Liquid Waste Committee Presentations - November 4, 2021

Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant ProjectsREVISED DESIGN CONCEPT

48468925Liquid Waste Committee, November 4, 2021

Cheryl Nelms, P.Eng., Ph.D.GENERAL MANAGER, PROJECT DELIVERY

Brett Young, M.Sc., MBA, P.Eng.DIRECTOR, IIWWTP PROGRAM, PROJECT DELIVERY

5.1

Peter Navratil, P.Eng.,MPAGENERAL MANAGER, LIQUID WASTE SERVICES

Liquid Waste Committee

AGENDA

2

1. Background2. Expert Panel Recommendations and Options Evaluation3. Revised Design Concept4. Public and First Nation Engagement5. Regional Park Impacts and Benefits6. Next Steps to Finalize Project Definition Report (PDR)7. Recommendation


STAGE GATE PROCESS

3

Iona Island WWTP Projects


Background


JULY 2020 DESIGN CONCEPT

5

Evaluation of three alternate concepts for upgraded WWTP(not just a comparison of treatment technologies)

What’s changed since then?• Further work on constructability, cost

estimates, risks, and schedule• Ground improvement cost

assumptions changed materially • Costs and risks of interim solids

handling addressed in fall 2020 study

Challenges identified in July 2021

Information Report


July 2021 Information ReportCHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

6

Solids handling • Interim trucking sludge to other WWTP for ~ 7 years

Constructability • Limited working space and flexibility in contract packaging

Schedule • Compliance with regulatory deadline ~2034 (4 years late) • Completion of solids treatment facilities ~ 2041

Capital costs • $6.7B in 2021 dollars• $10.4B with escalation and risk reserve

Rendering showing July 2020 Design Concept


July 2021 Information ReportADDRESSING CHALLENGES

7

• Steps to Address Challenges• Value engineering• Expert panel challenge review• Identify and evaluate options• Structured decision making

• Revised Design Concept• Present to November 2021 Board

for endorsement

Independent Expert PanelRoy Simm – StantecKen Abraham – HDR

Viji Fernando – GolderFrank Margitan (Rtd) – Kiewit

Jeff Plant – Major Projects AdvisorPippa Brasher – Scape Studio

Brendan Avery – Francl ArchitectureShannon Katt – PMA Consultants

Ryan Ziels – UBC


Expert Panel Recommendations & Options Evaluation


EXPERT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

9

• Total of 35 recommendations from Challenge Review• wastewater treatment process design• ecological, community/park integration and resource recovery • construction considerations

• To address costs and other challenges, panel made specific recommendations related to:• additional seismic modelling to refine ground improvement cost estimates• wastewater treatment process design options, including technologies with

smaller footprints to offset the high costs of ground improvements


SHORT-LIST OF TREATMENT OPTIONS

10

1. Base Case (July 2020 design concept)1a. Modified Base Case 2. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)3. Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS)


11

PRELIMINARY COST COMPARISONS

+3%

-11%-9%

$10.365B

$3.718B 0%+21%

-6%

$14.084B +2%-1%

-10%

Capital Coststo 2034 and 2041 - including escalation and risk reserve

O&M Costs37-year NPV (2034-71)

Total Life Cycle Costscapital costs plus 37-year O&M NPV

1. Base Case1a. Modified Base Case 2. MBR3. AGS


ADDRESSING CHALLENGES & OTHER CRITERIA

12Liquid Waste Committee

WHAT’S CHANGED FROM EARLIER EVALUATION

13

Nature of Change Example of Change

Addressing challenges Summary table includes each challenge

Criteria not shown that are similar for all options or do not influence decision

• Odour control and potential risks are similar in nature for all of the options

• Operational complexity and maintenance requirements are reflected in O&M costs

New criteria added for options evaluated

• Impacts on park lands and land tenure• Proven applications at scale and market competition

among technology vendors


Public and First Nation Engagement


July 30 to October 22, 2021PUBLIC AND FIRST NATION ENGAGEMENT

15

Audience Virtual Meeting DatesMusqueam Indian Band July 30, Sept 14Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR) Sept 22Deering Island Homeowners Society Sept 24

