Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project

Transcription

1 Page 1 Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Report For The Period 1 January, April, 2016 Draft Report, version 1.0 July 29, 2016 (Authorized Project Contact) Suite 700, th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3R5 T: (403) F: (403) Prepared for: Net Zero Waste Inc Gladwin Road Abbotsford, BC V4X 1X8 Phone: (604)

2 Page 2 Contents Contents... 2 List of Figures... 3 List of Tables... 4 List of Abbreviations PROJECT SCOPE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction Conditions prior to project initiation Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions/ removals Project eligibility Quantification Flexibility mechanisms Other Methodology Changes Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity Identification of risks Roles and responsibilities Reporting Period Summary Environmental Impact Assessment Stakeholder Consultations Detailed Chronological Plan REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ISO PRINCIPLES Relevance Completeness Consistency Accuracy Transparency Conservativeness INVENTORY OF SOURCES AND SINKS Quantification of estimated GHG emissions/removals... 17

3 Page Justification for excluding sources and sinks Quantification of source and sinks List of Assumptions Estimate of total GHG emission reductions/removals enhancements attributable for the project 26 4 IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE QUANTIFICATION PLAN Baseline Emissions Quantification Methodology Project Emissions Quantification Methodology MONITORING PLAN DATA INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RECORDS Data Management and QA/QC at Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Data Management and QA/QC at Blue Source Back-up Procedures at Blue Source Document Retention Policy at Blue Source Greenhouse Gas Assertion Reporting and Verification Details STATEMENT OF SENIOR REVIEW Works Cited List of Figures FIGURE 1: AERIAL VIEW OF NZW ABBOTSFORD COMPOSTING FACILITY... 7 FIGURE 2: NZW COMPOSTING FACILITY IN ABBOTSFORD, BC ( THE PROJECT )... 7 FIGURE 3: PRE-PROJECT (BASELINE) AND PROJECT CONDITION... 8 FIGURE 4: NZW ABBOTSFORD FACILITY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE 5: ABBOTSFORD IN-BUILDING GORE DESIGN FIGURE 6: GORE COVER SYSTEM COMPONENTS FIGURE 7: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PROJECT CONDITION, (ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT, DECEMBER 2008)... 17

4 Page 4 List of Tables TABLE 1: INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF SOURCES, SINKS AND REMOVALS OF GHG EMISSIONS, EXTRACTED FROM THE PROTOCOL TABLE 2: EMISSION FACTORS USED FOR THE PROJECT TABLE 3: GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL, 2007 IPCC TABLE 4: LANDFILL DESIGN PARAMETERS, (ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA, 2016) & (GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, MARCH 2015) TABLE 5: LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS TABLE 6: BARRIERS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BASELINE SCENARIOS TABLE 7: DATA MONITORING AND COLLECTION TABLE 8: 2015 VERRS SUMMARY List of Abbreviations AEOS Alberta Emission Offset System Blue Source Blue Source Canada ULC CH 4 Methane CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CO 2e Carbon Dioxide-equivalent FVRD Fraser Valley Regional District GHG Greenhouse gas GWP Global Warming Potential HFC Hydrofluorocarbon(s) hp Horsepower LFG Landfill Gas MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW Megawatt N 2O Nitrous Oxide NZW Net Zero Waste OMRI Organic Materials Review Institute PACS Pacific Agricultural Certification Society PFC Perfluorocarbon(s) SF 6 Sulphur Hexafluoride SGER Specified Gas Emitters Regulation SS Sources and Sinks SSO Source Separated Organics VERRs Verified Emission Reductions/Removals

5 1 PROJECT SCOPE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 5 The project title is: Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project ( the Project ) The project s The Project s purpose is to create valuable compost products for horticultural purpose(s) and and agricultural needs from the composting of residential source separated objective(s) are: organics (SSO). Primary greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions are achieved through the diversion of waste and resulting avoidance of methane (CH 4), a potent GHG that would have been generated at landfills through anaerobic degradation of the municipal solid waste (MSW). Date when the The Project began January 1, project began: Expected lifetime of The GORE TM Cover System is expected to have approximately a 20 year life the project: span. Credit start date: January 1, 2015 Credit duration Proponents for the Project intend to claim offsets for the lifetime of the period: Project, or as long as conditions permit. Estimated emissions Emission reductions from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are: reductions: 3,354 tonnes CO 2e. Emission reductions from January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016 are: 1,159 tonnes CO 2e. The total emission reductions claimed to date from this Project are: TOTAL 4,513 tonnes CO 2e Applicable Quantification Protocol(s): Protocol(s) Justification: Other Environmental Attributes: The quantification protocol used is the Alberta Environment Specified Gas Emitters Regulation: Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects, Version 1.1, December 2008 (the Protocol ). In conjunction with the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, version 1.0, March The Project utilizes a GORE TM Cover System, where the biological decomposition of Residential SSO decompose under stable, aerobic conditions, and create compost safe for use in land applications. The Protocol is suitable because: - The organic waste used would have otherwise been sent to a landfill - The finished compost from the Project is mature, as it is certified as Class A Compost in British Columbia - The GHG reduction quantification is based on actual measurement and monitoring of energy use at the facility. The Project operations generate carbon offsets from directly avoiding methane emissions from materials which would otherwise be anaerobically decomposed in landfills. The Project is not generating any other environmental attributes, credits or benefits such as Renewable Energy Certificates.

