ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR) DESERONTO WASTE WATER ...deseronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/deseronto-wwtp-upgrade-es… · The Greer Galloway Group Inc. Engineers and Planners

The Greer Galloway Group Inc.

Engineers and Planners

Project # 07-3-7348

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR)

DESERONTO WASTE WATER TREATMENT

PLANT (WWTP) UPGRADE

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

December 12th

, 2012

THE GREER GALLOWAY GROUP INC.

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

1620 Wallbridge-Loyalist Road

R.R. #5, Belleville, ON

K8N 4Z5

Phone: 613-966-3068

In Association with

Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 1



Project # 07-3-7348

This page intentionally left blank.


Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT



Project # 07-3-7348

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 7

Problem Overview ................................................................................................... 7

Project Objectives .................................................................................................... 7

Executive Overview ................................................................................................ 7

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................... 9

1.2 Project Proponents ...................................................................................... 11

1.3 Areas of Concern ........................................................................................ 11

2 CLASS EA PROCESS & PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................... 12

2.1 Environmental Assessment Process............................................................ 12

2.2 Technical Steering Committee.................................................................... 16

2.3 Phase 2 Public Consultation ....................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Notification .................................................................................................... 16

2.3.2 Public Information Centre .............................................................................. 16

2.4 Agency Consultation................................................................................... 17

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS – DESERONTO WWTP ....................................... 18

3.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Socio-Economic Conditions ....................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Demographic Profile ...................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Existing and Planned Land Uses .................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 19

3.2.4 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 20

3.2.5 Cultural Heritage Features ............................................................................. 20

3.2.6 First Nations and Local History ..................................................................... 20

3.3 Natural Environment................................................................................... 21

3.3.1 Climate ........................................................................................................... 22

3.3.2 Physiography ................................................................................................. 22





Project # 07-3-7348

3.3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................... 25

3.3.4 Surface and Ground Water ............................................................................. 27

3.3.5 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ........................................................................ 27

3.3.6 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 28

3.3.7 Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 28

3.3.8 Environmentally Significant Areas ................................................................ 29

3.3.9 Noise .............................................................................................................. 29

3.4 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1)......................................................... 29

4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................. 30

4.1 Technical Memoranda ................................................................................ 30

4.1.1 Forecasted Population & Sewage Flows – The Town of Deseronto ............. 30

4.1.2 Forecast Population & Flows – Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte ................... 32

4.1.4 Total Forecast Sewage Flows ........................................................................ 32

4.1.5 Raw Sewage Loading .................................................................................... 32

4.1.6 Septage Loading ............................................................................................ 32

4.1.7 Total Sewage Loading ................................................................................... 33

4.2 Wastewater Collection Characterization: ................................................... 33

4.2.1 MBQ Wastewater Collection System ............................................................ 33

4.2.2 Town of Deseronto Initiatives to Reduce Extraneous Flows ......................... 33

4.3 Assimilative Capacity Study ....................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 34

4.3.2 Analysis of Background Data ........................................................................ 35

4.3.3 Lake Ontario Current Speeds and Water Levels ............................................ 39

4.3.4 Assimilative Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 39

4.3.5 Outfall Requirements ..................................................................................... 42

4.3.6 Mixing Zone Analysis.................................................................................... 43

4.3.7 Summary and Recommendations .................................................................. 45

5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ........................................ 46

5.1 Alternatives ................................................................................................. 46





Project # 07-3-7348

5.1.1 Do Nothing .................................................................................................... 47

5.1.2 Rehabilitate Sanitary Sewers to reduce Inflow and Infiltration ..................... 47

5.1.3 Upgrade Existing Facility .............................................................................. 47

5.1.4 Build New Facility Adjacent to Existing Facility .......................................... 47

5.1.5 Build New Facility in New Location ............................................................. 48

5.1.6 Build Pipeline to Neighbouring Municipality ................................................ 48

5.1.7 Upgrade Existing Deseronto Plant and Build New Plant on MBQ Territory 48

5.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Preferred Solution ..................... 49

5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 52

6 EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR PREFERRED

SOLUTION ............................................................................................................... 53

6.1 Background ................................................................................................. 53

6.1.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 54

6.1.2 Data Sources .................................................................................................. 54

6.2 Process Summary ........................................................................................ 54

6.3 Existing Certificate of Approval Ratings and Requirements...................... 55

6.4 Historic Raw Wastewater Flows and Quality ............................................. 56

6.5 Conceptual Level Design Flows and Loadings .......................................... 58

6.6 Design Effluent Objectives and Compliance Limits .................................. 58

7 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS ........................................................... 59

7.0 Preliminary Treatment ................................................................................ 59

7.1 Secondary Treatment .................................................................................. 59

7.1.1 Alternative 1 - Extended Aeration ................................................................. 60

7.1.2 Alternative 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge ............................................. 60

7.1.3 Alternative 3 - Sequencing Batch Reactor ..................................................... 61

7.1.4 Alternative 4 - Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge ................................ 61

7.1.5 Alternative 5 - Membrane Bioreactor ............................................................ 61

7.1.6 Preliminary Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Design Alternatives .......... 62

7.1.7 Secondary Treatment Design Alternatives .................................................... 63





Project # 07-3-7348

7.2 Tertiary Treatment ...................................................................................... 65

7.2.1 Review of Tertiary Treatment Technologies ................................................. 65

7.2.2 Alternative 1 - Ballasted Flocculation ........................................................... 65

7.2.3 Alternative 2 - Shallow Bed Granular Media Filtration ................................ 65

7.2.4 Alternative 3 - Deep Bed, Continuous Backwash Filtration .......................... 66

7.2.5 Alternative 4 - Cloth Media Filtration ........................................................... 66

7.2.6 Alternative 5 - Membrane Ultrafiltration ....................................................... 66

7.2.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Design Alternatives .............. 66

8 Disinfection Technologies ................................................................................. 68

8.1 Preferred Disinfection Alternative .............................................................. 69

8.2 Sludge Handling ......................................................................................... 70

8.2.1 Sludge Stabilization ....................................................................................... 70

8.2.2 Biosolids Storage ........................................................................................... 70

9 DETAILED EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ........................ 71

9.1 Evaluation Methodology............................................................................. 71

9.2 Secondary Treatment Evaluation Results ................................................... 71

9.2 Recommended Preferred Secondary Treatment Alternative ...................... 77

9.4 Tertiary Treatment Preliminary Evaluation Results ................................... 78

9.5 Recommended Preferred Tertiary Treatment Alternative .......................... 82

10 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPT .............................. 83

Detailed Design, Approvals, Construction Administration ....................................... 84

Construction .............................................................................................................. 84

Construction Contingency ......................................................................................... 84

Annual Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................... 84

11 ESR CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 84

11.1 Class EA Schedule .................................................................................. 84

11.1 Part II Order Provisions .......................................................................... 84

12 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 85

13 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 86





Project # 07-3-7348

13.1 Appendix A – Needs Study ..................................................................... 86

13.2 Appendix B – Project Notices and Stakeholders .................................... 86

13.3 Appendix C – PIC files ........................................................................... 86

13.4 Appendix D – Archaeological Assessment ............................................. 86

13.5 Appendix E – Technical Memorandum #1 ............................................. 86

13.5 Appendix F – Technical Memorandum #2 ............................................. 86

13.5 Appendix G – Technical Memorandum #3 ............................................. 86

13.5 Appendix H – Technical Memorandum #4 ............................................. 86

13.9 Appendix I – Assimilative Capacity Study ............................................. 86

13.10 Appendix J – Preferred Alternatives – Cost Breakdown ........................ 86

13.11 Appendix K – STP Policies, Source Water Protection, Setbacks ........... 86

13.12 Appendix L – CofA, MTA ...................................................................... 86





Project # 07-3-7348

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Problem Overview

The Town of Deseronto is undertaking a project to expand the Waste Water Treatment Plant

(WWTP) to service the Town of Deseronto and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte residents.

The Town has identified that the existing system is nearing its rated capacity for wastewater

flows and treatment, and measures must be taken to ensure adequate capacity exists for

future demands and growth in the community.