Georgia Strait Alliance Sept 29Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Oct 4Birders and naturalists Oct 18Online community meetings Oct 12 and 14 (55 participants)

Online public comment period Sept 27 to Oct 22 (52 submissions)

CoV, VSA, REAC, RAAC, RFAC Sept, Oct


PUBLIC AND FIRST NATION ENGAGEMENT


Revised Design Concept


REVISED DESIGN CONCEPT

18

• Concurrent construction of digesters and compact-footprint secondary treatment process (MBR or AGS)

• Offer capital cost savings in the order of 10%• Flexibility to validate performance and costs in next phases• Address commercial considerations as part of due-diligence

• What’s not changing• Tertiary level wastewater treatment • Odour control • Ecological restoration projects• Resource recovery opportunities

Reclaimed Water

Heat

Nutrients / Biosolids

Biofuels


Primary Treatment

Preliminary Treatment

Secondary and Tertiary Treatment

REVISED DESIGN CONCEPT – WASTEWATER TREATMENT

19

Screening Grit Removal

Inclined Plate/Tube Settling (Lamella)

Membrane Biological Reactor

Aerobic Granular Sludge

Cloth Media Filtration

(Dry Weather Only)

Disinfection

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Wet Weather Flow Treatment

Cloth Media Filtration and Disinfection

Solids Treatment

Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion

Biogas Use

Biogas Upgrade

From Influent Siphons

To Existing Outfall

MBR Option

AGS Option

Wet Weather Flow

Biosolids

Renewable Natural Gas

to Grid

Effluent Heat Recovery and Reclaimed Water

Liquid

SolidsGas

LEGEND


Conceptual LayoutMEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR)

20

Legend

Future Expansion 2051

MBR Secondary Treatment~ 2.4 hectares

Complete 2034 (primary, secondary, tertiary treatment processes, and new digesters)


MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR)

21

Conceptual Rendering


Conceptual LayoutAEROBIC GRANULAR SLUDGE (AGS)

22

Legend

Future Expansion 2051

AGS Secondary Treatment ~ 3.2 hectares

Complete 2034 (primary, secondary, tertiary treatment processes, and new digesters)


AEROBIC GRANULAR SLUDGE (AGS)

23

Conceptual Rendering


Issues to address in subsequent phasesREMAINING CHALLENGES & RISKS

24

ChallengesMBR• higher energy use and O&M costs• periodic replacement of membranesAGS• limited proven applications of scale at Iona• Commercial considerations for proprietary technology

Risk Schedule risk if land tenure resolution is delayed


Regional Park Impacts and Benefits


• Concurrent digester construction • Eliminates trucking sludge off-site • Protects desired Musqueam views• Net gain in park land, including

~ 18 ha transfer from GVS&DD

LAND REQUIREMENTS

26

Revised Design Concept layout requires ~3 ha of MVRD park land


IONA ISLAND LAND TENURE – CURRENT


IONA ISLAND LAND TENURE – PLANNED


IONA ISLAND – PARK ENHANCEMENTS


30

Freshwater wetlands and tidal channels

Foreshore restorationTidal marsh south of treatment plant

View from knolls looking west


Next Steps to Finalize Project Definition Report


for March 2022 Board approvalWORK TO FINALIZE PDR

32

• Refine conceptual design and layouts• Advance land tenure transfer (MVRD and GVS&DD)• Update schedule and budget

• constructability review• risk assessment• cost estimates• cash flows

• Update financial model to estimate rate impacts (HHIs)• Update delivery strategy recommendations• Finalize project definition report


Recommendation


RECOMMENDATION

34

That the GVS&DD Board endorse the revised design concept for the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant projects, as presented in the report dated October 27, 2021 titled “Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects – Revised Design Concept”; and direct staff to finalize the project definition report for Board approval in March 2022.


