Forceman Ridge Waste Management Facility and … Preliminary Design Overview Prepared for: Regional...

25% Preliminary Design Overview25% Preliminary Design Overview

Prepared for: Prepared for: Regional District of Regional District of KitimatKitimat--StikineStikine

Forceman Ridge Waste ManagementForceman Ridge Waste ManagementFacilityFacility andandThornhill Transfer StationThornhill Transfer Station

OutlineOutline

Project Background and Scope

Thornhill Transfer Station

Haul Route and Landfill Access Road

Forceman Ridge Waste Management Facility

Organic Diversion and Composting

Septage Facility

Leachate Management

Cost Estimate

2

2

Project TeamProject Team

Key StakeholdersKey Stakeholders

3

MINISTRY OF MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENT

Local InvolvementLocal Involvement

• Structural Eng.

• Electrical Eng.

• Survey

• Field Investigation

• Road Design

• Hwy Intersection

Environmental ExpertiseEnvironmental Expertise

• Organic Diversion

• Composting

• Phytoremediation • Transfer Station

• Landfill

Project HistoryProject History4

• Thornhill Landfill started in 1976, approaching capacity• Terrace Landfill started in 1950’s. Available property

essentially consumed• Both landfills have leachate discharging directly to

sensitive streams/rivers• Major environmental upgrades required to support long

term landfill facility (about 50 Ha area needed)• Operating two small landfills is inefficient because of

economy of scale• RDKS started search for new landfill in 1996• Forceman Ridge site determined to be best long term

location

Waste CompositionWaste Composition5

Waste generation

•Estimated at 1.0 tonnes/person/yr

•Provincial avg. 1.2 tonnes/person/yr

•Provincial avg. diversion rate is 40%

•Max. Diversion goals:

•30% as recyclables

•17% as organics

•47% total

Waste DiversionWaste Diversion

System designed to accommodate future waste diversion measures

• Conventional recyclables (scrap, tires, whitegoods)

• Printed Paper & Packaging (PPP) from residential and ICI sectors

• Organics (wood waste, yard and garden, food waste)

Total waste generation in GTA is about 20,000 tonnes/yr

• Organics diversion can divert up to 3,500 TPY

• Recycling efforts can divert 800 to 3,800 TPY

• Amount diverted will depend on participation levels and public commitment to diversion

Proposed Solid Waste Management PlanProposed Solid Waste Management Plan

7

• Focus on Sustainability and Environmental Protection

• New Integrated Transfer Station at Thornhill Landfill

• New State of the Art Sanitary Landfill at Forceman Ridge

• Optimized Transportation System

• Supports Increased Recycling 30% Recycling inc. EPR, Scrap, Etc., ~ 6,000 tonnes/year

• Organic Waste Diversion About 17% of total waste, ~ 3,500 tonnes/year

• Minimized Environmental Impacts Reduced Carbon Footprint, Advanced Leachate Treatment

7

Organic Diversion StrategyOrganic Diversion Strategy

8

• Will increase Landfill Lifespan by approximately 22 years

• Reduced Leachate Strength

• Will convert organic waste to useful compost that can be used on site (soil for phytoremediation, final cover, biocover) and offsite for landscaping and agricultural applications

• Postpones Landfill Gas Collection Regulatory Requirement 2053 vs. 2070

• GHG Offset Credit Opportunities

• Positive Social Impacts (jobs)

8

GHG Offset Credits for GHG Offset Credits for Organic Diversion Organic Diversion

9

9

Active LFG Active LFG System System

Requirement Requirement 2053 vs. 20702053 vs. 2070236,000 tonnes CO2-e

GHG Offset until 2070until 2070Worth $5.9 million(~$111,000 per year)

612,000 tonnes CO2-eLifetimeLifetime GHG OffsetFrom Organic Diversion only Worth $15 million($150,000 per year)

Landfill Gas Generation Landfill Gas Generation WithWith and and WithoutWithout Organic DiversionOrganic Diversion