6 Unique latitude and longitude: Page 6 The Project is located in Abbotsford, British Columbia at 5050 Gladwin Road, V4X 1X8 Latitude: N; Longitude: W This Project is wholly owned and operated by Net Zero Waste Inc. Ownership: Reporting details: This is the first reporting period, it covers January 1, 2015 April 30, Verification details: The verification company, GHD, is an independent third-party that meets the requirements of the Clean Projects Registry. An acceptable verification standard, ISO , was used, and GHD has been vetted to ensure technical competence with this Project type. 1.1 Introduction The Net Zero Waste Inc. ( NZW ) City of Abbotsford Composting Facility is an aerobic composting project located in Abbotsford, British Columbia ( the Project ). The Project s feedstock is mainly SSO consisting of residential food and yard waste from the City of Abbotsford, as well as commercial and agricultural waste from the surrounding regions. The Project is one of many composting facilities owned and operated by NZW. The opportunity for generating carbon offsets with the Project arises from the direct reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the avoidance of methane emitted from the decomposition of organic wastes in landfills. Methane is a powerful GHG with a 100-year global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide and is passively emitted from the disposal of waste biomass in landfills or other oxygen-free conditions where the organic waste undergoes anaerobic decomposition. The diversion of organic waste away from an anaerobic storage site, such as a landfill, to a composting facility avoids the formation of excess methane gas by creating aerobic conditions by which the waste undergoes decomposition. The diversion of waste for composting also creates the added benefit of reducing the spatial stresses on near capacity landfills. NZW is an expert in the design and operation of organics processing facilities. NZW works with several municipal partners to provide sustainable community waste management solutions. NZW operates multiple compost facilities utilizing the GORE Cover System technology throughout British Columbia. The Project facility in Abbotsford is responsible for the treatment of organic wastes for Abbotsford s approximately 150,000 residents. The Project also provides a sustainable processing option for commercial and agricultural wastes within the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Greater Vancouver area, BC. The Project start-up was in January 2013, and the facility currently processes over 13,000 tonnes of organic waste per year. The composting process utilizes a GORE Cover system with

7 Page 7 secondary biological filter exhaust and in-door design. The GORE Cover is based on membrane laminate technology, which acts to trap odors and retain heat and moisture for optimal biological activity. 1 Figure 1 provides an aerial view of NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility, and Figure 2 shows its location within the city of Abbotsford. Figure 1: Aerial view of NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility Figure 2: NZW Composting Facility in Abbotsford, BC ( The Project ) 1 Net Zero Waste (NZW) GORE Cover System: How it Works? Retrieved from:

8 Page Conditions prior to project initiation Prior to the start-up of the Project, the organic waste used by the Project would have been sent for disposal at landfills. The majority of the organic waste is sourced from the City of Abbotsford; Abbotsford s solid waste is sent to its Matsqui Transfer Station for transport to the Cache Creek Landfill, located in Cache Creek, BC. The Cache Creek Landfill is anticipated to close at the end of 2016, at which time Abbotsford will need to find a new solution for its solid waste disposal 2. The remaining commercial and agricultural waste comes from the FVRD and Greater Vancouver area, specifically from the communities of Chilliwack, Coquitlam, Langley, Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey, BC. Chilliwack s solid waste disposal is in the Bailey Sanitary Landfill located near Chilliwack. The remaining communities generally rely on Metro Vancouver transfer stations for eventual disposal into the Vancouver Landfill located in Delta, BC. The three landfills used for the baseline scenario will therefore be the Cache Creek Landfill, the Bailey Sanitary Landfill and the Vancouver Landfill. All three landfills are located in BC and have landfill gas (LFG) management systems in place with different levels of LFG capture efficiency estimated. The creation of a market for organic waste has led to local initiatives to separate and collect residential SSO through curbside collection and commercial operations. As such, had the Project not been initiated by NZW, the SSO would have decomposed anaerobically in a landfill to form CH 4 emissions. However, according to the Protocol, it is required to assume a portion of the waste would have been diverted from landfill regardless of the Project specific factors, in order to account for the adoption of composting practices provincially. The suggested value for this pre-existing diversion rate is 20%, which is applied for the Project s offset volume calculations. Figure 3 below illustrates the organic waste uses before and after the implementation of the Project. Pre-Project Condition Project Condition 80% of Residential Organic Waste Residential Organic Waste Third Party delivery of SSO Landfill Anaerobic Decomposition Sorting and Separation of Organic Waste SSO Decomposition at NZW Facility Composting Figure 3: Pre-project (baseline) and Project condition 2 Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) Solid Waste Management Plan Update Retrieved from:

9 Page Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions/ removals The Project results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through the avoidance of methane generated from anaerobic decomposition of the organic waste at a landfill. Currently, the organic waste used in NZW s facility is supplied from residential, commercial and agricultural waste from Abbotsford and surrounding regions. If NZW had not provided a market value for this organic waste it would not have been diverted from landfill and would have undergone anaerobic decomposition. 1.4 Project eligibility The project is eligible to create emission reductions as follows: The GHG emission reduction assertion was quantified using a quantification methodology considered to be industry best practice guidance (Alberta Environment, December 2008); The quantification protocol referenced was developed in accordance with the ISO standard, as required by the GHG Clean Projects Registry; The GHG assertion has been verified by an independent third-party; The surrounding municipalities are not subject to any regulations requiring composting or any other use of residential organic waste in British Columbia; The project is not currently subject to any climate change or emissions management legislation in the province of British Columbia or Federally in Canada; Potential GHG emission reductions generated by this project are not listed on any other GHG reduction registry in Canada or internationally for the reporting period; The project has not received any public funds in exchange for GHG emission reductions (e.g. offsets) resulting from this project; and All environmental attributes generated by the project, including any GHG emission reduction benefits, are owned solely by Net Zero Waste Inc. While the BC Landfill Gas Management Regulation establishes provincial criteria for LFG capture from MSW landfills, this does not impact the eligibility of the Project to generate offset credits, as the activity of composting diverted landfill waste still remains unregulated. However, this regulation does apply to the baseline emission source as the landfill gas could be required to be captured and collected. The Landfill Gas Management Regulation stipulates that landfills with >100,000 tonnes MSW in place or >10,000 tonnes/year after 2008 are required to conduct a LFG Generation Assessment. Following this, those landfills with >1,000 tonnes methane production in preceding year are required to prepare a LFG Management Design Plan. Landfills over the methane generation threshold of 1,000 tonnes per year are required to install and operate a LFG collection and destruction system by January 1, The regulated 3 BC Ministry of the Environment Landfill Gas Management Regulation. Retrieved from:

10 Page 10 landfills in the baseline scenario already have LFG collection systems in place, which began prior to the 2016 requirement, therefore LFG collection will be considered in the baseline scenario throughout the reporting period Quantification Flexibility mechanisms No flexibility mechanisms were applied for this project Other Methodology Changes In 2014 the 100-year global warming potentials were updated to reflect the latest published values by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and used in Canada s National Inventory Report. This impacted the GHG assertion significantly due to the increase in the 100-year GWP for methane from 21 to 25 and the fact that the Project s GHG emission reductions are based solely on avoided methane from landfilling. For the 2015 reporting period, the landfill avoidance methodology was updated to align with current best practices in greenhouse gas accounting and the latest calculation methodology accepted by the Alberta Emission Offset System (AEOS). This method can be found in the Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, (Version 1.0, March 2015) and employs the first order decay Scholl-Canyon Model. Table 4 and Section 5.1 summarize the parameters and equation format. 1.5 Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity The project utilizes an in-vessel GORE TM Cover System for the treatment of organic waste, which is based on membrane laminate technology. The GORE system is a well-established and robust technology originally developed in Europe. The simple design provides flexibility to expand capacity as long as space is available onsite. In 2015, over 13,000 tonnes of organic waste were composted at the Abbotsford facility. The Project uses an integrated system that includes the GORE Cover, in-floor aeration and aeration blowers, temperature and oxygen sensors, controllers, computers, and cover handling systems. The receiving and pre-treatment of waste and the primary composting process occur indoors equipped with a biological filter for the process air. The Project process flow diagram is shown in Figure 4 and the In- Building GORE design system is shown in Figure 5. The Project consists of three phases, overall composting and curing processes taking approximately 6-8 weeks. Once the waste is initially received it goes through a pre-treatment process involving visual inspection, mixing and shredding, and metal removal using a magnetic belt prior to being piled into a designated pile. A standard pile is 8m wide at the base, 50m long and approximately 3-3.5m in height. Once the pile is built it is covered with a GORE Cover, temperature and oxygen levels are monitored and aeration is controlled for Phase 1. Phase 1 is the High Rate Active Composting stage that generally lasts 3-4 weeks. Following Phase 1, the GORE Cover is removed and the compost is moved to the Phase 2 outdoor area and covered. Phase 2 is the Maturation Curing Composting stage that generally lasts for 3-4 weeks. Following this, the compost is sufficiently stable and is moved into piles (may be covered or uncovered)

11 Page 11 for Phase 3, the Finishing stage, lasting approximately 2 weeks. 4 Figure 6 illustrates the components of an integrated GORE Cover System. The GORE system is a positive aerated static pile composting system which ensures even distribution of air and requires low energy for aeration requirements. Aeration occurs through in-floor aeration trenches underlying the pile which operate intermittently. Aeration fans are controlled by a central computer which gathers data from temperature and oxygen sensors within the piles. The oxygen levels are monitored in combination with temperature, and air flow is controlled to maintain oxygen levels between 5-18% as required. The GORE Cover System provides effective odor control with a reduction of up to 97% in odor concentrations; the Project has never received an odor complaint from the surrounding community. The GORE Cover maintains heat and moisture within the pile for optimal composting conditions while offering weatherproofing protection. The Project also includes a leachate collection system with onsite leachate collection tanks. The Project produces Class A Compost according to the requirements under BC s Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. 5 The compost produced is listed with the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and the Pacific Agricultural Certification Society (PACS) for use with certified organic farming. The soil produced at the Project is used by landscapers, organic farms and the public. 4 W.L. GORE & Associates The GORE Cover System: Membrane Covered Positive ASP Composting Technology. Retrieved from: Introduction.pdf 5 BC Regulation 18/2002. Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Environmental Management Act; Public Health Act. Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from:

12 Page 12 Figure 4: NZW Abbotsford Facility Process Flow Diagram Figure 5: Abbotsford In-Building GORE Design 6 6 NZW Abbotsford s Organic Program. Retrieved from:

13 Page 13 Figure 6: GORE Cover System Components 1.6 Identification of risks Key market risks related to the Project include both maintaining a high quality, marketable end-product and meeting future regulations. The Project receives SSO from surrounding regions, and therefore the variability of their feedstock depends on the variability of residential waste available at any time. Future regulations in British Columbia could impact the operations of NZW s Abbotsford facility and their eligibility for offset credits. Going forward, it is important to monitor solid waste related laws and regulations in British Columbia, as these could impact offset eligibility and alternative end-use of residential wastes. Risks associated with the quantification of emission reductions from the Project include monitoring and testing equipment failure, however these risks are mitigated by regular checks and maintenance by on site staff. Weigh scales are calibrated in accordance with best practices. In addition, compost is sent offsite for lab analysis by an independent third-party to ensure compost quality standards are met. Risks associated with the quantification of GHG emission reductions from this project have also been assessed by the third party verifier. The composting of organic waste and resulting diversion of waste from a landfill results in a permanent GHG emission reduction since the composting process cannot be reversed. This project type does not involve biological or geological sequestration-related risks.