Questions


Procurement Model For Regional Biosolids Drying Facility

Lillian ZarembaProgram Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services

Liquid Waste Committee, November 4, 202147862577

Drum dryer

5.2


WHAT ARE BIOSOLIDS?

2

Treated solids recovered from wastewater treatment

Final product is a nutrient-rich material, similar to soil


Land application to build healthy soilsBACKGROUND: CURRENT BENEFICIAL USE

3

Nutrifor Landscaping Soil at new Mountain Highway Interchange

• Landscaping soil • Rangeland fertilization • Agricultural land

reclamation• Mine restoration• Gravel pit restoration• Landfill closure


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Bios

olid

s pro

duct

ion

(bul

k to

nnes

per

yea

r)

Increasing biosolids production cannot be handled by land application aloneBACKGROUND: DRIVERS

Land application($165/tonne)

Landfill disposal($275/tonne) (30-yr lifecycle

costs including carbon price)


REGIONAL BIOSOLIDS DRYING FACILITY

Construction of CRD Residuals Handling Facility Dried biosolids pellets from drum dryer


Biosolids processing systemWASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY

Waste-to-Energy Facility

6

Contingency approach:• Run at one-third capacity

(8,500 tonnes per year) to maintain operation

• Full capacity (25,000 tonnes per year) available if needed


Solids management alternativeHYDROTHERMAL LIQUEFACTION (HTL)

7

New technology that replaces WWTP digestion and produces biofuel instead of biosolidsPilot in development at Annacis WWTPIf successful, possible larger scale implementation in late 2030sComplements biosolids nutrient recovery

Bio-crude oil from HTL


PROPOSED BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

8

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047

2048

2049

2050

Bios

olid

s pr

oduc

tion

(bul

k to

nnes

/yea

r) Dryer Waste-to-Energy Facility Land application Landfill disposal


OCT. 4, 2019 BOARD MEETING

9

It was MOVED and SECONDEDThat the GVS&DD Board:a) endorse biosolids drying as a

biosolids management option; andb) direct staff to report back to the Board

with the recommended procurement model for implementation of a regional biosolids drying facility.

Dried biosolids pellets from fluidized bed dryer


Procurement models for regional biosolids drying facility

VALUE-FOR-MONEY ANALYSIS

Hamilton dried biosolids storage silo

10

Design-Bid-Build (DBB)• base caseDesign-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) • 3% less costly than DBBDesign-Build-Operate (DBO)• 13% less costly than DBB,

$41M savings


RECOMMENDED PROCUREMENT MODEL: DBO

11

Hamilton biosolids dryer building Hamilton drum dryer


12

Thank you

Hamilton biosolids dryer


Proposed Capital InvestmentSAPPERTON DISTRICT SEWER HEAT RECOVERY PROJECT

Jeff CarmichaelDIVISION MANAGER, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LIQUID WASTE SERVICES

Liquid Waste Committee – November 4, 202145592530

5.4


Photo Caption hereOPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE• Climate 2050 GHG neutral goal

• Corporate GHG neutrality goal

• Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan

• Other plans:

• Liquid Waste Heat Recovery Policy• Carbon Pricing Policy• Energy Management Policy• Sustainable Infrastructure Policy


Photo Caption hereSEWER HEAT OPPORTUNITIES

• Energy-rich, reliable local source of renewable energy

• Potential for significant regional GHG reductions

• High startup costs hinder implementation

• Capital investments will accelerate development of municipal sewer heat-sourced district energy systems


MOST RECENT BOARD ACTIONS

March 2021 approved amendments for wastewater recovery:

Tier III Cost Apportionment Bylaw Amendment: • Share costs proportionately and equitably for projects that reduce

regional greenhouse gas emissions

Liquid Waste Heat Recovery Policy Amendments:• Allow capital investments in such projects


