Impact of Food Waste Disposal On WWTP

Impact of Food Waste
Disposal on WWTP
Final Report
110773584 – Town of
Canmore Impact of FWD
on WWTP Evaluation
Prepared for:
The Town of Canmore
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
October 18, 2017

IMPACT OF FOOD WASTE DISPOSAL ON WWTP
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Canmore (The Town) is pursuing organics recycling, which could include using Food
Waste Disposals (FWDs) to grind household organic waste, and using the treatment plant
(WWTP) to process the organic material. FWDs are installed in sinks and are used to grind food
waste before being washed into the municipal sewer. Benefits of organics recycling include:
1. reducing the rate at which landfill space is consumed;

2. reducing the production of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), which is produced
when organics are landfilled;
3. reducing the production of leachate in landfills;
4. creating a valuable product which can be used as a soil amendment or in erosion control
applications.
For these reasons, the town is investigating the potential of encouraging residents on installing
and daily use of FWDs. There are variety of names a FWD is referred to within the market, such as
in-sink grinders, garburators, insinkerators etc.
EPCOR Water Services (EPCOR) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to conduct a
feasibility-level evaluation of the effect on The Town’s wastewater collection system and WWTP
with the use of FWDs.
This report was complete in three stages, each commencing with the submission of a technical
memorandum (TM).
Technical Memorandum 1 provided a summary of the literature review which was completed by
Stantec and developed the design basis for current and expected flows and loads if the Town
were to implement FWDs.
Technical Memorandum 2 updates the existing WWTP capacity based on the revised current
flow and load projections developed in TM 1. This TM will serve as the basis for the impact of
upgrade requirements caused by implementation of FWDs.
Technical Memorandum 3 estimates the impact of implementing FWDs on the major process at
the WWTP by using the loading estimates developed in TM1 and the capacity assessment in TM
2. A high-level cost evaluation was completed to provide the town with a high-level opinion of
probable cost for the identified upgrades.
Based on the evaluation findings, using FWDs does not significantly increase household water
consumption. As such, there would be no impact to the hydraulically limited processes at the
FINAL REPORT
WWTP. The implementation and use of FWDs will only impact biological and solids handling
systems at the WWTP.
The major upgrades caused by the implementation of the FWDs will be to the BAF system and
DAF system. All other solids handling processes either have sufficient capacity, or will require an
upgrade even without the implementation of FWDs.
At a FWD saturation rate of 50% the required WWTP upgrades would cost approximately $8.8M
over a 20-year design horizon. At a saturation rate of 100%, the upgrade cost would increase to
$10.7M over the same 20-year design horizon.
With the existing infrastructure, the WWTP will not be able to capitalize on the additional biogas
that can be produced from the digestion of organic waste. This increase in biogas, and its
utilization for power and heat at the WWTP, is considered the biggest benefit to WWTPs who
accept FWD waste. Literature suggests that if this can offset a significant portion of the
increased capital and operations and maintenance at the WWTP which is associated with FWDs,
making organics recycling at the WWTP an economical alternative when compared to
collection for disposal in landfill or composting. It should be noted that unlike the Canmore
WWTP, the WWTPs who listed additional biogas generation as a benefit were operating
anaerobic digesters before the implementation of FWDs. Construction of an anaerobic
digestion system and combined heat and power facility to generate and utilize biogas would
not be economically viable at this scale.
Implementation of FWDs can have additional risk which cannot be easily quantified. There is
potential that increased solids cause reduced capacity in conveyance systems, a potential
increase in odour production, and potential damage to equipment such as pumps.
FINAL REPORT
Final Report Table of Contents
1.0 Technical Memorandum 1 – Design Basis
2.0 Technical Memorandum 2 – WWTP Capacity Update
3.0 Technical Memorandum 3 – Impact of FWD and WWTP Upgrade

Requirements
FINAL REPORT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1
Design Basis
Disposal on WWTP
Technical Memorandum 1
Design Basis
110773584 – Selection of Design

Basis for Sewage Strength and
Flow
Prepared for:
The Town of Canmore
Prepared by:
August 30, 2017

Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review
A Issued for Taha Lotia 2017- Matthew 2017- Julian 2017-
Review 04-11 MacPhail 05-12 Xheko 05-17
B Issued for Matthew 2017- Julian 2017-
Review MacPhail 07-19 Xheko 07-19
C Issued for Matthew 2017- Julian 2017-
D Final Matthew 2017-
MacPhail 10-18
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled Impact of Food Waste Disposal on WWTPTechnical Memorandum 1 Design
Basis was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of EPCOR (the “Client”).
Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects
Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the
document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are
based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not
take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify
information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the
responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for
costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions
made or actions taken based on this document.
Prepared by
(signature)
Taha Lotia
Reviewed by
(signature)
Matthew MacPhail
Approved by
(signature)
Julian Xheko
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 DESIGN BASIS
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1.1
2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 1 ...................................................................................................2.1
3.0 POPULATION PROJECTION .........................................................................................3.1
4.0 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS AND LOADS .........................................4.2
5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW DATA SUMMARY .........................................................................5.1
6.0 CANMORE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY ...................................................................6.3
7.0 DATA SUMMARY .........................................................................................................7.4
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF FWD – SATURATION RATE ........................................................8.1
9.0 CLOSING .....................................................................................................................9.2
10.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................10.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population Growth Distribution over next 20-years ............................................. 3.1
Table 3.2: Town of Canmore Population Projection (2014 - 2037)...................................... 3.1
Table 4.1: Wastewater Influent Flows ...................................................................................... 4.3
Table 4.2: Wastewater per Capita Influent Mass Loading................................................... 4.4
Table 4.3: Updated Wastewater per Capita Influent Mass Loading (2015 and 2016
Data) ............................................................................................................................ 4.4
Table 4.4: Wastewater Influent Mass Loading for next 20-years ......................................... 4.5
Table 5.1: Reference 1 (KITCHEN DISPOSAL UNITS (KDU) IN STOCKHOLM, 2008)
Data .............................................................................................................................. 5.1
Table 5.2: References Data indicating Percent Increase with the daily use of
FWDs at 100% Population Saturation ....................................................................... 5.2
Table 6.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD .......................................................... 6.4
Table 7.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD as a Percent Increase .................. 7.4
Table 7.2: Flow and Mass Loading Percent Increase with the use of FWDs ...................... 7.5
Table 7.3: Town of Canmore per Capita Wastewater Flows and Loads, including
the use of FWDs at 1% Population Saturation ......................................................... 7.5
the use of FWDs at 50% Population Saturation ....................................................... 7.6
the use of FWDs at 100% Population Saturation ..................................................... 7.6
Background
August 30, 2017
1.0 BACKGROUND
EPCOR Water Services (EPCOR) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec)to conduct a
feasibility-level evaluation of effect on The Town of Canmore (The Town) wastewater collection
system and treatment plant (WWTP) with the usage of Food Waste Disposals (FWDs), which are
installed in sinks and are used to grind food waste before washed into the municipal sewer. The
Town is pursuing organics recycling, which could include using FWDs to grind household organic
waste and using the WWTP to process the organic material. Benefits of organics recycling
include:

2. reducing the production of methane, a potent GHG which is produced when organics
are landfilled;
4. creating a valuable product which can be used as a soil amendment or in erosion
control applications.
The WWTP biosolids are currently composted at an open windrow facility in Penhold. As such,
organics disposed of using an FWD would be collected with the biosolids and composted at this
facility.
The Town of Canmore population from May 2014 civic census listed on Town’s website is 13,077
for permanent residents and additional 3,980 being non-residents. A total population of 16,967,
in addition to the population growth forecasts in the Canmore Utility Master Plan (2017), is used
as the base point of population growth.
Stantec feasibility analysis of Town’s current WWTP ability to handle the additional flow and
loading from the use of FWDs is provided in the following Technical Memorandums (TMs):
1. TM 1 Design Basis (This TM)

2. TM 2 WWTP Capacity Assessment (In progress)
3. TM 3 Impact of FWD and WWTP Upgrade Requirements
4. Summary Report (In progress)
This TM is presenting a design basis for a subsequent TM which will examine the impacts on WWTP
treatment processes and associated costs of treating organics which have been disposed of by
ways of an FWD. This assessment can then be used by the Town to compare against other
methods of organics collection and treatment to determine cost-benefit and feasibility.
mm u:\110773584\water\design\report\tm1\rpt_tm1_dbm_20170629_final_r3.docx 1.1
Work scope - TM 1
August 30, 2017
2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 1
The Design Basis Memorandum (DBM) develops the design basis to evaluate the of Town’s
existing WWTP capacity to handle additional future loads and flows from the of FWDs. The
implementation of FWDs usage in the daily life at increasing Population Saturation rate is spread
out between next 20-year population projection.
First, using the population projections detailed in the “Town of Canmore Utility Master Plan (UMP),
Water and Sanitary (W899-012-.12) prepared by CIMA (2017)”, Stantec extrapolated the
population growth from 2014 to the end of the next 20-year design horizon.
Second, Stantec assessed Town’s WWTP historical influent flows and loads from available
resources and past studies to establish wastewater generation rate which were carried forward
to predict future wastewater flows and loads.
Third, Stantec researched available case studies online and literature sources effecting sewage
strength using FWDs. The researched data is extrapolated to summarize the design basis in
percent increase in sewage strength.
To conclude, we present a realistic average day and maximum month expected increase in
sewage strength and flows for the WWTP based on the literature review. This increase in loads
and flows will be used to assess the impact on the WWTP in following TMs, along with the
identifying potential risks caused by fats oils and grease and increased odour production in the
collection and treatment systems.
Population Projection
August 30, 2017
3.0 POPULATION PROJECTION
This evaluation utilizes the population growth spread out over four development horizons
detailed in Table 2 of the UMP. The population growth rates are applied to subsequent
population projection horizon of next 20 years.
The base population of year 2014 is presented as “Current” year in the UMP with growth
distribution over 6, 10, 15 year horizons, with combine service population from Town of Canmore,
Deadman’s Flats, and Harvie Heights.
The Town’s Utilities Master Plan “Current” (2014) population = 16,967 (Canmore) + 500
(Deadman’s Flats) + 400 (Harvie Heights) = 17,867
Table 3.1 presents yearly population growth rate used to determine population projection for
next 20-years horizon.
Table 3.1: Population Growth Distribution over next 20-years
Year Range Utilities Master Plan Time Line (years) Yearly Population Growth
2014-2019 0-5 455
2020-2024 6-10 458
2025-2029 11-15 520
2030-2037 16-23 478
The population horizon for the next 20-years based on this growth is presented in Table 3.1, and
will be used to estimate the sewage generation rate and strength in subsequent stages of the
evaluation.
Table 3.2: Town of Canmore Population Projection (2014 - 2037)

