County to seek expressions of interest for organic waste processing

By Sharon Harrison
It costs the County approximately $300,000 annually for both collection and processing of household organics waste, a figure the County is looking to reduce.

A feasibility study on the possibility of building an organics processing facility in the County was presented at last week’s committee of the whole meeting by Albert Paschkowiak, supervisor of environmental services and sustainability.

Several options were explored in the study, but at around $9.7 million, it was decided the price tag to build a new facility was not feasible, nor recommended, at this time, largely due to the relatively small amount of organics waste produced in the County.

Municipally-owned properties were also evaluated for their feasibility to operate as an organics processing facility, where it was established of the sites reviewed, the Sophiasburgh garage could be utilized as an organics processing facility with the proper technology.

“The recommended technology was to use a covered area and extended pile system, however the capital costs don’t make a lot of financial sense given the amount of material we generate here,” Paschkowiak explained, “so staff are recommending exploration of third party options.”

In an 11-1 recorded vote, with councillor Chris Braney opposed (councillors Phil Prinzen and Roy Pennell were absent), council supported the idea of pursuing an expression of interest (EOI) process for third party options and opportunities for organics processing and management.

They also opted to change the backyard composter giveaway to every two years (instead of annually) due to the program seeing a significant decline in participation recently – the next giveaway is planned for 2027.

Paschkowiak’s report outlines the results of the study to determine the feasibility of developing and operating an organic waste processing facility in the County. The report also evaluates the suitability of several County-owned sites, various composting technologies and discusses regulatory implications, along with cost estimates for the recommended technology.

“Between 635 and 780 tonnes of source separated organics (SSO) materials are generated each year from curbside collection, resulting in a cost of approximately $300,000 annually for both collection and processing. The amount collected has been slightly decreasing since its peak in 2022.”

Currently, the County provides collection of SSO to County residents (rural and urban) through the green bin program where waste is collected and hauled from the County under contract by e360 Solutions Inc.

The study was undertaken after council previously voted to explore options to reduce costs related to waste management, and organics in particular.

Councillor John Hirsch said he liked the idea of going to an EOI process, and asked how much of the current $300,000 cost to collect and process organics waste went to transportation versus processing, to which Paschkowiak said about half.

Paschkowiak outlined how a number of options were explored, including internalizing collection and processing, supporting in-home compost appliances, offsetting organics generation through backyard composting, and reducing service levels.

“Reduction of the service level was not possible in accordance with the food and organic waste policy statement from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, which requires municipalities with established curbside collection of source separated food and organic waste programs to maintain or expand these programs,” he explained.

The feasibility study, prepared by GHD, investigated the feasibility of bringing organics management in-house to reduce costs of managing the material.

The study assumed a maximum generation capacity of 1,800 tonnes annually from County residents (factoring for growth over time and for full participation), 230 tonnes of leaf and yard waste generated at the County’s existing waste sites, and 1,000 tonnes of SSO generated from commercial/industrial entities, the report outlined.

Seven existing (so as to avoid the cost of property purchase) County-owned sites were evaluated for their suitability, including Waupoos (the former North Marysburgh landfill), Hallowell (the former Pickering pit), Ridge Road pit (unused portion), Shannon Road (former pit located on Ridge Road), Sophiasburgh garage/Demorestville quarry (a portion), Ameliasburgh waste transfer site (parcel 2), and Ameliasburgh waste transfer site (parcel 3).

Environmental, social, technical and economic factors and potential implications of housing an organics facility were looked at.

The Sophiasburgh garage was selected as the preferred site to house an organics processing facility as showing the most promise as a potential organics management site with its advantages outweighing disadvantages.

However, its disadvantages include being located within a natural core area, and there is a provincially-significant wetland within 50 metres of the site’s boundary.

A number of technologies were evaluated, including open windrow composting, aerated static pile, covered aerated static pile, and tunnel-enclosed aerated static pile.

“Each of these technologies have their benefits and limitations and are suitable for different settings, Paschkowiak explained. “Generally, technologies that are more suitable for tighter quarters and that mitigate odour and impacts to neighbouring properties better, are more expensive.”

He said, the study looked at selecting the best combination of technology and site setting to achieve the best value while respecting regulations and site constraints.

Councillor David Harrison asked what the make-up is of what is collected for composting, and what does it comprise.

