report #eee-101 report to the core area liquid waste

HDM\#356278\v5

Report #EEE-101

REPORT TO THE CORE AREA LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2010

SUBJECT RESOURCE RECOVERY AND USE PLAN – CORE AREA WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PROGRAM ISSUE To seek approval for a resource recovery and use plan for the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program, which is to be forwarded to the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board for approval and submitted to the Ministry of Environment. BACKGROUND Amendment No. 8 to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan contains the following commitment:

Complete and submit to the Ministry of Environment, by the end of 2010, a comprehensive and detailed Resource Recovery and Use Plan for optimizing the management and processing of resources from wastewater, taking into account the approved system configuration, facility locations, and currently available or probable markets for resources.

The Minister of Environment, in his letter dated 25 August 2010, approved the CRD’s proposal to prepare a Resource Recovery and Use Plan, with the expectation that it would include reconsideration of “the use of biosolids as a fertilizer and soil amendment product” and a description of “an emergency contingency plan to handle biosolids.” The draft Resource Recovery and Use Plan (the Plan) is attached as Appendix A. The Plan is supported by five appendices comprised of documents which, in most cases, have been previously provided to the committee. Copies of any of these documents are available to committee members on request. The Plan outlines the approach that will be taken by the CRD and its contractors, both initially and over the long term, to optimize the recovery and use of resources from wastewater. The Plan expands on the commitments made in Amendment No. 8 and provides additional information on resource recovery opportunities, particularly in the area of heat recovery from effluent and screened sewage. The Plan outlines initiatives to recover and use resources such as biogas and biomethane, dried biosolids as a fuel, phosphorous fertilizer, and heat from effluent, screened sewage and biosolids. The Plan also discusses water conservation and reuse, the project’s carbon footprint and the potential for recovering revenues from resources. The Plan identifies issues that will need to be further explored and resolved in 2011 to confirm that the proposed markets and expected revenues from resources are realistic and sustainable over the long term, and to enable the CRD and its contractors to minimize the cost of recovering and using the resources. Section 5 of the Plan addresses the subject of land application of biosolids and the Minister’s request to reconsider this issue. This section summarizes the committee’s concerns regarding the risks associated

Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee – 24 November 2010 Re: Resource Recovery and Use Plan – CAWTP

HDM\#356278\v5

with this practice and reiterates the CRD’s continued unwillingness to support the land application of biosolids from the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program. Section 6 of the Plan addresses the Minister’s requirement for an emergency contingency plan for biosolids and notes that proponents for the contract to design, build, finance and operate the biosolids resource recovery facility will be asked to submit a plan for the emergency disposal of biosolids for consideration and approval by the CRD and the Ministry of Environment. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee recommend to the Board that the draft

Resource Recovery and Use Plan (Appendix A) be approved and submitted to the Ministry of Environment.

2. That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee request changes to the draft Resource

Recovery and Use Plan prior to forwarding it to the Board for approval and submission to the Ministry of Environment.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS The work proposed for 2011, as described in section 9 of the Plan, is expected to provide sufficient site specific and project specific information to refine and confirm estimates of the costs and revenues resulting from the recovery and use of resources from wastewater. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The attached Resource Recovery and Use Plan identifies sufficient opportunities that, when implemented, will ensure that the proposed Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program will be carbon neutral, or better. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS Proposals to recover and use resources from wastewater continue to receive community support whenever it can be shown to be economically viable and does not compromise the protection of public health or the environment. CONCLUSION As this Resource Recovery and Use Plan has been prepared about six years before start-up of the wastewater treatment plant and the biosolids resource recovery facility in 2016, it is likely that new information and perspectives will enable refinement of the Plan to ensure that no opportunity is missed to optimize the recovery and use of resources from wastewater. RECOMMENDATION That the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee recommend to the Board that the draft Resource Recovery and Use Plan (Appendix A) be approved and submitted to the Ministry of Environment.

Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee – 24 November 2010 Re: Resource Recovery and Use Plan – CAWTP

HDM\#356278\v5

Dan Telford, PEng Larisa Hutcheson, PEng Senior Manager, Environmental Engineering General Manager, Environmental Sustainability Concurrence Kelly Daniels CAO Concurrence Attachment: 1 SBM:ts

APPENDIX A

CORE AREA LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE RECOVERY AND USE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Purpose of Resource Recovery and Use Plan 1.2 Proposed System Configuration 1.3 Minister‟s Position on Resource Recovery Policies 1.4 Capital Regional District Resource Recovery and Use Goals 1.5 Influence of Procurement Method on Resource Recovery and Use 1.6 Requirements for Resource Recovery and Use Options

2. RESOURCES TO BE RECOVERED FROM BIOSOLIDS

2.1 Biosolids Resource Recovery Facility 2.2 Biogas and Biomethane 2.3 Biosolids as a Fuel 2.3.1 Biosolids to Cement Kilns 2.3.2 Biosolids to a Waste-to-Energy facility 2.4 Phosphorous Fertilizer Recovery 2.5 Heat Recovery for Onsite Use 2.6 Potential Revenues from Biosolids Processing

3. BIOSOLIDS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INTEGRATION

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Co-Digestion of Biosolids with Other Organic Waste

4. HEAT TO BE RECOVERED FROM EFFLUENT AND SCREENED SEWAGE

4.1 Introduction 4.2 District Energy System Opportunities 4.2.1 Heat Energy Demand 4.2.2 Heat Energy Supply 4.3 District Energy System Implementation Strategy 4.3.1 Implementation of Short-Term (2011-2016) DES Plan 4.3.2 Implementation of Long-Term (2016-2030) DES Plan 4.4 District Energy System Financial Feasibility Assessment 4.4.1 Cost Estimates 4.4.2 Business Case for District Energy Systems

5. ISSUES WITH LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS 6. BIOSOLIDS EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLAN 7. WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE

7.1 Water Conservation 7.2 Water Reuse

8. CARBON FOOTPRINT 8.1 Background 8.2 Carbon Footprint of Wastewater Treatment Project 8.3 Carbon Footprint of Potential Wastewater Based District Energy Systems

HDM\#351999\v5 ii

9. ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED AND RESOLVED IN 2011 9.1 Introduction 9.2 General 9.3 Dried Biosolids as a Fuel 9.4 Biogas 9.5 Heat from Effluent and Screened Sewage

10. CONCLUSION LIST OF FIGURES

1 Proposed System Configuration 2 Potential Core Area Heat Energy Recovery Infrastructure 3 Planning Areas for Thermal Energy Recovery and Use 4 McLoughlin Area Energy Context 5 UVic/Queen Alexandra Energy Context

APPENDICES Appendix A – to Section 1 Section 7 of Amendment No. 8, Sustainability Resource Recovery, Carbon Footprint and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, June 2010. Appendix B – Section 1 Letter from the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, approving Amendment No. 8 to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan, 25 August 2010. Appendix C – Section 3 Technical memorandum prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. titled Biosolids Facility and Options for Integration with Solid Waste, October 2010. Appendix D – Section 4 Technical memorandum prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Limited titled Heat from Effluent, Screened Sewage and Biosolids, October 2010 Appendix E – Section 5 CRD staff Report titled Biosolids Emergency Disposal Backup Plan – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program, September 2010, with appended report prepared by Stantec/Brown & Caldwell, July 2010.