Approx. $3 million Expense delayed for about 17 Years

GHG Offset Credits for GHG Offset Credits for LFG FlaringLFG Flaring

10

10

Active LFG Active LFG System System

Requirement Requirement 2053 vs. 20702053 vs. 2070

612,000 tonnes CO2-eLifetimeLifetime GHG OffsetFrom Organic Diversion only Worth $15 million($150,000 per year)

Landfill Gas Generation Landfill Gas Generation WithWith and and WithoutWithout Organic DiversionOrganic Diversion

310,000 tonnes CO2-eGHG Offset Creditsfrom Voluntarily LFG LFG Collection and Flaring Collection and Flaring Worth $7.7 million($146,000 per year)* Assumed 50% collection Efficiency

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

11

New Transfer Station to serve over 20,000 residents in Greater Terrace and surrounding communities •Residential drop-off Area•Commercial MSW drop-off Area•Bulky recyclable drop-off Area•Recycling Area for EPR materials•Septic Receiving Facility (working on concept)

11

Transfer Station Pros and ConsTransfer Station Pros and Cons

• Allows for dramatically reduced opening hours at landfill (cost savings)

• Reduces haul times for Terrace garbage collection fleet

• Reduces haul distance for most self hauls

• Consolidates all public MSW operations at one site

• Reduces traffic making left turn at Onion Lake

ProsPros

Transfer Station Pros and ConsTransfer Station Pros and Cons

• Increased packer truck traffic through Thornhill. (about 8 packer trucks per day)

• Increased traffic on Old Lakelse Lake Road (JackpineFlats), about 2 transfer trailers per day

• Additional cost of double handling most waste material at transfer station

DisadvantagesDisadvantages

Direct Haul vs. Transfer StationDirect Haul vs. Transfer Station

14

14

vs. vs.

20 20 tonnestonnes

77--9 9 tonnestonnes 34 34 tonnestonnes

Transfer Station Economic AnalysisTransfer Station Economic Analysis

15

15

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

16

• Xxxxxx• Xx• X

Materials Management:Materials Management:

16

Stewardship Satellite Depot AreaStewardship Satellite Depot Area

17

17

Designed to accept source separated recyclables including:

•Printed Paper and Packaging (PPP)

•Cardboard

•E-Waste

•Styrofoam

•Plastic film

•Glass (for inert aggregate)

Facility to work as satellite to main MMBC depot or to transfer recyclables to Prince Rupert depot

Facility located in front of scale

Transfer Station DropTransfer Station Drop--Off BaysOff Bays

• Yard and Garden Waste

• Clean Wood Waste

• Scrap metal and white goods

• Tires

• Batteries

• Paints and solvents

• Propane Bottles

• Drywall (in future)

Typical Satellite Depot AreaTypical Satellite Depot Area

19

19

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

20

MSW Transfer StationMSW Transfer Station

20

Designed to handle material efficiently

•Two level and three bay steel structure building

•Push pit system – Trucks dump loads on tipping floor

•Load is pushed by skid steer into transfer trailer

•Three 24 ft. garage doors will provide bay access

•Building side will feature a sliding door

•The transfer vehicle will be parked at the bottom level

•Two overhead doors will enclose the lower level

FernieFernie Transfer StationTransfer Station

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

22

22

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

23

23

Thornhill Landfill Transfer StationThornhill Landfill Transfer Station

24

24

Dumping Load on Tipping FloorDumping Load on Tipping Floor

25

25

Top Loading Transfer TrailerTop Loading Transfer Trailer

Organics to be managed in outside binsOrganics to be managed in outside bins

27

27

Typical Yard and Garden Waste BinTypical Yard and Garden Waste Bin

Alternate “A”:

Distance to Landfill: ~31 kmHigh Community Impact

Alternate Alternate ““AA””::

Distance to Landfill: ~31 kmDistance to Landfill: ~31 kmHigh Community ImpactHigh Community Impact

Alternate “B”:

Distance to Landfill: ~23 kmMinimum Community Impact

Alternate Alternate ““BB””::

Distance to Landfill: ~23 kmDistance to Landfill: ~23 kmMinimum Community ImpactMinimum Community Impact