Year Population Year Population
2014 17,867 2026 23,470
2015 18,322 2027 23,990
2016 18,777 2028 24,510
2017 19,232 2029 25,030
2018 19,687 2030 25,508
2019 20,142 2031 25,985
2020 20,600 2032 26,463
2021 21,057 2033 26,940
2022 21,515 2034 27,418
2023 21,972 27,895
2035
2024 22,430 28,373
2036
2025 28,850
22,950 2037
Historical Wastewater Influent Flows and Loads

August 30, 2017
4.0 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS AND LOADS
Influent flows to the plant changes on an hourly, daily, and seasonal basis due to variation in
usage and seasonal conditions. This result in several important flow conditions to consider in the
feasibility study including:
• Average Day Flow (ADF) – The average daily flow rate occurring over the available data
period, which is used to develop flow rate ratios, establish long-term trends, and estimate
pumping and chemical cost. However, ADF is typically not a limiting capacity criteria;
• Maximum Day Flow (MDF) – The maximum flow rate occurring over a 24-hour period, which is
used in sizing equalization basins and sludge pumping systems;
• Maximum Month Flow (MMF) - The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a
continuous 30-day period, expressed as a daily average, which is used to indicate overall
plant capacity;
• Peak Hour Flow (PHF) – The peak flow sustained for a period of one hour during a 24-hour
period, which is used for hydraulic sizing of pumping facilities, conduits, physical unit
operations, and disinfection
• Day Load (DL) – The mass loading occurring over a 24-hour period, which is used in
estimating maximum month load; and
• Maximum Month Load (MML) – The maximum daily loads sustained for continuous 30-day
period, which is used to establish the sustained-load capacity requirements for the facility
since effluent discharge limits are permitted based on a monthly arithmetic or geometric
mean. The MML is also used for record keeping and reporting.
The ADF is calculated using current and future referenced wastewater generated flow rates
listed in the UMP, Section 4.1.7, and populating projection from Table 3.2. Following are the
referenced wastewater generation rates listed in Utilities Master Plan:
• 420 L/c/d Wastewater flow for year 2014

• 360 L/c/d Wastewater flow for subsequent years from 2014
Table 4.1 summarizes the average day flow rates.

August 30, 2017
Table 4.1: Wastewater Influent Flows
ADF
Year
(L/s)
2017 92.5
2018 94.4
2019 96.3
2020 98.2
2021 100.1
2022 102.1
2023 104.0
2024 105.9
2025 108.0
2026 110.2
2027 112.4
2028 114.5
2029 116.7
2030 118.7
2031 120.7
2032 122.7
2033 124.7
2034 126.6
2035 128.6
2036 130.6
2037 132.6
A review of the WWTP influent flow rates is currently being conducted in parallel as part of the
Influent Lift Station Phase 2 Upgrade Project. The results of that analysis, once finalized, will be
included and used for the evaluations conducted in the TM 2 and TM 3 for this project.
The historical wastewater loads per capita and monthly peaking factors are referenced from
Town’s WWTP Capacity Evaluation Report, Table 2.3. The per capita flows and loads generation
rate are listed in Table 4.2.

August 30, 2017
Table 4.2: Wastewater per Capita Influent Mass Loading
Parameter Per Capita Loading (g/c/d) Monthly Peaking Factor

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 73 1.30
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 62 1.50
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) 6.4 1.25
Total Phosphorus (TP) 1.8 1.35
In review of the provided 2015 and 2016 data for influent ammonia (summarized as kg/d) and
the 2016 influent BOD, TSS, and TP (summarized as mg/L), along with an average 2016 flow rate
of 7,265 MLD and 2016 population estimate of 18,777 people, the most recent per capita
loadings are as summarized in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Updated Wastewater per Capita Influent Mass Loading (2015 and 2016 Data)

Based on the most recent data, it appears the per capita loadings are increasing; however, the
peaking factors have remained the same or decreased. For this evaluation, the updated per
capita loads will be used to estimate the influent mass loading for the next 20 years.
The projected wastewater loads for horizon of next 20-years are calculated using the above
projected population, historical loading per capita, and monthly loading peaking factor and
are summarized in Table 4.4, if the Town’s ratio of domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater contribution remains the same.

August 30, 2017
Table 4.4: Wastewater Influent Mass Loading for next 20-years
Year BOD TSS TAN TP

(kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d)
DL MML DL MML DL MML DL MML
2017 1,635 2,125 1,462 1,900 156 187 35 39
2018 1,673 2,175 1,496 1,945 159 191 35 40
2019 1,712 2,226 1,531 1,990 163 196 36 41
2020 1,751 2,276 1,566 2,035 167 200 37 42
2021 1,790 2,327 1,600 2,080 171 205 38 43
2022 1,829 2,377 1,635 2,126 174 209 39 44
2023 1,868 2,428 1,670 2,171 178 214 40 45
2024 1,907 2,479 1,705 2,216 182 218 40 46
2025 1,951 2,536 1,744 2,267 186 223 41 47
2026 1,995 2,593 1,784 2,319 190 228 42 48
2027 2,039 2,651 1,823 2,370 194 233 43 49
2028 2,083 2,708 1,863 2,422 199 238 44 50
2029 2,128 2,766 1,902 2,473 203 243 45 51
2030 2,168 2,819 1,939 2,520 207 248 46 52
2031 2,209 2,871 1,975 2,567 210 253 47 53
2032 2,249 2,924 2,011 2,615 214 257 48 54
2033 2,290 2,977 2,047 2,662 218 262 48 55
2034 2,331 3,030 2,084 2,709 222 266 49 56
2035 2,371 3,082 2,120 2,756 226 271 50 57
2036 2,412 3,135 2,156 2,803 230 276 51 58
2037 2,452 3,188 2,193 2,850 234 280 52 59
For this feasibility study, maximum month sustained loads are selected as the design basis of the
process treatment system to meet effluent discharge limits that are permitted based on a
monthly arithmetic or geometric mean. Peak hourly flow is selected as the design basis for
hydraulic sizing of influent pumping, conduits, and physical unit operations (screening, grit/scum
removal)
Literature Review Data Summary

August 30, 2017
5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW DATA SUMMARY
To evaluate the increase in Town of Canmore sewage strength with the use of FWDs, Stantec
reviewed available literature sources to estimate the change in the assessed flows and loadings.
15 case studies/literature were reviewed on the topic of usage and increase in waste in result of
using FWDs. Of the multiple articles and case study reviewed, six provided directly comparable
data to extrapolate a basis of design for the Town of Canmore. The rest either did not provide
proper context or the context was not applicable for the conclusion for this study. For example,
one study expresses the overall loading increase from FWDs would have minimal impact on
WWTP, but the waste is being generated by a small population and being treated in a large
WWTP in a nearby City Population Saturation.
The six references present projected change in sewage strength and additional water
requirement for a certain service area/town/city with implementation of the FWDs in daily
usage. Six of the case studies evaluated the effect on sewage strength from residential use and
one case study evaluated the effect from commercial use of FWDs.
In Section 5 of the KITCHEN DISPOSAL UNITS (KDU) IN STOCKHOLM, 2008 (Reference 1) the
increase in per capita mass loading associated with the use of FWD is presented in a table. The
percent increase was calculated for this report based on the per capita mass loadings
presented for household wastewater without FWD (called KDU in study) and the fraction of
organic material estimated to be added by FWDs.
Table 5.1: Reference 1 (KITCHEN DISPOSAL UNITS (KDU) IN STOCKHOLM, 2008) Data
Parameter Household Waste Organic Material Via Total Percent

Water Without KDU KDU Wastewater increase
(kg/c/y) (kg/c/y) Loading (%)
(kg/c/y)
TSS 53 16.75 69.75 24
BOD 27 8.04 35.04 23
Total P 0.76 0.07 0.83 8
1. Data from Reference 1, presented under Appendix 9, Table: Henriksdal’s sewage treatment plant
data from usage of FWDs at 100% Population Saturation.
The compiled data from each reference source have been converted into percent increase in
mass loading and summarized in Table 5.2. The reference material used for this study is listed
under the reference section of this document.
Literature Review Data Summary

August 30, 2017
Table 5.2: References Data indicating Percent Increase with the daily use of FWDs at
100% Population Saturation
Parameter Reference 11 Reference Reference Reference 43 Reference Reference

(KITCHEN 22 3 (NYC 54 65
DISPOSAL (Karlberg & (EDDY, DEPARTMENT OF (Koning) (Lawitts,
UNITS (KDU) IN Norm, 2013) ENVIRONMENTAL 2008)
STOCKHOLM, 1999) PROTECTION,
(g/c/d)
2008) 1995)
TSS 24% 22% 33.0% 41.7% 60 g/c/d 24.0%
BOD 23% 34% 24.0% 55.4% 66 g/c/d 22.0%
COD 28.0% 37.6% 95 g/c/d
Total P 8% 8.7% 7.0% 28.2% 0.3 g/c/d
NH3 14.0% 30.0%
Fats, Oil, 4.0% 22.4% 800.0%

and
Grease
Additional 4 L/c/d
water
usage
1. Data from Table 5.1: Reference 1 (KITCHEN DISPOSAL UNITS (KDU) IN STOCKHOLM, 2008)
2. Percentages calculated from data presented in Table 2 (Theoretical containment contribution
from sewer and FWDs) of Section 3.3 of the reference document.
3. Percentages referenced from Table ES-1a, average pollutant concentrations (Page 4) and ES-1b,
100% FWD saturation wastewater, (page 5) of the reference document
4. Data from Table 2; additional load of pollutants caused by FWDS; presented in the reference
document. Not used for the design basis as FWDs Population Saturation is not specified to
calculate the percent increase.
5. Data presented based on review of FWD in commercial application. Not used for the design basis.
Data listed under Figure S-4 of the reference document.
Canmore Organics Data Summary