REFERENCES 1. CH2MHill, Associated Engineering, KWL, Discussion Paper 031-DP-6, Integrated Resource

Management Strategy – Phosphorous Recovery, July 2008. 2. CH2MHill, Associated Engineering, KWL, Discussion Paper 031-DP-8, Water Reclamation and

Reuse, July 2008. 3. CH2MHill, Associated Engineering, KWL, Discussion Paper 036-DP-1, Identification and

Evaluation of Resource Recovery Opportunities, December 2008. 4. Stantec Consulting Ltd., Brown & Caldwell, Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program –

Biosolids Management Plan, November 2009. 5. Stantec Consulting Ltd., Brown & Caldwell, Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program –

Wastewater Treatment Plant – Option 1A, December 2009. 6. CRD staff report titled Resource Recovery Studies, University of Victoria and James

Bay/Downtown – Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program, January 2010 with appended reports prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., January 2010.

HDM\#351999\v5

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Purpose of Resource Recovery and Use Plan

Section 7 of Amendment No. 8 of the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan contains the following commitment:

The Capital Regional District and the participating municipalities will complete and submit to the Ministry of Environment, by the end of 2010, a comprehensive and detailed Resource Recovery and Use Plan for optimizing the management and processing of resources from wastewater, taking into account the approved system configuration, facility locations and currently available or probable markets for resources.

The main purpose of the Resource Recovery and Use Plan (the Plan) is therefore to optimize the recovery of resources from wastewater in a manner that will minimize the generation of greenhouse gases, be financially sound, protect public health and the environment and be compatible with community values. The Plan is complementary to the commitments contained in Section 7 of Amendment No. 8, which is attached in Appendix A, and supplements and expands on these commitments. The Plan will also address some specific issues related to the use and management of biosolids as referenced in the Minister of Environment‟s letter of 25 August 2010. The minister‟s letter is attached in Appendix B.

1.2 Proposed System Configuration

The proposed system configuration is illustrated in Figure 1. All flows up to two times the average dry weather flow (ADWF) will receive secondary treatment as required by the Municipal Sewage Regulation and all systems will be in operation by the end of 2016. Wet weather flows up to four times ADWF from the Macaulay Point tributary area will receive the equivalent of primary treatment and any flows over this level, should they occur, will be screened prior to discharge. As indicated in Figure 1, a wet weather flow attenuation tank will be constructed near Arbutus Road in Saanich. At Clover Point, a pump station will divert up to three times ADWF via a forcemain to McLoughlin Point in Esquimalt for secondary treatment. This will reduce the total suspended solids load being discharged at Clover Point by about 99%. Any remaining wet weather flows at Clover Point will receive fine screening prior to discharging through the Clover Point outfall. By 2030, flows above four times ADWF are required to be eliminated. At McLoughlin Point, the flows diverted from Clover Point will be added to flows from the northwest trunk and given secondary treatment for flows up to two times ADWF. The flows treated at this location will have originated in Oak Bay, Saanich, Victoria, Esquimalt, Colwood, Langford and View Royal. Wet weather flows up to four times ADWF will be given primary treatment and any flows above this level will be screened until 2030, by which time such excess flows are expected to be eliminated. Existing raw sewage screening will be retained at Clover and Macaulay point pump stations and grit removal facilities will be added at both locations.

Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan Resource Recovery and Use Plan Page 2

HDM\#351999\v5


HDM\#351999\v5

A new outfall will also be constructed adjacent to the existing Macaulay Point outfall to discharge treated effluent at least 1.6 kilometres offshore from the McLoughlin treatment plant. Biosolids from the McLoughlin plant will be pumped to a biosolids resource recovery facility at Hartland landfill (or closer location to McLoughlin Point) for processing, which will include the following:

Thermophilic anaerobic digestion to produce biogas from wet sludge, reduce solid mass and provide pathogen destruction.

Additional capacity in the digesters to accept fats, oils and grease and/or other suitable digestible material that will enhance the production of biogas.

Biogas upgrading to high quality biomethane for injection into the natural gas pipeline system and/or use in vehicles or at the biosolids processing facility to heat the digesters or driers.

Recovering waste heat from the digesters to warm the incoming raw sludge being fed to them, thereby reducing digester heating costs.

Dewatering and thermally drying the digested biosolids to be used as a fuel for cement kilns.

Recovering phosphorous fertilizer from anaerobic digester return streams.

1.3 Minister’s Position on Resource Recovery

The Ministry of Environment‟s policy regarding the recovery of resources from wastewater has been made clear in a series of six letters from the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, from December 2007 to August 2010. These letters encourage the Capital Regional District (CRD) to:

Select resource recovery options.

Study if resource recovery can be optimized through a more distributed infrastructure model.

Include beneficial reuse of resources and generation of offsetting revenues.

Optimize the beneficial reuse of resources and the integration of solid and liquid waste planning.

Reconsider the opportunities to beneficially use biosolids as a fertilizer and soil amendment product.

Develop an emergency contingency plan to handle surplus biosolids. Over the past three years, the CRD and its consultants have carried out comprehensive and detailed studies in order to optimize the recovery of resources from Greater Victoria‟s wastewater. The findings of these studies are incorporated in this Plan. 1.4 Capital Regional District Resource Recovery and Use Goals

The CRD has used a triple bottom line methodology to evaluate wastewater treatment and resource recovery goals and options. This methodology ensured that social, economic and environmental values were taken into account in pursuing the following project goals:

Protect public health and the environment. This is a fundamental goal of all aspects of the project, including resource recovery and use.

Manage wastewater and recovered resources in a sustainable manner. This means that the project should be carbon neutral or better, use energy efficiently and optimize the recovery of resources from wastewater.

Provide cost effective wastewater and resource management. Focusing on this goal has resulted in the estimated project costs being reduced by one-third from initial estimates. This includes maximizing resource recovery where it makes sense today, while preparing to take advantage of future opportunities.


HDM\#351999\v5

1.5 Influence of Procurement Method on Resource Recovery and Use

The CRD Board has approved procuring the biosolids resource recovery facility, including related conveyance piping and pump stations, using either a design-build-operate (DBO) or a design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) method of procurement. This method of procurement will provide an opportunity for private sector creativity and innovation and will encourage the optimization of revenues from recovered resources. The procurement documents for the biosolids resource recovery facility (BRRF) will encourage proponents to offer solutions that will minimize both capital and operating costs while maximizing revenues from the sale of resources. Proposal evaluation will include considerations such as minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) generation and maximizing offsetting GHG credits from renewable sources of energy and nutrients. In order to achieve the goals outlined above, proponents will be given the opportunity to propose alternate technologies to the biosolids processing system configuration, including the location of the BRRF. Proponents will also be asked to provide plans for the emergency disposal of surplus biosolids in the event that the preferred long-term recovery and use option is temporarily unavailable. Notwithstanding the possibility that the successful DBO/DBFO proponent will identify substantial opportunities for system improvements, this Plan is based on the approach outlined in Amendment No. 8 to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan. If other technologies to the Resource Recovery and Use Plan are suggested by the successful proponent, the Plan will be amended to incorporate these technologies.