Thornhill Transfer StationThornhill Transfer StationThornhill Transfer Station

Forceman Ridge LandfillForceman Ridge LandfillForceman Ridge Landfill

Haul Routes Haul Routes -- Thornhill to ForcemanThornhill to Forceman

Williams Creek BridgeWilliams Creek BridgeWilliams Creek Bridge

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Access Road ReviewAccess Road Review

30

30

Regrading RequiredRegradingRegrading RequiredRequired

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Access Road ReviewAccess Road Review

31

31

Highway IntersectionHighway Intersection(Current Concept and Expected Progress)(Current Concept and Expected Progress)

32

32

Kitimat

Terrace

Haul Around Route via North Haul Around Route via North KitimatKitimat MainMain

North Kitimat Main6.5 km5.1 minutes extra haul

Chist Creek Main1.5 km12% grade

Haul Around via North Kitimat Main

• Use Kitimat North Main intersection 1.7 km south

• Better sight lines on straight stretch of road

• No adverse grade into landfill

• Hopefully avoid $1 million left turn lane upgrade of Hwy 37

• Avoid costly regrading of Chist Creek hill

• About $20,000 to $30,000 extra hauling and maintenance cost annually

Recommended Forceman Ridge LandfillRecommended Forceman Ridge Landfill

35

• State of the Art Fully Engineered Landfill • Double Lined Containment System• Advanced 5 Stage Leachate Treatment System • Meet and exceed Draft MOE Landfill Criteria • Onsite Septage Treatment• Onsite Organic Composting Facility• Projected lifespan to between 2095 and 2119

(depends on diversion rates)

New Landfill will serve as the regional landfill New Landfill will serve as the regional landfill for the Greater Terrace Areafor the Greater Terrace Area

35

Forceman Ridge LandfillForceman Ridge Landfill

36

36

District Lot4236

WildlifeWildlifeCorridorCorridor

Min. 30 m Min. 30 m Vegetated BufferVegetated BufferFrom BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Min. 50 mMin. 50 m

WildlifeWildlifeCorridorCorridor

Initial Clearing Initial Clearing FootprintFootprint

WildlifeWildlifeCorridorCorridor

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Final ContoursFinal Contours(Lifespan Filling Area)(Lifespan Filling Area)

Leachate Leachate TreatmentTreatment

SystemSystem

SeptageSeptageFacilityFacility

CompostCompostFacilityFacility

Site Site OfficeOffice

WildlifeWildlifeCorridorCorridor

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Total AirspaceTotal Airspace3,269,346 m3,269,346 m33

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill LifespanLifespan

41

• Scenario 1: No Diversion/Recycling – to 2095 0% MMBC/ICI Recycling

0% Organics Diversion

• Scenario 2: With Organic Diversion – to 2117 9% MMBC/ICI Recycling

22% Organics Diversion

• Scenario 3: With Organic Diversion and ICI Recycling – to 2119

13% MMBC/ICI Recycling

19% Organics Diversion

Waste Diversion Scenarios:Waste Diversion Scenarios:

41

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill LifespanLifespan

42

42

Assumptions:Assumptions:

Compacted Waste Density 0.8 tonnes/m3

Waste Generation Rate 1 tonnes/year/personWaste disposal Rate 0.7 tonnes/person/yearSettlement 10% by volumeWaste to Cover Ratio (waste/cover) 6 vol/vol

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Phase 1APhase 1A11

Phase 1BPhase 1B

Phase 1CPhase 1C

Phase 1DPhase 1D

Phase 3A Phase 3A –– 3D3D

Phase 3Phase 3

Phase 5A Phase 5A –– 5C5CPhase 7Phase 7

Phase 1APhase 1A22 Phase 1APhase 1APhase 1BPhase 1BPhase 1CPhase 1CPhase 1DPhase 1D

Phase 4Phase 4

Phase 5Phase 5

Phase 6Phase 6

Phasing SequencePhasing Sequence

NorthSouth

Landfill FootprintLandfill FootprintPhase 1A1 ExcavationCut 89,654 m3

Fill 49,548 m3

Net: 40,106 m3 (Cut)

Phase 1A1 ExcavationPhase 1A1 ExcavationCut 89,654 mCut 89,654 m33

Fill 49,548 mFill 49,548 m33

Net:Net: 40,106 m40,106 m33 (Cut)(Cut)

