highland creek biosolids public meeting 3

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. 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. Project Background
3

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. 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. 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. Project Study Area
7

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Short-List of Biosolids
Management
Alternatives
13

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. 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. 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. 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. Coronation Dr./Manse Rd./ Morningside Ave.
18

19. Beechgrove Dr./Lawrence Ave./Port Union Rd.
19

20. Assessment of
Biosolids Management
Alternatives
- Health (HIA)
- Environment
- Community
- Cost
EnvironmentCommunityHuman Health Cost
20

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. Health Assessment of
Biosolids Management
Alternatives
Health Impact
Assessment (HIA)
Human Health
EnvironmentCommunity Cost
22

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. Health Impact Assessment Process
Peer
Review
Peer
Review
24

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. Health Impacts Assessment for
Highland Creek Treatment Plant
Dr. David McKeown
Medical Officer of Health
October 26, 2015
26

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. 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. Air Quality – Carcinogens
Health Benchmark
ILCR – Incremental Life-time Cancer Risk
29

30. Air Quality – Non-Carcinogens
Health Benchmark
30

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. 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. 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. Traffic Safety
• While there are differences, the contribution of alternatives to increased risk
of injuries and fatalities is very small
34

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Environmental Impacts
Assessment of
Biosolids Management
Alternatives
Environment
Community CostHuman Health
40

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. 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. Modelled NOx Emissions in Study Area
43

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Community Impacts
Assessment of
Biosolids Management
Alternatives
Environment
Community
CostHuman Health
51

52. Community Criteria
 Community opinion
 Biosolids management staff working conditions
 Nuisance impacts (noise, odour, traffic, mud)
 Community impacts during construction
52

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cost of Biosolids
Management
Alternatives
Environment Community
Cost
Human Health
58

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. Summary of Impacts
Assessment
60

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. 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. 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. 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. Next Steps
65

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