1.6 Requirements for Resource Recovery and Use Options

As indicated in Section 1.4, it is the goal of the CRD to optimize the recovery and use of resources from wastewater and to evaluate recovery and use options using a triple bottom line approach, which takes into account economic, social and environmental values. These options will have the following characteristics:

Meet all regulatory requirements

Provide process reliability with proven technology

Provide end-use reliability

Reduce GHG emissions

Maximize resource recovery where suitable markets are available

Integrate with solid waste management where a mutual benefit can be achieved

Utilize options and technologies that have a reasonable life cycle cost

Provide systems that will be a good neighbour, with effective odour, noise, dust and traffic control

Can be implemented by the end of 2016 and have capacity at least through 2030 Based on the above, it has been concluded that the following resources will be recovered initially:

Biogas from thermophilic anaerobic digestion and biomethane when upgraded to pipeline quality gas

Biosolids that have been digested, dewatered and dried for use as a fuel

Phosphorous fertilizer (struvite) from anaerobic digester return streams

Heat from effluent and biosolids for onsite use The proposed recovery and use plans are discussed in the following sections.


HDM\#351999\v5

2. RESOURCES TO BE RECOVERED FROM BIOSOLIDS

2.1 Biosolids Resource Recovery Facility

The sludge produced by the treatment plant at McLoughlin Point will be pumped offsite to a biosolids resource recovery facility (BRRF) located at Hartland landfill, or at another, potentially more suitable, location closer to McLoughlin Point, if such a site is identified. The BRRF, which will be designed, built and operated by a private contractor, will include thermophilic anaerobic digesters to produce biogas and to stabilize and reduce the quantity of biosolids, biosolids dewatering equipment and dryers to produce a biofuel and to further reduce the quantity of biosolids and struvite recovery to produce phosphorous fertilizer. If a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility and the biosolids facility are co-located, with capacity to process both municipal solid waste and biosolids, steam and/or electricity from the WTE facility could be used as a heat source for the biosolids drying process. As noted in Section 1.5 above, the private operator of this facility will be given an opportunity to propose improvements to the configuration and operation of the BRRF facility. It is likely that the proposed BRRF facility, and related biosolids use options, would require an amendment to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan and related operational certificate. 2.2 Biogas and Biomethane

The thermophilic anaerobic digesters will produce a water saturated biogas consisting of about 62% CH4 (methane) and 38% CO2 (carbon dioxide). The biogas can be used onsite to provide heat to the anaerobic digesters and driers or it can be upgraded to pipeline-grade biomethane for use in the natural gas distribution system.

The average digester gas production, with co-digestion of added grease, is estimated at 21,000 m

3day (Stantec/Brown & Caldwell, November 2009). With an assumed biomethane value

of $8/GJ, this would produce potential revenue of $1,092,000/year. This potential revenue assumes that the gas will be sold to the local gas utility (Terasen). However, onsite use to provide heat to the digesters and driers or compression for vehicle fuel will be considered if sale to the utility becomes impractical for any reason. In all options, the biogas will be used to displace fossil fuel.

2.3 Biosolids as Fuel

The biosolids produced by the treatment plant, including any added substrate such as grease, will be digested in thermophilic anaerobic digesters and dewatered using centrifuges to increase the solids content from about 4% after digestion to about 25%. Following dewatering, the biosolids will be thermally dried to increase the solids content to about 95%. The dried biosolids will have a volume of about 12 m

3/day and will weigh about 15 tonnes/day (Stantec/Brown & Caldwell, July

2010). This material has a number of potential markets as a fuel, which will be discussed in the following sections.

2.3.1 Biosolids to Cement Kilns

Dried biosolids can be used at two different points in the cement manufacturing process. First, the dried biosolids can be co-fired with coal to provide heat for the manufacturing process. Secondly, as the biosolids ash is similar in composition to the feedstock, it can be used as part of the raw material feed for cement production.


HDM\#351999\v5

There are two cement manufacturing plants in British Columbia, both in Metro Vancouver:

Lehigh Hanson, Delta BC

Lafarge Canada, Richmond BC These plants supply more than 85% of the total cement consumed in the province and export approximately half of their production to neighbouring US states. The primary fuel for both facilities is coal. Every tonne of coal replaced with a cost effective, low carbon substitute energy source, such as biosolids, will avoid up to 2.5 tonnes of GHG emissions from these plants (Cement Association of Canada, presentation to Metro Vancouver, October 2009). In 2008, 11% of the coal had been replaced with alternative and renewable fuels. This compares with the European Union average of 50% alternative fuel substitution. Meetings between CRD staff and the cement kiln operators have confirmed their interest in receiving dried biosolids from the proposed biosolids processing facility. A number of options exist for the transport of dried biosolids to Metro Vancouver cement kilns, including the following:

Truck the biosolids from the resource recovery facility to the cement kiln using BC Ferries from Swartz Bay ferry terminal

Haul a trailer to be left on a barge operated by Seaspan Coast Intermodel that sails from its Swartz Bay terminal to its terminal on Tilbury Island in Delta. The trailer is picked up at the other side and delivered to the cement kiln.

The commercial terms to provide the biosolids to a cement kiln will be negotiated by the selected biosolids processing facility operator.

2.3.2 Biosolids to a Waste-to-Energy Facility

Hartland landfill has limited capacity, so it is expected that a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility will be required in 10 to 15 years to reduce the quantity of solid waste being landfilled, and lengthen the life of the landfill. Dried biosolids from the biosolids resource recovery facility could also be processed at this facility. The dried biosolids would make up about 5% of the feedstock, assuming 120,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and 6,100 tonnes per year of biosolids. A WTE facility is not likely to be completed by 2016, so it is expected that there will be a gap of a few years between start-up of the core area wastewater treatment plant in 2016 and the commissioning of a facility. An interim market would therefore be required for the dried biosolids, such as use as a fuel at a cement kiln. When a WTE facility is planned and costs become known, a final decision can be made on the desirability of processing the biosolids at this facility over the long term. In any case, it is probable that this facility would be suitable for emergency disposal of the biosolids in the event that the primary market for the dried biosolids became temporarily unavailable. Further information on this option is provided in Section 4.6 of the Stantec/Brown & Caldwell July 2010 report, which is appended to Section 5 of this plan.

2.4 Phosphorous Fertilizer Recovery

Using crystallization technologies on anaerobic digesters supernatant feed streams, phosphorous recovery rates of over 90% can be achieved (CH2MHill, et al, 2008). The resulting crystals, known as struvite crystals, have been found to have a purity of about 94%. It is estimated that about 1 kg of struvite can be recovered per 100 m

3 of wastewater received at a treatment plant,

which could result in the production of 272 tonnes of struvite per year with a commercial value of


HDM\#351999\v5

$54,000 per year. As fertilizer markets develop, it is anticipated that phosphorous recovered for struvite will increase in commercial value and provide a potential net revenue stream to wastewater operations. Further information on phosphorous recovery is available in discussion paper 031-DP-6 (July 2008), posted online at www.wastewatermadeclear.ca.

2.5 Heat Recovery for Onsite Use

The wastewater treatment plant and biosolids resource recovery facility (BRRF) will require a large amount of heat for the digesters, biosolids drying and space heating. Heat recovery at the resource recovery facility will include recovery of heat from the hot digested sludge using sludge-to-water-to-sludge heat exchangers. The heat recovery system will minimize heating requirements of the raw sludge being fed to the digesters and will recover approximately 50% of the heat required to heat the digestion system. Additional biosolids plant heat demands could be provided by heat extraction from the effluent, if a suitable location closer to McLoughlin Point can be found for the resource recovery facility. Biosolids pumped to the thermophilic anaerobic digesters could receive heat recovered from the treated effluent via a hot water heating loop. Heat recovery would be accomplished by water source heat pumps extracting heat from treated effluent. The heat pumps would supply approximately 70

oC water to the closed loop system. This temperature aligns with the

temperature required for the sludge plant processes and is also suited to building boiler temperatures and temperatures needed to generate domestic hot water. 2.6 Potential Revenues from Biosolids Processing

As discussed in Section 2.1 above, a major part of the revenue that will be recovered from wastewater treatment will be produced at the BRRF, or will be received as a tipping fee at that facility as a result of the additional capacity that will be provided in the digesters to receive and process fats, oils and grease and other organic matter. Most of this material is currently trucked out of the CRD and processed into biofuel. The main revenues that are expected to result from the operation of the BRRF are summarized in the following table. The potential revenues will be subject to market fluctuations and competition for the recovered resources and related tipping fees.