Project Objectives

The primary objective is to eliminate plant bypasses to curtail the discharge of raw and

partially treated sewage into the Bay of Quinte, thereby protecting the Bay of Quinte

ecosystem. The other objectives are to satisfy the following supporting goals:

1. Increase the capacity of the WWTP to handle current peak volume flows and future

average day flows in order to support community growth;

2. Supply a septage receiving system (incorporated into the WWTP) for the treatment

of septage from the community’s rural residents;

3. Reduce the operational and maintenance costs of wastewater treatment.

Executive Overview

Deseronto is located 32 kilometres east of Belleville and 10 kilometres west of Napanee,

south of the 401 on the shores of the Bay of Quinte. The Waste Water Treatment Plant

(WWTP) in Deseronto was originally constructed in the early 1970’s and is nearing the end

of its intended lifespan with respect to existing physical conditions of the plant as well as the

capacity based on current demands and future growth predictions.

The current Certificate of Approval for the Deseronto WWTP is rated for an average flow of

1600 cubic metres per day. The rated capacity has been exceeded in 11 months in the past

three years (2009-2011). In addition, sewage treatment plants need to handle the peak

hydraulic flow that occurs during wet weather events. Peak flows during wet periods at the

plant climb to over 5000 cubic metres per day, and can average 2,279 cubic metres per day

for an entire month. All of this led the Town of Deseronto to undertake a Class

Environmental Assessment. This project is now proceeding under Schedule C of the

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.

The project objective is to address capacity issues, quality issues, environmental guideline

deficiencies, and operational problems with the Wastewater Treatment System (WWTP).

After reviewing the future population projections and establishing future flows, an average

day design flow of 2,400 cubic metres per day was established.

The Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has previously reduced the loading for

phosphorus to 0.48 kilograms per day. Through consultations with the Ministry of





Project # 07-3-7348

Environment (MOE) and after an assimilative capacity study, compliance limits were

established for the expanded facility. These are presented in Table 1 below. They have been

reviewed by the MOE and have received preliminary approval.

Table1 Recommended Design Objectives and Compliance Limits

Effluent Parameter Design Objectives

(mg/L)

Compliance Limits

(mg/L)

Effluent Loading

(kg/day)

cBOD5 (mg/L) 15.0 25.0 60

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 15.0 25.0 60

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.15 0.2 0.48

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

(mg/L)

Summer (Jun 1 to Oct 31)

Winter (Nov 1 to May 31)

5

12

8

16

19.2

38.4

E. Coli (CFU/100 mL) 100 counts/100mL 200 counts/100mL n/a

Note: Quarterly toxicity testing will also be required

Alternative solutions were evaluated including “do nothing”, reducing flows through

collection system rehabilitation, a new plant at a new site, upgrading the existing plant and

introducing a second plant at a new site, and expanding the existing plant at the existing site.

The preferred alternative was identified as expanding the existing facility.

Various treatment processes were evaluated to upgrade the secondary treatment process,

which included:

Extended aeration;

Conventional activated sludge;

Sequencing batch reactor;

Integrated fixed-film; and,

Membrane bioreactor.

For tertiary filtration, the following options were reviewed:

Ballasted Flocculation;

Shallow bed granular media filtration;

Deep bed continuous backwash filtration;

Cloth media filtration; and,

Membrane ultra-filtration.





Project # 07-3-7348

Public Information Centres were conducted at three points during the project, with the final

meeting held on November 28th to review the preferred design alternative. Evaluation

criteria were developed and applied to the alternative design concepts, and the Extended

Aeration process with cloth media filtration was selected as the preferred design.

The recommendation of this report is to upgrade the existing facility including the following:

New headworks screening and grit removal building;

New septage receiving and equalization system;

Two new aeration basins with fine-bubble aeration;

Two new secondary clarifiers;

New aerobic digester;

Additional biosolids covered-storage capacity;

New two-train cloth media tertiary filter enclosed in a building.

The estimated project cost is approximately $8.1 million (2012 dollars).

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

The Town of Deseronto owns the Deseronto Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), which

treats sanitary sewage from the Town as well as from a portion of the Mohawk Territory.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) have a long-term lease with the Town for the

plant to treat sanitary sewage from homes on the Territory that are located between the

eastern boundary of the Town and Highway 49. The total rated capacity of the plant is

currently 1600 cubic metres per day, with 240 cubic metres of this being allotted to the

MBQ.

Recent historical average day flows (ADFs) to the plant have been close to the rated capacity

of the plant, and peak hydraulic flows have exceed the capacity of the facility, leading to

sewage bypasses to the Bay of Quinte. The Town of Deseronto initially commissioned a

Needs Study in 2007 to review shortfalls at the plant. This study is attached as Appendix A

and summarized below:

The front end of the plant lacks the capacity to accommodate current peak flows.

The headworks wet well should be equipped with larger pumps so that there is no

bypassing. The pumps will be fitted with premium efficiency motors and variable

frequency drives to reduce energy consumption and balance flows to the plant;

The grit removal system at the headworks of the plant is undersized and does not

adequately prevent solids from entering the downstream processes. A new





Project # 07-3-7348

screenings system is required at the headworks in order to remove unwanted solids

from the process

The existing aeration process components are inadequately sized and do not provide

proper nitrification of the effluent prior to discharge to the Bay. This can make the

effluent toxic to fish and other aquatic life;

Inadequate sizing for the secondary clarifiers allows solids to carry through the

process during high-flow periods;

Construction of a properly sized aerobic digestion system should provide 45 days of

biosolids stabilization in accordance with Provincial guidelines;

The existing standby power system is not adequately sized to run the plant. In the

event of a power outage the blowers for the aeration system cannot run. Installing a

properly sized generator, so that the plant can treat the wastewater during power

outages, will allow the sewage to be processed correctly and eliminate the toxic

impact of the sewage on the Bay of Quinte;

Construction of a properly sized sludge storage tank is needed to provide storage for

stabilized biosolids in accordance with the Nutrient Management Act. In addition a

mixing system (that was in the original design but not installed for cost reasons)

should be considered;

As per Provincial mandates to eliminate the application of untreated septage to land,

it is intended to provide an outlet for septage for the rural residents.

In addition to the shortfalls listed above, there is limited uncommitted reserve capacity for

the Town to grow. Further to this, the MBQ would like to increase their contracted allotment

to service future growth in this serviced area of the Territory. The Town, in partnership with

the MBQ, undertook a Municipal Class Environment Assessment (EA) at the start of 2012.

The EA proceeded as a Schedule “C” process. The outcome of this EA is presented in this

Environmental Study Report (ESR).

The ESR also included the studies and technical memoranda that were conducted as part of

the EA (referred to throughout the ESR and contained in the Appendix section). These

include:

• Technical Memorandum #1 – Projected Flows and Loadings

• Technical Memorandum #2 – Waste Water Collection System





Project # 07-3-7348

• Technical Memorandum #3 – Alternative Solutions

• Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

• Assimilative Capacity Study

• Technical Memorandum #4 – Alternative Designs

The ultimate goal of this project is to eliminate existing treatment shortfalls at the plant and

provide additional treatment capacity to support future growth in the community. In

addition, the project will provide an alternative to the current facility, which was constructed

approximately forty years ago and is rapidly approaching the end of its’ design life. This will

address compliance with current environmental policies and guidelines, as well as

maintenance and operations issues at the facility.

1.2 Project Proponents

The project will address the direct needs of the local populace within the Town of Deseronto

and the serviced area of the MBQ Territory. The location will be at the existing Deseronto

WWTP, and in the collection system that feeds it. The project will encompass essential

upgrades to ensure that the WPCP can handle peak flows and that no raw sewage is

discharged into the Bay of Quinte. The upgrades will meet Provincial and Federal standards

for sewage treatment facilities. The residents and potential future residents of the Town of

Deseronto and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte will be the major benefactors of the

project. Anyone who uses the Bay of Quinte and surrounding land for drinking water,

recreation, fishing, or tourism will benefit from this project.

1.3 Areas of Concern

As a summary the project proposes to rectify these following items of major concern:

The plant pumping capacity versus hydraulic peak design loadings;

Absence of any primary raw solids separation (such as fine screening);

The secondary clarifiers surface overflow loadings versus MOE guidelines;

The extended aeration hydraulic retention time versus MOE guidelines;

Capacity of the backup power system;

Compliance with current standards (electrical, mechanical, and safety codes);

The ability to receive and treat septage from rural residents;

45 days of aerated biosolids stabilization in accordance with MOE guidelines;

Biosolids storage in accordance with the NMA;

Inflow and infiltration into the collection system;

Reduction of plant generated odours;

Replacement of outdated and deteriorated structural and mechanical components

which are very costly to maintain;

Lack of overall plant capacity to accommodate future growth.





