City of Toronto

Class Environmental Assessment for Biosolids Management at the Highland Creek TP

Public Information Centre No. 3

November 19, 2015

1

Outline

Project Background Class EA Project Scope and Project Team Biosolids Management Alternatives Impact Assessment of Alternatives

- Health

- Environment

- Community

- Cost Summary of Findings Next Steps

2

Project Background

3

Highland Creek Treatment Plant (HCTP)

- Connected population of ~500,000

- Rated capacity of 219 ML/d, generates approximately 40,000 wet tonnes of biosolids each year

4

Rationale for the HCTP Biosolids Management Class EA

- The existing multiple hearth incinerators were commissioned in 1976 and are nearing the end of their useful life

- The incinerator emissions meet all regulatory standards

- Urgent repairs to multiple hearth incinerators are underway, and will extend the life of the incinerators for up to 10 years

- The City needs to plan now, to provide time for design and construction of a new biosolids management facility

5

Class EA Process

The Class EA follows step-wise process to evaluate options and identify a preferred approach for managing biosolids

We are here

6

Project Study Area

7

Step-Wise Evaluation Process

Short-list -feasible for

HCTP

Class EA Report

Long-list Screening - ‘must-meet’

criteria

Detailed comparative evaluation

Preferred biosolids

management alternative

30-Day Public Review PeriodandCity Council Approvalrequired before implementation

Step 1 Step 2

8

How alternatives were assessed in the Class EA Process?

EnvironmentCommunityHuman Health Cost

Best Biosolids Management Alternative

for Highland Creek Treatment Plant

Short-List of Feasible Biosolids Management Alternatives for

Highland Creek Treatment Plant

Evaluation Criteria Categories

9

Scope of Information Developed

+ Focused Studies- Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

- Human health risk assessment (HHRA)

- Cumulative air impact assessment (modelling)

- Noise impact assessment

- Traffic route assessment

+Community feedback- Public Information Centre No. 1

on June 16, 2014

- Public Information Centre No. 2 on April 9, 2015

- Public Information Centre No. 3 on November 19, 2015 (here today)

- HIA Stakeholders Workshops (2)

10

Information Developed for Biosolids Management Alternatives

+ Facilities Requirements- Process description, schematic- Footprint requirement on site- Emission control- Odour management- Health and safety features- Noise- On-site storage

+Management Approach- Market/outlet description- Market/outlet reliability - Contingency

+Operations Needs- Staffing- Electricity use- Natural gas use- Water use- Truck fuel use

+Costs- Capital, operating and life-cycle

+ Impacts- Contaminant emissions- Traffic, noise, dust, odour during

construction- Traffic, noise, dust, odour during

operation- Greenhouse gas generation

11

Project Team

Biosolids Engineering

Toronto Water

CIMA

Project Management

Toronto Engineering and Construction Services

CIMA

12

Short-List of Biosolids Management Alternatives

13

Alternative 1 – On-site Fluidized Bed Incineration Two new fluidized bed incinerators would replace existing multiple-hearth

incinerators New emission cleaning equipment to reduce particulates and mercury Ash management in one of two ways:

- Landfill

- Recycling

Fluidized bed incinerator operating at G.E. Booth (Lakeview) Wastewater Treatment Plant in Mississauga

14

Alternative 2 – Haul Biosolids Off-site for Management Contractors would haul biosolids from site

- 4 to 6 trucks daily

New facilities include:- Truck loading facility with odour control

- Additional digesters

Off-site management couldinclude:- Land application

- Composting

- Processing into fertilizer

- Landfill

Similar to Ashbridges BayTP contract program

15

Alternative 3 – On-site Pelletization and Off-site Pellet Management

New facilities include:- Pelletizer process building with

odour control

- Truck loading with odour control

Contractor would haul pellets from site for distribution- 1 to 2 trucks per day

Pellets would be marketed as a fertilizer product

Similar to Ashbridges Bay TP pelletizer program

Pelletization facility and pellet storage silos at the City of Toronto Ashbridges Bay TP.

