University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
1999 The use of solar aquatic biological wastewater treatment systems in sustainable community design
Ramjohn, Jamal Stephen
Ramjohn, J. S. (1999). The use of solar aquatic biological wastewater treatment systems in sustainable community design (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/17108 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/25263 master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca U&emCty of Calgary
The Use of Solar Aquatic Biological Wastewater Treatment System in Sustainable Community Design
Jamd Stephen Ramjohn
A Master's Degree Project (MDP)
Submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Design in partial tuWlment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Design (Planning)
Calgary, Alberta
September, 1999 NationaE Library Biblloth&ue nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Servicas services biMiographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ot!awaON K1AW Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Caneda Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence wn excIusive licence allowing the excIusive pennettant a la National Lirary of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distrt'bute or sell reproduire, prEter, distn'buer on copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or eIectronic formats. la fome de microfichef~de reproduction sur papier ou sur format eIectronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete dn copyright in this thesis. Neither t6e droit d'auteur qni protege cette these. thesis nor substantiaI extracts fkom it Ni Ia these ni des extraits substantids may be printed or otherwise de ceIIe-ci ne doivent &re imprimes reproduced without the author's on adrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. This MDP is dedicated to my mother rmd farher. rmd Junice whose continuous words of love and qpor~,patience, and understding over the course of this process kept me on tmck with the greater goal m clear sight. Acknowledgments I would like to thank thefollowing people for their support and wisdom during the MDP process. First and foremost my loved ones -you are my strength and reason for my drive andpctssion. A special thanks to my committee members - Tang Lee, you have been a constant source of inspiration and a motivatingJigure throughout my time in the faculty. Philip DacR, for never being afraid to show me the way things are and not letting me flout off in the clouds with whimrical ideas, Dr. McCauley, for your unparalleled wisdom and thought, and Dr. Grmt Ross for &g the d@me a very pieusant experience. Thanks to Mr. Bill. thefovours, the help, the adventure, and the patience wiN never be forgotten. I would also like to thank Beverly Srmdalack, Kim Blanchard, Sarah Duncan, Ji$Violi, and Bmck Ettderton who were instmental in my decision to come to the faculty. While I was here, 1have to thank Cameron. Adam and Mike formaking it that much more interesting. The Use of Solar Aquatic Bioiogicd Wastewater Treatment Systems in SustainabIe Community Design
Prepared in partial fdiihnent ofthe requirements of the Master of Environmental Design degree (Planning) In the Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary
Supemisor: Tang Lee
Abstract Biological wastewater treatment using Solar Aquatics is a relatively new concept in the field of ecological engineering- It has roots to New England in the early 1980s when h.John Todd first developed the system under the name ''Living Machine". Using a host of aquatic and wooded plant species. fish and other macro-aquatic organisms. as well as bacteria in a series of aquatic ecosystems, the Living Machine is able to treat high strength domestic, commercial and industrid wastewater to tertiary level performance. Systems are now in use world-wide treating a variety of wastewater uses.
This document presents a review of water use and conservation methods in Alberta to flustrate the potential need for improvements in conservation. Specifically, the city of Calgary is reviewed with respect to its water use and in terms of sustainabiIity of its development. These two aspects of the city are the basis for a simulation involving the use of a Solar Aquatic wastewater treatment system in a suburban CaIgary subdivision. The simulation aims to prove the effectiveness of utilising onsite biological wastewater treatment in tern of economic sense as well. as achieving advancements in sustainability.
While this is neither a site planning exercise nor a presentation of sustainabIe subdivision design, the latter does provide the context within which a Solar Aquatic system would be placed. The study discusses the advantages of the biological system over conventionaI treatment methods from an economic stance, and regarding water reuse, byproduct generation, community benefits and in terms of global awareness (advancement in sustainability).
From this comparison concIusions are drawn regarding the success of the simulation and recommendations for fir&er research concIude the docmnen~ The simuIation reveals that the use of onsite Solar Aquatic wastewater treatment within a CaIgary suburban subdivision is possible and does provide economic and qualitative benefits to the commety.
Key words: BioIogicaI wastewater treatment, ecoIogicd engineering, water conse~yatlon, SOIK Aquatics, sustainable development, sustainabiIity. sustainable community design, conventiona1 wastewater treatment The Use dSokAqMtfc BiologicaI Wastewater Treatment Systems m Sustainable Community Design
Table of Contents
Dedication ...... m.m...... m...... mmm...... mm..m...... m...... i
Acknow iedgements ...... ii
Table of Contents...... ii
Figure List....*...... *...... *...... *...... vi
Table List...... m~...... m... vii
1.0 ~~Od~~t~~~o~~~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~. L 1.1 Background ...... I 1.2 Methodology ...... 2 I3Projections and Limitations...... 4 1A Study Overview ...... 6
2.0 Water Resource Management ...... 2.1 Water Use in Alberta ...... 2.2 Water Conservation - Practices and Abuse...... 2.3 Water Reuse - Practice and Policy (case study review) ...... 2.4 Wastewater Treatment...... ~...... ~~.~~~.....~.....~~...... ~.... 2.4.1 Conventional Methods...... 2-42 Biological Treatment..~...... ~...... 2.4.2.1 Plants ...... 2.42.2 BioaccumuIation & Eco-toxic010 gy ...... 2.4.23 Constructed Treatment Wetlands...... 2.5 BioIogicaI Wastewater Treatment - Solar Aquatics ...... 2.6 Water PoIicy...... 2.6.1 RovinciaI and M~dpaiPolicies ...... 2.6.2 Barriers to On-Site Wastewater Tteatment......
3.0 SmtainabIe Commmu~ese...... e..~....m...... m...... 57 3.1 SustainabiIity and Sustainable Development ...... 57 3.1.1 C* ng Capadty...... 59 3.2 Principles and Elements of Sustainabie Communities...... 66 33 Ec01ogica.t Engineering ...... 82 3.4 Future Considerations...... 84
Figore List
Drainage Courses Through Alberta ...... Land Application Approaches to Wastewater Treatment...... Bomybrook Wastewater Treatment Plant - Rwess Plan ...... Wastewater Movement from Grit Chamber to Primary Treatment...... Water Hyacinth and AIgae Apparatus Used by Tripathi et al ...... Representation of BioaccumuIation and Biomagnification ...... Bear River Solar Aquatic System Set-up (Living MachindSoIar Aquatic biological treatment process) ......
Calgary. Alberta .Hidden ValIey and Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment PImt ...... ~~...... a Hidden Valley. Northwest. Calgary ...... b . Hidden Valley, Northwest, Calgary - Catchment area for SAS...... Hidden Valley - Study Site...... Hidden Valley - Site of Solar Aquatic System ...... Hidden Valley - Study Site Land Uses and Site of SAS ...... Arterial Sewer Line on Hidden ValIey Drive - Main Collector for SAS ...... Trim Mo Idings for Greenhouse Construction ...... Pictures of ExampIe Solar Aquatic System...... Sewer Connection and Movement of Wastewater and Effiuent ...... View of Houses on 100 Hidden Valley MR NW from site of SAS ...... View of Houses on Hidden VaIIey PA NW from site of SAS ...... Aidden Valley Solar Aquatic Plant - Concept Plan ...... a Wastewater Flow from Headworks to Primary Treatment...... b .Set-up of Hidden Vdey Solar Aquatic System ...... TabIe List
2.1 Summary of Some Household Water Using Devices ...... 14 22 Results of Biological Tmatment of Wastewater by Water Hyacinth and Alga1 cdhlre...... 31 23 BioIogicaI Treatment Standards in Nova Scotia vs .Results of Water Hyacinth Experiment ...... 32 2.4 Treatment Data at the Living Machine Plant in HaMlich. Massachusetts...... 37 2.5 Hora Used in Solar Aquatic Wastewater Treatment Plants ...... 42
Dwelling Type Breakdown in Hidden Valley ...... 87 Chlorinated Toxic Substances Produced in Wastewater Treatment Using Chlorine ...... 98 Summary of Emissions hmHyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant (Los Angeles) ...... 100 Operating Cost Breakdown for Bear River SAS. 1997198...... 103 Results of Question 27a (Perks. 1997) Relating to Receptivity to BiologicaI Wastewater Treatment (Solar Aquatics) ...... 112 Results of Question 27b (Perks. 1997) Relating to Willingness to Support a Pilot Project for SoIar Aquatic Treatment ...... 112 Number of Houses by Street Connected to the Solar Aquatic System... 1 13 Sewage Characteristics of the Hidden Valley Solar Aquatic System..... 124
5.1 Cost Comparison of Conventional and Biological Treatment (using a pump house on the golf course for irrigation) ...... 131 5.2 Comparative Operating Costs for CWWT and BWWT ...... 133 5.3 Total AnnuaI (OMad Salary) Costs for CWWT and BWWT ...... 134
6.1 Summary of Comparisons Between Conventional and SoIar Aquatic Treatment...... 147 6.2 West Nose Creek Row Rate Data ...... 149 . * 63 EEIuentMorutonngCosts...... 156 1.0- Introducti~n
1.1 Background
This Master's Degree Project (MDP)explores the issues of ecologically engineered wastewater treatment in relation to mtainabIe community design. It attempts to connect spatial land use planning and concepts ofenviromenta.1 protection..
Specifically, biological wastewater treatment is andysed for possible incorporation into the design of new communities, thus placing a technology that protects the environment within land use planning context. In essence, the MDP emphasizes the necessity for different approaches to planning, using ecologicd methods as the force behind this new paradigm.
Most North American cities have deveIoped in a manner that promotes urban sprawl and the development of suburban communities. This approach to planning is detrimentd to both our sociomlturd ways of life and towards the naturaI landscape.
Massive amounts of hhstructure go into extending the boundaries of our cities with
Iinle regard of its holistic affects.
SustainabIe community design has evolved to offer a soIution for the static, uni- dimensioad commm*tiesthat continue to devetop the Iandscape. The god of this MDP
is to highlight the importance of sustainability while offering a soIution for wastewater treatment that wilI help to dose the Ioop on communities in the eveotnaIity that suburban
codeswill one day be snstainabie unto themselves. Mythen will the practice of urban sptaw1 be a more sensiiIe soIution for growth.
The bioIogicaUy engineered technotogy known as SoIar Aquatics is wed in this
MDP to sirmrIate its we in commrmity design. Hidden Vdey, a community in the northwest of Cdgary is the site chosen to simulate this study. The aim of the simuIation is to adequately prove the fea~t'bIlityof using such technoIogy m swabable community design, and to show that this method can be a more sustainabk choice over conventional centralised treatment. The MDP addresses the foff owing objectives:
I. To study aItemative forms of wastewater treatment and become familiar with the
potential applications of biological wastewater treatment system technology in water
resource management In particular, this MDP includes concIusions regarding the
success of the simulation as well as future directions concerning the use of the system
for new and existing communities, and in smaller urban centres.
2. To investigate the use of biological wastewater treatment systems in residentid design
as a means of advancing the concept of 'sustainable c~rrrm~ties'that are
ecoIogically responsible.
3. To explore the economic spinoffs generated hmusing biological wastewater
treatment systems such as soIar aquatic systems.
4. To discuss the rationale of bioIogicai wastewater treatment systems as a tool for
community development
5. To provide a cost-benefit analysis comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
bioIogicai wastewater treatment over conventiond wastewater treatment,
13 MethodoIogy
This MDP is a theoretical shdation whereby an ecologically engineered technology is piaced into a commnnity to treat its wastewater. The application is in use worIdwide in predominantiy tempexate cLimates but in few cases has it been integrated with a A&dentiaI community for the purposes of treating wastewater for reuse. The Biological ittastewaterTwnent in S~inahteCommunity Design methods used were €off owed chmnologicaILy for the most part according to the following steps:
I. Literafirre review - an extensive review of the literature focussed on: biological
wastewater treanent systems like soIar aquatic system and their use, other bioIogical
wastewater treatment systems bctioning, technical data, and successes and failures
worldwide; constructed ecological environments (with a review of constructed
treatment wetlands); conventional sewage treatment processes along with their
technical data, and influent and effIuent Mormation; alternative forms of energy
conservation and water purification techniques, water management (including water
reuse and conservatioa, and water policy in Alberta); sustainable community design,
and ecovillages.
2. Site SeIedon - the site selection process was modified slightly over the course of the
MDP. A northwest site in Calgary was selected due to its remote location from the
Bo~ybrookwastewater treatment plant in the south~The methodology of
choosing a site initialry was to search for an adequate site to place a solar aquatic
facility regardless of the cnrrent development pattern. [n doing so, displacement of
housing may have been a factor. Smce this is an unrdistic expectation in such a new
community, a second approach was taken which was to seIect a site where housing is
not currently sited thus creating a situation of feasibility in placing the facifity.
Hidden Valley was chosen for its size (based on treatment volume capability of the
solar aqaatic piaat in relation to the amount of land available for comtmcti011),
population and immediacy to a parcel of open space that could potentidy tttiIue the
treated efnnent, 3. Coneept Pim - A Iayout of the biological wastewater treatment system was dram m
conceptuat form dong with a simple layout of the sewer piping showing movement of
influent and efflwnt through the community, the biotogical system and, finally, to a
site for effIuent reuse,
4. Ecological Design - The input and output of wastewater and treated water
respectively is presented, however, there are a number of limitations to these
calculations as desmied in section 1.3. Involved in this stage is the number of
households to treat (volume), type of plants, animals, and bacteria to use given the
voIume and Level of toxicity, materialsetup (i.e. number of tanks, marshes, beds, etc.,
in the interior of the facility), and how to sustain the ecosystem (rnaiirtenance).
5. Cost Ben- Ana@si;s- This chapter shows the relative success of using biological
wastewater treatment as compared to conventional wastewater treatment methods.
The anaIysis focuses on comparing the following categories: monetary costs, effluent
discharge uses, byproduct generation and use, the system as a tool for community
development and, lastly, how the two systems compare on sustainable practices and
educating people on global environmental awareness.
13 Projections and Limitations
The hypothesis of the project is: The use of onsite bioIogicaI wastewater treatment systems is a viable, economicalIy and ecotogidy sustakabIe dtemative firm of treatment to remote conventiond wastewater treatment The study aims to prove this hypothesis through the simdation described above. The project shows how such a system can be effectively integrated into a residential sobdivision to treat wastewater. The voIume of waste entering the system is caIcnlated based on the number of residents treated and average househoId usage, and the process descriied showing how the waste is broken down (e-g.,for nitrogen, BOD,dissolved solids, etc.). Subsequently, the reuse of this effluent (the discharged water after treatment) is examined and potentid uses identified. Such uses may include: irrigation, cooling, heating and may be used in con.ction with adjacent uses (e-g watering suppIy for a golfcourse). The dtsshow the monetary cost comparison between bioIogicd and conventiond wastewater treatment and how byproducts such as sludge can be used for economic gain. Furthennore, the use of both systems as a tool for community development (i.e., fostering a sense of community amoungst its residents) will be examined.
There are Limitations to this MDP, some of which were encountered during the writing stages, consequently altering the face of the document. The Solar Aquatic system is a patented technology owned by a Canadian tirm (a Licensee of the original Living
Machine patent tiom Massachusetts). The technology is relatively new and is presentIy in high demd As a remlt the licensee holds most of the documentation on process functions confidential and this posed limitations in calculating certain parameters. As a result, research for simiIar sohaquatic piants around the world was needed and extrapolation of data was done based on other simiIar plants. However, this does not affect the dtssignificantIy and areas in the MDP where limitations exist have been noted.
A second hitation again derives hmthe lack of information avdabIe from the licensee, Initially, the MDP was to cdcdate the effluent Ievets for the various constituents (parameters) typicaily measured in treated wastewater (see chapter 4).
However, these cdcalations (firmttfae) are afso confidential. The MDP includes data that was provided by the South Burington soIar -tic plant in Vermont. The information came late in the process and changed the document cimma~dy.Where at htmany Bio/ogic;rf Wrrstewimr Treament in S~ainthreCommunity Design assumptions and empolations were made regankg processes and costs of the system, now, much ofthe document is backed up with hard faddata StilI, certain parameters have been omitted pursuant to ficense agreements but Appendix E does include a very thorough set of data for the Hidden Vdey pIant in Calgary. Further extrapolation of existing data, which is readily available fmm a number of sources was needed to estimate the efnuent leveis for the omitted parameters in treated wastewater in Hidden Valley.
1.4 Study Oveniew
The MDP foffows an order that first provides the reader with necessary background information in chapters 2 and 3, to follow along with chapters 4 and 5.
Below is a synopsis of each chapter (chapter one provides the introduction, purpose, methodology, and limitations of the MDP):
Chapter 2 provides the reader with an overview of water use and conservatioa practices in Alberta and abroad as well as poIicies and practices of water reuse. The chapter then
Iooks at the differences between conventional wastewater treatment methods verses biological treatment techniques with closer examination of the Iatter. The technoIogy known as solar aquatics is explained in detaiI, and the chapter ends with a look at the regulatory barriers to onsite wastewater treatment
Chapter 3 takes a look at sustainability anc! sustainable community design- The objective of chapter 3 is to make the reader aware that this is the basis for heaIthy sustainable residentid areas. The use ofonsite bioIogicd wastewater treatment is an ecoIogicaILy enpineered technology that fits *thin the modd of sustainability It is, thus, important to understand My,the principIes and impIementation strategies ofsustainabiIity
Combined with chapter 2, this chapter lays the foundation and purpose for simnIating the use ofthe technology in a commm-tycone BiotagictI Wastewater Treatment in Sustainable Community Design
Chapter 4 begins with a site overview of Hidden VaIIey. Secondly, current wastewater
treatment techniques for the community are examined for the system, capital costs.
operating costs, and for environmental quality. These same categories are identified for
the use of a solar aquatic facility to treat the wastewater onsite in Hidden Valley. The
remainder of the chapter is the concept plan in both written and rough conceptual design
forms. The pIan identifies the apparatus needed. influent and effluent levels and volumes,
the effectiveness of the system and, finally the discharge options available.
Chqter 5 is a quantitative and qualitative comparison between conventional and
biological wastewater treatment. Five areas are examined: costs (including detailed
costing of the solar aquatic system, operational logistics and other cost parameters),
byproduct generation. effluent reuse, community development opportunities, and global
awareness.
Chapter 6 conciudes the MDP with recommendations for the use of biological
wastewater treatment and further potential for study in this fieId. The conclusions also discuss the implications of the system for ecological planning and show (hypothetically) how the use of bio1ogicaI wastewater treatment can be a better and more practical method of treating wastewater in the context of this study and other applications.
Appendix A is a gIossary of terms, mostIy consisting of biological terminology.
Appendix B is a comprehensive annotated List of SoIar AquaticKiving Machine bio1ogica.I wastewater treatment systems in use worldwide.
Appendk C is a set of summary sheets, fact sheets and excerpts of bylaws used in this
MDP*
Append& D is climate data for CaIgary and Nova Scotia used in the MDP. Bio lq-cai W;tste*arer Tramrent in SusrtinabFe Cammirniry Design
Appendk E is comprised of comprehensive ecological and fhncid cdcnIadons for the
Hidden Valley SoIar Aquatic system. 2.0 Water Resource Management
Water is a fundamental resource re- by most life on earth. This fact done should raise coosciousless about its use to an enlightened level. However, amoungst the events of day-to-day urban We, water is taken for granted Mtil we run short of it The fact that water is a desperately needed commodity in deveIoping countries is also a concern that escapes our daily thoughts. Because water is a readily available resource in western society, particularly in Canadian cities is the reason why it is so undervalued
Canadians have a significant abundance of freshwater that, by comparison with many cities worldwide, can be gathered and distributed cheaply, Furthermore, suppiy is not expected to dimininh appreciably in the foreseeable fbture of urban growth.
This chapter provides a descriptive anaLytical comparison of two ways and means of dealing with wastewater treatment and recovery: the 'conventional' (and dominant practice m Canadian cities) and the emergent practice of biologicai treatment, now finding growing appIicati0~1in North America There are two objectives here: fust to lay groundwork for the project thesis developed in chapters 4 and 5, and secondly, to set out the essential points of an argument for tmmdiorming our present practices of wastewater treatment to that of biological methods where applicable. Included in this discussion is a descriptive look at the soIar aquatic process used to treat wastewater and water poIicy in
Alberta regulating the use of onsite wastewater treatment (WWT) systems. The oved aim of the chapter is to provide a synopsis ofwater concerns and policy to give the reader a sense ofawareness of water issues Invoived with this MDP, Biotogicai \V;~~fewaerTmmnent in Susiminite CtJrnrnunit~Design
2.1 Water Use in Alberta
The Province of Amexta is the fourth largest province in Canada by area and population. As an interior province situated between prairie to the east and the Rocky
Mountains to the west, Alberta has very unique watercomes and groundwater pattern.
Aibexta (pdculady the southern region) receives some of its freshwater from snowmelt in the Rockies. This makes for wide seasonal variations in the quantity and quality of water. The overall quality of surface water is good The water is hard with a pH generally in the range of 8.0 to 8.5 that is amiable for consumption (ToQ 1989: 54).
Alberta has an imbalance of water resource between supply and demand. This is due to the settlement patterns of the province with the southern half far outweighing the north in total population and density. Eighty percent of the provincial demand for water is in the south where oniy 15% of total resenres exia The imbaiance across the province is summarized by region below:
North: Groundwater is of good quality but quantity is scarce (there is some concern over hydrocarbons deriving from the energy industry. Central and Eastern: Surface water is scarce in proximity to communities; groundwater is of marginal or poor quality. Cent4 and West: Groundwater is very reliable and high qyalitl; this is the most common source of drinking water. South: Both surface and ground water are scarce but @ty is very good OveraiI the abundance of dacewater far outweighs that of groundwater- The cpdity of groundwater, died upon by many southern ~~~~es, is typicalIy high in constituents such as totd suspended solids (TSS), hydrogen sulfide (R2S),iron and manganese (Toft, 1989: 55). Contamination of surfkce and groundwater is becoming a Biolorricd t]Grasremmf Tw~mtentin Sustirimbie Community Design concern due to in-& activities such as 08 expIoration and waste discharges. Some groundwater contains hydro~onsthat leached fkom oatu&y occurring oil reserves.
Water enters Alberta hmpoints in British Cotumbia, Saskatchewan and the
United States, totaling 673 billion cubic metres per year. This is quite significant given that Alberta is aIso the headwaters for numerous watersheds outside of its boundaries and so the province must act as stewards for the qudity of water leaving the region. Water chins to three different shores of the continent: the Araic Ocean, Hudson Bay, and the
Gulf of Mexico. Knowing this, the effects of water quality "downstream" are far reaching. Of the 67.7 billion cubic metres of water originatiag in Alberta each year, only
10% is used by Albertans. The remaining 90% or 128.3 billion cubic metres (combined with water originating outside ofthe province) leaves via one of three comes (Alberta
Environment, t 989):
1. MacKenzie System: comprises Athabasca, Peace, Slave and Hay Etivers and accounts for 86.5%of mean annual river discharge fkom the province (leading to the Arctic Ocean)- 2. The Churchill and Saskatchewan and Nelson River System: comprises the Beaver, N. Saskatchewan, Battle, Red Deer, Bow, Otdman and S. Saskatchewan Rivers, and accounts for 13% of mean muaI river discharge hrnthe province (leading to Hudson Bay). 3. The MiIk River Basin: the basin is part ofthe Missouri and Mississippi River System discharging to the GuIfof Mexico. The river drains the province of only 0.5% of totid water reserves. See figare 2.1 for illustration ofchinage ways in Alberta BioIogical Wastewater Treatment in Sustainable Community Design
Water Conservation - Practices and Abm It will be clear in chapter 5 the values of water conservation when a comparison between conventional wastewater treatment (CWWT) and Biological wastewater
treatment (BWWT) is made. Hge. -1 crCnC- it is important to establish the
importance of conserving water. It
is evident hman historical
perspective that humans do not
begin to place value on natural
resources until a time or quantifiable
limit is placed on their existence.
Only then does their importance and
significance for life make headlines
and touch lives whether it is socidy
DRAINAGE BASINS or economicalIy. Efforts to recycle c - C - uAal*Dc *\I* water have been in place for 30
years or Longer in some parts of the
worId WWT plants (WWP) Figure 21 Drainage Pattesns in Alberta (source: Alberta Environmental Protection) effectiveIy ncycIe water back to the environment at @ty Ievels ambient for most wildlife and -tic species (more on this in sections 2.3 and 2.4). Howevervthere is still much work to be done to educate the individuaI user about conserving wata. For most people in Canada, water is viewed as a right - a free commoditytYPartIy to bIame is the Lack of metering procedures of water on most fesffeSfdentiaIhomes. This attitude is perhaps the principaI barrier to water conservation, WhiL we must pay to heat our water the quantity of the resource is relatively fke-of-charge (costs discussed in section 5-13;only 37.54% of residentid monthly water bill goes towads delivery of water). Many equate the value of water to the cost of producing it (i.e.,plumbin& treatment and distribution) (Moore, 1989: 17).
The problem with this perception, is that water itself is given no intrinsic value for its role in sustakhg life, and without this, the need for consewation is misunderstood
People speak of consenring gasoline by not driving their vehicle needlessly. It is costly to do because fuei has a monetary value and this will continue to rise as fuel (gas) reserves decrease in the world Water has no such monetary value to people in countries like Canada and most of the United States, so our urgency to conserve it is much Lower.
One way to determine the value of water to a person is to estimate the amount the user would pay for it above the cost of producing it, much Like fueI. Today, users of fie1 are willing to pay 50 to 60 cents per litre to run their vehicles in Canada, which is undoubtedly not too much to pay, given the number of motorists on our me&. For those who are unwilling to pay for fwl, public transit is available m most cities, making personal vehicles a non-necessity in life, However, as water is most certainiy a necessity in life, wodd consumers then be willing to pay 50 to 60 cents per litre? The point is that most people are unwilling to waste &eI because it has a quantifiable monetary impact on themseIves. However, water does not and its overuse does not have the same impact.
But since water is ody mewabie to a certain extent, this overuse is detrimentaI to the supply avaiIabIe to us, which means we should conserve our use where possibIe.
There are sevdways to comeme water but it wiII take the efforts of many to make a substantial diffierence. It is astonishing the amount of water a SlngIe person in
Canada can use in a SEngIe day. h CaIgary, the average amount of wastewater (water that Biotoghl tVctstetvirret Tmentin Susxakbie C~mrrztmipDesign leaves the home from taps, toiIets, etc.) is 520 Uday per person (City of Calgq, Sewer
Division). This equates to roughly 190,000 litres in a year (enough to fill a standard bathtub 750 times). Conservation practices are simple to incorporate into any home.
Changes in attitude, accompanied by a nominal investment, will drastidy reduce the amount of water wasted in the home. Such investments may include: Iow flush toilets, which Rduce the amount of water used per flush fiom 23 iiaes to 8 Iitres; low flow shower heads, reducing the amount ofwater used in a ten minute shower hrn200 Litres to 80 litres, aerated kitchen and bathroom faucet nodes, which do not reduce pressure as most people think, but simpIy adds air to the flow reducing the volume of water used. In a few simple mechanical adjustments the user has reduced the volume of water used each day to 350 Iitm on average.
Table 2.1 Summary of Some Household Water Using Devices
Water Use (examples) Conventiooal Approach Conservation Approach Toilet 23L 8L Shower (LO minutes) 2001, 80~ Total wastewater discharged per 520L 350L persodday (including other uses) (Source: Naar, 1990 and City of Calgary, Engineering Dept, 1999)
[fa community of 1,000 residents all made the same adments, the totai water savings woufd be 135 miIIion Lihps per year. Furthennore, if the number of residents served by the Bomybrook wastewater treatment pIant (580,000) were to make the necessary adjustments, the water savings wodd be m the order of45 biIIion Lmes per year. This is an extraordinary quantity of water, capabIe ofsappLying entire towns of their required water needs. This is the amount ofwater &at we waste- BiologicrtE tVstemrTnmntnt M SdkCommunity Design
In contrast to practices of conservation is the abuse of water use. Besides passive abuse (i.e., not utilizing water conservation devices mentioned above) there are outright uses which waste an inordinate amount of water. One example of this is the watering of lawns during summer. The use of sprinklers to water grass and gardens is perhaps not the best use in term ofthe value of water. The extent to which people will go to maintain a green manicured [awn in climates (such as Calgary) where it is very diflicutt is disconcerting. The application of massive quantities of water and pesticides is needed in order to achieve his aesthetic which is not a sustainable practice especialIy since most application practices resnIt in 50% evaporation and evapotranspiration. Furthermore, there is no substantid or significant gain hmcreating this aesthetic in the greater scheme of HeCWead the water used and wasted couId be conserved and put to better uses (e-g., consomption). SioIogic~~V;tsrpw'awr Tmment in Sttstrrinabie Community Design
The abase of water is counterproductive and, dortunatety, the parts ofthe world having the most water available are the ones who continue to waste the most
2.3 Water Reuse - Practice and Policy
Conserviltion ofwater does not ody mean reducing ones usage but dso recovering, reusing and recycling water. D'Itri (1977) defines wastewater reuse as "the use of land to renovate sewage e£EIuent from municipal andior indusdrial sources." Water reuse applications are largely for irrigation purposes effdveLy increasing the water supply for this practice. Using wastewater before returning it to waterways accomplishes two tasks, Fist, it conserves water, and second, it treats water with the earth - a more sustainable approach than conventional methods. Reuse can range hrnstoring rainwater for watering gardens to using wastewater treated to secondary levels for irrigation. irrigation requires a substantial amount ofwater that does not need to be of drinking water qudity, therefore, reusing the resource is a readiIy available method to conserve water. Unfiommateiy, then! are significant barriers that restrict wastewater reuse. Most of these are valid concems dealing wit6 a range of issues, primarily heaIth rerated These are examined in section 2.6.2. In another context, a hdamenta1 shift in attitude is needed before wastewater wiU be viewed as a resome rather than waste. A simEIar situation exists with cornposting This practice took a great deal of convincing before politicians and the pubtic viewed organic material generated in the household as a resource rather than garbage.
The foilowing is a list of issues and concems regdhgwater reuse for irrigation purposes as presented by Speide1(1988: 167):
Emueat qu-: nutrient contens heavy metd content, pathogen content 2. Soif productrvitg: sdt bddup, toxlci~bm?dup, viral contaminaton, physical degradation 3. Crop production: fertilizer and water requirements, crop pwthand yields, crop uptake of nutrients, crop uptake of toxics and pathogens 4. Animal health: animal uptake of nutrients, animal transmission of pathogens to human consumers 5. Groundwater quality: path of water to water table, quality of water reaching groundwater 6. Air qoaIity (with sprinkler irrigation): health effects for workers and nearby residents, odour considerations, and bacteria dispersion 7. Human health effects: contact *th effluent by fanners, contact with plant and animd products by consumers 8. SociaL factors: public attitudes toward application, public attitudes by consumers of products, attitudes of nearby residents 9. Economic considerations: water pricing, nansportation costs, subsidies for those who use water, faciwes for water storage, vaIue in alternate uses, type of material contained in water I 0. Water treatment faeilities: adequacy and re liability of treatment, prior to application, adequacy of storage facilities during periods of non-application I L. Monitoring: need for monitoring air, effluent, groundwater, crop, and soil quafity 12. Legal issues: ownership and saIe of water, water rights, liability for damages, responsibility for monitoring guidelines for water reuse (e.g, crops to be grown, amount of water to be appIied), effect on downstream users (third parties), ifwater previously was part of return flows Bi~irrgir'alWatewater Trearmenr in Strstaiwhtl. Chmmunity Design
Many OF these issues are A. Slow*rtte Inlgatton Waslewater is applied to the soil surface and albwed to percokte downward. Treatment proceedsas soif,vegetation, discussed in section 2.6.2 where md soit mic~tganisrnsremove nutffents and suspended solid materfal, provincial approaches to water Evapotranspiration reuse is examined For the most
part, issues involving public
heaIth and groundwater quality
8.Ovarl.nd flow nut8 are of major concern to the V?asta~tater:s applied to a sloping surface and allowed to flow oret the soii surtaca to runatf collectfan ditches. Treat- ment is a resolt of physical, chemical. and biological AIberta Government and public processes. officials of the province (CMHC,
1997).
Wastewater can be reused
after secondary treatment has C. Rapl&lnflltntIorr parsolrtlon
Wastewater :s aDpliad by flooding or sprinkling to hignty significantly removed toxic permeable sctls tn basins. As the wastewater percotates Into tne soil. rer?marion occurs. Evaporation contaminants, or it may be
applied directly in a process
known as Iand treatment where
waste is treated naturally through
percolation into the vegetation Figure 22 Land Application Approaches to Wastewafer Treatment and soil. Three major types of
Iand WWT exist (SpeideI. 1988: 166) as presented in figure 2.2.
The reuse of water can fall into two categories: direct and indirect. The direct reuse of water involves using the resource immediately after treatment for a predetermined purpose (e-g., irrigation) whiie indirect reuse involves discharging treated effluent to waterways for consideration of Lter use (e-g., for drinking water after further treatment)- It is reasonable to suggest that with so much money going into treatment of wastewater to tertiary leveis, that direct use might be more economicai than discbarping back to water courses for later use. Only LO% of municipal water is osed for coosumption. Therefore, the other water uses need not attain as high a @ty of treatment and this water can be redirected for the remaining 90% of water needs (instead of trea~gthe water Merto drinking water standards).
Okum (1973) states, "no higher quality water, unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower grade." While I agree with most of this statement, I hesitate to concur with the validity of using a lesser quality water only when there is not a surplus of higher quality water. Given a surpIus situation of high quality water (i.e., drinking water standards), it should be stored for later use where
PO ssib le.
To direct water to other uses (reuses), a dud water system is required (Shwd,
L977: 63). This is a matter of directing treated water for consumption into the home separate of the water (treated at a WWTP) used for other purposes (e-g., toiIet tlushing, outdoor water supplies, etc.). Shuval suggests while this may be costly for existing areas, new communities have the opportunity to utilize this simpIe technoIogy to conserve water and the energy required to heat it to standards for consumption. Therefore, if I0 to 15% of water enters the home for consumption (treated at a water treatment pIant) iuad the remaining 85 to 90% enters for other non-cons~lptiveuses (treated at a WWTP, tertiary
Ievel), the energy savings wodd be extraordinary. Okum ( 1973: 63) suggests merthat the technoIogy for safe dud management of water exists aMt that the costs associated with setup wodd be 20% higher than conventional water distnitition, but the mortised benefits of savings hmreduced treatment costs wodd o&et the capital expen-- Many countries have practiced direct water reme for decades- Their success bas been dictated by necessity - something that Cdaand most of the United States has yet to encounter due to our vast supply of freshwater. Mexico for instance has struggled for adequate and cost-effective water suppIies in the face of a rising population. Mexico
City, with a popuIation of 8.5 miff ion in 1975, needed to bring in water from a distance of
200 km away to meet its needs (D'Itri, 1977). The cost of this made reuse of wastewater a practical reality as most of the City's water need was for irrigation. A similar problem exists in communities of southern Alberta Sdace water supplies are a significant distance away from the communities and they are forced to tap into groundwater supplies that are high in quality but often Low in quantity. In light of this, the placement and growth of these areas is largely dictated by the availability of water. Furthermore, the cost of CWWT in these smaller areas is far from affordable. Dual water systems and the reuse of treated wastewater with smaller onsite systems has definite potential in these areas. Further consideration of this is explored in section 2.62 and in chapters 4 and 5.
2.4 Wastewater Treatment (WWC)
Two categories of wastewater treatment exist: conventional mechanical and biochemical methods and biologically engineered methods. WWT has evolved to a point today where tertiary treatment leaves effluent at near drinking water standards. The following chapter presents an overview of the processes used in conventional wastewater treatment (specifically, the processes used at the Bomybrook WWTP in Calgary,
Alberta). 2.4.1 Conventional Wastewater Treatment Methods
The levels of treatment genemy recognised for WWT are primary, secondary and tertiary and this categorization of treatment has evolved overthe last 70 years- In its inception, MWT involved removing sotids (organic and inorganic) hrnwater before discharging back to surface water sources. By the mid L970s, with increased water qudity standards, secondary Level treatment came online to treat wastewater at a biologicsll level. This effectiveIy removes srnalIer suspended sotids and biologicd oxygen demand (BOD).As biological sciences continued to evolve, so too did our awareness of other existing viral pathogens and heavy metal concentrations present in wastewater. Tertiary treatment was developed in response to this in most major cities by the late 1970s and early L 980s, which made the plants also capable of removing phosphorus. This was an important step in the history of WWT as it significantly reduced the amount of weed and other plant growth in discharge areas (phosphorus is an essential and integral nutrient for plant growth).
Wastewater treatment has evolved significantly in 60 years. Today for instance, the Bomybrook WWTP in Cdgary is capable of treating 1 LO &on galions
(500,000 m3)of wastewater a day. This advanced level WWT facility is capabIe of sludge fermentation, bioIogical nitrogen and phosphorus removal, and uL~~oIet0 disMectrctronamoung other @ties (City of Caigary* Engineering and Environmental
Smces, brochure). The folIowing is a brief chroaoIogy of WWT at the Bonnybrook and
Fish Creek wastewater treatment plants, both in Calgary, Amerta (courtesy of aeCity of
Calgary): Biotogicd iV3sreu'~r:rTment in Sdnrtb te Community Design hunybmk 1932 Primary treatment comp fete Avg capacity 72,700 m3fdaY 1954-58 Rhnary treatment expansion Avg. Capacity 213,600 m3/day 1971 Secondary treatment upgrade Avg Capacity 236,300 m3/day r 982-8s EX~~OLZ Avg. Capacity 450,000 m3/day (tertiary Treatment added with chemical P removal) 1992-94 Expansion Avg. Capacity 500,000 m3lhY(tertiary Treatment with bioIogicaI P and N removal and W diwecdng) Fish Creek I960 Primary treatment complete Avg. Capacity 18,200 m3/day 1968 Rimary treatment expansion Avg. Capacity 36,400 m3/day 1980 Secondary treatment upgrade Avg. Capacity 72,700 m3/day 1982 Tertiary treatment upgrade Avg. Capacity 72,700 m3/daY(chem. P removal) 1987 Phase I odour control Avg. Capacity 72,700 m3/daY 1993 Phase II odour contra[ Avg. Capacity 72700 m3/day t996 Tertiary treatment upgrade Avg. Capacity 72,700 m3/day (W disinfecting) (source: www.gov.calgary.ab.ca)
Conventr'onal Wllstewater Treatment Process
Figure 2.3 illustmtes the processes hvoIved in conventional wastewater treatment.
Wastewater fkom a sanitary sewer system enters the headwork of the treatment pIant where preliminary treatment removes large inorganic and organic debris. This is accomplished by using mechanical grates that affow smaller debris and water to pass through. Much of the smaller debris is then removed by injecting air into the wastewater to dIow inorganic solids to settie out to the bottom while keeping organic solids aloft
(City of CaIgary, Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment Plant, brochure: 19). This process is estimated to remove 35% of BOD and 60% of TSS (Speidei, 1988: L61).
Wastewater moves fiom the grit chambers through to primary clarifiers. Here (often in open air), the wastewater sits for a detention time of 2 to 3 hours to allow suspended solids to sdeout by gravity- The solids senled on the bottom are called primary shxdge, which is movedand pumped to 'gravity thickeners' (City ofcalgary, Bomybrook Wastewater Treatment PIant, brochure: 19). Debris floating dong the top of the cidersis scraped off and pumped to anaerobic Biological Wastewsrter Treatment in Sustainable Community Design
StTE PLAN - BONNYBROOK W.W.T.P.
Figme 23 Bomybrook wastewater Treatment Plant -process layout (some: City of Calgary, Engineering Division, Annual Report, t 998) BiologiaI Wastetvater Treatment in Sustainable Community Design
1 \L
To second- uennnent
the Hedwotks and into large
mechanicidiums - soti& iue routed to siudge dr'gestors. primtuy ellTuent flows over the clnri.lierand muted to sc?condnry treatment sum- scaic NTS Somcc Ramjohn. 1999 m Figure 2.4 Watewater Movement from Grit Chamber to Primary Treatmerrt (ComrentionaI Tment- Bonnybrook) Biologiml W;tsre~xerTreatment in Susirtbie Community &sign digesters. At this stage, chemtmtdcoagulants may be added to enhance soIid removd
(Speidei, 1988: 163). The wastewater then flows out of the clarifiers and to aeration tanks and bioreactors for secondary treatment,
In the aeration tanks, primary emuent is mixed with bacteria and microorganisms naturally present in the wastewater aIong with ah: The microorganrganrsmssuspended in the primary efEIuent are known as 'activated sludge' (City of Calgary, BoMybmok
Wastewater Treatment Plant, brochure: 20). This mix of activated sludge and primary effluent is also called 'mixed liquor', which is aerated by diffuser pumps at the bottom of the tanks (Speidel, L 988: 163). The water is purified by the microorganisms as they feed upon (thus removing) organic material. The oxidize organic compounds
to carbon dioxide and water. After 7 to 8 hours?the mixed liquor flows through to
secondary clarifiers simiIar to the primary stage. In a similar fashion, the liquor sits in the
tanks and activated sludge settles to the bottom allowing the effluent to overflow the
clarifier through to a UV disinfection facility (ifthe plant is so equipped).
An interesting aspect at this point is a percentage of the activated sludge is
returned to the aeration tank to re-seed bioactivity for incoming wastewater. This
recyctmg is an efficient use of a nattuaI resource. Excess sludge is rerouted back to taoks
for disposal. In some advanced WWT systems, this secondary effluent may be
dissected prior to discharge and/or passed through grandar media Bters to reduce BOD
and TSS -her,
h the tertiary treatment phase two processes may occm, one chemical and the
other biological- In both cases, the purpose is to remove P, N, NH3, and BOD fiom
secondary effIuent, The chemical process adds Almninmn Snlfste (&SO4 (D), )to horn
as EWd dtuu, to the effXuent as it passes hmthe aeration tank to the secondary cider to help movephosphorus from the waste stream (City of Calgary, Bo~ybrook
Wastewater Treatment PIant, brochure: 23). The chemicai path this reaction takes is:
MzSQ (n + S tn AlzPQtn + SOz (p,
The alumburn phosphate is insoluble and settIes to the bottom of the clarifier and is pumped out while the gaseous sulfur dioxide bubbles off the liquid This chemcaI process does not involve nitrogen or NR3 (City of CaIgary, Bomybrook Wastewater
Treatment P [ant, brochure: 24).