Photo Caption here

SEWER HEAT CAPITAL INVESTMENT:NEW WESTMINSTER SAPPERTON DISTRICT

• Proposed 12 MW sewer heat project• Investment cap set based on GHG

reductions, valued per Carbon Price Policy = $18,000,000

• Voluntary GHG reduction 5,700 tonnes / yr• GHG credits to be allocated as per Liquid

Waste Heat Recovery Policy• Benefits exceed costs over life of project


SEWER HEAT DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM SCOPE OVERVIEW

GVS&DD capital investment

City investments


DRIVER FOR INVESTMENT: REGIONAL GHG REDUCTIONS

past future

Annual GHG

emissions

fossil fuel energy-based option

low GHG energy option

Existing and future energy users (including Royal Columbian Hospital):

Voluntary GHG reduction = difference


8

Item GVS&DD New WestminsterEstimated capital cost ($14 million) ($64 million)

Operating costs ($900,000 / yr) tbd

Revenues from thermal energy +$900,000 / yr tbd, based on rate structure

Benefits from GHG reductions (as per Carbon Price Policy)

+$18 million

Net benefit to Metro Vancouver +$4 million

Spending authority requested $18 million

BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY


Photo Caption hereFINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NEAR- AND LONG-TERM

• Near-term projects approved or under consideration: ~25MW• North Shore effluent heat • Sapperton District • Surrey Central District• Richmond OvalRatepayer impact: Less than $1 per household per year per project

• Estimated maximum buildout:• Estimated capacity of 105 MW of heat recovery without impacting wastewater

treatment = 700 high rises• Ratepayer impact of full near-term buildout: $1 per household per year over 10 years• Capacity will grow in future as regional population and sewage flows grow


Thank you for your consideration.Liquid Waste Committee

Burnaby Lake North Interceptor No. 2AWARD OF CONTRACT RESULTING FROM RFP 20-345 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Colin MeldrumDirector, Engineering, Design and Construction, Liquid Waste Services

Liquid Waste Committee - November 4, 2021

48822155

Burnaby Lake North Interceptor No. 2 – Open Cut Construction

5.8


2

BURNABY LAKE NORTH INTERCEPTOR NO. 2Phases 1 - 3


Burnaby Lake North Interceptor No. 2PHASE 2: WINSTON ST. – TRENCHLESS SECTION

South Surrey Interceptor Ph.2 – Johnson Road Section Microtunnelling Operations

3

Details• 2.9 km long• Pipe diam. 2134 mm• Plastic-lined RCP• Microtunnel• 7 Shafts• Challenging soils

Estimated Construction Costs $77M (fall 2020)


RFP 20-345 - Construction Contractor ServicesPHASE 2: WINSTON ST. – TRENCHLESS SECTION

4

Proposals were evaluated on technical merit (60%) and financial criteria (40%)

Company Cost

Pomerleau Bessac Infrastruture $62,942,479

Michels Canada $ 51,340,873

Ward & Burke Microtunneling $ 65,997,829

Shanghai Construction Group $ 65,806,666

Clearway Construction $ 55,503,787


RFP 20-345 - Construction Contractor ServicesPHASE 2: WINSTON ST. – TRENCHLESS SECTION

5

Pomerleau Bessac Infrastructure (PBI)• Highest ranked technical score• Exceptional firm qualifications and experience• Key project personnel met and exceeded required

qualifications and experience • Project construction methodology/work plan demonstrated

excellent understanding of project challenges


RFP 20-345 - Construction Contractor ServicesRECOMMENDATION

6

That the GVS&DD Board:a) approve award of a contract for an amount up to $62,942,479.02 (exclusive of

taxes) to Pomerleau Bessac Infrastructure resulting from Request for Proposal No. 20-345: Construction Services for the Burnaby Lake North Interceptor No. 2 – Winston St Phase 2 Trenchless Section, subject to final review by the Commissioner; and

b) authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation once the Commissioner is satisfied that the award should proceed.


7

Thank You

South Surrey Interceptor No. 2 – Johnson Road Section Construction


Documents

Liquid Waste Committee Presentations - November 4, 2021