Landfill FootprintLandfill FootprintPhase 1A1 (Capacity)Lifespan 8 to 10 yearsTotal Airspace : 177,470 m3

Phase 1A1 (Capacity)Phase 1A1 (Capacity)Lifespan 8 to 10 yearsLifespan 8 to 10 yearsTotal Airspace : 177,470 mTotal Airspace : 177,470 m33

BermBerm Concept (e.g. Prince Rupert)Concept (e.g. Prince Rupert)

47

47

BermBerm AdvantagesAdvantages

48

48

• Vertical Expansion : Smaller Footprint• Less Leachate Production• Lower Capital Costs for liner and cap• Increased Airspace (Lifespan)• Optimized Buffer• Better Leachate Containment• Easier Maintenance • Utilization of Surplus Local Materials

WildlifeWildlifeCorridorCorridor

Min 30 m Min 30 m From BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing FootprintWestWest--East Section East Section

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill SectionSection

50

50

WestWest--East Section East Section

Phase 1Phase 1

Phase 2Phase 2

• Total height above ground will be about 25 m.

Looking North Toward Landfill from Hwy. 37Looking North Toward Landfill from Hwy. 37

Landfill Visibility AssessmentLandfill Visibility Assessment

52

52

Area with Area with ““Potential VisibilityPotential Visibility””

Landfill Visibility AssessmentLandfill Visibility Assessment

53

53

Crest Elevation 252 m ASLCrest Elevation 252 m ASL

Landfill Visibility AssessmentLandfill Visibility Assessment

54

54

Identified the Identified the ““CriticalCritical”” LocationLocation

Landfill Visibility AssessmentLandfill Visibility Assessment

55

55

Coordinates: Coordinates: 54º 17' 57.30" N128º 32' 08.91" W

Road Elevation: 208 mRoad Elevation: 208 mEye Elevation: Eye Elevation: 210 m210 m

Street View at the Critical PointStreet View at the Critical Point

Landfill Visibility AssessmentLandfill Visibility Assessment

56

56

Coordinates: Coordinates: 54º 17' 57.30" N128º 32' 08.91" W

Road Elevation: 208 mRoad Elevation: 208 mEye Elevation: Eye Elevation: 210 m210 m

Street View at the Critical PointStreet View at the Critical Point

Chist Creek Recreation Site

Popular climbing area faces south

Landfill Best Practices AdoptedLandfill Best Practices Adopted

59

59

• Keep Clean Water Clean• Provide effective Environmental Controls

(surface Water, leachate and gas)

• Progressive Closure to minimize leachate• Optimize Waste to Cover Ratio• Use Alternate Daily Cover to Minimize

Airspace Consumption• Use Locally Available Materials• Operational Biocover to control fugitive

methane

RevelstokeRevelstoke Grizzly Active FaceGrizzly Active Face

60

60

Proven in high snowfall environment

Wildlife ControlWildlife Control

61

61

Bird ControlBird Control

62

62

Bear Fence Bear Fence –– ThornhillThornhill

63

63

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Organic Diversion OverviewOrganic Diversion Overview

• Organics Diversion recommended for yard and garden waste, clean wood waste and food waste.

• SHA recommend implementation of “Gore” composting system.

• Gore System independently confirmed by Konrad Fitchner• About 4,000 tonnes/year can be diverted from landfill if

program fully implemented.• 2 Ha pad is being reserved for organics management.• Compost can be used on-site for biocover, phytoremediation

area and closure.• Compost can be supplied for landscaping applications and

natural fertilizer.

