Upload
hoangthien
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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