August 30, 2017
6.0 CANMORE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY
In an email provided by the Town to EPCOR (Andreas Comeau to Tam Tran), on July 12, 2017, it
was stated that the Town collected 3,100 tonnes of domestic waste (assumed to be annual
mass for 2016). In a discussion with the Town on August 23, 2017, it was advised that there are
dwellings which utilize private waste disposal which has not been included in the total waste
generation estimates, around 10% of the population. As such, the potential waste generated is
approximately 3,410 tonnes.
In the Regional Waste Characterization Study completed for the Town of Banff and Canmore
(2016), it was identified that the fraction of waste generated in the Town of Canmore which
would be considered organic matter (food/soiled paper) and suitable for disposal through FWD
is 36% of the overall waste generated.
To estimate the impact of introducing this organic stream into the Town’s wastewater the
following assumptions were used:
• Total waste generation 3,410 tonnes
• 67% of potential organics would be processed through FWD (Kitchen Disposal Units (Kdu)
In Stockholm, 2008)
• Fraction of TSS in waste organics = 30% (Kitchen Disposal Units (Kdu) In Stockholm, 2008)
• Fraction of BOD in waste organics = 15% (Kitchen Disposal Units (Kdu) In Stockholm, 2008)
• Fraction of TAN in waste organics = 0.7% (Kitchen Disposal Units (Kdu) In Stockholm, 2008)
• Fraction of TP in waste organics = 0.1% (Kitchen Disposal Units (Kdu) In Stockholm, 2008)
Based on a total organic mass load of 1,227 tonnes (3,410 tonnes of total waste x 36% organics)
and assuming 67% of this stream will be processed using an FWD, approximately 822 tonnes/yr of
organics will be added into the wastewater collection system at 100% FWD saturation. Assuming
a 2016 population of 18,777 people, this is the equivalent of 43.8 kg/c/yr or 120 g/c/d.
Table 6.1 summarizes the increase in TSS, BOD, TAN, and TP based on the loading fractions stated
above and the organics generation estimate of 120 g/c/d.
Data Summary
August 30, 2017
Table 6.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD
Revised Loading with Percent Increase in

Current Loading Loading from FWD
Parameter FWD Wastewater Loading
(g/c/d) (g/c/d)
(g/c/d) %
TSS 76 36 112 32
BOD 85 18 103 17
TAN 8.1 0.8 8.9 9
TP 1.8 0.1 1.9 5
7.0 DATA SUMMARY
Table 7.1 summarizes the percent increases in wastewater parameter based on the literature
review and the estimates developed based on the organics waste currently generated within
the town.
Table 7.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD as a Percent Increase
Parameter Reference 11 Reference Reference Reference 43 Organics Average Max

(KITCHEN 22 3 (NYC DEPARTMENT Estimate Loading Loading
DISPOSAL (Karlberg & (EDDY, OF from Increase, Increase,
UNITS (KDU) IN Norm, 2013), % ENVIRONMENTAL Canmore % %
STOCKHOLM, 1999), % PROTECTION, Waste
2008), % 1995),% Data, %
TSS 24 22 33 42 32 30 42
BOD 23 34 24 55 17 30 55
NH3 14 30 9 11 30
Total P 8 8.7 7 28 5 18 28
Table 7.2 presents the impact of FWD when applied at a 1%, 50%, and 100% population
saturation.
Data Summary
August 30, 2017
Table 7.2: Flow and Mass Loading Percent Increase with the use of FWDs
Parameter Unit Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase
at 1% at 1% at 50% at 50% at 100% at 100%
Population Population Population Population Population Population
Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation Saturation
(Average) (Max) (Average) (Max) (Average) (Max)
%
TSS 0.3 0.4 15 21 30 42
BOD %
0.3 0.6 15 28 30 55
Total P %
0.1 0.3 6 14 11 28
TAN1 %
0.2 0.3 9 15 18 30
Additional L/capita/d
water ay 0.04 0.04 2 2 4 4
usage
1. Reporting NH3 as TAN (Total Ammonia Nitrogen) assuming the parameters are directly
comparable. The research sources report as Ammonia (NH3), and in the Town of Canmore
available data reports as TAN (NH3 and NH4+ in water).
The total wastewater flows and mass loadings generated per capita is calculated by adding the
flow and mass loading generated by FWD listed in Table 7.2 to the Town’s estimated flows and
loadings presented in Section 4.0. Table 7.3, Table 7.4, and Table 7.5 presents Town’s per capita
wastewater flows and loads with the use of FWDs at 1%, 50%, and 100% Population Saturation.
Table 7.3: Town of Canmore per Capita Wastewater Flows and Loads, including the use
of FWDs at 1% Population Saturation
Parameter Unit Average Day Max Month

Flow L/c/d 360 --
TSS g/c/d 76 99
BOD g/c/d 85 111
TAN g/c/d 8.1 9.7
TP g/c/d 1.8 2.1
Data Summary
August 30, 2017

Flow L/c/d 362 --
TSS g/c/d 88 114

BOD g/c/d 98 127
TAN g/c/d 8.8 10.6
TP g/c/d 1.9 2.2

Flow L/c/d 364 --
TSS g/c/d 99 129
BOD g/c/d 111 144
TAN g/c/d 9.5 11.4
TP g/c/d 2.0 2.3
Implementation of FWD – Saturation Rate

August 30, 2017
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF FWD – SATURATION RATE
To evaluate the impact of FWDs on the Canmore WWTP, Stantec recommends the following
approach:
• Assess total Plant capacity assuming an implementation rate of 25%, 50%, 75% and100%
residential saturation for the 20 year design horizon.
If agreed upon, this approach will be carried forward for the evaluation completed in TM 3 and
will provide the Town with an aggressive and conservative impact and resulting upgrade
schedule for the Plant.
Closing
August 30, 2017
9.0 CLOSING
Upon review and confirmation by EPCOR, the population, flow, mass load, percent increase,
and saturations rates will be utilized as part of TM 3 to assess the impact on the WWTP.
References
August 30, 2017
10.0 REFERENCES
EDDY, M. &. (2013). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource - Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Education; 5 edition (Sept. 3 2013).
Karlberg, T., & Norm, E. (1999). Food Waste Disposers - Effécts on Wastewater Treatment Plants .
Retrieved from A Study from the Town of Surahammar:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=19BABE9B076D429BF23184440E
6DFB68?doi=10.1.1.535.2690&rep=rep1&type=pdf
KITCHEN DISPOSAL UNITS (KDU) IN STOCKHOLM. (2008, May). Retrieved from Stockholm Water's
pre-study on the preconditions, options and consequences of introducing KBU:
http://food-waste-disposer.org.uk/images/downloads/2008-05-stockhlom-water-
kkskvarnar-final-english.pdf
Koning, D. J. (n.d.). FOOD WASTE DISPOSER. Retrieved from Effects on wastewater treatment
focused on additional production of biogas: http://food-waste-
disposer.org.uk/images/downloads/2004-0414-koning-j-de-food-waste-disposers-english-
tu-de.pdf
Lawitts, S. W. (2008, December 31). New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved from COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/dep_commercial_food_waste_disposal_study_12312
008.pdf
NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. (1995, June). Retrieved from The Impact of
Food Waste Disposers in Combined Sewer Areas of New York City: http://food-waste-
disposer.org.uk/images/downloads/1999-nyc-dep-impact-of-fwd.pdf
FINAL REPORT
WWTP CAPACITY UPDATE

Disposal on WWTP
WWTP Capacity Update
110773584 – Wastewater
Treatment Plant Capacity
Update
Prepared for:
The Town of Canmore
Prepared by:
August 30, 2017

Revision Description Author Independent Review
A Issued for Matthew 2017- Julian 2017-
B Issued for Matthew 2017- Julian 2017-
B Final Matthew 2017-
MacPhail 10-18
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled Impact of Food Waste Disposal on WWTP Technical Memorandum 2 WWTP
Capacity Update was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of EPCOR
(the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it
reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated
in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the
document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was
published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document,
Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this
document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be
responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result
of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Prepared by
(signature)
Matthew MacPhail
Reviewed by
(signature)
Julian Xheko
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 WWTP CAPACITY UPDATE
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1.1
2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 2 ..................................................................................................2.1
3.0 DESIGN DATA SUMMARY BASIS FOR EVALUATION ...................................................3.1
4.0 WWTP CAPACITY UPDATE ...........................................................................................4.1

4.1 HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 4.1
4.1.1 Influent Liftstation ......................................................................................... 4.1
4.1.2 Influent Screening ........................................................................................ 4.2
4.1.3 Aerated Grit Chamber ............................................................................... 4.2
4.1.4 Primary Clarifiers........................................................................................... 4.3
4.1.5 Primary effluent screening.......................................................................... 4.4
4.1.6 Ultraviolet disinfection ................................................................................. 4.4
4.2 SOLIDS PROCESSING ..................................................................................................... 4.4
4.2.1 Primary Sludge Pumping............................................................................. 4.6
4.2.2 Biological Aerated Filters ............................................................................ 4.6
4.2.3 Backwash Waste Sidestream Treatment – Dissolved Air Flotation........ 4.7
4.2.4 Aerobic Digesters/Sludge Storage Tanks ................................................. 4.8
4.2.5 Digested Sludge Pumps .............................................................................. 4.8
4.2.6 Solids Dewatering ........................................................................................ 4.8
5.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................5.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Town of Canmore Population Projection (2014 - 2037)...................................... 3.1
Table 3.2: Wastewater Influent Flow Rates............................................................................. 3.2
Table 3.3: Per Capita Mass Loadings ...................................................................................... 3.2
Table 4.1: Influent Liftstation Capacity at Peak Flow............................................................ 4.2
Table 4.2: Influent Screen Capacity........................................................................................ 4.2
Table 4.3: Aerated Grit Chamber Capacity.......................................................................... 4.3
Table 4.4: Primary Clarifier Capacity ...................................................................................... 4.4
Table 4.5: Primary Effluent Screening Capacity .................................................................... 4.4
Table 4.6: UV Disinfection Capacity ....................................................................................... 4.4
Table 4.7: Solids Production Estimates .................................................................................... 4.5
Table 4.8: Revised Solids Production Estimates...................................................................... 4.5
Table 4.9: Primary Sludge Pumping Capacity ....................................................................... 4.6
Table 4.10: Recommended BAF Loading Rates ................................................................... 4.6
Table 4.11: BAF Capacity with Sidestream Treatment ......................................................... 4.7
Table 4.12: Sludge Storage Tank Capacity............................................................................ 4.8
Table 4.13: Digested Sludge Pump Capacity ....................................................................... 4.8
Table 4.14: Solids Dewatering System Capacity (Centrifuges) ........................................... 4.9
Table 5.1: Capacity and Upgrade Summary ........................................................................ 5.1
Background
August 30, 2017
1.0 BACKGROUND
EPCOR Water Services (EPCOR) retained Stantec Consulting LTd. (Stantec)to conduct a
feasibility-level evaluation of effect on The Town of Canmore (The Town) wastewater collection
system and treatment plant (WWTP) with the usage of Food Waste Disposals (FWDS), which are
installed in sinks and are used to grind food waste before washed into the municipal sewer.
The Canmore Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was placed in service in 1997 and utilizes an
advanced secondary treatment process known as biological aerated filtration (BAF). The
wastewater treatment system consists of the following major components:
• Septage receiving;
• Equalization storage;
• Influent pumping;
• Mechanically cleaned influent screening;
• Aerated grit removal;
• Flash mix chemical addition;
• Enhanced primary clarification;
• Primary effluent screening;
• Two stage biological aerated filtration (BAF)
• Dissolved air flotation (DAF) for sidestream treatment of BAF backwash waste (BWW)
• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection;
• Aerobic digestion; and
• Sludge dewatering.
The WWTP is currently required to meet the following Alberta Environment and Parks effluent
standards:
• cBOD5 and TSS concentration below 20 mg/L;

• Ammonia concentration below 5/10 mg/L (summer/winter);
• Total phosphorus concentration below 1.0 mg/L; and
• Fecal coliforms below 200/100mL.
Technical memorandum 1 Design Basis establishes the flow, load, and population projections
used in this TM.
1. TM 1 Desi Basis (TM 1)

2. TM 2 WWTP Capacity Assessment (This TM)
3. TM 3 Impact of FWD and WWTP Upgrade Requirements (In progress)
mm u:\110773584\water\design\report\tm 2\rpt_tm2_capacity_draft_submission_20170830.docx 1.1

Work scope - TM 2
August 30, 2017
This technical memorandum (TM2) summarize the existing WWTP capacity based the revised
current flow and load projections developed in TM 1 and updates the upgrade timing which
was presented as part of the Canmore WWTP Capacity Evaluation (Stantec, 2012). The revised
timing for the upgrades will serve as a basis for comparing the change in upgrade timing which
is a result of implementing FWDs.