64

64

Gore Cover Composting FacilityGore Cover Composting Facility

65

65

Gore Cover Composting FacilityGore Cover Composting Facility

66

66

Gore Cover Composting FacilityGore Cover Composting Facility

67

67

Gore Cover Composting FacilityGore Cover Composting Facility

68

68

Needs UpdateNeeds Update

Composting Composting -- Cost/ Benefit AnalysisCost/ Benefit Analysis

• Advantages• Extend landfill lifespan by 22 years

• Reduce GHG emissions from landfill

• Reduce BOD content in landfill leachate

• More sustainable, carbon naturally recycled

• Qualifies for Carbon credits

• Disadvantages• Residents and businesses must manage food waste separately

• Extra collection required (weekly)

• 10% Increase in system costs ($75.10 to $84.71/tonne)

69

69

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Septage FacilitySeptage Facility

70

70

• Incoming septage will have moisture content around 95% and 5% solids

• Estimated Volume of Septage = 2,800 m3

• Three filtration beds of 8 m x 20 m, surrounded by 3 layers of Lock blocks

• 300 mm layer of gravel and 300-500 mm layer of wood chips and a non-woven geotextileseparation Layer

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Septage FacilitySeptage Facility

71

71

• Base of the drainage bed is lined with 80 mil HDPE geomembrane

• Service road/berm around the perimeter with the excavation material from the ponds

• Control discharge during unloading with a corrugated pipe

• Effluent will go to the leachate and septage treatment system

Min 30 m Min 30 m From BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Leachate Leachate TreatmentTreatment

SystemSystem

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Leachate Treatment OverviewLeachate Treatment Overview

72

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Leachate Treatment OverviewLeachate Treatment Overview

73

• Leachate Collection System (Landfill and Septage)

• Pump Stations• Equalization Pond• Aeration Pond• Sedimentation Pond• Subsurface Sand Filter• Phytoremediation System

Leachate Management Facility Includes:Leachate Management Facility Includes:

Groundwater Flow MapGroundwater Flow Map

74

74

Gibraltar LandfillGibraltar LandfillDouble Liner SystemDouble Liner System

75

75

Leachate Containment / CollectionLeachate Containment / Collection

76

76

• Filter Layer

• Drainage layer

• Leachate collector

• Barrier layer or composite

geotextile or graded soil filter

primary barrier layer- HDPE, PVC

native soil

gravel / sand drainage layerleachate collection piping

secondary barrier layer - 300 mm clay, GCL

Gibraltar LandfillGibraltar LandfillLeachate Collection SystemLeachate Collection System

77

77

Gibraltar LandfillGibraltar LandfillLeachate Collection SystemLeachate Collection System

78

78

Gibraltar LandfillGibraltar LandfillLeachate Collection SystemLeachate Collection System

79

79

Gibraltar LandfillGibraltar LandfillLeachate Collection SystemLeachate Collection System

80

80

Min 30 m Min 30 m From BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Leachate Leachate TreatmentTreatment

SystemSystem

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Leachate Treatment OverviewLeachate Treatment Overview

81

Min 30 m Min 30 m From BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

Min 30 m Min 30 m From BoundaryFrom Boundary

Landfill FootprintLandfill Footprint

Clearing FootprintClearing Footprint

EqualizationEqualizationPondPond

SeptageSeptageFacilityFacility

AerationAeration

Sedim

entation

Sedim

entation

Sand FilterSand Filter

To To PhytoremediationPhytoremediation

Equalization Pond:Equalization Pond:

A = 10,000 mA = 10,000 m22

V = 27,657 mV = 27,657 m33

Required Capacity = 21,467 mRequired Capacity = 21,467 m3 3 (1 Year)(1 Year)

F.S. = 1.29F.S. = 1.29

Aeration Pond (Disc Diffuser):Aeration Pond (Disc Diffuser):

A = 1,600 mA = 1,600 m22

V = 2,473 mV = 2,473 m33

Required Capacity = 1,873 mRequired Capacity = 1,873 m3 3 (20 days)(20 days)

F.S. = 1.40F.S. = 1.40

Sedimentation Pond:Sedimentation Pond:

A = 625 mA = 625 m22

V = 534 mV = 534 m33

Required Capacity = 457 mRequired Capacity = 457 m3 3 (5 days)(5 days)

F.S. = 1.17F.S. = 1.17

Subsurface Sand Filter:Subsurface Sand Filter:

A = 9,976 mA = 9,976 m22

V = 29,928 mV = 29,928 m33

Treatment Time = 5 daysTreatment Time = 5 days

Phytoremediation Area:Phytoremediation Area:

A = 18,000 mA = 18,000 m22

Individual Tree Uptake = 25 L/dayIndividual Tree Uptake = 25 L/dayNumber of Trees Required = 4,500Number of Trees Required = 4,500

Landfill FootprintLandfill FootprintArmstrong PhytoremediationArmstrong Phytoremediation

84

MMBC Facility and Diversion of RecyclablesMMBC Facility and Diversion of Recyclables

• MMBC is responsible for managing printed paper and packaging (PPP) generated in residential sector.