Table 1

Estimated Annual Revenues (Stantec, October 2010)

Rate for Tipping Fees

Tipping Fee Collected

Revenues from sale of gas ($8/GJ)

Total Estimated Revenues

Biosolids N/A N/A $630,000 $630,000

FOG $0.07/Litre of liquid waste (Metro Vancouver tipping fee)

$1,760,000 $380,000 $2,140,000

SSO $100/tonne (current tipping fee) $1,090,000 $340,000 $1,430,000

3. BIOSOLIDS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INTEGRATION

3.1 Introduction

The integration of biosolids and municipal solid waste management has been a focus of the Core

http://www.wastewatermadeclear.ca/


HDM\#351999\v5

Area Wastewater Treatment Program since early 2008. It has been the subject of a number of reviews, including the following:

Discussion paper 031-DP-3 - Biosolids Management/Organic Residuals Energy and Resource Recovery by Associated Engineering/CH2MHill/KWL, July 2008.

Discussion paper 031-DP-9 - Biosolids/Organic Residuals Strategy Evaluation by Associated Engineering/CH2MHill/KWL, February 2009.

Report titled Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program – Biosolids Management Plan by Stantec Consulting Ltd. and Brown & Caldwell, November 2009.

These documents are posted on the CRD website at: www.wastewatermadeclear.ca, and their findings have been incorporated into Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to the Core Are Liquid Waste Management Plan. More recently, AECOM Canada Limited was retained to review processing options for source separated organics such as food waste, and their report titled Household Organics Management – Phase 1, dated July 2010, was recently presented to CRD elected officials and is available on request. This review included an assessment of the potential benefits of co-processing source separated organics and wastewater biosolids and, in particular, the potential benefits of co-digesting these materials in anaerobic digesters.

3.2 Co-Digestion of Biosolids with Other Organic Waste

Both the Stantec/Brown & Caldwell and AECOM reports referred to above concluded that there were advantages in co-digesting biosolids with other organic wastes such as source separated organics (food scraps), fats, oil and grease, and organic waste from dairies, wineries, breweries and food processing plants. These advantages include biological process synergies resulting from digesting other wastes with biosolids, increased gas production and related increased revenue from sale of the gas, and reduced capital and operating cost resulting primarily from economies of scale. In October 2010, Stantec was requested to prepare a technical memorandum with additional information on the options for integrating the processing of biosolids and other organic waste. The memo titled Biosolids Facility and Options for Integration with Solid Waste is provided in Appendix C. The main findings of this memo are as follows:

The anaerobic digesters, as included in Amendment No. 8, have capacity to treat 26,000 kg/day of biosolids and 11,000 kg/day of other organic matter.

The preferred organic matter is fats, oil and grease (FOG) because it produces more biogas per kilogram than other organic matter. It is estimated that, assuming a 70% capture rate, about 6,900 kg/day of FOG may be available for processing. The remaining 4,100 kg/day of digester capacity could be used for processing other organic matter or for processing additional sludge from future population growth.

The estimated revenues from tipping fees charged for receiving other organic matter such as source separated organics (SSO) and FOG and from the sale of the resulting biogas are substantially increased as a result of receiving FOG and SSO.

Co-digesting biosolids with FOG or other organic waste results in lower capital cost and higher revenues per tonne processed, compared to digesting biosolids and other organic wastes separately.

The estimated capital cost ($13.2 million) and operating cost ($136,000/year) of a FOG receiving station is included in the wastewater treatment project cost. The estimated capital cost ($19.3 million) and operating cost ($350,000/year) of a SSO pre-processing facility is not included in the wastewater treatment project.

Co-digesting FOG with the biosolids and using the additional biogas will result in an additional greenhouse gas reduction of -2,590 tonnes CO2e/year.

The heat energy of the biogas produced in the digesters is sufficient to meet all heat

http://www.wastewatermadeclear.ca/


HDM\#351999\v5

energy requirements of the biosolids facility (with or without other organic matter) with substantial amounts of surplus biogas that can be sold as indicated by the following Table 2:

Table 2

Annual Heat Energy Produced from Biogas (kWh/year) (Stantec, October 2010)

Biosolids Only Biosolids + FOG Biosolids + SSO

Heat energy of biogas produced in digesters

21,900,000 35,100,000 33,810,000

Heat energy needed to heat digesters and dry biosolids

12,920,000 14,290,000 16,785,000

Spare heat – to be sold as natural gas

8,980,000 20,810,000 17,025,000

4. HEAT TO BE RECOVERED FROM EFFLUENT AND SCREENED SEWAGE

4.1 Introduction

Alternative energy production is a key priority of the BC Energy Plan, which was approved by the Province in 2007. As the projects discussed in this section are fully compatible with the BC energy strategy, they are in a good position to attract provincial grants or interest free loans or partnerships from BC energy utilities. UVic is currently working on an Energy Management Master Plan and this may provide an opportunity for the CRD to partner with the university on an innovative energy recovery and use project, with mutual benefit. The potential for recovering heat from effluent and screened sewage has been extensively studied in a number of major reports, including the following:

Discussion Paper 036-DP-1, (CH2MHill/Associated Engineering/KWL), which identified and evaluated 39 energy recovery opportunities in the core area.

A feasibility study (Stantec/Brown & Caldwell) for heat recovery for James Bay and downtown Victoria that focused on the potential for a district energy system that would provide heat extracted from effluent from the McLoughlin treatment plant to the downtown and James Bay areas. A number of district energy options were evaluated based on cost, revenue, carbon footprint and marketability.

A feasibility study (Stantec/Brown & Caldwell) for heat recovery for the University of Victoria and surrounding area that focused on the previously proposed Saanich East treatment plant. The report investigated heating and cooling demands in the area and the potential heat available from the treatment plant effluent.

Since completion of these reports, the proposed system configuration has changed substantially and new information has become available regarding heat recovery and use opportunities. In response to this, Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Limited (KWL) were engaged to reassess the heat recovery and use opportunities identified in the above reports and evaluate new opportunities based on the revised system configuration. KWL's technical memorandum, which is provided as Appendix D to this Plan, is the source of much of the information contained in the following sections.

