Mixed Paper Clean Up System CIF Project#: REV

Transcription

1 Mixed Paper Clean Up System CIF Project#: REV Acknowledgement: This Project has been delivered with the assistance of the Continuous Improvement Fund, a fund financed by Ontario municipalities and stewards of blue box waste in Ontario. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the views of the author(s) and CIF, Waste Diversion Ontario and Stewardship Ontario accept no responsibility for these views. Prepared By: Dennis Siu, P. Eng Recipient: Regional Municipality of York Prepared for: Continuous Improvement Fund Date: December

2 1. Project Background In 2011, the Regional Municipality of York (the Region ) completed a significant upgrade that increased the York Region Waste Management Centre s blue box processing capacity from 90,000 tonnes per year to 140,000 tonnes per year. The upgrade included wider newspaper and mixed paper disc screens, two optical sorting systems, a new baler and a new mixed paper sort line. Since the upgrade the finishing screens, located downstream of the newly installed disc screens and is where the new mixed paper sort line gets its material from, are receiving a higher volume of contaminated/ smaller fibres, flattened containers and residue compared to pre-upgrade operations where some of these materials would end up on the newspaper sort lines. This is because the new disc screens are now predominately capturing larger newspaper fractions only. The increase in contaminated/smaller fibre, flattened containers and residue is affecting the finishing screens' and sort staff s (working on the new mixed paper sort line) ability to separate container/residue away from fibres recyclables. In 2013, paper mills implemented a stringent quality control initiative where all imported paper bales would be inspected at a higher frequency to deter processors from including excessive amount of contaminations into their products. While the Region s paper bales have never been downgraded or rejected, there were growing concerns that it could happen with this new initiative, which would have a significant operational and economic impact to the Region considering paper bales represent almost 50% of the total annual revenue generated by the MRF. Further, composition audits on the mixed paper stream revealed a decent amount of valuable recyclable containers that were going out with the paper bales, representing loss revenue as containers typically have higher commodity values than paper. In light of concerns about the increased quality control enforcement by paper mills and the loss of valuable recyclable containers on the new mixed paper sort line, the Region, with significant contribution from the MRF Operator (Miller Waste System Inc), proposed a Mixed Paper Clean up System (the MPCUS ) that could remove up to 90% of the misdirected containers blended in with the mixed paper sort line. The MPCUS is designed to transfer the misdirected containers in the mixed paper stream back to the container processing line where it would be recovered and sold to the appropriate end markets. The MPCUS is also designed to remove a small amount of non-recyclables (i.e., residue) from the mixed paper stream and transfer the material to the adjacent transfer station for disposal as MRF residue. By removing a significant portion of misdirected containers and small percentage of residue, the improved mixed paper quality will position the Region's material in a more favorable light in comparison to other MRFs should the paper end markets enforce their suggested stringent quality specification requirements. More importantly, the MPCUS will ensure the MRF is 2

3 adhering to the fundamental principle of blue box recycling of sending the recovered recyclables to the appropriate end markets. 2. System Description Prior to the upgrade, the mixed paper recovered by the finishing screens was conveyed into the main sort room and on to the new mixed paper sort line for quality control as shown in the flow diagram below. The sort conveyor can accommodate two (2) sort staff (one sort staff on each side of the conveyor) to negatively sort for mixed paper. Pre-System Upgrade Flow Diagram Legend Mixed Paper Material from Finishing Screens After the upgrade in 2014, the mixed paper coming off the finishing screens is conveyed to the middle of the plant and enters the Ballistic Separator where large 3 dimensional materials (i.e., round containers, bundled newspaper, large pieces of residue etc.) are separated from 2 dimensional materials (i.e., flattened containers, mixed paper etc.). In addition, materials smaller than 1 ½ inch in diameter (mostly residue) are also removed by the Ballistic Separator to prevent 3