Design Data Summary Basis For Evaluation

August 30, 2017
3.0 DESIGN DATA SUMMARY BASIS FOR EVALUATION
As established in TM 1, this evaluation will utilize the following population projection.
Table 3.1: Town of Canmore Population Projection (2014 - 2037)
Year Population Year Population

2014 17,867 2026 23,470
2015 18,322 2027 23,990
2016 18,777 2028 24,510
2017 19,232 2029 25,030
2018 19,687 2030 25,508
2019 20,142 2031 25,985
2020 20,600 2032 26,463
2021 21,057 2033 26,940
2022 21,515 2034 27,418
2023 21,972 2035 27,895
2024 22,430 2036 28,373
2025 22,950 2037 28,850
Average flow conditions were developed and presented as part of TM 1 based the per capita
wastewater generation and population growth detailed in the Canmore Utility Master Plan
(UMP), developed by BSEI. The UMP does not present the average and peak flow rates on a
yearly basis. Instead it presents an ultimate flow rate based on per capita wastewater
generation rates, the ultimate population, a calculated peaking factor, and inflow and
infiltration rate applied to a total build out of 1099.5 Ha.
The UMP states that when the population reaches 35,762 people (build out of 1099.5 Ha) the
peak wet weather flow, which includes inflow and infiltration (I/I), will be 749.1 L/s, or the
equivalent of 1810 L/c/d. With the current population of 19,232 (2017), this per capita flow rate
would result in a peak flow of 34.8 ML/d.
Using the same approach, the peak wet weather flow rates have been estimated and
summarized in Table 3.2

Design Data Summary Basis For Evaluation

August 30, 2017
Table 3.2: Wastewater Influent Flow Rates
ADF PHF
Year
(ML/d) (ML/d)
2017 7.4 34.8
2018 7.6 35.6
2019 7.8 36.5
2020 8.0 37.3
2021 8.2 38.1
2022 8.4 38.9
2023 8.6 39.8
2024 8.8 40.6
2025 9.0 41.5
2026 9.2 42.5
2027 9.3 43.4
2028 9.6 44.4
2029 9.8 45.3
2030 10.0 46.2
2031 10.2 47.0
2032 10.4 47.9
2033 10.6 48.8
2034 10.8 49.6
2035 11.0 50.5
2036 11.2 51.4
2037 11.4 52.2
Table 3.3 shows the updated per capita mass loadings that were developed as part of TM1.
Table 3.3: Per Capita Mass Loadings



August 30, 2017
4.0 WWTP CAPACITY UPDATE
The following section evaluates and updates the existing WWTP capacity based on work
previously completed as part of the Canmore WWTP Capacity Evaluation (Stantec, 2012). The
previous evaluation had a less conservative approach to calculating peak flows. Peak flows
were calculated based on a peaking factor of 3.45 x average annual flows. As such, the peak
hourly flow for year 2037 was calculated to be around 45 MLD.
Since that evaluation, the Town experienced a flooding event in 2013 and high peak flows
during the wet weather seasons, and the resulting approach to peak hourly flow rates have
been revised. These peak flow rates are significantly higher than the 2012 evaluation, as
presented above, and will have a significant impact on the recommended upgrade timing
presented below.
This evaluation will look at the major processes and equipment and assess both the hydraulic
and mass loading capacities when applicable.
4.1 HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT

4.1.1 Influent Liftstation
The influent liftstation (ILS) receives raw sewage from the Town’s collection system prior to
pumping it to the WWTP. This station consists of 4 centrifugal pumps and two parallel forcemains
which tie into the influent channel (2 pumps per forcemain). An upgrade was completed in
2015 which replaced two pumps with new larger pumps. A third new large pump is set to be
installed early in 2018. Following this installation, the ILS will have 1 small pump and 3 large
pumps. Due to the higher head of the larger pumps, the single small pump is only able to
operate when the large pump, which shares the same forcemain, is not in operation.
For the purpose of this evaluation, it will be assumed that the well contains three of the large
pumps. Based on the piping configuration, the pumps will have the following capacities:
• 1 large pump = 190 L/s

• 1 small pump = 105 L/s
• 2 large pumps (through common forcemain) = 340 L/s
• 3 Large pumps = 530 L/s


August 30, 2017
Table 4.1 summarizes the process capacity of the ILS at peak flow rates.
Table 4.1: Influent Liftstation Capacity at Peak Flow
Flow Condition Hydraulic Capacity1 Population Equivalent Year
Peak Flow 45.8 ML/d 25,507 2029
1. Assumes 3 large pumps in operation
With the 3 large pumps in operation, the Town should have sufficient capacity to handle a peak
flow event through to 2029.
4.1.2 Influent Screening
Raw wastewater is currently screened through a single duty 6 mm mechanically cleaned bar
screen that was installed during the last stage of upgrades. The screen removes large materials
that can negatively affect downstream processes. A bypass channel is also available which
contains the original 15 mm coarse bar screen. Both screens are rated for 34 ML/d. Table 4.2
summarizes the process capacity of screens at peak flow conditions.
Table 4.2: Influent Screen Capacity
Flow Condition Hydraulic Capacity1 Population Equivalent Year
Peak Flow 34 ML/d 19,231 2016
1. Assumes 1 screen and no bypass
The existing screen configuration does not have sufficient capacity to handle the estimated
peak flow that could be experienced at this time. In the event of a peak that exceeds 34 ML/d,
the bypass channel can provide an additional 34 ML/d capacity, which exceeds the peak flow
during the 20-year design horizon.
4.1.3 Aerated Grit Chamber
Following the bar screens, wastewater enters the aerated grit chamber. Recommended
detention times for grit chambers are between 2 and 5 minutes to allow for satisfactory grit
removal.


August 30, 2017
Table 4.3 summarizes the process capacity of the grit chamber at peak flow conditions.
Table 4.3: Aerated Grit Chamber Capacity
Flow Condition Detention Time Hydraulic Capacity Population Equivalent Year
2 minutes 92.2 ML/d >28,850 >2037

Peak Flow
5 minutes 36.9 ML/d 20,599 2019
With a 5-minute detention time, the existing grit chamber has sufficient capacity to provide grit
removal at peak flows until 2019. However, at a minimum detention time, the grit chamber can
provide sufficient peak flow capacity past the 20-year design horizon.
The grit chamber is also designed to provide removal of fats, oils and grease (FOG) through
aerated fine bubble diffusion. The FOG is floated to the surface and transferred to sludge
processing by grease pumps. The purpose of FOG removal is to remove substances that can
interference with downstream processes, as heavy grease loads can clog pumps and pipes and
negatively affect BAF performance. Although the Canmore WWTP has had problems with
grease in the past, this has not been a significant problem since the BAF Stage III upgrade was
completed. Prior to the upgrade, there was blockage of the BAF aeration nozzles and mudball
formation in the media, part of which was attributed to fat, oil and grease carryover. Since the
upgrade, the BAFs have been operating at a higher hydraulic loading rate which has reduced
operational problems associated with the BAF system.
In the Canmore WWTP Engineering Design Evaluation, dated March 2005. CH2M Hill
recommended installing a dedicated FOG removal process to remove fat, oils and grease, or
retrofitting the existing primary clarifiers for this purpose. Based on limited problems with FOG at
this time, this upgrade will likely not be required. However, should problems arise with FOG in the
future, these upgrades may have to be reconsidered.
4.1.4 Primary Clarifiers
The Canmore WWTP has two rectangular primary clarifiers, each with a surface area of 218 m2.
The primary clarifiers used to treat a combination of influent wastewater and filter backwash
wastewater (BWW). Since they implementation of the filter backwash waste sidestream
treatment system, the clarifiers treat only influent wastewater during normal operation.
Recommended surface overflow rates (SOR) for primary clarifiers without secondary solids
recirculation are:
• Average Flow = 30 – 50 m3/m2/d

• Peak Flow = 80 – 120 m3/m2/d
Table 4.4 shows the hydraulic capacity of the primary clarifiers assuming a maximum surface
overflow rate of 50 m3/m2/d for average flow rates and 120 m3/m2/d for peak flow conditions.


August 30, 2017
Table 4.4: Primary Clarifier Capacity
Flow Condition SOR Hydraulic Capacity Population Equivalent Year

at SOR
Average Flow 50 m3/m2/d 21.8 ML/d >28,850 >2037
Peak Flow 120 m3/m2/d 52.3 ML/d >28,850 >2037
At average and peak flow conditions the existing primary clarifiers have sufficient capacity to
provide the recommended SOR through the 20-year horizon with both clarifiers in service.
4.1.5 Primary effluent screening
Clarified water passes through primary effluent screening before entering the BAF. There are two
(2) automatic arc screens with 2 mm openings. The purpose of the screens is to remove large
materials that can negatively affect BAF performance. Each screen has a capacity of 46.0
ML/d, while still providing 100% redundancy.
Table 4.5: Primary Effluent Screening Capacity
Flow Condition Hydraulic Capacity Population Equivalent Year
Peak 46.0 ML/d 25,507 2029
At peak flow conditions a single effluent screen does not has sufficient capacity through the 20-
year horizon. With both screens in services, there is sufficient capacity through 2037.
4.1.6 Ultraviolet disinfection
The current ultraviolet disinfection (UV) system has been designed to handle a peak flow of 35.0
ML/d. The system consists of two (2) UV channels, each with a capacity of 17.5 ML/d. Each
channel has one bank of 42 Trojan 3000Plus UV lamps designed for a UV transmittance (UVT) of
65%.
Table 4.6: UV Disinfection Capacity
Flow Condition Hydraulic Capacity Population Equivalent Year
Peak 35.0 ML/d 19686 2017
The UV system does not have sufficient capacity to treat the future peak flow rates.
4.2 SOLIDS PROCESSING

For this evaluation, the solids data from the City of Canmore WWTP Sludge Dewatering System
Upgrades Design Basis is used as a basis for the solids handling systems at the Plant.