4.2 District Energy System Opportunities

An important focus of this Plan is to identify and evaluate potential district energy system (DES) opportunities based on utilizing recovered heat from the regional wastewater system. The planning horizons that were selected are short term (5 years or to 2015) and long term (20 years


HDM\#351999\v5

or to 2030). The opportunities can be classified as "region-based" and "development-based". Region-based opportunities are focused on downtown, James Bay, Esquimalt, Saanich core and the University of Victoria/Queen Alexandra areas, and would use energy recovered from effluent or screened sewage. As the location, timing and size of development-based opportunities are difficult to predict with confidence, they are not the main focus of this Plan. However, when such developments are being planned, they may benefit from considering a wide range of energy sources, including raw wastewater, treated effluent, waste heat and geoexchange. Figure 2 shows the location of potential core area heat energy recovery infrastructure (KWL, October 2010) as discussed in the following sections, including existing Dockside Green and BC Legislature district energy systems. 4.2.1 Heat Energy Demand

Demand for heating energy is proportional to floor area and varies in relation to climate, land use, building type and age, and the type of heating systems used. For this plan, KWL modelled the building heating intensity using a load duration curve developed using the same method as NRCan's RETScreen with monthly degree heating days for Victoria. This analysis led to the conclusion that a system sized to provide 30% of peak heating demand would provide 80% of the required annual heating energy. This means that the recovered wastewater heat will be used to supply base heating loads, including domestic hot water, and gas-fired boilers will supply peak heating loads. The demand opportunities associated with the thermal energy recovery and use are summarized as follows, and as illustrated in Figure 3 (KWL, October 2010):

The Chatham and Government lift station development could provide heat to a district energy system (DES) amounting to 5 MW which could service the following buildings: - City Hall, McPherson Theatre and CRD block in Centennial Square

- Potential redevelopment in Rock Bay and the north end of downtown

East Coast Interceptor attenuation tank development. The DES could service a peak load of 9 MW and supply the following buildings: - University of Victoria buildings served by No. 2 Boiler Room, including the Commons

building - Queen Alexandra Centre facility

Peaking/backup boilers are not included in this DES since existing equipment and infrastructure could be used.

McLoughlin Wastewater Treatment Plant. The future DES would service a potential peak load of 130 MW using a treated effluent source in combination with peaking boilers. This represents 64% of the total peak demand in the identified DES areas in Esquimalt, Saanich, north downtown/Rock Bay, and south downtown/central business district. To promote a regional system and account for the different demand density in these four areas, KWL divided the DES capacity proportionally by their total peak demands.

Table 3 shows the estimated serviceable demands and allocated wastewater heat resources.


HDM\#351999\v5


HDM\#351999\v5

Table 3 Energy Demand Allocation

(KWL, October 2010)

Opportunity Area

Annual Heat Energy Recovered from Wastewater

(KWh)

Annual Heat Energy Serviced by DES

System (KWh)

Equivalent Multi-Family Residential Units Serviced by

DES

Saanich East/North Oak Bay 10,400,000 14,500,000 2,000

North Downtown/Rock Bay 7,200,000 10,000,000 1,100

Total 2015 17,600,000 24,500,000 3,100

Esquimalt 10,800,000 18,900,000 2,000

Saanich Core 20,400,000 35,600,000 3,700

North Downtown/Rock Bay 60,000,000 105,000,000 10,900

South Downtown/CBD 65,000,000 113,000,000 11,800

Total 2030 156,200,000 272,500,000 28,400

Note: The difference between the heat recovered from wastewater and the heat serviced by the DES system is made up with natural gas used during peak periods and the electricity required by the heat pumps to lift the temperature.

4.2.2 Heat Energy Supply

The heat energy supplies analyzed included wastewater heat recovery associated with the proposed treatment plant, pump stations and other infrastructure projects. It was concluded that the following energy supplies were compatible with region-based opportunities, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 (KWL, October 2010).

The Chatham and Government sewage lift stations in the City of Victoria are known to require capacity upgrades in the near future and are therefore good candidates for raw wastewater heat recovery.

A peak flow attenuation tank is planned for the east coast interceptor in the vicinity of the University of Victoria and the Queen Alexandra Centre. This project has the potential to supply heat extracted from the wastewater in the tanks to a number of university and health centre buildings.

The proposed McLoughlin treatment plant is the largest potential source of heat energy, as the entire core area flows will be treated at this location.

The raw wastewater heat resources are developable in the short term, while the treated effluent resource is considered a long term project (after 2016). The following table summarizes the energy resources referred to above:

Table 4 Wastewater Heat Recovery

(KWL, October 2010)

Site Reference Flow

(m3/d)

Estimated Wastewater Heat Resource (MW)

Chatham/Government 4,900 1.0

UVic/Queen Alexandra 9,600 1.9

McLoughlin WWTP 83,400 28


HDM\#351999\v5

Raw wastewater and treated effluent temperatures generally range between 12ºC and 20ºC. Influent temperatures to the WWTP must be kept above 11ºC to ensure effective treatment. This is a limiting factor in the amount of heat recoverable from raw wastewater. Heat pumps are required to lift the temperature of the recovered heat energy to the required service levels. It is assumed that the heat pumps will raise the water temperature to 65ºC, with a corresponding coefficient of performance (COP) of 3.5. This COP yields approximately 1.4 MW of heat energy per 1 MW of heat recovered from wastewater. This water temperature may not be suitable for some buildings, depending upon the type of heat emitter used, and supplemental energy may be required for these buildings. The proposed district energy systems are shown on Figures 4 and 5.


HDM\#351999\v5


HDM\#351999\v5

4.3 District Energy System (DES) Implementation Strategy

4.3.1 Implementation of Short-Term (2011-2016) DES Plan The short-term plan includes localized raw wastewater heat recovery and use opportunities in downtown/Rock Bay and Saanich East. When these projects are successfully completed, they could be catalysts for the development of other district energy activity. These initial projects provide some key opportunities but also some significant challenges. Key implementation opportunities include:

The proposed attenuation tank for peak flow storage could be operated to provide daily balancing heat storage for the heat recovery system. This could be accomplished with minor adjustments to a typical storage tank design. The proposed downtown pump station upgrade projects could also be used as an opportunity to include heat recovery.

The City of Vancouver has successfully demonstrated that raw sewage heat recovery is feasible using direct heat exchange with heat pumps as part of a wastewater conveyance facility upgrade project at False Creek. Both the UVic and downtown opportunities feature similar wastewater conveyance facility projects.

Downtown Victoria is viewed as a key opportunity for district energy implementation in the CRD as it is the densest area of the region.

Implementation challenges include the following:

While demonstrated to be technically feasible, raw wastewater heat recovery is more expensive and less efficient than treated effluent heat recovery.

Retrofits to existing buildings to enable use of recovered heat can be costly and run the risk of having greater operational challenges compared with conventional systems.

4.3.2 Implementation of Long-Term (2016-2030) DES Plan

The long-term implementation plan involves bringing a low (ambient) temperature supply from the McLoughlin Point WWTP to Victoria Downtown, and potentially to Esquimalt Village and Saanich Centre. An effluent loop supply backbone is proposed to supply up to four energy centres (two downtown, one Esquimalt, one Saanich). The effluent loop would likely run through Vic West across to the Rock Bay area, then south through downtown, as illustrated in Figure 4. It is proposed that the focus be placed initially on implementation of district energy in downtown, as the proposed development density and market conditions are considered more compatible with district energy than Esquimalt and Saanich. However, capacity to supply wastewater heat to both of these municipalities would enable them to capitalize on any district energy opportunities that arise. Opportunities for implementing the long-term plan include the following:

If the 5-year plan for downtown is implemented as described above, subsequent DES expansion can occur in step with development from 2015 through 2030. This will provide a revenue stream during the growth phase of the utility, supplying working capital to fund continuing system expansion.

The effluent loop could serve double-duty as a source of non-potable water, which new buildings could use in „purple pipe‟ systems. It would also include the flexibility to supply low or high temperature DES distribution systems.