The second process is bioIogicaI which removes phosphorus and nitrogen in three very interesting substages: anaerobic (no dissoIved oxygen present), anoxic (no dissolved oxygen but does have NO1 and NO3) and aerobic (which bas dissoived oxygen). I.the anaerobic tank bacteria release into the mixed liquor and then absorb soluble phosphorus in the aerobic tank When the bacteria are removed in the waste activated sludge, the excess phosphorus they absorb is removed fiom the wastewater (City of Calgary,
Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment Plant, brochure: 24). Bacteria in the aerobic tank convert MI3to Naand then to NO3 in what is called the 'nitrification process'.
Following this middle step the bacteria in the anoxic tank 'denim' the NO3 to Nz,,, which bubbles off the efnuent. After receiving treatment in each of these three tanks all forms of nitrogen are removed to non-toxic levels.
In some WWTP a last stage tertiary treatment involves W disinfection. The radiation hmthe tight interrupts cenuIar fimdons in mi*croorganismsrendering them incapable of reproduction and they die. It is an interesting process in that the very resources essential to treat the wastewater bioLogicalLy are kilIed off in the find process because of their toxicity Ieveis to aquatie and other Wee The effluent at this point is treated and discharged to a dacewater supply. However, as &cussed in the preceding Biologicat Wastewzw Tmnent in Susi@in&k Community Design chapter, the opportunities for direct reuse of this effluent is missed if it is simply redirected to rivers, etc. The effluent ofconsidera6Ie@ty can be used for irrigation and other purposes altowing the Land to fitrther absorb nutrients (the low nitrogen and phosphorus levels remaining) before it percoiates through to groundwater. Section 26 discusses some of the regulations of this opportunity for water reuse and chapter 5 discusses the possibilities of water reuse through biological treatment While this conventional approach to wastewater treatment is efficient and productive, something must be said about the extreme costs to set up such hfiastmctme, the inefficiency of sending wastewater great distances to a centrdised facility and the energy required to run the plant. All of these points are very unsustainable and it is this aspect of wastewater treatment that must be addressed for future generations.
2.42 Biological Treatment
The notion of purifying wastewater naturalfy, whether it be municipal, industrial or agricuftural, is not new by any means. For instance, fmers have been using land app Iication to treat wastewater for a number of years. While this practice is not accepted wideiy these days for reasons presented on page 15, it does have merit and the theory behind it is simpIe. The earth has taken care of naturally occurring waste since the beginning of he. With this in mind, why then has the human race continued to push for morp technologicaUy advanced ways of dealing with wastewater? Conventional mechanical and chemical WWTPs have had remarkabie success in treating wastewater hmmdcipal and other sotlzces. However, as the next chapter asks, how sustainabIe are conventional approaches to an age-old problem? It is a guestion ofwhat can these approaches return to us besides clean water. Enatme does such an efficient job at treating waste, why not continue to otiIise the power of the earth for such needs? Bio iogietll \V;~~tewxxerTmtm in Swi-iirbleCommunity Design
KT,Odum (L97 I), a pioneer ofecologicd enginemingyaimed to educate people on the need to view species in a radically new way. He stated, "the hentory of species on earth is redy an immense bin of parts avaiIable to the ecoiogicd engineer- The role a species plays, may be used for a different purpose in a different kind of network as long as its maintenance flows are satisfied." (Todd, 1996: 122)
Bioengiaeered WWT in its evolution over the last few decades has presented an opporhlnity to step back in the face of complex technologicai advances and work towards a sustainable harmonious balance between nature and technology. The engineering of nahual WWT systems use the sarne principles that nature uses to regdate, recircuIate and reclaim large scale ecosystems like forests, watersheds and mountain regions.
Sustainability (more in chapter 3) is the ability for an ecosystem, a community, or a person to maintain itself over the Iong term without deleting or damaging any essential functions (Todb 1996: i l I).
Unfortunately, even with the success of CWWTZit is not a sustainable process; requiring substantid energy to power the facility. Bio-engineen criticise CWWT for its faiIure to achieve sustainable principles critically required to meet human and other species needs into the next millennium. The following is a briefoverview of some key elements comprising nawwastewater treatment,
2-421 Plants
Plant life is an extraordinary reah med with species capabk of great feats.
Through photosynthetic processes they provide a crit*caIfood chain Lidage and regulate our air producing oxygen. OnIy recently though, have we tapped Into other properties they possess - this being their ability to uptake nutrients pm9Ctff~Lyfiom waste flows. Bio~ogicatWastewater Trwrrnent in Sicstainable Community Design
PIants have been doing this for millions of years, regulating the quaIity of ecosystems.
This is the premise of biologically engineered WWT systems.
Selected aquatic, vascular and wooded plants have shown remarkable nutrient uptake capabilities particularly for P and N compounds. This chapter highIights such properties in two species used in bioiogicaf treatment systems around the world The water hyacinth (Eichhomiacrassipes (Mart.) Solms) and various types of algae growth
(Microcystis aencginosa, Scenedesmur pudncauda, Chlorella vulgaris and Euglena virids). Together, their ability to reduce physiochemical and bacteriological elements
(i.e. BOD, COD,acidity, Na,Po4, coliform, etc.) is outstanding (Tripathi, 1990: 70).
Tripathi and ShukIa (1990) ran a series of tests over a six-month period on the
ALGAL CULTURE EEm0kuk -URE-, C1JttlRE-U Figure 2.5 Water Hyacinth and Mgae Apparatus Used by Tripathi et ai. (source: Tripathi and Shukta, 1990) characteristics and pcrfomance of these species to mat wastewater.
The water hyacinth is one of the most prominent aquatic weed pIants found throughout the tropical and subtropical areas of the world (Reddy, 1984: 1). Generally consided a nuisance, the water hyacinth costs some governments iiterdly millions of doIIars a year in weed control. The plant growth rate is tremendous, absorbing vast quantities of nutrients available in most surface water somesesThe nutrients released Biologicd Wastewater Treatmeat in Sustainable Community Design during decomposition of the dead water hyacinth also aids in new pIant growth. These characteristics make it a pefiect candidate for large-scale water purification. The plant can grow vertically and horizontally often reaching a height of one metre or more (Reddy.
19842). It readily absorbs nitrogen and phosphorus and thus relies on these for continued growth. Interestingly the water hyacinth removes these nutrients in much the same way as CWWTP. The major nitrogen reactions in water hyacinth include nitrification (N)4 to NO3) and denitrification (mto N20). Firstr the nitrification process normally occurs in water where dissolved oxygen levels are adequate to support the activity of nitrifying bacteria This nitrifies NE& to NO3. Following this, as plant cover increases (lowering the dissolved oxygen level), anoxic conditions persist reducing
NO3 to NZ(@, effectively removing nitrogen from the water (Reddy, 19W4).
In the series of experiments conducted by Tripathi and Shukla, water hyacinth was combined with another powerful nutrient removal plant, algae. Figure 25 is a schematic of the apparatus used in the experiments. In the first stage, wastewater was transferred to the tank planted with water hyacinth for a retention time of 15 days after which the primary effluent was transferred to the second tank with an algal culture. The effluent remained there to feed the algae for five days and finally transfemd to the third tank with water hyacinth for an additionaf nine days. The results of this experiment are very impressive for such a simpIe apparatus. TabIe 22presents the parameters measured in the effluent after treatment. BiologkaI Wastewiltex Treatment in Sustainable Community Design
Tabk 2.2 BioIogical Treatment of Wastewar by Water Hyacinth and AI@ CtrIture
r hm~s Domostlc Waterc hyacinth Algal culture Water hjachth sewage cuIture1 CaltureIT 15days 46 5 days 46 3 days 46 RT reduct RT. mluct. KTc reduction
Dissolved Oxygen Nil 0.03 ; BOD; 3I@&115 f 70f7.8 ; 7Y.4 4OStS9 i 869 1 9.6&1-7' i 9- COD 767226.7 5675 26.1 450229.0 41.3 L75kL6.5 772 242 i N% f.64k.14 ; @.Me 61 .@ 1 035t.W 03t.08 8E.7 1 .09 N& 63927.2 39.4+, 38.0 16.5k1.4 74.0 3.1&Lcl 95.1 4.9
All units are mfi unless noted RT-= retention time = standard deviation (Source: Tripathi and Shukla, 1990: 5) The high efficiency of wastewater treatment in such a simpIe biological system is evident for instance with 97%removal of BOD, 82%removal of nitrates and 99% removal of Coliform bacteria AAer primary treatment in tank one, significant reductions in most parameters were recorded, however. dissolved oxygen did not rise significantly, so the second tank with aIgae was used to increase this concentration. After five days in the second tank, dissoIved oxygen had increased and hnther reductions in BOD. COD, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc., also occurred. The onIy probIem that arose was a significant increase in suspended SOWdue to rapid growth of aIgae (i.e., pieces of algae ffoating out of soIution). The third tank with water hyacinth again reduced the totaI suspended soIids
(TSS) and other parameters to Ievels that are very respectable for the simpIicity of the system. For instance, table 21compares treatment standards of Nova Scotia bioIogicd treatment fadities to the cesuIts of the water hyacinth test for the foIIowing parameters: Bio1og-i~-Wifewater Treatment in Sustahibte Community Design
Table 23 BioIogid Treatment Stan- in Nova Scotia vs. Water Hyacinth E.puiment
Constituent Nova Scotia Water Hyacinth Effluent Standards Test Resdts BOD (ma) LO 9.6 TSS (mg/L) I0 70.5 mmp;/L) 5 3. I Fecal Colifonn (ceIldL00ml) 300 0.1 W@ (source: NS Department of Environment)
The results surpass effluent standards for bioIogicaI treatment in Nova Scotia for
BOD and NEE+ removal which is very impressive for such a simple apparatus. This apparatus simulating a natural setting, is the basis for many bio1ogica.I WWT systems in use today. Section 2.5 discusses one example of a more complex system capable of removing far higher levels of contaminants. A factor that is pertinent to this chapter is the availability of natural sunlight versus the demand that algae have. If algae respire more than it grows in the aforementioned complex apparatus, it will die, rendering pat of the treatment process ineffective. A certain Ievel of photosynthesis must occur during the day which is higher than the IeveI of respiration at night. This amount is sufficientIy supplied in Calgary's climate and for times when it is not, a contingency plan has been introduced for additionaI lighting (discussed in chapter 4). Appendix D contains climate data for Calgary, and for Nova Scotia, Valley Region which is the site of two soIar aquatic systems. The data shows sunshine hours for Calgary to be in excess of Nova
Scotia suggesting that the algae wilI have adequate Light in Calgary for growth.
AdditionaIIy, the average temperatures for the two regions are quite comparable, with
CaIgary mughIy4 to 5 degrees Celsius colder during winter months. Notwithstanding this data, a successful solar aquatic plant was used in Fort Saskatchewan, AIberta for over a year at an Agrimn Company plant to treat onsite hdustn'al effluent from operations.
The plant was decommissioned in 1997 after saccessfnI remediation was compIete. Bh,bpicrtl tV~~te~~~terTreatment in Sustainable Community Design
The next chapter discusses the process by which plants uptake nutrients.
Comprehension of this process wiII heIp in the overall comprehension of biological
Wastewater treatment,
2.4.2.2 Bioaccumulation and Ecotoxicology
Plant and animal Life use varying biochemicd processes for nutrient uptake and
consumption. Cellular activity includes mechanisms for bioaccumuIation (the absorption
or consumption of biomass) by selectively absorbing and storing molecules. This process , allows plants and
organisms to 'accumulate'
nutrients to sustain Lfe.
Interestingly, in addition
to nutrients necessary for
growth and reproduction,
these same species will
also absorb or consume
toxic substances and store
them within cells and
tissues. While the
substances may be dilute
Figure 26 Representation of Bioaccumutation and Biornagnification in the surrounding (some: Freedman, 1989) environment, the
continual accumulation can reach highly toxic levels m the piant or organism- Thi-s
makes the species very toxic to others but not to itseIf. Bioma@cation occurs in an ecosystem when an organism at a Low trophic Ievel has accumulated a substantial IeveI of toxin and is preyed upon by an orgm-sm at a higher trophic Level. Given an environment where this food chain is continuous, higher trophic Ievel organisms will accumulate toxins much faster through intake of organisms aIready at high toxic levels (Cunningham, l990: 408). Figure 2.6 illustrates this process of bioaccumuiation and biornagniiication.
The water hyacinth removes nutrients In waste by physical absorption into tissues.
The bioaccumulation of this plant of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) can reach levels of 20,000 times its normal ambient level (Tripathi, 1990: 75). The toxicity of an organism or plant typically involves damage to an enzyme system. This process occurs through ionic bonding to the enzyme causing a disconfiguration in its makeup. The Rmlt of this is a change in the specific catalytic Function (Cd&am, L990: 4 LO).
The water hyacinth from various experiments by Tripathi (L990), Reddy (I985), and Harque and Sharma (1986) have shown the plant to be resiIient even to heavy metaIs.
[n fact, when harvested for such uses as methane generation, the rate of gas production is faster when the piant contains heavy metals Iike nickeI and cadmium (Tripathi, 1990).
There are many other plant species with Marproperties that combine to treat wastewater to even higher standards. These are discussed in the next chapter and again in chapter 4.
2,423 Constructed Treatment Wetiaads
Coostmcted wetlands, used to treat contaminated waste, emerged hmthe 1980s.
The systems are bio-enpineered to mimrmimrcnataral ecosystems. WhiIe this type of ecosystem is not compIex in its contaminant breakdown properties, tiie intended use of the wdand must be clear before comtm~*oa(e.g, so that toxic shock does not disrupt its fimctioning). The role of vegetation for wastewater treatment is to absorb the contaminants in the flow as it passes through the system. PIant species like cattail, sphagnum, and other mosses remove contaminants through a series of biochemical reactions (redox) and other phWd processes (sedimentation of solids).
Constructed treatment wettands are ideal for a number of wastewater conditions such as municipaI stormwater, inMd wastewater, agricuItud nmoff and, in the proper conditions, sewage may be treated but is often avoided due to unsightliness, odour and risk of fdure or retardation often associated with 6-g in cold climates. Models do suggest, however, that constructed wetlands are capable of handling sewage flows
(Eastlick, 1988). In addition, wetlands are succes~in treating industrial wastewater such as acid mine drainage hmpyritic conditions that ensw hrnthe mining of cod.
One of the primary benefits of constructed wetlands is that wastewater is treated in close proximity to the point source of pollution. This is an important management fatwe since it prevents any unnecessary pollution to watercourses &ting fiom transport of contaminants to remote treatment facilities. This system does, however, have limitations, and these restrict it fiom being used in any environment:
I. F'iof all, the Ievel of contamination entering the constructed wedand must be
set so the vegetation can break it down without harming the system. Close
monitoring is needed for this or eke the discharge may not be treated to Ievels
previously determined To avoid this, it is important that the Ievel of
contamination from the pol[utiort source be maintained without hatic 2. Secondly, the capacity ofthese systems is Ihnited in comparison to a sewage
treatment piant In other words, application to large-scale flows is not yet
feasible.
3. Finally, and most importantly, wetiancis do not functrConwell in cold climates.
While this limitation is fine if the wetland is being used to accommodate peak
periods such as spring thaw runoff, it is not adequate if it is being used for year
round treatment,
This is a critical limiting factor in using this technology. The next section takes over where constructed wetlands leave off, by introducing a technofogy known as Solar
Aquatics.
2.5 Biological Wastewater Treatment
EcoIogical engineering is an emerging field with a multitude of projects leading to sustainable soIutions for conventional problems. Howard T. Odum coined the term
'ecological engineering' in his book, ''Environment, Power and Society" (1971). Since then, more attention has been dnwn to utilidng biologicaIIy engineered systems to treat wastewater. These systems (hereafter SoIar Aquatics, the commerciai name for Canadian applications) are principally different hmconventionai wastewater treatment SoIar
Aquatics is a system that is constructed to fimction exactIy the same as a nannaI ecosystem contained in a built environment- The technology of Solar Aquatics (SA)was devefoped by Dr. John Todd of Ocean Arks htmationd @is patent is under the commdal name Living Machines used in the United States). The btpiIot project used to treat wastewater in a town was for Aarwich, Massachusetts. Wethis was ody a smalf-scale system and not as compiex as recent projects, the facility managed to perform - to high standard& as set by the Eirvironmental Protection Agency in the US. The foUowing data were collected tiom this plant at Harwicb=
Table 2.4 Treatment Data at Living Machine Plant in Barwich, Massachusetts
Muent level Effluent level Constituent I (mfi) (mg/L) BOD IS6 53 99.6 TSS 421 5.4 98.0
(source: Spencer, 1990)
As the field of material sciences began to evolve and eventually catch up with
Todd's ideas, Living Machines advanced considerably. The materials used were lightweight, flexible, transparent and able to withstand the great stresses hmhigh pressures and UV light. The early 1980s was a great time for Todd and Ocean Arks htematioaal when a number of Living Machine pilot projects were being considered worldwide. However, it was not tmtil the early L990s when significant advances were made in the technology. The wide spectrum ofcIients Todd has dram is evidence of the range and user-adaptation the facilities possess. DmwSchool in New York may treat
8,500 gallons per day (gpd) (32m3)while the M&M/Mars Chocolate Factory in Texas treats L00,000 gpd (378m3(see Appendix B for a comprehensive List of Living
MachindSolar Aquatic facilcilities in operation worldwide). The List of applicable uses for the technology is reIativeIy endless with respect to treahg wastewater hma variety of origins. Most of these are covered briefly in Appendix B. For now, it is adequate to understand that the application of the technology is vast and ever changing with new advances- Bi~Iogita/\Vrl~tewwr Tmnnent in Smtaitmbk Community Design
SolarAquatrk Aincples
To understand the benefits ofusing biotogicd wastewater treatment, it is necessary to present the fimdamental principles of the system as we11 as the process. Todd (1994) in his research. has synthesised nine principtes behind the design of Living MachinedSolar
Aquatics (WSA). These are as foUows:
I. Microbid Communities - The foundation of the LM or SA is bacteria Species fiom
marine. freshwater, md terrestrkd environments are used, many of which act as
catalysts for a number of reactions. Other species exist in the system merely as food
and nutrient for hi* order organisms.
2. Photosynthesis - This is the primary source of energy in the system. It is important
to use a diversity of plant Life, particularly for higher order species like the water
hyacinth, to stimulate microbial reactions on root systems that he$ increase dent
uptake and efficiency in the ovWecosystem.
3. Subecosystems -Todd and Todd (1980) found that it is necessary to design three to
four subecosystems as parts of the entire Iiving machine. These are separate in
physical space but connected through emuent flow. This is an important
consideration in WWT as diversity is critical to the reduction of toxins and pathogens.
4. Pulsed Rate Erchanges - Nature works with the most unpredictabIe circumstances,
constantly adapting to a changing environment. This concept is inherent in LM and
buiIt into their design Once a system has had adequate starmp time, the operator wilI
introduce a series of disruptions to the ecosystem (e-g., reduce Iighg change flow rate,
introduce other species) to test the resiIience of the system. This dews the species to
adapt and 'learn' changes in the environment and be able to adjust as changes occm in the fbtme. The system aIso develops survivd techniques for unforeseen fdures in
the external hardware of the system.
5. NuMatt and Micronotrient Reservoirs - A sufficient sopply of mined nutrients
(e-g., carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen) must be maintained by wastewater ffow.
However, deficiencies may persist Adding a supply of a different mineral in rock
based form wiII correct this imbdance in shod term emergency situations.
6. Geological and MineraI Diversity - A diversity of mineral content obtained from
igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks is necessary to create a seff-mitabing
ecosystem. Microorganisms and bacteria use carbonate, phosphate, iron dioxide and
sadeas nutrients to metaboiize.
7. Steep Gradients - A steep gradient is 'an abrupt or rapid change as measured in time
or space in the basic undeclying attributes or properties of the subsystems' (Todd,
1996: 130). These gradients are very important in the overall fuactioning of the
system. Principle three explained that varying the subecosystems is important to
introduce wastewater flow to different regimes, increasing the waste rernovai
efficiency. To increase this gradient, feedback loops are incorporated into the system
reintroducing species back into earlier tanks (subecosystems).
8. PhyIogenetic Diversity - Species diversity is an integral part of LM. In Todd's 25
years of experience, it is clear to him that afI phylogenetic levels have a roIe in the
design ofthe systems. Often, organisms are looked upon with obscurity dative to
their potentiat mIe in biological processes. For instance, snails were first used in the
tanks of the system as algae eaters to keep the walls clean. However, closer
examination ofthe fimctioning of the organism revealed varieties capabIe of a number
of tasks. For example, Rams Horn snaiIs graze and control filamenttous dgd mats that wouId otherwise dog and reduce the effectiveness ofthe diverse floidised bed
comm&es (Todd, 1996: 132). The Salt Marsh PeriMe produces enzymes that
attack cellulose, pectin, xyIan, bean gum, algae, hgiand 19 other enzymes
interactive with carbohydrates, tipids and peptides (Barf ocher. et al., 1989).
9. The Microcosm-Macrocosm Relationship -The objective of designing a living
machine is to simulate the earth (the ultimate Living machine) as much as possible-
Based on the principles discussed above, the following is a technical description of a SoIar Aquatic treatment pIant. Figure 2.7 illustrates the pmcess of LMISA used in most biological treatment facilities (examp Ie fkom Bear River, NS). Each stage is identified as a guide through the pmcess. Overall, the unit processes are:
L. Screening (removing inorganic and organic soIids)
2. Grit removal (separation of inorganic solids)
3. Bioaugrnentation (activated sludge ~cirmlationand bacteria addition)
4. Solids grinding (breaking up solids that are not removed by screens)
5. BiologicaI treatment in solar tanks
6. BioIogicd treatment m solar ponds (three stages)
7. Disinfection
8. Activated sludge treatment
SimiIar to convendond wastewater treatment, bioIogica1 wastewater treatment (in soIar aqnatics) invoIves tertiary level treatment This process is descnied here with reficeto facilities in use throughout the worId
I. Screening: lnfiuent enters the SA facility at the headwork that are often buried
outside ofthe main structure. Here, hoWc grit (e.g., sand, pIastics) is removed by
large screens before the tiqnid flows to an eqyahition chamber. An operator cIeans Biological \%'asrewaterTmmnt itr Susinilble Community Design
the screens daily and the materid is ei&er composted, ifpossible, or sent to a !andfill.
Organic sludge settles in the -tion chamber and is conthuousIy mixed to
maintain a stable and baIanced fIow into the faciIity. Activated sludge (discussed in
clarification stage) is returned from tbe cIarEer to the equalization chamber to
breakdown the raw waste fiuther before entering the primary twitmeat stage. This
process is lmown as bioaugmentation. It helps to maintain a balance of bacteria and
nutrient leveI entering the system. These levels are measured in the primary treatment
tanks and the operator can control the quantity of activated sludge recalculating back
to the headwork to maintain this balance. The food to microorganism ration (EM) is
a critical factor the operator controls. Too many bacteria will result in their premature
death, while too much food creates a surplus situation that wiI1 flow through the
system untreated.
2. Grit removaL (grinder pumps): In the Iast stage of preliminary treatment, sewage is
run through a grinder pmp. The mechanism grinds any residual organic matter so it
mixes with the liquid components of the innuem. This mates a food source that is
amiable to microorgani-sms, organisms and piants feeding on it.
3. Biological treatment (solar tanks): The tim step in primary treatment occurs within
a series of large clear-sided cylindrical tanks. These are often placed in a series of
rows numbering anywhere from three to twelve or more per row depending on the
volume of innuent being treated- Each row is called a 'train' and the tanks are often
five feet high and six feet m diameter. The tanks are designed as miniature
ecosystems (i-e, mecocosms) comprising fish, bacteria, microorganisms and plants.
The biologicd process in the tanks is very simple; the uptake ofnutrients fhm
sewage by various Life forms. However, the ecosystems must be engineered so they are seif-sufficient and enclosed Therefore, species are introduced that may not be actively involved in the treatment pmcess but provide habitat, For instance, the root systems of some plants play host to aerobic bactmeRathat feed on nitcogen and other mineraIs. The dear-sided tanks provide an environment amiable for sunlight penetration to stirnu1 ate photosynthetic processes. Additiondy, bubble diikers aerate the tanks from the bottom to provide an oxygen supply, reduce odours, and suspend particIes of organic waste for uptake by organisms and plants living in different areas of the water column,
The tops of the tanks are planted with aquatic plants and many are omamend which have good resale value when harvested. They are suspended by wire meshing stretched over the tank. Besides providing habitat for aquatic bacteria, organisms and fish, they remove nitrogen, phosphorus, TSS, fed colifonn and heavy metals, among other constituents.
Table 25Flora Used in Solar Aquatic Wastewater Treatment Prclnts
Flora Type Species used in the system Flowers cmatioos, daffodils, alstmemeria, orchids, streptocarpus, clivia, iris, water hyacinth Ferns maiden hair, bears foot. Japanese holly, hay scented ferns
Foliam Plants . Philodendron, flowering ginger, creeping cress?papyrus Shmbs/Trees Pussy willow, red twig dogwood, viburnum, mock orange, bald I I cypress, high bush cranberry, Japanese maples, sugar mapIes, I sweet gum, mountain IarneI, winter berry Vasdar PIants . water lilies, catla Lilies, elephant ears, banana, Chinese water I I chestnnt, water poppy 1 (source: Todd, f 996: 122)
The idea is to use non-ediile but marketabfe pIants. A host of fish and molIusks are used in the tanks as wen. As mentioned, snails pray a critica rok in nutrient remod as weU as feeding on algal growth on tank wdkCSpecies such as bivalves, aIgivorous fish, pmtists, Insect famazyand sponges can remove particks of0.L um to 50 urn' hmwater (Todd, 1996: L27). Mussels, another type ofbivalve have shown
to remove pwticIes as small as I um with 100% efficiency. Larger fish species used
incIude tiIapia (Oreochromik spp.), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelhs),golden
sker(Notenzmigormr ~~~SOI~S~SCIS)),and fathead minnow (Rmephaler prome1as)-
There are three important points to note regarding the primary treatment stage.
First, each tank in a train is engineered with slight variations in species (remembering
the principle of steep gradients). Sewage is then treated by a number of different
organisms at different stages. As Tripathi and Shukla found, using a diversity of
species in successional tanks greatly increases nutrient removal from wastewater.
Secondly, some effluent &om the last treatment tank is recycIed back to the first tank
to reintroduce species that have flowed through the system. This is an important
principle and practice to simulate natural processes occurring m the wiId. The third
point to note is that primary treatment reduces BOD and TSS and converts NH3 to
NO3.
4. Secondary treatment: The effluent from primary treatment then flows into the solar
ponds for secondary treatment The treatment here is simiIar to the processes in tanks.
Ponds are again designed based on the volume being treated and are generaIIy
rectangular and separated into three sections by suspended cmtains. EffIuent quality
at this point is me high as it flows into the first solar pond. Each pond is again
planted with several varieties offlorn The difZerence in this process is in the Level of
aeration used. Using dZher pumps, each pond is subjected to a different Ievel of
oxygen injection. This dBierence mates subecosystems where different types of bacteria exist This is a very important consideration because it increases biodiversity
particularfy with respect to microorganism growth (two ofthe principles for designing
a Living machine).
Each pond has Iess oxygen as wastewater moves through (i.e., oxygen levek
decrease hmthe first to the last pond). The reason for this is very clever. As Reddy
and Sunon (1984) found, aquatic plants Like the water hyacinth, have very high
nutrient removal rates phlarty for nitrogen. Nitrogen, in the form of ammonia and
nitrate, is reduced fitrther in the solar ponds. The major reactions are:
L. Nitrification (in primary treatment): converts to NO3
2. Denitrification (in secondary treatment): NO3 converts to Nfi @) and N2(p)
In the nitrification stage sufficient dissolved oxygen is required to support
nitrifying bacteria (Niharomonus spp., Nitrobacter spp.). Hence, more oxygen is
present in the tirst section of the solar pond When the effluent reaches the third pond,
the combination of dense vegetated growth (that decreases the dissolved oxygen IeveIs
as in experiments by Rai ilnd Mti.ush.i (1979) and Reddy and Sutton (1984) and
reduction in dissolved oxygen fiom the diffuser pumps creates anoxic conditions
amiable for N@ reductions to N20 (,) and Nzp which bubble out of solution. This
secondary process reduces TSS, BOD, COD, N and P significantly (see Appendix A
for sample data). The operator measures BOD and COD in each stage daily to
determine whether organic wastes are being digested by bacteria
(www.Iivm&mac6ines.coot. 11/28/98). If leveIs are not &cient, dterations are made to
increase bacteda counts (so FM ratios baiance).
5. Effluent &charged: From the third pond flows into a secondary cIarifier* The
composition at this point is isyEicpid wit6 some suspended solid Ioad and a Biotogical i4*slstew~rTre;tnnent in Suminable Community Design
minimum of dissotved materials. In the clarifier*suspended solids settle out of the
fluid portion. Shaped Iike a fimnel the unit is generally three feet in diameter and in
height. The flow moves upwards from the narrow opening at the bottom passing along
the walls of the clarifier which are lined with a honeycomb-like material where solids
are trapped and slide off as they become too heavy. These soIids (activated sludge) are
returned to the ecpdization chamber for bioaugmentation or to sludge digesters.
As the water leaves the clarifier, two options exist: one is mechanical and the
other biologic& To kther reduce TSS, the effluent may be passed through a micro-
screen or sent through a coarse-grained gravel marsh. Either way, the result is a
reduction in smaller suspended solids.
The effluent after secondary treatment contains residua1 bacteria and minute traces
of solid and dissolved organic material. To kill the remaining bacteri4 UV light is
used (as in CWWTP). The importance ofTSS removai in the preceding stages is
critical at this point The solids provide 'shaded areas' where bacteria may be
sheltered hmthe light and so they can pass through the W tight unharmed.
Effectively removing suspended solids eliminates this risk-
Treated water is now ready for indirect discharge to surface water sources or to be
used for direct uses. Meanwhile, another process nming simultaneously with the
water treatment is called sludge digestion. This process occurs in tanks where
activated sludge is diverted and mixed with air to allow bacteria to digest organic
material. Ruid is removed from the top of the settled sludge periodically and
recircdated back into the eqyahition-tank. After a period ofabout 40 days, the
thickened sludge is spread over reed drying beds that are underIain with sand The
residnal liquid drainiag off is coff ected and again returned to the system for bioaugmentation. The remain@ sludge, which now has the consistency of damp coffee grinds, is ready for a number ofuses (discussed in chapter 5) such as fdizer and compost fill.
. * The system is completely seff-sustaumg and close-looped with the exception ofa small amount of inorganic waste to dispose to landfills. The benefits of this are discussed in chapter 5 compared to CWWT*
2.6 Water Pollcy
There are a number of documents that govern the use and treatment of water in
AIberta These exist at the Municipal, Pmvincial and Federal levels. In recent years, governments have attempted and succeeded at consolidating policy documents to reduce confusion, Many documents existing at the Federal level are also used at the Provincial level with amendments made to suit (e-g. the National Plumbing Code is widely used by provinces). At the national level, Environment Canada has jurisdiction of most surface water bodies dong with other agencies like Health, Parks, Dm,Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the National Energy Board. At the Provinciai level, Alberta
Environment, the Irrigation CounciI, Department of AgngncuIture,Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Health are the major stakeholders and regulators of water resources.
2.6.1 Provineid and Municipal Policies
Environment Canada is mandated:
1. locarry out provisions of cooperative water resourre management agreements which
have been established between Alberta and Canada pursuant to the Canada Water Act,
including the MacKenzie River Basin Committee which -es out cooperative water
resource studies; the Prairie Province Water Board which administers the legally
binding Master Agreement on apportionment signed between Canada, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba
2. To admhher the water smeyof Canada which is responsibie for caqhgout
cooperative water quantity m conjnnction with AIberta Environment.
(source: Environment Canada) BiologicaF \Vstewnwr Tmnet~tin SusQkhfeCommunity Design
Alberta Environment has a set ofpoIicies to provide direction for water resource management activities. These are expressed as water resource management principies.
The first is the basic objectives:
"The water resources of Alberta are to be managed in support of the overall economic and social objectivves of the Province. The Govmment 's commitment to a program of balanced economic grdthe genera2 we&e of Albertans, and the present and fitwe quality of lfe ate overn'ding conrideratiuns in water mmragement. Die supply of good quality water should not be a Iimiting factor in achieving these economic and social objeetves-" The water management philosophy held by Alberta Environment is three-fold:
1- Better use of available water resources.
2. Augmentation of available water supplies where necessary.
3. Reduction of consumption.
These philosophies are highly commendable, but the fouowing chapter shows that in the case of WWT and water reuse, there is tide mom for innovation to uphold these philosophies. Water resources continue to decrease as demand increases and as Iong as the status quo is adhered to, better use of the resource nor reduction in consumption wiII not be attainable.
On JuIy 4, L99 1, the Government of Alberta initiated a review of AIberta's (then) current water management policies and legiskation. The product of this task was introduced to the LegisIative AssembIy in I995 as 'Bill 51 - Draft Water Act'. It incIuded poIicies and IegisIatioa needed to ~~water in A1bext.a as a sustaining eIement The purpose of the Act is as follows (Bill 51, Water Act, 1995): Bioiclgicrtl w~tewxtt:rTmnnrnt in SusiaGnabFe Community mi9
l%epwpose of thik Act is to support and promote the comervation and management of water. including the wi%e allocation and use of water, whik recognizing: a the need to manage and consme water resources to stisth our m'i.onmmt and to ensure a healthy enwionmmt, economy d high quality of life in the present and thefuture; 6. the need fur an integrated approach and comprehemive,flat*bie
administration and management systems bared OR sound planning, regulatoty actions and matketforces; c. the shared responsibiiity of a[l residmrts of Albena for the conservation and wise ure of water and their rufein providing advice with respect to water management planning and decirion-making; d. the importance of working co-operatfvely with the governments of other jtmkdicttioons with rqeato trans-boundary water managemen$ e. the importance of comprehensive and responsive actiun in adnriniserhg this Act.
WhiIe these gods are important, most peopIe are likely not fd1ia.rwith the
Water Act How then can we get the message across to people on the importance of water resource management? The same problem existed with the principle of recycling, but with pemfSIstenteducation many people received this message.
A second point to raise is that the ptrrpose of the Act suggests consenradon of water resources. The next section discusses the barriers to onsite water treatment and reusee It is encouraging to read that the provincid poticy governing water use is proactive m the consemation and wise use of water. Argument in favour of onsite treatment will
IikeLy meet less festCstancein the fhture with this kind of poticy in piace. 2.6.2 Regdatocy Barriers to Onsite Water Treatment and Reuse
kiteWNT and subseqpent reuse of discharged efflueot are two water resource
management techniques seldom practiced in Canada Wastewater is managed in septic
fields onsite, however, this is a passive treatment approach that does not achieve very
high quality- Nonetheless, the water that teaches out into septic fields is a form of water
reuse, allowing it to percolate into groundwater. This is similar to land application of
wastewater used in irrigation. Why then is onsite (active) treatment not looked upon
favourably'?
A project carried out by the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association and
the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation (CMHC)in November 1997 found that
there ate no direct regtdatory barriers in Canada that restrict the use of onsite WWT and
water reuse. The remainder of this section is a review of these resuIts.
Water management and conservation are practices most provinces in Canada
take seriously. In recent years reduction practices have resulted m greater conservation of
water resources, The use of water efficient devices Like low volume toiIets and Iow flow
showerbeads, has made consumers conscious of potentid water savings. However,
conservation is but one technique in water resource management (CMHC, 1997).
Considering the 3Rs, all of the techniques above ody aim to reduce water consumption.
Recycling and reusing water are two conservation practices that have been largely
overtooked The use of oosite WWT technoIogies has shown great potential as a water
conservation method for recychg and reusing-
While the potentid for recychg and reuse of water onsite exists, there are
certain regulatory barriers &sting in Canada that limit the use ofonsite WWT systems.
The CMHC and CdanWaer and Wastewater Association Wydetermined the barriers actually present that Iimit these technoIogies and conservation practi-ces. The endeavour included reviewing regtdatory documents governing water use fiom all the provinces and temtories. Potential barriers were determined to exist within four main regulatory areas: Heal* Envitonmenf Plambing and Building Code and Municipal
ByIaws. Researchers conducted interviews and reviewed documents fiom each of the agencies above. Initial results revealed that onsite WWT and water reuse is favourable hmmost parties. Most saw the technology as a potential solution rather than a threat
(CMHC,1 997).
The most specific regulatory barriers exist within the Municipal Bylaws and the
National Plumbing Code (NPC). In the byIaws, it states throughout Canada that all househoId wastewater (grey and black) discharged as sewage, must connect to the
Municipal sewer system or to a private sewage disposal system (e-g., septic system).
However, there are no bylaws specifically restricting the use of oosite WWT systems.
This being the case. there is mom for interpretation of whether or not the systems may be allowed with proper application and approval from authoritative bodies.
At the National level the NPC contains policies that may restrict onsite water reuse. It does, however, provide for alternative systems such as dud water distribution.
This is alIowed and granted on a case-by-case basis and is subject to Health Authorities approvai.
Two other policy documents inhibit wastewater reuse at the National level: The
Guidelinesfor Canadian Drinkt'ng Water Quaiity (Hdth Canada, 1996), and Gufilefnes for Canadian Recreutionarl Water Quaiity (Health and WeIEue Canada, 1992). Policies in these documents state that the quaIityof water hmoutlets within the home must be of high @ty, having treatment hma water treatmeat plant (not to be confused with a m).The two policies in the NPC that have direct impact on wastewater reuse are:
Nationai Plumbing Code, I995 s. L6.3 Wcrter DisttSutfott Sjstems Every water diktnbution system shall be to a public water mein or a private potable water SUP~~V~y~tem-
SL 7.3.2 Outlets I. An outletfiom a non-potable water system shall not be located where it can discharge into: a. a sink or lavatory: 6. a-e into which an outlet/Fom a potable water system ir discharged. or c. afimrre that ir usedfor the prepuratiun. handling. or dispmng oj$od, drink or
products that are intended for tiurnan coltsumption.
These policies directly inhibit the use of onsite water reuse systems. However,
Appendix A of the NPC does inctude policies dowing for alternative equipment, methods of design and coostntction procedures if '?here is evidence that the proposed equivalent wiU provide the level of performance required by the code." There is room for interpretation here as well regarding applications for treatment and wastewater reuse providing the appIicant can produce evidence of onsite systems functioning properly.
It is reasonable to suggest that water intended for non-potabIe uses (e-g.,toilet flushing bathing, clothes washing and Iaudscape watering) need not be of the same qnality as re-d for coosmnption. Furthermore, there are no established Canadian gnidehes stating @ty Ievek for these potential non-potable uses. Policy must be aeated to aIIow (or at Ieast govern) onsite wastewater reuse. The potential for water s&gs is substantiaL Given that toiIet -g done accounts for3096 ofindoor household use (EnematCanada, 199% wing recovered water will reduce demands on potable water intake and this savings transcends to other nompocable uses in the home such as the washing machine.
As it stands, the NPC is the primary regulatory bamer in Canada for wastewater reuse. However, in itself. the code is contradictory. Sections 1-63 and 7.32 ofthe code have the potential to restrict the practice, while section i.4 and Appendix A of the same code can be used to approve onsite water reuse. The code reqyires updating to eliminate this discrepancy and validate the use of onsite wastewater treatment. The following is a look at how the provinces and territories are deding with this issue.
Alberta - The NPC (adopted as the Alberta Plumbing Code in 1997) is the main regulatory barrier to onsite water reuse. The AIberta Labour Department takes the position that as long as the NPC does not provide policy on wastewater collection and reuse, it will not be considered in Albem Alberta Health is concerned for pubtic health and has raised the following issues (CMHC, 1997):
No standard has been established for the equipment needed and the quality of water produced when recychg wastewater. Will there be danger from 'recycled' viruses and bacteria? How will the effluent be safely stored and how will it be delivered to the appropriate fixtures? What happens to the excess effluent ifthe storage hdity is full? In the case of shortage, how wilI makeup water be mtroduced and how win protection fhm cross-connections be dealt with? How is the recycIed Liqnid to be dealt with? How are odoms associated with recycling handled? How are the fang-term maintenance ofthe associated storage, deliuery eqpipment and water cbsets to be addressed? Bioi&af !%'~tewaterTreamsnt m Sustainhk Community Design
These concerns are quite valid and must be resolved before onsite wastewater reuse can be cocsidd These questions are answered in chapter 5 as a means of analyzing the feasibility of using this teclmotogy in communities. Onsite BWWT can treat household wastewater to tertiary IeveIs thus making the reuse ofthe effluent a significant and feasible renlity.
B&h CoIumbiu - The province is "activeIy pursuing the reguiations of water reuse.*
In 1995, the British Cotumbia Plumbing Code Advisory Committee accepted the amendment to allow the installation of dud water systems in all occupancy densifications. In addition, the BC Ministry of Health accepted the policy to encourage dternadve technology for wastewater treatment onsite.
Manitoba, New BmnswicR, NewfondIanCr,pH, Quebec* Saskatchewan and Yukon -
These provinces (and tenitory) essentially follow the NPC (1995) and are directed by the sections restricting onsite water reuse (1-63 and 732).
Northwest Territories - Oosite WWT has been identified as a significant practice and worth exploring due to the probtems with water supply and delivery in the area The
Northwest Tern-tories Housing Corporation is currently piloting a project with ten houses to treat wastewater oasite to levels high enough to reuse ef3uent for showers or bathing,
Laundry, irrigation and toilet flushing (CMCEI, 1997).
Nova Scotia - There are no regdatory bamea existing beyond the NPC (1995) but
Section 30 of the Regukrtt'om Respecting Onsite Savage Dikposal $j~sttentrdoes dIow tbr approval of innovative systems so long as they meet standards set forth in the pmvinciaI piumbing codes. In addition, Nova Scotia was the fnst p-ce in Canada to employ bioIogicaI wastewater treatment (SoIar Aquatics)- The plant in Bear River treats the entire town of roughly L,000 residents. Smaller plants have been started elsewhere in the province.