4 overwhelming the Optical Sorting System with materials that have no recovery values. Materials (2 dimensional materials) not removed by the Ballistic Separator enter the Optical Sorting System programmed to separate recyclable containers from the rest of the material, which consists mostly of mixed fibre and other non-recyclable materials. The machine is trained to recognize the desired recyclable containers by running a sample of these materials through the unit and then programming the built-in detection system to remove them accordingly. The recovered containers are transferred to the existing container processing line for further recovery (shown in blue below) while the recovered mixed paper content (shown in red below) is returned to the mixed paper sort line for final quality control. Post-System Upgrade Flow Diagram Start of existing Container Processing Line Legend Mixed Paper Material from Finishing Screens Recovered Mixed Paper Material Ballistic Recovered Misdirected containers and other materials OSS 4

5 3. Project Timing and Schedule A timeline of the MPCUS project in 2014 is provided below. In April 2014 the Region, along with Miller Waste System Inc and Machinex Industries Inc, the equipment supplier awarded this project, visited MRFs in Quebec and U.S.A to witness firsthand the key components of the MPCUS namely: (1) the Ballistic Separator and (2) the use of an Optical Sorting System to separate recyclable containers from mixed paper. Multiple MRF visits were required as there were no MRFs at the time of the site visit that utilized these units in series for mixed paper clean up. From the visit, the Region assessed the effectiveness of the equipment in an environment similar to that of the Region s blue box program operating conditions (i.e., single stream collection, climate and system throughput). The site visit also allowed the Region to engage in discussions with the MRF s operators about any operational and maintenance challenges associated with equipment. Based on observations made during the site visits, both units appeared to work well in terms of material separation. Further, it was apparent that, in combination, these two units should be able to yield a recovery rate close to the 90% suggested in the CIF request for funding application. 5

6 4. Installation Process The installation process began October 2014 and was completed by mid- November In addition to installing new equipment, the project also included: Modifications to existing conveyors A new enclosure for the Optical Sorting System Adding the new equipment into the existing SCADA system Modification/new walking platform/staircase Selected photographs of the installation process are provided below. Structural Support Installation for Ballistic Separator and Optical Sort System Installation of Ballistic Separator and Transfer Conveyors *New Mixed Paper Transfer Conveyor (C-801) supported off the building s structural frames New Mixed Paper Transfer Conveyor sending material into the MPCUS 6

7 Ballistic Separator New Optical Sorting System Recovered Containers conveyed back into the Container Recovery portion of the Operation Mixed Paper Separated by the MPCUS 5. Challenges Encountered Conveyor Installation One of the biggest challenges encountered during the project was the installation of transfer conveyor C-801 (see picture on Page 6). This conveyor is designed to carry the mixed paper material from the finishing screens into the MPCUS through a very congested area. In discussions with Miller Waste s maintenance staff, installing conveyor C-801 in the conventional way of anchoring the conveyor support to the floor would hinder their ability to service the equipment in 7

8 that area. With reduced floor space, maintenance staff noted repair/replacement work on equipment in that area would be difficult and time consuming. Considering this, Machinex redesigned the structural support for conveyor C-801 such that the conveyor would be supported by the MRF building s structural frames. To facilitate this design, more than 300 bolts were changed on the impacted structural frames to support the added stress of the conveyor (the conveyor was over 120 feet in length). The existing bolts were changed from A325 grade to A490 grade. A letter stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer was issued by the original building designer confirming the new bolts installed would be adequate to manage the additional stress from conveyor. Small, light material recovery using Optical Sorting System During the commissioning phase, the MPCUS was able to effectively recover the recyclable containers from mixed fibre and residue. This was confirmed through the commissioning audits where the recovery rate of recyclable containers was approximately 88% (see Commission Section below for details). However, the audit also showed a decent amount of fibre was misdirected to the container processing line. Because the Optical Sorting System uses compressed air nozzles to eject the recyclable containers to the container transfer conveyor, noncontainer recyclables (fibre or residue) located within close proximity of the containers would often times also pushed to the container processing line. Fortunately, the existing container process line already has sort staff allocated to remove misdirected fibre material and place them back on the paper lines. As such, the fibre misdirected by the MPCUS has minimal impact to overall operations. Staff reviewed MRF residue composition audits conducted in 2015 and confirmed that the composition of mixed paper in the MRF residue has not increased as a result of the upgrade, indicating sort staff on the container processing line is able to manage the misdirected fibre from the MPCUS. As for the residue, anything left on the container sort line is ultimately conveyed to the adjacent transfer station as MRF residue, the correct destination for this material. 6. Commissioning The commissioning of the MPCUS took place in November As shown in Table 1 below, the MPCUS recovered approximately 88% of the misdirected containers blended with the mixed paper, just shy of the 90% recovery rate identified in the CIF request for funding application. 8