Several sections of the effluent loop can be constructed concurrently with other wastewater infrastructure upgrades, including: - northwest trunk east section - Chatham forcemain north option


HDM\#351999\v5

The long-term plan provides an opportunity to introduce utility partnerships between the CRD, participating municipalities and the private sector, which can be beneficial in terms of risk transfer and minimizing taxpayer exposure.

The City of Victoria currently offers a 10% tax holiday for properties with “green” energy systems. This could be leveraged by a district energy utility and, potentially, its customers.

Challenges for long-term plan implementation include:

Funding the capital cost of projects could prove challenging without grants and/or interest free loans.

System expansion would need to occur in step with development, leaving the utility provider exposed to market conditions.

Current practice for many new residential buildings is to use electric baseboard heating in combination with gas-fired makeup air units. This arrangement is costly to integrate with district energy, as such buildings would need to be re-piped.

4.4 District Energy System Financial Feasibility Assessment

4.4.1 Cost Estimates

The following cost estimates for the resource recovery and use options described above are in 2010 dollars and at a Class D level of detail, which means general project requirements are known but no detailed site information is available. The capital cost estimates include 30% contingency and 20% for engineering and construction management, but do not include any land acquisition costs. Annual operation and maintenance costs assume natural gas at $14/GJ, including $1.33/GJ for carbon tax, and electricity at $100/MWh. Based on the above assumptions, the following tables provide the capital and operating cost estimates for the district energy systems described in previous sections:

Table 5 Capital Cost Summary for Wastewater Heat Recovery Projects

(KWL, October 2010)

Item

Short Term Long Term

UVic Chatham/

Government Downtown

Only Full

Buildout1

Wastewater Handling (incl. Effluent Loop) 120,000 100,000 24,000,000

29,000,000

Energy Centres 6,700,000 6,500,000 112,000,000 137,000,000

Distribution Piping 2,000,000 1,200,000 23,000,000 42,000,000

Energy Transfer Stations 3,900,000 2,200,000 47,000,000 59,000,000

Total 12,720,000 10,000,000 206,000,000 267,000,000

Say 13,000,000 10,000,000 200,000,000 270,000,000 1Includes Saanich and Esquimalt DES opportunities.


HDM\#351999\v5

Table 6 Operating Cost Summary for Wastewater Heat Recovery Projects

(KWL, October 2010)

Short Term Long Term

Item UVic Chatham/

Government Downtown

Only Full

Buildout1

Energy 460,000 370,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

Labour & Equipment 140,000 130,000 2,400,000 3,100,000

Total Annual O&M 600,000 500,000 10,400,000 13,000,000 1Includes Saanich and Esquimalt DES opportunities.

4.4.2 Business Case for District Energy Systems The business case analysis for the DES options (KWL, October 2010) is based on annual cash flow for the years 2015 and 2030, and assumes that systems are fully built out and that the energy use matches the design capacity. For comparative purposes, “business-as-usual” baselines were determined for both the short- term and long-term scenarios. The short-term scenario assumes natural gas boiler systems are displaced, while the long-term scenario assumes new residential buildings with 40% heating energy coming from gas and 60% from electric baseboard heaters. This analysis resulted in an average cost of energy of $65/MWh for short-term and $74/MWh for long-term business-as-usual cases. A summary of the estimated revenue and simple payback (capital cost/net revenue) for the short- term and long-term district energy systems (DES) are shown in the following tables. It is assumed that heat energy from the DES systems will be sold at an average cost of $70/MWh, which is between the short-term and long-term business-as-usual energy prices.

Table 7 Economic Analysis for Short Term Heat Recovery

(KWL, October 2010)

Business-as- Usual Costs

Heat Recovery

UVic Downtown/Rock Bay

Unit Energy Cost $65/MWh $111/MWh $127/MWh

Annual O&M Cost - $600,000 $500,000

Unit O&M Cost $65/MWh $41/MWh $49/MWh

Annual Revenue at $70/MWh - $1,000,000 $700,000

Net Revenue - $400,000 $200,000

Simple Payback1 - 31 years 48 years

1Simple payback assumes interest free loans.


HDM\#351999\v5

Table 8 Economic Analysis for Long Term Heat Recovery

(KWL, October 2010)

Business-as- Usual Costs

Heat Recovery

Downtown Regional System

Unit Energy Cost $74/MWh $119/MWh $126/MWh

Annual O&M Cost - $11,232,000 $12,223,000

Unit O&M Cost $74/MWh $48/MWh $48/MWh

Annual Revenue at $70/MWh - $15,000,000 $19,000,000

Net Revenue - $4,800,000 $5,900,000

Simple Payback1 - 41 years 46 years

1Simple payback assumes interest free loans.

The results of the economic analysis indicate that the 5-year UVic and 20-year downtown Victoria projects will produce lower cost energy (with payback periods of 31 and 41 years respectively) compared to the other projects. Because of the high initial capital costs, all of the reviewed district energy systems could result in higher total energy costs unless grants or interest free loans are available. Once built and operating at full capacity, the district energy systems are expected to have significantly lower operating costs per unit of energy than the business-as-usual cases, enabling a utility to recover capital investments, albeit over a longer period of time than normally considered for most capital investments. The expected 31–48 year simple payback periods assume interest free loans and mean that loans can be paid back within the expected lifespan of most of the district energy system infrastructure. While these payback periods are longer than normally considered for most capital investments, they are within a timeframe that energy utilities commonly consider viable. The 5-year plan, to 2015, focuses on switching existing public facilities from natural gas boiler heat to recovered heat from raw sewage. This will have the immediate effect of reducing GHG emissions. This is an important consideration for public sector organizations, which are required by legislation to reduce GHG emissions to specific levels. The capital costs, particularly for the long-term district energy systems, are considered the largest challenge to implementation of the proposed heat recovery strategy. However, as the proposed systems will reduce GHG emissions and electricity consumption, opportunities may occur to offset capital costs through grants or interest free loans from senior governments or equity partnerships with energy utilities such as Terasen Gas or BC Hydro.

5. ISSUES WITH LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS The CRD Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee, at its meeting of 25 November 2009, passed the following motion:

That all land application of biosolids (including use as a fertilizer, soil amendment or compost) be removed from consideration from the Core Area Liquid Waste Management sewage strategy, and that the preferential strategy for disposal of dried biosolids focus on sale as a fuel for cement kilns and/or to power one or more “waste-to-energy” facilities, both of which are currently proposed in recent Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee reports.