Ontario - The pruvince follows the I995 EjPC for the most part, effectively restricting onsite water reusee However, an amendment in 1996 to sub-section 7.1.6.3 of the
Ontario Plumbing Code now allows for non-potable water to be distributed for 'sanitary flushing' uses where 'a supply of potable water is unavailable or inmfficient,' This provision is a significant move in the right direction for water reuse.
Overatl, health is the major concern revealed amoungst all officials in Canada with a stake in water management relative to water reuse. The idea of BWWT and onsite reuse is met with optimism. However, until sufficient evidence of proper use and reliability is obtained, wastewater reuse will Likely not be wholly embraced Appendix C contains policy summary sheets for documents governing water in Albata, under Alberta
Environmental Protection.
This study is not meant to address the attributes of water reuse, rather it presents the benefits of an alternative form of wastewater treatment. It particularly aims to highlight the sustainability ofthis alternative. The following chapter presents m ove~ewof sustainabnity and the Importance of different approaches to planning that may in fact reduce water use in new communities. 3.0 Sustainable Commdes
31 Sustainability and Sustainable Development
According to the WorId Conservation Strategy (KJCN, I980), sustainabEe development is taken to mean, "Improving the quality of human Life while Living *thin the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystem^.^' It also infers that cumnt generations will not undermine the ability of firture generations to sustain themseIves.
William Rees (1996) argues that the debate over sustainable development (SD)
hinges on our understanding of the ~o words exclusive of each other. In pamdar, he
suggests there is much confusion over what is development and what is growth.
Economist Herman Dafy defies 'growth' as an increase in size (e-g. as a city expands its
outer boundaries) while development implicitly means betterment of some aspect-
Looking at the words semandcalIy, Daly further proposes that "SD is progressive social
betterment without growing beyond ecological carrying capacity." It then stands to
reason, he continues, %at suminable growth (SG) is a non-sensical seifcontradiction."
(Rees, 1996:33). Therefore, it is likely SG that people continue to disagree with in so
many respects. Critics of sustainability should argue against this coneadiction rather than
sustamab k development, given the above definitions. Surely, there is room for
improvement, for bettering technology and ourselves.
Since the presentation of the Brundtland Commission's report in I987 there has
been misinterpretation of the meaning of sustainable deveIopment. The definition
opening this chapter clearly reflects the god of seff-improvement in order to create better
Living environments. According to Rees (I996), many peopte identi@ more with either
snstainability or witEt deveIopment, but nnely both words together. The noubLe with this Biologicaf Wsrewmer Tmnnent in Sus-tainabfe Community Design is that values peopie hold regarding development are deep rooted in how they perceive the natural Landscape. Those who advocate sustainabiIity view the landscape as sacred, something that should not be touched However, those who are prodevelopmenf view the landscape with a number of visions for future growth. The difEculty in appreciating the concept and practices of sustainable development comes from trying to b~gthese two very different views together, since one contradicts the other,
Pad Hawkens (L993) in his book, The Ecology of Commerce descriies ststainability simply as, "...it's where what goes out is no more than what goes in."
Ecologicd economics is an emerging field that has heIped people to gain a better undemanding of sustainability. Most of us can identify more with an item of monetary value than with an ecosystem whose visible value is more obscure. For instance, if money is Lost in a bet, this has a measurable impact on us, but if a marsh is tost to development, its impact is much less noticeable.
Chris Nelder ( 1995) remarks, "Sustainability is an economic state where the demands placed on the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the carrying capacity of the environment, to provide for future generations. It can aIso be expressed in the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative economy:
1. Leave the world better than you found it;
2. take no more than you need;
3. try not to harm Life or the environment; and
4. make amends if you do."
Thou@ this appears to be a simpre task, the state of our environment and resources, suggests that generations have fdedto Eve by this ruIe and reperci,~~sioos BioiotriaT Warewer Treatment fn S-nhfe Community Desim continue to mount Most ofour resources have *en millions of years to forrn, and we have been depleting many of them in the last I00 years without considering their importance to future generations.
In order to avoid, and in some cases get out of economic debt for past decisions, we compromise the environment and put it in debt for fhture generatioas. This debt sevedy undermines the carrying capacity of the earth. The simple fact that our resources are depleting as the earth's population increases is not taken seriously enough to cause politicd or social change, contniuting to the continwd degradation of the earth as our population continues to grow. We are growing exponentidy which is an obscure concept to most people. At the beginning of the century, the human population was growing by six million people per year. This fipincreased to L8 milIion by 1950 and again to 60
million by 1975. Currently, we grow by LO0 million people each year. Stakeholders and scientists worldwide estimate our population which stands at approximately six billion, will double within the next 55 years, barring a catastrophic event. The following section describes what implications this might have and how it relates to sustainability and resource use.
3.1.1 Carrying Capacity
The concept of carrying capacity is and has been studied for decades in efforts to arrive at a quantifiable account of how many people the earth can support economically and ecologicaIly. Popdation forecasting is an extremely complex process with a number offactors to consider. When all ofthe nmnbers have been caldated, the result is hardy encouraging The pmjections for human populations vary with authoritiesThowever, it is genedy accepted that by 2054 the eartE~could have as many as I2 b*on humans
(Cohen, 1996). This wilI doubIe the anent popdation within the (ife spans ofmost of as living today. Population experts Iike Cohen, Da[y, Etbcfi and Daily remark (and evidence of resource depfetion suggest) that the earth is experiencing great diEcuIties in ding the current population of 6 billion, Iet alone a figure double in size.
PopuIation increase is a primary reason for the push towards sustainable development. We re- a substantially new approach to living, one with a new LifkstyIe if we are to sustain He on earth for centuries to come. The estimated population of 12 billion is only one side of the story. Cornell ecologist experts calculate that by 2100 the resources on the pIanet will be indicative of enough to support 2 billion people.
According to the Comell team ( 1999), the primary Limiting factors that define the carrying capacity on earth for humans are: fertile land, fkhwater, fossil fuel energy and a diversity of beipll organisms. We are using most of these faster than they can be mewed, if at all.
Emironmental rmpuct
Attempts at measuring environmental impact have met widespread skepticism.
However, Holdren and Eriich ( 1990) present a strong calculation that links population size (P), &uence or percapita consumption (A), and enviromnentai damage (T) inflicted by the technoIogies used to supply each unit of consumption, and what this equates to in terms of (I)enviroomeoral impact. The equation looks like this:
I = PAT. where T vmies as a nonlinemfunctiim ofF. A. and rates of change in both, More on ~s equation fbrther on,
Cartyihg Capac~
Carrying capacity is the maximum population of a species that a given area can sapport out recfuchg its ability to support the same species in the fhre (Daily and - -
Eriich, 1992: 3). This dehDtionis very similar to that of sustainability- L, fact, the two are mutually mcIusive when speaking of population projections.
Many authorities are opthistic that technology dIsave us hmworldwide meItdowu over resource depletion+ DaZy and Ertich argue that technology has not been succesdid in saving us thus far. What it has done is maintained a population of 6 billion by an exhausdng and global dispersion of a 'one time inheritance of natural capital including the sustaining elements mentioned earlier" (Ertich and Daily, 1990).
In order to change carrying capacity one important first step must occur. An attitudinal change in lifestyles (i-e. consumption, or he"A" in the above equation), This will reduce the impact 'T' on the natural environment This is a hdamentd way to begin maximizing resources and minimizing impact. This of course requires policies to be set by politicians who work for the people who are reluctant to change in the tim place. With so much reIuctance to change, this is a difficult task-
This MDP in part, discusses the need to change patterns of use with regard to water use. The difficulty is getting people to realise this importance in the face of current abundant resources. With this, there are two schools of thought The first is that with 12 billion humans on earh, the masses win be even that rnuch harder to convince. The second, is with that level of population, the human race wii be in such despair that it wiII not take rnuch convincing at all, in fact by then it may well be too late. HopefuIIy the
Iatter wiII not prevail, and a bdance wilI be reached a long time before, somewhere in between these two thoughts.
The second appcoech of bringing carrying capacity to a sustainable level is tbruugh hcreasm&y compIex advances in technology, in hopes of Iowe~g environmental impact onit T (in equation). This &o suggests that no change in tifestyk will be necessary as tong as technoIogy keeps improvements up with the pace of consumption (A). This is counter to the purpose of sustainable development We are kdywitnessing fdures in technology to provide us with this environmentd savings,
for instance nuclear energy (DaiIy and ErIich, 1992: 4). Furthermore, the extent of
financial resources that go into R&D for these technologies, is more than necessary when anitudinal change in consumptive patterns is fhanciaiIy more sound and puts the
respomiility and accountability on the demander rather than the supplier.
Daily and Erlich (19925) provide a telling example of how increased technology
may not be the answer, nor can it possibly provide the answer in some cases. ''In 1990,
I2bilIion rich people were using an average of 7.5 kilowatts (kW) per person for a totai
energy use of 9.0 terawatts. In contrast, 4.1 billion poor people were using 1 kW per
person and 4. L terawatts in aggregate. The total environmental impact (I) was 13.1
terawatts. Now, suppose the human population reaches 12 billion in 50 short years, this
wilI raise the per-capita Aggregate Energy Use energy use to 7.5 kW. This
n t 80 (I in turn will create a total 3 E 60 8 impact of90 terawatts. With 40 Q) 3 indgevidence that 13.1 a 20 % 0 kW is too large for the Earth W Rich Poor to sustain, what tevet of Uuer Group impact wilI energy use that is 7 times as high place on the environment?" Daily and Erlich argue that neither physicists nor ecologists an optimistic that this level of performance can even be met withthe dotted time Mee
* - Given the two options Tatal Use sn for reducing or maintaining pB I00 5 ki b 50 I.Total use 1 IR Q) =k1 at o combination of both will g=' is90 CMI) 2040 (TW) a Year Iikely be the solution with strong emphasis in the former. Ecological engineering will surely pIay a critical role in sustaining the earth's resources. The following offers a brief Iook at the sotution to the carrying capacity crisis
- sustainability, the essence of this chapter.
Su~rainabiiity
Sustainability was conceived to offer a potential solution for oar escalating population and the widespread depletion of resources it is causing. lnherent in the concept, is a need to change Lifestyles to reflect princEpIes of sustainabIe tiving
(mentioned above). Furthermore, the current generation must hold a conviction of passing on an earth with its resources essendaIIy intact, not unchanged but undiminished to he$ support fbtm generations. Every person and particuiarly those m deveIoped countries can contn'bute to this greater good for ail of humanity.
There is an imbalance between the rich and the poor in various societies and this makes it dZEcult to rmderstand spstainabIe living when they do not meet nhimum standards of living in the first pIace, Therefore, it is the affluent side of society who has the ability to make the greatest impact
How do we coaswne the earth's resources? Natural resources are cEassiEed as either renewabie or nontenewab[e, and there are discmiie limits to the rate aad Eevel of consumption or sustainable limits. Daily and Erfich (L992: 6)attempt to determine the sustainable level of consumption by first defining the various levels of resources on earth.
They de&e the Lowest level of resources as those that provide a relatively free service to humans without undergoing depletion or degradation for the most part. These include microbial nutrients, cyclers and soil generators, and pollinators, to name a few. Secondly, they make the distinction between renewable resources (being flow-limited and are reconstituted after human consumption through naturaI processes, mch as solar and wind power) and nonrenewable resources (which are naturally stockpiled and have either very low or no renewal potential, such as fossil fhels), and prohibitive reconstitution costs,
The cormecti*onbetween the two is that as time goes on, more renewable resources (so classified) become nonrenewable. For instance, soil, once thought of as a resource with plentill abundance, in 1984 was eroding at a rate of net 25 billion tons per year (Brown and Wolf, L984). This rate was eroding faster than it was being created, making this a no~mewabCeresource.
There is a maximum sustainable Level of use of a resource whether it is renewabIe or not. This Levei is dEdtto caicuIate on a worIdwide sdebecause of the imbdance ofresource stocks over the earth (e.g. fkshwater reservoirs), the imbaIance in population and the imbdance in resource demand, RegardIess of keimbalances, there are Iinrits to most resources. With respect to renewabIe resources that have no computabIe
(foreseeabIe) eoQ the maximum slrstainabie use is not yet detemke6 However, some nomenewable resources have a definite end in sight (e.g., oil) and so there ace two options: sustain the use of these resources or come np with synthetic alternatives or substitutable resources. Maximum use of a substitutable resource is dependent on its manufacturing. If it is entirely synthetic, it may be renewed many times over from renewable raw man*&, making it very sustainable from a manufactured standpoint
However, it must also be noted and/or determined where the raw materiais are coming hrnand what their sustainable Life is. This will, in fact, determine the sustainability of the synthetic produn
With technoIogicaL improvements in our Lives, perhaps science and engineering wiil save us fiom ming out of resources. Alternatively, another scenario may prevail which is that attitudinal change will eventually save us all. Society continually seeks increasingly complex methods to solve resource scarcity when the obvious solution is to
Iive within our own means (i-e., to be sustainable). However, for some countries, this inward approach to living is no longer possible as a redt of limited supply and excessive demand The implications of this, given that many parts of the world will suffer the same
fate in a few years to come, is likely to include war over resources and fiuther increasing poverty. Presently, oil is a resource sought after, with force in some cases (e-g, Iraq and
Kuwait). Nelder ( 1995. et al.) believes that water wilI become the next valuable resource to be fought over. He remarks that some economists predict 'bceaain war" in the Middle
East within a decade over water supply. It is uncertain, but many also predict Canada as an eventcud target for "water wars" (NB -the US has aIready appmached Canada to purchase water). Life is &able without a sopply of oii but not without water.
The next few sections take the concept of sustahbiIity and fit it into the design of city suburban comm-es in an attempt to deveIop them in a mstahabIe f'asfiioa Additlody, ,the section discusses how "sustabably developed technology" can he$ reduce the Impact we place on the Iandscape and on the munding enviro~lent
3.2 Principles and Elements of Sostninable Commanities
The purpose ofthis section is to iliustrate the current situation of typical new community design, why this is detrimental (i.e. how urban sprawl is a perhaps not the best way to pian new communities), what we shodd be striving for in terms of sustainable design and how to do this, examples of current efforts to achieve communities that are more sustainable and finally what barriers exist to thwart these efforts.
The way communities are planned and laid out is fimdamentai to sustainability.
Two main features of laud use practices over the past sevddecades have converged to generate inefficient and unsustainable urban sprawl:
1. zoning ordinances that isolate employment locations, shopping and sem-ces,
and housing locations fiorn each other;
2. lowdensity growth planning aimed at creating automobile access to
increasing expanses of land (www.sustahabte.doe.gov, 09/0 1/99).
Many of the problems with cities and communities in North America are evidence of the impacts of urban sprawt: Increasing traffic congestion and commute times, air poIIution, inefficient energy consumption and greater reliance on oil, toss of open space and habitat, inecpitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community identity (www.sustainabfe.doe.gov, 0910 1/99),
Commety sustahabiIity reqnires a &ift fkom spraw1 deveIopment to Iand use pIanning practices that create and maintain efficient Mastructure, create neighbourhoods with socia[ cohesion and a sense of identity (place), and integrate built form wit6 the Bioiogic& \V:';tsrewzer Tmorrrsnt is Sustainable Cummunit). Design
me Costs of Sprawl
There are inherent costs to urban sprawl that are not evident when simply Looking at a future pIan for a new subdivision on the outskias of the city. Jim MacKenzie and
Roger Dower of the Worid Resources Institute analyzed hidden costs to suburban sprawl highiighted beIow. These costs are mostty a result of the heavy hfbtructure needed to get people to the subdivision (www.sustainabkdoc.gov, 07/I4/99).
I. Begin with the stand aione, single-detached home. Land is inexpensive and taxes are
Iower at the fringe of the city, so transportation departments have to build or widen a
heway access using taxes collected Eom urban, suburban and rural citizens alike.
This is Hidden Cost No, I.
2. DeveIopers having received the pubiicly provided access, then receive the benefits of
income people as they buy the developers' relatively affordable homes which accounts
for Hidden Cost No, 2,
3. As people begin to populate the urban mge. public services are needed, and highway
infktructure is only a smail portion of the totd cost of deveIopment that impacts a
region. hviding services such as focal roads, fire and police protection, water,
sewer, and schools to sprawling suburban Iocations creates Hidden Cost No. 3.
Typically, these costs are borne by people hdythere, not by the new arrivals.
4. As the urban core is abandoned, and as transportation linkages between where poor
people Iive and where the jobs are become ever more tenuous, the nndeniabIe costs of
an unbroken cycle of poverty, rmempIoyment, crime and dependence on public
ashanee is Hidden Coa No. 4, and it is borne by everyone.
5, & V. Savitch and his coUeagues at the University of Louisville School of Urban
Pokyt in a comprehensive study of the relationship between centre cities and their Biologicaf Wasfewmr Tmnent in Sushhrrbiz Community Design
suburbs, concluded that seff-dciency of suburbs "isan impoverished idea" They
reported, Suburbs which surround heaIthy cities stand a better chance of vitality than
those that surmund sick cities! This might be Hidden Cost No, 5, and it wodd appear
to be borne by the suburbanites themselves.
6. People need to get to jobs, shopping, and social and recreational destiriatiom.
Because public msit is not as efficient in Lowdensity suburbs, there is but one
choice: the automobile. Because of Low urban densities, fuel consumption in North
American cities is about five times higher than in European cities, and the annual cost
of congestion per capita in our major centrcs is Hidden Cost No. 6.
These are some of the hidden costs attributed to suburban sprawl. Further research into sprawl in Calgary may bring to light the true costs associated with this form of development, but this is not to say that new development on the periphery of the city should not occur, on the contrary, it is necessary to accommodate growth. However, alternatives should be investigated more thoroughly, such as intensifying the existing areas, or utilizing more conservative and ecological community designs, Limiting how far the new communities expand outward Granted, in Cdgary developers have a great deal of power and with a steadily inmasing demand for housing, the future of Calgary ties in the suburbs. The search for sustainable communities in these areas has not yet concluded, nor has the idea caught on in most respects.
SaainabIe communities have a number of quatities that distingwgwshthem fiom conventional designs in major urban centres. In North America, we have not created com0tiesthat are dways responsible to the nandenvironment because there is an abundance of land availabIe for deveIopment. In Canada, many of om major urban centres stitl have "room" for expansion and devetopment continues outward because of this availability of land and the avaikibiIity and dependence on the automobile.
Furthennore, as a &t of this continued outward morrment of development, very few cities in Canada have developed in a manner that puts emphasis on the importance of social development ia suburban arws. Communities have become isolated pockets and the single detached track development has helped continue this form of development
Urban sprawl has in most respects been responsibIe for this social and environmental decline of communities in North America.
Over the last ten years, Calgary has experienced tremendous growth.
Unfortunately, the increase in housing has not proceeded in a way that respects the above attributes that otherwise make a community &able. The City of Calgary Planning and Building Department is mandated to develop city suburbs ~sustainably'. While the vision it hoIds is admirable, witnessed growth in the outskirts of the city falls short in the face of the principIes that make communities truly sustainable. The very fact that traditional suburban development patterns has prevailed, is counter to sustainable development. Nelson and Duncan (1995: I) define urban sprawl (&.a suburbs) as:
"unplanned, uncontrolled, and uncoordinated single-use development that does not provide for an attractive and functional mix of uses andlor is not functionally related to surrounding land uses and wkch variously appears as low density, nibon or strip, scattered, Leaphg or isolated development"
Suburban growth in Calgary has not been n resuit of unpIanned development, but it has contriiuted to a type of residentid space that is not connected to its surrormdings.
As CaIgary continues to grow economicaILy it puts a considembie strain on the demand for more housing and bfhstmctnre- The City and devetopers have answered with a rash ofnew commWesin the north and south ofthe city that have tittie sense of identity- Biological w;rste~merTrwrment itr ShBteCommunity Desip
Sense of identity gives people an attachment to their surroundings, something that they can associate with. It is often taken for granted what his is, while others have diffidty puttingtheir finger on it exactly. However, new suburban development in one part of the city does not diffi much at all from another area, making it diicult to identify with your surromdings. Subdivision design has much to do with this as well as the envisioning and imagination ofthe developer.
CaIgary was (and still is) in a rmi-que position as a young city to develop its new communities with a collective vision of sustainability Instead, static, uni-dimensional, and isolated communities have prevailed. Residents are not displeased with these communities, but given the choice, many residents wodd Iike their community to include amenities that reflect social sustainabIe values (like those in Kensmgton, Co~a~ght,and
Inglewood; all inner city areas of Calgary) combined with ecological sustainability (Perks et at., 1997). Section 33 Looks at a Calgary survey of residents and their willingness to accept a more sustainable way of life. The swey resuits backrrp this claim, indicating that most people are happy with their community but wodd be happier if more amenities and naturaI features were mcorporated; in short, if the community were more sustainable.
Sustainubte Communities
There are principles, which guide sustainable communities, proposed to create
IivabIe residenw environments. These are essentially, efforts to create sustain&Ie
communities over the long term using a planning approach that considers more aspects
other than bdtform and infhmcture- This results in achieving a hdthy community
by coIIectiveIy addressing economic, environmentd and social issues. Equally important
is the fostering of a strong sense ~fcomm~tyand building partnerships and consensus
amomg key stakehoiders- Many hercity communities in Calgary have developed over the years redtin8 in higher Ievels ofsdbility(in part due to more flexible land use zoning (R2)and sensitive development @delines included in Area Redevelopment Plans). Residents can associate tbemseives with these places because they possess a sense of couunum*ty resulting fiom initiai planning at a scale that encourages social interaction and overall cohesion. Granted, many of the inner city amas were developed in a time where the automobile was not prevalent, and pedestrian planning was much more important. This factor alone accounts for much of the livabiIity scale in these communities. Today, the identity of new subdivisions is rooted in the dependence on the automobfie, evident by the massive hfhsmmerequirements to deliver traffic to them and the wide and endless streets therein. Why has the premise of residential design moved away fkom people and focussed on vehicles? It is one thing to build the necessary hfhstmcture to get peopIe to their community but, once there, there is something to be said about the old styIes of development grounded in pedestrian planning. Deusity requirements, architectural design, land use zoning, and engineering staadards all contribute to the design of communities but something should &so be said of common sense planning and basic principles. The following is a presentation of principles which guide more sustainable approaches to growth and development
Many new cornm~eshave not been built with these three common sense eiments:
I. Pedestrian focussed neighbourboods with primary social and econo~m-c
faaxties within a £ive-rnhutewak
2. Commworientadon around ptibIic transit system
3. Mixed iand uses within neighbourhoods Biofogcrtl tVixtewater Tmemin StuW-die Comrrrtlnity Design
These efements may sound familiat, they are the attn'butes ofoIder communities which have been reintroduced in the New Urbanism movement. They are far reaching in terns of their effects on sustainability of residential neighbonrhoods. IncIuding ecological aspects in the list strengthens the set in terms of overall sustahbte development
The following List comprises ways to promote sustainability, stewardship, quatity development and environmental responsibility (www.sustainable.doe.gov, 08/0 1/99).
The list outlines issues and changes that must be made to the Iand use planning process.
These changes are instrumental in advancing efforts towards achieving more sustainable development in commuaities and overall in cities.
1. Local governments must take the Iead role in securing good land use, Initiatives in
land use planning and growth management need to be anchored in a community-
based process that develops a vision for the fbture.
2. Provincial governments must help local governments by estabIishing reasonable
ground rdes and planning requirements, assisting smdI and rural areas, and
providing leadership on matters that affect more than one local jurisdiction.
3. The rules governing Land development need to be overhaded They need to be
more efficient and more flexibk, encouraging, not hindering, with new
approaches to land development and conservation.
4. Landowners must be treated f&iy and oppressive regutations fixed (e.g.
excessiveIy restrictive architectmi guidelines such as exterior construction
coIoor). 5. Many government policies and actions whether they be agricuItm& highway and
envhomnentd prognuns all impact land use. If they are not better coordinated
they will continue to rdtin Iand use policy by accident
6. In selective situations, public land acquisition is needed and a reIiabIe source of
fimds must be avaiIabIe to pay.
7. Older areas in cities and suburbs must become more of a focus for renewal and in-
MI. Government policies shoufd help fill in vacant land in already built-up aceas
and renew older properties, rather than promote expansion at the urban hge.
8. As rnoa Iand is privately held, private landowners must be galvanised to assure a
henlthy land base. Corporate and individud stewardship must be encouraged by
providing education, tax incentives and other benefits.
9. A constituency for better Iand use is needed based on new partnerships that reach
beyond traditional alliances to bring together conservationists, social justice
advocates and economic development interests. These partnerships can be
mobilised around natluaI and cultmaI resources that people value.
10. New tools are required to meet the new challenges of Iand use. Land use disputes
should be solved through negotiation or mediation, rather than through
confrontation and litigation.
EIements of Sustraidlir Communities
The fo1Iowing are key charactm*sticsand gods for sustainable communities:
1. Piace a high value on quality of tifie
2. Respect and reflect the natur;ll environment
3. Encourage social cohesion - optimizing key resources
4. MaiatainscaIeandcapacity Biobgicd iV;t~fmmrTrt3~merrt in Sdnabie Community kip
These characteristics are expIaind below, drawing upon examples (mostly in the
US) to illustrate the effects each eIement has on sustahabiIity and mtainabIe Eving, It is important to note that each community interested in developing sustainably must modify such goaIs to match their own needs, but this kt provides a starting point
1, Place a high value on quality of We: mentioned earlier, the design of many new
communities, particularly in Calgary, does not reflect human use, rather it focuses on
the automobiie, and transportation and circulation issues. New subdivisions work in
tenns of providing shelter and places to recreate but littIe else. The objective of
developing land into a space that offers people "more" than just basic human needs is
not evident in examples of new subdivision design today. Imagination and innovation
in design has not continued to evolve or else we would be witnessing these
communities offering a quality of Iife that stimulates vitality. Instead, there is often
no evidence of inhabitation most of the day in many new comm~ties.This is
unfortunate due to the remoteness of amenities to most of these areas, particuIarly to
the downtown.
There are many communities, mostly in the US where sustainabie features are
incorporated into design, to deveIop a higher @ty of subdivision Life. Civano,
Arizona tbr instance, incorporates more efficient lot layouts to encourage greater
social interaction. PulIing the homes closer to the hutlot Iine reduces under-utilised
Eont yard space (surveyed by the Sustainable Communities Network,
www.sustainab1e.or~08/0 1/99) fostering interaction between neighbors and We on
the sidewalks. The comm- aIso put emphasis on pedem-an He providing
markets and shops in close waking distance to al[ residents. StapIeton, Colourado, is a community where park and open space pI&g is done
in a way that does not Ieave arbitrary open and grassed spaces for recreation, There is
a much clearer intent on use for pubtic spaces. Many Caigary new subdivisions
provide large expanses of open space without proper consideration ofuse. This is
evident in communities like The Hamptons, PanomHills, and Hidden Valley to
name a few,
Village Homes, a small subdivision in Davis, California is also buiIt on many
principles of &ability. included in these are street widths of20 to 25 feet, to
slow WEc, and interestingly, reduce the amount of solar absorption, which keeps the
micro-climate cooler dong with hgthe roads with trees. This reduction in
roadway dso heIps to 'tighten' the overall size of the community; the average
walking distance to grocery shops is ten minutes.
These are the kinds of examples of 'quality of life' elements that work to make
communities more sustainable and pleasurabie to live in.
2. Respect and reflect the naturnI environment: Many new communities have no
discemable connection with the naturaI Iandscape. In CaIgary, this is evident from
most new suburban development, whether this is a result of Iimited design options
because of development nandards enforced upon them is betide the point A
sustainable community is one that exists in harmony with it.surroundings, which m
part means that it is not obtrusive to look at or Iive in. Granted, what is obtrusive to
some is not for others and this is a subjective statement that is up for debate.
However, Zsomeone who advocates this element ofsPstainabiIity were to examine
mnch ofthe new subdEvision growth in Calgary for instance, their first few qpestions might be, 'Why are the homes so Large? What arr these large dcured grassed spaces for? And why are aII the houses painted pink?"
The point is that connectedness to the rtannal landscape is important for mstainabte deveIopment, and ifthe homes themselves are nos then it is very diflicult for the residents to be. New communities should view systems and components of nature as essential to wen being. For instance, integrating natural features such as
WageswaIes into residentid design can result in better community plans and higher land vdues (this is site specific and may not dways be the case).
According to Geis and Kutpnark (www.sustainab te.doc.gov, 03/25/99), communities that develop respecting the natural landscape are those which "infuse technology with purpose. The sustainable community uses appropriate technology that ensures these technologies are a means to an end rather than simply an end? For instance, stormwater retention ponds in community design work as a means for reducing contaminants in nmoffbefore it leaves the site which is ultimateIy better for the environment outside of the community. This infirsion of technology emphasises the Ieaming and understanding of how technology can serve and improve communities. Chapter 4 wii discuss how solar aquatic treatment of wastewater in communities exemplifies this infusion.
Going back to examples of how natural features a~ incorporated and/or protected in some exemplary comm&es, we look at Civano again, The community design includes tree-tined mets, which not only creates a cooler microclimate, but provides the essential connection with nature. In StapIeton, through densificatioa, the cornmeph includes open spaces that have been reclaimed to their natural statep providing increased co~ection natoral processes (unlike non-native manicwed
grasses repracing natural features).
ViIlage Homes in Davis, California, has land set aside for agriculturaI purposes in
the community (discussed further in the next eIemeat) which is a featwe that has
resulted in 24% of the produce consumed by the community residents to be grown
within the commm*tytYThis option is, of course, not always available to communities
in climates iike Calgary, unless production is contained *thin a greenhouse
(discussed in chapter 5). AU of these examples are ways to coexist with nature, that
are easy to incorporate into plans and implement in construction.
3. Encourage social cohesion and opthizing key resources: This element emphasises
the community development side of sustainability. A sustainable community enriches
the lives of each resident in one way or another. Social cohesion is actually a spinoff
of quality of life enhancement. Many new commULLities, due to lack of focus on
human uses and pedestrian movement in their design do not faditate interaction
within the community- Sustainable communities incorporate features that promote
this social engagement such as park space (with appropriate uses and size),
community bulIetin boards and garden plots. AdditionaUy, the design of the
community lends itself to the level of interaction that wiU be created Intensification
and redum*onof lot size, road width and other uses, tightens the community and
physicdy creates more cohesion.
A sustainable community draws on the resources of the commm*tyto heIp and
support each othc In CaIgaryt an orguhation caned the BowChinook Barter
Company thrives snccessfuIIy through a barter system of services between hundreds
of residents in the inner city. A person advertises their senrices and can either trade SologicrtE \V;tstewatcr Tmnuent in Sustitinabie Community kiw
this service for another or buy it with an intdyoperated monetary system. Any
cornunity can get involved with such a system, For instance, people in Hidden
Vdey (study site in this MDP) can engage the community in this kind of barter
system to foster cornm~tycohesion. It requires the community setting up an
inventory of resources and services in the neighbowhood and then advertising them in
a local newsletter.
Other examples of community-IeveI sustahabIe development include a chiIdcare
cooperative to provide no-cost child care in Davis, California, and community
potlucks in Civmo, Arizona, simply by putting a red ff ag on your hntlawn.
Now, this kind of interaction is resideatdependent. It can happen whether the
community is sustainable or not, but the physical layout of the commety has a Iot to
do with motivating or generating cohesion.
4. Maintain odeand capacity: This is a major poin~one that is ncognised in all
aspects of sustainable development A sustainable community recoeises the
importance of carrying capacity in regards to natural and human environments. It
ensures that the land will not be overdeveIoped, over6miIt, overused or overpopulated
hdicatoa can be deveIoped by the comm~tyresidents based on the resource
inventory, to identie tension where the environment is overstressed and adjust the
demands on the commdty to avoid pollution, naturaI disaster and social
disintegration.
Designing bdtform that minimises dacerestructuring can have a positive
impact on the over& face ofthe codty. It is aIso reasonable (case proven m
many North American cities, and evident in most older subdivisions) to design
communities with much less road &ace area for instance. In mynew subdivisions in Calgary, the human scale of buildings and bfkstmctore is completely
mbbced, evident by walking down a sidewalk (ifthere is one),
Sustainable codtiestake advantage of greater design kdomand the resuit
is a plan that reflects standards that emphasise reduction m materids, have less
impervious surface and have an increase in preserved vegetation.
This list suggests ways that sustainabie comm6ties differ from conventional communities. Some of the elements are outright physical p Ianning issues, while others like community cohesion, are created and partidly dependent on the physicai planning of the community. Unfortunately, implementing these approaches face many barriers
(discussion to follow).
Implementatibn
Implementing sustainable community plans, like any planning approach, requires steps and guidelines. Geis and Kutrmark (www.sustainable.doc.gov, 03/25/99) have proposed a number of steps towards achieving this vision. The following is an abbrwiated list of their suggestions:
1. Establish community goals that are gendas well as specific.
2. Assess specific areas of the community to target them for sustainable
development
3. Idendfy indicators of success and ensure that they are ctearly [inked to the
community's goaIs.
4. Bddconsensus and colIect input on the above goah hmtbrottghout the
commw(dg residents already Live in the community). Sampling is not
an accurate enough measure. 5. DeveIop a strategic plan for achieving the goah. In doing so, detail specific
objectives, time fhnes and resources.
6. Develop a set of design guidelines to use in the planning and deveIopment
process. These should include up-to-date knowfedge, literattux, personnel and
0th- resources needed.
7. Identify and acknowledge potential barriers to success,
8. Maintain open lines of communication with the pubtic and keep the process
accessible and flexibIe.
9. Document and publicise results and successes and recognise peopIe who have
assisted in achieving those results.
10. While the tools and the processes will need to be adapted, the community now has
a mutually agreed upon set of gods and a map for getting there.
These steps will allow any comm~ty,new or 014 to work towards a more dnabIe way of living. Of course, this kind of change wiI1 not occur overnight and it most definiteiy dies on the strength of many from within the community.
Bamh to Sustm'irde Deve~opnientand Comntuni2y Dmgn
There are a number of barriers to sustakabie community design that impede progress towards more efficient, environm-y responsive, and social[y binding communities. The more impeding barriers are highiighted below:
1. Politid will - Local pofiticians work for the people, and pass down judgement and
decisions to the various depzutments of the rnuoicipd organization, Sustainability and
environmentd conservation at present do not aIways make it to the top of the priority
Iist over economic wd-being and tourism *-adves, for instance. BiologIcd W-astewaer T~mentin Sutainitbk Community Design
2. Power of developer or landowner - Often, much of the land in cities (e-g, Cdgary)
is privately owned and the owner or developer of the land has a great deal of control
over what the development will Iook like. The result does not always match what a
potential resident envisions. lh the Cdgary context, the dtsvery rare$ incorporate
any sustainable features that could have easily been incIuded without any additional
costs-
3. City and Province legislation - Cunent Iegislation in most urban centres is ill-
equipped to enforce sustainabIr elements into community design, even ifthe
developer owns the land. There are, however, urban centres in North America whose
Legislation has been revamped focussing on sustainability and environmental
preservation as the backbone to all decisions. Burhgton, Vermont, and Saata
Monica, California, are two cities that have reformed Iegislation in this pursuit of
increased sustainability and responsibility to the naturaI landscape.
4. Flirncial constraints - Sustainability need not coa more and, in fact does not in
most cases. Normally, where extra expenditures are incurred (e-g., developing homes
to meet R-2000 standards), offsetting revenues in sdes may make up for any initial
losses,
5. Market demand - This is closely related to the power of the developer who will
ahnost always (and study so) pIan a community based on precedent market demand.
The tmfortunate side ofthis is that so iong as the status quo persists, attemative forms
of development wiII be slow to materiafise, Without new ideas coming for& the
pubIic remains rmasuare of 'what could beT,which for argument's sake, codd be a
more SnStainabIe codty with features previously discussed. 6. SpaW constraiuts -refers to IocationaE and spatid co~tsthat Iimit the choices
available to communities (Grant, t994:75). DeveIopers often fee[ that spatid
organization ofa site prevents them ftom developing sustainably. They often fee( that
getting the required (or desired) number of units on the site is enough of a chaiIenge.
7. Experiemce lad knowIedge - the idea of swtainability and concept of susrainabIe
communities is by no means new, but the principles have grown slowIy in Noah
America and so experience and cases are few. This has been detrimental to progress
and for governments to pick up the concept and develop legisiation to enact
sustainable practice and develop sustainable land uses.
8. Governmenhi organizational constraints - the various departments within a
bureaucratic municipal structure all have legislation that govern their jurisdiction.
The problem rests in conflicting policy between these and where sustainability would
fit into the web without causing increased probiems. The process of developing new
Iegislation to incorporate sustainable development is tremendous1y complex.
Although the above barriers pose tremendous strain on the farthering of
sustainable community design, the most troubIesome additional barrier to this approach
perhaps are cultma1 vaIues and attitades held by people (Grant, 1994: 77). To achieve
progress, a change in public will is needed and with this, the other barriers can be
overcome with the, perserverance and restructuring.
33 EcoIogicd Enpineering
EcoIogicd En&ee~gis an emerging fieLd that will influence the fimrre of
wastewater treatment and rwoIutiouize the way we think of waste. This emergence must
not be co&ed with ecological planning which is the environmental context in wk
advances in eco-engineerkg are pIaced Additionally, the fieId has relevance to environrnentd restoration and reclamation, food production, foel generation, architecture and the design of- settlements. The field is ody a few decades old but already there is evidence of how its various applications wilt one day be an integral part of our lives on earth.
The science of creating models of natural systems in laboratory settings has advanced our knowledge of rcwngineering (Todd, 1996: 110). Adey and Loveland
(199 1) are leaders in this new field, having much success in creating systems that mimic such processes as mangroves and tidal pools. With the yean to come, the technology and information will help researchers to create more complex and dynamic systems.
Kaffian ( 1993) and Kinsinger et al. ( 1993) argue that, ''complex ecological systems with diverse enzynamic pathways and complex surfaces for the exchange of gases and nutrients, such as those found in the micro-anatomy of plants, will enable the ecological engineer to design technologies with the potential of several orders of magnitude greater efficiency than contemporary mechanical and chemical technologies"
(Todd, 1996: L 11). The reaIity of this is very encouraging. It may be possible to reduce poltution and the negative impacts this creates, In fact, ecu-engineers are deveIoping and designing 'zero' emission industrid zones in a number of cities (Pauti, 1995 in Todd,
1996: I 12). This will revoIutionize industry and change the fabric of sustainabiIity wortdwide. Of come, not all cities can sustain themselves on industries that do not emit noxious byproducts (defined as a zer~~ssionindustry}, but wfiere possible, smaller zones ofincfustries Iike manufa-g companies are being toted as non-emitting zones.
The most important bdtof advancements m eco1ogical engineering is that these practices are more sustainabIe than conventional technologiesesLiving macEhes and solar atpatics fkE into this same category of sustainable ecoiogidy enpineered Biolqic3f \Vitstewiuer frr;tnnemt in Susi&fe Community Design products. The vision behind these prodacts is not to reinvent the wheel, but simply to make it better, This is, of course, the guiding IIght behind sustainable deveIopmmt, that is making better what we already have. Solar aquatic systems treat waste with no emissions, and with a very low ecoIogicaI footprint, but accomplishing the same dts.
Ecological enginee~gis closely linked with sustainable development and solar aquatics is an ecologicai development placed within a sustainable community design resuiting in aa overall achievement in sustainable development. With time, Metecological advancements will add to the sustahabiIity of our communities leading to an eventual possible 'zero' external impact standard (i.e., no wastewater leaving the community).
3.4 Future Considerations
"Wlrat we have here is incredible, whot we belost here is incredible. "
- Nova Scotia Sustainable Development Strategy.
There is still great debate over the state of our communities and of the effects suburban development is having on our cities. The statement above certainly illustrates the conflict of what we have and what he have lost which in turn should dictate how communities are planned From an ecological perspective, we have a great deal to nom-sh, protect and enhance. However, the biodiversity that has been lost to suburban development in generai is alarming. There is much debate over the state of our environmenk which is inherent m the above qaote, and obviously there is still a great deal of confusion over what we have and what we have Iost.
Ih Calgary, efforts to thwart eco[ogicai destruction and enhance communities though policies like 'SustainabIe Suburbs' have fden short in many respects, evident of the kind of low-density deveIopment that contimes to characterisethe Iandscape.
Govmeshould pay cIoser attention to the policies they create on this issue, because Biologics1 W-;1srewmr Tmnntnt in Sustainable Ctimmunity Design the message is not getting through to many people. It is cIearly evident that sustainable deveiopment and sostainable community design are not completely viable in om current economic climate; if it were, government influence, in the form of policy initiatives, etc, would not be wired to get it started (Nova Scotia Round Tabfe on Environment and
Economy, 1992). In the right economic and political climate, the concepts of sustaioable deveIopment would make more sense and would be implemented Unfortunateiy, this is not a perfect climate and many economic pressures make it difficult to address these concerns.
The Nova Scotia Round Table on Environment and Economy (1992: 7) states in the Nova Scotia Sustainable Development Strategy that: "Sustainable development will require society to make a fundamental attitudind change as we become aware of the emerging need to address the conflict inherent in an economic system that has promoted an ever-changing consumption of resources within a world of finite resources. This adaptation argues for a shift Eom an emphasis on growth (an expansion in the scale of physical dimensions of the economic system) to an emphasis on development (adaptation and impruvements in knowledge, organization, and technoIogicd efficiency)."
This passage reiterates much of the content of this chapter. Albert Einstein once remarked, "we shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive-'' While this was not Iikely directed towards the fate of communities, the premise does ring true. Mankind wilI not die because of urban sprawl and lack of progress towards &ability, but the decentraLsation of residentid areas tiom the downtom will continues to degrade the inner fiibrlc of the city
Cometies ofthe fimne will be very diftierent hrnthose we live in today. We
&odd be aiming now, to create a miitcentral. core widi a tigbtty imawoven outer BioIogiwE \V;fstewzxerTreatment in Sustirinabfe Community Design commUaay. Geis and Kutpnark (www.~abIe.doc.gov,03/25/99) iterate this point, adding that as we move into the next century, we wiIl witness an entirely new set of socioeconomic, technological and global forces that will be completely different than those which have shaped our cities and towns to this point.
The benefits of developing sustainabty will begin to make more sense as governments begin to change their perceptions of 'community' and translate those new perceptions into practical methods of planning, devetoping and rehabibtating those communities.