Paschkowiak said while they don’t have a waste study of the actual make-up, they do know it is SSO, so food waste, as well as a yard and leaf waste component.

“You’ve got 780 tonnes of SSO material and an estimated 1,000 tonnes of leaf and yard waste, so that’s really what we are talking about managing, both of those streams,” he said.

Harrison then asked why not just get a contract out because “it looks so simple: chop it, spread it and disc it under”, to which Paschkowiak said that’s exactly what they are doing with leaf and yard waste.

He added that he didn’t believe food waste organics can be spread as the regulations would prevent it, although Harrison disagreed. “If it was chopped and just spread it like with a manure spreader and disc it under, you are achieving everything you are trying to achieve.”

The study also explored the option of creating a facility that could also manage bio-solids generated by the wastewater treatment plants which produce about 6,400 m³ of semi-liquid bio-solids annually with low solids content (3.5 to five per cent).

“The County does not have de-watering equipment for this material, resulting in land application of the material as non-agricultural source material,” stated the report. “The high moisture content of the bio-solids poses challenges for composting. Installing de-watering equipment, like a screw press, could make the material more suitable and reduce transport costs, though at significant capital and operating expense.”

The use of bio-solids as feed stock would limit the ultimate quality category that could be obtained through composting and thus limit the eventual use of the material, it was noted.

It was determined that the capital cost to develop and build an organics management facility, and operating costs to run it, to be operated by the County, is estimated at $7,752,000 to achieve 50 per cent capacity, with an additional $1,904,000 required to reach 100 per cent of capacity. It was noted that grant funding for a portion of the cost may be available.

“Other options considered included proceeding with the construction of the facility; however, given the extreme cost and the relatively small amount of organics currently being generated, this option was not recommended.”

Another option considered is for the County to partner with third parties to help establish organics processing, which may leverage private industry and the County’s strategic assets to reduce or share the cost to establish organics processing capacity and reduce organics management costs.

“The structure of such an agreement is unknown at this time and would highly depend on the interested parties. Staff recommend issuing an EOI to identify any parties who would be interested in partnering and to get a sense for the opportunities out there,” said Paschkowiak.

Councillor Phil St-Jean asked if staff have had any conversations with Kate’s Rest and if Kate’s Rest had reached out, further enquiring what those conversations brought.

Note: Kate’s Rest Foundation presented separately a home and farm initiative proposal at the same committee of the whole meeting. See that story here.

Paschkowiak confirmed some preliminary discussions had taken place with a quick site meeting at the recommend location in Sophiasburgh where the Kate’s Rest team looked around in what he described as initial fact-finding conversations.

“We provided information about what we have from a materials standpoint, and had brief discussions on that point,” he said, noting there are still lots of questions that need to be answered with respect to planning and other factors.”

Paschkowiak also clarified that the conversations with Kate’s Rest focused around the organics piece only.

“The addition of these other components came a bit later after our initial discussion, so commenting on those is a bit difficult, but certainly, from an organics perspective, we are looking at ways to reduce, and if they can use it, great.”

St-Jean said he sees “some potential” with the Kate’s Rest option, but noted how “what they are proposing is much different than just a composting site”.

“What we heard earlier was a little different, and I am hoping we will be open-minded through the EOI process, as broad as we can, so we can capture something like that,” St-Jean added.

Mayor Steve Ferguson wanted Kate’s Rest to be advised that they are free to put forward an expression when the EOI process goes out.

“I think it’s great Brian Hart (of Kate’s Rest) has come forward, and it’s the second time he has come forward with this idea, and we will see what they come up with.”

Councillor Chris Braney said he believed the County was getting in something “that I don’t think we really should be into, or supporting. At end of the day, it’s going to cost us a great deal of money”, and once again spoke about precedents getting set.

“How do we set an example or a precedent to say, well, you did it for him, why not me, and we’re just running it… we are creating something that we might not be able to get out of,” expressed Braney. “We need to be very practical and think about this.”

Hirsch reminded that the motion they are discussing has nothing to do with the Kate’s Rest proposal presented to council, further reminding there was no motion for a decision on that proposal.

This, he said, was simply to look at who else has some ideas about how we can handle the waste that is costing $300,000 a year now, “that’s what this is, that is not looking at these others proposals”.

The staff report and the full feasibility study (88 pages) can be found on the County’s website.

County looking at five sites to bring green bin collection in-house