The Minister of Environment, in his letter dated 09 February 2010, encouraged the CRD to “reconsider the opportunities to beneficially use biosolids as a fertilizer and soil amendment product”. The Core Area


HDM\#351999\v5

Liquid Waste Management Committee has noted the minister‟s comments but remains concerned with potential risks regarding the safety and environmental soundness of land application of biosolids. While the CRD recognizes that other communities in North America, Europe and elsewhere have successfully and safely applied biosolids to land for many decades, the CRD remains unable to support the land application of biosolids from the Core Area wastewater treatment plant because of the perceived risks referred to above. 6. BIOSOLIDS EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLAN The Minister of Environment, in his letter dated 09 February 2010, directed the CRD to “develop an emergency contingency plan to handle biosolids that are surplus to the uses identified”. In response to this, the CRD engaged Stantec Consulting Ltd. and Brown & Caldwell to prepare a report which evaluated 11 options for the emergency disposal of biosolids. The report Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program – Biosolids Emergency Disposal Backup Plan dated 21 July 2010 is attached in Appendix C along with the covering staff report, presented to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee (the Committee) on 08 September 2010. The Committee, at this meeting, decided that the biosolids resource recovery facility should be designed, built and operated by a private contractor. It is proposed, therefore, that proponents bidding on this contract which would incorporate all biosolid management issues, including emergency disposal, be asked to submit a biosolids emergency contingency plan for consideration and approval by the CRD and subsequent forwarding to the Ministry of Environment. The ministry approval could take the form of an amendment to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan and related operational certificate. The design-build-operate (DBO) or design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) contract is expected to be executed in mid-2012 and the contractor will have four years to design, build and commission the facility by mid-to-late 2016. 7. WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE

7.1 Water Conservation

Since water conservation programs were introduced by the CRD in the mid-1990s, the total annual water consumption per capita has decreased by about 8% as a result of increasing public awareness of water issues and the CRD‟s comprehensive demand management program. Total indoor water consumption decreased by about 15% in the period 2004 to 2009, despite an annual population growth rate of about 1% during this period. Incentive programs were developed which used a variety of initiatives, including ones aimed at encouraging the replacement of old toilets with low flow models and the replacement of old washing machines with more energy and water efficient models. The conservation programs had two distinct components: a residential program and an industrial, commercial and institutional program. Residential Water Conservation Programs As more than 70% of the water supply is used for residential purposes, a number of residential water conservation programs are currently being implemented, including the following: School Programs The CRD, in conjunction with educators, has developed two school curricula supplements used in every public and private school in Greater Victoria at the Grade 2 and Grade 8-10 levels.


HDM\#351999\v5

Public Events Every year, CRD water conservation staff attend and distribute educational resources and program information at more than 60 public events, reaching more than 20,000 people. Workshops The CRD delivers workshops on native plants and irrigation system design and maintenance to homeowners. Water Conservation Bylaw More than a quarter of the total annual water supply to Greater Victoria is used for irrigating lawns and gardens. The CRD Water Conservation Bylaw establishes watering schedules and prohibits wasteful water use. Publications and Website Several fact sheets, manuals and brochures, and a website (www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation) have been developed to support the CRD water conservation programs. Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Water Conservation Programs Nearly 30% of municipal water in Greater Victoria is used by ICI sectors. The following water conservation programs were developed to address the diverse needs of this sector: Grants Grants are provided annually to Greater Victoria schools for water conservation retrofits. Rebates are also available for eliminating once-through cooling systems that waste large volumes of clean municipal water. Audits and Technical Services The CRD offers free water use and efficiency audits to businesses, including access to specialized instruments and expertise. Industry Education Water conservation education provided for businesses include specialized workshops, displays at trade shows, talks at industry events and various publications. Key program targets include food service facilities and landscape irrigation. The CRD, in conjunction with the BC Irrigation Association, has developed an irrigation installer certification program allowing installers to obtain Level 1 and Level 2 certification. In addition to the above CRD water conservation programs, some municipalities have implemented charging for sewer system costs based on metered water use (usually winter water use). This provides an additional incentive to reduce indoor water use. 7.2 Water Reuse

The use of treated wastewater for irrigation or toilet flushing is common, especially in water short areas. Reclaimed water suitable for irrigation of food crops can be produced through biological treatment, filtration and disinfection. The criteria can be met through the disinfection of an effluent from a membrane bioreactor or from a conventional activated sludge treatment system followed by filtration. If sufficient fresh water supply is not available, a ready market for reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and non-potable industrial and commercial purposes is usually available, especially if the need extends over a substantial portion of the year. The CRD engaged consultants to carry out a number of studies to determine whether reclaiming water from wastewater for beneficial use in irrigation or toilet flushing was appropriate for Greater Victoria. These reviews included the following:

CH2MHill, Associated Engineering, KWL, Discussion Paper 031-DP-8, Water

http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation


HDM\#351999\v5

Reclamation and Reuse, July 2008.

CH2MHill, Associated Engineering, KWL, Discussion Paper 036-DP-1, Identification and Evaluation of Resource Recovery Opportunities, December 2008.

Stantec Consulting Ltd, Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program – Effluent Reuse and Heat Recovery for the University of Victoria and Surrounding Area, January 2010.

The information contained in these studies enabled the CRD to evaluate the merits of wastewater reclamation and reuse on a location specific basis. The CRD‟s highly successful water conservation program, as described in Section 7.1 above, and new provincial legislation requiring the use of low flush toilets has caused total water consumption in the region to decrease for the past ten years, despite a steady increase in population. The CRD has also recently purchased a second watershed adjacent to the existing one with a connecting tunnel, at a cost of $60 million. When this watershed is needed in 50 or more years, it will almost double the supply potential of the system. The CRD water system delivers 95% of its water by gravity, and the water does not currently need to be filtered. It is therefore a low cost and low energy consumption system. This contrasts with the additional infrastructure and energy required to filter, pump and deliver reclaimed water to customers, resulting in higher costs and a higher carbon footprint. Notwithstanding the above, the CRD will again assess the market for reclaimed water when a new satellite plant is required to serve the Westshore in about 2030. Major new residential developments in that area could potentially provide a suitable market for reclaimed water from the new Westshore plant.

8. CARBON FOOTPRINT

8.1 Background

In 2007, the province of British Columbia passed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target Bill 44, establishing the following emissions targets:

By 2020, and for each subsequent calendar year, the BC GHG emissions will be at least 33% less than the level of those emissions in 2007.

By 2050, and for each subsequent calendar year, BC GHG emissions will be at least 80% less than the level of those emissions in 2007.

In addition to these legislative targets, the provincial government has implemented a carbon tax, created an emissions trading system, and mandated a carbon-neutral public sector. 8.2 Carbon Footprint of Wastewater Treatment Project As a result of these influencing factors and the CRD‟s goal of managing wastewater and recovered resources in a sustainable manner, an analysis was carried out to estimate the carbon footprint of the entire project (Stantec/Brown & Caldwell, December 2009), excluding the carbon footprint of any district energy systems (DES) that may be constructed using heat recovered from wastewater. The analysis was carried out using estimates from the operation of the facilities in the design year of 2030, and included GHG emissions and credits for the conveyance system, the liquid stream treatment system and the biosolids/resource recovery system. A summary of the estimated GHG emissions and credits is presented in Table 9. All of the estimated credits are derived from resource recovery and amount to a total of -9,401 tonnes CO2e/year. These credits more than offset the estimated emissions resulting in a net annual negative carbon footprint of -5,250 tonnes CO2e/year.


HDM\#351999\v5

Table 9 Estimate of Greenhouse Gas Emission and Credits in 2030 Design Year

Components TonneCO2e/yr

Construction (Emission associated with concrete and steel production and site excavation) One time emission during construction period. Therefore, not included in 2030 design year total.