Chapter 4 presents one aspect of residential subdivision design that wilI help to enhance the sustainability Level of a community. It explores the use of bioIogicai wastewater treatment as a means of reducing the external impacts a community has on the surrounding environment. A simulation in Calgary, Alberta, is used to illustrate this within a suburban residential context, 4.0 Ecological Design: SimuIation for a Calgary Residential Context
4 Study Site
Hidden VaUey is a subur€~mcomrndty of Calgary Iocated in the northwest quadrant of the city (figure 4.1), situated two IsiIometres firom the northern most point of
Nose HilI Park The street pattern is curvebear making good use of the landscape's rolling relief(see figure 4.2a). Half ofthe community sits atop an escarpment which breaks sharply to reveal a lower Lying area dong Beddington Trail (figure 42b) and hence, "Kidden Valley". Adjacent to the community dong Beddington Trail is Counhy
HBIs Golf Course that is Iater considered for potential reuse of effluent from an onsite biological wastewater treatment plant located in =dden Valley.
From the perspective of sustainabIe communities, Hidden Valley falls short in a number of respects typical of suburbs in Calgary. The remoteness of the community fiom the downtown core leads to me most unmstainabIe feature, the reliance on private vehicles for transportation. Hidden Valley is predominantIy a singledetached home community with the following dweIling type breakdown:
Table 4.1 Dwelling type breakdown in Bidden VaiIey
Dwelling type Number of units Single detached home I969 Du~lex I 39 4
, Converted (for additional suites) 0 Apartment 0 Row 12 Mobile 0 Other 0 Tot& 2020 Population 5078 (source: City of Calgary9 I997 Census) Biolugictll hasteu trtt'r rrument in Suminabte Community Design
Figure d f Calgary, Alberta - Hidden VdIey and Bonnybmk Wastewater Tieatment PIant (Hisfirighted) Biological Wastewater Treatment in Sustainable Comrnuni~Design
Figure 4.2a Hidden Valley, Northwest Calgary
Sucaa: City of'Cdgq, Plyming rrnd Buildiq Dcpt.. 1994) Biologicd Wstrwruer Treatment in Sustainablr: Communi~Design -- -- -
Figure 42b Hidden Valley, Nocthsvest, Calm- Catchment Area for Solar Aquatic System These figms have grown slightty to a population of5200. The streets in Hidden
Valtey are very wide (typicai of aEt new suburban gmwth in Calgary), ~ar~culariy collector roads like Hidden Valley Drive, enconraging f& moving traffic moving beyond posted speed kts. Aside hmspeed probrems, these wide streets create Iarge volumes ofmoff handed by storm sewers. Two advanced features do, however, provide added stormwater management in two diffitareas. On the upper IeveI ofthe community, a runoff detention wet pond (Hidden Valley Lake) collects most of the stomwater runoff while storm drains collect the rest=. [n the valley itsell; storm drains coiIect runoff and in the event of large storm events, a dry stomwater pond is located in the lowest elevation ofthe site along Beddington TraiI in a pubtic open space area (see figure 43). A culvert beneath the open space directs flow to a main storm sewer along Beddington Tiail.
4.1.1 Site Seleedioa for Solar Aquatic Facility
The methodology for site selection of the solar aquatic plant was discussed in
Section L 2. A site was chosen to hypothetically comcta solar aquatic wastewater treatment plant. This piece of land (shown in figure 4.4) is situated dong Beddington trail with dimdons of I20 m x 300 m. This site is currently zoned PE (public open space) and has an outdoor hockey rink with parking on the upper portion and a baseball field on the Lower side (figure 4.5). This basebaII field is an active use placed in the dry pond detention area. The site dopes up fhm Hidden Valley Drive and hrnadjacent residential developments on either side meding a plateau where the hockey rink exists.
Appmximately I10 metres in fmm Hidden Valley Drive, the site drops off verdcaiIy eight metres into the detention area (see figure 4.5). Biolorricai Wastewater Tceatmat in Sustaindie Comrnunitv Desim
Figure 43 Hidden Vdey - Stu* Site sours: cry of cargq- Scale: WS PrsrmlPg aud Buirckg Dcpt, 1999 Biological Wastewater Treatment in Sustainable Community Design BioIogical iv-astrwatrrTreatment in Sustainable Cornmuni~Design
Figure 45 Hidden Wey - Study Site hdUsesand Site of SolarAqmtiCcSystem Scare: WS SO= city ofcdgq. prcarnine aad BU~T- ~cpt,199 I3iologic;ll ws~ew=r Tmnnent kr Sus&in&[e Community &sign
Many considerations for e.f&uentreuse are expIored in chapters, however, siting the solar aquatic on this parceI of Iaad was done so to take advantage of a practical reuse option. Dkctly across fiom the site is Country WsGolf Course, which presents an optimal reuse site for irrigation. The opportunity for reusing tertiary level treated wastewater for golf course irrigation has great potential especially during the dry summers in Calgary. During winter, the eflluent may be pumped to the course for groundwater recharge or additionally, to West Nose Creek which flows through the course eventually connecting with the Bow River just east of St. Georges Island
4.2 Current Wastewater Treatment Regime
Currently, the Bomybmok wastewater treatment plant services Hidden Valley.
As presented in chapter 2, this approach to treatment is primarily mechanical and chemical driven. The community of Hidden Valley is connected to the main sewer line running to the wastewater treatment plant in the southeast and the distance traveled is roughly 18 kilometres. Over this stretch of pipe, additional sewage is mixed with the
Hidden Vdey load from a variety of sources. in some instances, this mixing increases the toxicity Ievel of the load entering Bonnybmok. The plant, however, is sensitive to increased shock and the operator can make adjustments to handle the changed Ioad but the process can potentially avoid this if wastewater were treated at the source, when possible.
There are a number of capital costs to cousider in this current approach to wastewater treatment The cost to construct the wastewater treatment pIant (ie,
Bomybrook) is mdt to cddate because the p[ant has mdergone severaf hnprovements over the last 70 years. However, ifthe same pIant were to be built today on the same land to the cnnent specifications, it wodd cost roughly $520 million (City of Biolotzicrrl Watewarer Tmment in S~*n&leCommunity Design
Calgary, p. communication). When the costs associated with a biotogical wastewater treatment plant placed oosite are considered, the same inhstmcture costs will prevai1 for connecting houses to a central line, but with iro required connection to a main tmk
Iostead, the arterial Iines will connect to the solar aquatic piant There will be no signifcant additional costs for this because the arten'd line currently travels dong Hidden
Valley Drive (see figure 4.6). A considerable cost savings will be achieved without the need for extending the main sewer Line north to Hidden Valley. The cost to extend the main trunk sewer to Hidden Valley from the community to the south, Sandstone Valley, is approximately $87,600 (which is the cost to bury a t 5 to I8 inch sewer pipe to a depth of 2.5 metres, for 1.75 km, at $50/m). The opemting cost for the Bomybrook plant, when all considerations are factored in, is $88.93/ 1,000 m3of sewage treated. This figure will later be compared *th the costs of using an oasite biological treatment system.
The environmental performance of conventional wastewater treatment plants fail in a number of respects of sostainabIe practice. Granted, the system works very well treating large volumes of wastewater (its primary pmpose). However, as industry strives for more sustainabie uses, we must look at the environmentd costs of our current practices. Chapter 3 examined the differences between sustainable development and sustainable growth. With respect to technology, sustainable development is taken to mean the advancement or betterment of current methods in a manner that is befitting of the environment in which it is placed. Water saving devices, such as low flow toilets, can be viewed as SustahabIe 'deveIopments' that work towards the greater goal of
'sustainabIe deveIopment7. Conventional wastewater treatment has had its share of advancements towards swtahabitity incIuding methane generation suppIying halfof&e energy reqaired to run the Bomybrook plant for instance, and Ming biologicd processes Bioiogic;d Wastwarer Trt~tmentin Sustainable Community Design
Figure 4.6 Art- Swer Line on Hldden Valley Drive - Main Collector for SAS %a.fe: SoueCity of Calgary. Hamring md Building Dcpt 1999 Bialogiwf t5r'astewmer Tremnent hr Sustainable Community Design to reduce chemical additions. Aside hmthese improvements, BoM~~~oo~and other pIants require substantid electrical power to nm, and the addition of chemicals such as alumhum sulfate and chlorine during the process. AdditionaUy*conventional treatment does not separate inorganic and organic waste to its 11Iest potential due to such large
Ioads entering the plant.
There are aspects of the conventional wastewater treatment process which raise particular health concerns. Sewage treatment plants discharge a range ofpotentially toxic and hamMsubstances, the most common of which are chlorinated. chlorine is a powerful disinfecting agent used to reduce the number of viab le bacteria, viruses and protozoans. However, there are several chemical reactions invoIving chlorination of wastewater. Jolly (1975) conducted a series ofexperiments where secondary effluent fiom a sewage treatment plant was dosed with 32mg/L of chlorine at 25 degrees Celcius producing at [east 16 compounds of 5 rngK including:
Table 4.2 Chlorinated Toxic Substances Produced iu Wastewater Treatment Using Chlorine
EPA Toxic Chlorinated Substance Inveoto
5-chIorouridine No. - C 6-ch[orop;uanine No 2-chlorobenzoic acid Yes 5-chlorouracil No 8: 8: h lococaffeine No 8-ch lotoxanthine Yes ' khlorornandeLic acid Yes SchIorophenyIaceticacid Yes 5-cfio~osaiicyIic acid No L (source: Currie et ai, 1993)
Some of &ese are known or potentid carcinogens. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency classifies the noted compormds as harmfirl toxinsy BiologicrtF Waste~arerTmrment in Sustainable Ctmmtinity Design however, at 5 mgR, concentrations, acute problems are not obsaved BioaccumuIation information of these toxins over time is not availabIe at the present time-
Air emissions £kom conventional wastewater treatment plants have impact on health, particularly for neighboring communities. Mayer et aL (1994) documented a study of emissioos of air toxins from wastewater treatment plants in California One of the pIants mewed for hand3emissions was Hyperion, which handles the bulk of Los
AngeIes wastewater (380 million gallons per day or L,439,393 mJ). This plant while larger in capacity, is equal to tbe Bomybrook treatment plant with respect to advanced processes used.
Air quality fkom the Hyperion plant is presented in Air Toxic Emission [oventory
Reports (ATEIRs). The dtsare presented to show the 'relative potential harm' each substance em-tted has on a person's health. The overall mass of the substance is presented and then given a weight according to the species' carcinogenic 'unit risk
~d~tor".This weighting alIows for a more intuitive interpretation of the potential for a substance to create offsite impacts. Using risk factors instead of mass of emissions indicates where problems realIy exist For instance, a particular substance may score high in emission mass but not pose a potentid or red threat to health. On the other hand, a substance with Iow emission mass may have a high risk to health. Therefore, using a risk factor is a much better indicator, Table 4.3 shows some of the substances measured at the
Hyperion plant and their relative risk factors. Generally, a factor score of ten is siwcant and worthy of further health risk assessments-
- The risk fictor is a relative potential to Miate a caucer (Mayet, et & 1994: 41 )+ The risk score is calculd by mdtipfylng anndemissions per year by the unit rkk fmor of the species by st normathtioa fictor (3740). Table 43Summary of Emissions Firom Hyperion -ear and risk scorn)
Substance 1 Mass Rbk Score Methylc hlo ride 4337 t6.2 Chloroform 1 2678 230.4 Benzene E63 32.3 Tetra-chloroethene ! 6163 13.4 . [ Carbon Tetrachloride f t2 1 6.7 I 1 Toluene 1 3429 1 0 I -- -- - E, I, 1-~n'chloroethane 1 9558 ! 0 I Formaldehyde 39 1 19.0 J Totat Dioxins 20x1 o5 28 1 Total PAWPCBs 0.7 45 I (Further Health Risk Assessment) I - I (ItO) I .(source: Mayer, st, al, 1994)
At the time of this MDP, Alberta Environmental Protection does not require wastewater treatment plants to conduct or submit an air toxic release report (AEP,
06f L5199, p. communication). As a result, comparison of air toxic release with California is not possible nor is inference of potential health concerns or risks in the immediate vicinity of the Bo~ybrooktreatment plant.
43 AItemative Wastewater Treatment: Biological Processes (SoIar Aquatics)
Using a biological method to treat wastewater in Hidden Valley may provide a cost effective and more sustainable approach over conventional wastewater treatment.
Section 4.4 presents a case ilIustra~gthe receptivity of solar aquatics in a Calgary community. Generally, people are willing to make smdI sacrifices, such as have land set aside for wetland or wet pond construction and open their minds to innovations which will help the environmenf such as composting. Constructing a solar aquatic plant to treat a portion of the residents in Hidden Vaff ey could provide a model for future suburban communities in large urban centres, particularly where current wastewater treatment facilities are reaching capacity* Many communities have aIready recognised this, such as the cornmew ofBeavdank in Nova Scotia where a pIant currently treats 80,000
@Ions per day (303 m3 of sewage from an extended care Elcitity and Low income Biotogicit Wastewater Treatment in Sustahtble Community Design
housing units. A community in South Burhgtou, Vermont, is another example, where
1,600 residents are treated to tertiary standards. Appendix B contains a descriptive list of
other solar aquatic projects in use today.
Assumptions and limitations were made in section 13 that have particular
importance at this point The soIar aquatic and Iiving machine technologies are the
property of private companies and the license to use the faciiity is commercially owned
All of the infomation presented in this MDP has been obtained from public sources
including some of the data which will be extrapolated from (with explanation and justification) to illustrate its performance in Hidden Valley. With little information
available from the Licensees (Ocean Arks International for Living Machines in the US,
and Environmental Design and Management for Solar Aquatics in Canada) some
Iimitations exist to the simulation.
The solar aquatic system proposed for Hidden VdIey will be placed on the site in
a similar position as the current hockey rink (e-g., slightiy to the north to allow for the
rink to be positioned dong side, see figure 45). The headworks will be buried outside
the greenhouse and setback 5.5 rn from the road right-of-way (Hidden Valley Drive). The
main system will be housed within a greenhouse of glass construction that wilI occupy a
footprint of approximately 5,300 ft2 (38 ft x 140 ft) with an overall height of 24.5 €t3. The
system wiII mat appmximatefy 1,690 residents accounting for 565 homes3 generating an
average flow of 85,000 g&ns per dag (320679 Iitres per day, 321 m3) to tertiary
The height of r greenhouse is determined by adding the eave height ofthe strucnm to one quarter ofthe width of the greenhouse (www.~ouceptconr,06/15/99) 4 According to &e 1997 censps, heavemge househoId size in Cdgary in now 2-7 peop1, which for all latensiveprnposeswilIkrormdedtothree- ' his infomation was ~~poIatedhorn various solar aqaatic fkdities in use today- It most cIcarly tesernbfes the Wty in South Burhgton, Vermont In order to treat a larger popdatio~the cafdatioa needed is held by the Ii- Simply increasing the treatment components (e.g number of solar tanks) Biologicil W3t~tewrzrTrearmentin Sustainable Community Design standads. The process wilI follow methodologically from the system described in section 25. The population served by the facility is roughly 40% of the total population in Hidden Valley.
The capital costs associated with the solar aquatic facility are substantidy less than conventional wastewater treatment f&ties. The cost to design and construct the treatment plant in Hidden Valley will be approximately $1 million6. The land costs associated with this project are discussed in section 5.1; however, it is assumed that the deveIoper and the City would strike a deal, with this being a pilot project in Calgary. The operating costs of the plant will be very modest with much of the costs being offset through the sale of byproducts and tax levies (discussed in sections 5.1f5.3). The issue of park displacement would also be discussed between the developer and the City with a public participation process. Figure 4.12 shows that minimal parkland uses are displaced
(e-g., the hockey rink still exists). To provide an example of associated operating costs, the Nova Scotia pIant in Bear River showed that annuaI direct operating and maintenance costs in 1997/98 were $37900. This breaks down as follows:
wift accommodate a greater flow however, it is the quantity of living components that is unknown. Therefore, let it be known that a larger Facility is fea~~ilebut for illustrative putposes of this MDP a smaljer safe fd-tyis adequate to prove the thesis and premise ofthe tbeory of bi01ogicaI onsite wastewater treatment.
~hisFigure is derived from commtndcatioa with the South Burlington SAS in Vermont which has a Mar treatment Mty constrPcted to handle similar voIume, btrilt in seasonal c[imate, and wit6 roughLy the same setup. Tabie 4.4- Operathg Cost Breakdown for Besr River SAS, 1997I98
coat Item I cost Advisory services (process designer) $ 8,500 Electricity and heat I % 9,000 O/M $ 7,900 I Operator saIary/benefits (su bsidised) I $1 3,Mo 1 TOTAL $3 7,900 Tourist costs $ 5,000 Grand Total ~42,900 (source: Municipality of Annapolis County- Public Works. L998)
Additional costs were incurred in this year (55,000 spent responding to tourism demands - 9,000 visitors that summer). However, the plant owner reco@es that the
facility is a living entity and there is room for improvement in the system. He believes that with time the cost wiIL be $25,00O/annum to treat just over 200 people
The Hidden Valley plant will be larger in construction and it is anticipated that higher operating costs will be incurred, however, with greater revenue generated from byproducts sold This low operating cost is due to the system being mostly mechanical
he. The main operating processes are run biologicafly with ody the addition of diffused air. A small heat source, used to regulate interior temperature c£tningcolder months, will be partly powered by methane harvested from the equakation and digester tanks7 with the rest from eiectrical power (which is able to ovemde should methane production be
low). The costs associated with heating are discussed in section 5. L . The heating of the greenhouse wilI be achieved through a combination of methods that wiII be reevbted as the operation proceeds. hitr'alIy9the design wiU over-compensate to develop contingency plans for emergency winter conditions. Heating requirements are based on
9 Climate m the greenhouse can also be regufated by using tmsiucent water mIed, fibreglass siios which absoh and store soiar energy to warm In winter and prevent ov~heathgIn the summer. Using solar-st'Ios can sustain semi-tropical greenhouse environments even in colcC, damp climates Eke Nova Scotia and PEL Resolar silos can provide climate @ation forthe and serve as a growing habitat far tens of thousauds of fish, au optr'odeconomic component of the system, Biological Wastewater Trwmmt in Sustaimbk Community Design
the size of the greenhouse, the coating and the maximum expected temperature difference
between inside and outside conditions,
To achieve optimum interior conditions in climates Like Calgary, a corrugated
plastic coating will be used for exterior construction. This covering is very durabIe,
Lightweight, double walled, not affected by temperature extremes and is ideal for large commercial greenhouses. The translucent panels transmit 70 to 75% soft diffused light
(stimulates lush green plant growth) while providing a secure sheath against elements of
I snow, rain and hail (see Appendix D
for Calgary annual precipitation data).
Because the plastic is double-walled,
it traps air within the corrugation
providing an R insulation value of 2.5
to 3.0 (which is equal to a double
Figure 4.7 Trim Moldings for Greenhouse glazed with low emissivity coating Construction (source: Rimjohn, 1999) window). Ftrrthermore, a doubIe ultraviolet treatment of the panels filter out harmful rays, extending pane1 Life, and the poIyethyIene construction is mildew, water and chemical resistant so they will not discolour. A potential hazard in using this material is expansion and contraction of the panels. To avoid "popping out" of panels, 'TI" and "U" trims of 8 to 12 inches will be used, securely holding the paneIs in place (see figure 4.7 for illustration of trims).
The greenhouse heating requirements for the coIdest predictable conditions are based on Environment Canada normal climate conditions for Calgary (see Appendix D).
Heating requirements is based on a caIcuIation of anticipated need measured in British Bioiogicd W-atewaxer Twannent in SustahahTe Cornmunip Design
Thermal Units @TU) per hour. The measure is based largely on the difference between coldest outdoor temperature and desired indoor minimum temperature.
The normal cninhum temperature for Calgary is -15.7 degrees Celsius (1997 was
-192 degrees Celsius). Given strong wind conditions, an estimate of -35 degrees Cefsius will be used for contingency purposes. The desirable interior temperature for treatment is
-15 degrees Celsius (average flow temperature is 12.54 degrees Celsius). Based on this and the size of the greenhouse, the required BTUfiour is 833,760. Using the same calculation for the normal minimum, the required heat is 5 11,928 BTUhour. The heat source(s) will be suppIied by thermostatica1ly controlled vented gadelectric heaters providing warm air circulated over the greenhouse that emulates the sun's rays. A methane supply from the equaIization tanks and the digesters will be the primary fuel source with addition of electricity as needed. A second source of heat will be provided from silos (described in section 2-51 with a hot water circulator or steam system. Solar energy with addition of heat from a methane generator is ideal for this low energy system to circulate heat and regdate humidity. The operating costs for heating are built into the
587,L 54 yearly operating coa as advised from South Burlington, Vermont, and take into account the Iowest average temperatures attained in CaIm(see Appendix D for climate data)-
There are other Lcton to consider in controlling the indoor environment in order to maintain proper conditions for ecosystem health. The major factors include carbon dioxide Ievels, fighting and ventiIation. Carbon dioxide Cac@is rritid for pIant growth and can be suppiied when deficiencies persist Using a COu,, meter, the plant operator can maintain the right balance, sappIying the gas when rtquired. Various forms of the gas &st, hmbottled forms, Iiqnefied dma burning process and kept ut~derpressure~ dry ice, which can be placed in the greenhouse in block fonn and stored when not rrcluirrd, and the fish and other aqytic organisms produce dondioxide natmalIy.
Additional lighting for the greenhouse for purposes other than illumination may be a necessary contingency option for plant growth. The climate data for Calgary as compared to Nova Scotia (see Appendix D) suggest that enough daylight hours exist in
Calgary to stimdate plant growth (paaicuIarty algae). Furthermore, a soIar aquatic plant was set up in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta in 1997 at an Agrium agricultural industry for site remediation. The year and a half operation was successifid and this precedence dso illustrates the adequate supply of tight €or plant growth. However, prairie weather conditions can change quickly requiring a back-up pIan The solar aquatic plant can be equipped (with additional costs) with blighting that StimuIates higher growth when dght deficiencies persist. The most comrnmiy used source of supplemental light is the fluorescent bulb (www.enviroconceptcom, 06/15/99). The source is very efficient and but gives off lower heat than other sources (75% heat), which may not be a desirabIe attribute considering most supplemental Light use will be in cold months with lower day light hours. Incandescent bulbs vary in wanage up to 500 watts. They are not as efficient as fluorescent but do give off substantially more heat, Lastly, a high intensity discharge
(HID) Iamp may be used The long life (5000 hours+) of the bulb make it extremely attractive in terms of replacing costs. Whatever source(§) are chosen, there will be an increase in eIectricity costs that is not cddated in this MDP.
Even m cold months of operation, the greenhouse may require ventilation
(particularly appropriate during chinook days). Venting is the easiest and most efficient way of achieving this, An antomated vent system can deviate the Iabour associated with rndventilation and a thermodcalLy controkd meter can be connected to soiar powered vent openers (www.emrirocoaceptcom, 06/15/99). The pistons of~eopener expand and contract adjusting vent openings as temperature changes (set by the operator).
Ifthe interior environment were to be penetrated by external forces, the contingency pian consists of re-estabtkhing sheathing of the greenhouse. A diversion pipe to the sanitary sewer is possible, however, as section 5.1 discusses, the idea of onsite sewage treatment is partly to reduce the need for extending the idiastmcture to these suburban communities. If the costs to lay major pipes were added, some of the financial attractiveness would disappear.
With this in minh the contingency plan for Loss of external structure is an emergency plastic sheath that can be quickly fitted over arching metal supports within the greenhouse. This will maintain the inner temperature of the greenhouse dong with an increase in heating. (photograph sources: NS Department of Environment)
Figure 4.Sa Bear River SAS Greenhouse >
[ Figure 4.8~Constructed Reed/Marsh Beds I
1 Figure 4.8e Sorm Tanks - Wm I Figure ASf Testing Station Biological iV;tsteuakr Tcpmznt in SusZain&le Cornmunit). Design
Appendix B mc1udes a Iist of solar aquatic plants in use today worldwide- It
should be noted here, that the plant used at MasterFoods in Wyong Ama, is an open
air design treating high strength food processing wastewater- The area does experience
frost days and the process continues to function normalfy due to the inner aquatic
temperature-
The reason for using four trains of solar tanks is also a safety precaution as well as
a flow regulating and retention process. If one train fds7there are three others that can
keep the system functioning while repairs are made or balance is restored Diversion to a
sanitary sewer in the case of this type of failure is not necessary.
The environmental quality of this system is commendable. Chapter 2 explained
how the process is entirely biologicd contrasting with conventional mechanical wastewater treatment methods requiring chemical input during the process. The soh aquatic system for Hidden Valley must run with a minimum number of externalities because of its placement within the commulllUlllty.
Fortunately, many pilot projects have proven the system to be very wet with Little noise emanating hmthe greenhouse. In addition, are seIected not only for their nutrient uptake characteristics but also for their odmreducing qualities. The minima1 quantity of inorganic waste (byproduct) that is recovered each day is taken to a landfill.
The residuaI organic recovery will be much more efficient than conventional treatment-
The so tar apticprocesses noted by Lynn Stuart of Living Technologies Inc, produces much less siudge than traditionaf treatment processes because ofthe greater diversity of organisms to process the waste flow- The Hidden VaIIey pIant can expect to generate
1948 kg per month. The economic spinoff hmthis is discussed in sdon 5.3.
Additiond exted generations ate merely water and geothdheat BioIsgic;rE \.~3s~~~r~rwnnentin Suj&iinabie Cr~minun* Design
The plant will require one or two operators so increase in daily traffiic will not be a factor. However, ssoIar aquatic phtsin other regions have sparked numerous inqyi.ries and curiosity fbrn the public. The EEIden Valley pIant can then expect an Mux of tourists to the area particularly in the summer months.
Ifsolar aquatics were to be used for other areas of the city, the system would
Likely be most beneficial in the new subtirba areas. According to the City of Calgary
GoPlan and Civic Census, there are currentfy approximately 19 1,000 people living in areas on the periphery of the city known as "new suburbs". This number is projected to grow to 535,000 by 20[8. If systems the size of the Hidden Valley plant were comcted for the cmtnew suburban population, L I3 systems would be required
The total costs would run an estimated $120 million for construction alone- This is not
very economical, therefore, larger systems could be constructed, reducing the capital
costs, footprint, and operating costs because as the size of the system increases, the cost
of treatment decreases. It is not 1ikeIy a city the size of CaIgary would engage m such a
venture, however, with the projected population, the Bonnybrook treatment plant wiII
have reached capacity (500,000m3/day) before this time, requiring new plans for
treatment-
4.4 Receptivity to Sustainable Community Design
In 1995, a study was conducted through the University of Calgary lead by WiIIiam
T+Perks ofthe Faculty of Environmental Design. The project was built around the idea
of meying an existing suburban community in Cdgary to determine their perceptions of
environmental qpdky and their desires to have some of its aspects designed into their
commmrity. The comrmmity of Edgemont, in noahwest CaIgary7was selected as the
study site and residents were sweyed in a random sampling method Additionally7a controL pupof Calgary residents cityWr.de were asked the same qyestioos. They were
asked questions relating to the possibilities of 27 sustainably designed features that
'coutd' have been integrated into their co~~~lunity~AdditionaIly, they were shown
examples of such features and told that they would and do not interfkre with livability
(i-e., the NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard syndrome would not be a factor). The
researchers defined 'teceptivity" as, 'given the choice, housekeepers (buyers and renters)
would prefer a community planned according to sustainabIe principles and ecological
criteria.' For example, characteristics of sustainability incIuded street width, housing
styles, bus routes and recycling capabilities of the community.
For the most part, residents were pro-sustainable community design. Fifty percent
felt that the community was not environmentally EendLy. The majority of residents were
receptive to the modifications presented by Perks et d. Results indicate that residents are
simply unaware of any alternatives to traditional community design. Unfortunately, the
symbiotic relationship between market demand and developen or designers proliferates
the status quo and new alternatives to tradition& design are not forthcoming.
The Iast question, number 27 (pertahmg to biological wastewater treatment),
asked residents, "Given the qnalities of decentralised '6biologicai"wastewater treatment
systems, would you choose to purchase a home you Liked if it is in a community where
this system is &died?"
Perks et d. (1994: 59) hdtwo out of three participants wodd cIearIy opt for
sewage treatment that uses bioIogical processes (Lev solar aquatic system). Locating a
number of these treatment pfants across the commnnity wodd aIso be acceptable. The
&ts as found by Perks et d. are as foUows: Table 43ResrJJts ofQuestion 27% (receptivity to bioCogi& wastewater treatment)
Biologicad Wastewater Edgemont I City Wide Treatment Percentage I Percentage Yes 52 I 73 ProbabIy 48 22 No 0 5 ;
Receptivity to BWWT
Yes Probably No Answer n = 62/62 (source: Perks, et. al, 1997)
A second question was phrased as, "Given these qualities of decenaalised
"biological" wastewater treatment systems, would you be inched to support a pilot project in Calgary that experiments with this alternative sewage management system?"
Tabk A6 Results ofQuestion 27b. (willingness to support a pilot project)
Support for Pirot Edgemont City Wide Project Percentage Percentage Yes 76 83 Probably I 24 IS No 0 2
Support of Pilot Proiect
Yes Prcbably No Anmar n = 6U&2 (source: Perks, et. d, 1997) A strong majority of all participants would be willing to support a biological treatment sewage project in Calgary. These results are very encouraging since the demographic of Edgemont and Hidden Valley are very sidar. This is not to suggest that the results are transferable but do perhaps indicate that similar results would be attained.
The following chapter describes the concept for the Hidden Valley Solar Aquatic Plant
1.5 Concept Plan
This MDP is not a site planning exercise, however, as it includes Iand use issues, certain design elements have been included and mapped to present a clear understanding of the issues and co~tsthat are involved in this endeavour. lt is important to note that the efforts to create sustainability in comrn~tiesand the process integration of biological wastewater treatment are not mutually inclusive. In other words, elements and a degree of sustainability can be achieved without this form of treatment.
45.1 Program
?'he Hidden Valley SoIar Aquatic plant will treat approximately 1,690 residents comprising roughly 565 homes. Table 4.7 shows a breakdown ofthe dwellings per stceet.
Table 4.7 Number of Houses by street Connected to SAS
Stree!t name Number of homes Street name Number of homes 100 Hidden Valley PL 25 Hidden Valley Dr.* 65 200 Hidden Valley PL 17 Hidden Valley Dr.** 6 300 Hidden VaIIey PL 14 Hidden Valley MR [6
Hidden Valley GA 37 I 200Hidden Valley MEt 17 Hidden VaIley Cm. 34 1 300 Hidden Valley MR 21 Hidden Valley PA 69 f Hidden ValTey LI*" . t0 Hidden Valley GV 87 Hidden Valley VI 1 40 Hidden Valley GO 25 (source: Ramjohn, 1999) *up to Hldden Valley GV (see figure 4A) **directly adjacent to; site (see figure 4.h) *~condomEniumdevelopment The study site &at wiU be cokected to the piant is deheated by figure 49. It is bound to the southwest by Simons Vdey Road NW, to the east by Country Hills
Boulevard, the north-northeast by Beddington Trail NW,and the west by Hidden ValIey
U NW. Ninety percent ofthe homes are singIe-detached dwebgs with the remaining comprised of duplexes and row houses. The main sewer Line runs under Beddington Trail
NW where the lower side of the Hidden Valley community connects. To reiterate, the arterial Lines from the various roads (Ieading to the collector Line on Hidden VaLIey Drive) will connect to the headworks of the Solar Aquatic treatment plant (see figure 4.6).
The solar aquatic system will be sited on the parcel of land (LMR-95 I0 13 1) currently zoned PE (PubIic Open Space, see figure 4.2). Figures 4. LO and 4. L I show views from the adjacent houses along Hidden VaIIey PA and LOO Hidden Valley MR.
ALthough the structure itself is not unpleasant, planted buffers on raised berms wilt partially screen it Eom view (see figure 4.12)- A small parking area will be required to accommodate up to ten cars. Additionai parking is available on street IeveI. The plant will make optimum use of sunIight by positioningthe greenhouse on the site to align with soutbem exposure (see figure 4. f 2).
The greenhouse compIex win hold the wastewater treatment system, a smalI laboratory for water quaiity testing and research (more about research in chapter 5) and an office. The lab and office wilI be placed on the no& side ofthe structure to avoid dispIacing areas with southern exposure. The exterior site and floor plan wiII be also be designed to accommodate tour activities for aI1 ages. Biolmjcal Wastewater frment in Sustztinabls Comrnuniv Design Figure 4.IO View of Houses on 100 Hidden VaIIey MR NW hmSite of SAS
Figare 4.1 E View of Houses on Hidden ValIey PA MW fiom Site of SAS (source of figores 4.10 and 4. I 1: Ramjohn, 1999) Figure 4,t 2 Concept Plan hr Hidden VdIey SAS I = SOI~~~-Csystem ~rrcnhow 2 =B~& ~admdis s=blfCd~~CLrr~rrnd~B&~ So= Civ ot'CaIgzp- SC~~:~~OOOR~md,,,,,~,, N i5=WrtigC=HodyRit&T=S~Sl~pe Biologicd tV&rewztr Tmnent ir~Sw-midfe Com&t). Design
The outlet of the solar agaatic system wi[I consist oftwo trains (pipes) which will carry the efiIuent out of the system and down the escarpment of the site. At this point, a number of possibilities exist. These are presented in section 4.5.5 and deal with direct and indirect reuse options. Two pipes are used as a means of reducing the velocity ofout- flow after UV disiafection.
45.2 Detsiled Design Considerations
The setup of the treatment systems will foIIow the specifications detailed below.
section 13discusses the limitation of this chapter. Extrapolation of some information
from other existing solar aquatic systems is necessary to hypothetically construct the plant
in Hidden Valley. However, section 13does explain that data was calculated for the
Hidden Valley plant by the operators in South Burlington, Vermont Any additional
information is confidential and unattainable fiom the licensee. However, much
research was done into the hctioning of the system, and the pIant designed for Hidden
Valley is a viable and accurate representation of the actual system that could be
constructed for this community. With this in mind, figure 4.13b iIIustrates the setup of
the Hidden Valley soIar aquatic treatment pIant. The following are the details of the
various process units.
Headworks: A two-screen system will be used The first bar screen wilI have one inch
gaps to rid the innow of Iarge inorganic debris wEde the second mi1 be K inch to screen
out smaller inorganics. The screens wiII be contained m a unit that is buried outside of
the penhouse that is easily cIeaned by the operator. The screened inorganic debris will
be cohted in buckets, sealed and taken to a sanitary laadml. (NB.,AIberta
Enviromnentd htection does not re- a permit for wastewater treatment pIants to
dispose of inorganic waste in Iane)- Since most ofthe moqanics w-31be paper and/or sand, the operator does have the option to reclaim this material. The solids may be taken to a lagoon (offsite) aliowing them to neucralfse naturaiIy before delivering it to a IandfiI1.
This is a more labour intensive profess, but overall is more sustainable since there will be no chance of Ieaching in the Iandf~ll.The costs to transfer this waste will include a one time capital expenditure of a vehicle to transport and landfill tipping charges per trip.
Assuming a $50.000 expense for the truck, the tipping fee will be in the order of $60 per week for three trips per week (an added expense of $3 120/year). These are only assumed costs and are built into the maintenance costs of the plant presented in table 53.
After his preliminary treatment the effluent wilt flow into the equdization chamber-
EqudWon Chmber: The purpose of this chamber is to maintain a balanced flow of sewage entering the plant- This balance is between bacteria and the nutrients within the sewage. Activated sludge (see section 2.5) is recycIed to the chamber to "bioaugment" I the sewage. The operator will monitor this chamber
and has the capability to
change leveIs to maintain the
appropriate balance between
food and bacteria. A supply Raw of air is added to the
Hcrdwo~@ar~crccns) chamber to heIp in the
Row to Figure 4J3a Wastewater fiom Headworks Primacy mixing process. Two other Treatment (source: hmjoha, 1999) processes occur in the chamber, the first is senling of soiids. The organic solids that settie to the bottom of the chamber are removed and pumped to the sludge digester tanks (more below). Secondly, methane will be siphoned off fiom the chamber, stored and used to heat the greenhouse when needed, partidarly in the office and the lab during winter since they are not to receive direct southern exposure. This chamber also efficiently equalises the flow in the event of any toxic loads entering the plant.
Grinderpumps: In conventional wastewater treatment, large solids entering the primary processes of the plant are not a problem. The clarifiers remove the solids and the process continues. [n biological wastewater treatment, we wish to reduce the size of organic solids entering the system to increase waste removal efficiency. Before the emueat enters the primary treatment process, grinder pumps work to disintegrate remaining solids mixing them into solution.
Solar tanks: This will be the primary treatment process in the system. To treat approximately 1,690 residents, the Hidden VaIIey plant will use four trains of five tanks each. Each tank will be coastructed of translucent plastic sheeting, five feet high and six feet in diameter. Each tank will hold I41 (I,054 gallons, 4,788 L) of wastewater and will be planted with a host of floating aquatic plants, some wooded species suspending their roots in the tank and coIonies offish, mollusks and mineral deposits (rock and sand).
For r more specific list of species see section 2.5. As figure 4. L3 shows, there wiII be feedback loops designed from the fourth tank in each train to deliver activated sludge to the iirst tank in each train and to the equaiization chamber for bioaugmentation purposes.
Aeration lnlets will deliver a Bow ofair into the tanks from the bottom, The air win be dif£bsedto maintain an aerobic environment and to keep species of bacteria suspended in the water coImnn. Air is supptied hrnthe bIower cornpiex (more below). Biotc>gicAiVs~ewarer Twment in Suminsrbie Cr~mmunityDesign
Solar Pond: Thi-s large containment unit wiU be constructed first out of concrete and wood for stabiIity and wil[ be set partidy into the ground due to its depth of ten feet. The inner tining WEcousia ofa waterproof plastic material with a rubberised inner sheath.
The dimensions wilI be roughly 40 feet by 20 feet and wilI hold approximately 60,000 gallons (227,100 litres or 227 m3). As per section 2.5, the pond is used for secondary treatment, primarily removing phosphorus and nitrogen. The containment unit wiII be separated into three areas much the same way as the Bear River plant The idea is to affow flow to traverse the pond continually but at a slower rate. To facilitate this, curtains made of rubberised material will be suspended in the pond in two places creating three distinct but connecting zones (see figure 4.13b). The system will be planted with a variety of pond species, notably the water hyacinth. Air is again dified into the pond hmthe bottom but at different rates in each section (see section 2.5 for a description on nitrogen removal in solarponds).
Clarifiers: Two conical cIarifiers (described in section 2.5) wilI be used simultaneously from two Lines exiting the pond The 'honeycomb' wills of the ciderwiIl effectively trap any residual suspended so lids in the secondary effluent. The effluent is pumped in an upward motion from the narrow end of the cIarifier and flows out of the cone by gravity.
The operator will clean the clarifiers every other day and has two options. Fim, helshe can return the activated sludge to the eqwthation chamber for the process described earIier, or secondly. the sludge can be Werred to the digester tanks for fbrther processing*
Reed Be& (optionaf): An optiond component of the system is constructed reed beds to carry the rernovai of suspended solids even further. The bed is faid with coarse gmh medium which traps solids as the effluent is passed through it WLigfitDMizfecirbn: This will be the hdstage of treatment at the Hidden Valley plant. Here the effluent is passed through a horizontd containment unit (a trough) that is
Lined with ultra violet tubing encased in waterproof sheaths. The Light kills off any bacteria remaking in the effluent (as per description in section 2.5). The cost of this process is incIuded in the overall operating cost of the plant presented in chapter 5.
Aside Processes:
Sludge Digestion: Sludge digestion occurs simultaneously during the treatment process.
The detention time in the two digesters, which ate buried outside of the greenhouse on the east side (see figure 4.13b), will be roughly 30 to 45 days depending on the total volume.
After this time, the thickened sludge is removed and spread onto drying beds (see section
2.5 for details). The drying beds arr located outside of the greenhouse as well to facatate faster drying times but can be enclosed during winter (see figure 4.136). Section 53 discusses options for the dried sludge that promote sustainabiIity.
Biower Complex: A small pump station will be constructed immediately adjacent to the green house on the southeast side. This small unit will be electrically powered to avoid any interruptions that might occur with gas power. The air required in the treatment process wilI be supplied fkom this complex.
4.53 Innoent, Vohme Levek and Efnuent Qudity
The influent levels of sewage from the Hidden Valley plant is roughly equivalent to sewage from any average residentid subdivision that does not have additionat industrial or commercial sewage added to it. A key hitation in this MDP (see section
13) is the availability of data caIculations for a solar aqoadc system. The licensee confidentially holds these calculations. However, plant operators in Vermont have calculated some of the data for plant operations and yields for the Hidden Valley plant based on the given size and capacity and given the plant wiII treat sewage to tertiary levels. Appendix E contains data for the Hidden Valley plant as calculated by the South
Burlington plant operator.
Because of aforementioned Limitation, some of the data is representative of the results the Hidden VaIIey plant would attain. Any data that was unavailable has been extrapolated f?om South Burlington data over a one-year period This plant's data is the most reliable, coming from one of the longest rtmhg solar aquatic systems.
Furthermore, the design of the Hidden Valley plant is very EirniIar to that of South
Burtington with a few modifications that will increase proficiency.
Table 4.8 !Sewage Chrateristics of the Bidden Valley SAS
~ararneteq influent EffIuent Cdgary Efnuent Standards COD 539 52 N/A BOD 299 E8 20 TSS 174 4.8 5 TN 23 -3 3 20 TKN 23 13 5 Ammonia 14.0 025 10 Total Phosphorus 4-8 NIA L -0
Fecal Colifonn* 938x10' I 1177 200(fecaf), 1000(totaE) i +fecaland total Cotifom is measured in MPEIltOOm~all others in mg/L- (source: Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999)
* COD = Chemioil Oxygen Demand; BOD = BioiogicaEOxygea Demand; TSS = Toal Suspended Sotids, TN = Totd Nitrogea; TKN = Total Kjetdaht Nitmgen Bioiogicrri \Vsrewxer Tw~mrsntin Susninable Community &sign
Average daily road entering the fkcGty is expected to be 85,000 gallons (321 m3j with a capacity Load of 425 m3.