14 Page Roles and responsibilities Project Developer Net Zero Waste Inc. Contact Information Contact: Mateo Ocejo 5050 Gladwin Road Abbotsford, BC V4X 1X8 Authorized Project Contact Verifier Phone: (604) Blue Source Canada ULC Kassy Harbottle Carbon Project Analyst Phone: x227 Fax: GHD Ltd. Brent Boss, P.Eng. Phone: (780) Website: Suite th Avenue SW Calgary, AB, T2P 0Z3 Website: Suite 202, st Ave Edmonton, Alberta T6E 5A6 1.8 Reporting Period For the purposes of this project report, the carbon dioxide equivalent VERRs are claimed for activities from January 1, 2015 to April 30, Summary Environmental Impact Assessment An environmental impact assessment was not required for this Project Stakeholder Consultations Stakeholder consultations were not required for this Project. The Alberta Offset System Biomass Quantification Protocol used to quantify VERRs from the Project was developed following a transparent consultation process with industry stakeholders to ensure the relevance, accuracy, conservativeness, consistency, and transparency of the protocol Detailed Chronological Plan The Project facility started up in January This report covers the first reporting period of January 1, 2015 to April 30, Following successful verification and registration of the Project, it will be listed on the CSA Clean Projects Registry. Thereafter, credits will be reported and claimed on an annual basis.

15 2 REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ISO PRINCIPLES Page Relevance The methodology referenced in quantifying GHG emission reductions from the Project was developed and approved under the Alberta Emissions Offset System, regulated under the Province s Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (2003) The Alberta Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1, December 2008) (the Protocol) was developed following the ISO standard as required under the Alberta offset protocol development process. Additionally, the protocol development process included a multi-step stakeholder review process consisting of a technical expert review, a broader stakeholder review process and a public posting period, all of which were managed by the Government of Alberta. The Alberta Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1, December 2008) is a well-established quantification protocol applicable to composting projects in Canada. Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSRs) considered to be relevant and included for quantification under the Protocol are defined in Section 3 of this document, including justification for the exclusion of SSRs identified in the life cycle elements of the project and baseline conditions. 2.2 Completeness The Project scope is consistent with the Protocol, with GHG emission reductions arising from the diversion of organic wastes from landfill and the avoidance of the methane emissions that would have occurred from the anaerobic (oxygen-free) decomposition of these residues in landfill quantified under the protocol. Data collection and monitoring approaches as they pertain to the quantification approaches used in calculating GHG emission reductions are summarized in Table 7 in this report. 2.3 Consistency The Protocol used in the quantification of GHG reductions is appropriate for NZW s Abbotsford Facility. The Aerobic Composing Protocol is consistent in its application of functional equivalence between the baseline and project condition. The quantity of organic waste to be collected and disposed of in the baseline scenario is functionally equivalent to the organic waste being composted in the project scenario. The average landfill gas capture rate is applied consistently between the baseline and project scenarios. 2.4 Accuracy Accuracy is ensured by using actual measurement and monitoring wherever possible. Bias and uncertainties in quantification were limited through the use of utility meter readings (electricity), fuel invoices (diesel gas) and from the NZW Monthly Invoice Summaries (Organic Feedstock) in combination with using the most relevant electricity consumption emission factor for BC and up to date emission factors from Environment Canada. The landfill gas capture rates are calculated using reasonable assumptions based on available data from the specific landfill operations in BC.

16 Page Transparency Data collection, monitoring, and quantification approaches are summarized in Table 7 of this report. The annual emission reduction claims are also summarized in this document to support the transparency of the GHG emission reduction assertion. In addition to this report, the quantification tool provided to the verifier, sources all data inputs and therefore all inputs are traceable back to the original source of data. 2.6 Conservativeness The calculations discussed in Section 5 are considered conservative for a number of reasons. The baseline emissions were calculated using the first order decay Scholl-Canyon Model. This methodology is found in the Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, (Version 1.0, March 2015) and is more conservative and accurate than the methodology provided in the Protocol. In the baseline scenario, the 20% waste diversion rate from the Protocol was applied, therefore only 80% of the feedstock was considered for the baseline emissions calculation. The project scenario emissions include all applicable sources and sinks from the Protocol. For any parameters with a level of uncertainty, assumptions were made to strive for a balance between conservativeness and accuracy. 3 INVENTORY OF SOURCES AND SINKS The Protocol contains a list of baseline and project sources and sinks (SSs) that were deemed applicable for projects developed according to the Protocol. The SSs for the project are those inside the dashed box, as identified in Figure 77 (overleaf).

17 Page 17 Figure 7: Process Flow Diagram for Project Condition, (Alberta Environment, December 2008) 3.1 Quantification of estimated GHG emissions/removals The following equations serve as the basis for calculating the emission reductions from the comparison of the baseline and project conditions as per the Project Protocol: Emission Reduction = Emissions Baseline Emissions Project Emissions Baseline = sum of the emissions under the baseline condition. Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction = emissions under SS B6 Material Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction Emissions Project = sum of the emissions under the project condition. Emissions Facility Operation = emissions under SS P6 Processing Composting Facility Operations Emissions Material Treatment = emissions under SS P7 Material Treatment Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction = emissions under SS P14 Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection Destruction Emissions Fuel Extraction / Processing = emissions under SS P16 Fuel Extraction and Processing

18 Page Justification for excluding sources and sinks All of the sources and sinks that were recommended to be included in the Aerobic Composting Protocol were included in the Project emissions calculations.

