390 t/h 8.1% 0.069 t/h 0.2%
Paper & Cardboard 1.944 t/h 0.00% 2.0% 0.039 t/h 0.8% 1.905 t/h 4.4%
Garbage & organics 1.620 t/h 0.00% 2.0% 0.032 t/h 0.7% 1.588 t/h 3.7%
Other 1.215 t/h 0.00% 5.0% 0.061 t/h 1.3% 1.154 t/h 2.7%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 48.046 t/h 0.0% 4.843 t/h 100.0% 43.203 t/h 100.0%
Magnet F2 M1 Magnet F3
FE Negative FE Negative
R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow % R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 0.750 t/h 10.73% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.750 11.14% Aggregates 2.116 t/h 43.69% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 2.116 t/h 61.0%
Natural ADC 1.500 t/h 21.46% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.500 22.28% Natural ADC 0.214 t/h 4.41% 5.0% 0.011 t/h 0.8% 0.203 t/h 5.9%
Wood 1.650 t/h 23.61% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.650 24.50% Wood 0.282 t/h 5.83% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.282 t/h 8.1%
Plastics including film 0.720 t/h 10.30% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.720 10.69% Plastics including film 0.117 t/h 2.41% 20.0% 0.023 t/h 1.7% 0.093 t/h 2.7%
PVC 0.120 t/h 1.72% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.120 1.78% PVC 0.243 t/h 5.02% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.243 t/h 7.0%
Ferrous 0.270 t/h 3.86% 95.00% 0.257 t/h 100.00% 0.014 0.20% Ferrous 1.349 t/h 27.86% 99.0% 1.336 t/h 97.2% 0.013 t/h 0.4%
Non ferrous 0.090 t/h 1.29% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.090 1.34% Non ferrous 0.390 t/h 8.06% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.390 t/h 11.2%
Paper & Cardboard 0.240 t/h 3.43% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.240 3.56% Paper & Cardboard 0.039 t/h 0.80% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.039 t/h 1.1%
Garbage & organics 1.200 t/h 17.17% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.200 17.82% Garbage & organics 0.032 t/h 0.67% 5.0% 0.002 t/h 0.1% 0.031 t/h 0.9%
Other 0.450 t/h 6.44% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.450 6.68% Other 0.061 t/h 1.25% 5.0% 0.003 t/h 0.2% 0.058 t/h 1.7%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.000 0.00% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.000 0.00% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.000 0.00% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 1.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 6.990 t/h 100.00% 0.257 t/h 100.00% 6.733 100.00% Total 4.843 t/h 100.0% 1.375 t/h 100.0% 3.468 t/h 100.0%
FERROUS to bunker FERROUS to bunker Sortline C27
Vibratory screen FS 2
WALAIR T3
0-15 mm
2" - 4" Negative

R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%] R [%] mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 0.750 t/h 0.00% 50.0% 0.375 t/h 15.3% 0.375 t/h 8.8% Aggregates 0.375 t/h 0.088 t/h 95.0% 0.356 t/h 64.8% 0.019 t/h 0.5%
Natural ADC 1.500 t/h 0.00% 50.0% 0.750 t/h 30.6% 0.750 t/h 17.5% Natural ADC 0.750 t/h 0.175 t/h 5.0% 0.038 t/h 6.8% 0.713 t/h 19.1%
Wood 1.650 t/h 0.00% 5.0% 0.083 t/h 3.4% 1.568 t/h 36.6% Wood 1.568 t/h 0.366 t/h 5.0% 0.078 t/h 14.3% 1.489 t/h 39.9%
Plastics including film 0.720 t/h 0.00% 10.0% 0.072 t/h 2.9% 0.648 t/h 15.1% Plastics including film 0.648 t/h 0.151 t/h 5.0% 0.032 t/h 5.9% 0.616 t/h 16.5%
PVC 0.120 t/h 0.00% 5.0% 0.006 t/h 0.2% 0.114 t/h 2.7% PVC 0.114 t/h 0.027 t/h 5.0% 0.006 t/h 1.0% 0.108 t/h 2.9%
Ferrous 0.014 t/h 0.00% 10.0% 0.001 t/h 0.1% 0.012 t/h 0.3% Ferrous 0.012 t/h 0.003 t/h 5.0% 0.001 t/h 0.1% 0.012 t/h 0.3%
Non ferrous 0.090 t/h 0.00% 25.0% 0.023 t/h 0.9% 0.068 t/h 1.6% Non ferrous 0.068 t/h 0.016 t/h 2.0% 0.001 t/h 0.2% 0.066 t/h 1.8%
Paper & Cardboard 0.240 t/h 0.00% 95.0% 0.228 t/h 9.3% 0.012 t/h 0.3% Paper & Cardboard 0.012 t/h 0.003 t/h 5.0% 0.001 t/h 0.1% 0.011 t/h 0.3%
Garbage & organics 1.200 t/h 0.00% 50.0% 0.600 t/h 24.5% 0.600 t/h 14.0% Garbage & organics 0.600 t/h 0.140 t/h 5.0% 0.030 t/h 5.5% 0.570 t/h 15.3%
Other 0.450 t/h 0.00% 70.0% 0.315 t/h 12.8% 0.135 t/h 3.2% Other 0.135 t/h 0.032 t/h 5.0% 0.007 t/h 1.2% 0.128 t/h 3.4%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 6.733 t/h 0.0% 2.452 t/h 100.0% 4.281 t/h 100.0% Total 4.281 t/h 100.00% 0.549 t/h 100.0% 3.732 t/h 100.0%
To FINES 0-15 To sortline aggregates C27