4.5.4 SystemFPnore
The solar aquatic system is desigued not to fai[ (at Ieast not ecologically). This is a profound statement to make given that most, ifnot aII human-made technologies filil in some penGranted, but the solar aquatic system is designed on the principles of living ecosystems. Nature is our best exampre ofhow life works flawlessly. Nature is and dways will be (in the absence of human activity) a closed-loop system. RareIy does an ecosystem completely fail, rather they continuously adapt to changing situations. For instance, if a pdcuiar species dies off, predatory species adapt in order to survive. This premise of survival is entrenched in the desi*gnof solar aquatics; species feed on waste flows as a matter of survival. The bio-engineered ecosystems adapt (~callprinciple four in section 2.5, puised rate exchanges) to changes in flow (which are monitored) as in any natural ecosystem. Lets assume, though, that an unusually toxic flow enters the system from the Hidden Vailey commrmity. First of all, the equdizatioo chamber will mix the toxic load with the regular stable Ioad to reduce any significant acute concentrations.
SecondIy, should a toxic load enter the soIar tanks (primary treatment), the operator will know through samples taken and tested for the day (see also section 6.2). Given that the
Hidden Valley plant has four trains of soIar tanks (and alI four are affected by a shock load), the system can be slowed, allowing the waste ffow to accumlate in the equaIIzittion chamber? The operator can then detamhe ifany harm has been hcurreci in the &aim- More often than none, a high concentdon of heavy metal wiII be the cause of
N.B. - ~hkwork is best done at night as Bow is SignScaatiy ndoced. the toxic load The operator remedies tkis problem in part before it even happens. As a precautionary measure before the plant is operational, the operator will put the system through a series of tests to 'teach' the ecosystem to adapt to the changes (recaIL p~cipIe fotrr, section 2.5). Therefore, the Hidden Valley system win already have the ability to take care of shock in most cases. Addidonally, the operator may add chemicals to the waste flow in the solar tanks to neutralise a high concentration of contaminant. The system is also purposely over-designed to accommodate shock as a safety measme. This is discussed fbrther in section 6.2.
Section 4.3 discussed contingency options for plmt failure should the structure of the system be compromised Furthermore, given that the system can hold a sewage flow
(425 m3capacity) greater than the average flow of 321 m3, City trucks have time to arrive at the plant to pump out the sewage. Emergency repairs can then be made or the emergency sheath assembIed if the exterior is penetrated (see section 4.3).
45.5 Effluent Discharge Options
The Hidden Valley plant will discharge roughly 83,000 gpd (3 I4m3 of tertiary
treated emuent each day. The storm pipe connecting the plant to the storm pipe of the
City leading to West Nose Creek will be designed (size = I8 inches) to accommodate
mcreased flow of effluent should there be an increase.
A number of reuse opportunities exist 'at the end of the pipe'. Presently, there are
no policies aIIowing direct mseof treated wastewater in Calgary. Therefore, these
suggested reuse options depend on AIberta Envlroment and the City of CaIgary7ssewer,
enpineering, and environmentat departments establishing such repiations (see section 26
for necessary regdations). FoUowlng is a Iist of rense options avaIa5le for Hidden Valley. There are many more opportunities available for water reuse, some of which are presented in section 5.2. The possible reuses for etfhent leaving Hidden Valley are:
I. Country H'Golf Courset The reuse ofwater for itrigation of the goIfcourse is the
primary goal for effluent reuse in the Hidden Valley solar aquatic system. The plant
was sited to take advantage ofthis reuse option. Figure 42shows the close
relationship between the plant and the golf course. The northem point of the course is
nearly directly across fiom the lower end of the plant site. The course begins
irrigation on average at the end of April to beginning of May depending on residual
snow accumulation hrnyear to yeat. The effluent hrnthe solar aquatic plant would
be able to supply most of their monthly irrigation requirements. At the time of
writing, monthly water usage data was unavailable for release. A report done by
AGRA - Earth and Environmental (March i998) exists which may include this
information. Further research is necessary to determine if Country Hills Golf Course
is charged for water use on a metered basis and if the= would be any coa savings to
them through reuse of efnuent hmthe Hidden ValIey treatment plant.
The course currentIy receives inflow for irrigation from West Nose Creek under a
special pennit fiorn Alberta Environmental Protection. The approach to course
inigation is commendabIe since it is using a direct water source, onsite that is at a
@ity level suitabte for inigation. The impact(s) of this withdrad downstream are
unknown, however, Parks and Recreation feel that any cumulative effects are
minimd. No -ding this sustainabIe approach, the solar aquatic system will
allow this withdram vohehm the creek to be mhimkecL
The necessary for this project is nomid. First, a pipe wouid be
necessary to bring the eftluent across Beddingon Tdto the golf come, Secondly, a small pump house wodd be constructed to distribute the water through the sprinkier
system (aIready in place). ThirdIy, a holding tank would be constructed and bmted
beside the pump home acting as a reservoir, with an outlet pipe to West Nose Creek
(more below).
2. Combined fluent - stom-sewerflow: The second discharge option is to connect the
effluent outflow with the main storm sewer Line. This would be the most economic
choice since no new inhistmeother than a connecting pipe would be necessary.
The lower half ofthe site (see figure 43) is the dry pond (a baseball field) where a
major storm sewer tine runs underneath, This would not be a direct reuse of the
water, but the effluent would end up in the Bow River. Since the effiuent would be
mixed with stormwater from the community it would act as a dnuting agent which
does help the concentration of greywater entering the Bow.
3. Golfcourse idgation and outjtow to W& Nose Creek 0nrVor storm sewer: A third,
and most probable option would be to use the effluent for irrigation when needed in
the summer and direct the excess to West Nose Creek- During winter months, the
flow may stri be directed straight to the creek or alternatively to the storm sewer.
Discharging to West Nose Creek has a distinct benefit smce the creek has historicalIy
been intermittent as a tniutq to Nose Creek (evenmy emptying into the Bow)
(Gaia, 1993: 4-4). Bio1crgic;t~IVtlsreuazr Tmnnmt in Swtrrinhie Conimunity Design
5.0 Costs and Benefits Discussion: Bomtybrookvs, Hidden Valley
5-1 costs
5-1.1 Capitd Costs
Comparing the capitaf costs of conventional wastewater treatment to bioIogicaI wastewater treatment in this MDP is rather diiEcdt. The Bonnybrook plant is a M-scale
Mrastmcture wastewater treatment piant capable of treating 500,000 m3/day, while the
Hidden VaIley plant is a micro-scale plant treating 85,000 gpd (32I m3/day). The capitaI expenditures of construction ofthe Bonnybrook plant over its 65-year Life span have been in the range of $600 minion (1999 Cnd doUars). However, we must take into account that the technoIogy of the 1930s was limited and expensive. With he,technoIogy and conceptual ideas have merged and the wastewater treatment process has advanced tremendously. In 1932, initial costs of the plant which included primary treatment and average capacity of 72,700 mf/day (16 million gallons) was $350,000. Other improvements followed in 1954,1971,1982,1994 and 1998. If the same plant were to be built today with the technology that has taken 70 years to develop, the cost would be approximately $520 mi1Iioo. Because the City holds Iands in and around the Bonnybrook plant, Land acquisition fiom outside owners is not an issue, reIieving the City of these costs*
The high expense of Bonnybrook is in sharp contrast to smaller scde biological treatment Contrary to CWWT, biosngineering is a reIative1y new field with roots to the late 1970s md early 1980s, however, the premise of systems Like constructed treatment wedmds and soIar aquatics date back to the beginning of pfant lZe on earth- Pnt this way, there is a deep history on which to create bio-technotogies capabie of providing amoung other thingsywastewater treatment for smaller scale cost effective purposes. The
Hidden Valley plant wii have an estimated capital cost of$ I don,excluding Iand costs. This MDP assumes that at the time ofdevelopment, the land for Hidden Valley was owned by the Crown. The total laud area reedfor deveIopment of the soLar aquatic facility is just under one acre. Land costs were caIculated based on sanitary sewer surcharge, acreage assessment and number of acres included in the study site (i.e., the catchment area for wastewater treated at the SAS - see figure 4. f b).
The sanitary sewer surcharge per acre is $3,000. The catchment area for the solar aquatic plant is roughly 100 acres, which results in an acreage assessment for this utiIity at $300,000. However, since wastewater is being treated onsite a surcharge is not necessary. only the costs associated with hookup wilI be levied (this amount is incIuded in the Iand cost per Iot). The area required for the plant is one acre (rounded up) and the cost per lot in Hidden Valley was mughfy $50,000 (average price, ranges based on views, etc.). Using a density factor of 6 units per am, this mIts in a E300,000 price for the
Iand reeddTherefore, since there is no sewer surcharge (i.e., this cost of $300.000 is rebated to the developer) and the land costs are the same as this surcharge, the two costs cancet each other and the land is acquired at no additional cost.
The cost of external idhstructure (pipe to connect SAS to existing stom sewer on Lower half of the study site - see figare 4-15) where a separate pipe is extended from the facility across Beddington TraiI to tEte golf course and construction of a smdi pump house is estimated at $U,500. TabP 5.1 compares the major cost factors between the
Bomybrook plant to the SAS at Hidden Valley. Biotogicd IWste'rvxer Trement in Sustahabfe Cummunit). Design
TPbIe 5.1 Cost Comparison (using pump house oagolfcourse for mtioa) i Cost Item ffiddea Vslley Boaaybrook Capital Cost $1 miElion $520 million* Expansion Costs $22,500** $87,600 Land Acquisition $0 $0 Capacity of Vo Iume Treated 425 m3/d 500,000 m3/d Number of People Connected 1,690 580,000 Current Treatment Volume 32 t m31d 380,000 m3/d (source: Ramjohn, 1999) * Approximate cost for the system today (source: City of CaIgaryt Sewer Division) ** [f the effluent is discharged to West Nose Creek - the costs are reduced to 6 L 5,004 for pipes done. If, however, the dnuent is discharged to West Nose Creek, the cost to extend a pipe connecting with the storm sewer beneath the dry pond is =500.
It is obvious that the Bonnybrook plant treats a much Larger cpmtity of wastewater. The Hidden Vaiiey SAS has been designed to treat 1,690 residents. The site seIection offers the ability to expand the plant if needed and, therdore, the treatment of the entire population of Hidden Valley is possible given the size of the parcel of land
Expropriation of pubIic open space wodd be necessary and this pIanning agenda wodd require public consultation to resolve rising issues or concerns.
The costs for adding a pumphouse on the golf course for irrigation are minimal, however, this cost can be avoided if emueat is discharged directly to West Nose Creek.
As the end of section 4.4.5 discusses, this would be an indirect reuse ofeffluent, something that should be avoided However, since the water is withdrawn fhnthe creek at or near the point of discharge, this may be more sustainabIe than constructing a pumphouse (which reqnizes energy to nm). It is thus recommended that the effluent be diverted to the creek for immediate reuse. 'Fhis is discussed hrther in section 62-
5-12 Operathg Costs and Hnmra Resotames
Comparing the operating costs ofthe two types of WWTPs is again reMve to size
(i-e. the larger the system for treating wastewater.genedy the Iess expensive it becomes). The City empIoys roughly 120 people at Bonnybrook, while an SAS the size
ofthe pImt used in Hidden ValIey reqpiies one to two operators. However, if 1I3
indiviw biological systems (for each treatment area) were used to treat the population
of the new suburban areas of Calgary, a minimum of 84 operators would be required.
This is Less human resource needed to run the Bonnybmok plant on an average daily
basis, whik still treating over 70% of the average daily flow at Bomybrook (most of the
flow comes from the inner and outer suburbs). Salaries would be in the order of
$2,!340,000 (assuming straight average salary of $35,00O/person and no benefits) keeping
in mind that the operator's job is not fidL time employment
The daily operating costs of Bo~ybrookis 688.93/1,000 m3 (220,000 gallons) or
currently $33,44O/&y based on average flow rate of 380,000 m3/daY. This $88.93 figure
factors in dI operational items and salaries for the whole plant. It does not however,
include cost of maintenance, replacement parts, and other misceellaneo expenditures.
The operating costs for the SAS are based on costs detaiIed in Appendix E. The
total cost to nm the pIant is $87,154 per year, excluding operator costs (see Appendix E),
emergency heating requirements and insurance premiums. TabIe 52compares the
estimated operating costs for both types of treatment systems. Based on a treatment
voIume of 1,000 m3, the cost of SAS treatment at Hidden Valley is substantidy higher at
$1,220compared to $8823 per l7~~h3for Bomybraok (noting that Bonnybrook
iaciudes electricity, but excludes repair and construction costs in this figure). Table 5.2 Comparative Operating Costs for CWWT and BWWT
-- Operating Costs Item mddea. Valley I Bannybrook Operating cost (W1.000m~ sb=o $88.93 Yearly Operating Cost* $87,154 I $1 1,991565 Number of People served i,690 S80,OOO Actual Vo [ume Treatedday (Cap,) 321 m' (425 m7 ' 380.000 m5 (500,000 I& Cost per Person per Year $5157 $20.67 Daily Treatment CostlActual $23 8/day $32,S53/day Volume Treated (Avg. Costlday) Salaries $28,600 $4,800,000 est. (+ benefits) Flat rate based on %6254%of water biIi Surcharges operating cost Treatment costlm' I $122 I $0.08 1 (source: Ramjohn, 1999) * Does not include maintenance (i-e.,externat inhstmcture)
Based on the above figures, the cost per day to treat the ecpivalent volume of
Bonnybrook with SAS at an operational cost of $87,154 per equivaient sized system as
Hidden Valley would be $212,800 (for the combined costs of 113 plants, versus $32,853 for Bonnybrook). Clearly, this method is not as economicat fiom a purely operational cost perspective. However, the comparison is not all together ewtabte since the
Bonnybmok plant has the economy of scaIe in its favour. Generally, the larger the treatment plant is (i-e., capacity) the cheaper the treatment process becomes. To be fairT the comparison should be made based on a solar aquatic pIant(s) that treat(s) the same volume level as Bonnybrook Udortunately, two Iimitations &se:
I. To do this cddation, the operatkg cost is necessary for an SAS plant capable
of hmdhg 3809000m3 (size of the current treatment volume at Bonnybrook).
Wedata was provided for the EIidden ValIey simuIatioa, the operator in
Vermont was not forthcoming with additional &tz~
2. Secondly, tflere ate amenfly no SoFar AquatifivEng Machine systems
operatid in the worId with such a massive voIume level to compare costs. When maintenance, part cepIacement, chemical additions and other miscellaneous costs are built into the operating cost of the Bomybrook piant, ~e figures look like table
5.3:
Table 5.3 TotaI Annual (0& M and Salary) Ccwts for CWWT md BWWT
Operating Cost Item I Eiddea ValIey I Bonnybrook Total Annuai Costs* $1 89,985 $20,990,565 Vo (umeTreated per day 363 m' 380,000 m' Daily Treatment CostlVolume $23 Way per 363 mJ !§32853/day per 380,000 mJ I treated treated Codday per person $030 $0.10 (source: Ramjohn, 1999) * Includes salaries, operations, maintenance and external repair and maintenance to supporting inhstructure (e-g., sewer lines)
Based on the above figures, it costs the SAS three times as much per person per day to treat the wastewater. From purely operational economic standpoint, the SAS is an expensive form of treatment for this number of peopk However, when costs such as the extension of the tnmk sewer (587,600) or the expansion coa for 1998 for the Bomybrook plant ($3999,000) are taken into account, the SAS performs very well with its $87,154 yearly operating cost).
5.13 Surcharges
Residents connected to the sanitary sewage system within Calgary are required to pay a sanitary sewer tax of 62.54% ofthe water bill pursuant to the sanitary sewer bylaw.
On average a singie-detached homeowner in Aidden Valley would pay $40/month - which means the sanitary sewer charge is $25fmonth (given a fdysize ofthree, and average water bill). The tax Ievied to the homeowner in the best case scenario, ifthey were treated by SAS, wodd be $Ofmonthbecause they are not connected to the city sanitary system, However, the City codd Ievy the same sanitary sewer charge based on water use as those connected to the sanitary sewer system. This would be adequate considering the revenue generated in sales hmthe plant AIternativeIy, with the $87,154 operating cost per year, each house could be charged a flat rate per year to account for some of the operating cost Revenue generators described in section 53 could account for the remaining costs. For instance, if each home paid $25/month this would account for $507,00O/year of the totaE operating cost. Howeva; the uncertainty of yearly operating costs makes this a difficult surcharge to levy.
Realistically, a system with operating costs of $87,54O/year would require 1,690 connected residents to pay $5 1.80/year for m*taryservices per person. For a three person famiIy, this equates to roughly S155household per year. This is an attractive proposal given that on average the same household would pay about $300 for service connection to the city sewer.
While this issue wires substantid further review, at present, the best scenario may be to charge the same service charge as customers connected to the city sewer for the first year, or perhaps, for three years. Surplus revenue can then be put into a fund for emergency operating costs, and research and deveIopment. After the three years, a base
Line average operating cost will be established and the operator can then Levy a flat rate surcharge based on operating cost per year. This potentid solution is discussed further m section 6.2,
5.2 Ef£Iuent Discharge Uses
In Alberta, reuse options for treated efauent are Weddae to regdatory gnidehes. This is particularLy stringent for urban centrespwhich have very cautious hedth codes. In dareas, the pracdce of passive treatment for wastewater is more Biolugicrri ttr'asfeusrerTrwnnent in Sctst&riabte Community Design accepted Strathmore for example, a town adjacent to the emtern city limits of Cdgary, uses lagoon treatment followed by land appkation of settted solids. For smaller urban centres, this is an appropriate use of technology. However, more advanced forms of wastewater treatment are available and funded by larger centres like Calgary. Using centralised methods to treat large volumes of wastewater has worked wen in its primary fimction (tertiary level treatment), but has not been visionary regarding effIuent reuse.
Discharging back into the Bow River is a passive approach that does not take full advantage of reuse options. The Bonnybrook WWTP requires some of the effluent for operating the plant, but further options exist.
The plant is located in an industrial area with many adjacent uses that utilise water. For sustainability reasons, Bomybrook could supply this water directly, reducing the overall consumption of treated water (from a water treatment plant) used by the various operations. The treated effluent could also be worked into a dud water supply system for industries in the area. WhiIe it is understood that water is dram hmthe Bow for irrigation of fields in some areas, the aforementioned reuse process is more active; a direct form of reuse*
A downside to centratised WWT water reuse is the cost of infkmu- required.
For water reuse to be feasible, it must first be inexpensive. It was identified eartier that the costs associated with a ddwater system m homes and businesses are 20% higher than conventional water works. However, because of the remote nature of most commnnides (distance hmsupply of treated water), the hhstmctwe costs to retrofit a dual water system are extremely high. It is the newer commrmities that wilI be candidates for such a system. 5iotogicd Wrtstew?i~erTmnnent iir Susjtaimable Conrmrmity Design
This MDP ilIutmtes the effectveness of solar aquatics in Hidden ValIey. The reuse options presented in chapter 4 are ody a few avaiilable, and represent the most feasible given cunent reguiations. The treated effluent wiII be applied to land for golf course irrigation and/or discharged to a receiving water body, eventaauy meeting with the
Bow River- There are other potential uses that exist but current regulations restrictthem, section 23presented some of the health and social issws and concerns that continue to provide barn-ers to effluent reuse. The potential for reuse within the community is a reality, but regulations against it (section 2.62) are binding. The idea of reusing treated water for non-consumptive household uses is not a particularly viable option in Alberta given the abundant supply of water available. Furthermore, revenues associated with these reuse options are not appreciable for existing neighbolrrhoods. We then have to ask what value will hstaIling dual water systems have for just a few suburban communities?
Perhaps this application is better suited for smaIler growing towns where cost to bring in treated water is high. This issue requim ihtherresearch but is discussed to some extent in chapter 6.
53 Byproduct Generation
In wastewater treatment, here are inevitably byproducts generated from the various processes. The ones generated in CWWT and BWWT are very different making this section very interesting. Fortunately, industry (i-e, WAIT)has found ways to harvest these byproducts and turn them from waste to resource. There are markets for these byproducts enabling Industry to recover some of the costs associ-ated with the treatment process. This &ts in Iess volume ofwaste sent to lanewhich is a deveIopment in snstainabaty. Conventional treatment has reached new levels m wastewater assimilation, with many plants now using biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal processes involving activated sludge treatment This has allowed them to treat more organic sludges with the addition of bactuia to secondary treatment, However,, because ody 25 to 30% of organic matter actually dissolves into soIution during treatment (Do, Paul et aI., City of Calgary, unpublished, 1998), there is a great deal of sludge settling that is subsequently harvested
Additionally, methane gas can be drawn off of the sludge digesters, recovered for power generation. As mentioned earher, these are the byproducts generated in CWWT other than water itself,
53.1 Sludge
In the case of solar aquatic treatment, the recovery of byproducts is remarkabIe.
Not only are sludge, methane and water recovered, but so too are the many living components of the system, making the process very sustainable. The benetits of using a myriad of aquatic tish species is that the remaining 60 to 70% of organic waste not in solution can be assimilated by these species effectively removing more sludge hmthe waste stream than CWWT. While this produces Iess residual sludge (thus reducing a commercially viable product: fedher) it does provide a more sustainable solution by reducing end byproducts. The sludge produced in BWWT is treated to a higher level having more contaminants and other constituents removed by higher order organisms.
53.2 Water
Both methods of WWT discussed in this MDP produce water as the ultimate end produa but the process itself is to eiimhate contaminants from the waste flow. The
Bormybrook WWTP treats wastewater and then discharges it to the Bow River- The pIam has reduced chemical: usage L recent years making the @ty ofwater at the contact point m the receiving water hisher. The commercial value of the water for Bonnybrook is minimal because of indirect use (discharge to surface water), however, the plant does save money by utiIizing some ofthe effluent for onsite irrigation and cleaning-
For the Hidden Vdey SAS, the commercid valw of water is aIso low. A more accurate measure for the value of water is its environmental cost discussed in section 5.5.
The Hidden Valley plant will discharge either to a pumphouse on the Country HilIs Golf
Course, or directly to West Nose Creek where it will then be dram out for irrigation of the course. PreviousIy mentioned, the first option is a direct use of the effluent (irrigation from a pump station) while the second is an indirect use (withdrawing f?om West Nose
Creek). If the first option is taken, it will result in cost savings for the golf course. The extent of this is unknown due to unavailable water usage data (see section 4.5.5).
However, this is where the commercid value for the effluent produced may exist (given the tirst option is implemented).
5.33 An.imals
There is limited comparison here between the two types of systems since only solar aquatics has higher living organisms as part ofthe treatment process. Mollusks Like mails, mussels and myfish may be used, dl of which have commerciaI resale vdue. [n addition to mollusks, Iarger fish are used in large part to compIete food chains to regulate and complete the ecosystem. Tilapia is one species that is used and is in proven demand for coosumption (Greetmiew Aqya-fann Ltb, Alberta, p. coddon,08/02/99). The value ofthe species is $599Ab (whoIesde). Grass carp, golden shrfner and flathead minnows are other species but have Iesser values. Ofthe mollusks, snaiE may be soId to fish markets, restaurants for prepamtion of escargot and other seafood culinary delights, whiIe mussels have a resaie vdue of$4 to $5 per pound at seafood markets and $7 to $8 Bioiirgicd tVstewaer Tmone& in SusPinrrbfeCommunity Design per pound at restaurants (western Canada prices). All ofthese spacescan be sold because they must be hanrested as they matme. This maturation is augmented due to the continual supply ofnutrients in the waste stream.
As the plant operator and, potentially, other assistants (see section 5.4) gain experience, they may begin to experiment with other species. The field of eco- engineering for WWT is ever expanding and the "shopping cart of plants and animals" available to the designer is endless. A test area is included in the greenhouse where new species of plants and animals may be tested. These test areas may also be used to harvest some of the more lucrative species for resale.
53.4 Plants
The comparison between CWWT and BWWT in this category is again one-sided since conventional treatment processes do not use plant species. The SAS uses a hoa of flowering plants, foliage, shrabs and mes, and vascular plants throughout the greenhouse.
Examples of these are presented in table 2.4. Based on Sonnation received from South
Burlington, Vermont, the Hidden Valley plant can expect to generate in the order of
$ I00,000/year from horticu[turaI sdes.
Additionally, other marketable plants may be used as demand presents itself. Test areas can be used for this purpose. Vegetables and herbs are dways in demand and organi-c gardening is very marketable- Garden vegetables may be sold to LocaI residents or smdl Locd markets or even to restaurants fiom the SAS pIant.
5.4 Community Benefits
CaIgary is a fast growing city that continues to sprawI outwards fbn the downtowa New subrubs conhue to characterise the ondying areas ofthe city. This pattem ofdevetoprnent win pest, patting added strain on capacity ofwaste- treatment plants. Bonnybrook has Little room for ktherexpansion meaning the Fish
Creek WWTP wiIL require future expansion. Once both have reached capacity, the City will need to re-evaluate existing plant capacity or investigate new options. A new plant may be required to allow new residential development to proceed to the east of the City
The model of6~glubalIy, act 1ocdIy" has implications for sustainable communities. Often, people become too inward m their thinking, concentrating on practices like recycling to think ofthe global scale. 'GIobaL' may be thought of as anything surrounding our daily routine and activities. People rarely consider what happens to waste once it leaves their homes. Fortunately, Calgary is equipped with one of the best WWT facilities in the world, which means that 'we' do not have to concem ourselves with treatment of our wastewater. Section 42 descnied the unsustainability of air emissions in CWWT,distance wastewater travels, idbstmcture costs and maintenance costs of conventional plants. This section looks at treatment hma sustainable commdty standpoint, where communities should be moving towards as the city escaiates in population. Treating wastewater m remote locations does not meet the principIes of mstainabe community design.
Sustainability in Calgary wilI Likely begin with small steps. The Hidden Valley solar aquatic system coufd provide a model hmwhich to buiId upon and deveIop further waste reduction and reuse methods. As a relatively new city with worldwide recognition,
Calgary is in a unique position to integrate sustainable practices into its growth strategy.
The SAS would provide effective WWT but, as shown m many commmrities, it could also enhance the area as a community development (CD)tooI. The Hidden Vdey pht wiII become a focal point m the CO~IUII-, something ofa monument to snsolinable practice The challenge for sabmban communitiesesis to iden@ efements that bind neighboUmoods and create coxumunity cohesion. Chapter 3 explained that this Iack of cohesion m the predominantly singledetached designed suburbs that are detrimental to societal growth. The SAS in Hidden ValIey would wodc as a CD tool to create the 'due' that holds the community together and creates the basis of shared vafues and visions of sustainability. The plant has potential to provide a number of opportunities to bring people together. For instance, although the plmt will only require one operator for daily operations, volunteers can be solicited fiom the community (and perhaps paid for se~ces fiom revenue generators) to tend to the pruning and harvesting requirements of the plant.
Solar aquatic plants in Nova Scotia and New England have had great success m community involvement with upkeep of the plmt species. The advantages of this are that a cross-sector of generations come together to meet and help with the pIant operations fostering community cohesion, the plant wodd provide a sense of pride to people, and the practice provides a therapeutic response in people (horticultural therapy).
This kind of commuaity gathering for a common purpose is an element of eco-villages, which are becoming increasingly popular in many areas of the world
Another valuable spinoff of SAS is the opportunity for food production. For
Hidden Valley, this could mean a Iarger cornmedevelopment opportunity. As shown m figure 4.L3b, there is space provided for food production. VegetabIes (section 53) may be grown (~rga~cdy)with the use of secondary ettluent as nutrients rich m nitrogen and phosphorus (stimulating and augmenting growth). Production can be amain& year round The practice is another example of how Hidden Valley can move towards sastainabibty.The vegetabIe and herb production would provide an oppoarmity for the community to grow their own produce and sell it to residents who appreciate Iocally and organically grown food This creates another opportunity for people to come together in a productive community venture.
From another perspective, the Hidden Valley plant could offer the commm-ty an exceUent educational resource SAS is an evoIving technology in the field ofecoIogicaI engineering. The system is by no means perfected, as bio-engineers continue to End new ways of making the system more efficient. The SAS facility in Hidden Valley would be a site for research and collaboration with the University of Calgary- In fact, as mentioned earlier, the University may pay for a portion of the cost of the facility, entering into a research relationship with the community. Biological and other graduate science students as part of course work, thesis work or practicum experience may partake in laboratory t&g of waste flows and effluent levels. Through this venture, the community WWT facility gives back to a larger community in a cost-effective way. The students receive practical lab, horcicultura1 and ecosystem experience m their fields. This is a community development reiationship that provides invaluable senrife and helps students realise measures of sustainability in practice. This potentid relationship emphasises the 'act locally, think globally' concept.
5.5 Globd Awareness
This MDP has touched upon a number of aspects of sustainabiIity and how it can fit within community design and ecological engineering. Wastewater treatment is one malI aspect of a much larger ecoIogicaiIy sustainable picture. Many urban settlements have lost the association with the natnral environment that historically has meant a great deal to societies. As technoIogy continues to progressywe seem to be tosing touch with natural processes of eaah and this is where ecoIogid engineering is working to reverse this trend A major impediment to this, however, is &e way peopfe view change. Biolo@c;rt IYstew'zzferTreament in Sustainabfe Community Design
TechnoIogicaI advances are often met with skeptihThe advent of bioIogical or ecofogical technologies has been no exception to this, particdarly when many of these
'eco-technologies' are providing solutions to problems that seemingly had &edy been solved by conventional/~tionalmethods, This skepticism is inevitable but the notion of purifying a littie bit of nature in the city is definitely attractive. The idea of making people feel a little closer to natural systems in an otherwise built enviro~lentis worth exploring, even though traditional technologies have worked to solve problems in the past. The notion is to devise new, more ecologically sound technoIogies.
Conventional wastewater treatment is proven effective, in this MDP and in countIess bodies of work. However, this paper argues that there are other factors to take account of when considering infrastnrcture. In major centres of North America, conventional approaches to wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, food shopping, etc., have evolved to maximise convenience. Gmnted, pace and the work emrironment in life has changed over the years, leaving littie room for quaIity time on our own.
This has resulted in things Iike wastewater treatment to be taken for granted - water goes down the drain and out of sight (out of mind theory). This is not to say that people should treat their own wastewater, on the contrary, but other technologies do exist that can bring ~e concept a little cIoser to home (e-g., solar aquatic treatment pfants).
The Bonnybrook wastewater treatment plant is remote hrnmost communities, and many people are likely unaware of its location, Iet done its existence. This makes for a Ioss of connection between what resources we use, where they go, and how we reintroduce them back to the envimnment.. This disintegration is why globaI a-ess is such a difficult and fm reaching concept to grasp. When we do not wen understand the processes that go into treating our own water (a very compIex process), it makes it even more diflicuit to mderstmd the treatment techniques required for other countries whose water avdability is much lower than its population demands. This MDP discusses conservation measures as a necessity, not merely perceiving the concept as important.
The Hidden Valley solat aquatic treatment plant wodd work to raise the level of people's environmental awareness. This biological system ilIustrates the incomparable marvel of nahn?il processes on earth as it treats the waste flow fkom the immediate community. Because the system is almost entirely biological, it offers people the opportunity to interact with a 'living machine'; watching nature treat waste as it has for billions of years. Chapter 6 discusses the value of this vmsthe monetary costs to construct the plant (keeping in mind that this alternative form of treatment may be more expensive). Conventional wastewater treatment cannot accomplish this IeveI of connectedness between hmnans and nature and this is and will continue to be a god worth striving to achieve. 6.1 Recommendations for the Use of Solar Aquatics
This study iovolves a critical Look at the fea~~iilityof integrating onsite biologicd wastewater treatment with sustainable community design. It analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of this integration to determine whether or not this approach to wastewater treatment is worthwhile hasuburban context within Iarge urban centres. The study site in soburban Calgary provided the setting for the simulation. The actual design of the comm~tyfollowing sustainable elements and performance criteria is not within the purview of this project but it is understood that this approach to planning would complement the solar aquatic facility simulated herein. Through comparison of conventional and biological wastewater treatment in the sections of chapter 5, advantages and disadvantages of this thesis (hypothesis) have been brought to light The key results of this comparison are presented in tabIe 6.1. Overall, the SAS wodd perform very well in the subtirban community of Hidden Valley (even though it is more expensive to operate on a per capita basis), although, hture developments of the system in similar settings require substantid considerations, discussed fiuther on.
An argument can be m& that CWWT was never designed to meet aII measures of sustainable performance. Granted, but in an era ofshifting paradigms fiom industd technology to eco-technology, current approaches to pianning are no longer soffcient
Due consideration for the naturaI environment is a necessity, paai*darIywhere water usage is concerned This simnlation in this MDP shows that with properplannmg, solar aquatic systems are viable, logid choices far motesuburban devetopment (so long as potentiai revenue generators &st to p&&y or whoIIy cover operating costs). The shape Biotogicstl \V;lsrew;rwr Tmentin Smninabtr Cuntrnunity Design of Caigary lends itseKweU to sustainability. AIthough suburban deveIopment is not preferred and should be avoided through density increases in Iand uses, proper sustainabIe
Table 6JSummaty of Comparisons Between Conventional and Biotogid Treatment
Comparative Parameter Sohr Aquatie Biological Treatment I Bonnybmok CouveationaC Treatment !FJCiu& 4 I Total Capital Costs $1 miIlion - includes cost of $500 million construction, land acquisition, and additional idhsmcture costs Total Operating Costs -$87+154yreand salary of !D8,000 $20.9 miIlioa (see Appendix E), $5 L .57fpersan/yem $20.67/petson/year (extrapo fated) Surcllarges Initidly 62.54% of water bill for fkt 62.54% of water bill (see Appendix C 3 Ym*then flat rate Per Penon based for Sewer Byiaw. section 1% I)) on operating cost (approxime1y %J.SO/personper month) $5ZE~entReuse@w≪g : Direct Use Golf come irrigation, heating and Cooling, cleaning and grounds irrigation cooting, grounds bigation, toifet flushing, Id park irrigation Indirect Use(footnote) Discharge to West Nose Creek and/or Discharge to Bow River stom sewer : 53 ~protikct€Zse I' Sludge Dried onsite and distn'bttted to local residents (whoIesale) 23.379 kglyeat digested, and diiibuted to fhmers in 9 to 1 I% of iduent by volume 30 km radius hmlagoon (Calgro Program - 18,000 toandyear) 82Ya of influent by volume Water Tertiary level treatment (BOD,COD, Tertiary Ievel treatment (BOD, COD, W3N, NOjN, TSS, Colifonn) N&N, NaN, TSS, Coiiform) PIants Yes -variety of aquatic, wooded. No, vascular, and vegetable species for commercid wholesale, Potentid revenue range: 999,840 to $ t 79,7 12
' Animals Yes -mollusk and fish species for No. ornamentation and consumptive uses.
IEZCi* 8 1 wonrat t Sustainability Inked Yes -onsite process, reduces Moderate - ofEite treatment. process is infhnumneeds, cycle of use- remote and cycle is lost (invist'ble), waste..h'eatment-reuseis visible- , Research Oppomnitie~ - ecoiogid engineering, Yes - baIhited; remoteness and size f biological sciences, piaut ecology; make it mote difficult to study; offers research site in residentid laboratory has some research community for art age groups, opportmities (3 grad students in L 998)- Sustaloabte Edudon Yes - hands on experience with one of Moderate -does provide education on the decadtFs most signifi~a~lt : waste treatment which is: a sustainable contributions to ecwngineering, pm-e, Community Yes - the pmesprovides a source of No. Devebpment Took pn'de to the c~rnmunity-~everyone can become invohed hma techaid side to a fiorticuIM side (~utlutlc) - . - - 4- 9s-d- - . . - - -- 3 -- -- . ------. EnvirOnmental 1 Y- -people bWme hnlVed witha 'No - other than bacteriological Education : controEled natural process and this has properties (but these are mvislib1e)- : firtther implications of how nature
Community Connection Yes - very important, living in a built No. with NWProcesses €om society with little connection to naturaI s~acesin some ateas. I I I L (source: Ramjohn, 1999) commuity design can mitigate problems fkquently encomtered. The result ofthis has the potential to resemb te min*itttue"edge cities" or even "garden cities" mornding a dense urban core. This will re* a substantially new way of thinking based on very old theories courtesy of Howard, Adams, et d.
If onsite solar aquatic treatment is to become a reaIity, Alberta Environmental
Protection and the City of CaIgary (amoung other stakeho tders) must work collectively to draft a new LegisIation as other provinces have, atlowing such uses. With proper legisIation in place for SAS and other technologies, the field of eco-engineering will have a fomwith which to grow in Alberta. Eco-technologies have an important roIe to pIay in sustainable development and may one day become an integral part of sustainable community design.
62 Conclusions - AaaIysis
From the andysis summary of section 6.1 it is recommended that:
L. The me of SAS in major urban centres is limited to new suburban growth where the
cost of trunk heextension, maintenance and other aspects ofconnecting new
deveIopments to conventiod treatment systems are expensive. The existing inner
city is wel served by the carrent WWT phtsin Calgary and retrofitting services to a
soIar -c system wodd be very costly, and Infeastibte in some areas- 2- Since the Bomybrook WWTP is operating below capacity (750/0),it is recommended
that fulI capaciv be reached before considering use of solar aquatics in suburban
residentid context. Infrastructure is already constructed and while optimally, the SAS
will save money in the Iong term, operating a worid cIass treatment facility below
capacity is not economical.
3. The discharge of treated effluent to the golf course for eventual irrigation wiII be
accomplished through one of two methods. The first option is to direct the flow to a
pumphouse and irrigate the course through this inhstm- during the summer
months of operation. A second option entails diversion of the treated effluent directly
to West Nose Creek added to normal stream flow, and then withdrawn by the golf
come grounds operator to a pumphouse (current practice) for irrigation use. That
latter represents the most sustainabIe option from an economic and environmental
standpoint*
The practice of diversion ofa water flow raises particuiar concern about straun
bed and bank erosion. Fortunately, West Nose Creek is a stream with fluctuating flow
(Gaia, 1993: 4-4) with Iow turbidity. The data avaiiable on stream discharge for West
Nose Creek is indicative of its receiving stream, Nose Creek The closest flow rate
monitoring station to West Nose Creek has the foUowing monthly data taken from
19 I I to 1990 (values m cubic metres per second):
Table 6.2 West Nose Creek How Rate Data
Jan ) Feb Mar ) Apr May 1 Jun I Jut Aug I Scpt Oct Nov ) DCE - [ - 0.557 1 0.846 0.898 1 0.861 ) 0917 0.808 ) 0.660 0-455 - I - (some: Gaia, 1993)
The daily discharge fkoom the soIar aquatic plant is 3 L4 m.Taklng a peak usage
period between 7 am. and 8 pm, the peak flow is likeLy to comprise 75% ofthe totaI daiIy discharge- This flow is rate monitored to obtain a steady discharge hughout the peak period as well as periods between 8 pmand 1 1 pm. (second highest period) and overnight (1 I pato 7 am). Therefore, a peak discharge of 235 id during this day time period wiII rdtin a creek discharge of approximately 5.02 x 10'~m3. This discharge rate is wen below nodstream rate md it not anticipated that the added diversion would have an impact on stream bank stability.
This issue does however, reme additional research including current stability of the stream banks and the cumdative affects of water diversion. Alberta
Environmental Protection Water Resource Branch is the appropriate authority for this issue as they are responsible for issuing water diversion licenses.
As mentioned above. the efnuent wilI be used for irn'gation during summer months, which means that West Nose Creek will take on increased ff ow during winter months. It is anticipated that with the hardening of the ground and snow/ice cover, those erosional effects will be minimised during winter.
Another aspect of goff course irrigation to note is percolation of the effluent into groundwater. The treated efnnent surpasses quaIity standards set by Alberta
Environmental Protection so there wouId be no concern over contamination of groundwater. The groundwater source beneath the golf come flows into the stream creating a cyclical water use (effluent hmthe solar aquatic plant to West Nose
Creek, then for grounds higation and recycIed back to the creek through gromd percolation). This is a very sustainable approach to water resource use and reuse-
There are two disposal issues to consider at the soIar aquatic pIant: inorganic gdt and treated bioso[id (sIudge). The horwc grit that is removed in the headworks can be hauled to a lan&Z without the requirement ofa p-t hmAlberta
Environmental Protection. This is the best option to avoid the odour and potentid
contamination of @ally treating the grit onsite by allowing the organic content to
leach off of the inorganic debris, There are also negative comotations associated
carrying out this process in a residentid area
The sludge that is laid onto reed beds for drying after digestion resuIts in a high
quality fertilizer product that has the consistency ofdamp coffee beans. The fertiker
can be sold to community residents at a nominal fee (in bulk) during the summer and
bagged over the winter for later resale. This would represent another sustainable
practice by keeping the byproduct within the community instead of putting the burden
of disposal or use outside of Hidden Valley. This differs from current practices used
at the Bonnybrook treatment plant where sludge is provided to farmers to a radial
distance of 30 kilometres outside the city* The sludge provides a sustainable use
(fertilizing fields) but the bfbstmctore and resources to get it thae are very high.
4. An argument can be made that a large solar aquatic plant couId be developed to
handle the same volume of Bonnybrook given the size and voIume capacity of the
Hidden Valley plant Based on the Hidden Valley plant, a land area ofjust under one
square kilometre would be needed to accommodate the voIume capacity of the
Bonnybrook wastewater treatment pIant (500,000 m3. This dculation is achieved
by simply using the volume capacity and size ofthe soIar aquatic pImt in a ratio and
ddatingthe &own size using an increase in volume to 5009000in3. This
however, does not adecpately provide a detamination for the size of the solar aquatic
ptant that wodd be reed*It is important to note that volume capacity does not increase Linearly with pIant size. Therefore, using a straight proportionate ratio is not
sufficient.
Calculating the sue of the plant to treat the volume of Bonnybmok would require
information that is held in confidence by the licensee of the solar aquatic system, The
operator of the Vermont system determined the size of the Hidden VaLIey plant If the
Iand required for a solar aquatic plant of this size were equal to the area of the
Bomybrook plant, then this would certainly make for a usefid argument in favour of
using the solar aquatic system provided that it is cost-effective and economidy
feashle to consmct,
However, since the pImt wouid require a significantly large expanse of land it
would entait locating in a central location most likely in an industrial park setting.
This is counter to the vision set out in this MDP which is to locate the treatment
system within the residential neighbourhood to achieve an increased level in
sustainability and reduce hfhstmctwe needs. So the idea of using one large
treatment system rather than individual systems is not a sustainable option given the
context and goals of this study.