Project # 07-3-7348

2 CLASS EA PROCESS & PUBLIC CONSULTATION

2.1 Environmental Assessment Process

In Ontario, municipal water and wastewater projects are subject to the provisions of the

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, amended in 2007). The Class

Environmental Assessment (Class EA) is an approved planning document which describes

the process which proponents must follow in order to meet the requirements of the

Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) of Ontario. By following the Class EA process, the

municipality (proponent) does not have to apply for an individual environmental assessment

under the act. The Class EA approach allows for the evaluation of the environmental effects

of carrying out a project and alternative methods of carrying out a project, includes

mandatory requirements for public input, and expedites the environmental assessment of

smaller recurring projects.

The Class EA planning process was developed to ensure that the potential social, economic

and natural environmental effects are considered in planning water, storm water and sewage

projects. Class EAs are a method of dealing with projects which display the following

important common characteristics: recurring, usually small in nature, usually limited in

scale, predictable range of environmental effects, and responsive to mitigation measures.

Projects which do not display these characteristics must undergo an individual

environmental assessment. The Class EA planning process represents an alternative for

Ontario municipalities to carrying out individual environmental assessments for most

municipal sewage, storm water management, and water projects. Since sewage, storm water

management and water projects undertaken by municipalities under the Class EA planning

process vary in their environmental impact such projects are classified in terms of schedules.

Figure 1 below shows a diagram of the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process

Flow.





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 1: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process Flow Diagram

Schedule A projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects and include the

majority of municipal sewage, storm water management and water operations and





Project # 07-3-7348

maintenance activities. These projects are approved and may proceed to implementation

without any further requirements under the provisions of the Class EA planning process.

Schedule B projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The

proponent is required to undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with

directly affected public and with relevant government agencies to ensure that they are aware

of the project and that their concerns are addressed. If there are no outstanding concerns then

the proponent may proceed to implementation. If, however, the screening process raises a

concern which cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order ("bump-up") procedure may be

invoked; alternatively, the proponent may elect voluntarily to plan the project as a Schedule

C undertaking. Typically, Schedule B projects involve extensions to existing Municipal

infrastructure such as sewage collection systems and water distribution systems.

Schedule C projects have the potential for significant environmental effects and must

proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA

process. Schedule C projects require that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be prepared

and submitted for review by the public. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, the

"bump-up" procedure may be invoked, which may result in the requirement to complete a

full environmental assessment. Typically, these projects involve the construction of

Municipal infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities, new sewage collection and

water distribution systems, and water treatment facilities.

Proponents then proceed through the planning process beginning with Phase 1 (Problem

Definition) and advancing towards the end of Phase 2 (Evaluation of Alternative Solutions),

where the preferred alternative solution is determined. Having determined the preferred

alternative solution, the appropriate project schedule and process to be followed for the

completion of the project is also determined in this case, Schedule C.

Phase 1 defines the nature and extent of the problem and the project opportunity. Often a

discretionary public meeting is held to inform interested parties of the EA planning process

and to discuss the problem.

Phase 2 involves the identification of the alternative solutions. Also included is an inventory

of the natural, social, and economic environment; the identification of the impacts of

alternative solutions on the environment; the identification of mitigation measures; an

evaluation of alternative solutions; consultation with review agencies and the public

regarding the identified problem and alternative solutions; the identification of the preferred

alternative solution; and confirmation of the path or schedule to follow for the balance of the

Class EA process. Public consultation is mandatory at this phase and includes review

agencies and the affected public. The appropriate EA schedule for the project is also

identified.

Phase 3 involves the identification of alternative designs for the selected alternative

solution. Also included are a detailed inventory of the natural, social, and economic

environment relating to the selected alternative solution; the identification of the impacts of

alternative designs on the environment; the identification of mitigation measures;

consultation with review agencies and the public regarding the alternative designs; and the





Project # 07-3-7348

identification of the recommended alternative design. Public consultation is mandatory at

this phase and includes review agencies and the affected public.

Phase 4 represents the culmination of the planning and design process as set out in the Class

EA. Phase 4 involves the completion of the documentation including the Environmental

Study Report (ESR), if required, and the Notice of Completion. The ESR documents all the

activities undertaken through Phases 1, 2 and 3 including the consultation. The ESR is filed

with the Clerk of the Municipality and is placed on the public record for at least 30 days to

allow for public review. The public and mandatory agencies are notified through the Notice

of Completion, which also discloses the Part II Order (“bump-up”) provisions.

Phase 5 is the implementation phase of the Class EA process, and includes final design,

construction plans and specifications, tender documents, and construction and operation. It

also includes monitoring for environmental provisions and commitments (e.g. mitigation

measures) as defined in the ESR.

“Bump-up” Projects subject to a Class EA are recurring, usually small in nature, usually

limited in scale, have a predictable range of environmental effects, and are responsive to

mitigation measures. Hence the Class EA process is streamlined and typically less onerous

to complete compared to an Individual EA.

An Individual EA involves a more complex procedure incorporating similar stages and

public/agency consultation. Individual EAs are more expensive and time consuming and

typically involve projects that are more unique, larger and wider ranging, have uncommon or

unpredictable environmental effects, and may not be responsive to mitigation measures.

There is an opportunity for any interested parties to request a Part II Order that results in the

project being bumped up from a Class Environmental Assessment to an Individual

Environmental Assessment. The “bump-up” opportunity exists at the Notice of Completion

stage and must be filed with the Minister of Environment within thirty (30) days of the

notice date. The Notice of Completion occurs near the end of Phase 4 for Schedule C

projects. It signifies that the Class EA process has been completed for the project and that

the resulting document has been placed on public record.

For projects subject to the provisions of the Class Environmental Assessment Process, a

person or agency with a significant concern must communicate the concern to the proponent

any time between Phases 2 and 4. If the concern cannot be resolved between the party and

the proponent, then that person or agency can request a Part II Order from the Minister. This

must be done during the thirty-day public review period after the Notice of Completion has

been issued.

The Environmental Assessment Branch of the Ministry of the Environment then has forty-

five days to prepare a report to the Minister, who then has twenty-one days to make a

decision. The Minister may deny the request, deny the request with conditions, refer to the

Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, or comply with the request. Obviously

since the Part II Order procedure is arduous, an individual or agency with a significant and





Project # 07-3-7348

legitimate concern is wise to engage in an early and meaningful dialogue with the proponent.

The process is specifically referenced in the Notice and addressed in detail during the PICs.

2.2 Technical Steering Committee

As with the Class EA process a Steering Committee is formed and is comprised of various

stakeholders and technical staff to guide the process. The Deseronto WWTP Upgrade

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) was selected at the beginning of the EA process and

includes:

Tony Guerrera, P. Eng, Greer Galloway

Dan Joyner (with support from Jon Orpana, Christine Brown, Victor Castro) Ministry of

Environment

Shah Alamgir, Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada (AANDC)

Mohammed Karim, Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corp (OFNTSC)

Janet Noyse (initially Cameron Smith), XCG

Todd Kring, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (Alternate Tom Kring)

Todd Harvey, Town of Deseronto

Max Christie, XIE Environmental

2.3 Phase 2 Public Consultation

Initial project planning meetings and discussions were held with the Steering Committee

members. Comments received at these meetings and the Public Information Centre’s on

July 25th, September 27th, 2012 and November 28

th, 2012 are incorporated into this report.

2.3.1 Notification

Notification for the Public Information Centre #1 (PIC #1) held on July 25th, 2012 was

accomplished through notices placed in the local newspapers - the Napanee Beaver (July

19th, 2012) and the Intelligencer (July 14

th, 2012). Notification for the Public Information

Centre #2 (PIC #2) held on September 27th, 2012 was accomplished through notices in the

local newspapers – the Napanee Beaver (Sept 13th, 2012) and the Intelligencer (Sept 13

th,

2012). PIC#3 was advertised in the Intelligencer Nov 14th, 2012 and Nov 15

th in the Napanee

Beaver.