Page 61

3D drumscreen -400 mm
2" minus 2" - 16"

Wood 31.350 t/h 59.14% 90.0% 28.215 t/h 58.7% 3.135 t/h 63.2%
Plastics including film 6.480 t/h 12.22% 90.0% 5.832 t/h 12.1% 0.648 t/h 13.1%
PVC 1.080 t/h 2.04% 90.0% 0.972 t/h 2.0% 0.108 t/h 2.2%
Ferrous 1.530 t/h 2.89% 90.0% 1.377 t/h 2.9% 0.153 t/h 3.1%
Other 1.350 t/h 2.55% 90.0% 1.215 t/h 2.5% 0.135 t/h 2.7%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 53.010 t/h 100.00% 48.046 t/h 100.0% 4.963 t/h 100.0%
To WALAIR
Mass Balance Continued
Drum Air - Medium / Light
Mediums Negative
Wood 27.933 t/h 64.65% 95.0% 26.536 t/h 88.1% 1.397 t/h 10.7%
5.715 t/h 0.857 t/h 4.858 t/h

Plastics including film 13.23% 15.0% 2.8% 37.2%
PVC 0.729 t/h 1.69% 30.0% 0.219 t/h 0.7% 0.510 t/h 3.9%
Ferrous 0.028 t/h 0.06% 90.0% 0.025 t/h 0.1% 0.003 t/h 0.0%
Other 1.154 t/h 2.67% 30.0% 0.346 t/h 1.1% 0.808 t/h 6.2%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 43.203 t/h 100.00% 30.130 t/h 100.0% 13.073 t/h 100.0%
TITECH T3 2800
Flat
Wood 26.536 t/h 88.07% 2.0% 0.531 t/h 21.5% 26.005 t/h 94.0%
PVC 0.219 t/h 0.73% 95.0% 0.208 t/h 8.4% 0.011 t/h 0.0%
Ferrous 0.025 t/h 0.08% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.025 t/h 0.1%
Other 0.346 t/h 1.15% 50.0% 0.173 t/h 7.0% 0.173 t/h 0.6%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 30.130 t/h 100.00% 2.472 t/h 100.0% 27.658 t/h 100.0%
to sortline C32 to sortline C31

Titech 2000

Negative
11089287 Report on Demolition,
R [%] Land
mass flowClearing
C [%] and Construction
mass flow C [%] Material Recovery Facilities Study
Wood 1.489 t/h 39.91% 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% 1.489 t/h 41.1%
Page 62

Mass Balance
400 mm Post sorting line

Negative
R [%]
mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 0.112 t/h 4.24% 100.0%
0.112 t/h 2.4% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Natural ADC 0.225 t/h 8.49% 95.0%

0.214 t/h 4.6% 0.011 t/h 3.8%

3.135 t/h
3.104 t/h 0.031 t/h

Wood 59.14% 99.0% 66.5% 10.6%
PVC 0.108 t/h 2.04% 95.0%

0.103 t/h 2.2% 0.005 t/h 1.8%
Ferrous 0.153 t/h 2.89% 99.0%

0.151 t/h 3.2% 0.002 t/h 0.5%
Non ferrous 0.051 t/h 0.96% 99.0%

0.050 t/h 1.1% 0.001 t/h 0.2%
Paper & Cardboard 0.216 t/h 4.07% 99.0%

0.214 t/h 4.6% 0.002 t/h 0.7%
Garbage & organics 0.180 t/h 3.40% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.180 t/h 60.6%
Other 0.135 t/h 2.55% 100.0%