5. Various contingency plans in the event the system breaks down have been desmied
throughout the dodocument and these are reiterated here. There are two types of
mdfitnctions that can occur: inner system malfimctions and outer construction
faiIurrs. First, inner rnaifhctioning of the system can materiafise as a resuIt of toxic
Ioads enterhg the system. This can cause acute probIems with any one or a
combination ofthe ecosystems. Toxic Ioads typicdy consist ofheavy metaI
con~tswhich can 'shock' the system and its organisms. To prevent acute
shock, the operator wilI introduce tliese toxins m various forms to the system dining a pilot procedure to '?min'' the organisms to recognise the shock, idlowing them to adapt as they do in nature. This nahrral adaptadon works to eliminate the toxin during nomd operations.
Another type of con~tionofthe system can occur slowIy over time. This can result in faitme in the system with respect stowing down species performance or killing them dl together. To avoid this, and notice eatly warning signs of gradual contamination or bioaccumulation, the operator uses 'indicator' species in the diffmt ecosystems. These pIant or animal species may not be diredy involved in the treatment process, but 'tell' the operator important things about the health of the ecosystems. For instance, he/she may use a ptant that is particularly susceptible to heavy metd content or a fish species whose resilience is also Iow. The well being of these species can then be monitored to discern any long-term adverse impacts to the system.
The design of the system has impact on its ability to handle contamhant Loads or safeguard against flow malfunction. For instance, four trains of solar tanks are used for primary treatment, In the event that one or even two breaks down, the flow can sti1I be handled by the remaining two trains while the operator makes repairs.
Additionally, the equalization tank has a capacity that is over-designed to hold the flow back in the event the system requires repairs
The system is separated into various microecosystems for prhnary, secondary and tertiaxy treatment However, using three distinct ecosystems: solar tanks, soIar ponds, and marshes aIIows for different orgmhns and plants to be used which means the waste in the flow is removed to a greater extent with diffidifft species feeding upon different coa~ants- Biologicrtf Was teuxw Tremnent in SusPinabie Community kip
The other type of problem that can impact the perfomance of the system is outer
Mure of the greenhouse. Iffor any teason the greenhouse construction is
compromised, particuhdy in the winter, it can have adverse impacts on treatment
performance because of temperature change- Treatment performance ofthe flow runs
optimally at approximately I2 to 15 degrees Celsius. To sdeguard against
compromised interior air temperature, an emergency sheathing system has been
designed into the construction ofthe greenhouse. As descnied in chapter four,
arching metal supports are designed into the interior construction of the greenhouse
and a plastic sheath is rolled up to one side of the greenhouse. With the help of ~o
people (four wudd make it easier), the plastic can be onrolled and pulled up and over
the arching supports to enclose the aquatic systems, maintaining the temperature until
the exterior is repaired This plastic sheathing is commonly used in greenhouse
construction and will provide an adequate barrier against cold weather elements.
6. It is important and necessary to set up a discharge-monito~gprogram for the Hidden
Valley solar aquatic pIant It is especiaIIy important since the efnuent is being reused
for golf course irrigation. Amerta Environmentd Rotection is concerned with the
reIease point of a wastewater treatment plant and has a List of parameters that require
kquent testing. These are presented below along with the costs associated with
testing at an independent laboratory.
The monitoring program hitidy incIuded testing at the point of discharge at the
plant, West Nose Creek and the goIfcourse gn,mds to ascertain any probiems with
groundwater- However, througEt codtation with a hydrologist (EBA Engineering
ConsuItants Ltd, CaIgaq, AB, p. communication} this pIan has been aitered for
reasorxi exphed haeia F* the pafameters that are tested for*to compiy with B io torricrtl \Vxitew'ifcer Treatment in Sus-ninab fe Community hsim
Alberta Environment are not barmfirl brna grounds application standpoint given the
efnwnt values achieved by the sotar aquatic pht(see table 4.8). The values are well
within the compliance Iimits set by AIberta Environment so discharge to a receiving
body is alIowed
With this m mind, testing in West Nose Creek, so& of the golfcourse, or in the
groundwater wilI likely provide eievated Ievels of phosphorus and nitrogen which are
two of the parameters to test for to meet compliance limits. This is a result of the golf
course application of herbicides and fertilizers in such Iarge quantities. The very low
levels added to the creek and the golf come from the plant will not contaminate the
environment to any significant level. As a result of golf course applications of
phosphorus and nitrogen, it would be hnpossibte to determine what percentage of the
phosphorus for instance, is tiom the solar aquatic plant and which percentage is from
fertilizer fiom the course. In addition to the parameters that require testing, ammonia
is discharged at 025 mg/L which would be readily absorbed by soils on the golf
course and present no adverse affects at all.
The compliance testing would be carried out be an independent laboratory in
Calgary. The Hidden ValIey solar aquatic pIant has its own lab and there is an
opportunity to have an independent lab technician work out ofthe onsite fdciIity to
reduce shipping costs and time to get results- The cost for lab analysis has been
calculated but this figare has not been included in the operating cost of the plant This
is became ofthe uncertainty over the lopistid costs (e.g. where the testing wilI take
place) associated with andysis- Additionally, an assumption has been made regarding
the compliance parameters to test for in the an;tfysis. Alberta EnvironmentaE Protection, in the Alberta Limits. and Monitoring
Recpirernents (wastewater discharges), issued September 1996, outlines these
parameters requiring testing for 'mechanical wastewater treatment plants'. It is not
dear whether solar aquatics wouId fd into this category or not. In other provinces
Like Nova Scotia, separate legislation and compliance reqykernents have been put in
place to deaf with the biotechnology. Alberta, presently has no such legislation. It is
thus assumed that the same parameter wodd be tested for. For these reasons, the
analysis cost has been excluded from the operating costs discussed in section5.1, but
it is reasonable to suggest that the revenues from the system will adeptely cover the
cost of compliance.
Table 62shows the parameters that require regular analysis to comply with
Alberta Environment. Notwithstanding the uncertainty explained above, the total cost
for analysis would be $23,030 per year. Again, it is anticipated that this cost is
recoverable from revenue generators discussed in chapter 5.
Table 6.3 Monitoring Analysis Costs
I Treatment I Cost/test I Frequency of I TOMCostlyear I Parameter (%) t& (9 BOD 32 Dairy 1 1,680 Total Coliform 40 Twice Weekly 4,160 N and P I 20 Twice WeekIy 2,080 TSS I4 Dailv 5.1 10 I I (source: Enviro-Test Labocaton'es~Testing CataIogue, CaIpy, AB)
7. Natw&@nding the higher operating cost per capita ofthe solar aquadc system, the
project does have a hancid advantage in terms ofo~ettkgcosts. In partidat, the
taxation system has merit as a potentid revme generator to offset operating costs.
Using a flat rate taxation system after the first three years as discussed in section 53,
wodd provide homeownm with a savings over cmrent sanitary sewer charges hcdby residents connected to the city sewer. For hstmce, during the SaEthree
years, residents win pay the same tax on their water bill as regular city co~ected
residents, assuming an average sanitary sewer charge of$25/month. This equates to
roughly $300/year or $900 over three years. For 1690 residents and assuming an
average muat operating cost of $90,000, this translates to tax revenue of$ I32521,000
to oBet a $270,000 operating cost over three years. The surplus revenue is thus
~r,251,000.
Since this is a privately owned treatment facility (possibly part owned by the
University of Calgary ifresearch opportunities and ventures ensue), the operating
costs wiIl be borne by the operator and the comm~ty.The above surplus may be put
into a hdfor emergency use, and/or research and development. Following the
initial three years, a base Iine average operating cost will be established, then each
resident could pay a flat sewer service rate based on average annual operating cost
For instance, at $90,000 per year, each person wouId pay 05325fyear (or 54.45 per
month). Any deficit could be accounted for with surpIus hding. The difficulties
with administering a flat rate lies within the uncertainty of annual operating cost.
Further research into the taxation of the system is needed to conclude this
recommendation which is MforttmateIy outside the purview of the MDP.
8. One of the primary advantages of the solar aquatic system to a community is the
community benefits the residents can receive as well as economic return. The plant
will receive reuenue fiom: brtid- and vegetabie sdes (estimated at
-$IOO,OOOfyear), tish and mo[Inslc, and ornameatat aquatic species safes
($12,00OIyear as a conservative startop date)?$90,000Iyear in surcharge revenue
starting in the fourth year, and $32,700 in revenue from f-er sales (based on yearly procEuction and saIe of5kg bags for $7). The totd expected revenue is
$234,700. Further research is needed into the success ofsoIar aquatic plants to
generate revenue from these sources. The Hidden Valfey plant would work to give
benefits back to the community from a resource that used to be called waste, These
benefits not only monetary but also advantages of bringing the community together
for a common good
9. Future commercial and industrial development (e.g. industrial parks) should be
analyzed to determine if onsite biological treatment is an option and whether there is
potential for dud water systems.
Issues to Considerfor Solar Aquatic Use
There are issues regarding reuse of effluent for irrigation on Country Hills Golf
Course that need to be addressed hmpage 15 of this MDP (section 2.3) in the form of
recommendations:
1. Effhent QuaIity and Monitoring - Pursuant to agreements with Alberta
Environmental Protection (AEP) and license to operate a sewage treatment operation,
a monitoring process will be required. The solar aquatic piant has nmnerous testing
stations within the greenhouse (see figure 4. f3b) which wilI monitor effluent quality
as it passes through the treatment phases. External monitoring stations win be
required at the point of release and the discharge point at West Nose Creek (or pump
house ifapplicabte). The effIuent released fm surpasses standards set by AEP and
poses no threat to the environment in terms of metal and/or pathogen content
2. Soil Contamhation and Animai Heaith - ReIated to the aforementioned
recommendation, a riparian monitoring process for so2 con~tioain the vacinity
ofthe reIease point (shodd it be West Nose Creek) is recommended Additiody,
158 hesame monitoring process is recommended for the golf course lands as a result of
higation. This monitoring process will determine any con~tionpresent in soils,
determine ifany risk is present for animal heaith and monitor the @ity of water
hfiItrating ground water sources.
3. Economic Value - It is difiicult to measure the monetary value of reusing the effluent
for irrigation if discharged to the creek. However, fiuther investigation is needed to
determine if the goff course would realize any cost savings.
4. Social Factors - A public participation process is recommended to inform
stakeholders and residents of the practice of irrigating the goff course with treated
ef8uent. This planning approach is advised to avoid negative response in the long
nm. it will also be important in terms of the economic viability of the golfcourse
(i.e., people continuing to play on a course irrigated with treated effluent).
6.3 Condm*ons - Future Direction
This simulation has brought to light a number of conclusions:
I. BioIogical wastewater treatment using solar aquatics works (also case proven in
Appendix B) and wiII work in a cost-effective (based on revenue returns) sustaioabIe
manner within sustainable community development. The cost effectiveness is derived
not hmthe operating cost ($87,154) done but hrnthe offset of this cost from
revenue generators (eg-sale ofhoaidMand a@c products). The saIe of these
products is topic for continued discussion, debate, and Merresearch-
2. Conventiorrat wastewater treatment whiIe effective. cao not provide society with a
method oftreatment that meets the various eIements of sustainability presented in this MDP* Biolo@crrf IVasrewxer Tmnnent in Susiable Commit). Design
3. In a city with escalating popdatioos10and increased development, sustainable
"developments" offer a weIcomed return to technoIogy based on ecological values
and p~cipIes.
4. If wastewater metering were implemented in Calgary and consumptive patterns
remained the same (Le. average wastewater production is 520L per person/day) it
would result in higher water bills per household (given the same taxation surcharge).
It is anticipated that the use of water meters wouId make peopIe more aware of the
amount of water usage and this may promote conservation ofthe resource. Chapter
two proposed the question "how much would people be willing to pay for water?"
water metering forces people to pay indirectly by taxing them on the amount of
wastewater leaving the home.
In areas ofNorth America such as CaMomia, campaigns to instal1 water saving
devices in homes such as the low-flow toilet has resulted in a savings in wastewater
taxes. Ln areas where the surcharge is based on meters, the reduction of intake of
water to the home redts in the same reduction leaving the home. This translates to
less water use and therefore Iess taxes,
This same approach if used in Calgary wouId resuIt in less water use and a
reduction in wastewater from the home. This has LnpIications for both conventional
and solar aquatic treatment methods. If reductions m wastewater were to ensue, the
size of the treatment system wouid remain the same whiIe the catchment area (number
of connected customers) would haease as a direct result of the reduction.
"Calgary's popdation standing at 800,000 win grow by 500,000 by 20 18, City of CalgaryTMunicipd Development Plan. Biolog-icaf \Vsre~xerTmment in SusiabieCommunity Design
5. It is important to note that water conservat*onshouId be the highest priority in terms
of resource management It puts the onus on the user rather than the supplier. With a
mail lifestyle change haticsavings in water use can be dedfor the consumer
and for the treatment plant.
6. With much growth coming in the form of suburban development, onsite biologicd
treatment provides an efficient toot for community development - a technology that
provides a means of cohesion between residents, typically unachievable in current
suburban designs.
7. The solar aquatics treatment faciIity provides people with a sense of connectedness to
natural processes which is an element of cities that is not always valued to the extent
that it should. Potentidy, the most cost-effective use for SAS is for arcas adjacent to
the City's limits, and/or small cities and towns. This would be particularly useM in
areas that currently pipe wastewater into Calgary for treatment. There is great
potentid for outlying communities (garden cities). CaIgary currently receives
wastewater hrnthe northern town, Cochrane.
The City of Caigary is amenable to treating the Town of Cochrane's wastewater
because of the Town's relationship to the watershed that Calgary Lies in. If the Town
were to use septic systems to treat wastewater, the Ieachate fiom the septic fields
wodd eventually mter into the dacewater comes within the Town Limits.
However, due to the elevation of Cochrane in relation to Calgary, this leachate ffow in
stdice water wodd eventualfy ffow into the Bow River and into Calgary's drinking
water resewoh.. This is obviously something the City wants to avoid and to do so, the
two municipaIfdes entered an agreement to treat Cochrane's wastewater flow. 6io~r)gif;ffihstewmr Trwnnenr in Susi-nabie Cummtm Design
MilI Bay, British Columbia, a town, was proposed I996 with a total pIanning area
of 600 ha, and popdation projected at 12,000. The site is 2 km hmthe closest town
and 32 km fiom Victoria. The objective was to create a community based on
ecoIogicalLy sustainable principles, and provide a showcase for new environmental
soIutions. The development performs to a minimum of R-2000 standards with
projected 4900 homes in hlI buiId-0~~A highlight of the community was a plan for
a tertiary level bio-treatment system. Full bttiId-out is not expected for years to come.
8. For a firm to market the product known as solar aquatics it would be best to have the
following people on the team:
Environmental Planner - the presence of an environmental planner is to act as
project manager. Hdshe possess the mixture of planning and ecological skills that
complement the nature of the wastewater treatment system. In the context of this
MDP, the Enviro~lenta[PIanner understands the land use pI-g issues involved
with placing the plant in a residential land use. Furthermore, they understand the
inner workings of the system and are able to work with policy planners in the given
constituency on compliance matters. In addition, the Environmentd PIanner has
general discipline howIedge of the other members of the team and as a redt, is abie
to coordinate projects eEectiveIy.
Biologist or Biochemist - This person is respombIe for laboratory testing and may
or may not be on the team (i.e. may be a sub-consultant). They are responsible for
testing ofthe waste flow in the system and at test points outside the greenhouse (e-g
at point ofdiscbarge). Landscape Architect- the services of an architect, particuIar one with built form architectud experience wodd serve the team very wen Ifthe technology is to find more application within the residential areas of cities and towns or even in industrid or commercial settings, there is a great deal of design work to consider- The
Landscape Architect can design the greenhouse and surrounding Iands to best fit into the existing area or to match anticipated development Being able to create dram or modeled representations of the site is also a powerful marketing tool for the system
Laboratory Researcher - this person(s) is primariiy responsible for R&D and at any time of the year, wouId likely have any number of research assistants and/or practicum students hrnschools or Universities to assist in this endeavour.
Continued research into the inner workings of the system, use of diffaent species, production of vegetables for resale, etc. is needed to advance the technology and make it more efficient and economical.
Biological Engineers - the bio-engineer will run the day-to-day operations of the system. Helshe is trained in integration of advanced biologicd systems with the intricate engineered systems- They have advanced knowledge of biological communities and may have backgrounds in botany or zoology
PRspokesperson -many biotechnology firms these days are employing the liI- time se~cesof a marketing or public relations person to deal with the marketing of their prodnct. The Solar Aptic System team would benefit fiom a PR person to able to market and advertise the system, solicit customers, tieId questions from the public and deveIop information packages that keep up to date with research and design deveIoptklentsts BiaIogicai 'tVastewxter Tmnne~ltin Sdnabfr Community Design
This team is a highly skilled and diverse group of individuals. They represent an
interdisciplinary firm that does not require substantial outside he$ from sub-
consultants.
6.4 A Last Word on tbe Future of Ecologid Planning
"In the end, values held in a society determine what is meant by 'sustainable development'. Values are reflected in the city's corresponding legislation. Attempts to so lve spatial and environmental problems take place, therefore within the given poiitical hework.. ." (Schmid, L994: 16).
This MDP and its contents fall within the field of ecological planning - the marriage (and ultimate goal thereof) of environmental protection and spatial planning.
Spatial planning according to Schmid is mostly rooted m the "development of 'spatial stnrcnne~',the economic use of Ian& the 'orderly settlement of land'. and the permanent safeguarding and maintenance of the basic conditions of Life" (Schmid, 1994: 17).
EnviromnentaI protection on the other hand emphasises the technicd scientific aspects of planning. In an era where resources are being depleted and landscapes falIing to development, a new way of pI&g is required and the marriage between the two planning methods above is deemed the potential solution: ecoIogicaI planning.
Schmid identifies two types of ecologicd pIambg responsive and strategic. This
MDP has shown that with Strategic EcoIogicd PIarming, nameIy using onsite BWWT, offsite impacts caa be redaced and site stability can be reinforced. Strategic ecoiogicd pI&g is a preventative measme much the same as sustainable community design, "it discs ecoIogicaI technotogy to minimise impact and maximise ecofogical enhancement of P space* (Schmid, 1994: 19). The p[an for Hidden Valley is a positive step for integrating spatial planning and eavironmental protection. The west to make land use planning snstainable; creating
&able community design, involves very complex req@rements. As cities continue to expand, ecotogicd planning and eco-engineering wilI provide sostainable solutions such as solar aquatics, to inmasingly complex land use problems. Biologic-af \V;rsrewater TEZIIE~~ii~ Sustainable Community Design References
Adey, W. & K. Loveland, (I99 I) Dwamic Adurn: E5uiIdi.n~Living Ecosvstems, Academic Press, San Diego, Ck
Alberta Environrnena Protection, (1995) Guide to Bill 51 - Water Act
Alberta Environmental Rotection, personal communication, 04/13/99.
Alien, Greg, (Summer, 1995) Living Machines - Better Sewage Treatment+ Great Lakes United, VoL 9, N0.4, pp. 20-22.
Applied Envimnmental Systems, (1997) Solar Aauaticsm System TechnoIogv, FAQ Sheet - Unpublished Halifax, NS.
Barnes, B and PAFitzgedd, (1984) Recent Advances in Wastewater Treatment, Chemical Engineering in Australia, Vol. 9, No.3, pp. 9- 15.
Benjes, H.H, Jr., (1980) Handbook of Biological Wastewater Treatment - Evaluation, Performance, and Cost, Garland STPM Press, New York, New York.
Brown & Wolf. ( 1984) www.~inabIe.doc.gov,(07/ L 3/99).
Ceaadian Water and Wastewater Association, (1997)Rerm1ator-y Barriers to Onsite Water Reuse, (with the assistance of a grant hrnCMHC). Ottawa, Ontario.
City of Calgary, Engineering and Environmental Senrice Department, (1994) Clean md Clear, Unpublished
Cohen, J.E., (1996) Maximum Occupancy. American Demographics, W.W. Norton & Company, New Yo& NY.
Cohen, JE, (Excqt hmJoel Cohen's book - How Many People Can the Earth Support?), ~~~.iti~comli~~Archive/Broad~~ews/YFmnt/msgOOO53html, 61 t 0/99-
Context [I9911 EcovilIaees and S-abIe CommunitiesI Context hti- Bainbridge hlanc€,WA Cumin- WP. & B. WoodworthSaigo, f 1990) EndnmentaL Science - A Global Concern, W.C. Brown Publishers, Dubuqne, ik
Currie, J.C. & A-T. Pepper (Eds.), (1993) Water and the Environment, Ellis Horwood Limited, West Sussex, England
Ddy, HE,(1 996) Beyond Growth, Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daily, G-C. & P.R. Ehrlich, Population. SustainabiIitv and the Earth's Caminn Caoacitv: A Framework for Estimating Po~ulationSizes and Lifestyles that Could be Sustained Without Undenninin~Future Generations, dieoEorg/page l IZhtmi, 6/10/99.
Dieter, HH., A. Grohmann & D, Thompson, (1997) SeficContributions of Politics, Economies and Toxicology in Setting Socr'dv Consensual Limit Values, Environmental Management Vol. 2 1. No-4,pp. 505-1 5.
DTItri, Frank, M. (Ed.), ( 1977) Wastewater Renovation and Reuse - Pmceedines of the International Conference on the Renovation and Reuse of Wastewater through Acruatic and Terrestrial Systems, Marcel Dikker Inc., New Yo& New Yo&.
Environment Canada, (1995) Water - No Time to Waste: A Consumer's Guide to Water Conservation, Ottawa, Ontario,
Etnier, C & B. Guterstam (Eds.), (1991) EcoIoeieaI Engineering for Wastewater Treatment, Kokeskogau, Gothenberg, Sweden.
FarreE, M, (1996) Treating industrial and Municbd Sewage Naturally, BiocycIe, (November), Vol. 37, No. 16, pp.80-83.
Freedman, B, (1989) EnviromnentaI Ecology - The hactsof PoIIution and Other Stresses on Ecomstem Structme and Function, Academic Ekes Inc., Harcourt Brace Javanovich PubIishers, San Diego, CA.
Gaia Environrnentztl PIanning and Commuaication, (L993) CaIwrv Urban Parks Program - Bio~hysicdAssessmen& UnpabIished, September, for City of Calgary, Parks and Reaation Department
Geis, D. & T. Kntrmark, (www.~Le.doc.gov,03/22) - reprinted from Public Management, pubtished by City and County Management Association, Washington, DC. Biological iV;tstew&r Treatment in StMaiaabIe Cummunity kip
Giggey, MD.,0. Rasmussen, L. Bjomstad & N.G. Schroder, (1996) Se~ta~eDewatering and Comoosting m Norwav, Biocycle, Sme9VoL 37, No. 6, pp. 46-47.
GUette, B., (1996) WetIands Treatment: Getting Close to Nature, BiocycIe, October, Voi. 37, No. 16, pp.74-78.
Golueke, C.G. & LJ. Diaz, ( 198 I) Onerating a Solar Aauacdtrne Sewage Treatment Plant, Biocycte, .January/Febcuary, Vol. 22, No. I, pp. 38-40.
Grant, j., D. budry 8t P. Manuel, (1993) Sustainable Deveiooment in Residential Land Use Pl&% CMHC assisted, Unpublished, Apd, NSCAD, Hdifw NS.
Gratsch, JS., ( 1 985) Im~rovedCold Weather Wastewater Treatmen& Hydrocarbon Processes, Vol. 64, No. L 0, pp.47-50.
Green, MS. & J. Upton, (t994) Constructed Reed Beds: A Cost Effective Way to Polish Wastewater Effluent for Smali Communities, Wastewater Research, May/June, VoI. 66, NO. 3, pp. 188-192.
Guterstam, B. & I. Todd, (1990) Ecoloeical Enoineerine for Wastewater Treatment and its A~dicationin North East Sweden, Arnbio, May, VoI. 19, No.3, pp.173-175.
Hawken, Paul, (1993) The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainabilitv, 1" Edition, Harper Business, New York
HoEinann, HJ., Wav Too Many For Us, www.csnsetlecofi&pWpkcap~.htmI, 15/04/99,
KOIdren and Ertich, ( 1 990) www.dieoff.org, (07114/99).
Hygeia Consulting Services & Reic LTD, (L995)ChanMioe VaIues, Changing Communities: A Guide to the Deve~o~mentof Heafthv SustainabIe Communities, Unpublished - ResdDivision, CMHC, Ontario.
KadIec, RJL, (1996) Treatment Wetlands* Anne Amor, The University of Michigarr h.ess,
Ka* SAT(L993) The Origins of Ordz Self Ornarrizaton and SeIection in Evohtion, The Mord University Pressf New Yo& Biofogiraf W;lstewaw Tm~tmtentin Stts~n;rbieCommunity Design
Kinsinger, WL. & P.S. Markiewiq (1991) A Iivine Svmbol of Partici~aton,Ecoloev: Wastewater, Groundwater and Air Purification Schematics for the Rene Dubos BiosheIter, [n: Etnier and Guterstome, 199 1.
Geese, AV., (1984) Measuring the Benetits of Clean Air and Water, Resources for the Future Inc, Washington, D.C.
Knmar, HD. & HN. Sin& (1979) A Textbook on AIeae, AffiIiated East-West Press Private Limited, Hoog Kong.
Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Bill 5 1 - Water Act, Minster of Environmental Protection, Third Session, 23& LegisIature, 44 Elizabeth II.
Liliey, I. & B. Free, (1988) [m~mvineEaforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, Environment CounciI of Alberta, Edmonton.
Mayer, GJ., LS. Cheng, P. Paut & F. Mohamed, (1994) Emissions of Air Toxins fiom Wastewater Treatment Plants, Water Research, Mar~WApriI~Vol. 66, No. 2, pp- 140-144.
Mitsch, WJ.,( 1993) Ecoloeical Eneeerinq, Envko~lenfalScience TechnoIogy, Vol. 27, pp. 438-444.
Moore, I.W, (1989), Balancing the Needs of Water Use, Sp~ger-Verlaghc., New York,
Naar, I., (1990)Desien for a Livable Planet: How You Can Heb Clean m the Envimnment, Harper and Row Publishers, New Yo*
National Research Council, (1982) Quality Criteria for Water Reuse, Nationai Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council of Canada, (1995) Nationd Plumbing Code of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Nelson, A.C. & IS. Duncan, et d,(1995) Growth Management Princi~Iesaud Practices, Planners Press, MA, Washington D-C. Nenov, V., (1996) TSSBOD Removal Efficiencv and Cost Cornoarison ofChemicd and BioIogicaI Wastewater Treatment,Water Science and Technology, VoL 32, No. 7, pp. 207-2 14.
0- B., (1981) Armroaches to Comprehensive Water Resource Management for the Province of AIberta, Faculty of Environmental Design, University ofcalgary, Calgary, Aiberta.
Oleszkiewiezz IA, W. Trebacz & DB.Thompson, (1992) Bioloeicd Treatment of Kraft Mill Wastewater, Water Environment Research, SeptemberlOctober, VoI. 64, No. 6, pp. 805-8 LO.
Perks, W.T., (1997) Consumer Rece-ptivitv to Sustainable Commdtv Desipm, Unpublished, Faculty of Environmentaf Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
PiyoI, R J.P. Cader & A Iwerna, (1992)Biological Aerated Filters: An Amactive and Alternative BioIoeicaf A~~roach,Water Science and Technology, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, pp. 693-702.
Postgate, J., ( I9981 Nitrogen Fixation, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK.
Ramjohn, 1. (1998) Solar Aauatic Wastewater Treatmen5 Unpublished, Faif, Facnlcy of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, ALberta
Rees, William, (199?) Our EcoIogicaI Footprink New Society Publishers, GabrioIa Wand, BC.
Richardson, RB., (1995) Environmental Resilience and Sustainable Consemtion, University of Texas at Anstfn, Department of Zoology, Austin, Texas.
Reddy, KR&D.L. Sutter, (1989) Water Avacinths for Water Ouditv lmorovement and Biomass Production, Journal of Enviromnentai Wity, Vof. 13, No. I, pp. 1-6.
Roan& FE., (L973) The BioIow- - ofthe AIeae, Second Edition, Edward AmoId, London. Schneider, DM., DKGodschalk, & N. AxIer, (1978) The CdgCma& Conce~tas a Piannine; Tool American Planning Association, Report No. 338.
Schmid (1992) In Sustainable Land Use Planning: Proceedings of an Inknmtional Worksho~.2-4 Se~temberL992, edited by Hubert N. van Lier, et ah, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Shereif, MM., (1995) A Demonstration of Wastewater Treatment for Reuse A~dication in Fish Production and Irrigation in Suez E-wWater Science Technology. VoI. 32. No.11, pp. 137-142.
Shuval, H.L. (1977) Dkct and Indirect Wastewater Reuse for Mtmici~aiPumoses, Ambio Vol. 6, No. L pp.63-66.
Sorensen, I, D-E. Thornberg & MKNeilson, (1994) &bization of a Nitrogen- Removing Biological Wastewater Treatment Process Using Online Measurements, Water Environment Research, Vol. 66, N0.3, pp. 236-241.
SpeideI, DH*, LX. Pudeiski & A-F. Agnew (Eds.), (I988) Pers~ectiveson WateFUses and Abuses, Oxford University Ress, Oxford, EngIand
Spencer, R, ( L990) Solar Aanatic Treatment of Satage, Biocycle, May, VoI. 3 I, No.5, pp. 66-70.
Spencer, R, (1990) Wastewater Recycling for Fish Fanners, Biocycle, April, Vol. 3 1, N0.4 pp. 73-78.
Td,JM- & S. Peterson, (1993) A Solar Auuatic System Se~tageTreatment Plant, Water Science and TechnoIogy, VoI. 27, No. E, pp. 85-89.
The City ofCalgary, (198 I) A Policv on Dnr Ponds, Engineering Department, Public Relations Department, PI&g Department, Engineering Department, Unpublished Report.
The City of Calgary, (198 1) A Policy on Stormwater Lakes, Engineering Departmen& PubIic ReIadons Departmen5 PI&g Department, Engineering Department, Unpubhhed Report Biological Wstewaer Trrment in Susmh'abIe Commune Design
The City ofCdgary, Engineering & EnvironmenM Senrice Department Sewer Division, (1998) Wastewater Treatment Historid Data, Unpnbkhed Repoa
The Crystalline Group, (1988) Calearv in Winter, Faculty ofEnvironmental Design, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Todd, J., ((976) Pioneering for the Twentv-First Cent-:A New Alchemist's Pmective, Ecoiogis VoI.6, No.7. pp.252-257.
Todd, I., B. J. Josephson, (I996) The Design of Living Technoloeies for Water Treatment, The Journal of Ecotechnology and EcoIogical Engineering Vo1.6, pp. 109- 136,
Todd, J & NJ. Todd, ( 1980) Tomorrow is Our Permanent Address, 1st edition, Harper & Row, New York
Tofy, P, R.S. Tobin & I. Sharp (Eds.), (1989) Drinking Water Treatment - Small System Alternatives, Pergamon Press, Oxford, EngIand.
Tripathi, BD. & S.C. Shukla, (1990) Bioloeical Treatment of Wastewater bv Selected Aauatic Plants, Environmental Pollution, VoI. 69, No. 1, pp.69-77.
Van Den Hoek, C, D.G. Mann & HM.Jahns, (1995) Algae: An introduction to PhvcoIoey, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
White, KD,& .JOGcBenken, Natural Treatment and Onsite Processes, Water Environment Research, VoI. 40, No. 4, pp.540-550.
Wise, D-L., (1988), Biotreatment Swtems Voiume II, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Wotvertoo, B.C. & R.C. McDonald, (1979) The Water Hyacinth: Fmm RoMc Rest to PotentiaI hvider, Ambio, Voi. 8, No. 1, pp. 2-8. www.watmnline.com (28 October 1998)
~chaCcyon.com/cteanwater/~~~~/boo~tml(28 October 1998) www0--corn (28 October t998) mww~gaia,or~hdhodecoviYecdm~tmL(28 October 1998) www.~grnachines~com(28 October 1998) www.enviroaccess.ca (28 October 1998) www.sustainabIe.doc.gov (28 October I 998)
Zhongxiang Z., (199 1) Water Saving and Wastewater Reuse and Recvcliog in China, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 23, pp. 2 135-2140. Biologicat Et'rtstewmr T~rtc~nentin SdtabfeCommunity Design
Activated Sludge - as sewage moves through a wastewater treatment plant (biological or conventional), microorganisms and bacteria feed on the nutrients. In doing so, they remove the waste (sludge) from the effluent and this bacteria-sludge combination is known as activated sludge.
Aerobic - in the presence of air (oxygen).
Anaerobic - without the presence of air (oxygen).
Bioaccumulation (explained in text) - a natud process occurring in all living things. As an organism takes in nutrients and other chemicals, they are storrd in ceIIs, tissue, etc, for immediate or later use. With time the organism 'bac~umuIates"more of these nutrients to levels their system can tolerate-
Bioaugment - (in this MDP) the term is used in the context of wastewater treatment and specifically biological methods. In the solar aquatic process used in this MDP, activated sludge is retumed to the primary treatment tanks and equalization chamber. In these areas, bacteria and microorganisms are introduced to accelerate (augment) the biological treatment process.
BioIogicaI wastewater treatment system - a treatment system that reduces and/or eliminates waste ffows fiorn the primary effluent (water) using a myriad of natmiIy occurring species (e.g- pIants, fish, molIusks) arranged to coexist m an engineered ecosystem- Constructed wastewater treatment and solar aquatics are two examples of such systems.
Biomaghificiation (expIalned in text) - the process ofa food chain where predatory species feed upon lower trophic (see glossary) IeveIs. This natrual process "ma~es" the nutria chm-c& andlot contaminant lwek in the organisms system because ofthe bioaccmnuIation (see gIossary) aIready present in these Iower trophic orgmkms- BOD- stands for Biological Oxygen Demand; is a measme of the organic strength of wastewater. If not &cient[y removed, biological decomposition of the remaining organic material in the flow may depIete the dissoived oxygen content ofthe receiving water. If too much of the dissoLved oxygen is removed, fish and other aquatic life may die, The biodegradable portion ofthe organic matter is rneasund by a five day biological oxygen demand
Byproduct - (in this MDP) taken to mean the cesididu products left after wastewata treatment is complete. In CWWT the two significant byproducts are water and sludge (which can be digested and converted to fertiiizer). In BWWT and specificdy with solar aquatics, the byproducts are more extensive. Water, sludge, fish, plants, and molIusks can all be harvested,
Catdyst - (in this MDP) a catalyst is known as an organism that stimulates growth or a biochemical reaction. The reaction would take place without the catalyst but at a slower rate.
Clarifiers - (in this MDP) a cideris used in CWWT and BWWT to remove remaining suspended solids in an effluent flow.
CoagoIant - Coagulants are used m liWd/solids separation applications to neutralize the ionic charges that surmund solid paaicles dispersed m wastewater. Moa naturaIly ocnnring particles have a negatively charged dacein water due to the release of cations (positively charged) such as Hf, Li', ~a+,c, ~a*', etc. f?om the daceof the partide into the surrounding water. When particIes of Iike charge approach one another, they repel and cannot combine to form larger particies. This Leads to very stable systems ofparticles (in this case organic waste) in water that wilI not settIe. Cationic coaguIants adsorb onto the negativeLy charged particle dacesthereby ueutmhbgthe negative charges that are musing repulsion. The first coagnIants used in were dvmirmm &te -h(used in the Bonnybmk treatment process)- This Biologicat biasteu'aer Tme11t in SmainibTe Community Design compound has a trivaient metaI ion (mthat is strongly attracted to any negativeIy charged dace.
COD - stands for Chemical Oxygen Demand; is a measure of the organic strength of wastewater. If not &ciendy removed, chemical decomposition of the remaking non- biodegradable organic materid in the flow may deplete the dissolved oxygen content of the receiving water. If too much ofthe dissolved oxygen is removed, fish and other aquatic life may die. The oon-biodegradable portion ofthe organic matter is memdby chemicaI oxygen demand minus the five day biological oxygen demand value.
Coliiorm - Total coliform bacteria are a collection of relatively harmless microorganisms that Live in large numbers in the intestines of humans aad other warm and cold-blooded animals. They aid in the digestion of food. A specific subgroup of this collection is the fecal colifom bacteria, the most common member being Escherichia coli. These organisms may be separated fiom the total coliform group by their ability to grow at elevated temperatures and are associated only with the fecd material of warm-blooded animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in aquatic environments indicates that the water has been contaminated with the fecal material of man or other animals, At the time this occurred, the source water may have been contaminated by pathogens or disease producing bacteria or viruses which can also exist in feca1 material. The presence of fecal contamination is an indicator that a potential health risk exists for individuals exposed to this water.
Conventiood wastewater treatment (CWWT) - a mechanic& chemicd, and sometimes biologically driven piece ofhbstmcture often capable of treating large amounts of municipaI, commerciai and ind-al wastewater.
Digeston - (in this MDP) a containment unit where sludge from the WWTP is pumped to be bbharvested"d"The sIucfge settles and the supernatant is shedoff (containing activated dodge - see glossary) and returned to the treatment process. When sufficient settfingand dewateghas ocamed the siudge is pmnped ont and dowed to dry. Dissolved solids - solid matter that is eady dissoIved into sofution - much Like sugar in warm water-
Dual water system - pubtic works infrastncture that allows two trains of treated water to enter a building. One pipe brings in water for consumption treated at a water treatment piant while the other brings water treated to tertiary levels at a WWTP for non- consumptive uses.
EcoIogfcaI pWng- holistic approaches to planning that bridges the concepts and practices of spatial or Iand use planning and the scientific and technical aspects of environmental protection.
Effluent - is the resulting water flow after various treatment stages. There are generally three stages (primary, secondary, and tertiary)* Mer each one, the quality of the effluent increases.
Evapotranspiration - evaporation that occurs from surface of plants.
Flora - vegetative species.
Groundwater - the flow of water beneath the earth's surface on top of the water table (impervious bedrock Layer).
Heavy metals - rnetaILic elements that &st naturaiIy or are produced and may cause contamination partidady to water supplies. They are toxic to We forms and exciusion fiom treated effluent is highly desirabIe (e.g. cadmium and mercury).
Living Machine - the US commen5;rC name fmthe BWWT used in this MDP. The patent is held by Ocean Arks Intematiod hc- in the Uded States (see solar aquatics for the Canadian patent - glossary). Microcosm/macrocosm - (m this MDP) taken to mean miniature contained ecosystems mimkkhg the natmd larger scale (rnmro) earth.
Mixed tiquor - after primary treatment is achieved in a wastewater treatment system the effluent flows into a secondary unit where bioIogicaI processes per=-st (not all conventional methods have this step) with microorganisms attacking the nutrients in the sewage. Activated sfudge forms (see glossary) and the combination of this and the primary effluent is known as mixed liquor.
Nitrification - is the process where nitrifjhg bacteria in wastewater convert ammonia (NH3) to nitrites (NO?)and/or nitrates (NO3). Similar to plants who use carbon dioxide to create food, these bacteria use ammonia The bioIogica! oxidation from ammonia to nitrateshitrites is called nimcation. This conversion makes the nitrogen in its new form, more readily avaiIabte for plant uptake. Conversely, the process of denitrification reduces nitrates to nitrites and fuaher still to cbitrogen @I2)which is a gas that is released to the atmosphere. This process is carried out primarily by plants w*ngthe nitrogen fiom nitrates. The figure betow explains the process diagrammaticalIy.
Oxidhe (oxidation) - In an oxidation reaction, eIectrons are lost by atoms of the eIementfs) imrohred in the reaction- The charge on these atoms must then become more positive. The eIectrons are lost hmthe species undergoing oxidation and so erectrons appear as products in an oxidation reaction- An oxidation is taking place ia the reaction ~e'+@-> ~ey~+ e- because electrons are lost hmthe species being oxidized, ~e'+(@, despite the apparent production of electrons as "k"entities m oxidation reactions. Oxidation reactions are reactions in which the oxidation state@) of the atoms of the eIement(s) involved increases. The increase is intended in the sense of becoming more positive.
Parameters - (in this MDP) taken to mean the types of contaminants or constituents in wastewater flows. Measurements of these are refened to as parameters.
Pathogens - (in this MDP) taken to mean harmfUI bacteria present in wastewater.
pH- the dative acidity of a substance, measured on a scde of L - 14 with 7 being new, L being acidic, and 14 aIkahe-
Photosynthesis - the process by which plant species create food. The combination of carbon dioxide, sunlight, and sugar from nutrient uptake combine to create energy.
Phylogenetic dive- ((expabed in text) - a wide array and diverse selection of organism and plants that combine to form ecosystems. Without this diversity, the ecosystem will not fimction properly or as efficiently. Phyio fiom the word Phylum - a higher order class~catioasystem used to categorise organisms.
Phytoplankton -are kefloating flora which convert inorganic compounds into compIex organic compounds. This process of primary productivity supports the petagic food-chain,
Potable - refers to water @ty that is of consumptive standards. Biological tVstewnt=r Triztnntnt in Sus-trrinabfe Community Dais
Redox (reducticon and oxidation) - A redox reactknt is an etectrochemicd reaction in which both reduction and oxidation take place together. The electrons lost in an oxidation component are gained in a reduction component. As a consequence, some chemists call a redox reaction a full reaction and its constituent oxidation and reduction components half- reactions. The stoichiometry of a redox teaction impkthat all of the electrons lost in the oxidation are gained in the reduction, so electrons can appear only impiicitky in a redox reaction,
Reduction - A reduction reaction is the reverse of an oxidation reaction, In a reduction reaction, electrons are gained by atoms of the elements involved Their charge becomes Less positive. The eIectrons are gained by the species tmdergoing reduction and so electrons appear as reactants in a reduction reaction. A reduction is taking place in the reaction cd2' + 2e- -> Cd(s) because electrons are being gained by the species which is being reduced, cd2' (a@, despite the apparent loss of electrons as "free" entities in reduction reactions. Reduction reactions are reactions in which the oxidation state(s) of the atoms of the element(s) involved decreases. The decrease is intended in the sense of becoming less positive.
Septage - wastewater removed fiom a cesspool, septic tank system, privy vault or privy pit, chemical toilet portable toilet, or wastewater holding ~~.
Solar aquatics system (SAS) - the commercial name for the BWWT used in this MDP. The patent is held by Environmental Design and Management in Canada (see solar aguatics for the US patent - gIossary).
