Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
City of Toronto
Class Environmental Assessment
for Biosolids Management at the
Highland Creek TP
Public Information
Centre...
Outline
 Project Background
 Class EA Project Scope and Project Team
 Biosolids Management Alternatives
 Impact Assess...
Project Background
3
Highland Creek Treatment Plant (HCTP)
- Connected population of ~500,000
- Rated capacity of 219 ML/d, generates approxima...
Rationale for the HCTP Biosolids Management Class EA
- The existing multiple hearth incinerators were commissioned in 1976...
Class EA Process
 The Class EA follows step-wise process to
evaluate options and identify a preferred
approach for managi...
Project Study Area
7
Step-Wise Evaluation Process
Short-list -
feasible for
HCTP
Class EA
Report
Long-list
Screening -
‘must-meet’
criteria
Det...
How alternatives were assessed in the Class EA Process?
EnvironmentCommunityHuman Health Cost
Best Biosolids
Management Al...
Scope of Information Developed
+ Focused Studies
- Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
- Human health risk assessment
(HHRA)
- ...
Information Developed for Biosolids Management Alternatives
+ Facilities Requirements
- Process description, schematic
- F...
Project Team
Biosolids
Engineering
Toronto
Water
CIMA
Air Quality and
Noise Modelling
Toronto
Environment
and Energy
Golde...
Short-List of Biosolids
Management
Alternatives
13
Alternative 1 – On-site Fluidized Bed Incineration
 Two new fluidized bed incinerators would replace existing multiple-he...
Alternative 2 – Haul Biosolids Off-site for Management
 Contractors would haul biosolids from site
- 4 to 6 trucks daily
...
Alternative 3 – On-site Pelletization and Off-site Pellet Management
 New facilities include:
- Pelletizer process buildi...
Transportation Mode and Route Assessment
 An assessment of transport modes was
completed – haulage by large (40 tonne)
tr...
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 ...
General Approach to Evaluating Alternatives
 Public and project team input to select a long list
of evaluation criteria
...
Health Assessment of
Biosolids Management
Alternatives
Health Impact
Assessment (HIA)
Human Health
EnvironmentCommunity Co...
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
 Helps to address community concerns about potential health impacts
of the project
 Helps...
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
Nei...
Health Impacts Assessment for
Highland Creek Treatment Plant
Dr. David McKeown
Medical Officer of Health
October 26, 2015
...
Findings of the HIA
 Overall, the health impacts associated with
the alternatives are very small
 There are no appreciab...
Air Quality – Criteria Air Contaminants
• While there are differences, the contribution from the alternatives to air
pollu...
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 smal...
Human Health Risk – Multi-media Assessment
 What was evaluated:
- Long-term accumulation of chemicals in soil, dust, and ...
Traffic Safety – Route 1 and Route 4
Route 1 (Morningside) Route 4 (Port Union)
- No bike route interference
- No left tur...
Traffic Safety
• While there are differences, the contribution of alternatives to increased risk
of injuries and fatalitie...
Traffic Safety
Alternative 1:
Fluidized
Bed Incineration
Alternative 2:
Biosolids Transport
Off-site for
Management
Altern...
Stress and Risk Perception - Noise and Odour
 Alternative 2 and 3 have a
greater potential to result in
an increase in od...
Other Health Areas
 Neighbourhood characteristics
- No health effects for any alternative
 Climate change (greenhouse ga...
Health Equity
 Truck routes were assessed in terms of the proximity to vulnerable
populations:
- Neighbourhood Improvemen...
Health Impact Assessment Conclusions
 Overall, the health impacts are very small and there
are no appreciable difference ...
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 bios...
Air Quality
 The health risk to people in the study area from exposure to emissions
from biosolids management alternative...
Modelled NOx Emissions in Study Area
43
Modelled NOx from Biosolids Management Alternatives (Scale is 600x finer)
Criteria air chemical contributions
to respirato...
Protect Air Quality- Minimize Emissions to Environment
 Air Quality Modelling in Study Area
- Predicted emission rates fo...
Provide a Reliable and Sustainable Biosolids Management Solution
 What is environmental impact of disruption to service?
...
Recover Soil and Fertilizer Value
Opportunity Opportunity
Alternative 1 –
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
Very limited opportun...
Minimize Energy and Other Resources
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Base Case -...
Minimize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Base Case - Current MH
Incine...
Other Environmental Criteria
+ Minimize risk of
environmental impacts due
to spills
- None of the materials (ash,
biosolid...
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, t...
Public Opinion – Who commented?
No. of Attendees
(Signed In)
Number of
Comments
Received
Public Information
Centre No. 1
7...
Summary of Public Input from PIC No. 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
In favour of
Incineration
Opposed to
Incineration
Oppos...
General Feedback
 Most frequent comments:
- Strong support for incineration (Alternative 1)
- Strong opposition to additi...
Biosolids Management Staff Working Conditions
Alternative Working Conditions Overall
Alternative 1 – Fluidized
Bed Inciner...
Other Community Impacts
+ Nuisance impacts (noise, traffic,
odour, mud) (not health related)
- Associated with trucks -
• ...
Cost of Biosolids
Management
Alternatives
Environment Community
Cost
Human Health
58
Biosolids Management Costs
Criteria
Alternative 1:
On-site Fluidized
Bed Incineration
Alternative 2:
Biosolids and
Haulage...
Summary of Impacts
Assessment
60
Criteria with Equivalent and Negligible Impacts for All Alternatives
- All Health criteria
- Environmental criteria
• Prot...
Relative Impacts of Other Criteria
Criterion Alternative 1:
On-site Fluidized
Bed Incineration
Alternative 2:
Biosolids an...
Findings (Page 1 of 2)
 Factors Supporting Alternative 1 - Fluidized Bed
Incineration:
- Most reliable biosolids manageme...
Findings (Page 2 of 2)
 Factors Supporting Alternative 2 - Off-Site
Haulage and Management:
- Recovery of soil conditioni...
Next Steps
65
Next Steps
 December/January
- Completion of Technical Memoranda
- Consolidation of comments and responses
 February/Mar...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Biosolids Pic 3 presentation final