0.135 t/h 2.9% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 100.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 100.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 100.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
4.963 t/h
4.666 t/h 100.0% 0.297 t/h 100.0%

Total 100.00%
Sortline C4 To Bunkers TO RESIDUAL
TITEC T2 2800 PEF PEF shredder 0-25/30 mm
Negative Film Negative

R [%]
mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%] R [%] mass flowC [%]
mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 0.000 t/h 0.00% 80.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% Aggregates 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Natural ADC 3.046 t/h 23.30% 5.0%

0.152 t/h 14.7% 2.894 t/h 24.0% Natural ADC 2.894 t/h 24.04% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 2.894 t/h 24.0%
Wood 1.397 t/h 10.68% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 1.397 t/h 11.6% Wood 1.397 t/h 11.60% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 1.397 t/h 11.6%

Plastics including film
4.858 t/h
37.16% 5.0%

0.243 t/h
23.4%
4.615 t/h
38.3% Plastics including film
4.615 t/h
38.35% 0.0%

0.000 t/h
#DIV/0!
4.615 t/h 38.3%
PVC 0.510 t/h 3.90% 95.0%

0.485 t/h 46.7% 0.026 t/h 0.2% PVC 0.026 t/h 0.21% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.026 t/h 0.2%
Ferrous 0.003 t/h 0.02% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.003 t/h 0.0% Ferrous 0.003 t/h 0.02% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.003 t/h 0.0%
Non ferrous 0.007 t/h 0.05% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.007 t/h 0.1% Non ferrous 0.007 t/h 0.06% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.007 t/h 0.1%

0.040 t/h 3.9% 1.294 t/h 10.7% Paper & Cardboard 1.294 t/h 10.75% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 1.294 t/h 10.7%

0.078 t/h 7.5% 1.034 t/h 8.6% Garbage & organics 1.034 t/h 8.59% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 1.034 t/h 8.6%
Other 0.808 t/h 6.18% 5.0%

0.040 t/h 3.9% 0.768 t/h 6.4% Other 0.768 t/h 6.38% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.768 t/h 6.4%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 0.000 t/h 0.0%
13.073 t/h
1.038 t/h 100.0% 12.035 t/h 100.0% 12.035 t/h
0.000 t/h #DIV/0! 12.035 t/h

Total 100.00% Total 100.00% 100.0%
To PVC Bunker To shredder PEF PEF
WOOD QC line wood hogger

WOOD LINE Negative WOOD LINE Negative
R [%]
mass flow C [%] mass flow C [%] R [%] mass flowC [%]
mass flow C [%]
Aggregates 0.021 t/h 0.08% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.021 t/h 0.1% Aggregates 0.021 t/h 0.08% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 100.0% 0.021 t/h 0.1%
Natural ADC 0.508 t/h 1.84% 25.0%

0.127 t/h 7.5% 0.381 t/h 1.5% Natural ADC 0.381 t/h 1.47% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.381 t/h 1.5%
Wood 26.005 t/h 94.03% 5.0%

1.300 t/h 76.3% 24.705 t/h 95.2% Wood 24.705 t/h 95.19% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 24.705 t/h 95.2%

Plastics including film 0.043 t/h 0.15% 50.0%
0.021 t/h 1.3% 0.021 t/h 0.1% Plastics including film 0.021 t/h 0.08% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.021 t/h 0.1%
PVC 0.011 t/h 0.04% 50.0%

0.005 t/h 0.3% 0.005 t/h 0.0% PVC 0.005 t/h 0.02% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.005 t/h 0.0%
Ferrous 0.025 t/h 0.09% 50.0%

0.012 t/h 0.7% 0.012 t/h 0.0% Ferrous 0.012 t/h 0.05% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.012 t/h 0.0%
Non ferrous 0.062 t/h 0.22% 50.0%

0.031 t/h 1.8% 0.031 t/h 0.1% Non ferrous 0.031 t/h 0.12% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.031 t/h 0.1%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.572 t/h 2.2% Paper & Cardboard 0.572 t/h 2.20% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.572 t/h 2.2%

0.119 t/h 7.0% 0.119 t/h 0.5% Garbage & organics 0.119 t/h 0.46% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.119 t/h 0.5%
Other 0.173 t/h 0.63% 50.0%

