Recycling Glass for the City of Fredericton

1. Recycling Glass for the City of Fredericton ENGG 4025 Multidisciplinary Design Project Client: Mr. Mark Hymers, City of Fredericton Academic Co-Mentors : Dr. Michel Couturier, Mr. Andrew Steeves Industrial Co-Mentor: Mr. Kevin Scott James Carvell Mohd Zuki Jonah Tremblay

2. Outline • Objective of the project • Market review • Collection Review • Recommended system • Description of system • Economics • Conclusions and recommendations • Question period

3. Objective • Recycle glass • Determine economic feasibility • Environmentally sound

4. Market Review • Product Selection Criteria • Environmental impact • Product value • Estimated costs • Public acceptance

5. Market Review • Shipping containers to glass processor near Montreal $0/tonne • Aggregate $10/tonne • Glassphalt • Concrete • Glass/recycled concrete mix • Abrasive Blasting Grit $270/tonne • Abrasive Blasting Beads $500/tonne • Reflective Glass Beads $650/tonne

6. Recommended System • 13,000 tonnes waste per year in Fredericton • 4% glass • 75% of glass estimated recoverable • 10% contaminants • 430 tonnes per year collected • 240 operating days per year + 10 (stat. holidays) + 10 (shutdown maintenance)

7. Recommended System • Estimated Input: 430 tonnes per year • Product Output: 390 tonnes per year Collection Initial Sorting Coarse Crushing Cleaning Contaminant Separation Fine Grinding Storing & Selling to Market

8. System Description

9. Part 1: Collection Picked up by the skid steer

10. Collection Review 4 potential collection systems: • Make use of four recycling depots in Fredericton • Install large recycling bins for each neighbourhood • Recyclable glass drop-off at FRSWC • Rearrange the current curbside box collection program • Add glass to existing box • Design a new box just for the glass

11. Collection Review Chosen method: Designate a new bin for glass (for curbside bin program) • Benefits: • Better quality control • Recover more recyclables • Increased citizen participation

12. Part 2: Initial Sorting and Coarse Crushing From the tipping floor To the washer To the landfill

13. Part 3: Cleaning and Screening From the hammer mill To the magnetic separator To the landfill

14. Part 4: Metal Separating, Fine-sizing and Fine-screening From the Trommel screen To the landfill To be stored and bagged

15. Part 5: Coarse Crushing, Cleaning, Contaminant Separation From the vibratory screen

16. Potential Issues • Collection, Processing & Product • Health & Safety • Sharp edges • Respiratory hazard • Environmental • Inert • Social • Citizen desire • Processing noise/smells • Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)

17. Economics • Capital Costs • Operating Costs • Annual Revenue • Sensitivity Analysis • Return on Investment • Optimization

18. Capital Cost - Equipment

19. Capital Cost - Equipment • Total Equipment Cost: $232,000 • Delivery Cost: $41,000 • Total Purchased Equipment Cost ≈ $272,000

20. Fixed Capital Cost Estimate

21. Operating Costs – Utilities & Labour • Utilities • Electricity ~730 kWh/day ≈ $15,000/year • Water ~1.3 kilolitres/day ≈ $260/year • Total = $15,260/year • Labour (operators + truck drivers) • 10 staff X $15/hour X 2080 hours • =$312,000/year

22. Operating Costs - Variable • Misc. Materials (Diesel, Detergent, etc): $47,000 • Utilities: $15,000 • Product Packaging: $1,700 • Variable Cost Total = $63,700

23. Operating Costs - Fixed • Maintenance: $39,000 • Operating labour: $312,000 • Supervision: $62,000 • Insurance: $7,800 • Property tax: $16,000 • Fixed Cost Total = $436,800

24. Operating Costs • General - Collection Truck lease $70,000 • Total Annual Production Cost ≈ $570,000 • Cost per 23 kg (50 lb) bag: $30 • Cost per tonne: $1500 • Cost per day: $2300

25. Annual Revenue • Product (390 X $270): $105,000 • Waste tipping fee (390 X $74): $29,000 • Annual Revenue: $134,000 • Annual Operating Costs: ($570,000) • Annual Gross Loss ≈ ($436,000)

26. Return on Investment (ROI) • ROI = _____after tax loss_____ = -$436,000 = -56% • Total capital investment $776,000

27. Sensitivity Analysis

28. Optimization • What factor affects the ROI the most? • Total capital cost • Labour cost • How can this factor be changed? • Scale up and down • Shared collection

29. Scale Optimization

30. Collection Optimization • Shared collection (current blue/grey bin truck) • Pro: significant labour savings (+ fuel and lease) • Con: cross-contamination risk; custom truck cost • Result: • ROI: -56% -4% • Scale increase to 2000 t/y: ROI ≈ 30%

31. Conclusion • Collection • Curbside pickup • Processing rate • 430 tonnes/year • Market • Abrasive blasting ($270/tonne, bulk) • Economics • ROI = -56%

32. Recommendations • Do not implement this solution • Look into reducing the costs of collection • Look into increasing the amount of glass collected

33. Acknowledgements • Mr. Mark Hymers (City of Fredericton) • Mr. Brett McCrea and Mr. Andrew McGilligan (FRSWC) • Mr. Kevin Scott, Mr. Andrew Steeves, and Dr. Michel Couturier (UNB) • Mr. Gilles Boudreau (Gaudreau Environment Inc) • Mr. Scott MacDonald (Department of Transportation and Infrastructure) • Mr. Mike Walker (City of Fredericton) • Dr. Eldo Hildebrand (UNB) • Mr. Tony Durling (Martime Case Ltd) • Mr. Mitchell Amos (Perfection Paving Ltd) • Mr. Darrin Provost (D&L Engineering Sales Ltd)

34. Questions?