Memo To: LAWSS Board

Cc:

From: Susan MacFarlane

Date: November 23, 2017

Re: Potential Use of CHP Generator as Part of Power Supply

The use of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Natural Gas Generator at LAWSS would allow for the generation of power for LAWSS WTP operations apart from the electrical grid and act as a secondary back up to the diesel powered Emergency Generator System. In essence LAWSS would be an energy producer and sell the heat energy produced by the CHP off site.

The advantage of using a CHP natural gas generator at LAWSS instead of hydro is the cost of electricity is about $0.13/kWh where the cost of natural gas is about $0.09/kWh (including on site maintenance costs). In addition, it has been predicted that the cost of hydro will rise at a faster rate than natural gas.

The figure below is from the Efficiency Engineering Report on the Potential for a Combined Heat and Power Generator at LAWSS (October 2017). The figure shows the various options considered for a cogeneration system. This report by Efficiency Engineering was developed for LAWSS to take advantage of the saveONenergy rebate programs and therefore under this program at least 65% of the heat generated from the CHP generator must be reused on site. Note that even at the lowest option (200 kW Cogen) LAWSS was still not able to reuse the heat generated on site for heating purposes. The addition of a 100-tonne chiller to provide cooling would allow for 65% of the heat generated to be reused on site however it would require LAWSS to cool

air in the basement that really does not require cooling for dehumidification given that LAWSS has insulated all pipes greater than 6 inches to reduce humidity in the plant. As part of this study it was determined that the cost to install a natural gas line to supply a CHP generator at the LAWSS WTP would be about $60,000.

The figure below does show that a 670 kW CHP generator would provide the base load of energy required by LAWSS. The implementation of this CHP generator would also reduce the required kW for the emergency diesel generators. Currently LAWSS has 4, 1 MW diesel generators. The introduction of a CHP generator would allow LAWSS to install 3, 1 MW generators and still be able to meet the long term emergency power requirements at the WTP.

Two Key Options exist for the operation of a 670 kW CHP generator at the LAWSS WTP. These include:

1. Install the CHP generator and use the heat generated to heat water. The heated water could be used to supplement LAWSS WTP heating requirements and the heated water could be directed to a neighbouring facility. Two natural-gas heated apartment buildings on Sandy Lane may be approached to accept this heated water for heating the building and providing hot water. Note that this would require LAWSS to install hot water lines to the apartment buildings. In addition, LAWSS would have to offer this hot water at a reduced price to what the apartment building is currently paying (a 20% discount is typical). The cost to install at 670 KW CHP is about $4 Million. This cost includes using all heat on site and dissipating any extra heat through a cooling tower system. This cost does not include the cost required to install the piping to provide heated water to a neighbouring apartment building. One risk to this is having stranded assets if the apartment building no longer were to accept our heated water. Note also that the use of natural gas over electricity would also increase the greenhouse gases generated by LAWSS which is undesirable.

2. Install a 670 kW CHP generator along with an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) generator to reuse waste heat. The addition of an ORC generator would make the CHP generator more efficient. Under this approach LAWSS could convert most of the heat to energy. It is noted that an on-site cooling tower would still likely be required to dissipate heat during certain times of the year. It is estimated that the ORC generator would cost an addition $1-2 million. Another disadvantage of this approach is the higher maintenance costs incurred for operating two generators. Recommendation: It is recommended that LAWSS proceed with the installation of 4, 1 MW diesel generators and forgo the installation of a CHP natural gas generator. The use of electricity over natural gas makes sense in terms of reducing the greenhouse gases we generate. The installation of 4, 1 MW generators will provide LAWSS good operational redundancy moving forward and eventually will provide the back-up energy requirements as the plant moves towards it maximum treatment capacity.