19 Page Quantification of source and sinks Table 1 below, provides a summary of the SSRs included and excluded from quantification as defined in the Protocol, (Alberta Environment, December 2008). It should be noted, that the inclusion/exclusion of SSRs and related justifications are generic and were not modified for this specific project. Table 1: Inclusion and Exclusion of Sources, Sinks and Removals of GHG Emissions, extracted from the Protocol 1. Identified SS Upstream SS s 2. Baseline (C, R, A) 2. Project (C, R, A) P1 Organic Residue Generation N/A Related B1 Residue Generation Related N/A 4. Include or Exclude from Quantification Exclude P2 Source Separation N/A Related Exclude 5. Justification for Exclusion Excluded as the generation of residues is not impacted by the implementation of the project and as such the baseline and project conditions will be functionally equivalent. Excluded as this is a manual process with negligible related emissions of greenhouse gases. P3 Collection and Transportation N/A Related B2 Collection and Transportation Related N/A Exclude P4 Off-Site Residue Processing N/A Related Exclude P5 Transportation N/A Related Exclude P15 Electricity Usage N/A Related B7 Electricity Usage Related N/A Exclude P16 Fuel Extraction / Processing N/A Related Include N/A B8 Fuel Extraction / Processing Related N/A Exclude P17 Fuel Delivery N/A Related Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. Excluded as the emissions from off-site processing are a component of an integrated waste management plan and would therefore be functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. Excluded as these SS s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practises are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. Excluded as there is no fossil fuel usage being considered in the baseline and these emissions are therefore not relevant to the project.

20 1. Identified SS 2. Baseline (C, R, A) 2. Project (C, R, A) 4. Include or Exclude from Quantification B9 Fuel Delivery Related N/A Exclude Onsite SS s P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation N/A Controlled Include N/A P7 Material Treatment N/A Controlled Include N/A 5. Justification for Exclusion Page 20 Excluded as these SS s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practices are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. P8 Compost Handling N/A Controlled Exclude Excluded as emissions under these SS s are included in P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation as these P11 Residue Handling N/A Controlled Exclude processes are typically part of the integrated site operations. Downstream SS s B3 Residue Processing Related N/A Exclude P9 Compost Transportation N/A Related Exclude P10 Compost Utilization N/A Related Exclude P12 Residue Transportation N/A Related B4 Residue Transportation Related N/A P13 Residue Disposal N/A Related B5 Material Disposal Related N/A Exclude Exclude Excluded as emissions are only in baseline condition and thus would only serve to increase the quantity of emissions reductions achieved. As these emissions are difficult to calculate with any certainty, it is conservative to exclude them. Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. Excluded as the sequestration of carbon is difficult to quantify without knowing the end-point for the compost. Further, the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are negligible given the standard of compost required under the protocol. Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. Excluded as the emissions from residue disposal operations are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario.

21 Page Identified SS P14 Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction B6 Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction Other 2. Baseline (C, R, A) 2. Project (C, R, A) 4. Include or Exclude from Quantification N/A Related Include N/A Related N/A Include N/A 5. Justification for Exclusion P18 Development of Site N/A Related Exclude B10 Development of Site Related N/A Exclude P19 Building Equipment N/A Related Exclude B11 Building Equipment Related N/A Exclude Emissions from site development are not material given the long project life, and the minimal site development typically required. Emissions from site development are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal site development typically required. Emissions from building equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal building equipment typically required. Emissions from building equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal building equipment typically required. P20 Transportation of Equipment B12 Transportation of Equipment N/A Related Exclude Related N/A Exclude Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal transportation of equipment typically required. Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal transportation of equipment typically required.

22 Page Identified SS 2. Baseline (C, R, A) 2. Project (C, R, A) 4. Include or Exclude from Quantification P21 Construction on Site N/A Related Exclude B13 Construction on Site Related N/A Exclude P22 Testing of Equipment N/A Related Exclude B14 Testing of Equipment Related N/A Exclude P23 Site Decommissioning N/A Related Exclude B15 Site Decommissioning Related N/A Exclude 5. Justification for Exclusion Emissions from construction on site are not material given the long project life, and the minimal construction on site typically required. Emissions from construction on site are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal construction on site typically required. Emissions from the testing of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal testing of equipment typically required. Emissions from the testing of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal testing of equipment typically required. Emissions from decommissioning are not material given the long project life, and the minimal decommissioning typically required. Emissions from decommissioning are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal decommissioning typically required. Table 2 (overleaf) summarizes the emission factors used in the Project.

23 Page 23 Table 2: Emission factors used for the Project Parameter Composting Material Treatment (EF COMP) Diesel Gas Combustion (EF DG) Diesel Gas Production (EF DG,XP) British Columbia Grid Consumption Factor (EF GRID) Relevant SS CO 2 Emission Factor CH 4 Emission Factor N 2O Emission Factor Source P7 biogenic 0.03 g/kg 0.06 g/kg (IPCC 2006), Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Table 4.1 P6 2690g/l 0.133g/l 0.40 g/l (Environment Canada, 2016), National Inventory Report Part 2, Table A6-4 P kg/l kg/l kg/l (Government of Alberta, March 2015), Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, Version 1.0, Table 4 P6 14.7g/kWh - - (Environment Canada, 2016), National Inventory Report Part 3,Table A13-11