16

Transportation Mode and Route Assessment An assessment of transport modes was

completed – haulage by large (40 tonne) truck was identified as best mode

Transport of ash (Alt. 1), biosolids (Alt. 2) or pellets (Alt. 3) from the HCTP would be required- Alternative 1: 89 trucks over a 2 week period

each year

- Alternative 2: 1,300 per year – 5 per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year

- Pelletization – 390 per year – 1 to 2 each day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year

Through a detailed assessment of all possible routes from HCTP to 401 – 2 routes were short-listed

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 30

500

1000

1500

Trucks Per Year

17

Coronation Dr./Manse Rd./ Morningside Ave.

18

Beechgrove Dr./Lawrence Ave./Port Union Rd.

19

Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives- Health (HIA)- Environment- Community- Cost

EnvironmentCommunityHuman Health Cost

20

General Approach to Evaluating Alternatives

Public and project team input to select a long list of evaluation criteria

In general, all short-listed alternatives are:- Feasible

- Allowable within existing regulations

- Demonstrated/proven in Ontario

The following slides present findings for each evaluation category

21

Health Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives

Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

Human Health

EnvironmentCommunity Cost

22

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Helps to address community concerns about potential health impacts

of the project

Helps to distinguish between the alternatives

Enhances and complements the Class Environmental Assessment (EA)

Provides Medical Officer of Health with important information to inform his recommendations to the Board of Health

A separate HIA report was prepared as part of the Class EA

The HIA was peer reviewed by independent team experts

23

Health Impact Assessment Process

Peer Review

Peer Review

24

List of Health Areas in HIA

Most important health factors Other health factors

Air quality

Traffic Safety

Soil quality

Neighbourhood characteristics:• Recreation and leisure• Access to transport• Community and social cohesion• Housing/property values

Stress – risk perception:• Noise• Odour

Climate change

Job opportunities / economics

25

Health Impacts Assessment for Highland Creek Treatment Plant

Dr. David McKeown Medical Officer of Health

October 26, 2015

26

Findings of the HIA Overall, the health impacts associated with

the alternatives are very small

There are no appreciable differences in health impacts among the alternatives

All alternatives evaluated achieve significant reductions in air emissions compared to the current multiple hearth incinerators

27

Air Quality – Criteria Air Contaminants

• While there are differences, the contribution from the alternatives to air pollution-related respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality is very small

28

Air Quality – Carcinogens

Health Benchmark

ILCR – Incremental Life-time Cancer Risk

29

Air Quality – Non-Carcinogens

Health Benchmark

30

Human Health Risk from Air Emissions Contribution of the HCTP to the overall health risk from air

pollution is very small for Base Case and all alternatives • Chronic non-cancer inhalation CRs range between 3 and 12 orders of

magnitude below (i.e., <0.001% of) the relevant human health-based benchmarks. 

• For carcinogens, incremental lifetime cancer risks were between 3 and 10 orders of magnitude below (i.e., <0.001% of) the acceptable incremental lifetime cancer risk benchmark of one-in-one-million.

All alternatives contribute less than 1% to the total cumulative risk in the study area, and would represent an improvement to the current situation

31

Human Health Risk – Multi-media Assessment

What was evaluated:- Long-term accumulation of chemicals in soil, dust, and backyard

produce from biosolids management alternatives

- Human health risk due to exposure to air, soil, dust and home grown produce

Results:- Similar to air, risks due exposure from

biosolids management alternatives are extremely small and several orders of magnitude below health benchmarks

32

Traffic Safety – Route 1 and Route 4

Route 1 (Morningside) Route 4 (Port Union)- No bike route interference

- No left turns at unsignalized intersections

- 4 schools, 3 child care /recreation centres/libraries

- Morningside has highest youth population in study area

- No legal truck restrictions

- Left turn lane on Manse Rd. and Lawrence Ave. E. short for a truck

- 1 km stretch of non-buffered sidewalks

- 500 m through residential areas

- Bike route planned along Port Union Road

- No left turns at unsignalized intersections

- 1 school, 2 child care/recreation centres/libraries

- No legal truck restrictions

- No maneuverability restrictions

- Mostly all buffered sidewalks

- 650 m through residential areas

- No criteria with high impact score

33

Traffic Safety

• While there are differences, the contribution of alternatives to increased risk of injuries and fatalities is very small