Susan MacFarlane

Southwest Region 370-450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N Tel: 519-637-8334

www.ocwa.com

Susan MacFarlane LAWSS General Manager 1215 Fort Street Sarnia, ON N7V 1M1

Re: RMS Spill Response and Root Cause

In response to the spill that was reported on August 26th, 2016 for chlorinated water being discharged from the Residual Management System (RMS) into the St. Clair River, OCWA has implemented several changes to address the issue. The root cause of the incident was due to operator error with leaving a valve closed on the de-chlorination system after performing operational duties on the system. The issue was not found and returned to normal until three night later.

Initial response was to ensure nightly residuals to be taken on the discharge of Actiflo system while in operation. The requirement as part of the Municipal Drinking Water Licence is to sample monthly. This is recorded on the round sheet and is part of the weekly check list for the RMS. As a reminder to the operators a laminated sign was posted near the valve on the sodium bisulfite tank to ensure the valve is in the open position after the drawdown test. Drawdown tests were conducted nightly between August 22nd and 25th, however, due to the positioning of the valve the operator failed to have the valve remain in the open position after conducting the test. There is very little usage of the de-chlorination chemical and therefore it is not uncommon for the tank level to remain at the same level for one or two days. In this case it remained at the same level for three days before it was noticed that the valve was in the closed position.

In May 2017, testing was conducted on the dosing of the de-chlorination chemical to the Actiflo tanks. It was found that one tank was receiving more of the de-chlorination chemical than the other. After further testing it was determined that if the dosage was increased than both Actiflo tanks would receive the adequate treatment to remove the chlorine residual.

A SOP has been created to address a failure to de-chlorinate on the RMS. This procedure identifies the need to confirm that there is a total residual, shutting down the RMS, sampling from the chamber prior to discharge into the river, and reporting requirements.

In order to further improve and prevent another incident from occurring recommendations for capital improvement are being made. Despite the root cause of this particular incident was operator error a failure in the system could also result in chlorinated water being discharged to the St. Clair River. This capital recommendation is to upgrade the sodium bisulfite system to include adding an alarming feature

Southwest Region 370-450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N Tel: 519-637-8334

www.ocwa.com

to indicate pump failure and/or no flow condition. Also being recommended is to have dedicated pumps and chemical feed lines to each Actiflo tank. This will ensure adequate dosing to dechlorinate the water as well as optimizing the dosage of the chemical. A third pump is being recommended to supply as a standby should either one of the dedicated pumps fail.

Regards,

Dale LeBritton

Regional Hub Manager (OCWA Southwest Region)

Cc Dave Hunt (OCWA Senior Operations Manager) Jodi Stradeski (OCWA Operations and Compliance Team Lead) Cindy Sigurdson (OCWA Safety, Process and Compliance Manager)

Page 1/1 LAWSS Pipeline Crossing Standards – October 2017

Information for a Pipeline Crossing a LAWSS Watermain

In the context of this policy, a pipeline is any solid pipe that may carry fuel, gas, water, stormwater or wastewater. A pipeline for the purpose of this policy may also include telecommunication lines. In order to cross a Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) watermain the following is required:

1. LAWSS may require that the water main you are crossing be daylighted to determine the exact location of the LAWSS water main prior to a pipeline crossing.

2. Any exposure of a LAWSS main or work in the area of the LAWSS main (within three (3) metres or as indicated by LAWSS/OCWA personnel on LAWSS’ response to a one call locate request) without a LAWSS representative on site is strictly prohibited.

3. LAWSS requires an opportunity to comment on the proposed separation distance between the proposed pipeline and the LAWSS watermain. Preliminary pipeline crossing drawings showing the relative distance of the proposed pipeline to the LAWSS watermain may be required to be submitted to LAWSS General Manager. In some cases these drawings would need to be stamped by a Professional Engineer. Once approved seventy-two (72) hours notice (three (3) business days – not weekends or holidays) in advance of daylighting to uncover the LAWSS watermain is required to arrange for LAWSS/Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) personnel to be on site to observe the work.