24 Page 24 Table 33 highlights the global warming potentials used for this Project, updated to be consistent with Environment Canada s 2016 National Inventory Report and the IPCC 4 th Assessment Report: Climate Change Table 4 summarizes the landfill design parameters used in the baseline calculations. Table 3: Global Warming Potential, 2007 IPCC Greenhouse Gas Species: Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide (CO 2) (CH 4) (N 2O) Global Warming Potential: Parameter Table 4: Landfill Design Parameters, (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016) & (Government of Alberta, March 2015) Methane Correction Factor Degradable Organic Carbon Fraction of DOC Dissimilated Methane Landfill Gas Fraction Fraction of Methane Recovery Oxidation Factor Methane Generation Potential [t CH 4/ t waste] Regional Average ( ) Annual Precipitation [mm] Methane Generation Constant [yr -1 ] Notation MCF DOC DOC f F R Ox Lo PCPN k British Columbia MCF assigned value of 1.0 as all landfills would have been managed and anaerobic. DOC as detailed information about the landfill waste composition is not available, the British Columbia value from the 2016 NIR was used. DOC f The baseline scenario considers that without the activity of the Project, there would be no demand for the organic waste other than the baseline adjustment of 20% diversion activity would occur at the landfill, which is accounted for elsewhere. Therefore, the default DOC f of 0.5 was used from the Carbon Offset Emissions Factors Handbook. F the fraction of methane in landfill gas production was the default value in the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook. R a value of 66.3% was used, which is calculated using the Methane Collection and Destruction equation with default values from the Carbon Offset Handbook, where R = LFG Collection Efficiency (LFG CE) * Methane Destruction Efficiency (LFG DE). The assumed value for LFGCE was the default value of 66.5% for a temporary covered cell; the assumed value for LFGDE was the default value of 99.7% for flares. The baseline condition generally involves solid waste disposal into three landfills, all of which have LFG

25 Page 25 management systems in place: Cache Creek Landfill (LFG Capture rate reported as 77% in ), Bailey Sanitary Landfill (no LFG capture rate reported 8 ) and Vancouver Landfill (LFG capture rate of 60% reported in ). The LFG capture method for these landfills is generally through horizontal and vertical wells, and methane destruction method is generally flaring. The value of R obtained using the default values and equation in the Carbon Offset Handbook is considered conservative as some portion of the waste would have been disposed of in a smaller landfill without LFG capture in place. It is considered an accurate estimate for the baseline condition, as it falls within the range of reported LFG capture rates reported. Lₒ the Lₒ value for British Columbia was calculated using the given equation, and outlined further in this section. PCPN annual precipitation data from the Environment Canada 30-year Climate Normals for the BC regions of Delta, Abbotsford and Kamloops using the historic average normal value from These areas were used as they are the closest representation for the MSW landfills of interest. K the k-value was calculated using the recommended equation from the 2015 Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, Version 1.0: k= *pcpn Sample project calculations are included in Section List of Assumptions The following assumptions were made to complete the quantification: Table 5: List of Assumptions Assumption Description Source/Sink Impact Specific The landfill parameters SS B6 & P14 British for the Project are Columbia assumed to be similar to Landfills an average of three relevant MSW landfills in the regions: Cache Creek Landfill, Bailey Sanitary Landfill and Vancouver Landfill. Justification The BC LFG Management Regulation does not require a minimum gas capture percent. The most recent reported values for achieved LFG capture rates were considered representative. Specific LFG capture rates are not available at each landfill, therefore the default values were used in the equation provided by the Carbon Offset Emissions Handbook Version 1.0 (March 2015). 7 Golder Associates Annual Report Cache Creek Landfill, Cache Creek, BC. Retrieved from: 8 City of Chilliwack Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) Public Report. Retrieved from: 9 City of Vancouver Vancouver 2014 Annual Report. Retrieved from: vancouver-landfill-annual-report.pdf

26 Page 26 Assumption Description Source/Sink Impact Material The emissions factors SS P7 Treatment related to composting Emissions treatment from the IPCC 2006 report 10 include a large range of default emission values. The lower end of this range was used for the AIM facility. Justification The NZW facility uses well-established composting technology with individual pile aeration with computer monitored temperature and oxygen levels. The IPCC values apply to a range of composting and anaerobic digestion systems. It is noted in the report that poorly working composts are likely to produce more CH 4 and N 2O emissions. The emissions of CH 4 and N 2O can occur in anaerobic sections of the compost, but will be oxidised in aerobic sections. Due to the high quality aeration practices at NZW, along with process temperature and oxygen monitoring, it is assumed that the CH 4 and N 2O emissions relating to composting treatment are minimized, and the lower end of the IPCC ranges for emissions were used. 3.2 Estimate of total GHG emission reductions/removals enhancements attributable for the project The greenhouse gas assertion is a statement of the number of offset tonnes achieved during the reporting period. The assertion identifies emissions reductions per vintage year and includes a breakout of individual greenhouse gas types (CO 2, CH 4, N 2O, SF 6, HFCs, and PFCs) applicable to the project and total emissions reported as CO 2e. The total in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) is calculated using the global warming potentials (GWPs) referenced in 2007 IPCC Report (IPCC, 2007). There are no sources or sinks of SF 6, HFCs or PFCs. 10 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4: Biological Treatment of Solid Waste. Retrieved from:

27 4 IDENTIFICATION OF BASELINE Three baseline scenarios were evaluated for the Project. These scenarios and the relevant barriers affecting each of these scenarios are summarized in Table 6 below. Table 6: Barriers Assessment of Alternative Baseline Scenarios Page 27 Alternative Baseline Scenario Alternative 1: Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste Discussion of Relevant Barriers Financial/Economic: Developing an anaerobic digestion project would require significant investments for capital expenditure and operation. Institutional: An anaerobic digestion facility would require expertise and specialized training of personal. The operation and maintenance of such a facility is challenging and costly. The anaerobic digestion process is Alternative 2: Landfilling of organic waste New Technology: An anaerobic digestion facility would require extensive research and development efforts. The anaerobic digestion process produces strong odours, which are undesirable in an urban area. The anaerobic digestion process also takes much longer than aerobic composting and requires additional heating requirements. Financial/Economic: Disposal of waste in a landfill is the most common disposal method locally and nationally. No major infrastructure investment would be required, and is therefore a viable alternative. Legal: The disposal of waste material in landfills is compliant with all legal regulatory requirements. Alternative 3: Waste to Energy Project through Incineration of Organic Waste Institutional: This scenario would not require any major additional training for operation of existing landfills. Landfill operations are well understood and already underway. Financial/Economic: Developing a waste to energy project would require significant investments for capital expenditure and operation. Institutional: An incineration facility would require expertise and specialized training of personal. The operation and maintenance of such a facility is challenging and costly. Environmental: The FVRD Solid Waste Management Plan explicitly states that it does not support incineration as a method of waste recovery due to the negative environmental consequences associated with this technology. 2 New Technology: A Waste to Energy Incineration facility would require extensive research and development efforts. Also, as the waste being sent to NZW s facility is residential SSO, it will likely have a low calorific value and a high moisture content, and therefore not be suitable for incineration.

28 Page 28 Based on the barriers test above, BASELINE SCENARIO ALTERNATIVE 2 is considered the most likely baseline scenario. The baseline scenario is defined as the use of the pre-existing landfills for the disposal of municipal solid organic waste. The baseline requires an adjustment as it is likely that some of the waste sent to the Project would have been diverted from landfills regardless of NZW s operations. The Aerobic Composting Protocol prescribes a baseline adjustment assuming a diversion rate of 20%. As a result, 20% of the total organic waste is subtracted prior to calculating the baseline emissions. The baseline condition must also consider LFG capture practices in British Columbia. As discussed in Section 1.2, BC Regulations require LFG management systems for regulated landfills as of January 1, All three of the landfills which would have been used in the baseline scenario (Cache Creek, Bailey and Vancouver) have had LFG collection systems in place prior to The LFG recovery rate applied in the baseline GHG quantification is discussed in Section The Project will reduce GHG emissions from the Baseline condition described here. These emissions reductions are obtained at the Project, and are a direct result of voluntary and additional activities by NZW. 5 QUANTIFICATION PLAN 5.1 Baseline Emissions Quantification Methodology Emissions Baseline = Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction SS B6 Quantification of the Baseline Emissions from Material Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction The methane generation potential of waste streams disposed of in a landfill is determined using the First Order Decay (FOD) Methane Quantification Model from the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 1.0, March 2015). t=40 Q CH4,t = [k (M AL ) Lo e k(t 1) (1 R] (1 OX) t=1 Inputs to this equation are summarized in Table (page 21)

29 Page Project Emissions Quantification Methodology Emissions Facility Operations = emissions under SS P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation Emissions Facility Operations = (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CO2); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CH4); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I N2O); (EC * EF GRID, CO2e) Where: Emissions Project = Emissions Facility Operation + Emissions Material Treatment + Emissions Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection + Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing Fuel i = Diesel Gas EF Fuel = Fuel i Combustion Emissions Factor EC = Facility Electricity Consumption EF GRID = BC Electricity Grid consumption factor, 14.7g/kWh Emissions Material Treatment = emissions under SS P7 Material Treatment As there is no CH 4 collection and destruction system in place at the composting facility, the capture of CH 4 is zero and not included in the calculation. Emissions Material Treatment = (Mass Composting Material * EF COMP., CH4); (Mass Composting Material * EF COMP., N2O) Where: Mass Composting Material = mass of organic waste that goes through the Project EF COMP = emission factors related to the biological treatment of waste (refer to Table 2) Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction = emissions under SS P14 Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction The methane generation potential of waste streams disposed of in a landfill is determined using the First Order Decay (FOD) Methane Quantification Model from the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 1.0, March 2015). t=40 Q CH4,t = [k (M resc ) Lo e k(t 1) (1 R] (1 OX) t=1 Inputs to this equation are summarized in Table4 (page 21), where:

30 Page 30 M resc = the mass of residue that will undergo decomposition is equal to 44.4% of the total residue mass as determined by Plastics lab testing results provided by AIM. Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing = (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CO2); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CH4); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I N2O) Where: Fuel i = Natural Gas, Diesel Gas EF Fuel = Fuel Extraction, Processing or Production Emissions Factor 6 MONITORING PLAN In general, the data control processes employed for this Project consist of manual or metered data capture and reporting, and manual entry of monthly totals or average values into a Quantification Calculator that was originally developed for the quantification of GHG reductions according to the Protocol. The primary methods of data collection are the reconciliation of monthly electricity invoices, diesel sales receipts, and weight tickets for organic waste deliveries. Table 7 summarizes the data monitoring and collection procedures for the primary data required for the quantification methodology. The mass of organic waste is recorded on weight scale tickets for every load coming into the facility and going out of the facility on a daily basis. The information is verified against an excel spreadsheet. The paper tickets are have been stored since Project start-up by type and source. All tickets are verified monthly with the Abbotsford municipality for any errors and rectify/reprint tickets and update database as required. Table 7 on the following page summarizes the data sources and handling procedures for the key parameters used in the quantification methodology in section 5.