August 30, 2017
For that analysis, a mass balance was developed which predicted the sludge generation rates
based on the following parameters:
• Ultimate Population = 32,700 (Stage IV buildout)

• Flow = 400 L/c/d
• Peak BOD = 73 g/c/d x 1.3 = 95 g/c/d
• Peak TSS = 62 g/cap/d x 1.5 = 93 g/c/d
From the mass balance the following sludge flow rates, mass, and solids concentrations were
calculated and summarized in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Solids Production Estimates
Items Design Design Solids Per Capita Per Capita

Flow Loading Content (m3/c/d)2 (g/c/d)2
(m3/d) (kg/d) (%)
Sludge from Primary Clarifier 122 2678 2.2 0.0037 82

Sludge from DAF 114 1719 1.5 0.0035 53
Sludge to Storage Tank 236 4397 1.8 0.0072 135
Sludge to dewatering 236 4397 1.8 0.0072 135
process
Dewatered sludge1 21.2 3941 18 0.0006 121
1. Assume 90% of solid captured through dewatering system
2. Not in original report. Calculated for the purpose of this evaluation.
However, since the per capita loading used in this analysis has increased from that presented
above, the solids production estimates have been adjusted by the same percent increase in TSS
loading (23%). Table 4.8 summarizes the solids production estimates with the new per capita TSS
loading.
Table 4.8: Revised Solids Production Estimates

Flow Loading Content (m3/c/d) (g/c/d)
(m3/d) (kg/d) (%)
Sludge from Primary Clarifier 150 3283 2.2 0.0046 100

Sludge from DAF 140 2107 1.5 0.0043 64
Sludge to Storage Tank 290 5390 1.8 0.0089 165
Sludge to dewatering 290 5390 1.8 0.0089 165
process
Dewatered sludge1 26 4830 18 0.0008 148


August 30, 2017
4.2.1 Primary Sludge Pumping
Sludge is drawn from several locations in the plant including the sludge and scum pumps from
the primary clarifiers and the grease pumps from the grit chamber. The sludge, scum and grease
pumps are all air operated diaphragm pumps sized for 11 L/s. This flow rate is the equivalent of
950 m3/d. Therefore, as summarized in Table 4.9, the pumps have sufficient capacity to handle
all primary sludge flow from the existing clarifier, as they were oversized during the original
construction.
Table 4.9: Primary Sludge Pumping Capacity
Pump Capacity (L/s) Total Volume (m3/d) Population Equivalent Upgrade Year
11 950 >28,850 >2037
4.2.2 Biological Aerated Filters
The Canmore WWTP has a two stage biological aerated filtration (BAF) system comprised of five
(5) C-side filters followed by five (5) N-side filters. The purpose of the C-side filters is to remove
suspended solids and BOD, while the primary purpose of the N-side filters is to remove ammonia-
nitrogen.
Using the mass balance developed as part of the Canmore WWTP Capacity Evaluation
(Stantec, 2012) with the updated per capita influent loads developed in TM 1, the influent load
to the BAF with the implementation of backwash sidestream treatment is:
• Max Month BOD Load  79 g/c/d

• Max Month TSS Load  58 g/c/d
• Max Month TAN Load  9.4 g/c/d
To meet plant effluent requirements, the maximum unit loading rates should be limited to the
unit loadings provided in Table 4.10. These loading rates were established based on an analysis
of plant operating data completed for the 2012 capacity evaluation.
Table 4.10: Recommended BAF Loading Rates
Parameter Maximum Month (kg/m3/d) Degremont Recommendation (kg/m3/d)
TSS Loading (kg/m3/d) 4.0 3.0 to 7.0
BOD Loading (kg/m3/d) 4.0 3.0 to 7.0
TAN Loading (kg/m3/d) 0.5 0.5 to 2.0

1. Assumes all filters in operation


August 30, 2017
Table 4.11 summarizes the updated process capacity based on the recommended BAF loading
rates and per capita loads to the BAF assuming 4 filters online, with one filter available for
standby capacity.
Table 4.11: BAF Capacity with Sidestream Treatment
Load Condition BAF Capacity Population Equivalent Year
Max Month BOD 1600 kg/d 20,779 2019
Max Month TSS 1600 kg/d 28,571 2034
Max Month TAN 200 kg/d 21,978 2021
With four filters online and sidestream treatment of BWW in operation, the BAF system has
capacity to treat average day BOD loads through to 2019. Without the DAF in operation, which
is designed to remove 90% TSS and BOD in the recycle stream back to the primary clarifier, the
influent loading to the BAF would be significantly higher and an additional C-side filter would be
required immediately.
Operation of 5 C-side BAF cells will provide sufficient capacity to treat the BOD load through
2029. Therefore, it is recommended that 7 sets of filters be installed (6 duty + 1 standby) to
provide sufficient treatment capacity through the 20-year design horizon.
This assessment is based on the BAF providing removal efficiencies which are in line with the
original design basis and historical performance. However, the BAF system has been struggling
to provide sufficient TAN removal since December 2016. Investigation as to what has caused
the TAN removal efficiencies to decline through the BAF system is currently ongoing.
4.2.3 Backwash Waste Sidestream Treatment – Dissolved Air Flotation
The backwash waste sidestream process, dissolved air flotation (DAF) has been installed to
reduce the total TSS and BOD loading to the BAF by reducing the recycle stream from the BAF
BWW back to the primary clarifier. The system is designed to treat a maximum daily backwash
flow of 3,600 m3/d. This flow corresponds to one (1) N-side backwash per filter per day and two
(2) C-side backwashes per filter per day, assuming 5 C-side and 5 N-side filters online.
At this time, the backwash schedule detailed herein is considered aggressive and represents a
worst-case scenario. It may be possible to reduce the number of daily backwashes, which
would reduce the load to the DAF. Based on the current backwash strategy and the upgrade
requirements for the BAF, additional sidestream treatment would be required when the WWTP
begins to operate 6 BAF trains, approximately in 2029. It is likely that the WWTP could operate
with a revised backwash schedule or revised DAF throughput and not require addition DAF
capacity through the 20-year horizon.


August 30, 2017
4.2.4 Aerobic Digesters/Sludge Storage Tanks
Initially, the sludge storage tanks were designed as aerobic digesters to stabilize primary sludge.
The two digesters each have a volume of 1,155 m3 and required to provide 40 days retention
time to provide full stabilization of the sludge. Instead of maintaining the digestion process, the
tanks are now utilized as sludge storage tanks for dewatered sludge (DAF and primary sludge)
prior to hauling the sludge away to be composted.
Table 4.12 summarizes the sludge storage capacity for the sludge storage tanks.
Table 4.12: Sludge Storage Tank Capacity
No of Volume Per Tank Total Volume Calculated Storage Population Upgrade

Tanks (m3) (m3) Time (d) Equivalent Year
2 1,155 2,310 9 28,850 2037
The existing sludge storage tanks have sufficient storage capacity to provide approximately 9
days storage though to the 20-year design horizon.
4.2.5 Digested Sludge Pumps
There are two (1 duty, 1 standby) digested sludge pumps which transfer sludge from the
digesters to the dewatering facility. Each pump has a capacity of 8.9 L/, which is the equivalent
of 769 m3/d.
Table 4.13: Digested Sludge Pump Capacity
Pump Capacity (L/s) Total Volume (m3/d) Population Upgrade Year

Equivalent
8.9 769 >28,850 >2037
The digested sludge pumps have sufficient capacity to surpass the 20-year design horizon.
4.2.6 Solids Dewatering
At present, the Plant dewaters sludge using a belt filter press but is currently in the process of
replacing this system with new centrifuges. For this evaluation, it will be assumed that the existing
filter belt press will be replaced with centrifuges (Scenario-A from the proposal provide by HAUS
Centrifuge Technologies Archer Separation Processes).
• No of units  3
• Model  HAUS DD 4042
• Maximum Hydraulic Capacity  33 m3/h
• Maximum Processing Capacity  21.5 m3/h
o Max Sludge Flow 215 m3/day @ 1.8% TSS


August 30, 2017
o Operating Mode  7h/day, 5 days a week
Table 4.14 summarizes the capacity of the new centrifuge system.
Table 4.14: Solids Dewatering System Capacity (Centrifuges)
No. of Units in Operation Total Capacity (m3/d) Population Upgrade Year

Equivalent
2 215 24,302 2027
With two centrifuges in operation the system has sufficient capacity through to 2027. At this time
the system will need to be expanded or the dewatering operation modified to allow for more
sludge to be processed.

Summary
August 30, 2017
5.0 SUMMARY
A summary of the major processes capacities, driver for upgrade, equivalent population which
triggers upgrades and the year are summarized in Table 5.1
Table 5.1: Capacity and Upgrade Summary
Upgrade Capacity Population Upgrade Year

Process
Driver Equivalent (firm capacity)
Influent Pump Station Hydraulic 45.8 ML/d 25,507 2029
Influent Screens Hydraulic 34 ML/d 19,231 2016
Aerated Grit Chamber Hydraulic 92.2 ML/d >28,850 >2037
Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic 52.3 ML/d >28,850 >2037
Primary Effluent Screens 46.0 ML/d 25,507 2029
UV Hydraulic 35.0 ML/d 19686 2017
Primary Sludge Pumps Hydraulic 950 m3/d >28,850 >2037
BAF Mass Load1 1,600 kg/D BOD 20,779 2019
(Max Month)
DAF2 Hydraulic 3.6 ML/d >28,850 >2037
Sludge Storage Tanks Hydraulic 2,310 m3 28,850 2037
Digested Sludge Pumps Hydraulic 769 m3/d >28,850 >2037
Solids Dewatering Hydraulic 300 m3/d 24,302 2027
1. Average BOD was determined to be limiting parameter based on evaluation.
2. Identified as having capacity to 2029 based on aggressive backwash schedule. Likely
backwash frequency and DAF throughput could be adjusted to ensure DAF
performance through 20-year design horizon.