9 Table Commissioning Summary Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) Average Total Material going into System (kgs) 1,269 1,338 1,303 Material Removed as Containers by the System Material Type Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) 2014 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Mixed Paper % % % OCC % % % Steel 5.2 2% 7.8 2% % Polycoat 8.4 3% % % PET % % % HDPE 3.9 1% 9.6 3% % Aluminum % % % Mixed Plastic (#3-7) % % % Residue % % % Total Material Removed by Ballistic Separator and Optical Unit % % % Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line Material Type Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November) Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) OCC 8.5 1% % % Containers % % % Residue % % % Mixed Paper % % % Total Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort line 1, % 1, % 1, % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers Audit 1 Total Recyclable Containers Recovered by System Total Recyclable Containers ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line Total Recyclable Containers going into the Mixed Paper Clean Up System Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers from the 2 audits (%) Audit 2 Average (November 20) (November 21) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) % % % % % % % % % 88% 9

10 7. Project Schedule/Cost Comparison (Budgeted vs Actual) A summary of project schedule and cost is provided in Table 2 below. Table 2. Project Summary Estimated Actual Project Cost $2,200,000 $2,115,000 Project Completion Before end of 2014 November 2014 Project Scope (Recovery of misdirected containers) Up to 90% 93% Payback Period (Yrs) to 4.7*** Note: *** Refer to Payback Calculation Sections below for details. Details regarding the Actual recovery rate of recyclable containers and the payback period are provided in the following Section. 8. Post System Upgrade Operation Review Material Composition Audits In 2015, the Region conducted quarterly composition audits on the MPCUS in order to substantiate the System s performance with respect to recovering up to 90% of the misdirected containers blended with the mixed paper stream. The audits were conducted on the following days in Audit #1 (April 15) Audit #4 (July 29) Audit #7 (Dec 4) Audit #2 (April 16) Audit # 5 (Sept 29) Audit # 8 (Dec 9) Audit #3 (July 28) Audit # 6 (Sept 30) Selected pictures from the audits are provided in Appendix A System Performance A comparison of the MPCUS s performance between 2014 and 2015 is provided in Table 3 below. 10

11 Table vs 2015 MPCUS Performance Comparison 2014 Average 2015 Average Average Material Audited (kgs) 1, Material Removed as Containers by the System Material Type 2014 Average 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Mixed Paper % % OCC % % Steel % % Polycoat % % PET % % HDPE % % Aluminum % % Mixed Plastic (#3-7) % % Residue % % Total Material Recovered as Containers by the System % % Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line Material Type 2014 Average 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) OCC % % Containers % % Residue % % Mixed Paper % % Total Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort line 1, % % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers 2014 Average 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Total Recyclable Containers Recovered by System % % Total Recyclable Containers ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line % % Total Recyclable Containers going into the Mixed Paper Clean Up System % % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers (%) 88% 93% A breakdown of all audit results is provided in Appendix B. As highlighted in Table 3 above, the recovery rate of recyclable containers was approximately 93% in 2015; a 5% improvement compared to 2014 and 3% higher than the recovery rate of 90% suggested in the CIF request for funding application. 11

12 Other information to highlight from Table 3 includes: The percentage of fibre (paper and OCC) removed as containers by the MPCUS went down from 36% (2014) to 34% (2015). The percentage of residue removed as containers by the MPCUS went up from 18% (2014) to 28% (2015), which is a positive note considering the residue removed from the mixed paper ultimately ends up at the adjacent transfer station. Also, the residue ending up on the mixed paper sort line also went up from 4% (2014) to 20% (2015). This suggests the overall volume of residue entering the MPCUS has increased in A comparison of the mixed paper material composition before entering the MPCUS between 2013 and 2015 supports this trend (see Table 4 below). Table 4. Mixed Paper Stream Composition before entering the MPCUS Category *** 2015 Mixed Paper 67.2% 64.8% 47.5% OCC 1.6% 10.0% 12.8% Steel Polycoat PET HDPE Aluminum Mixed Plastic (#3-7) 15.6% 8.2% 16.7% Residue 15.6% 17.0% 23.0% Total Sample 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: *** Average of 3 audits conducted prior to the System was installed. Not part of the commissioning audit numbers. As shown in the table above, the mixed paper material composition in the last 3 years has: Decreased for Mixed Paper Remained reasonably consistent for recyclable containers Increased for Residue Mixed Paper Stream Composition before & after the System In terms of the MPCUS s overall performance, Table 5 below is a comparison of the mixed paper stream composition before & after the MPCUS as per the 2014 commissioning audit and the 2015 quarterly audits. (See Appendix C for Detailed Material Composition Summary). 12