31 Page 31 Table 7: Data Monitoring and Collection SSR identifier or name Data parameter Estimation, modeling, measurement or calculation approaches Data Recording Data unit Sources/ Origin Monitoring frequency Description and justification of monitoring method Uncertainty Deviation from the Protocol B6, P7 Quantity of Source Separated Organics Received Month summary of measured weight from scale tickets Scale Tickets record per load weight. Small public drop-offs get hard-logged into log book. Tonnes NZW Scale Ticket Records Per load as delivered This represents the highest frequency of data collection available. Uncertainty surrounding this measurement is low, as weight scales are calibrated according to best practices and all trucks are weighed in. There is no deviation from the Protocol. P6, P16 Diesel Consumption P6 P14 Electricity Consumption Residue Sent to Landfill Fuel Invoices Electricity Bills Weight from scale tickets waste to landfill in waste trucks Volume of fuel delivered per load indicated on Fuel Invoices Sub-Meter for NZW Portion of Monthly Electricity usage on Site Scale Tickets record per load weight to landfill Litres kwh Tonnes Coastal Mountain Fuels Invoices Electricity Invoices Capt n Crunch Auto Wrecking Ltd and Progressive Waste Scale Ticket Records Per load as delivered Continuous Per load as leaving facility Fuel consumption varies over time depending on equipment use and other factors. Fuel invoices are the most reliable source of monitoring consumption. Electricity sub-meter is maintained by the electric utility and is subject to Government of Canada measurement requirements. This represents the highest frequency of data collection available. Uncertainty is low for the volumes of diesel as this data originates from reliable sources. Uncertainty is low for the metered electricity as this data originates from reliable sources. Uncertainty surrounding this measurement is low, as weight scales are calibrated according to best practices. There is no deviation from the Protocol. There is no deviation from the Protocol. There is no deviation from the Protocol.

32 Page 32 7 DATA INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND RECORDS 7.1 Data Management and QA/QC at Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility The quantification of the mass of organic waste for composting is completely manual, and is based on monthly reconciliation of weigh tickets of organic waste received. A summary of deliveries is provided by NZW. The diesel and electricity consumption due to onsite activities are provided by fuel invoices and summarized electricity invoices, respectfully. Manual checking will be conducted on an annual basis by a third-party and will consist of: Reconciliation of values in the calculator with hard-copy records of electronic data; Comparison with data from other time periods to identify any major discrepancies ( reality checking ); and Recalculation of selected values to ensure that the Calculator remains accurate. 7.2 Data Management and QA/QC at Blue Source Blue Source Canada holds itself to the highest professional and ethical standards. Staff all have experience in working on GHG projects and/or training in the use of ISO Junior staff members are mentored closely until their level of competence is deemed sufficient for them to work more independently. This experience and training helps to ensure that errors and omissions are minimised and that project documentation is compiled in accordance with the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and conservativeness. Blue Source Canada operates a rigorous internal QA/QC process that is built around the principle of senior review (i.e. calculations and reports are checked by experienced staff members prior to being released). The quantification calculator, for example, will be checked for: Transcription errors/omissions Correctly functioning links/formulas in spreadsheets Correct and transparent referencing of data sources Justification of assumptions Use of, and compliance with, most up-to-date versions of protocols, technical guidance, etc. In addition, the Offset Project Plan and Offset Project Report will also be senior-reviewed for errors, omissions, clarity, etc. Issues are recorded in Blue Source s QA/QC checklist for the project (and, as necessary, embedded into the reviewed version of the documents and/or calculator) and these will be corrected before these are

33 Page 33 sent to the third-party verifier. Staff sign an Attestation of Quality Assurance and Quality Control to document that the QA/QC process was followed. This QA/QC process is kept under constant review Back-up Procedures at Blue Source Electronic data is backed up by Blue Source s IT service provider, Calitso. A copy of this back-up procedure is provided as Appendix A Document Retention Policy at Blue Source Blue Source operates a documentation retention policy, which all staff must abide by as a condition of their employment. A copy of this document retention policy is provided as Appendix B. 8 Greenhouse Gas Assertion The greenhouse gas assertion is a statement of the number of VERRs achieved during the reporting period. The assertion identifies emissions reductions per vintage year and includes a breakout of individual greenhouse gas types (CO 2, CH 4, N 2O, SF 6, HFCs, and PFCs) applicable to the project and total emissions reported as CO 2e. The total in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) is calculated using the global warming potentials (GWPs) referenced in the 2007 IPCC. The total greenhouse gas emission reductions claimed for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are 3,354 tonnes CO 2e. The total greenhouse gas emission reductions claimed for the period of January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016 are 1,159 tonnes CO 2e. The total greenhouse gas emission reductions claimed for the reporting period of January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016, are 4,513 tonnes CO 2e Table 8 (overleaf) identifies the greenhouse gas assertion, containing the calculated number of offset tonnes achieved, separated by each unique GHG released.

34 Page 34 Table 8: 2015 & 2016 VERRs Summary

35 9 Reporting and Verification Details This report has been prepared in accordance with ISO and GHG CleanProjects TM requirements. The verifier, GHD, is an independent third-party. Contact details for the verifier have been included in Section 1.7 of this report. An acceptable verification standard (e.g. ISO ) has been be used and the verifier was vetted to ensure technical competence with this project type. The verifier was engaged to provide a reasonable level of assurance.

36 10 STATEMENT OF SENIOR REVIEW This offset project plan was prepared by Kassy Harbottle, Carbon Services Project Analyst, Blue Source Canada and senior reviewed by Tooraj Moulai, Senior Engineer, Blue Source Canada. Although care has been taken in preparing this document, it cannot be guaranteed to be free of errors or omissions. Prepared by: Senior reviewed by: Kassy Harbottle Carbon Project Analyst 29/07/2016 Tooraj Moulai Senior Engineer 29/07/2016