FINAL REPORT
IMPACT OF FWD AND WWTP

UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS
Disposal on WWTP
Impact of FWD and WWTP
Upgrade Requirements
110773584 – Wastewater
Treatment Plant Capacity
Update
Prepared for:
The Town of Canmore
Prepared by:
September 1, 2017
Revision Description Author Independent Review Independent Review
A Issued for Matthew 2017- Julian 2017- Simon Meikle 2017-08-29
B Final Matthew 2017-
MacPhail 10-18
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled Impact of Food Waste Disposal on WWTP Technical Memorandum 3 Impact
of FWD and WWTP Upgrade Requirements was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for
the account of EPCOR (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly
prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule
and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client.
The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the
document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the
document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party
makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec
shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third
party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Prepared by
(signature)
Matthew MacPhail
Reviewed by
(signature)
Simon Meikle
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 IMPACT OF FWD AND WWTP UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1.1
2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 3 ...................................................................................................2.1
3.0 BASIS FOR EVALUATION..............................................................................................3.1
4.0 IMPACT OF FWD WWTP PROCESS EVALUATION.........................................................4.1

4.1 HYDRAULIC IMPACT ....................................................................................................... 4.1
4.2 SOLIDS IMPACT ............................................................................................................... 4.1
4.2.1 Biological Aerated Filters ............................................................................ 4.2
4.2.2 Solids Processing .......................................................................................... 4.3
4.2.3 Primary Sludge Pumping............................................................................. 4.3
4.2.4 Backwash Waste Sidestream Treatment – Dissolved Air Flotation........ 4.4
4.2.5 Aerobic Digesters/Sludge Storage Tanks ................................................. 4.4
4.2.6 Digested Sludge Pumps .............................................................................. 4.4
4.2.7 Solids Dewatering ........................................................................................ 4.5
5.0 UPGRADE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ...................................................................5.1
6.0 POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO WWTP ....................................................................................6.1

6.1 BIOGAS PRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 6.1
6.2 CARBON TO NUTRIENT RATIOS ..................................................................................... 6.1
7.0 ADDITIONAL RISK ITEMS ..............................................................................................7.1

7.1 SEDIMENTATION.............................................................................................................. 7.1
7.2 ODOUR ............................................................................................................................ 7.1
7.3 FATS OILS AND GREASE ................................................................................................. 7.2
7.4 EQUIPMENT DAMAGE .................................................................................................... 7.2
7.5 CARBON TO NUTRIENT RATIOS ..................................................................................... 7.2
7.6 SOLIDS REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL................................................................................ 7.3
8.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................8.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Town of Canmore Per Capita Wastewater Flows and Loads with FWD .......... 3.1
Table 3.2: Capacity and Upgrade Summary (without FWDs) ............................................. 3.1
Table 4.1: Hydraulic Impact Caused By FWD ........................................................................ 4.1
Table 4.2: Recommended BAF Loading Rates ..................................................................... 4.2
Table 4.3: BAF Capacity with Sidestream Treatment with Various FWD Saturation ......... 4.2
Table 4.4: Revised Solids Production Estimates with 100% FWD Saturation ....................... 4.3
Table 4.5: Sludge Storage Tank Capacity.............................................................................. 4.4
Table 4.6: Digested Sludge Pump Capacity ......................................................................... 4.5
Table 4.7: Solids Generation (Volume) Generated .............................................................. 4.5
Table 5.1: Impact of FWD Opinion of Probable Cost ........................................................... 5.1
BACKGROUND
September 1, 2017
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Town of Canmore (The Town) is pursuing organics recycling, which could include using Food
Waste Disposals (FWDs) to grind household organic waste, and using the treatment plant
(WWTP) to process the organic material. FWDs are installed in sinks and are used to grind food
waste before washed into the municipal sewer. Benefits of organics recycling include:

2. reducing the production of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), which is produced
when organics are landfilled;
4. creating a valuable product which can be used as a soil amendment or in erosion control
applications.
EPCOR Water Services (EPCOR) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to conduct a
feasibility-level evaluation of the effect on The Town’s wastewater collection system and WWTP
with the use of FWDs.
The WWTP biosolids are currently composted at an open windrow facility in Penhold, AB. As
such, organics disposed of using an FWD would be collected with the biosolids and composted
at this facility.
The Canmore WWTP was placed in service in 1997 and utilizes an advanced secondary
treatment process known as biological aerated filtration (BAF). The wastewater treatment system
consists of the following major components:
• Septage receiving;
• Equalization storage;
• Influent pumping;
• Mechanically cleaned influent screening;
• Aerated grit removal;
• Flash mix chemical addition;
• Enhanced primary clarification;
• Primary effluent screening;
• Two stage biological aerated filtration (BAF)
• Dissolved air flotation (DAF) for sidestream treatment of BAF backwash waste (BWW)
• Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection;
• Aerobic digestion; and
• Sludge dewatering.
mm u:\110773584\water\design\report\tm 3\rpt_tm3_impact_fwd_20171003.docx 1.1

BACKGROUND
September 1, 2017
The WWTP is currently required to meet the following Alberta Environment and Parks EP) effluent
standards:
• cBOD5 and TSS concentration below 20 mg/L;

• Ammonia concentration below 5/10 mg/L (summer/winter);
• Total phosphorus concentration below 1.0 mg/L; and
• Fecal coliforms below 200/100mL.
Technical Memorandum 1 establishes the flow, load, and population projections and Technical
Memorandum 2 establishes a high-level process capacity evaluation to use as a basis to
compare the impacts of implementing FWDs.
1. TM 1 Desi Basis (TM 1)

2. TM 2 WWTP Capacity Assessment
3. TM 3 Impact of FWD and WWTP Upgrade Requirements (This TM)

WORK SCOPE - TM 3
September 1, 2017
This technical memorandum (TM3) estimates the impact of implementing FWDs on the major
processes at the WWTP by using the loading estimates developed as part of TM 1 and the
capacity update for the WWTP completed in TM 2. This evaluation will utilize a saturation rate of
25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% to determine the impact to the WWTP over a 20-year design period.
High level costs have been included for the identified upgrades. The costs presented provide
The Town with a reasonable order of magnitude opinion of probable cost to help determine the
direction for organics recycling (FWDs vs compost) within The Town.
In addition to estimating the impact to the WWTP process, this TM will identify and discuss other
potential benefits and risks which may result for the implementation of FWDs but are not
quantifiable for this level of evaluation.

BASIS FOR EVALUATION

September 1, 2017
3.0 BASIS FOR EVALUATION
Established as part of TM 1 and through an extensive literature review, the anticipated per
capita flow and load increases which would result from implementing FWDs is summarized in
Table 3.1 and will be used to assess the impact to the WWTP.
Table 3.1: Town of Canmore Per Capita Wastewater Flows and Loads with FWD

Flow L/c/d 364 --
TSS g/c/d 99 129
BOD g/c/d 111 144
TAN g/c/d 9.5 11.4
TP g/c/d 2.0 2.3
Table 3.2 summarizes the updated WWTP upgrade requirements for The Town without the
implementation of FWDs, as presented in TM 2.
Table 3.2: Capacity and Upgrade Summary (without FWDs)
Process Upgrade Driver Capacity Population Upgrade Year

Equivalent (firm capacity)
Influent Pump Station Hydraulic 45.8 ML/d <17,867 <2014
Influent Screens Hydraulic 34.0 ML/d <17,867 <2014
Aerated Grit Chamber Hydraulic 92.2 ML/d >28,850 >2037
Primary Clarifiers Hydraulic 52.3 ML/d 22,429 2023
Primary Effluent Screens 46.0 ML/d 17,867 2014
BAF Mass Load 1,600 kg/d BOD 20,779 2019
UV Hydraulic 35.0 ML/d <17,867 <2014

Primary Sludge Pumps Hydraulic 950 m3/d >28,850 >2037
DAF Hydraulic 3.6 ML/d 25,030 2029
Sludge Storage Tanks Hydraulic 2,310 m3 28,850 2037
Digested Sludge Pumps Hydraulic 769 m3/d >28,850 >2037
Solids Dewatering Hydraulic 300 m3/d 24,302 2027

IMPACT OF FWD WWTP PROCESS EVALUATION

September 1, 2017
4.0 IMPACT OF FWD WWTP PROCESS EVALUATION
The following section evaluates the impact of implementing FWDs at saturation rates of 25%,
50%, 75% and 100% over a 20-year period. This evaluation will look at the major processes and
equipment and assess both the hydraulic and mass loading capacities when applicable.
4.1 HYDRAULIC IMPACT

The major process which are primarily governed by hydraulic capacity include:
• Influent Screening;
• Aerated Grit Chamber;
• Primary Clarifiers;
• Primary Effluent Screening; and
• UV Disinfection;
Based on the literature research, the increase in hydraulic load from FWDs is the equivalent of up
to 4 liters per capita per day (L/c/d). Table 4.1 summarizes the total hydraulic increase to the
plant at the various FWD saturation rates in 2037 assuming a population of 28,850 people.
Table 4.1: Hydraulic Impact Caused By FWD
Saturation Rate Average Increase in Flow Total Increase in Flow to WWTP

per Capita
25% 1 L/c/d 28,850 L/d
50% 2 L/c/d 57,700 L/d
75% 3 L/c/d 86,550 L/d
100% 4 L/c/d 115,400 L/d
Assuming a worst-case condition with 100% saturation rate adopted by year 2037, the increase
in flow rate the WWTP attributable to FWDs is only 0.1 MLD. Therefore, there should be no
significant impact to the process at the WWTP caused by increased hydraulic loading.
4.2 SOLIDS IMPACT

The major process which are impacted by influent solids loading and will be evaluated using the
revised solids loads caused by FWDs include:
• Biological activated filters (BAF);

• Dissolved air floatation (DAF);
• Solids pumping systems; and
• Solids storage and dewatering system;


September 1, 2017
4.2.1 Biological Aerated Filters
From TM 2 it was determined that the BAF system was limited by the influent BOD loading and
would require five sets of operational cells in 2019 and six sets of operational cells in 2029.
Similar to TM 2, using the mass balance that was developed as part of the Canmore WWTP
Capacity Evaluation (Stantec, 2012) along with increased loading which results from
implementation of FWDs and applying the maximum monthly load peaking factors, the influent
load to the BAF system is as follows:
• Max Month BOD Load  101 g/c/d