13 Table 5. Mixed Paper Sort Line Material Composition Audit Comparison Material Type 2014 Mixed Paper (Commissioning Audits) Composition Composition of Mixed of Mixed Paper Stream Paper before Stream after System System 2015 Mixed Paper Audits (Quarterly Audits) Composition Composition of Mixed of Mixed Paper Stream Paper before Stream after System System Mixed Paper 77.5% 92.0% 47.5% 66.20% OCC 3.8% 2.4% 12.8% 11.7% Steel Polycoat PET HDPE Aluminum Mixed Plastic (#3-7) Residue 11.8% 6.9% 1.8% 3.7% 16.7% 23.0% 2.1% 20.4% Total Sample 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Overall, the percentage of containers found in the mixed paper stream reduced from 16.7% (pre System clean up) to 1.9% (post System clean up) in 2015, approximately 15% reduction and a slight improvement compared to 2014 (10% reduction). This result further substantiates the MPCUS s efficiency in terms of its ability to remove recyclable containers from the mixed paper stream. Payback Calculations In addition to composition audits, the Region reviewed outbound tonnage data to determine if there was an increase in the quantity of containers sold to end markets in 2015 and to reassess the MPCUS s payback period. A direct comparison of the outbound tonnage between the period of December 2013 to November 2014 (Pre System Upgrade) and the period of December 2014 to November 2015 (Post System Upgrade) is provided in Table 6 below. Payback calculations are based on the total project cost of $2,115,000 and the same commodity pricings ($/tonne) used when developing the 2014 business case for the CIF request for funding application. 13

14 Table 6. Payback Calculations based on Actual Outbound Tonnage Outbound Recyclable Tonnage (Dec 2013 to Nov 2014) Outbound Blue Box Tonnage (Dec 2014 to Nov 2015) Variance Revenue Revenue per year Material Type (tonnes) ($/tonne) A ($/year) Aluminum $1,600 $263,232 ONP - Fibre Stream A 45, , n/a $0 ONP - Fibre Stream B 2, , n/a $0 Ferrous cans 1, , B $250 $0 B PET 2, , $405 $169,663 HDPE Mixed 1, , $475 $33,222 OCC 6, , n/a $0 Mixed Plastics 1, B $50 $0 B Polycoat B $85 $0 B Mixed Broken Glass 13, , n/a $0 TOTAL $466,116 Projected Revenue if Container went out as ONP Bales (@$80/tonne) C $52,270 NET REVENUE PER YEAR $413,846 Savings on 1 Full Time Equivalence on the Mixed Paper Sort line ($/year) $40,000 NET ADDITIONAL REVENUE/SAVINGS PER YEAR ($/year) $453,846 Payback Period (years) 4.7 Note: A Based on same commodity pricings ($/tonne) used when developing the business case in B Did not include in calculations as the decrease in tonnage recovered is not a result of the upgrade (the MPCUS captures these recyclables as confirmed by the composition audits). C Tonnage includes AL, PET and HDPE only as the other recyclable containers decreased in The decreased in these containers was not a result of the upgrade and therefore was accounted for in this calculation. The total outbound tonnage for ferrous cans, mixed plastic and polycoat decreased in 2015 despite the MPCUS s ability to remove these items from the mixed paper. For comparison purposes, the negative tonnage and revenue associated with these materials were excluded in the calculation. Considering that the amount of inbound blue box recyclables have steadily decreased over the last couple of years, a direct comparison of what was marketed this year with the previous year (as shown in Table 6 above) would not be a true assessment of the MPCUS s performance. For example, the Region 14

