Development of a Waste Management Strategy Assessment Model for the Alberta Capital Regional Alliance (ACRA) April 15, 2008

Transcription

1 Development of a Waste Management Strategy Assessment Model for the Alberta Capital Regional Alliance (ACRA) April 15, 2008

2 Project Background Prepare a Regional Solid Waste Model for ACRA 23 participating municipalities; > 1 M residents Existing facilities/programs inventory Projection of future waste quality and quantity Development of a spreadsheet-based model to allow for ongoing evaluation of regional management scenarios Provide suggested next steps for future facilities, programs and services

3 150 km 100 km

4 23 Participating Municipalities Town of Beaumont Town of Bon Accord Town of Bruderheim Town of Calmar Town of Devon City of Edmonton City of Fort Saskatchewan Town of Gibbons City of Leduc Leduc County Town of Legal Town of Morinville Green: < 5,000 residents Blue: 5,001 to 50,000 Purple: 50,001 to 250,000 Red: > 250,000 Town of New Sarepta Parkland County Town of Redwater City of Spruce Grove City of St. Albert Town of Stony Plain Strathcona County Sturgeon County Village of Thorsby Village of Wabamun Village of Warburg

5 Diverse Communities Populations: 564 to 720,000 Population Densities: 9 to 1500 people/km 2 Urban Downtown Core to Ranchland Range of existing waste management services

6 Project Assumptions Focus on municipal solid waste Acknowledge remaining life expectancy of key infrastructure (e.g., landfills) Acknowledge waste reduction objectives of the Province (500 kg/person by 2010)

7 Project Assumptions Focus on facilities and programs to service the residential sector Address service requirements of the 23 participating municipalities through to 2026 Consider existing/anticipated facilities <50 km beyond the ACRA boundary

8 Project Tasks Work program consisting of Five Tasks: Task 1: Project Management Task 2: Consolidate Background Information Task 3: Development of Solid Waste Model and Graphical Presentation Task 4: Workshop of Model Analysis of Three Scenarios Task 5: Reporting

9 Key Model Assumptions Key assumptions for model: Based in Excel (a non-proprietary model, no copy write issues) A GIS interface to support input/output requirements A what if model to allow for the evaluation of candidate waste management strategies A planning tool; tonnes & dollars

10 Three Model Components Microsoft Excel Component Data input/output User interface GIS Component Determine distances between facilities Wide range of data & information presentation options Microsoft Access Component Interface between Excel & GIS

11 Facility and Municipal Unit Codes Facility Codes landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, MRFs, HHW depots, etc. Municipal Unit Codes center of waste generation Candidate Facility Locations Candidate Facility Locations generic grid centroids

12 Existing facilities (large coloured dots) New facility centroid (small dots) Study Area Grid

13 Waste Types 1. Paper 2. Plastics 3. Glass 4. Ferrous 5. Non-Ferrous 6. Organics 7. Textiles/ Rubber/ Leather 8. CRD 9. Hazardous/ Special Wastes 10. Other

14 Six Streams Considered Generated Waste Recyclables (Rc) Leaf/Yard (LY) Organics (Or) CRD HHW Residuals (R)

15 Model Characteristics Estimate projections of waste quantity and quality 20-year design period for all 23 ACRA municipal units. Interface with a GIS platform presentation of output graphics and illustrations. Incorporate a digitized map base that presents existing waste management facilities

16 Model Outputs Allow for a finite number of choices for the management of MSW for each municipality Provide outputs of conceptual level total annualized costs and total material tonnages Estimate levels of waste diversion depending on selected programs and facilities

17 User-Input Workbook: Scenario Definition Sheet (SDS) Define waste management scenarios To and From municipality/facility locations defines generation, movement, and disposal SDS table for each for each municipal unit Tab for each target year (2010, 2015, 2020, 2026)

18 SDS Sheets User-defined inputs Descriptions of candidate facilities and program characteristics Five Divisions (public education, collection, transfer, processing, and disposal) Subdivided based on waste streams and facilities associated with each Define the waste management strategies of each municipal unit

19 Some SDS Codes PE1: public education (augmented) CRc1: collection recyclables curbside CLY1: collection leaf & yard seasonal TR: transfer residuals TS2: medium transfer station POr3: large composting facility PHw1: HHW special collection event DR2: Medium Class II MSW Landfill DCRD1e: Large Class III CRD Landfill with Enhanced Processing

20 Grey Box = User Defined Parameter

21 GIS Component NOT used for Model Analysis Joins data to GIS Main road networks (within 50 km) Model grid and centroids Displaying Data Involves: Interface with Microsoft Access Select the information, symbols and labels desired for outputs

22 GIS Component Displays Excel and Access outputs such as: Facility location and labels Total waste tonnage routing Waste flows by waste stream Total annual processed/ disposed waste (bar graphs, labels) by facility (ICI vs Res) Total annual processed/ disposed waste (bar graphs, labels) by municipality at each facility

23

24

25

26 Summary Sheets: Estimated Annualized Costs 1. Total Cost by Municipal Unit 2. Overall Regional Costs Rural vs Urban Residential, ICI and combined per household, per tonne, total

27 Summary Sheets: Estimated Annual Generation, Diversion and Disposal Rates Waste generated, diverted and disposed (kg/person/year) Cumulative Recovery Rates Reported by: Municipal Unit Overall/Regional (Total, Urban and Rural) Residential, ICI and combined

28

29

30 Thank you