34

Traffic Safety

Alternative 1:Fluidized

Bed Incineration

Alternative 2:Biosolids Transport

Off-site for Management

Alternative 3: Pelletization Process

and Distribution of Fertilizer Product

85 trucks/year 1,300 trucks/year 433 trucks/year

Route 1 Route 4 Route 1 Route 4 Route 1 Route 4

Total vehicle kilometers per year 595 510 9100 7800 3031 2598

Estimated number of fatalities  per 100 years (fatality rate x total vehicle kilometers x 100)

0.00013 0.00011 0.00200 0.00172 0.00067 0.00057

% Increase over existing Same Same 18x 16x 5x 4x

Based on pedestrian/traffic injury rates, predicted average risk of <1 additional injury over a 100 year period for all alternatives

35

Note: Route 1 – Morningside Avenue , Route 4 – Port Union Road

Stress and Risk Perception - Noise and Odour

Alternative 2 and 3 have a greater potential to result in an increase in odour and noise impacts

Any increase in stress would be very small and not a health concern

36

Other Health Areas

Neighbourhood characteristics- No health effects for any alternative

Climate change (greenhouse gas)- All alternatives represent less than 0.1% of typical per capital

greenhouse gas emissions (based on a service area of 500,000) and less than 0.04% of the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal

Employment- None of the alternatives have an impact on overall employment in

Toronto

37

Health Equity Truck routes were assessed in terms of the proximity to vulnerable

populations: - Neighbourhood Improvement Areas

- Locations with high senior and child/youth populations, including:• Schools

• Churches

• Senior homes

• Child care centres

- Cross walks

- Bicycle routes Route 4 is predicted to have a slightly lower impact on the

community in relation to pedestrian safety, noise and vulnerable populations

38

Health Impact Assessment Conclusions

Overall, the health impacts are very small and there are no appreciable difference in the alternatives

Specific findings:- All alternatives achieve notable reductions in health risks related to inhalation

and multi-media exposure due to air emissions compared to the existing situation

- Among the three alternatives, Alternative 1 is anticipated to result in the highest risk related to air emissions; whereas, Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase risks related to truck traffic (safety, odour, noise)

- With respect to the preferred route, Route 4 is predicted to have slightly less impact than Route 1 – for the purpose of this Class EA, both routes are considered to be viable

39

Environmental Impacts Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives

Environment

Community CostHuman Health

40

Environmental Criteria Protect air quality – minimize emissions to environment

Provide a reliable and sustainable biosolids management solution

Recover soil and fertilizer value

Minimize use of energy and other resources

Minimize greenhouse gas emissions

Minimize risk of spills

Minimize impacts during construction

41

Air Quality The health risk to people in the study area from exposure to emissions

from biosolids management alternatives was evaluated in the HHRA Air quality modelling of 43 chemicals of concern (COC) was used to

determine: - A change in emissions from alternatives (trucks and facilities) compared to the

existing case (multiple hearth incinerators)

- The incremental change in background air quality as a result of emissions

Acetaldehyde Acrolein AntimonyArsenic Barium BenzeneBeryllium Boron 1,3-ButadieneCadmium Carbon monoxide* Carbon tetrachlorideChloroform Chromium CobaltCopper 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-DichloroethaneDichloromethane Ethylene dibromide FormaldehydeLead Manganese MercuryMolybdenum Nickel compounds Nitrogen oxides*

Ozone*Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)*

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)*

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans1

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)2

Selenium Strontium Sulphur dioxide*Tetrachloroethylene Toluene TrichloroethyleneVinyl Chloride Zinc  

42

Modelled NOx Emissions in Study Area

43

Modelled NOx from Biosolids Management Alternatives (Scale is 600x finer)

Criteria air chemical contributions to respiratory and cardiovascular induced hospitalizations and mortality are very small (less than 0.0004% from all alternatives)

44

Protect Air Quality- Minimize Emissions to Environment Air Quality Modelling in Study Area

- Predicted emission rates for all COC are less than 1% of City of Toronto emissions