Topk level- a Level an organism holds on the food chain- It refers to low trophic levels of plant species (autotrophic) and higher order species which feed upoa the Iower chains.
TOMsuspended solids (TSS) - soIid matter that iS present in wastewater flows which is light enough to remain suspended in the water column but which wiII evenWy settte under cahconditions- CTpWre - generic term used to descriie the pmcess by which plants absorb nutrients.
Zoopllnkton - Zoopfankton are animals, whose swimming appendages are too smalI to enable them to swim effectively against the currents. They are typically microscopic, raaging in size up to a few centimetres long. Many can dart for short distances in short bursts of energy, however these bursts are mainly reserved for flight hrndanger, or pursuit of prey. Some zooplankton are different life stages of larger marine adults. Examples include: KniCopepod, Polychaete, Amphipod., Shrimp, Fish Larvae, Crab Larvae, Pteropod, and Squid/Octopus Lamae. Appendix B Representative SoIar AquaticLiving Machine Projects
Systems in use worfdivide: At a gImrre Client Type ofWaste
AU CIear Sewices, Weare, NH 1 Septage (private) 5,000 1 L996 Meld. Massachusetts I Sewage 5000 ) 1996 Bear River, Nova Scotia 1 Sewage 55.000 1 1995 BeausoTeiL Enkgton. B-C- 1 Septic tank effluent tom It996 Beaverbank, Nova Scotia 1 Sewage 1 80.000 f 1995 Ben and Jerry's, Waterbury, VT Dairy wastewater hrnpdum*on I r.WO f I99i Cedar Grove Cheese, Wisconsin ) Cheese productrConwastewater DmwSchool New York 1 Sewage Earth Centre ) Sewage equivalent Effem Produtos Ahenticios, Food production wastewater to reuse 76,000 Phase 1 1998 Mogi Mirim, Brazil 170.000 Phase LI 1999 Ethel M Chocoiates, Nevada Food production wastewater to reuse Findhorn foundation, UK 1 Sewage 17,000 FIax Pond MA 1 Polhted Pond water r00.000 t 992 Frederick, MD f Sewage Harwicb, MA 1 Septage - Haymourn Virginia I Sewage J&y. New Hampshire Sewage Kal Kan, California Canned pet Food wastewater treatment & aquacutture I La Paz Mexico Sewage 185.000 1 1994 M&M/Mars, Recife. Brazil I High strength food processing 32.000 1 1997 wastewater 1 MiWWMars. Texas Sludge aeaanent reed bed 100.000 I Pilot - t995 - r~agi~Hat Brewery, Vermont Btewery wastewater pre-treatment 15,000 ) 1998
-Marion------7 -MA - - Sentaee-- -- - , l .On0_."- 1 roo?.# -- Martha's Vineyard. MA I Septage I 20.000 1 I997 1 MasterFoods, Australia I High strength food processing iIOO.000 1 15395 wastewater National Audubon Society, Sewage to reuse 10,000 1994
Navajo Nation. New Mexico Sewage Okrlin College Center for Sewage to reuse Environmental Sciences, Ohio Ontario Science Centrev Don Sewage fhm Centre Mas Paws hc, Muncie, Indiana Sewage tiom offices Providence, Rhode island Sewage
-San Francisco, California Sewaee to reuse Sonoma Mountain Brewery, CA Brewery wastewater to reuse South Burlington, Vermont Sewage Sugarbnsft Vermont Sewape hmresort The Body Shop IntemationaL UK I Cosmetics productionwastewater The Body Shop, Factory Sewage to reuse Vermont Interstate Welcome 1 Sewage to reuse m I Center I I The folIowing is an annotated List of Solar Aquatic and Living Machine techao[ogies in use worldwide- The list is thorough but by no means exhaustive as new systems are being designed and constructed every month (according to Halifax based firm, Environmental Design and Management - Licensee of Solar Aquatics). The information presented here is on an avaiiabiIity basis. Some operators are figto divulge more than others.
AU Clear Services, Weare, New Ehmpshire
This private septage treatment facility was built to treat 5,000 gpd. It is owner-operated to meet tertiary discharge standards. Construction and startup were completed in April 1996. Population served: 10,000 people,
This Solar Aguatics facility treats sewage for the Asffield tom center. It is designed to treat 25,000 gpd average flows for tertiary quality discharge to groundwater. Construction was completed and start-up began in October 1996.
Bear River, Nova Scotia
This solar aquatic system was built in the center of smdl coastal town as the first in Canada Phase 1was designed for 17,500 gpd; full build out is 55,000 gpd Construction and startup were completed in April 1995. The Town won the L995 Nova Scotia SustaioabIe Communities Award and the Guif of Maine Award In 1996, &e facility received the lntemationai Waterfront Award for environmental protection and enhancement for its Solar Aqnatics System. In 1996,8,000 tourists visited the facility.
BeausoteiI, Errlngtoe, British Cohmbia
This facility is located in a Werpark and treats septic tank efeuent at flows of 10,000 gpd Constmction and startup were cornpIeted in June 1996. Beaverbank Vias, Nova Scotia
This fbcility treats sewage for a large extended care facility and low-income housing. The system repIaced a 40-year-oid system and treats 80,000 gpd with combined sewer overflows exceeding 200,000 gpd Construction and startup were completed in August 1995,
Ben & Jerry's Wastewater Wot Facility - Waterbury, Vermont
This pitot plant operates treating 1,000 gpd of wastewater fkom ice cream and fiozen yogurt manufacturing. The system successllIy treats this high strength waste to tertiary !mldards.
Boat Waste and Septage Treatment Pilot Plant - Marion, Massachusetts
This pilot pIant was designed as a brackish water system to treat waste fiom marine toilets. It operated under this appIication during the summers of 199 1 aad I992 with positive resuits in treating exceptionally strong waste. Since 1993, the faciIity has been used to treat septage (approximately 1,000 gpd) from the Town of Marion. Population served: 1750 people.
Earth Centre in Doncaster, England
The Deame Valley of Doncaster, England, an area Sir Walter Scott descn%ed in 1806 as, "one of the most beautiful and striking scenes in England," is the setting of the Eaah Centre. This 350-acre environmental and educational theme park is designed to show the importance of ecology, technobgy and business in the coming demium. The park attracts over 25 million visitors per year.
The Living Machine treats seasonal sanitary wastewater fiom visitor restmoms and restaurantsCThe wastewater is approximately ten times the strength of conventiond sanitary wastewater, due to the innovative zero flush lrrinaI and ultra low ftush toilet system, The system was designed in two phases to dIow for expansion with Ear& Centre growth, A portion of the fbd e.ffluent is recycled for onsite horticuI-. Phase I construction treats 17,000Uday (approximately 4,500 gpd) with planned expansion to 34,000 Uday (approximatefy 9,000 gpd) in Phase II. Design treatment performance for both phases is: Parameters Muent Effluent . I Biological Oxygen Demand (mgft) 1,700 <20 Total Suspended Solids (mgll) 2,600 Fecal Colifom (CFU/mL) 100,000,000 : 4 This system is designed to treat unusua1y bigh strength, seasonal flows to reuse treatment levels. The Eaah Centre Living Machines is a reliable, Iow maintenance and user friendly treatment approach that provides visitors the unique opportunity to interact with a sustainable wastewater treatment. Effem Prodntos Alimenticios, Mogi Min'm, BraziI Effem Produtos Alimenticios is a large producer of sauces, canned pet food and dry pet food located m Mogi Mirim, Brad, near Sao Paulo. Effem needed onsite wastewater treatment for their high saength production wastewater because the local wastewater treatment faciIity is unable to handIe the load A Living Machine was designed to treat production wastewater to reuse quality. The Living Machine was constructed in two phases. Phase I was desi-gned to treat 288,000 Uday (75,000 gpd) of high strength production wastewater. Phase II wiU expand treatment capacity to 648,000 Uday (170,000 gpd) at the same high strength. E£Eluent h.omthe Liviog Machine is stored in a pond for onsite irrigation. Design txatment performance for both phases is [isted below. Parameters I rnnuent EBIuent Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mgli) 1 4500 40 Chemicaf Oxygen Demd (mgll) 1 9JOO 430 Total Suspended Solids (mgn) 1 2300 CEO ' Fats* Oils and Grease {mgfl) I 850 <5 Total Nitrogen (mg/l) C60 <40 Total Phosphorous (mgll) I 95 40 This Living Machine is designed to cost-effective@treat EEds high wgthpmducdon wastewater to a very high @-ty in an aestheticaIly attractive manner. Compared to other systems of similar @ty effluent, the Living Machine is easier to operate and has Lower operating costs. The Living Machine provides an attractive addition to the impressive site facilities and landscaping. Ethel M Chocolates in Henderson, Nevada Constrained by tightened discharge requirements, Ethel M Chocokitesr expansion Led to a Living Machine that provides advanced treatment of confectionery process wastewater. A11 wastewater is treated to a quality suitabIe for reuse, in this case for onsite 1andscape irrigation. Sludge is also treated onsite by a cornposting reed bed, making this a zero discharge fdty- The Living Machine treats up to 32,000 gpd of high strength confectionery production wastewater. Average treatment performance data are: r Parameters InfIuent Design ' Effluent Effhent BiochernicaI Oxygen Demand (mg/T) 1,270 10 6 To td Suspended Solids (mg/ I) 309 10 5 Fats. Oils and Grease (mpll) 200 5 I 1 The zero discharge nature of the Living Machine eliminates discharge fees and conserves water. The onsite biosoIids treatment reduces costs and risks associated with off-site sludge disposal. As the Living Machine is a totally biological system, no chemicais are used in the treatment process. It is computer controlled and reIativeIy simpIe to operate . Ethel M Chocolates has added the Living Machine to their well-established factory tour and can be viewed seven days a week- Findhorn, Scotland Constructed on the noah coast of Scotland, this Living Machine treats the sewage fhm the Fmdhorn Foundation. T6e challenge ofthis project was to treat wastewater fiom the residentid corn- of300 pe (person e-dents), while providing capacity for Large seasonal fluctuations m flow dtbghm ovu 10,000 visitors per year. In order to receive municipal approval to construct more housing the Foundation is required to ERZI~ their sewage on site. Needing a cost-effectfve soIution that provides reuse @ty water, Biologic-~f\C-astewrer Tmentin Sus-inabfe Community kip the Foundation chose a Livfng Machine. The systeD treats up to 17,000 gallons per day of sewage to reuse standards- Average treatment pecfonnance data are: f Parameters I Estimated Intluent Final EffIuent Chemical Oxygen Demand fmg/r) I 500 37 Biological Oxygen Demand (mg/l) 300 2-7 Totai Suspended Solids (mg/E) 250 I0 Ammonia (mg/I) 25 3.4 i At low cost, the Living Machine can handle the seasonal fluctuation in flow while treating the water to the high standards required by the European Union. Natural wastewater treatment follows the Foundation's goal ofadopting principles of sustainable design in development projects. The effluent will be reused for irrigation. Harwich Septage Treatment Pilot FaciUty - Harwich, Massachusetts This system treats 3,600 gpd of septage, over half of the septage produced by this community of 10,000 people. Haymount, Virginia This sewage treatment facility is for a new community buiIt on principles of environment and economic wtainabitity. Design and preliminary engineering were completed in 1995. The discharge permit was issued in December 1995, for tertiary quality discharge to dacewater. Phase I - 250,000 gp& FuiI buiIdout - 950,000 gpd. The community will include 4000 homes and 750,000 sq. fi. of commemial space. Find engineering began in 1997, with fitU construction compteted in L998. Jaffirey, New Hampshire, Sewage Poiishiag Pilot Farilfty Operated hut September, 1994, to October, 1995, this piIot facility has treated flows of 7,000 - I8,000 gpd. Sewage is curmtIy treated by three aerated lagoons before discharge through an utm*oIetLight disidieectin unit into a river- New regulations have set the Summer discharge knits for TSS and BOD at 7 mg/I, with ammonia at 253 m@, and the winter discharge knits for TSS and BOD at L4 mg,with Ammonia at 5-6 mgR, which the aerated Iagoons motmeet. The piIot SoIar Aquatics ficiIity successfbEy demonstrated the abifity to polish the fluent to meet the new Iimits. Biola~caliVastttwmr Trerrmrmt Frl Susiiife tornmtmixy Design The LaFuente sewage treatment ficiIity was built for a private housing development The capacity is 185,000 gpd (3000 peopIe). Eftluent is recycled for livestock and irrigation, Construction and startup were completed in November 1994. M&M/Mars in Waco, Texas Faced with high sludge disposaI fees and the risks associated with off-site waste disposal, this M&M/Mars facility purchased a Living Machine in L994. Living Tecbnolo@es constructed a vertical flow reed bed to dewater and compost the wastewater biosolids from an activated sludge process. Along with effectively treating these solids, this system proved to be successll at reducing the cost and improving the performance of the wastewater operations at M&M/Mars in Waco. The reed bed treats 18,500 gallons of biosolid. per month. Average treatment performance data are: Parameter rnlklent (avg.) !.) EEfuent (av~.) Totat Suspended Solids 1900 m#I I 5-10 mdl The reed bed costs $50,000 with operating costs of less than $2,500 per year. The system has eliminated $3 t ,500 in aarmal sludge disposai fees and estabIished a safe, effective and odour fiee method of reducing sludge on site. The reed bed provides dewatering and stabilizing of solids onsite, with very low eapitaI investment "Satk, onsite disposal gives us more control, reduces our Iegal exposure, plus we end up with a really nice soiI amendment? Norm Burgess, M&M/Mars FaciIity Engineer. MasterFoods in Wyong, Asstmh MasterFoods makes over 350 shew stable food products in a processing facility in Southeastern New South Wdes, Australia For relief hrnhigh costs for sewage discharge, sludge disposal and wastewater treatment chemicals, MasterFoods bdta Living Machine m 1995. This system provides cost-effective treatment and dews the company to saydischarge effluent to the sensitive bush enviroment adjacent to the fadity- Biotogit;li ik-atewzcer Tmentin Stmakhfe Community Design The Living Machine treats on average 200,000 IiWday of production wastewater, with wide fluctuations in flow and strength. Muent characteristics and treatment performances are: This Living Machine cleans influent to high wastewater standards, a.f.Iowingthe water to be reused within the facility for bin washin& irrigation and other non-potable uses. Cost savings are reaiised &.om BOD and hydrauiic sewer discharge fees, reduction in sludge disposal and elimination of costly polymers and coagulants used in the original treatment regimen. Interestin@yZthe Living Machine is Located outdoors in a climate subject to frost and still functions normally due to interior temperatures. National Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida Because of limited leachfield capacity, National Audubon was unable to expand its visitor facilities at the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in southwest FIorida A Living Machine modeled after the ecology of the swamp treats wastewater hrnthe Visitor's Center and recycles to the toilets, thus reducing the discharge to the teachfield by approximately 90 percent The system treats up to 10,000 gaIIons per day (gpd). Average treated efkluent data are: f Parameter Design Recycled Influent E€fltteat Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/I) 200 15 ; Total Suspended Solids (mdl) 200 0.9 This treatment process is a [ow-cost option that can handIe wide fluctuations in flows hmhoIiday crowds. A screen has been constructed around the Living Machine to house a diverse butterfly community. This system is snitable for tour caters, rest areas, amusement parks, and other areas with high visitor counts and Limited IeachfieId capacity BiologiwE Wme~arerTmment fn Susiabie Community ksip Navajo Nation, New Mexico Private Prisons of America, a prison deveIopment Em, was competitiveiy chosen to b3d a new 2000 bed prison for The Navajo Nation. Their proposd included a 150,000 gpd Solar Aquatics System to manage water resources. The project began in 1998 following completion of an economic feasibility sttidy. Ontario Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario This exhibit demonstrates Solar Aquatics natural wastewater treatment The system treats 2,000 gpd of sewage hmthe Science Centre Construction and startup were completed in April 1995. PAWS, [nc. Sewage Treatment Facility - Muncie, Indiana Built in the summer of 1990, this facility treats the waste from the offices of Jim Davis, creator of Garfield the Cat The facility is permitted by the state of Indiana and the EPA. Though small, with a design capacity of 3,000 gpd, it is a fdy fimctioning permanent facility discharging high @ty efnnent to dacewater. Sewage Treatment Research Facility, Providence, Rhode Wand Built in 1989 on the site of the Narragansett Bay Commission's main wastewater treatment plant, this fadity tested a range of parameters for natural wastewater treatment and provided an effective Solar Aquatics demomtration system. The capacity is 20,000 gpd With commercia1 facilities in operatioo, this demonstration fBciIj. was no longer needed. It was phased oat the end of 1996. Soaoma Mountain Brewery, Sonoma, CPllfornin The Sonoma Mountain Brewery was constructed in Glen Ellen, California Without access to a community sewer system, the brewery is required to treat its high strength wastewater onsite- The brewery wastewater is treated and recycIed for =gation of adjacent vineyards and hop fieIds BiosoIidk are cornposted for use as fier,making Sonoma Mountain Brewery a zero discharge fa-- The Living Machine is designed to treat 7,800 gdoos per day with room for exp~*oa, The design treatment pedomance is Parameters Biochemid Oxygen Demand (mg/l) . 1,500 This Living Machine was designed to suppIy cost-effective, low maintenance industrial treatment. In the case of Sonoma Mountain Brewery, treatment is needed for onsite vineyard and hops field irrigation. In addition to the required treatment, the Living Mamine provides Sonoma Mountain Brewery with a unique oppommi*tyto include the beauty and strength of natural treatment systems in their brewery tour. South Burlington, Vermont Built in Iate 1995 and supported by the EPA through the Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer Science, the South Burlington Living Machine was ramped up to full design flow by April 1996. Water chemistry data f?om an EPA certified independent laboratory demonstrates the excellent performance of the treatment system even at very cold temperatures. This Living Machine treats 80,000 gpd of municipd sewage, an amount typically generated by approximately 1,600 residentid users. Average treatment performance is: Parameter Lnfluent Target EffIuent Efituent Chemical Oxygen Demand (rng/[) I 454 60 3 13 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (in@[) 219 et0 5-9 Total Suspended Soiids (rndt) t 74 40 4.8 Total Nitrogen (mdl) I 23 Designed to acht'eve stable nutrient cemovaI within a red& footprint (6,400-sq. k), this Living Machine is proving to be a cost-competitive, aIternative treatment system. With Biologid I%-;1sreuaterTmnsnt in Suszainribk Cornmunit). Design its aesthetic beauty and lack of offensive odour, this system is also compatible with a residentid environment. The Body Shop International Littlehampton, Southern England The Body Shop International mandactures a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries products at its headquarters in Southern England In 1995, the company set itselfan exacting new target for the quality of its trade effluent discharge and commissioned the design of a Living Machine to fhrther process the effluent hmthe existing treatment facility The raw trade effluent comprises ail of the washdown water fiom the manufacturing and bottiiog operations, together with the sanitizing agents used to sterilise the floor and walls ofthe production buildings. Primary treatment by ultrafiltration removes almost alI of the suspended solids, but the effluent still contains a mixture of hundreds of dissolved product ingredients, including detergents, stabilisers and preservatives. The Living Machine receives the full flow of 6,600 - 13,200 gpd (25 - 50 m3/d). The average performance is: t Parameter Influent Effluent 1 % Removal ChemicztI Oxygen Demand (rndl) 3-701 346 90.7 BioIogicaI wenDemand (mg/l) 1,762 28 98.4 Anionic Detergents (mdo 543 4 993 The Body Shop's Living Machine provides consistent, reliabIe paformanee with a Low maintenance rewentThe system is highly tolerant ofshock Ioadings and produces a low sludge yield. In addition, the treatment facility is an interesting and attractive feature for visitors and emp 10 yees. The Body Shop in Toronto, Cmada Ih 1990, the Body Shop Ltd wanted to indude wastewater recychg in its new factory and bottling facility in Toronto. A Living Machine was btdt to reclaim wastewater hrn the restrooms for non-potable reuse at the facility. The Living Machine is housed in an attractive greenhouse that dso helps heat the Tomnto fac*. The natnral ecosystem of the Living Machine invites visitor interaction by incIuding many plant species used m the company's products. Sewage from the Body Shop's restrooms is treated to advanced treatment standards for reuse on site in the toilets. Average treatment performance data are: f Parameters 1 Inhent(avF;) EffIuent(avg.) , Biologicsti Oxygen Demand (rndl) I 300 3 -0 Totd Suspended Solids (mgl) 300 3.2 The Body Shop Living Machine is performing very consistently and requires Little maintenance - less than three hours per week of operator attention. This low-cost technology offers recycled, treated water for non-potable uses. In addition to these benefits, the treatment facility offers an attractive greenhouse environment that facility employees and visitors are able to enjoy year-round. Vermont Welcome Center The State of Vermont was faced with closing it's busiest tntemate Rest Area in Guilford, Vermont Dramatic increases in tourism over 30 years had overwhetmed the limited IeachfieId capacity of the remote site, located off 1-89 on the Massachusetts border. The cost of piping sewage to the nearest community was prohibitive, so the Vermont WeIcome Center was scheduled to be closed, Sewage Corn the rest stop is treated to Vermont's reuse standards and recycled as flush water in the toiIets. Rows fluctuate wifdIy with seasonat and weekend use, peakiag at 4,300 visitors per day. Permit treatment requirements are: < ; Parameter (Septic Tank Efftaent) Muent . Efnuent : Average daily design flow (gpd) 6,075 Peak hourty flow (gph) t ,000 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (ma 300 (10 Totd Suspended SoIids (mgn) I EIO ctO pH (s-u,) 65 - 8.0 j ChIorine Residual (rngfk) ~1.0 Fecd Colifiorm (cW100 mI) cE -0 The Living Machine process has been Vermont tested in harsh winter conditions for sevdyears on other sites. Sewage hrnthe Welcome Center ff ows to the pre-exktbg septic tank Septic tank effluent is then pmnped into two treatment trains Located inside a 1,800 square foot, double-glazed greenhouse, EcoLogical fluidised beds provide final polishing before disiafection with chlorine bleach. Dechfo~ationis the &a1 process step, and redaimed water is pumped to a holding tank for reuse. Weston, Massachusetts Ten commemki buildings in town center have commissioned a Solar Aquatics sewage treatment facility with tertiary groundwater discharge. Their onsite systems no longer meet requirements for groundwater discharge to an area that constitutes part of the Cambridge drinking water supply. Design flow is 7,000 gpd. Construction began in November 1996, and the plant was started up in he,1997. The project included construction of a sewer system. Bioiogicrtl \Vrrstew+akrTmnent in Susiinable Community Design Appendix C Regulatory Summary Docaments and Sewer Bylaw Water Act Fact Sheet Last ReviewAJpdate: November 13,1998 Background The Province's review of its water management policy and Iegislation began in I991 with the view of updating old legislation so as to ensure that Alberta's water is managed and conserved for today and for the Wue. The Water Resources Act is over 60 years old and is primarily a toot for aIIocating water, Existing water management ditiesand fimtre chdIeages have resulted in a change in emphasis of how we manage and consenre water, and both policy and legislation must reflect this changed emphasis. Albermns have significantly influenced the development of the new Water Act through their input during extensive consultation processes. The new Act focuses on managing and protecting Alberta's water and on streamlining administrative processes, Key EighIights H&hi&hts of the new Act inctude: Protects existing licenses that are in good standing by bringing them forward into and making them subject to the aew ACL Rotects existing traditional agricultural uses of water through a streamlined, voluntary agimation process that "grandfatherswthe relative priority of the right according to the date when the water was first used, Recognizes the importance of household uses of water by providing these uses with a statutory right that has priority over aIl other uses. Ensures the sustainability of Alberta's water by requiring a provincial water management pranning fiamework to be compfeted within a three-year period AIfows for water management plans to be developed to address ldand regional issues. Recognizes the importance of protecting Alberta's rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands, by requiring that a strategy for protecting the aquatic environment be developed as part of the provincial water management planning fiamework. Provides a streamlined, one-window licensing and approval process for water related activities and diversions. Allows for ffexi6le water management m areas where the available water is already allocated, by providing the abiiity to transfer water licenses. Prohibits the export of Alberta's water to the United States. Prohibits any inter- basin Wersof water WeenAIberta's major river basins. Encourages co-operation and proactive measurrs to cesoIve water management problems and provides a wide range of enforcement measures where necessary. Gives Albertans the opportunity to provide advice on and understand water management Other EQhlighQ The new Act allows for regionaI difference in water management to be reflected through the development ofwater maaagement plans. Public consultatiou wiII be a key component during the deveIopment of these pIms and wilt include oppctmitk tbr Idand regional involvement Pians may address specific regionat water management issues such as whether st ttansfeer of an atlocation under a license may take pIace or matters refated to the issuance of approvafs or licenses. Aquatic Environment Protection Strategy The new Act ceqtiices the Government to establish a strategy for protecting the aquatic environment as part of the framework for water management planning in Alberta. The public wilt be consulted during the development ofthe strategy. No Export of Water The new Act ensures that licenses wa1 not be issued for the purpose of exporting buk water to the United States. The new Act also provides that if in the kture there is a proposal to change this "no exportwpolicy, a public review must take place. Registration for Traditional AgrfculturPI Water LTse The registration system under the new Act allows cumnt users ofwater, where the water is being used for watering animals or applying pesticides to crops to protect their w. The priority of the registration wilI be "grandfathered" to the date of fim use based on information supplied by the registrant. GeneralIy the volume of water protected will be up to a maximum of 6250 m3 (5 acre-feet) per year. The registration process wii[ be stream1ined and efficient. Information on how a regimation may be obtained wiII be made available prior to the new Act corning into effect. Licenses Licenses issued under the Water Resources Act are generally issued without an expiry date, Under the new Act, dlnew licenses wiI1 be issued with an expiry date. The length of the term of a Iicense wi11 depend on criteria that will be specified in the reguIations. When a license expires, the license holder will be required to appIy for a renewal. The Govemment is committed to ensuring reasonable security for license holders and to accomplish this, the onus wiIl be on tfie Government to estabIish reasons as to why a license should not be renewed. Transfers ofan AUocation under a License In areas of Alberta where the avaiiable water is fully allocated or is nearing fulI allocation, the transfer system wil[ ailow the accommodation of new or alternative users in an area, A tcansfer may only occur where an approved water management plan or an Order of Cabinet provides for transfers to take place. As weU, a aansfer will be subject to a review process similar to that for new I icense appIications, R-ations The Water Act has two Regulations which are Water (Ministerial) Regulation and Water (Otfences and Pendties) Regulation. Biologicrri tV;rstewmr Tmtntin Sustrrinirbfe Community AR 120/93 Wastewater and Stom @SWsterial) (Consolidated ap to 213/96) ALBERTA REGULATION 120193 Envlronmenta€Protection and Enhancement Act Definitions I( C) In this Regulation, (a) "approved analytical me&odmmeans an analytical method that is in accordance with (i) belatest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater published by the American PubIic Health Association, American Waterworks Association and the Water Environment Federatioa, (ii) the tatest edition of the Methods Manuai for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Alberta Environmental Centre, or (iii) a method approved by the Director, (b) "approved laboratory" means a laboratory approved by the Director, (c) "certified operator" means a person who holds a valid certificate of qualification ofthe appropriate class issued under s. 2; (6) "Director" means the person designated by Ministerid order as the Director for the purposes of this Regulation: (2) Terms that are defined in the Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regutation have the same meaning when used in thk Regulation. CededOperator Required 2( I ) The person responsible for a wastewater system shalI ensure that the day to day operation of the wastewater treatment plant and wastewater coltection system are directly supervised by the number of certified operators specified by the Director in an approval. (2) The person responsible shali not@ the Director in writing (a) forthwith of the names of all certified operators dersub section([), and (6)within 30 days after any change in any of the certified operators under sub section ( 1)- AR t 20/93 ~2213196 Certifkation of Operators 3( I) The Director may issue the classes ofcertificates of qualificdon pmvided for in the latest edition of the Water and Wastewater Operators' CertXm*onGuidelines pub tished by the Department- (2) An applicant for any cfass of certificate ofquaiiflcatiorr must (a) appry to the Director on a form acceptabfe to the Director, (6) meet the quaIification requirements for that class of certificate asset out in the guidelines referred to in sub section ( I), and (c) be at least 18 years of age. (3) An applicant for renewal of a certificate of quaMcation must meet the qualifications for renewal set out in, and make the application in accordance with, the guidelimes referred to in sub- section ( 1). Returns and Reports 4(1) The Director may by notice in writing directed to the person responsible for a wastewater system or storm drainage system require any returns or reports respectl*ngthe construction or operation of the system. (2) A person who receives a notice under sub section (1) shall compiy with it in accordance with its terms. Sampling 5( 1) The person responsible for a wastewater system or storm drainage system shdL when required by the Director in an approval or by a notice in to the person responsible, obtain wastewater or storm drainage samples and (a) submit them for physical. microbiological, radiological or chemical analysis by an approved laboratory, or (b) conduct the physical, microbio[ogical, radiological or chemical analysis using an approved analydcal method. (2) The Director shall. in an approval or by a notice in writing to the pemn responsible for the wastewater system or storm drainage system, specify the physicaL microbiological, radiologicaI or chemical parameters that the Director considers necessary for analysis of wastewater or stonn drainage samples. (3) A wastewater or stonn drainage sampie submitted to an approved laboratory for analysis must be submitted in a container in accordance with an approved anaIytica1 method. (4) The person responsible for the wastewater system or the storm drainage system shaf I fomd a copy of the report of an analysis to the Ddor (a) forthwith upon receipt of the report from the approved labocatory, where an approved laboratory does the analysis, or (6)forthwith on cornpietion of the andysk, where the person responsible for the wastewater system or storm drainage system does the analysis, (5)Where, in the Director's opinion, a sample oranatysis is unsatkfiactory, the Director may requk the person responsibfe for the wastewater system orstorm drainage system to (a) resubmit the saw wastewater or stom diainage sampIe for andysis or readytehe same sampk (b) take or analyze addiaional samples, or (c) take and anaIyze samples at a greater frequency. (6) The person responsible for the wastewater system or storm drainage system shall comply with the Directoh requirements under sub section (5)- 3.120193 5~0193 Transitional 6 A certificate that has been issued under Part 9 ofthe Clean Water (Municipal Plants) Regulations (Alta Reg. 37/73) in respect of a wastewater treatment hciIity or a sewer or sewerage project and that is valid and subsisting onthe coming into force of this Regulation (a) is deemed to be a certificate of qualification ofthe corresponding class issued under this Regulation in respect of a wastewater treatment plant or a wastewater collection system, as the case may be, and (b) expires on the date it would have expired had this Regulation not been made. Coming into Force 7 This Regulation comes into force on September 1. 1993. AR I19193 Wastewater and Stonn Drainage (Consolidated up to t37/96) ALBERTA REGULATEON f 19193 Envl'mamentaI Pmtectioa and Enhancement Act Definitions 1 In this Regulation, (a) "Actn means the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act; (6) "Director" means the person designated by Ministerial Order asthe Director for the purposes of this Regulation; (c) "domestic wastewater" means the wastewater that is the composite of liquid and water- carried wastes associated with the use of water for drinking cooking, cleaning, washing, hygiene, sanitation or other domestic purposes, together with any infiltnuion and inflow wastewater. that is released into a wastewater collection system: (d) "hamlet" means an unincorporated community that has been designated as a hamlet in accordance with the Municipal Government Act; (d. I ) "industrid deveIopmentl' means any deveIopment on the site of a plant that is served by a wastewater system that (i) discharges wastewater off the site ofthe development, or (ii) is designed to generate more than 50 m3 of wastewater per cia. (e) "industrial runoff" means surface water resulting from precipitation that falls on a plw (f) "industrial wastewater" means wastewater that is the composite of liquid and water-carried wastes hma plant; (g) "municipat development" means my development that consists of2 or more lots and shares a common wastewater system or storm drainage system but does not indude a city, town, new town, vilhge, summer vi1 lage, ham fet, settlement area within the meaning of the Metis Settlements Act, regional services commission. privately owned development, irtdm-a1 development or private utility; (h) "owner" ofa wastewater system or storm drainage system means 0 the locd authority ofacity, town, new towvillage summer vi t [age or senIanent area within the meanmg of the Metis Settfements Act in which the wastewater system or storm drainage system is Iocated; (ii) for a hamIe~the locdauthority of the municipal diict, county, improvement district or special area in which the hamlet's wastewater system or stom drainage system is Iocated; (iii) the collection of individual lot owners located in a municipal development that is served by the wastewater system or stonn drainage system; (iv) in respect of a wastewater system that sews a privately owned development that is not located in a rnunicipdity referred to in subclause (9, the owner of the privateiy owned development; (v) the regional services commission tbat oms a wastewater system or storm drainage system: (vi) in the case of a wastewater system or storm drainage system that is a private utility, the owner of the private utility; (vii) in the case of a wastewater system referred to in clause (d-I), the owner of he industnLaldevelopment; (I) "person responsible for a wastewater system or storm drainage systemn means (i) the owner of the wastewater system or storm drainage system, (ii) the operator of the wastewater system or storm drainage system. (iii) the Iocd authority that grants a fraachise for the treatment and disposal of wastewater at the wastewater system, (iv) any successor, assignee, e.xecutor or administrator, receiver, receiver-manager or trustee ofa person refkrred to in subcrause (0, (ii) or (iii), and (v) any person who acts as tho principal or agent of a person referred to in subclause (3, (ii), (iii) or (iv); 03 "plant" means a11 buildmgs, structures, process equipment, pipelines. vessels. storage and material handIing ~cicilities,roadways and other installations, used in and for any activity listed in section 2 of the ScheduIe of Activities in the Act, incfuding the land, other than undeveIoped land that is used for the purposes ofthe activity; (k) "privately owned developme& means a resreationd deveIopmenb school. mobile home park restaurant, motel, community hall, work camp, hoiiday trailer pa& campsite, picnic site, information centre or other similar development inchding such a devetopmeot owned or operated by the Govemmerrt, (i) that is on a parcel of land that is not subdivided, and (ii) that is served by a wastewater system that (A) discharges wastewater off the site ofthe developmenf or (B) is designed to generate mom than 50m ofwastewater per day, (C), (D)repealed AR t 37/96 s2, but does not include a single hiIydwelling a farmstead or a development that is located on tand that is included in a condominium plan registered under the Land Act where the condominim is located in a city, town, new town, vatage, summer viIIage or hamlet; (I) "private utiIityn means a wastewater system or storm drainage system owned and operated by a person other than a ld authority. municipd development, industrid development or privately owned development, but does not include a system that services onIy a single family dwel Iing or a fmsteaf; (1.1) "service connectiont' means the sewer service line from a coIIection sewer to the property being serviced but for the purposes of section 5 as it makes applicable the Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems, means the sewer service line hrna collection sewer to a building; (m) "sewer" means any system of pipes, drains, pumping works, equipment structures and other things used for the coIIection, transportation or disposal of storm drainage or wastewater but does not include any building drain7 piumbing or building sewer, (n) "sludge" means the accumulated wet or dry solids that are separated fiom wastewater during treatment, including the precipitate resulting Fiom the chemical or biological treatment of wastewater: (0) "storm drainagewmeans storm drainage, which may include ind~*airunoff, resulting hmprecipitation in a city, town, new town, village. summer village, hamlet, sealement area within the meaning of the Metis Settlements A@ municipal development or privateb owned developmertt= (p) "storm drainage collection system" means any system of sewers, valves. fittings, pumping stations and appurtenances that is used to colIect storm drainage, up to and including the service connection: (q) "storm drainage treatment facilityt' means any structure or thing used for the physical. chemical or bioIogicaI treatment of storm drainage, and includes any of the storage or management facilities which buffer the effects of the peak mo& (r) "wastewater" means domestic wastewater and may include industrid wastewater; (s) "wastewater collection system" means a system of sewers, vaives, fittings, pumping stations and appurtenances that is used to collect wastewater, up to and hcluding the service connection; (t) w~astewatertreatment plant'' means any structure or thing used for physical, chemical, bio togid or m&ologic;tI treatment ofwastewater, and inciudes wastewater storage faciIities and sludge treatment, storage and disposal facilities. AR 1i 9/93 sf ;249/93 Application 2(1) Subject to sub- section (2),this Regaltition onIy applies to the foflowmg wastewater systems and storm drainage systems: (a) a system that serves a city, townew town, village, summer village, hamIet, municipal development or settlement area within the meaning of the Mais Satlements Aa; (b) a system descniin the definition of privately owned deveiopmen~ (c) a system that is udby a regional services commission; (d)a private utiIity. (2) This Regulation does not apply to a storm dramage system that only collects, stores or disposes of storm drainage hmagricultural land or land on which fmare located* Person Responsible 3 Except where this Regulation provides otherwise, the person responsible for a wastewater system or a storm drainage system shall ensure that this Regulation is complied with. Substance Release Requirements 3 A wastewater system and a storm drainage system must be designed, operated and maintained to achieve under ail normal and foreseeable operating conditions all substance release requirements as specified in this Regulation or an approval. Design Standards 5( 1) A wastewater system and a storm drainage system must be designed so that they meet at a minimum (a) the staxtdards and design requirements set out in the latest edition of the Stan* and Guidelines for Municipai Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems published by the Department, or (b) any other standards and design requirements specifTed by the Director. (2)Where (a) a wastewater system or storm drainage system that is operating on the coming into force of this Regulation does not meet the applicable standards and design cequhments referred to in sub- section ( t )(a), or (6)such standards and design requirements are changed and a wastewatet system or storm drainage system that is operating does not meet them at the time they are changed, sub- section ( I )(a) does not apply to such a system until the time specified by the Director in a notice in writing given to the person rcspoasibIe for the system. (3) A person responsibie who receives a notice in under sub section (2) shail compIy with the notice in accordance wikh its terms, Replacement and Ertension 6(1) No perwn responsible for a wastewater system or storm drabage system shall replace or extend the wastewater col[ectiort system or stam drainage co[lection system unIess he obtains the denat.