A copy of the mailing list and the project notice is included in Appendix B. The information

was also made available on the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) website

http://www.mbq-tmt.org/assets/Infrastructure/DesWastewaterOpenHousesept2012.pdf

2.3.2 Public Information Centre

PIC #1 was held July 25th, 2012 at Lions Hall, 300 Main St Deseronto. The format consisted

of an open house with display boards and an open question period for members of the public

that attended. Representatives of the steering committee greeted members of the public that

attended, explained the process, and discussed the recommended alternative solutions.

PIC #2 was held September 27th, 2012 at the MBQ meeting facility at 1807 York Road,

Marysville. The format consisted of an open house with display boards and an open

http://www.mbq-tmt.org/assets/Infrastructure/DesWastewaterOpenHousesept2012.pdf





Project # 07-3-7348

question period for members of the public that attended. Representatives of the steering

committee greeted members of the public that attended, explained the process, and discussed

the recommended alternative solutions.

PIC #3 was held November 28th, 2012 at the Deseronto Community Recreation Centre at 51

Mechanic St, Deseronto. The format consisted of an open house with display boards and an

open question period for members of the public that attended. Representatives of the

steering committee greeted members of the public that attended, explained the process, and

discussed the recommended alternative solutions, as well as the design for the preferred

solution.

The display boards describe the project, the EA process, the alternate solutions and the

different design alternatives for the preferred solution as well as the criteria and scoring that

each component received when evaluated against the social, natural, technical and economic

factors.

A copy of the attendance records and the comments provided are included in Appendix C.

No public concerns arose in any of the three PIC sessions held.

2.4 Agency Consultation

Agency Consultation occurred as part of the project. The MOE has been involved in the

project since the beginning and they have been included in the technical steering committee.

Victor Castro, Christie Brown, Dan Joyner and Jon Orpana have been included in all

correspondence to date.

Since the project will involve some in water work during the build phase (multi-port diffuser

on the end of the outfall pipe in the Bay of Quinte to achieve effluent objectives), the Quinte

Conservation Authority has been contacted to make recommendations regarding the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and their potential involvement and what

studies, approvals or mitigation measures may need to be put into place to satisfy our

obligations.

Initial responses from the QCA and DFO indicate no permits or studies will be needed. The

feedback we received from the QCA regarding Source Water Protection is that our proposed

improvements to the Deseronto WWTP (the elimination of treatment by-passes, the

improvement of the process in order to treat peak flows and improvements to the outfall (i.e.

a diffuser) are in line with the intent of the Source Water Protection Policies. See Appendix

K for details.





Project # 07-3-7348

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS – DESERONTO WWTP

3.1 Land Use

The Town of Deseronto is situated in the eastern portion of Southern Ontario in the southern

and easternmost portion of Hastings County. Deseronto is generally described as an urban

area consisting of residential homes, small shops, heritage attractions and industrial sites.

The surrounding use is agricultural and other rural land uses.

The community is located 30 kilometres east of Belleville and 10 kilometres west of

Napanee, south of the 401 on the north shores of the Bay of Quinte. Deseronto is bound by

Prince Edward County to the south, Lennox and Addington County to the east and

Northumberland County to the west.

A review of the Land Use Plan for Deseronto (2001) shows that there is ample land for

residential, commercial and industrial growth within the community boundaries. See Figure

2 in section 3.2.2 below.

3.2 Socio-Economic Conditions

There is a relatively stable employment base which has been dependent on the various

industries, local shops and stores, other institutional facilities and tourism in the Deseronto

area. Although the community has a stable economic base, growth has been modest or non-

existent over the years. Census data shows a fairly flat population growth line since 2001,

with the average population very near the 1800 person mark. 2011 census data shows a

population of 1835 people.

3.2.1 Demographic Profile

According to Canadian Census data, the population of Deseronto has been consistently

around 1800 people since 1991. The census for 2011 puts the exact population at 1835

which is a 0.6% increase from the 2006 data. The census data also indicates that there were

764 total private dwellings in Deseronto in 2011 and a land area of 2.52km2. This equates to

a population density of 728.3/km2. Median age of residents is 40.0 (39.7 M, 40.3 F), with a

mean household income of $36,619 (2006 census data).

3.2.2 Existing and Planned Land Uses





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 2: Land Use Plan for the Town of Deseronto, 2001

3.2.3 Recreation

Deseronto is a popular tourist area on the shores of the Bay of Quinte and attracts many

outdoors enthusiasts including campers, fishermen, hunters and boaters. The town has

developed a large park with over 1100 feet of water frontage featuring a boat launch facility,

canteen, washrooms and a playground. There is also a project underway to develop a

Marina to the East of the current location of the Deseronto WWTP. This sheltered

waterfront is perfect for sailing, canoeing and water-skiing. Fishing for Walleye in this area

of the Bay of Quinte is world class and attracts fishermen from many parts of eastern

Canada and the United States.

The historic Town Hall in the beautiful Rathbun Park, adjacent to the Post Office, provides a

focal point for the downtown area. The Post Office is one of five post offices in Canada

recognized by Canada Post for its architecture and heritage.

Visitors to Deseronto can also take in the racing events at nearby Shannonville Motorsport

Park.

Source for above details: http://bayofquinte.com/site/about/town-of-deseronto/

http://bayofquinte.com/site/about/town-of-deseronto/





Project # 07-3-7348

The Bay of Quinte is one of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) watershed areas in the

province and as such preserving the water quality is very important to the health and well-

being of the Town of Deseronto from both a local interest and tourist perspective.

Upgrading the Deseronto WWTP would not only ensure consistent quality of effluent being

output to the Bay of Quinte, but also protect the source water for the drinking water for the

town.

3.2.4 Aesthetics

Aesthetics, as it relates to this project, refers to the visual impact the upgrade may have on

the current site of the Deseronto WWTP. Since the proposed solution is limited to the

current property boundaries, requires the building of a few additional components and plans

to reuse existing infrastructure when possible, the impact to aesthetics will be little to none.

It is probable that the landscape will change, but not significantly.

3.2.5 Cultural Heritage Features

Heritage is defined as an individual or group of significant buildings, structures, monuments,

installations, or remains, which are associated with architectural, cultural, social, political,

economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. These

resources may be designated or subject to a conservation easement under the Ontario

Heritage Act, or listed by the federal or provincial governments or the Town.

Deseronto is a historically rich town with many Heritage features however, the WWTP

upgrade is planned to be on the existing property only and will not impact any cultural

heritage features of the town. This is reviewed more in depth in the Stage One

Archaeological Assessment.

3.2.6 First Nations and Local History

The area was acquired by the British Government from the Mississauga people just after the

American Revolution. The land was then granted to Loyalists and Mohawks who had

supported the British during this war. In 1784, a group of twenty Mohawk families led by

Captain John Deserontyon (c.1740–1811) arrived and set up a village on these lands which

were once part of a vast northern territory controlled by the Iroquois Confederacy prior to

the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Deserontyon's grandson, John Culbertson, inherited his

property in what is now the town site. In 1837, Culbertson was granted title to the land, built

a wharf on the waterfront, and sold village lots in his tract. A settlement began to grow at the

wharf, called Culbertson's Wharf.

In 1848, portions of land were bought by Amos S. Rathbun, Thomas Y. Howe, and L. E.

Carpenter who built the area’s first sawmill. By 1850, the village was known as Mill Point.

After 1855 Amos Rathbun's brother, Hugo Burghardt Rathbun (1812–1886), continued the

business by himself. He acquired many village properties and made Mill Point one of

Ontario's earliest company towns to house employees of his shipyard and sawmill. This led

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town





Project # 07-3-7348

to rapid growth and the place became an industrial and transportation hub for the logging

business in the Napanee, Salmon, Moira, and Trent River watersheds.

In 1871, a county by-law provided for the incorporation of Mill Point as a Village.

Mill Point took the name Deseronto in 1881 in honour of the Mohawk chief Deserontyon

who had led the first settlers to the area following the American Revolution. In 1889, it was

incorporated as a Town. During the 1890s, Deseronto had a population of about 4000 and

was a thriving town with bakeries, drugstores, hardware stores and hotels. The town's Post

Office, designed by Chief Dominion Architect Thomas Fuller, was completed in 1901.