4. Following completion of the project, final pipeline crossing drawings, if available, shall be submitted to LAWSS General Manager.

Susan MacFarlane, Ph.D., P.Eng. General Manager Lambton Area Water Supply System 1215 Fort Street Sarnia, Ontario N7V 1M1 Tel: 519-344-7429 x250 Fax: 519-344-4337 Cell: 519-332-9327

Page 2/1 LAWSS Pipeline Crossing Standards – October 2017

susan.macfarlane@lawss.org

Policy for Connection to a LAWSS Transmission Main September 2017 Page 1/1

Requirements for Connection to LAWSS Transmission Mains

Connection to a Lambton Area Water Supply System (LAWSS) transmission main requires:

1. Approval from the LAWSS General Manager. 2. The connection request cannot jeopardize the ability of LAWSS to comply with all regulatory

requirements. 3. The connection request cannot reduce a Member Municipality’s or Customer’s acceptable level of

service (40 psi as a minimum pressure). 4. No residential service connection on LAWSS transmission mains greater than or equal to 760 mm. 5. Residential service connections should be avoided, if possible, on LAWSS transmission mains greater

than or equal to 600 mm and less than 760 mm. 6. A municipally-owned water main cannot be located within 100 m of the proposed service request

location. In that case the property should connect to the municipal water main. 7. A development involving 4 or more adjacent serviceable properties will require the development and

installation of a municipally owned and operated distribution subsystem. The initial development and any planned or unplanned adjacent development must be serviced from the newly installed Municipal subsystem and not directly from LAWSS. A single connection (no greater than 150 mm) will be permitted into the LAWSS transmission main from the Municipal subsystem.

8. The LAWSS General Manager may request additional technical material or waterCAD modelling as a result of the connection request.

9. The LAWSS General Manager may require that a Member Municipality or Customer enter into a Water Taking Agreement to ensure that all regulatory and level of service requirements are met.

Susan MacFarlane, Ph.D., P.Eng. General Manager Lambton Area Water Supply System 1215 Fort Street Sarnia, Ontario N7V 1M1 Tel: 519-344-7429 x250 Fax: 519-344-4337 Cell: 519-332-9327 susan.macfarlane@lawss.org

Memo To: Susan MacFarlane

Cc:

From: Clinton Harper

Date: November 8, 2017

Re: Buried Infrastructure- Municipal Drain & Order of Precedence

In the LAWSS distribution network, work that requires the relocation of a buried LAWSS asset will fall into one of two main categories. Municipal Drain work and non-municipal drain work. The determination of who pays to relocate the LAWSS asset will depend on which category the work falls into. Under the Drainage Act, utility companies are required to cover the increased cost to drainage work caused by the existence of their utility.

A Municipal Drain is an agricultural drainage system that has been identified through Ontario’s Drainage Act process. A drain identified under the Act has been subjected to a drainage report, public scrutiny and Municipal Council ratification. The requirement for a utility company to pay to relocate its buried asset is outlined in Section 26 of the Act.

“26. In addition to all other sums lawfully assessed against the property of a public utility or road authority under this Act, and despite the fact that the public utility or road authority is not otherwise assessable under this Act, the public utility or road authority shall be assessed for and shall pay all the increase of cost of such drainage works caused by the existence of the works of the public utility or road authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, s. 26.”

Not all road sides ditches and public/private drains are Municipal Drains. Non-municipal drain work is generally initiated by some type of land development. At a municipal level, developers are required to pay the cost

to relocate any existing buried infrastructure, municipal or otherwise, that interfere with the proposed development.

The Maher Drain watermain relocation project that took place in November 2017 was paid for by LAWSS and is an example of the execution of Section 26 of Ontario’s Drainage Act.

Research was unable to turn up an example yet of a LAWSS watermain being relocated by a developer to accommodate development, however there are many examples of new development tapping into the LAWSS distribution system. This cost is borne by the Developer.