15 received approximately 2,400 tonnes less recyclables in 2015 when compared with 2014 between January and November. This means, proportionally, there would be less recyclables marketed in 2015, making a direct comparison with 2014 not representative. For the purposes of determining the MPCUS s actual impact to operations, the Region took an alternative approach and calculated the projected annual outbound recyclable tonnage in 2015 based on: The actual outbound blue box recyclables marketed in The composition of blue box materials marketed between January and November Based on the variables listed above, the revenue/cost savings generated by the MPCUS is approximately $499,900 per year as outlined in Table 7 below. A Detailed Revenue/Cost saving calculation is provided in Appendix D. Table 7. Payback Calculations based on 2014 outbound tonnage 2014 Outbound Recyclable tonnage Projected 2015 annual outbound tonnage A Variance between 2015 and 2014 Revenue B Revenue per year (tonnes/year) ($/tonne) (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) ($/year) Aluminum $1,600 $259, ONP - Fibre not 45, , Stream A applicable $0.00 ONP - Fibre not 2, , Stream B applicable $0.00 Ferrous cans 1, , C $250 $0 C PET 2, , $405 $206, HDPE Mixed 1, , $475 $46, OCC 6, , not applicable $0.00 Mixed Plastics 1, C $50 $0 C Polycoat C $85 $0 C Mixed Broken not 13, , Glass applicable $0.00 TOTAL $511,354.6 Projected Revenue if Container went out as ONP Bales (@$80/tonne) D $61,423.0 NET REVENUE PER YEAR $449,931.6 Savings on 1 Full Time Equivalence on the Mixed Paper Sort line ($/year) $40,000 NET ADDITIONAL REVENUE/SAVINGS PER YEAR ($/year) $489,932 Payback Period (years) 4.3 Note: A Based on the composition of outbound blue box materials marketed between January and November 2015 and 2014 total outbound recyclable tonnage. 15

16 B Based on same commodity pricings ($/tonne) used when developing the business case in C Did not include in calculations as the decrease in tonnage recovered is not a result of the Upgrade (the MPCUS captures these recyclables as confirmed by the composition audits). D Tonnage includes AL, PET and HDPE only as the other recyclable containers decreased in The decreased in these containers was not a result of the upgrade and therefore was accounted for in this calculation. Please note Table 7 also excludes tonnages and revenues associated with ferrous cans, mixed plastic and polycoat in the calculation. ONP Bale Grab Sample Audits Table 8 below summarizes the material composition of the paper bales audited between 2013 and The 2013 & 2014 data was recorded before the MPCUS was installed while the 2015 data was taken after the upgrade. Table 8. Paper Bale Composition Review Material Categories 2013 average (Pre-Upgrade) 2014 average (Pre-Upgrade) 2015 average (Post-Upgrade) Newspaper and Inserts 54.6% 39.6% 36.9% Magazines & Catalogues 11.7% 13.0% 11.9% Telephone Books / Directories 0.0% 4.1% 8.6% Other Printed Paper 9.5% 4.2% 11.8% OCC/OBB 18.1% 19.3% 20.7% Other Fibre Material 1.2% 11.2% 3.7% Other Accepted Recyclables (i.e., container recyclables) 3.6% 5.3% 2.9% Other Material 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% As shown in the table above: the percentage of containers found in the 2015 paper bale audits is lower compared to audits completed in 2013 and the other material composition (residue) found in the 2015 paper bale audits is higher compared to the 2013 & This supports the finding in the 2015 composition audits where it showed an increase of residue entering into the MPCUS. 16

17 Bale Productivity Report The following tables summarize the bale productions of recyclable containers between 2013 and For comparison purposes, November and December figures were omitted as 2015 figures were not available at the time of the report. Table 9. PET Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL 5,856 2,165 6,427 2,479 Table 10. Aluminum Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL

18 Table 11. Steel Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL 1,877 1,357 1,755 1,493 Table 12. Polycoat Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL Table 13. HDPE Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL 2,790 1,054 3,014 1,144 18