&o&ation ofthe Director prior to commencing construction, Biological \Vastew-wr Tmnent in Su&hiife Community Design (2) The person responsible for the wastewater system or storm drainage system shall (a) submit engineering cicawhgs and specifications for the repkment or extension that are acceptable to the Director, and (6) establish to the satidactioon ofthe DiRctor that the incdwastewater or storm drainage flows associated with the replacement or extension can be handled by the existing wastewater or storm drainage systems. AR I 19/93 s6; 137/96 Prohibited Substances and Releases 7( 1) No person responsible for a wastewater system or stonn chinage system shall use or permit the use of a substance in or dispose of or permit the of a substance into the wastewater system or storm drainage system in an amount, concentration or levei or at a rate of refease that may (a) impair the integrity of the wastewater collection system, (b) impair the integrity of the storm drainage colIection system, (c) impair the operation or performance of a st~nndrainage treatment facility, (d) impair the operation or performance of a wastewater treatment plant. or (e) impair the quality of storm drainage or treated wastewater and the gases and sludge produced in the treatment process, unless the use or disposal is authorized by an approval. (2) Sub- section ( I) does not apply to the use or disposaI of a substance in or into a wastewater system or storm drainage system that resuIts hmor is $r the purposes ofcontrolling an emergency. (3) Sub- section ( I) does not prohibit the use or disposal of substances intended for use in wastewater colIection systems- Use of Cbermtcds ?.I( I) No person responsible for a wastewater system or storm drainage system shall use or permit the use of a substance or chemical in the coIiection, treatment or disposal of wastewater or storm drainage that is not listed in the approval unless he obtains the prior written authorization of the Director, (2) A substance or chemical whose use is authorized under sub section( I) must be used (a) in accordance with the latest edition of the Standids and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems published by the Department, or (b) in a manner acceptabte to the Director, AR E37/96 s4 Land Application of Sladge 8(1) Where a person respoonite for a wastewater system proposes to apply sludge to land and the sludge appfidon project is not provided for in the approval for the wastewater system, the persou respoasiE~kshdt not proceed with the project wittiout t6e written autli~~onof the Director, (2) Before proceeding with the sludge applicatrConproject the person responsible for the wastewater system shdL submit to the Director (a) a desc~5@oaof the pmposed pmject including sufficient site soils and sludge data to establish to the Director's satisfaction that t&e project will meet the requirements of the Ia&st edition of (i) Guidelines for the Application of Municipal Wastewater SIudges to Agricultural Lands, and (ii) Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems, published by the Department, and (b) written consent to the pmposed project hm (i) all owners of land that is affected by the project and who are participating in the pro% and (ii) the local authorities of all municipaIities in which land that is affected by the project is located, (3) The person responsible for the wastewater system shall within 2 months after completion of the sludge application project, submit a report to the Director setting out the total amount of sludge applied and the exact locations where it was applied. AR L 19/93 ~8249193 Wastewater Irrigation 9( 1) When a person responsible for a wastewater system proposes to use tmted wastewater for irrigation and the wastewater imgation pmject is not provided for in the approval for the wastewater system. the person responsible shall not proceed with the project without the written authorization of the Director, (2) Before proceeding with the wastewater irrigation pmject the person responsible for the wastewater system shall submit to the Director (a) a description of the pmposed project, including sufficient site soils and wastewater quality data to establish to the Director's satisfaction that the project wiII meet the requirements of the latest edition of Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems pubIished by the Departmen&and (b) written consent to the proposed pmject from (i) dl owners of land that is affdby the project and who ace pmicipatmg in the pmject, and (ii) the local authorities ofdl municipdities in which land that is affected by the project is bcamL (3) The person responsibIe for the wastewater system shdI within 2 months after compIetion of the wastewafer irrigation project, submita repon to the Director setting out the totd amount of wastewater used aud the exact ldons where it was use& buse 9.1(1) Where a person responsible for a wastewater system or storm dmhage system proposes to use treated wastewater or storm drainage in a manner or for a purpose (other than a purpose described in section 9) that is not provided for in the appmvaI for tbe system, the person responsibIe shall not proceed with the project unless he first obtains the written authorization of the Director, (2) Before proceeding with the proposed project the person responsible for the wastewater system or storm drainage system shalt submit to the Director a description of the proposed project, including sufficient site soils and wastewater or storm drainage quality data to establish to the Directoh satisfacton that the project will meet (a) the requirements of the latest edition of Standards and Guidelines for brunicipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Stonn Drainage Systems published by the Department, or (b) other standards acceptabIe to the Director- AR 137196 sS Offence 10 A person who contravenes section 3,4,5( 1) or (3), 6,7( I), 7.L.8( 1), 9(1) or 9.1 is guilty of an offence and liable (a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than S50.000, or (b) in the case of a corporation. to a fine of not more than $500.000. AR L 19/93 s 10; 13 7/96 Due DiIigence Defence I I No person shall be convicted of an offence under this Regulation if that person establishes on a balance of probabilities that he took all reasonable steps to prevent its commission. Coming into force 12 This Regulation comes into force on September 1, 1993. City of Calgary. Municipal Sewer Byraw Biolo@c;tt Wrtstewarer Tmrtntin Suszitina&ieCommunity Design Municipal Sewer Sendcc Charge, Section t4(1) City of Calgary, Sewer Dmision 14 ( 1) Except as otheMlise pmvidcd in sub- section (3)- the owner or occupier of premises connected to the wastewater cotiection system shdl pay to ~e City a monthly sewer service charge to be calcuiated as fouows: (a) in the case of premises obtaining water only from the City water suppty, a charge as described in Schedule "B": (b) in the case of premises sewed in part with water fiom any source other than the City water supply, in addition to any charge that may be due under sub- section (a), a charge as described in ScheduIe "B". (2) Should premises served in part fiom water other than the City water supply not contain a water meter to measure the supplies of water from either or both of such water supplies in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer, the City Engineer may make an estimate ofthe quantity of water consumed for the purposes of the charges imposed pursuant to this Bylaw. (3) Where a premise is served with water liorn a source other than rhe City water suppty, a City water meter shalt be installed prior to such water being deposited to wastewater collection system to determine the quantity of water consumed for the purposes of the charges imposed pursuant to this Bylaw. (4) The owner or occupier of premises connected to the wastewater colIection system of the City, but located outside the City limits, shdI pay to the City a month ly sewer service charge calculated as follows: (a) in the case of property obtaining water only from the City water supply, a charge as per Schedule "C": (b) in the case of propem served in whoIe or in part with water fiom any source other than the City Water supply. the owner will be required to have instalkd a meter to measure the volume of wastewater discharged and pay a monthly charge in accordance with Schedule "C "* (5) In addition to the charges set out elsewhere in this ByIaw, the owner or occupier of premises located within the boundaries of the City and ~0~ectedto the wastewater collection system shall pay to the City a monthly flat rate storm sewer service charge of One Dollar and Fifteen Cents ($1-15) for each premises so co~ected. (6)The flat rate storm sewer service charge provided for in sub- section (5)shall come to an end on the occurrence ofany one or more ofthe following (a) the expiry oftbe ten ( 10) year period commencing on March I, 1994; (6) the establishment of a storm sewer utiIity; or (c) the completion ofdI projects as descniin die Storm Sewer Upgrade Riorithation List as amended and approved by Council hmtime to time. (7) Should the information upon which any sewer utiIify charges prove to be in error, the City Engineer may &ate sewer utility charges for the affected period and make appropriate billing adjustments- Tbe Sewer Se~ceBylaw Schedule B Pursuant to Sections liyl)(a) and (b) MonthIy Sanitary Sewer Senice Charge L. For residential flat rate customers being served with water from City water supply: sixty-two decimal fie four percent (6234%)of the water bill 2. For residential metered rate customers being served with water from City water supply: sixty- five decimai six nine percent (65.65l0/0)of the water bill. 3. For non-residential customers being served with water hmCity water supply: sixty-eight decimal one five percent (68.15%) of the water bnII 4. For non-residential customers served in part with water from any other source than City: in addition to any charge that may be due in 3, a charge equal to si~ty-eightdecimal one five percent (68.15%) of the City's charges for equivalent amount of water with which the property is served ftom other sources. Alberta Ambient SuFfirce Water Quality Summary Sheet The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPJZA) provides for the development of guidelines and ambient environmental quality objectives for dI or part of Alberta. Background The Alberta Surface Water Quality Objectives (ASWQO, 1977) were established on the genera[ principle of protectingthe most sensitive water use. Possible uses considered were raw water supply for treated drinking water, propagation of fish and other aquatic life, contact and non- contact recreational activities, and agriculture-The ASWQO are used for assessing water quality and the suitabfiity of surface water for v&ous existkg or possible uses. The ASWQO are also used to assess the impact of liquid effluent emissions and to set water quality based emission limits in conjunction with source standards specified in approvals. When interpretkg guidelines or objectives for the purpose ofsetting discharge standards, statistid methods are employed to establish limits which ensure protection ofthe ecosystem. Overview In l 994, following a review ofthe ASWQO, current ambient monitoring data and the Canadian Water Quality Guideline Values; Alberta Environment the AS WQOs forward as Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quaiity Interim Guidelines. Table 1 surnmarkes he interim guidelines Alberta Environment, in setting industrial and municipal discharge standards, has been and will continue to use provincial, federal and international surface water quality guidelines and objectives where appropriate. Situations may arisewhere Alkrta requins a new/updated guideline. In July 1996, Alberta Environment published its Pmtocol to Devetop Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life. Environmental Pmtection will use this Protocol to review existing Guidelinesand to develop new Guidelines fora compound of concern. These will be established under section t 4( I) of EPEA folIowing public and stakeholders consultations. Ambient surface water quality will continue to be protected; revels of protection wilI not diminish and new guidelinedobjectiveswrll be added as quire& As in the past, enforcement action will be based on non-compliance with the Act regulations or approvaI conditions. Pnbiic Review Consultation wiII be a part of the process of updating or developing new Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality Guidelines consistent with Part I, section I4 of EPEA. Environmental Protection wit1 involve stakeholders such as the general public, public interest groups, the scientific community, municipalities and industry in this process. Definitions Various definitions are used in the fieId of water quality. To encourage consistent terminology, the following definitions are adopted from the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines: CriteriMentific data evaluated to derloe the recommended timits for water uses. Criteria are generaiIy bioassay tests or ecoIogicd health effects studies ofcontaminants on receptor organisms, such as fish, plrmots, agricultud crops, Ikestock and humans. Guideline-NumeckPL eoncentration or nrrrptivestatement recommended to support and maintain a designated water use, A guideline is pneralIy derived fmm the Iowest observable effects revel obtained hmbiologicai tests of chronic toxicity, The towest obsemabie effects levei obtained hrnthe criteria data is then muItipIied by a safety factor to provide for long-term protection of important sensitive fish plsnt and animal species or other water uses A guideline for any one contaminant may suggest a range ofacceptable numerical vdues based on muitiple uses. Objective--Numerid concentration or narrative statement which has been established to support and protect the designated uses of water at sl specific area. Site specific conditions determine how an objective would be developed An objective for a specific area will depend on existing and future water uses and the most sensitive aquatic organisms that are present For example, some water quality parametea such as dissotved oxygen, pH, copper, lead cover a range of guideline values according to the biota present or the hardness characteristics of the water. An objective derived from a guideline would reflect these considerations. Standard-An objective that is recognized irt enforceable environment control Iaws of a level of government An example of a standard is a restrictionon the amount or emission rate of a contaminant present in a liquid effluent discharged to a receiving stream. These are noted as 'source standards', which are specified in appmvais. Alberta Ambient Surfirce Water Quality Interim C;uidefines These interim guidelines mpresent water quality suitable for most uses either thmugh direct we or prepared for use by common water treatment pmctr*ces. They apply to hewaters except in areas of close proximity to outfalls. There are many instances where the natura1 water quality of a lake or river does not meet some of the suggested Iimits. In these cases, the grrideIines will not apply. It should be noted however, that where the natural existing quality is inferior to desirable guidelines, care must be taken m ailowing any further deterioration of water quality. Naturally occumng circumstances are not taken into account in these guidelines and due consideration must be given where applicable (e-g, spring runoff effect on colour, odouKetc-)- Bacteriologp (Coliform Group) a In waters to be withdrawn for treatment and distribution as a potable supply or used for outdoor recreation other than direct contact at least 90 percent of the samples (not less than five samples m any consecutive 30-day peri06) should have a total coli3orm count of [ess than 5000 organisms per I00 mC and a fdcoIifom courtt of less than 1000 organisms per 100 mL, 6. In waters used for diRct contact recreation or vegetab te crop im*gatiou, ~e geometric mean of not less than five sampIes taken over not more than a 30-day period sfiouId not exceed 1000 organisms per 100 mL total coliforxn~~nor 200 organisms per 100 mL fecal coIi3iorms, nor exceed these numbers in more than 20 percent ofthe samples examined during any month, nor exceed 2400 orgaolsms pet €00mL total coifforms on any day. Biological Wasrew'tlrer Trannent in Suswstbk Cummunie ksip Dissolved Oxygen A minimum of 5.0 mgL-l at any time. Note: Dissolved oxygen continues to be a significant factor in the protection of aesthetics and in the maintenance of fish and other aquatic fife in Alberta Guideline information has &omthat dissolved oxygen requirements vary 60m 5.0 mg.L-1 to 95 ma-I according to the type of aquatic biota present, either cold water or warm water ~Iatecl, and life stages (egg, fry, aduft). Blochemid Osygea Demand (BOD) Dependent on the assimiiative capacity of the receiving water, the BOD must not exceed a [hit which would create a dissolved oxygen content of less than 5.0 mg.L- 1. Suspended Solids Mot to be inemred by more thI0 mgL-I over background vuiue. PH To be in the mge of 6.5 to 8J pH units but not aftered by more than 0.5 pH units from background value. Temperatare Not to be increased by more than 3C above ambient water temperature. Odonr The cold (20C)threshold odour number not to exceed 8. Colour Not to be increased more than 30 colour units above nadvaiue. Turbidity Not to exceed more than 25 Jackson turbidity units over naturaI ttthidirj. Organic Chemid Constheat MaJtimam Concentration (m-j Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE) (includes 0.2 Carbon Alcohol Earact) Methy[ Mercaptan 0.05 Methyiene Blue Active Substances 05 Oil and Grease Substantidly absent, no iridescent sheen Phenol lcs 0.005 Resin Acids I 0.t Pesticides To provide reason& Iy safe concentrations of these materiak in receiving waters, an application shall not exceed Ill00 ofthe &hour median threshoid limit No pesticides can be used in Alberta dessthey have been registered underthe Pest Control Mtlc?sAct Any wd ohin or near water must be approved under the EnvlionrnentaI Aotection dEirhcementAct- Radioactivity Gross Beta not to exceed 37.0 B@. Radium-226 not toexceed 0.1 1 BqL. Stmrttium-90 not to exceed 37 BcJL, I Constituent Maximum Concentration(rnm Arsenic 0.0 1 Batim 1.0 Boron i 0.5 Cadmium I 0.0 1 Cbrornium 0.05 Copper (currently under review) 0.02 Cyanide 0.0 1 Fluoride 1 1.5 Iron 03 Ld 0.05 Manganese 0.05 Mercury 0.000 1 Nitrogen (total inorganic and organic) t .O Phosphorous as PO4 0.15 (totd inorganic and organic) Selenium 1 0.0 1 Silver 1 0.05 Sodium (as percent of Cations) 1 30-75 Sulfide 1 0.05 Zinc 1 OD5 Note: The predominant &ons of Sodium, CaIcium and Magnesium and anions of Sulphate. Chloride and Bicarbonate are too variable in the nanual waterqdity state to attempt to define Iimits. Nevertheless, in order to prevent impairment of water qdity, where effluents containing these ions are discharged to a water body, the permissible concentration will be determined by the replatory authority m accordance with exining quality and use. Substances not specified in this table should not exceed vaIues which are considered to be deleterious for the most critical w as established by the regulatory authority. Approvat Process January 1997 Introdactioct The Envimnmentd Protection and Enhancement Act and the accompanyingregulations set out in detail what activities require approvd and the process for obtaining these approvals. Approvals are quidhm Abcta Environment to ensure proposed projects that could cause an adverse impact on the environment are reviewed. The definition ofapproval includes renew& of approvals €or existing pmjects- Attw a detai-led review by the department, a decision is made as to whether an approval should be issued or renewed The Act supports a streamlined "shgIe windown approach to approvals whereby one Director is responsible for coordinating and integrating the review of potentia1 impacts of proposed pmjects on the environment, including air, land and water, Dem*lsof the process are provided under these regulations: Approvals Procedure Regulation AR I 13/93; Activities Designation Regulation AR 2 1 1/96: and Environmental Protection and Enhancement (MkeIlaneous) Regulation AR 1 18/93. The Act sets out a broad scbedale of activities that could adversely impact the environment. The Activities Designation Regulation lists those activities from the schedule that require an approval. The activities are grouped into five daferent categories: Division I -Waste Management; Division 2 -Substance Release: Division 3 -Conservation and Reclamation: D isi ion 4 --Miscellaneous (Pesticides, Designated Materials, Water Well DrilIers): and Division 5 -Potable Water. Where there is a project which includes activities From different categories, one approval may be issued which covers all ofthe activities included in the project The approval would be issued under the category which best dem'bes the overall purpose of the project. The Approval Process consists of five stages. l SiIing of application. ZNotice requkements for completed applications. 3.Review of app t ication. 4.Decision to issue or refbe to issue appmvd. 5.Provisions For appeat Stage I -Foiling of AppPcation The en& approval process begins by tiling an application. The Approvals Rocedun Regulation (sections 2,3 and 4) identifies what information is requkd in the application. ExampIes ofthis information incrude t&eiocatiou, capacity and size ofthe acw7the nature ofthe activityand a description ofany public consultation undertaken ot pmposed by the appIicant The Director is given the discretion to waive certain requirements ifthey are not applicable a proposed praject, The regulations onIy set out common application requirements. Guidelines ace being developed which dl set out more detaiIed requirements as they relate to specific kinds of activities. The Approvals Procedure Regulation states tbat the Director will not make a decision on whether to issue an approval unless an application is compIete. The Director wit1 advise the applicant if an application is not complete (see Approvals Rocedwe Reguhtioh section 4). Stage 2 -Notice Requirements Public involvement is a key component of this next stage- The Act directs that the public be notified of alt applications for an approval. This requkment can be waived by the Director in an emergency; when the activity is considered routine (as defined under the Environmental Rotection and Enhancement (Miscellaaeous) Regulation, section 1): and where adequate notice has already been given. GeneraIIy, a routine matter is defmed as: an activity which wit1 result in a minimal or no adverse effect on the environment; a proposed change to an activity if the change is minor in nature and will result in minimal or no adverse effect on the environment; or a proposed amendment, addition or deletion to a term or condition ttrat is minor in nature and will result in a minimal or no adverse effect on the environment. When an applicant notifies the public, those persons who are dirsnly affected by the application may submit a written statement to the Director outlining their concerns. Stage 3 -Review of Application At this stage?the Director reviews the completed application, including the public's statements of concern. The Approvals Rocedm Regulation descni this as being a review to determine whether the general and overall impact on the environment of the activity is in accordance with the Act and the regulations. The review may address design pIqsite suitability, proposed monitoring programs and methods of minimizing the generation. use and release of substances. The Director has the option of referring the application to a Referral Committee. as set out under section 7 ofthe Approvals Procedure Regulation. In order to complete the review, the Director may require additional information from the applicant or may require the appiicant to hotd meetings so the public may obtain information respecting the application- Stage 4 -Decision to Issue an Appmvd At this stage, the Director decides whether an approval wit1 be issued and what conditions wilI be required. One of hewhich must be considered by the Director in making this decision is whether or not any Environmental Assessment revirements under Part 2, Division I, have been complied witit. The Act also states that results of any related public hearings by the Alberta Enerpy and Utilities Board or the Nanval Resources Conservation Board must be taken into consideration. The Diiector will also consider any statements ofconcern filed by those who are ddIyaffected prior to making a decision. The Dimtot may circulate particutam of his proposed decision+for comment, tothe applicant or appmvd holder and persons firing statements ofconcern, prior to making a decision, If the Director decides to issue an appmv& it will con- the requirements or terms and conditions that must be folfowed- When the Director makes his decision, he provides notice a€ that decision in accordance wi& the Act and ~e repfations , Stage 5 -Provisions for Appeal The Act sets out the conditions under which a decision to issue or not to issue can be appealed, Requests for appeals are submitted to the Environmental Appeal Board, an adminktntbe triiibunal established under the Act, Where notice ofthe application was provided, the appmvd holder or any person who previously submitted a statement of concern and is directly &idby the appruvai may appeal the decision. Where the notice of application was waived the approval holder and any person who is directIy &ied by the Directoh decision may appeal. Where the Director rekto issue the approvaI, the appiicant may appeal the decision. See the Environmental Appeai Board fmt sheet for more infomation, The Act provides that approvals may be issued for specified periods. Generally the term is 10 years, however. the Director can set a shorter term, The Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Miscellaneous) Regulation (section 7) outlines the terms for various approvals. The Act sets out the situations under which an amendment may be made to an approval. The applicant can initiate an application for an amendment at any time. The Director may also initiate an amendment to an approval. For exarnpIe. the Director may want an amendment to deal with an adverse effect which was not teasonabIy foreseeabie when the approvat. was first issued. A11 amendments and changes to an activity are subject to the approval process, The Act sets out the situations under which an approval can be suspended or cancelled. These situations include: on application fiom an approval hoidec by a Director on his ominitiative; or through an enforcement order. Notice ~quirementsand apwsafso appiy to suspensions and canceliations. Cm@catesof Quai@catiort Individuak whose work could affect the environment may be required to obtain certificates indicating their qudificatiions to carry out such work. The following regulations fist when a certificate of qualification is needed: Potab[e Water Regulation; Wastewater and Storm Dramage (Ministerial) Regulation: Substance Release ReguIation; and Pesticides (Ministerial) Regulation. Biological iV;~stewakrTreatment in Sustain'rbk Community Design Environmentai Protectiom aad Enhancement ~~neous) Rmtion(AIR lItU'93) July 1997 Background In any legislation, there are various small items that require Werdefinition or clarification. This also appries to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). Rather than draft new regulations for each item they have alt been piaced together in one regulation called the EnvironmentaI Protection and Enhancement (Miscellaneous) Regulation. This regulation contains information on definitions, clarifications. lists of offence and public notification requirements, Regulatory Details The Environmental. Protection and Enhancement (MisceIIaneous) Regulation defmes several terms used throughout the legidation. For e--pie+ the Act defines the tern "routine matter'', which relates to notification requirements for applications for approvals. The Act provides the Director with the power to waive notification requirements €or applications for approvaIs which refate to routine matters. Also defined in this regulation are the terns "person in charge of the drilling" and "person responsible for a well" both of which are used in and relate to the Water We11 Regulation (AR 123/93). Public notification requirements with respect to application for approvals and the Director's decision on such applications are set out in this regulation. The balance of requirements for appiications for approvals are dealt with in the Approvals Procedure Regulation (AR 1 13/93). Other approval-related provisions of this regulation set out the duration of approvals and certificates of quaiEcation, Various requirements relating to financia1 security are also set out in this regulation. In addition to a general provision which relates to all instances in which financial security may be required under the Act and the regulations, there are specific provisions dealing with furancia1 security requirements for water well approvals under the Water Well Regulation (AR 123/93)and for security for costs which may be required under the Act in relation to certain appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board, This regulation also lists offences under the following regulations, and sets out the pendties which may be assessed for those offences- Potable Water Regulation (AR iW93). Wastewater and Stonn Drainage (Ministerial) Regulation (AR l20193). Water Wen Regulation (AR 123193). Reguratory offences for all other EPEA replatiions under the Act are set out within the specific reguiations. Potabb Water Regulation (AR 123193) January 1997 The Envhnmentd Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)provides powers to Alberta Environment for the regulation of waterworks systems which supply potable water. Background Matters related to potable water in Alberta have been regulated by Alberta Environment though the use of the Clean Water Act and related rqgdations~This legislation has dealt not only with potable water quality, but alw, with requirements for facilities suppIying potable water. Overview Alberta's environmentai laws have been consolidated and updated by EPEA. Part 7 of the Aa deals with potable water, *its quality and the systems which supply it. The Potable Water Regulation enables Alberta Environment to regulate the operation of waterworks systems and estab1ish standards for such facilities and their operators, This reguration also establishes requirements for potable water qudity, including matters such as disinfection and fluoridation. This regnIation replaces the bllowing legislation: Clean Water Act; Clean Water (General) Regplatins; Clean Water (Municipal Plants) Regulations; and Fluoridation Regulations. Regulatory Details References in the Potable Water Regulation have been changed hmthe Clean Water Act definition ofWmunicipalplant* to clarify the approval mandate of Alberta Environment in relation to Alberta Labour and Alberta HeaIth, who also have program responsibilities related to potable water. Specific defmitions are used for the various owners ofwatenvorks systems as follows: Muni~paIib'es: municipal developments (unincorporated, multi-owaer co-op deveiopments); industrial devetoprnents (potable water plants owned by industries for the w of their onsite staff): regional services commissions; privateiy owned developments but excludes single family dwellings or farms); and private utilities. Transitional provisions are included in this regulation to facilitate and accommodate the implementation of new standards and design requirements to be imposed by this regulation at existing waterworks systems. Certain activities previously wiring approvat under dean water legislation have been exempted and will wirea letter ofautho~ononIy under the new Act and Regulations. These incrude the extension or repfacement of water mains to sewice new subdivisions, new or expanded treated water reservoirs, trial experiments to test the use of new water treatmat chemicals and certain srnalC waterworks systems with Limited treatment of groundwater supplies, Requirements to disirrfect water supplies from a waterwo& system are outlined in this regulation. MI supplies must be disinfied in accordance with stand& and guidelimes, unless the Dimtor provides time forthe waterworks mento come into compliance. Approvals for waterworks systems must contain tenns and conditions for disinfmion, hcEuding fkquency, levels of disinfecting agents and contact times for disinfectants. This regulation requires that a waterworks system must at ail times comply with minimum potable water treatment design requirements as outlined in Standards and Guidelmes for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Stonn Drainage System (published by Alberta Environment). The replation also requires that the physical, chemical, micmbiolo@cal and radiological quality of the potable water meet the health related concentration limits in the latest edition ofthe Guidelines for Canadian EhWing Water Qdity as established by Health and Welfa Canada, The Dhtorhas been given discretion to spa5fy the time periods within which a waterworks system must meet any cbanges in concentration limits, in order to phase in any new or more stringent standards. A duty created by this regulation is the requirement to immediateiy report any failure or shutdown of disinfection equipment to the Director and the local board of health. Certain provisions have been added to the Potable Water Regulation respecting fluon'dation. Included are requirements that the addition of fluoride and the design of fluoridation equipment be done in accordance with Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks. Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems (published by Alberta Environment), and that any discontinuation of the application of fluoride in order to replace or repair equipment be reported immediately to the Director and the focal board of health. The owner of a waterworks system is required by this regulation to noti@ the Director of the names ofcertified operators in direct supervision of the operation of the fafility. The Director has been given power to issue certificates to operate waterworks systems or wastewater systems? with conditions attached, The Potable Water Regulation has enhanced provisions for certification of operators of waterworks systems and wastewater systems, Certainoperators of waterworks systems or wastewater systems require a certificate as outIined in the Water and Wastewater Operator's Certificate Guidelines (published by Alberta Environment). The Guidelines have been amended to allow for "conditional certificateswwhere circumstances (for example, small and very basic water supply systems) do not dictate the application of the normal certification requirements. This regulation refers to the Water and Wastewater Operator's CertificateGuidelines for renewal of certificates and requirements for renewaI applications, as we11 as requirements to ensure continuing validity ofthese certificates. The Director has been given the abfiity to request resubmission of water samples or submission of water samples at a greater frequency if, in the Director's opinion, the initiai water sample is unsatisfactory. BiotogictF Wastewater Tmnnent in Sustainable Community Design Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regnlation (AR 119193) Wastewater and Storm Drainage (Ministerial) ReguIatioa (AR January 1997 The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) deaIs with the reIease of substances into the environment, including releases into water. The Act also gives powers to Alberta Environment for the regulation of stormwater drainage and wastewater systems, Backgroand Municipaf stormwater drainage and wastewater systems have been regulated by Alberta Environment priman*lythrough the w of the Clean Water Act and related regulations. This fegisiation sets out requirements for the construction and operation of municipd plants €or handling of stormwater drainage and wastewater. Overview Alberta's environmental laws have beerr consolidated and updated by EPEA, Part 4, Division I of the Act deals with the release of substances into the environment, regurating releases and creating genera1 prohibitions with respect to substance release, and also provides the necessary powers to regulate the handling of storm drainage and wastewater, The Wastewater and Storm Drainage Regulation and the Wastewater and Storm Drainage (Ministerid) Regulation enabIe the Department to regulate the operation of storm drainage and wastewater systems and establish standards for such faciIities and their operators. These regulations replace the following legislation: Clean Water Act; + Clean Water (General) Regulations; and Clean Air Act, Regulatory DeW References to "municipal sewer systems" used in previous [egislation have been changed in these regulations to c1mCfyAlberta Environment's approval mandate in areas where other departments also have respomiilities. Specific defmitions have been included for various owners of storm drainage and wastewater systems, as follows: municipalities; rnunicipa1 developments (unmcorporated, multi-owner cwpdeveIopments): regional services commissions; privately owned developmentts (includes single owner developments but excludes single hiIydweilings or fmk private uti tkies; and industrial developments (municipal wastewater systems serving industrial plant sites? owned by the industry forthe use of onsite st&). Certaii activities previousIy requiring appmvd under the Clean Water Act have been exempted, These include: sewer extensions and repfacements; hiaf wastewater irrigation and land application ofsfudge projects; * pumpmgm-om; cfiernicd additions to the wastewater system; certain operations of wastewater systems; and wastewater systems sewicing small developments that meet criteria specified under the definition section of the Designation of Activities Regulation. These regulations have updated references to standank and guidelines for specific design and opetating criteria, refdgto the most recent edition of the Standards and Guidelines for Municipd Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems (published by Alberta Environment). As well. these regu1ations have modified requkrnents for the certification ofoperators of storm drainage and wastewater systems. Operators of most systems require a certificate as set out in the Water and Wastewater Operators's Certificate Guidelines (published by Alberta Environment)- The Role of Compulsory hdustry Monitoring in AIbertats Environmentat -tory hogmu Mmh i997 An important part of Alberta Environments overall regulatory program is the compulsory monitoring that industry is required to undertake. This monitoring serves a number of purposes and assists both industry and the government The key aspects ofthis compulsory monitoring are as folIows, Background Alberta's Enviromnentd Protection and Enhancement Act establishes a regulatory framework that requires either approvals or code of practice registrations for industries that have the potentjar to impact the environment. Approvals and codes generaIIy spec@ monitoring requirements. These monitoring requirements have the force of law- Enforcement actions ace used to ensure that monitoring is conducted in accordance with appmvd or code requirements. Purpose of Monitoring Compulsory industry monitoring serves a number of purposes for both industry and the government. Specifically, this monitoring: provides a measure of pediomutnce relative to established limits, standards or guidelines; ens- that pollution control technologies an operating effively; provides an early warning system for potential contamination issues; characterizes complex emissions to determine potential environmental impacts: provides information for provincial and national emission inventories that are used in environmental management; and assesses the impact of releases on the environment. provides data for tracking trends in environmental performance and effects. Contpu&ory nconilon'ng tlierejiore provi'essentidinfonn~nbn on the emironmental perfiormance and impact of indl~~lti*iupetatiom. Types of Monitoring CompuIsory industry monitoring can cover a wide range of environmental issues depending on the nature and complexity of the particular industria[ operation. For example. approvals for large industrial operations may include the following types of monitoring air emissions wastewater and potentially contaminated stormwater releases; groundwatete; soil; treated sewage reIeases: drinking water, hazardous wastes; environmental effects; operation of pllutioa control technologies; rechation activities; and ambient air and water q-. me intern b to requln mnkorhg of a&Zehion soultes of envimnmenfd s&nt@iu1anceas well as ik componen& of the environmenttkor could k iqacfed by the iirdw. Specific MonitoringReqairements Monitoring requirements are tailored for each indmtrkd operation based on the types and quantities of emission. Therefore, monitoring requirements vary within industry sectors, egg., imperial Refinery vs. Bowden Refmery- and between industry sectors such as pulp milk, refineries and chemical plants. Monitoring requirements in approvals and codes specify the following: monitoring or sampling Idons; frequency of monitoring or samplins e.g. continuous, three times per week, once per month, etc.; type of sample, e.g online, composite, grab; parameters to be measured monitoring method(s): analytical method(s); and data recording, record keeping and reporting, e.g. monthly and/or annually (note: any measured exceedances of a performance limit must be reported immediately). In general, the larger the emission source or the greater the potential for environmental impack the more frequent and detailed the compuIsory monitoring requirements will be. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAfQC) The results of compulsory industry monitoring are important to AIberta Environment The monitoring results verify the general enviromnentaI performance ofan industrid operation. The results also help the department assess comptiance with specific performance requirements. It is a serious offense to faiI to provide the required monitoring information or to provide fdse information. It is therefore in the interest of both government and industry to take measures to ensure the reIiabitity ofcompulsory monitoring information. Albesta Environment undertakes the following QA/QC activities re fated to compulsory monitoring data establishes specific monitoring protocoIs, e.g. AIberta Stack Sampting Code and Air Monitoring Directive; undertakes spot audits of industry monitoring inspectsindusaies; undertakes monitoring programs to verify industry monitoring; reviews industry QNQC procedures; reviews compulsory monitoring data for anomaCies or inconsistencies; and takes action immediate1y to address monitoring reliability irmes including enforcement if appropriate. mese adiP&s conr6ined &h the httunai a&Mi of iidman iidendkd to emwe the credi6ii&y of the ovdid- compad~orpmonPodngprogr~ Summary Compulsory monitoring is corkdered part of the envimmnentaI cost of an industry doing business in Alberta and is consistent with the "polluter paysmprinciple. The objective ofcompulsory monitoring is to obtain reliable data on the environmentaIly-related perfofmance and environmental impacts of industrial operations. Measures and procedures have been established to ensure the reliabiky of the information obtained from this compulsory monitoring. Compulsory monitoring information is avaiiable to the public. Overall the compulsory monitoring program is considered an important component ofa comprehensive and effective environmental regulatory program. Biologicif Wmewilter Tremnent in SusPinut3ie Community Design Substance ReIease RegnIation (AR L2mj January 1997 The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)gives Alberta Environment powers to regulate the release of substances into the environmen&including release to air, water and Id The Substance Release Regulation came into force on September I, I996 and represents a consotidation and amendment ofthe previous EPEA Air Emissions Regutation and Industr-aI PIants Regulation- Overview Part 4, Division E of EPEA deak with the release of substances into the environment and encompasses the releases of substances to air, land and water. The Act regulations releases. principally through a framework of approvals and Codes of Practice and also creates general prohibitions with respect to substance releases, The Substance Release Regulation covers various types of substance releases into air. These include: visible emissions (opacity) tiom stationary activities: particulate emissions from a wide vanCetyof ind~*aland combustion activh-es: secondary lead smelter particulate emissions; and vinyr chloride releases from vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride ptants. me Regdntion &o dkflmes "bumobie &bri;sw and wproiirbiieddebrk" in reiutibn to acceptabiiiiyfor optbunting and nraximum opacity emkiolls. In u&ion, the Reguiatibns give the Director thefoifo wiitg orrii)ori;riesrefated to 60th ait and iqwIUdemissions to the emtiionment to: request my substance reIease returns or reports; specify monitoring requirements related to substance release control: specifil ambient monitoring related to a substance release; and to specifL analytical methods for measuring substance releases. Tbe Regulation also outlines activities whose substance releases are now governed by Codes instead ofappmvals. Regtthtory Detatk The Substance Release Regulation dong with the Activities Designation Regulation and Appmvai Pmcedures Regulation provide details on the legisiative requirements and procedures that appIy to substance releases hma wide range ofactivities There is a separate regulation that deals specificaRy with Ozone-Depleting Substance, The Substance Release Regulation establishes general substance release restrictions for certain activities that are not subject to approvals. It ahwtabllshed minimum substance retease requirements for many activities which must dso obtain an approval pursuant to the AWies Designation Regutation- In these cases, the Director, in an approval, may spec@ more stringent limb than are in the Substance Release Regulation, but may not relax the limits. It is expected that substance reteasesto the envimnment wal be minimized by apptying pollution prevention practices and the use of best available demonstrated poUution control technologies. The Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guidelines-the Alberta Ambient Surface Water Quality Interim Guidelines and the Alberta Tier 1Criteria for Contaminated Soil Assessment and Remediation are used to evaIuate the acceptabiiity of substance releases that cannot practidy be met minimized, A major change in the regulatory heworkfor contmlIing substance reIeases occurred in September 1996 when the requirement for approvals for certain activities was replaced with a requirement to compb with a Code. The activities affected by thk change and the name of the Code applying to that activity are listed in table 1. Codes also require certain monitoring to ensure the ongoing effective control of emissions. Industry sectors selected for teguIatioa by Code were those that used standardized environmental protection practkes, were not complex and had little potential to create a significant adverse effect, Copies of Codes can be ohm-ned hrnthe Queen's Printer Bookstores in Edmonton and Calgary. The release of emissions exceeding or contrary to the limits in the Substance Release Regulations or an appmvd must be reported in accordance with the substance reiease provisions of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) and the requirements of the Release Reporting Regulation (AR 1 17/93) and a related Release Reporting Guideline. Table 1. Su batance ReIease Code Activity Code Asphalt paving plant Code of Practice for Asphalt Pavinig; PIants Concrete producing plant Code of Practice for Concrete Producing PIants Compressor and pumping stations sweet gas Code of -ice for Compressors, Pumping processing pimts Stations and Sweet Gas Processing Piants Foundry Code of Practice for Foundries Fish farrn/Fish processing plant I Code of Practice for Small Fish Farms and Fish Pracessing P lants Hydrostatic testing Code of Practice for Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Water hmHydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and NaturaI Gas pipelines Hydrologic tracing anaiysis Code of Practice for Hydrologic Tracing 1 Analysis Studies Red meat processing plant Poultry processing plant Code of Practice for Srnail Meat Processing Plants Tanker truck washing facility Code of Raaice for Tanker Truck Washing - Facilities Vegetable processing plants Code of Practice for Small Vegetable Processma Plants Climate Data for Calgary and Nova Scotia, Valley Region Calgary - 1997 and Normlls Notes: Additional Notes: Temperature in degrees celcius Nonnai is average hm196 I - 1990 Rain in milimetres and tenths TR = Trace Snow in centimetres and tenths Total precipitation in milimetres and tenths Wind speed in kilometres per hour Sunshine in hours and tenths of bright sunshine Tiable D.1 Temperatwedata fur Caigaty Temperature Month Mean ( 1997) I Nod(I96 t - 1990) Maximum I Minimum Monthly IMaximum Minimum Mean fan -5.7 gt9.2 -125 -3.6 -15.7 -9.6 I Feb 2.6 -82 -2.8 4.5 -12.3 -6.3 I . Mar t -9 -99 4 33 -8.4 -25 AP~ 9.4 -5 --7 3 10.6 -2-4 4.1 May 15.8 2-7 I 93 t 6.4 3 9,7 Jun 193 82 I I3.8 20.6 7.4 14 Jut 23.4 8.6 16 232 95 l6-4 Aug 23.5 8. I f 5.8 227 8.6 15.7 Sept 20-9 52 13.1 t 7.4 3.8 106 Oct t 0.7 -12 4.7 t 26 42 5-7 NOV / 5.3 -8.4 -15 1 29 -9 -3 Dec I 3.6 -9 -2.7 -2.3 -14.4 -8.3 Yeat I 10-9 -23 4.3 103 1 -26 3 -9 Ta6k D.2 Ptec@itmbndata fur Cdgmy Precipitation t Month Monthly ( E997) Norma1 ( 196 1. - 1990) 1 Rainfall Snowf;nll Total Rain Snow TOW Ian I TR 34.8 I85 02 18 122 Feb 1 TR 5.6 3.6 02 14.9 93 I Mar 1 TR 1 312 f7-I 1.5 18.7 14-7 Apr i 9 1 6.7 126 9.2 20.4 25-5.t May 73-7 1 31.8 --100.7 439 I02 I 5Z9 sun 1 t3M ' 0 t 38.4 76.7 03 1 769 Jd 1 169 0 E63 699 TR 699 Aug 57.8 0 57.8 58.7 TR I 48-7 Sept 36.6 1 1.4 1 37.8 42.7 6-4 48-1 Oct 172 I48 6-4 0.8 1 1 1 It5 1 15.5 i r Nov : TR r.2 1 0.6 0.6 1 16 11.6 Pec TR I2 6.3 0.1 19 132 Year 3332 t419 ' 425-t 300.1 : 135-4 1 398.7 WeD.3 Sunshiire data for Calgary Year 1 2455 1 2394.5 Table D.4 Wind &a for Cdgary 8iologica1 ttrutewaerTmrn~ent iit Sustitinahk Community Nova Scotia, Vdey Region - l!W7 and Normrls Notes: Additiod Notes: Temperature in degrees celcius Normal, is average hm196 1 - 1990 Rain in maimem and tenths TR =Trace Snow in centime- and tenths TOMprecipitation in millmetres and tenths Wind speed in kilometres per hour Sunshine in hours and tenths of bright sunshine Table D.5 Temperatureddu for Nova Scotia, ValIey Regiom Month Temperature Mean ( 1996) Norma1 ( 1952 - 1990) Max. Mia. I Month Max, I Min. Mean Jan 1.6 1 -7.7 1 -3.1 0 1 -7-7 -3.8 Feb 1.6 -59 1 -Ll 0.3 1 -82 -3-9 mar 42 4.3 1 0 4.4 -4.3 02 Apt 10.9 93 [ 6.6 9.7 03 5-1 May 15.5 5.1 10.4 15.8 1 5.3 10.6 Jm 22.5 10.7 1 16.6 20.5 I 9.8 15.2 Jut 23.5 13.8 18.6 5 I 13 183 Auq 24.4 12-7 18.5 23 1 It7 17.8 Sep 19.8 10,6 152 19 8.6 13.8 Oct 13.6 4, E 8-9 I 3.6 4.6 9-1 , Nov 7.6 0.5 I1 6 0.8 3.4 - -- Dec 72 0 T 3.6 29 4.8 -0.9 Year 12.7 35 18.t 113 I 2.5 72 . Tibie 016 FrecIpi;rationdrda for Nova Scotia* Vd&q Region Month Precipitation Moathty (1996) Normal (1952 - 1990) Rainfill Snowfall [ Total Rain 1 Snow Total Ian 99.7 47 146.7 80-1 722 152.6 Feb 1083 1 53 161.3 60.9 1 49.9 I 10.8 mar 47.5 1 I8 65.5 75.1 1 31.1 105-1 Apr 116.2 7 123.2 94 [ 9.7 102.7 May 1 14.8 0 E 14.8 to32 1.4 104.6 Jm 103.7 .- 0 103-7 92 0 92 JUI 173.5 la5 90 90 ,- o I o Aug 20.6 0 20.6 1 84.4 0 84.4 Sep I 261.2 ,. 0 261.2 1 993 0 99.9 Oct If3-1 TR t 13-L 1t0,f : 1.7 1 125 Nov 96.2 7 t 032 1333 65 139.8 k 1513 TR 1513 t10.6 , 50 E61-4 Year 1 1406.1 132 fS8-t I 1134.2 . 2229 t 355.8 Table D.7 Sumshine datafor Nova Scotis, ValIey Region TiD.8 Wind dota for Nova Scotia, Valllcy Region 14.8 Year 12.7 SVS &attvA UaPPtH WsWW3tv3 ryrdtood Z '3 aiQtlLt €1Z SZP Mold I@joJ, 2 SUItfdJ, s, m~M SU~VJZ titog 6s tZS 8 E?lVLOLL , LEP'900' 1$ 8 81 ZS 01 68 2 LOT ZSZ €8P 6 9L I Pago ll) LZ 1 00s olts - ' - ,-WuI )tt@UOdWOD (AspSy) (18W (@W (SJnoul) fi-s a08 a08 a03 uo!~~a~u!e/tur irirso~c J~W~N SS~~OJ~ Z JaWnN SYUv) t1~Ffnoq01 %OS PIOA % yutzlp~noys tu OS'O WP1M JalQM Im ZS a03 tJl00'9 ~apwtt!a 68 'PA l0.L 90'1 90'1 BlaU 00's 004t7 OZY E ZLOT 'Z 14 306 'dlUQ, LO1 U! au!PBol p~rnnvv3 mvp S'Z It ~otd s)fidut aost a03 aoa a03 u , 9t18'6b!! 'Z6Z69$ %zz 009'8z$ PtJSqJSAO "m rttaK/1so3 981 uo % IS03 Wl '009'8Z$ O€ plol-gng I *o$ 'o$ 'SZ$ 0 1qUreyl) '008'LS '0s 1$ 'S1$ 01 1sl.tnllnqWH '008'0Z$ boob.$ 'OZ$ OZ JOI~~JM~ dmlc~so~ %"l$ ny)so3, IAPH Jn("Pl b6E4I Z$ '9&6'bI$ '9L6'Pf $ plol-qns 'O$ '9t$ 00'0 sztr upalms amhbso~ 81,4503 wdd ,m mold 't66'fl 'S$ P'866 '?wu 'P86'6$ 'Ot$ P'866 sW@[d I ~~LfiS03 p 11803 q@rJel~W 1 LPCOZ$ '0EE'b I $ 'OEE'b I$ 9Zb6f$ E6€ tQ101-4nS 19b'Z1$ It1'PC$ 01'O$ lb£ s.tsMala raarc/lsoa mW03 rlMWSOD m'NM8 ~ttar~jaata &~eua , 1 *paq pear g luaw~sargaapnls, W!A 's,w3sepnl~u! trEep/e~ szp 'tBle3u! w~Ased ~L~I fWYl WOd SVS &PA uaPP!H ~ajgtso3H/O 9 '3 ai@d b uil!~ac]ICl!unu1u1o3 altlnu!ttrgtlS u! luourrtl$.l,t, J$lUMOlSt!A loq$olc~!q LEZ 990Ob0$ 9WO$ paleat, lQ3/lso3 SL'I $ ZZ' 1$ palBaJ1 cupso3 LObf t LZ$ 586'68 1$ )sol) ~ttnuuvplo& Z8Z'SLSLZ$ L69'Z 1O'Z$ I I YttOA 1uasaq [t310& 90S'VZ 1$ *S I 'L8$ MI380 +6SA0I %L OZ s~ak JWBd tl1.toM lUWJd uo!8vln31@;) y1JoM W-Jd IWO& I au!lso3 alaX3 @Ill