- All alternatives result in a decrease in chemical emissions, except for those chemicals associated with diesel fuel (Truck traffic)

- Modelling predicts that the biosolids management alternatives will not have an impact on air quality in the study area

Other findings- The further trucks need to travel to bring biosolids/pellets to their final

destination, the greater the contribution of emissions

In general, all alternatives have similar, low impact

45

Provide a Reliable and Sustainable Biosolids Management Solution

What is environmental impact of disruption to service?- Solids/biosolids storage in wastewater treatment plant – treatment

performance and effluent quality to Lake Ontario

- Need to haul biosolids to landfill disposal

Risk Mitigation OverallAlternative 1 – Fluidized Bed Incineration

• Maintenance shut-down for incinerator

• Full redundant standby capacity

• Limited on-site storage

Same as existing

Alternative 2 – Haul biosolids off-site

• Reliance on contractors • Weather affects management• Depends on suitable land

application/disposal sites• Further distances may be

required for reliable sites

• Limited (3 to 4 d) on-site storage

• Multiple contractors (limited potential with small HCTP quantities)

Least reliable

Alternative 3 – Pelletization and Pellet management

• Weather affects management• Maintenance shut-down

periods are required

• Full redundant standby capacity

• Limited (3 to 4 d) on-site storage

• Emergency truck loading and landfill disposal

Less reliable than existing

46

Recover Soil and Fertilizer Value

Opportunity OpportunityAlternative 1 – Fluidized Bed Incineration

Very limited opportunity to recover nutrients from ash

Very limited opportunity

Alternative 2 – Haul Biosolids Off-Site

High potential for beneficial use or further processinginto a fertilizer

Good opportunity, although, potential for landfilling a portion

Alternative 3 – Pelletization and Pellet Management

Pellet is a fertilizerproduct that willhave primary use onagricultural land

Good opportunity, biosolids not pelletized (in emergency) will need to be landfilled

47

Minimize Energy and Other Resources

04,000,0008,000,000

12,000,000

Electricity Use (kW.h per year)

0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,000

Natural Gas Use (m3 per year)

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000

Diesel Fuel Use (L per year)

Alternative 2 has most impact, due to significantly higher diesel fuel use compared to other alternatives, with potentially additional resources (fuel, chemicals) use for further processing and land application

Alternatives 1 and 3 would result in a small increase in electricity use compared to the base case

Alternative 3 has highest natural gas use, but less than base case

48

Minimize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Base Case - Current MH Incineration

Alt 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration

Alt 2 - Haul Biosolids Off-Site

Alt 3 - Pelletization0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Annual GHG (tonne CO2 equiv. per year)

Annual GHG (t CO2 eqiv. Per year)

49

• All alternatives represent less than 0.1% of typical per capita greenhouse gas emissions (based on a service area of 500,000) and less than 0.04% of the City’s reduction goal

• For Alternative 2 and 3, additional CO2 from land application or further processing is offset by fertilizer credits (less fertilizer production) (BEAM)

Other Environmental Criteria

+Minimize risk of environmental impacts due to spills- None of the materials (ash,

biosolids or pellets) would cause a significant environmental impact if spilled

- Alternative 2 has most potential for spills of material and/or fuel due to number of trucks

+Minimize environmental impacts due to construction- All of the alternatives require

construction on-site with equal potential for impacts

- Normal construction measures would be used to mitigate impacts

50

Community Impacts Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives

Environment

Community

CostHuman Health

51

Community Criteria

Community opinion

Biosolids management staff working conditions

Nuisance impacts (noise, odour, traffic, mud)

Community impacts during construction

52

Public Opinion – Who commented?