7,111

Conveyance Power for conveyance (pumping) 125

Liquid stream treatment

Power for treatment (liquid and solids) 3,713

Chemicals (liquids and solids) 252

Direct emissions (CH4 and N2O) for liquids and solids 61

Biosolids/Resource Recovery

Biomethane -7,409

Cement kiln offset -1,742

Struvite offset -250

Total Annual Emissions and Credits in Design Year 2030 (Excluding one-time construction-related emissions)

-5,250

8.3 Carbon Footprint of Potential Wastewater Based District Energy Systems

Section 4 of this Plan describes a number of opportunities to build and operate district energy systems (DES) using heat recovered from treated and untreated wastewater. The information contained in this section is largely based on a report prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates dated October 2010, and includes an estimate of greenhouse gas (GHG) credits that could result from the operation of such systems. Using waste heat from wastewater in a DES leads to natural gas and electricity savings compared to a business-as-usual scenario of 60% baseboard heaters and 40% natural gas furnaces, as shown in Table 10. While the carbon footprint of electricity in BC can be considered negligible, displacing natural gas with waste heat results in GHG emissions savings. With a carbon tax in BC forecasted at $30/tonne CO2eq, these GHG emissions savings result in O&M cost savings quantified below.

Table 10 Annual District Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Avoided

Compared to Business-As-Usual1

District Energy Scenario

(KWL, October 2010)

Natural Gas Consumption

(GJ)

Electricity Consumption

(MWh)

GHGs Avoided (tonnes CO2eq)

Carbon Cost Savings

2

($)

5-Year Chatham DES -36,000 2,400 -2,000 -$112,000

5-Year UVic/QA DES -66,000 4,600 -3,700 -$203,000

20-Year McLoughlin DES -246,000 -98,000 -13,800 -$758,000

1Business-as-usual: It is assumed that the DES will displace 100% natural gas for the 5-year scenarios, and 60% electric baseboard and 40% natural gas furnace for the 20-year scenario.

2Carbon cost assuming a carbon tax of $30/tonne CO2eq + carbon credits at $25/tonne CO2eq.


HDM\#351999\v5

Public sector organizations are also required to purchase carbon credits from Pacific Carbon Trust to offset any GHG emissions, which currently prices carbon credits at $25/tonne CO2eq. In theory, the proposed heat recovery arrangement will result in the CRD reducing its corporate emissions, thereby reducing the amount paid to Pacific Carbon Trust in accordance with Table 10.

9. ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED AND RESOLVED IN 2011

9.1 Introduction

The procurement phase for the biosolids resource recovery facility will begin in early 2011 with the issuing of a Request for Qualifications to companies to design, build and operate the facility. In mid-2011, the short-listed companies will be invited to submit comprehensive and detailed proposals for providing and operating the required facility. When the preferred proponent has been identified, a final contract will be negotiated, approved and executed. Proponents will be expected to describe in their proposals how they would recover and beneficially use the resources discussed in this Plan. The terms of this contract will need to support the policies and goals of the CRD and the Ministry of Environment as they relate to the recovery and use of resources. To facilitate this, a number of outstanding issues will need to be addressed and resolved in 2011, either by the CRD and its consultants or by proponents for the design-build-operate contract. The findings of these reviews will be incorporated in the final contract that is approved by the CRD Board. These investigations will include the following: 9.2 General

1. Determine the relationship between the energy used by the finalized wastewater

treatment system and the energy credits obtained from the use of biogas, the use of dried biosolids as a fuel, and recovered heat from the effluent, biosolids and/or screened sewage.

2. From a resource recovery and use perspective, determine whether it is preferable to locate the biosolids processing facility at Hartland landfill or at a location substantially closer to the treatment plant.

9.3 Dried Biosolids as a Fuel

1. Determine the preferred water content of the dried biosolids, taking into account energy

consumption, transportation, storage, handling and end use. 2. Carry out a comprehensive investigation of potential markets in the Pacific Northwest for

the dried biosolids as a fuel, particularly as a coal replacement fuel. Determine names, locations and types of facilities, along with information on current fuel use and interest in using dried biosolids as a fuel.

3. Determine how much cement manufacturers, or other potential users, will charge to receive dried biosolids.

4. Investigate how the provincial government‟s carbon tax, new “cap and trade” system and carbon credits will impact biosolids management costs and market, and how Hartland landfill‟s tipping fee will impact these costs.

5. Determine the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the transportation to users of dried biosolids by truck or barge.

6. Confirm the form that the dried biosolids will need to be in when delivered to cement kilns or other users (pellets, ground pellets or other) and whether this processing should be done at the treatment plant or at the user‟s facility.


HDM\#351999\v5

7. Liaise with Metro Vancouver regarding their plans for dried biosolids processing and their expected schedule and costs for providing dried biosolids to cement kilns or other markets.

8. Investigate whether there are potential advantages in collaborating with Metro Vancouver regarding commercial terms to be negotiated with cement kiln operators or other users of dried biosolids.

9. Confirm that the dried biosolids will have a suitable chemical composition compared to coal, particularly related to the presence of mercury, sulphur, chloride, sodium and potassium.

10. As a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility may be in operation at Hartland landfill by about 2020, and as this facility could have capacity to process biosolids, determine the costs, revenues and carbon footprint of co-combusting the biosolids with municipal solid waste at Hartland landfill and whether the biosolids need to be digested or dried.

9.4 Biogas

1. Determine the optimal use of biogas from the anaerobic digesters: use onsite for plant

processes or offsite through the natural gas pipeline system or a combination of both. 2. Evaluate the relative cost of upgrading the biogas for use onsite compared to the cost of

upgrading it to pipeline quality for use offsite and determine whether it should be upgraded by the facility operator or by Terasen Gas.

3. Confirm the quantity of other organics (such as fats oils and grease) that will be available for co-digesting with biosolids, taking into account CRD policy, market conditions and competition from current collectors and processors.

9.5 Heat from Effluent and Screened Sewage

Based on the final system configuration: 1. Evaluate and quantify the potential for using heat from effluent to heat treatment facility

buildings and processes, including the potential for using heat recovered from effluent at the McLoughlin plant to heat the biosolids prior to pumping it to the digesters, in the event that these are located close enough to the plant to prevent excessive heat loss in the transmission system.

2. Confirm the most promising opportunities for using heat from effluent for existing developments with compatible heating systems and for new developments.

3. Evaluate the most promising locations for extracting and using heat from screened sewage, and prepare a detailed business case for each potential project.

4. Submit a grant application to the Province for one or more of the most promising heat-from-screened sewage projects, with a supporting business case.

10. CONCLUSION As this Resource Recovery and Use Plan has been prepared about six years before start-up of the wastewater treatment plant and the biosolids resource recovery facility in 2016, it is likely that new information and perspectives will enable refinement of the Plan to ensure that no opportunity is missed to optimize the recovery and use of resources from wastewater. Developments that could provide new information and perspectives resulting in changes to this Plan include the following:

Finalization of plans for managing source separated organics and solid waste residuals, as this could have a bearing on whether biosolids go to a cement kiln in Metro Vancouver over the long term or to a local waste-to-energy facility. This could also have an influence on the amount of digester capacity that is required, and the quantity and type of organics that will be digested.

Confirmation of the quantity of fats, oils and grease that will be available as a feedstock for the digesters, taking into account competing demands for this feedstock and related tipping fees and energy.

Selection of a design-build-operate contractor for the biosolids resource recovery facility, as the


HDM\#351999\v5

contractor will be asked to propose initiatives for optimizing the recovery and use of resources from biosolids.

Changes in the regulatory environment or public perceptions regarding the management of biosolids and other organic wastes.

New local or provincial government policies that would encourage the recovery and use of resources from wastewater, such as heat energy from effluent and screened sewage.

Confirmation of the availability of provincial grants for the development of district energy systems with the most promising business cases.

report #eee-101 report to the core area liquid waste

Documents