• Diversion rate of 75% required (avg. over province)

• RDKS would like to partner with MMBC and other EPR programs to establish full service Depot in Terrace

• Golder estimates:• Residential Depot for Terrace and GTA 129 tonnes

• Depot plus residential curbside collection 794 tonnes

• Depot, Curbside, plus ICI recyclables 2,653 tonnes

• All above plus Camp recyclables 3,805 tonnes

85

85

Approximate Service CostsApproximate Service Costs

• Composting $80 to $120/tonne

• Recycling

• Processing and baling $180/tonne

• Transport to market $ 61/tonne

• Cascades processing $ 30/tonne

• Total $271/tonne

• Transfer Station $ 16/tonne

• Transfer Haul $ 6/tonne

• Landfill $43/tonne

Lifecycle System Costs (MSW & septage)Lifecycle System Costs (MSW & septage)

• 13% ICI Recycling and 19% Organic Diversion $86.85/tonne

• 22% Organic Diversion, 9% MMBC Residential Rec$84.71/tonne

• 13% ICI Recycling, no organic diversion $89.00/tonne

• Landfill Only $75.10/tonne

Above estimates preliminary and include 25% contingency

Realistic diversion rates assumed:

9 to 13% as MMBC recyclables

9 to 22% organics diversion

10 year Tipping Fee Projections10 year Tipping Fee Projections

• For comparison, Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island tipping fees are typically $110 to $150/tonne range.

• B.C. Interior tipping fees are in $75 to $95/tonne range.

Note: additional revenue sources have not been considered (i.e. grants, ICI fees, etc.)

Disposal Rate Disposal Rate vsvs Tipping FeeTipping FeeSource (Maura Walker & Associates)Source (Maura Walker & Associates)

Forceman Ridge Landfill Forceman Ridge Landfill Class Class ‘‘CC’’ Cost Estimate Cost Estimate –– for Phase 1A (11 yrs)for Phase 1A (11 yrs)

• Clearing, berm and liner. $ 1,689,622

• Landfill Gas System $ 75,000

• Leachate Treatment $ 2,117,792

• Septage System $ 241,200

• Miscellaneous $ 323,500

• Landfill Total: $ 4,494,114

• Transfer Station $ 980,364

• Compost Facility $ 1,080,000

• Grand Total $ 6,554,478

• Engineering $ 1,480,000

• Contingency (25%) $ 1,692,170 90

90

Terrace Region Terrace Region Overall Cost Projection vs. BudgetOverall Cost Projection vs. Budget

91

91

Implementation ScheduleImplementation Schedule

92

92

SHA/RDKS Value AddedSHA/RDKS Value Added

• Reduced truck traffic to Forceman from 10+ vehicles to 2 to 3 transfer trailers/day hopefully eliminates need for $1 million left turn upgrade

• Roger’s “Haul-Around “ solution eliminates need for $500,000 regrade of Chist Ck. Road

• Transfer station allows significantly reduced hours of operationat Forceman, saving $90,000/year

• Transfer will reduce hauling costs by $83,000/year

• Revelstoke Grizzly ADC will conserve 4,000 m3 of air space annually, extending lifespan by 17 years

SHA / RDKS Value AddedSHA / RDKS Value Added

• Berm reduces footprint from 27 Ha to 15 Ha. Results in cost saving on liner and cap totalling about $16.8 million

• Diversion of organics increases landfill lifespan by 22 years and provides opportunity for GHG reduction credits

Thank you from Thank you from

““Engineering Better Solid Engineering Better Solid Waste Management Systems Waste Management Systems

Today for a Cleaner Today for a Cleaner TomorrowTomorrow””

Q/AQ/A

96

96