During World War I, Deseronto was home to two Royal Flying Corps training camps. The

Rathbun Company also developed many diversified industries, including a sash and door

factory, shipyard, railway car works, terra cotta factory, flour mill, gas works and chemical

works, all located in Deseronto. But changing markets, devastating fires, depleting lumber

stock, and a lack of good forest management led to the company's decline and they ceased

operation in 1923 when they surrendered their charter. Consequently, the town's population

fell from 3500 in 1924 to 1300 ten years later.

Much of the land area of the Town of Deseronto is part of the Culbertson Tract land claim

submitted by the Tyendinaga Mohawks in 1995 and accepted for negotiation by Canada in

2003.

There is currently a First Nation land claim with respect to much of the Town of Deseronto

and the surrounding area. This includes the site of the existing WWTP. The MBQ have been

consulted and understand that expansion on the existing site is the least obtrusive method for

upgrading the facility and providing increased capacity to the community. The Mohawks of

the Bay of Quinte are working in conjunction with the Town of Deseronto to upgrade the

WWTP and will benefit from the additional capacity and increased quality of effluent.

3.3 Natural Environment

An Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) was conducted by Greer Galloway Inc. for the

area within and adjacent to the WWTP at 1Water Street Deseronto. The EIA was completed

based on a desktop study augmented with site visits in the fall of 2011 and summer of 2012.

The natural environment refers to all components of nature that could be impacted by the

project. These include climate, physiography, soils, ground and surface water, fisheries,

flora and fauna, environmentally significant areas and noise. Each of these components will

be described below to develop a current state of existing conditions. A goal of the project is

not to negatively impact any of these natural components. Mitigating measures will be

undertaken to minimize any potential negative impacts.

The surrounding terrestrial habitats consist of an urban woodlot, a park, residential areas and

the riparian area along the Bay of Quinte. No Species at Risk (SAR) were observed within

the project footprint. The project area is located in the Town of Deseronto between Water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fuller_(architect)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Flying_Corps





Project # 07-3-7348

Street and the Bay of Quinte and is owned by the municipality. The surrounding land-uses

included a park, residential housing, and a planned marina to the east and an empty

overgrown lot to the west. Fish habitat was present in the adjacent Bay of Quinte to the

south. There were no other water courses or water bodies located within the project area.

Due to the nature of the site, it is anticipated that any potential impacts to the environment

could be mitigated. To accomplish this it is recommended that riparian area be left

undisturbed and a minimum 15 m buffer from the shoreline be established. Once a concept

plan is developed for the proposed expansion and construction methodologies have been

determined, an evaluation of the potential impacts and mitigations should be completed.

3.3.1 Climate

Deseronto lies on the north shores of the Bay of Quinte which juts inland northward from

Lake Ontario. The climate in this region is characterized by moderate temperatures and high

humidity. Summers tend to be warm to hot with high humidity and winters tend to be

moderate to cold. Mean annual temperature is 7.50C with lows around -10

0C in January and

highs around 250C in July.

Precipitation in this region is generally consistent throughout the year and typical annual

precipitation levels are from 800-1000mm for this region (typically about 15% of this

precipitation is in the form of snow).

Ontario’s climate is affected by three major air sources: cold dry polar air from the north, the

dominant factor in the winter months; Pacific polar air passing over the western prairies; and

warm, moist, sub-tropical air from the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico (Webber and

Hoffman 1970). Latitude, proximity to major water bodies and terrain relief are also factors

that help determine local temperatures and precipitation levels.

3.3.2 Physiography





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 3: Physiographic region

The Deseronto WWTP lies within the Napanee Plain.





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 4: Bedrock Geology

The Deseronto WWTP lies on a Verulam formation comprised of inter-bedded limestone

and shale.





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 5: Bedrock Topography

Deseronto lies within the Napanee Plain which is a flat to slightly undulating area of very

thin stony overburden, overlying shallow limestone bedrock. This Verulam formation

(Middle Ordovician age) is comprised of mainly limestone and shale – 3 to 15cm thick grey

bioclastic and fossiliferous limestone beds between beds of shale. The surface covering is

typically loose sandy gravel soil less than a metre deep. Shallow clay deposits are known to

occur in some of the bedrock depressions and near the shores of the Bay of Quinte.

3.3.3 Soils





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 6: Soil Types

Soil in the area of the Deseronto WWTP is typically clay or clay loam. Since it sits on the

shores of the Bay of Quinte some loose sand and gravel is also expected. Grey-brown

luvisol soil is predominant in this area of southern Ontario and supports most of the

agriculture in this region.





Project # 07-3-7348

3.3.4 Surface and Ground Water

Ground water in the region between the Salmon and Napanee rivers flows in a southerly

direction towards Lake Ontario. Two major aquifers dominate this area - overburden and

bedrock. The majority of wells obtain water from the bedrock as the overburden is generally

thin (<1m) and typically does not yield adequate quantities of water.

The directionality of surface water flow is typically dictated more by local topography and

terrain and in the case of the Deseronto WWTP, the surface water flows south towards the

Bay of Quinte as the WWTP lot is a waterfront lot on the north shore.

3.3.5 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat

The Bay of Quinte is a very important body of water. It is a RAP water body meaning it is a

sensitive and an important receiving water body and a source of fresh water and recreation

for many Municipalities and the approximately 400,000 people living in the surrounding

area. It has a drainage basin of approximately 18,000km2. The shoreline contains 19

provincially significant wetlands.

Phosphorous loading in the Bay of Quinte has been known to cause algal blooms in late

summer and the RAP is specifically targeting phosphorous and other contaminants. Much

has been done to lower phosphorous levels in the Bay including government mandated

limiting of phosphorous levels allowed in detergents (1973), the controlling of phosphorous

levels from sewage treatment plants (STPs) in 1978, over 27,000 hectares of farmland have

been converted from conventional to conservation tillage, direct discharge of industrial

waste has been drastically lowered, inputs from rural sources have been lowered at source

annually by more than 16,000kg and sewage treatment plants have cut phosphorous loads in

half. Water clarity is improving and algal blooms are less frequent and less severe than

historically.

The Bay of Quinte lies to the west of the head of the Saint Lawrence River which drains the

Great Lakes into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The Trent River system, Napanee and Salmon

Rivers all flow into the Bay. Environmental concerns in the Bay of Quinte Area of Concern

have concentrated on excess nutrients, persistent toxic contamination, bacterial

contamination and the loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Over 40km of shoreline have been

planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses to reduce erosion and improve habitats for

many of the reptilian, mammalian, amphibious and avian species that occupy this riparian

zone. Over 800 hectares of wetland have been rehabilitated or protected.

The Bay of Quinte is home to many species of sport fish (almost all sport fish that are found

in the Great Lakes can be found in the Bay of Quinte). Hailed as the fishing capital of

Ontario the Bay of Quinte is well known for trophy Walleye and has become a hot spot for

sport fisherman from all over North America.





Project # 07-3-7348

Invasive species occur in the Bay of Quinte. The two most recent invasive species are the

zebra mussel and the Round Goby. Both changed the dynamics of the ecosystems,

specifically the aquatic food chain, in the Bay of Quinte and had deleterious effects. One of

these was a sharp decline in the Walleye population.

As the Deseronto WWTP property lies on the shores of the Bay of Quinte and discharges

into it, as well as the drinking water intake for the town comes from the Bay, it is very

important that care is taken to not degrade the quality of the water. Upgrading the WWTP

will improve the overall quality of effluent received into the Bay and will also ensure a more

constant water source for the drinking water treatment plant. It is important to not disturb

the waterline and surrounding shoreline near the plant. This riparian zone is important for

all sorts of animals and vegetation and the aquatic organisms, including fish, in the Bay. For

this reason a 15m zone from the shoreline inwards should remain untouched during the

project.

Later in this report, the requirement to add an outfall diffuser to the existing outfall is

discussed. This will ultimately improve the aquatic environment by improving the mixing

ratio of the outfall. However it is recommended that a more detailed aquatic habitat study be

conducted during the detailed design stage in order to mitigate the effects of this

construction and limit the impact to the aquatic environment.