No. of Attendees (Signed In)

Number of Comments Received

Public Information Centre No. 1

70 31

Public Information Centre No. 2

62 53

53

Summary of Public Input from PIC No. 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of Comments

54

General Feedback

Most frequent comments:- Strong support for incineration (Alternative 1)

- Strong opposition to additional truck traffic through community (Alternatives 2 and 3)

- Concerns about the health impacts of land application of biosolids or pellets (Alternatives 2 and 3)

55

Biosolids Management Staff Working ConditionsAlternative Working Conditions Overall

Alternative 1 – Fluidized Bed Incineration

Biosolids management trains are enclosed, with minimal odour potentialAsh is inert and odourless

Least impact to HCTP staff, no change from existing

Alternative 2 – Haul biosolids off-site

Biosolids truck loading facility odours within facility, with little potential for mitigation; however, facility would not need full time attendance

Some impact to HCTP staff working conditions due to odour

Alternative 3 – Pelletization and Pellet management

Pelletizer facility has significant odours inside facility with little potential for mitigationBiosolids truck loading facility odours, similar to Alternative 2

Worst working conditions for staff inside pelletizer facilities due to odours

56

Other Community Impacts

+ Nuisance impacts (noise, traffic, odour, mud) (not health related)

- Associated with trucks - • Alternative 2 – most potential impact• Alternative 3 – some impact

- In general, all impacts will be short duration and infrequent

+ Community Impacts during construction

- All require construction at HCTP, similar impacts

- Mitigation measures will be used

57

Cost of Biosolids Management Alternatives

Environment Community

Cost

Human Health

58

Biosolids Management Costs

CriteriaAlternative 1:

On-site Fluidized Bed Incineration

Alternative 2: Biosolids and

Haulage Off-site for

Management

Alternative 3: Pelletization and

Haulage Off-site of Fertilizer Product*

Capital $107 million $112 million $109 million

25 Year Life-Cycle Cost $273 million $400 million $295 million

Note:* Does not include additional digester capacity to provide 100% beneficial use if pelletizer is not available. Additional cost of $37 million for digester capacity.

59

Summary of Impacts Assessment

60

Criteria with Equivalent and Negligible Impacts for All Alternatives

- All Health criteria

- Environmental criteria• Protect air quality – minimize emissions to environment

• Minimize greenhouse gas emissions

• Minimize environmental impacts during construction

- Community criteria• Minimize community impacts during construction

These criteria could not be used to distinguish between the alternatives

61

Relative Impacts of Other CriteriaCriterion Alternative 1:

On-site Fluidized Bed Incineration

Alternative 2: Biosolids and Haulage Off-site for Management

Alternative 3: Pelletization and Haulage Off-site of

Fertilizer Product

Provide a reliable and sustainable biosolids management solution

Most reliable Least reliable Good reliability

Recover soil and fertilizer value

Lowest opportunity Good opportunity (however, potential for landfilling)

Recovery of fertilizer value

Minimize use of energy and other resources

Lowest diesel fuel and natural gas use, lower electricity than Alt. 3

Highest diesel fuel use, very low electricity and natural gas use

Moderate diesel fuel, high natural gas and electricity

Community Opinion Strong community support

Strong community opposition

Strong community opposition

Quality of life – odours, noise, traffic

Least impact – no change from current

Most impact from traffic and odours

Lower impacts than Alt. 2

Biosolids Management Staff Working Conditions

Best staff working conditions

Less favourable staff working conditions

Least favourable staff working conditions

Life-Cycle Cost $273 million $400 million $295 million*

* Plus potential $37 million for digester capacity

62

Findings (Page 1 of 2)

Factors Supporting Alternative 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration:- Most reliable biosolids management alternative (least

dependent on third party contractor)

- Lowest use of diesel fuel, no natural gas use

- Most supported alternative by members of the community who have submit comments to date

- Lowest truck traffic (no change from current) and lowest risk of spills

- Lowest greenhouse gas generation

- Least odourous and least impact to HCTP management staff working conditions

- Lowest capital and life-cycle cost

63

Findings (Page 2 of 2)

Factors Supporting Alternative 2 - Off-Site Haulage and Management:- Recovery of soil conditioning and fertilizer value

- No added use of electricity or natural gas at HCTP

Factors Supporting Alternative 3 – Pelletization:- Recovery of fertilizer value

- Lower truck traffic than Alternative 2

- Lower use of diesel fuel than Alternative 2

64

Next Steps

65

Next Steps

December/January- Completion of Technical Memoranda

- Consolidation of comments and responses

February/March- Report to Works Committee and Council

April- Completion of Class EA Report

- Filing of Class EA Report for 30-day public review period

66