• Max Month TSS Load  71 g/c/d
• Max Month TAN Load 10.4 g/c/d
In order to meet plant effluent requirements, the maximum unit loading rates should be limited
to the unit loadings provided in Table 4.2. These loading rates were established based on an
analysis of Plant operating data completed for the 2012 Canmore WWTP Capacity Evaluation.
Table 4.2: Recommended BAF Loading Rates
Parameter Maximum Month (kg/m3/d) Degremont Recommendation (kg/m3/d)
TSS Loading 4.0 3.0 to 7.0
BOD Loading 4.0 3.0 to 7.0
TAN Loading 0.5 0.5 to 2.0
Table 4.3 summarizes the updated process capacity based on the recommended BAF loading
rates and per capita loads to the BAF assuming 4 filters online, with one filter available for
standby capacity, and an FWD saturation of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.
Table 4.3: BAF Capacity with Sidestream Treatment with Various FWD Saturation
Load BAF 25% Saturation 50% Saturation 75% Saturation 100% Saturation
Condition Capacity
Population Year Population Year Population Year Population Year
Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent
Max 1600 kg/d 19,047 2016 <17,867 <2014 <17,867 <2014 <17,867 <2014
Month
BOD
Max 1600 kg/d 26,229 2036 24,615 2028 23,529 2026 22,535 2024
Month TSS
Max 200 kg/d 20,533 2023 20,080 2018 19,665 2017 19,249 2017
Month
TAN


September 1, 2017
With four filters online and sidestream treatment of BWW in operation, the BAF system requires an
immediate additional C side filter to have capacity to treat the influent BOD loading for all FWD
saturation rates evaluated.
An evaluation was completed using the model with the various FWD saturation loading rates to
determine the number of filters which will be required at the end of the 20-year design horizon.
For each scenario, BOD was the limiting parameter which triggers an upgrade. The number of
BAF cells ultimately required is detailed below:
• No FWD  C-Side = 6 duty +1 standby; N-Side = 6 duty +1 standby (From TM 2)

• Saturation Rate 25%  C-Side = 6 duty +1 standby; N-Side = 6 duty +1 standby
4.2.2 Solids Processing
Similar to the approach in TM 2 for estimating the solids production at the WWTP, revised sludge
production estimates have been adjust based on the increased load contributed by FWDs
(estimated to be 30%).
Table 4.4: Revised Solids Production Estimates with 100% FWD Saturation

Flow Loading Content (m3/c/d) (g/c/d)
(m3/d) (kg/d) (%)
Sludge from Primary Clarifier 195 4,268 2.2 0.0060 130

Sludge from DAF 182 2,739 1.5 0.0056 83
Sludge to Storage Tank 377 7,000 1.8 0.0116 215
Sludge to dewatering 377 7,000 1.8 0.0116 215
process
Dewatered sludge1 34 6,279 18 0.0010 192
1. Assume 90% of solid captured through dewatering system
4.2.3 Primary Sludge Pumping
The current sludge pumps have a capacity of 11 L/s or 950 m3/d. Assuming a 100% FWD
saturation rate, the revised total primary sludge generation rate is 195 m3/d, which is still
significantly less than the total pumping capacity. Therefore, no upgrades are required for the
primary sludge pumps.


September 1, 2017
4.2.4 Backwash Waste Sidestream Treatment – Dissolved Air Flotation
The sidestream backwash waste treatment system, or dissolved air flotation (DAF), is designed to
treat a maximum daily backwash flow of 3,600 m3/d. This flow corresponds to one (1) N-side
backwash per filter per day and two (2) C-side backwashes per filter per day. Since there are
five (5) C-side and five (5) N-side filters this corresponds to a maximum of fifteen (15)
backwashes per day.
It is possible that additional sidestream treatment capacity is not required if one or two
additional BAF cells are added to the process. Instead, backwash frequencies and rates, and
polymer dosing to the DAF could be used to help control the flow to the DAF system.
Based on this, it is possible that no additional sidestream treatment would be required with a 25%
FWD saturation rate. However, at 50% the WWTP would require 2 additional C-side filters and 1
additional N-side filter to be in operation, which would likely require trigger expansion to the DAF
system.
4.2.5 Aerobic Digesters/Sludge Storage Tanks
Initially, the sludge storage tanks were designed as aerobic digesters to stabilize primary sludge.
The two digesters each have a volume of 1,155 m3 and are required to provide 40 days retention
time to provide full stabilization of the sludge. Instead of maintaining the digestion process, the
tanks are now utilized as sludge storage tanks for dewatered sludge (DAF and primary sludge)
prior to hauling the sludge away to be composted.
Table 4.5 summarizes the sludge storage capacity for the sludge storage tanks.
Table 4.5: Sludge Storage Tank Capacity
No of Volume Per Tank Total Volume Calculated Storage Population Upgrade

Tanks (m3) (m3) Time (d) Equivalent Year
2 1,155 2,310 7 28,850 2037
The existing sludge storage tanks have sufficient storage capacity to provide approximately 7
days storage though to the 20-year design horizon. The WWTP will not require additional sludge
storage capacity through the 20-year design horizon as a result of the implementation of FWDs.
4.2.6 Digested Sludge Pumps
There are two digested sludge pumps (1 duty, 1 standby) which transfer sludge from the
digesters to the dewatering facility. Each pump has a capacity of 8.9 L/s, which is the equivalent
of 769 m3/d.


September 1, 2017
Table 4.6: Digested Sludge Pump Capacity
Pump Capacity (L/s) Total Volume (m3/d) Population Upgrade Year

Equivalent
8.9 769 >28,850 >2037
The digested sludge pumps have sufficient capacity to surpass the 20-year design horizon even
with a 100% FWD saturation rate.
4.2.7 Solids Dewatering
As in TM 2, Stantec assumes that the existing filter belt press will be replaced with centrifuges
(Scenario-A from the proposal provide by HAUS Centrifuge Technologies Archer Separation
Processes).
• No of units  3 (2 duty + 1 standby)

• Model  HAUS DD 4042
• Maximum Hydraulic Capacity  33 m³/h
• Maximum Processing Capacity  21.5 m³/h
o Max Sludge Flow 215 m³/d @ 1.8% TSS
o Operating Mode  7 hours/d, 5 days a week
Table 4.7 summarizes the estimated total sludge volume which will need to be dewatered for the
various saturation rates at the 20-year design horizon.
Table 4.7: Solids Generation (Volume) Generated
FWD Saturation Rate (%) Volume of Solids to be Dewatered (m3/d)
25 274
50 293
75 313
100 332
Based on the current upgrade assumptions for the new dewatering facility, each centrifuge has
a capacity of 107 m3/d. If The Town were to see a 25% saturation rate of FWDs, the dewatering
facility would be required to operate up to 3 centrifuges per day, or extend dewatering
activities past 7 hours/d.
With a saturation rate of 100%, the WWTP would need to operate 3 centrifuges and extend the
dewatering activities past 7 hours/d to eliminate the need for a 4th centrifuge.
Based on the evaluation completed in TM 2, the WWTP is expected to require a dewatering
facility expansion even if it does not implement FWDs. Therefore, for this exercise it has been
assumed that no additional costs are associated with the FWDs for a future dewatering facility
expansion.

UPGRADE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

September 1, 2017
5.0 UPGRADE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
The following section develops a Class D order of magnitude (+/- 30%, ASTM E 2516-01) opinion
of probable cost for the impact of the FWDs at the various saturation rates. Based on the
capacity impact evaluation previously presented herein, the processes which require upgrades
are:
• BAF Expansion; and

• DAF Expansion
Costs for the BAF expansion will be based on the construction cost for the last BAF expansion,
which was tendered in 2008 for $5.7M and included the construction of one C-side and one N-
side filter (with channels and ancillary equipment). Applying an inflation rate of 12.6% (Bank of
Canada) for 2008 to 2017, this expansion would cost $6.4M today. For this evaluation, we have
estimated that the installation of a single BAF cell would be approximately 70% of the total cost,
or $4.5M to the fixed costs of a new construction project.
Costs for expanding the sidestream treatment facility will be based on the tender cost for the
original DAF expansion, which was tendered in 2014 for $4.3M. With inflation, this cost would be
$4.5M in 2017 dollars.
Table 5.1 summarizes the upgrade requirements and estimated cost based on the impact of the
various FWD saturation rates. The upgrade requirements listed are for upgrades which would be
directly attributable to the FWDs and do not include upgrades identified for the WWTP in TM 2
(with no FWDs).
Table 5.1: Impact of FWD Opinion of Probable Cost
FWD Saturation Rate (%) Process Upgrade Upgrade Cos (2017 CAD)t
25 BAF – No additional upgrade $0

DAF – No additional Upgrade $0
Total $0
50 BAF – One C-Side Filter $4.5M
DAF – Expansion Required $4.5M
Total $9.0M
75 BAF – One C-Side Filter $4.5M
Total $9.0M
100 BAF – Two C-Side Filter $6.4M
Total $10.9M

UPGRADE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

September 1, 2017
It should be noted that, additional upgrades to the solids system will be required with or without
the implementation of FWDs, such as the expansion of dewatering facility. Implementation of
FWDs will accelerate the upgrade schedule to the affected solids systems.
Implementation of FWDs will also increase the operations cost at the WWTP. Based on the
current installed equipment and additional equipment necessary for the expanded BAF and
DAF systems, the WWTP could expect an increase in the total power consumption of about 10 -
12%.
Additional solids generated at the WWTP could also increase the wear on existing equipment
and will need to be handled and hauled away. This additional operational effort caused by
FWDs is difficult to estimate. The findings within literature vary and suggest it is dependent on the
WWTP design and its flexibility/durability. However, additional operating costs would be partially
offset by reducing the amount of waste pickup/hauling within the town.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO WWTP

September 1, 2017
6.0 POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO WWTP
Literature suggest that there are potential benefits to WWTPs who accept FWD processed
organic household waste. These benefits include:
• Increased biogas production from anaerobic digestions; and

• Increased carbon loading for nutrient removal.
6.1 BIOGAS PRODUCTION

One of the largest benefits which has been detailed in literature is the increase in gas production
within anaerobic digestion. The organics processed through FWDs are typically very high in
volatile suspended solids, which are easily broken down by anaerobic bacteria in the digester
and converted to biogas (primarily methane). Utilizing a combined heat and power (CHP)
facility, this biogas can be converted into both electricity and heat that can be used in the
WWTP, significantly offsetting power and heating requirements at the Plant.
Currently, the WWTP does not digest their biosolids. There are two aerobic sludge tanks which
are used to store the sludge that is to be dewatered before it is trucked to away. In order to
generate and utilize biogas the WWTP would require the construction of two anaerobic digester
tanks (approx. 25 - 30m diameter) with new digester pumphouse and equipment, and a new
heat and power facility. The significant cost to construct these upgrades would make
anaerobic digesters economically unviable at this scale. As such, the potential benefits of
increased biogas production have not been further evaluated as part of this TM.
6.2 CARBON TO NUTRIENT RATIOS

Another potential benefit noted in literature is improved nutrient removal resulting from
increased carbon loading to the secondary treatment process. Biological nutrient removal
(BNR) systems, specifically those with biological phosphorous removal and denitrification
requirements, can benefit from having additional carbon available to aid these processes.
Typically, BNR systems rely on supplemental carbon loading, one such source being volatile fatty
acids generated from sludge fermentation. Since household organics processed through the
FWD consist of very high carbon to nitrogen and phosphorous ratios, this stream can provide a
supplemental carbon source without significantly increasing nutrient loading at the WWTP.
With the BOD loading having been previously identified as the limiting factor on the BAF system,
the increased carbon load is not considered beneficial to the Town’s WWTP.