3.3.6 Vegetation

The predominant vegetation on and around the WWTP site facility at Deseronto is grass

with some shrubs and trees. The shrubs and bushes include grape vines and dog strangling

vine and the trees are all poplar with one maple on site. All attempts will be made to leave

trees in their current locations, however, should trees need to be removed, planting of the

same or similar types of trees in different locations on the property will be explored.

3.3.7 Wildlife

The current location of the Deseronto WWTP is surrounded by urban woodlot, shrubs and

grasses to the east, parkland to the west, waterfront to the south and private homes and

manicured lawns to the north. It is an industrial area surrounded by urban-use land. This

means that most animals found in the study area are those that are already fully habituated to

human activities.

These typically would include mammals, reptiles, amphibians and avian species. The

reptiles and amphibians would be more likely found in the riparian zone nearer the shoreline.

The following is a list of animals most likely to be in the vicinity of the plant; raccoons,

squirrels, opossum, chipmunks, fox, coyote, rabbit, skunk, groundhog, beaver and many

species of rodents, turtles, frogs, toads, snakes and birds.

No known Species at Risk (SAR) have been seen directly or inferred by droppings, tracks,

nests, eggs or other visual clues on or near the project footprint.





Project # 07-3-7348

3.3.8 Environmentally Significant Areas

Environmentally significant areas can be defined as wetlands, Areas of Natural and

Scientific Interest (ANSIs) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) which provide

important habitat for a variety of wildlife and plant species. Development or site alteration

in or adjacent to these areas is not permitted unless no negative impacts on the natural

features and their ecological functions can be demonstrated.

The site of the existing WWTP is not designated as an ESA or ANSI, however, as it is on the

shores of the Bay of Quinte all efforts will be made to preserve the shoreline as it is

important to protect from erosion and protect the many species that utilize this sensitive

riparian zone near the waters’ edge.

3.3.9 Noise

Publication NPC-205 (MOE 1995) sets noise limits for “Class 1 Areas” (Urban). A “Class 1

Area” (Urban) is defined as: “An area with an acoustical environment typical of a major

population centre, where the background sound level is dominated by the urban hum”. The

Deseronto WWTP falls into a Class 1 Area Urban category.

Sound level limits contained in Publication NPC-205 do not apply to the excluded noise

sources listed in Section A.3.(2). Construction activities is one of the excluded sources in

section A.3.(2). Additionally, “Activities related to essential service and maintenance of

public facilities such as but not limited to roadways, parks and sewers…” are also in the

excluded sources list and therefore no applications are needed as no Municipal Noise Code

by-laws will be violated.

3.4 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1)

The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was completed by Adams Consulting Inc.

(Appendix D). The study was completed in October 2012. The study area was the existing

WWTP footprint located at Deseronto on the shores of the Bay of Quinte, on part Lots 38

and 39 of Concession A in Tyendinaga Township, Hastings County. The civic address is

322 Water Street Deseronto.

The well documented intensive industrial activity in the study area during the late nineteenth

and early twentieth centuries, while beneficial for the economy of the town, would have

served to obliterate any archaeological resources that may have once been present in the

area. The study area had been completely disturbed even before the construction of a water

treatment plant in the twentieth century and thus is considered to have no to low potential for

the presence of archaeological resources and no further archaeological study needs to be

undertaken.





Project # 07-3-7348

4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1 Technical Memoranda

Through the EA process, various technical memoranda were developed to review existing

conditions and establish design criteria. These included:

Technical Memo 1 Forecasted Population Growth and Sewage Flows

Technical Memo 2 Waste Water Collection Characterization for Town of Deseronto

and MBQ

Technical Memo 3 Alternate Solutions and Evaluation

Technical Memo 4 Preferred Solution and Alternate Design Considerations

These memos sequentially document the basis for the design criteria, based on historical

sewage flows and demographics. All technical memoranda are attached in the Appendices

(E,F,G and H respectively).

An ACS (Assimilative Capacity Study) forms the basis for the effluent quality expected as a

result of this project and defined by MOE.

4.1.1 Forecasted Population & Sewage Flows – The Town of Deseronto

The current and forecasted service population and sewage flow was determined based on

information supplied by both the Town of Deseronto and the MBQ. For details on the

methods of calculation for the population, sewage flows and sewage quality see Appendix E

of Technical Memorandum 1 and Table 2 below for final flows, population and sewage

quality.

The current serviced population was established by accounting for the number of serviced

connections and the population density per household within the Town. The current

population was determined to be 1790 people. The number of forecasted homes for future

growth was provided by the Town of Deseronto (473 homes) which resulted in a total

forecasted population of 2898 people.

The current average flow per capita was determined by taking an average of the last three

years less the established MBQ daily average flow and was determined to be 1087 cubic

metres per day. The flow per capita per day (including infiltration) was then established also

as 607 litres per capita per day as well as an uncommitted reserve capacity of 45 cubic

metres per day. This resulted in a future requirement of 1760 cubic metres a day of sewage

treatment capacity required for residents of the Town of Deseronto alone.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 2: Total flows, population and sewage quality.

Influent Paramenters 2009 2010 2011 3 Year

Avg3

Future Flows

Raw Sewage1 Septage Flow2 Total

Average Daily Flow (m3/d) 1651 1264 1382 1432 2394 4.8 2398.8

Maximum Daily Flow3,6 (m3/d) 5185 4222 4799 5185 N/A 4.8 N/A

Peak Hour Flow3 (m3/d) 5762 4410 4821 5762 7878 4.8 7883

BOD5 Loading

Average Day (kg/d) 138.4 180.2 217.6 178.7 298.8 33.6 332.4

Maximum Month (kg/d) 178.9 204.3 259.1 214.1 358.0 33.6 391.6

TSS Loading

Average Day (kg/d) 300.9 307.1 293.1 300.4 502.1 72.0 574.1


TKN Loading

Average Day (kg/d) 36.3 49.3 42.2 42.6 71.2 3.4 74.6


TP Loading

Average Day (kg/d) 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.8 9.8 0.7 10.5


Current Serviced Population

Deseronto 1790 ppl

MBQ 843 ppl

Peaking Factor 3.5

Future Serviced Population

Deseronto 2898 ppl

MBQ 1561 ppl

Peaking Factor 3.3

Septage Parameters mg/l

BOD5 7000

TSS 15000

TKN 700

TP 150





Project # 07-3-7348

4.1.2 Forecast Population & Flows – Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

The MBQ currently contracts 240 cubic metres per day of sewage treatment from the Town

of Deseronto. The MBQ proposes to contract an additional 400 cubic metres per day for a

total 640 cubic metres per day of sewage treatment. This additional sewage treatment was

reviewed to ensure that it satisfied projected growth within the community.

THE MBQ have historically had high flow rates which exceed their current allotted 240

cubic metres per day. However recent rehabilitation of their sanitary network and

infrastructure has greatly reduced these flows.

The current daily average flow for the MBQ was based on data supplied by the MBQ for a

period between April 2010 and March 2012. This data set best represents the current average

flows since the rehabilitation work that was completed. Using this data (Technical

Memorandum 1, Appendix B) the average daily flow for the MBQ was determined to be 346

cubic metres per day.

Data supplied by the MBQ indicated that the MBQ has a population density of 2.7 people

per household and 312 connected units. Using this along with the population data, flow per

capita per day and flow per connected unit per day was determined to be 410 litres per capita

per day.

The reserve capacity for the MBQ was determined to be 294 cubic metres per day (the

difference between the proposed contract flow and the existing average daily flow).

The MBQ has indicated that they require capacity for 191 household units to satisfy

forecasted population growth. The requested increase in treated sewage capacity will give

the MBQ the ability to treat an additional 75 homes above the requested 191 homes.

4.1.4 Total Forecast Sewage Flows

Therefore the total forecast sewage flows that the Deseronto WWTP would need to be able

to process would be 2400 cubic metres per day (1760 cubic metres from the Town of

Deseronto and 640 cubic metres from the MBQ).

4.1.5 Raw Sewage Loading

The forecast sewage loadings were determined based on the criteria of existing raw sewage

flows at the Deseronto WPCP and the inclusion of some future septage loading. Current raw

sewage loadings for BOD5, Suspended Solids, TKN and Total Phosphorous for the

Deseronto WPCP for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 (See Appendix E).