0.087 t/h 5.1% 0.087 t/h 0.3% Other 0.087 t/h 0.33% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.087 t/h 0.3%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
- 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%

0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0% - 0.000 t/h 0.00% 0.0%
0.000 t/h 0.0% 0.000 t/h 0.0%
Total 27.658 t/h

100.00%
1.703 t/h 100.0% 25.955 t/h 100.0% Total 25.955 t/h 100.00%
0.000 t/h
100.0% 25.955 t/h 100.0%
Wood QC Line C31 WOOD LINE WOOD HOGGER infeed from C&D WOOD LINE


Demolition Construction Material Recovery Facility Diversion Potential

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Demolition Construction Material Recovery Facility Diversion Potential

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Report on Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction Material Recovery Facilities Study

Photo: TAZ (sporkist) Flickr

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Report Introduction and Context ............................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Study of Existing MRFs ................................................................................................................................... 11

1.3 Report Structure ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.0 Results from Research of DLC MRFS ...................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Summary Information about the Researched MRFs .......................................................................... 13

2.2 Products and Markets for Recovered Materials ................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Logistics and Pricing for End Products ............................................................................................... 15

2.2.2 Land Clearing Debris .................................................................................................................................. 16

2.2.3 Regulations and Policies for Recovered Materials ......................................................................... 16

2.3 Diversion Potential for the MRFs ............................................................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Composition of Incoming Materials ..................................................................................................... 17

2.3.2 Level of Technology Used in Processing Materials ........................................................................ 20

2.3.3 Local Opportunities to Sell the End Products .................................................................................. 20

2.3.4 Quality of End Products and Customer Specifications ................................................................. 21

2.4.1 Permitting and Licensing.......................................................................................................................... 21

3.0 DLC MRF Configurations and Economics ............................................................................................. 24

3.1 DLC MRF Configurations ................................................................................................................................ 24

3.2 DLC MRF Recycling Economics …………………………………………………………………………………. 25

3.3 Factors Affecting MRF Configurations ..................................................................................................... 28

3.3.1 Incoming Material Composition ............................................................................................................ 28

3.3.2 Annual Volume of Material ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.3.5 Personal Preferences for Equipment................................................................................................... 30

3.4 Economics of automated DLC MRFs ......................................................................................................... 31

3.4.1 The Mass Balance Tool .............................................................................................................................. 33

4.0 Current State of DLC Diversion in Metro Vancouver ....................................................................... 34

4.1 Current Metro Vancouver DLC MRFs ....................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Drivers for a Fully Automated DLC Infrastructure ............................................................................. 36

5.1.1 Effective tip fee structure by regulators ............................................................................................ 36

5.1.2 End Product Market Diversity and Demand ..................................................................................... 37

5.1.3 Processing Capacity .................................................................................................................................... 39

5.1.5 Site Where a Facility Would be Built ................................................................................................... 41

6.0 Regulations and Policies to Facilitate Diversion of DLC ................................................................ 43

6.1 Regulating or Encouraging DLC Material to MRFs .............................................................................. 43

References .............................................................................................................................................................. 46

1.1 REPORT INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1.2 STUDY OF EXISTING MRFS

1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE

RESULTS FROM RESEARCH OF DLC MRFS

1.4 SUMMARY INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCHED MRFS

1.5 PRODUCTS AND MARKETS FOR RECOVERED MATERIALS

1.5.1 Logistics and Pricing for End Products

1.5.2 Land Clearing Debris

1.5.3 Regulations and Policies for Recovered Materials

1.6 DIVERSION POTENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE SURVEYED MRFS

Composition by Weight for MV DLC in 2011

Source: Metro Van • A.ET study, 2011

1.6.2 Level of Sophistication Used in Processing Materials

1.6.3 Local Opportunities to Sell the End Products

1.6.4 Quality of End Products and Customer Specifications

1.7 REGULATORY POLICIES FOR PERMITTING AND OPERATING A DLC MRF

1.8 REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT AFFECT DIVERSION RATES

DLC MRF CONFIGURATIONS AND ECONOMICS

1.9 DLC MRF CONFIGURATIONS

1.9.1 Simple DLC MRF System

1.9.2 Intermediate DLC MRF System

1.9.3 Sophisticated DLC MRF System

1.10 DLC MRF RECYCLING ECONOMICS

1.11 FACTORS AFFECTING MRF CONFIGURATIONS

1.11.1 Incoming Material Composition

1.11.2 Annual Volume of Material

1.11.3 Markets & End Use for Recovered Materials