19 Table 14. Mixed Plastic Productivity # of bales tonnes # of bales tonnes January February March April May June July August September October TOTAL 2, , Conclusion Overall, the MPCUS has added tremendous value to the overall operation at the York Region Material Recovery Facility. The benefits of the MPCUS include: A 93% recovery rate of recyclable containers from the mixed paper stream as confirmed through multiple composition audits completed in The recovery rate was achieved despite the increase in residue blended with the mixed paper stream. Reduction in the percentage of recyclable containers in the paper bales as confirmed through audits. Uptake in the tonnage of some of the recyclable containers (i.e., PET, Aluminum and HPDE) marketed in Finally, the payback period of the MPCUS is between 4.3 (using the 2014 total outbound tonnage as a benchmark) and 4.7 years (using actual outbound tonnage from December 2013 to November 2014 and from December 2014 to November 2015). 19

20 10. Lessons Learned As mentioned earlier in this report, a decent amount of fibre was ejected by the MPCUS as recyclable containers and would end up on the container sort line. This occurs when fibre material is located within close proximity of recyclable containers while travelling underneath the Optical Sorting Unit where the compressed air nozzles would inadvertently eject the fibre (along with the container) on to the container sort line. Due to the unit s design, it is important to have sort staff downstream of the MPCUS to manage misdirected fibre and not expect the MPCUS to recover strictly containers recyclables. Design considerations must be given as to what equipment is available downstream of the MPCUS otherwise it could lead to contamination issues at other areas at the plant. 20

21 Appendix A Selected Photographs from the Material Composition Audits Container Pile recovered by System Audit Area Mixed Paper recovered as Container OCC recovered as Container Residue recovered as Container Coffee Cups recovered as Container

22 PET Recovered as Containers HDPE Recovered as Containers Aluminum Recovered as Containers Mixed Plastic Recovered as Containers Steel Recovered as Containers Polycoat Recovered as Containers

23 Appendix B Additional Audit Results 2014 Commissioning Summary Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) Total Material going into the Mixed Paper Clean up System (kgs) 1,269 1,338 Material Removed by Ballistic Separator and Optical Sort Unit as Recyclable Containers Material Type Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Mixed Paper % % OCC % % STEEL 5.2 2% 7.8 2% POLYCOAT 8.4 3% % PET % % HDPE 3.9 1% 9.6 3% ALUMINUM % % MIXED PLASTIC (#3-7) % % RESIDUE % % Total Material Removed by Ballistic Separator and Optical Unit*** % % Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line Material Type Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) OCC 8.5 1% % CONTAINERS % % RESIDUE % % Mixed Paper % % Total Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort line*** 1, % 1, % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers Audit 1 (November 20) Audit 2 (November 21) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Total Recyclable Containers Recovered by System % % Total Recyclable Containers ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort Line % % Total Recyclable Containers going into the Mixed Paper Clean Up System*** % % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers from the 2 audits (%) 88%

24 2015 Quarterly Composition Audit Summary Audit 1 Audit 2 Audit 3 Audit 4 Audit 5 Audit 6 Audit 7 Audit Average (April 15) (April 16) (July 28) (July 29) (Sept 29) (Sept 30) (Dec 4) (Dec 9) Total Material going into the Mixed Paper Clean up 1,002 1, ,002 1, System (kgs) Material Type Audit 1 (April 15) Audit 2 (April 16) Audit 3 (July 28) Audit 4 (July 29) Audit 5 (Sept 29) Audit 6 (Sept 30) Audit 7 (Sept 29) Audit 8 (Dec 9) 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Mixed Paper % % % % % % % % % OCC % % % % % % % % % STEEL % % % % % % % % % POLYCOAT % % % % % % % % % PET % % % % % % % % % HDPE % % % % % % % % % ALUMINUM % % % % % % % % % MIXED PLASTIC (#3-7) % % % % % % % % % RESIDUE % % % % % % % % % Total Material Removed by Ballistic Separator and Optical Unit*** % % % % % % % % % Material Type Audit 1 (April 15) Audit 2 (April 16) Audit 3 (July 28) Audit 4 (July 29) Audit 5 (Sept 29) Audit 6 (Sept 30) Audit 7 (Dec 4) Audit 8 (Dec 9) 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) OCC % % % % % % % % % CONTAINERS % % % % % % % % % RESIDUE % % % % % % % % % Mixed Paper % % % % % % % % % Total Material Ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort line*** % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers % % % % % % % % Audit 1 (April 15) Audit 2 (April 16) Audit 3 (July 28) Audit 4 (July 29) Audit 5 (Sept 29) Audit 6 (Sept 30) Audit 7 (Dec 4) Audit 8 (Dec 9) 2015 Average (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) (kgs) (%) Total Recyclable Containers Recovered by System % % % % % % % % % Total Recyclable Containers ending back on the Mixed Paper Sort % % % % % % % % % Line Total Recyclable Containers going into the Mixed Paper Clean Up System*** % % % % % % % % % Recovery Rate of Recyclable Containers from the 2015 audits (%) 92.5%