The average day and maximum month loadings for the forecast flow of 2400 cubic metres

per day were based on the average three year existing raw sewage loadings and average

three year raw sewage flows of the plant.

4.1.6 Septage Loading

Allowance for septage treatment was based on existing un-serviced units within the MBQ

and Town of Deseronto. Currently there are approximately 800 un-serviced homes which

depend on septic tanks. In order to account for future growth in un-serviced areas an

additional 50% of growth was assumed for the use of septic tanks. This yields a total of 1200

septic tanks.





Project # 07-3-7348

Septic tanks are emptied on average every five years during the spring, summer and fall

months (a window of 200 days a year). This results in the WPCP needing to be able to treat

the additional biological loading of 240 septic tanks a year within a 200 day window. This

results in 4.8 cubic metres per day of septage to be treated per day.

4.1.7 Total Sewage Loading

The total raw sewage loadings to be treated by the preferred alternative were determined to

be the sum of the domestic raw sewage and septage loading, 2400 cubic metres per day.

4.2 Wastewater Collection Characterization:

Technical Memorandum # 2 (Appendix F) demonstrates that excessive extraneous flows

have been experienced in the Deseronto system and recommends steps to determine the

sources of extraneous flows. An extensive “test and seal” program was completed in 2007

by the Town, covering approximately one-third of the collection system. It is recommended

that the Town continue with a program of identifying and rectifying extraneous flows. It is

recognized that the reduction in extraneous flows in such systems cannot be accomplished in

a short time period. Regardless, reducing these extraneous flows will provide additional

hydraulic reserve capacity and a more consistent quality of raw sewage, thereby making

plant control easier.

The analysis also shows that the three pumping stations in Deseronto have ample capacity

for upstream development.

A detailed inventory of the Deseronto system can be provided on request.

4.2.1 MBQ Wastewater Collection System

Technical Memorandum # 2 (Appendix F) demonstrates that flows from the MBQ Territory

have been quite high per capita in the recent past, however have been reduced significantly

over the past two years. This is attributed to some major repair work conducted on the

collection system within the Territory.

Technical Memorandum # 2 (Appendix F) demonstrates that there is capacity within the

system to accommodate the increased flows from the Territory that are recommended in

Technical Memorandum #1 (Appendix E).

4.2.2 Town of Deseronto Initiatives to Reduce Extraneous Flows

The Town of Deseronto has been proactive in reducing extraneous flows. In 1996 it was

identified that approximately sixty sump pumps could be disconnected from the sanitary

sewer system and flows diverted to the storm sewer system. From records it appears that

more than forty such diversions were completed. In addition the town has more recently

undertaken projects to seal sewer mains to reduce infiltration. It is recommended that the

Town of Deseronto continue to take measures to reduce infiltration.





Project # 07-3-7348

4.3 Assimilative Capacity Study

4.3.1 Introduction

An analysis of the assimilative capacity of the Bay of Quinte was undertaken to determine

appropriate effluent limits for an increased average daily flow (ADF) for the Deseronto

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which discharges treated effluent into the Bay of

Quinte, the full report can be seen in Appendix I.

The objectives of this analysis are:

To determine representative background water quality for the Bay of Quinte in the

vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outlet;

To determine currents in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outlet;

To conduct an assimilative capacity assessment of the receiving waters;

To complete mixing zone analysis based on proposed effluent limits for total ammonia

(as N), as needed; and

To formulate reasonable recommendations for effluent limits for the upgrade based on

the above.

The general approach used for this analysis involved the following four steps:

1. Define Background Water Quality: Representative background water quality can be

defined by examining water quality in the vicinity of the wastewater discharge. For

analysis purposes, the 75th percentile threshold is applied to characterize ambient

conditions, as recommended by the MOE1. The MOE states, "Normally the 75

th

percentile is used to determine background quality..."

2. Define Local Current Patterns: Local current directions, magnitudes, and occurrences

are required in order to determine the amount of dilution available.

3. Assimilative Capacity Analysis: Receiver water quality impacts are determined for each

water quality parameter based on the effluent limits determined to be in compliance with

MOE Guideline F-52, provincial water quality objectives for streams and lakes

3 (MOE,

1994) and CEPA requirements4. The assimilative capacity analysis addresses near and

far field water quality impacts. The CORMIX mixing zone model can be used for

detailed assessment of mixing zone characteristics.

4. Formulation of Recommended Effluent Limits: Based on the work completed in steps

one through three and with consideration to the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan

(BQRAP) total phosphorus (TP) related recommendations, effluent limits for the

Deseronto WWTP can be generated.

1 Ministry of Environment and Energy, Procedure 1-5: Deriving Receiving-Water Based, Point-

Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters, July 1994. (MOE Green Book) 2 Ministry of Environment and Energy, Guideline F-5: Levels of Treatment for Municipal and Private

Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters, April 1994. 3 Ministry of Environment and Energy, Water Management: Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water

Quality Objectives, July 1994. (MOE Blue Book) 4 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-15.31/

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-15.31/





Project # 07-3-7348

4.3.2 Analysis of Background Data

Two specific water quality policies from the MOE Blue Book have been applied to each

water quality parameter in assessing the receiving stream: Policy 1 and Policy 2. Both of

these policies consider the surface water quality in comparison to the Provincial Water

Quality Objectives (PWQO). For areas where water quality exceeds the PWQO, Policy 1

applies. Policy 2 therefore refers to areas where water quality does not meet the objectives.

MOE Policy 1

In areas which have water quality better than the Provincial Water Quality Objectives,

water quality shall be maintained at or above the Objectives.

MOE Policy 2

Water quality which presently does not meet the Provincial Water Quality Objectives shall

not be degraded further and all practical measures shall be taken to upgrade the water

quality to the Objectives.

Ideally, in establishing ambient water quality for a receiver, there are recent data available at

a location in the vicinity of the discharge location. In the case of the Deseronto WWTP

Assimilative Capacity Assessment, several data sources have been combined to establish the

ambient water quality (see Table 33).





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 3 Table of Data Sources for Ambient Water Quality

Source

Location

Relative to

Outfall

Period of

Record Parameters of Interest

Environment Canada Station

NR1 [EC (NR1)] 1.1 km

Sept 2008,

Sept 2009 NH3 and TP

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

(DFO Station N) 1.2 km

2004 -

2011

Dissolved oxygen, pH,

water temperature, NH3

and TP

Bay of Quinte RAP

[BQRAP(DIN)] 0.6 km Oct 2009 NH3 and TP

Bay of Quinte RAP [BQRAP

(DSTP01)] 0.3 km July 2010 TP


(DDS)] 0.5 km Oct 2009 NH3 and TP


(NRM01)] 1.1 km

2010 -

2011 NH3 and TP

Deseronto Water Supply:

In-House Water Data &

Drinking Water Surveillance

Program Data (Deseronto

WTP Intake)

0.6 km 1987 -

2011

pH, water temperature,

NH3, TP, and turbidity

The locations of the data sources are shown in Figure 7.





Project # 07-3-7348

Figure 7: Locations of Data Stations

4.3.2.1 Total Phosphorus

The MOE PWQO state that the interim guideline for lakes is that total phosphorus should

not exceed 0.02 mg/L to mitigate nutrient discharges and minimize the potential for

eutrophication problems.

The 75th percentile concentrations of TP were calculated seasonally and annually. In the

winter season the TP is MOE Policy 1 but in the other seasons TP is MOE Policy 2.

Accordingly, the receiver in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outfall is MOE Policy 2

with respect to TP; therefore there is no additional assimilative capacity available.

It should also be noted that the outfall discharges into the Bay of Quinte which has special

considerations for phosphorus under the BQRAP. As such, any recommendations for

wastewater effluent phosphorus concentrations must consider the BQRAP document.

4.3.2.2 Un-Ionized Ammonia

Un-ionized ammonia concentrations are a function of total ammonia concentrations, field

pH or lab pH and temperature; each of these parameters is discussed below.





Project # 07-3-7348

Total ammonia levels are low in all seasons with slightly higher concentrations occurring in

the fall and winter as opposed to spring and summer.