ADDITIONAL RISK ITEMS

September 1, 2017
7.0 ADDITIONAL RISK ITEMS

Within literature there is a large variation in the perceived impact to the WWTP and collection
system from the installation of FWDs and include the following concerns:
• Sedimentation
• Odour
• Fats Oils and Grease (FOG)
• Equipment Damage
• Carbon to Nutrient Ratios
7.1 SEDIMENTATION
With the increased suspended solids, there is a concern that there would be increased settling,
or sedimentation, within the collection system. Sedimentation can lead to unwanted deposits
within lift stations and pipes, which can reduce capacity through pipes, and create septic
conditions within lift stations wet wells. Discussions in literature show there is no clear link
between FWDs and inherent issues with sedimentation. This would be expected as any
sedimentation issue would be isolated and completely dependent on the design and operation
of the specific sections of the collection system.
In discussion with EPCOR operators, existing sedimentation concerns have been identified within
the collection system especially during periods with lower flow rates. During these periods, the
velocity in the forcemains are quite low upstream of the lift stations, which causes solids to settle.
At this time, there is no way to flush or inspect these sections of forcemain.
Areas where sedimentation is or has been an issue, increased solids generated by FWDs would
represent a further risk to that section of the collection system.
7.2 ODOUR
With the increase in organics, another concern for the collection system is the potential for
increased hydrogen sulfide production, or odour. This would be more predominant if increased
sedimentation were to occur in the collection system. Organics concentration, residence time,
and oxygenation govern hydrogen sulfide production. Given that typical municipal wastewater
has a significant quantity of organics already, any further increase in organics loading in the
collection system is unlikely to cause increased hydrogen sulfide production and corresponding
odour issue unless an issue already persists. Odour issues would most likely occur in stagnant
water (wet wells), anaerobic pressure systems, and ultimately at the WWTP.
Currently, odour complaints are typically caused from the WWTP or where forcemains switch to
gravity mains in sewer manholes. Lift Station 10 also generates some odour complaints.


September 1, 2017
7.3 FATS OILS AND GREASE

Fats, oils and greases (FOG) are also concerns when promoting the use of FWDs. Increased
fouling caused by FOG can result in reduced sewer capacities, potentially causing sewer
surcharges or promote blockages. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse 4th Edition
(Metcalf and Eddy Wastewater) estimates FWDs will increase FOG by 13%. Other sources
anecdotally state that FWDs promote improper disposal of FOG, resulting in increased FOG in
the sewer system.
However, there is conflicting evidence in literature regarding the impact of increased FOG
caused by FWDs. Some of the reviewed literature and studies state there is no noticeable
increase in FOG or blockages within the sewer system resulting from the implementation of FWDs
(for example, Evan TD et al. Surhammer: A Case Study on the Impacts of Installing Food Waste
Disposers in 50% of Households. 2010). Other studies suggest that FWD will result in an increase in
FOG and sewer blockages (For example, NYC Department of Environmental Protection. The
Impact of Food Waste Disposers in Combined Sewer Areas of New Your City. 1999).
While FOG can cause severe fouling within the collection system, there has been no definitive
link between FWDs and a significant negative impact to the sewer system. Areas which already
have a noticeable FOG problem, or problems in the past, such as the WWTP, would be more
susceptible to increased problems caused by increased FOG loading.
EPCOR has stated that there have been some serious blockages due to grease buildup in mains.
This is mostly attributed to local restaurants in the commercial areas. Large amounts of grease
have been cleared during routine flushing of commercial areas such as Railway Ave, Main St.
and Bow Valley Trail. At the WWTP, FOG has been attributed to plugging nozzles in the BAF.
7.4 EQUIPMENT DAMAGE

There is also a potential for increase in pump/equipment blockages caused by increased solids
within the collections system. Fibrous material which has been ground through the FWD could
assimilate with other stringy material (i.e. Hair) and result in the formation of “rag balls” which
can clog pumps and pipes.
Given that each municipality has a unique collection system (varying pressure, interconnections,
capacities, gravity vs pressurized, etc.) it is difficult to quantify the impacts of implementing FWDs
on The Town’s collection system. A reasonable approach would be to assume that
implementing FWDs would likely compound existing known issues within the collection system,
but should not cause any significant risk to areas that are currently operating normally.
7.5 CARBON TO NUTRIENT RATIOS

Another risk to the WWTP which may occur as a result of implementing FWDs is having too much
carbon in relation to nitrogen and phosphorous. Biological systems require a certain nutrient


September 1, 2017
load, or ratio, to properly remove nutrients carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Typically, this ratio
is 100 carbon : 10 nitrogen : 1 phosphorus. If the WWTP does not have sufficient nitrogen or
phosphorus, the biological system will not be able handle a significant increase in carbon
loading.
7.6 SOLIDS REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL

Information (a video) provided by InSinkErator, a manufacturer of FWDs, shows the majority of
ground organic material is captured on a 1/8” (3.2 mm) screen. This information did not
quantify the fraction of material that was captured on the screen, nor did it address potential
breakdown of the material as it travels through the municipal collection system, which will
impact the biological loading the BAF, biosolids handling, and quantity of solids captured and
sent to landfill.
Currently, the Plant operates using 6mm mechanically cleaned screens located at the head of
the plant, followed by primary clarification and then 2.3mm arc screens ahead of the BAF
system. A fraction of FWD processed organics will be captured at the influent screens but the
majority (60%) has been shown to settle in the primary clarifiers. Solids carry over in the primary
effluent will be captured on the screens if larger than 2.3mm. Solids captured on the arc screen
and primary sludge are both sent to the sludge storage tank, where they are dewatered and
sent for composting.
Based on this current operation, there is minimal risk of FWD waste being diverted to landfill
from the WWTP. Only the FWD solids that are collected on the 6mm bar screen would be sent
to landfill at this time.

Summary
September 1, 2017
8.0 SUMMARY
Using FWDs does not significantly increase household water consumption. As such, there would
be no impact to the hydraulically limited processes at the WWTP. The implementation and use
of FWDs will only impact biological and solids handling systems at the WWTP.
The major upgrades caused by the implementation of the FWDs will be to the BAF system and
DAF system. All other solids handling processes either have sufficient capacity, or will require an
upgrade even without the implementation of FWDs.
It is not anticipated that there would be a significant impact to the WWTTP with an FWD saturation
rate of 25%. However, at a FWD saturation rate of 50% the required WWTP upgrades would cost
approximately $8.8M over a 20-year design horizon. At a saturation rate of 100%, the upgrade
cost would increase to $10.7M over the same 20-year design horizon.
With the existing infrastructure, the WWTP will not be able to capitalize on the additional biogas
that can be produced from the digestion of organic waste. This increase in biogas, and its
utilization for power and heat at the WWTP, is considered the biggest benefit to WWTPs who
accept FWD waste. Literature suggests that if this can offset a significant portion of the
increased capital and operations and maintenance at the WWTP which is associated with FWDs,
making organics recycling at the WWTP an economical alternative when compared to
collection for disposal in landfill or composting. It should be noted that unlike the Canmore
WWTP, the WWTPs who listed additional biogas generation as a benefit were operating
anaerobic digesters before the implementation of FWDs. Construction of an anaerobic
digestion system and combined heat and power facility to generate and utilize biogas would
not be economically viable at this scale.
Implementation of FWDs can have additional risk which cannot be easily quantified. There is
potential that increased solids cause reduced capacity in conveyance systems, a potential
increase in odour production, and potential damage to equipment such as pumps.

Impact of Food Waste Disposal On WWTP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Food Waste Disposal On WWTP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Food Waste Disposal On WWTP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Food Waste

October 18, 2017

1. reducing the rate at which landfill space is consumed;

Final Report Table of Contents

1.0 Technical Memorandum 1 – Design Basis

2.0 Technical Memorandum 2 – WWTP Capacity Update

3.0 Technical Memorandum 3 – Impact of FWD and WWTP Upgrade

110773584 – Selection of Design

August 30, 2017

2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 1 ...................................................................................................2.1

3.0 POPULATION PROJECTION .........................................................................................3.1

4.0 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS AND LOADS .........................................4.2

5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW DATA SUMMARY .........................................................................5.1

6.0 CANMORE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY ...................................................................6.3

7.0 DATA SUMMARY .........................................................................................................7.4

8.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF FWD – SATURATION RATE ........................................................8.1

9.0 CLOSING .....................................................................................................................9.2

1. reducing the rate at which landfill space is consumed;

1. TM 1 Design Basis (This TM)

2.0 WORK SCOPE - TM 1

3.0 POPULATION PROJECTION

Table 3.2: Town of Canmore Population Projection (2014 - 2037)

Historical Wastewater Influent Flows and Loads

4.0 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS AND LOADS

• 420 L/c/d Wastewater flow for year 2014

Table 4.1 summarizes the average day flow rates.

Historical Wastewater Influent Flows and Loads

Table 4.1: Wastewater Influent Flows

Historical Wastewater Influent Flows and Loads

Table 4.2: Wastewater per Capita Influent Mass Loading

Parameter Per Capita Loading (g/c/d) Monthly Peaking Factor

Parameter Per Capita Loading (g/c/d) Monthly Peaking Factor

Historical Wastewater Influent Flows and Loads

Table 4.4: Wastewater Influent Mass Loading for next 20-years

Year BOD TSS TAN TP

Literature Review Data Summary

5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW DATA SUMMARY

Parameter Household Waste Organic Material Via Total Percent

BOD 27 8.04 35.04 23

Total P 0.76 0.07 0.83 8

Literature Review Data Summary

Parameter Reference 11 Reference Reference Reference 43 Reference Reference

BOD 23% 34% 24.0% 55.4% 66 g/c/d 22.0%

COD 28.0% 37.6% 95 g/c/d

Total P 8% 8.7% 7.0% 28.2% 0.3 g/c/d

NH3 14.0% 30.0%

Fats, Oil, 4.0% 22.4% 800.0%

Canmore Organics Data Summary

6.0 CANMORE ORGANICS DATA SUMMARY

• Total waste generation 3,410 tonnes

Table 6.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD

Revised Loading with Percent Increase in

TAN 8.1 0.8 8.9 9

TP 1.8 0.1 1.9 5

7.0 DATA SUMMARY

Table 7.1: Impact to Wastewater Loading from FWD as a Percent Increase

Parameter Reference 11 Reference Reference Reference 43 Organics Average Max

Parameter Unit Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Parameter Unit Average Day Max Month