25 Appendix C Detailed Material Composition Summary 2014 Commissioning Audit Material Composition Material Composition going into the System Material Audit #1 Audit # Avg MIXED PAPER 79.7% 75.4% 77.5% OCC 2.9% 4.6% 3.8% container 10.3% 13.3% 11.8% residue 7.1% 6.6% 6.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Material Composition recovered as Mixed Paper Material Audit #1 Audit # Average MIXED PAPER 0.84% 4.06% 2.45% OCC 1.58% 2.11% 1.84% container 3.77% 3.57% 3.67% residue 93.81% 90.26% 92.03% Total 100.0% 100% 100% 2015 Quarterly Audit Material Composition Material Composition going into the System OCC Audit #1 Audit #2 Audit #3 Audit #4 Audit #5 Audit #6 Audit #7 Audit # AVERAGE Container 37.0% 42.4% 44.5% 45.9% 56.1% 56.0% 50.3% 47.9% 47.5% Residue 13.0% 14.4% 11.5% 12.4% 7.5% 7.6% 19.4% 16.7% 12.8% Mixed Paper 20.1% 18.5% 16.2% 14.5% 16.1% 14.7% 16.6% 17.2% 16.7% 30.0% 24.8% 27.8% 27.3% 20.3% 21.6% 13.7% 18.2% 23.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Material Composition recovered as Mixed Paper Audit #1 Audit #2 Audit #3 Audit #4 Audit #5 Audit #6 Audit #7 Audit # AVERAGE OCC 14.37% 12.62% 9.81% 12.27% 2.88% 5.83% 21.2% 14.7% 11.7% Container 2.14% 2.68% 1.50% 1.63% 1.56% 2.18% 2.6% 2.8% 2.1% Residue 31.13% 25.90% 24.01% 23.45% 12.81% 10.98% 11.1% 20.4% 20.0% Mixed Paper 52.36% 58.81% 64.68% 62.65% 82.75% 81.01% 65.1% 62.2% 66.2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0%

26 Appendix D Detailed Revenue/Cost Saving Calculations Complete Revenue/Cost Saving Calculations 2014 Actual Outbound Tonnage 2015 Actual Outbound Tonnage (Jan to Nov) 2015 Outbound Material Distribution 2015 Extrapolation tonnage based on 2014 Outbound tonnage Variance (2015 minus 2014) Revenue per year (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) (%) (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) Revenue ($/tonne) ($/year) Aluminum % $1,600 $259, ONP - Fibre Stream A 45, , % 45, n/a $0.00 ONP - Fibre Stream B 2, , % 2, n/a $0.00 Mixed Paper % n/a $0.00 Ferrous cans 1, , % 1, $250 $0.00 Glass -clear % n/a $0.00 Glass -colour % n/a $0.00 PET 2, , % 3, $405 $206, HDPE Mixed 1, , % 1, $475 $46, OCC 6, , % 5, n/a $0.00 Mixed Broken Glass % n/a $0.00 Mixed Plastics 1, % $50 $0.00 Polycoat % $85 $0.00 Road Base Glass 13, , % 13, n/a $0.00 TOTAL , % $511,354.6 Projected Revenue if Container went out as ONP Bales (@$80/tonne) Include AL, PET and HDPE only $61,423.0 NET REVENUE PER YEAR $449, (Jan to Nov) 2015 (Jan to Nov) tonnes tonnes Inbound BB Tonnage 79,729 77,353 Outbound BB Tonnage 68,975 67,640 Efficiency 86.51% 87.44%