5,160 views

Published on

highland creek biosolids public meeting 3

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Biosolids Pic 3 presentation final

  1. 1. City of Toronto Class Environmental Assessment for Biosolids Management at the Highland Creek TP Public Information Centre No. 3 November 19, 2015 1
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Project Background 3
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Project Study Area 7
  8. 8. 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 Period and City Council Approval required before implementation Step 1 Step 2 8
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Project Team Biosolids Engineering Toronto Water CIMA Air Quality and Noise Modelling Toronto Environment and Energy Golder Human Health Impact Assessment Toronto Public Health Intrinsik (HHRA) Habitat Health Impact (HIA) Project Management Toronto Engineering and Construction Services CIMA 12
  13. 13. Short-List of Biosolids Management Alternatives 13
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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 could include: - Land application - Composting - Processing into fertilizer - Landfill  Similar to Ashbridges Bay TP contract program 15
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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 0 500 1000 1500 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Trucks Per Year 17
  18. 18. Coronation Dr./Manse Rd./ Morningside Ave. 18
  19. 19. Beechgrove Dr./Lawrence Ave./Port Union Rd. 19
  20. 20. Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives - Health (HIA) - Environment - Community - Cost EnvironmentCommunityHuman Health Cost 20
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Health Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Human Health EnvironmentCommunity Cost 22
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Health Impact Assessment Process Peer Review Peer Review 24
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. Health Impacts Assessment for Highland Creek Treatment Plant Dr. David McKeown Medical Officer of Health October 26, 2015 26
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. Air Quality – Carcinogens Health Benchmark ILCR – Incremental Life-time Cancer Risk 29
  30. 30. Air Quality – Non-Carcinogens Health Benchmark 30
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. Traffic Safety • While there are differences, the contribution of alternatives to increased risk of injuries and fatalities is very small 34
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. Environmental Impacts Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives Environment Community CostHuman Health 40
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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 Antimony Arsenic Barium Benzene Beryllium Boron 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium Carbon monoxide* Carbon tetrachloride Chloroform Chromium Cobalt Copper 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane Dichloromethane Ethylene dibromide Formaldehyde Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum 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 Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Zinc 42
  43. 43. Modelled NOx Emissions in Study Area 43
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. 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 Overall Alternative 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
  47. 47. Recover Soil and Fertilizer Value Opportunity Opportunity Alternative 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 processing into a fertilizer Good opportunity, although, potential for landfilling a portion Alternative 3 – Pelletization and Pellet Management Pellet is a fertilizer product that will have primary use on agricultural land Good opportunity, biosolids not pelletized (in emergency) will need to be landfilled 47
  48. 48. Minimize Energy and Other Resources 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 Base Case - Current MH Incineration Alt 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration Alt 2 - Haul Biosolids Off- Site Alt 3 - Pelletization Electricity Use (kW.h per year) 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 Base Case - Current MH Incineration Alt 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration Alt 2 - Haul Biosolids Off- Site Alt 3 - Pelletization Natural Gas Use (m3 per year) 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 Base Case - Current MH Incineration Alt 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration Alt 2 - Haul Biosolids Off- Site Alt 3 - Pelletization 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
  49. 49. Minimize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Base Case - Current MH Incineration Alt 1 - Fluidized Bed Incineration Alt 2 - Haul Biosolids Off- Site Alt 3 - Pelletization 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)
  50. 50. 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
  51. 51. Community Impacts Assessment of Biosolids Management Alternatives Environment Community CostHuman Health 51
  52. 52. Community Criteria  Community opinion  Biosolids management staff working conditions  Nuisance impacts (noise, odour, traffic, mud)  Community impacts during construction 52
  53. 53. 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
  54. 54. Summary of Public Input from PIC No. 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 In favour of Incineration Opposed to Incineration Opposed to Additional Truck Traffic In favour of benefical use (land application) Opposed to beneficial use (land application) Number of Comments 54
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. Biosolids Management Staff Working Conditions Alternative Working Conditions Overall Alternative 1 – Fluidized Bed Incineration Biosolids management trains are enclosed, with minimal odour potential Ash 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 mitigation Biosolids truck loading facility odours, similar to Alternative 2 Worst working conditions for staff inside pelletizer facilities due to odours 56
  57. 57. 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
  58. 58. Cost of Biosolids Management Alternatives Environment Community Cost Human Health 58
  59. 59. Biosolids Management Costs Criteria 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* 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
  60. 60. Summary of Impacts Assessment 60
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. Relative Impacts of Other Criteria Criterion 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
  63. 63. 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
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. Next Steps 65
  66. 66. 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

×