Both field and laboratory measured pH values were reviewed. Typically if enough field pH

values are available they are preferred for use in the un-ionized ammonia analysis. In the

case of Deseronto, the majority of the field pH values are taken from the Water Treatment

Plant intake. Given that the lab pH values (annual 75th percentile of 8.31) were much higher

than the field pH values (annual 75th percentile of 7.67) and after discussions with the MOE,

it was decided that the lab pH values be used in the un-ionized ammonia analysis as they

were felt to be more representative of the actual conditions in the Bay of Quinte and were

also more conservative.

Temperature data was obtained from the Deseronto Water Treatment Plant which collects

raw water from a depth of 6.0 m and DFO Station N, where measurements are taken from a

depth of between 1.5 m and 5.5 m. Temperature was assessed on a monthly basis.

The MOE PWQO for un-ionized ammonia (UIA) is 0.02 mg/L (20 μg/L). The percentage of

un-ionized ammonia in aqueous solution varies depending on the temperature and pH of the

water. The amount of un-ionized ammonia was calculated for each day where a

measurement of ammonia, temperature, and lab pH was collected. The 75th percentile un-

ionized ammonia concentration was then calculated based on this developed dataset. The

seasonal un-ionized-ammonia concentrations are below the PWQO and therefore, the

receiver is MOE Policy 1 with respect to un-ionized ammonia.

4.3.2.3 BOD5 and Dissolved Oxygen

No BOD5 data were available, it is expected that the BOD5 concentration would be less than

2 mg/L.

There is one available source of dissolved oxygen (DO) data; DFO Station N. However, the

dataset was limited with 53 observations recorded between May and October from 2006 to

2010. There are no observations in the remaining six month period.

For dissolved oxygen (DO), low concentrations are indications of degraded water quality;

therefore 25th percentiles are used, rather than 75

th percentiles, to characterize ambient

conditions. The PWQO for DO, for cold water fisheries, varies from 5 mg/L during the

summer to 8 mg/L during the winter, depending on temperature.

The DO concentrations measured in the Bay of Quinte show that the 25th percentile

concentrations and the minimum observed concentrations are higher than the PWQO for

DO. Therefore, the Bay of Quinte in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outfall is MOE

Policy 1 with respect to DO. The high DO levels suggest that relatively low BOD5

concentrations must exist. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is assimilative capacity for

BOD5 in the area of the Deseronto WWTP outfall.

4.3.2.4 Total Suspended Solids

Although there are no numeric PWQO values for total suspended solids (TSS) or turbidity,

decreased clarity of water is of concern. Total suspended solids (TSS) data was not available





Project # 07-3-7348

for any of the data sources reviewed. However, there were turbidity measurements from the

Deseronto DWSP dataset. A general rule of thumb is that TSS concentrations (in mg/L) can

be estimated as 1.0 to 1.5 times the turbidity (in NTU). Seasonal 75th percentile values for

turbidity shows turbidity concentrations that are generally considered to be low (ranging

from 1.6 to 4.1) and therefore, considerable assimilative capacity for TSS is available.

4.3.2.5 E.Coli

The PWQO for E.coli is 100 cfu/100mL for recreational water use. E.coli summaries were

reviewed from the annual reports for the Deseronto WWTP (2009 – 2011) and suggest that

the receiver is MOE Policy 1 with respect to E.coli. The geometric mean statistics were

based on samples collected on an approximately weekly basis. The Deseronto WWTP

currently employs UV disinfection and according to 2009-2011 WWTP annual reports,

effluent bacteriological quality has met the PWQO maximum of 100 CFU/100 mL during all

months that the plant rated ADF was not exceeded. It is expected that, following upgrades,

the WWTP will continue to meet the PWQO for effluent bacteriological quality.

4.3.3 Lake Ontario Current Speeds and Water Levels

Current velocity data is not collected in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outfall or

anywhere in the Bay of Quinte. Given the size of the water body it was assumed that the

current velocity in the Bay of Quinte is similar to current velocity in Lake Ontario. Typically

the calm condition provides a worst-case scenario for mixing analysis and therefore it is

appropriate that scenario simulations be completed for a current velocity of 2 cm/s in the

east-west direction (along shore current direction). This is considered to be a conservative

assumption.

Lake Ontario water levels are regularly recorded and are therefore used in this TM, as this

information is not available for the Bay of Quinte. Minimum observed water elevations in

Lake Ontario were used for the mixing zone analysis; it should be noted that these water

levels are very conservative.

4.3.4 Assimilative Capacity Analysis

4.3.4.1 Un-Ionized Ammonia

For ammonia limits, it was assumed that current MOE policy requiring a non-toxic effluent

would apply. Extensive research by the US EPA and others has demonstrated that a non-

toxic limit for un-ionized ammonia ranges between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/L-NH3 depending on the

fish species of interest. Following discussions with the MOE a non-toxic un-ionized

ammonia effluent concentration of 0.2 mg/L was used for determining compliance limits and

0.1 mg/L un-ionized ammonia was used to define the effluent design objectives.

In the recently released federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under the

Fisheries Act, effluent toxicity limits are set to 1.25 mg/L un-ionized ammonia (at 15ºC).

The assumption of un-ionized toxicity at 0.2 mg/L as discussed above is more stringent and

therefore the effluent limits discussed below are more conservative than required by the new

federal regulation.





Project # 07-3-7348

4.3.4.2 Effluent Toxicity

For calculating effluent toxicity, estimates of the pH and temperature of the effluent itself

are required. A review of available data from the Deseronto WWTP indicated that limited

pH and temperature data was available. The data ranged from 3 to 23 data points per month.

Therefore, the available Deseronto data was amalgamated with more recent effluent data

from two local plants that are similar in size and type of process: Napanee and Frankford.

In order to estimate an initial effluent ammonia compliance limit, it is necessary to calculate

the 75th percentile of the un-ionized ammonia dissociation ratio. This ratio is calculated

based on synoptic measurements of pH and temperature (taken at the same time); the 75th

percentile is then calculated for each discharge period. These values when multiplied by the

proposed compliance limit must be less than or equal to 0.2 mg/L for compliance limits and

0.1 mg/L for design objectives.

Using the effluent data mentioned above, dissociation ratios were calculated based on

synoptic temperature and pH, then monthly 75th percentiles determined. Table 1 summarizes

the data and the maximum Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) for each month that would

produce a non-toxic effluent using the 0.2 mg/L un-ionized ammonia for compliance limits

and 0.1 mg/L un-ionized ammonia for the proposed design objectives.

Table 1 Monthly Effluent Dissociation Ratios

Month

75th

Percentile

Temperature

(°C)

75th

Percentile

pH

75th

Percentile

Dissociation

Ratio

(%)

Resultant

Max TAN

for

Compliance

(mg/L-N)

Resultant

Max TAN

for

Objective

(mg/L-N)

January 8.3 7.24 0.37 44 22

February 7.8 7.18 0.22 76 38

March 7.4 7.24 0.25 64 32

April 9.7 7.22 0.32 52 26

May 12.3 7.20 0.37 44 22

June 16.0 7.50 1.59 10 5.1

July 20.0 7.32 1.47 11 5.5

August 21.0 7.37 1.38 11 5.9

September 19.0 7.03 0.99 16 8.3

October 16.2 7.04 0.61 26 13

November 13.4 6.98 0.29 56 28

December 10.7 7.07 0.22 76 38





Project # 07-3-7348

Table shows the proposed seasonal compliance limits, the seasonal dissociation ratios and

the resultant un-ionized ammonia concentrations. For this application two discharge periods

have been assumed Nov 1 – May 31 and Jun 1 – Oct 31.

Table 5 Proposed Seasonal Effluent Ammonia Limits

Discharge

Period

75th

Percentile

Dissociation

Ratio

(%)

Proposed

Objective

Total

Ammonia

(mg/L-N)

Proposed

Compliance

Total

Ammonia

(mg/L-N)

Resultant Un-ionized

Ammonia

Concentration

(mg/L-NH3)

(objective/compliance)

Nov 1 – May

31 0.51 15 25 0.09 / 0.16

Jun 1 – Oct 31 1.18 5 10 0.07 / 0.14

A mixing zone assessment was conducted on these proposed limits to ensure a reasonable

mixing zone for un-ionized ammonia. See Section 5.

4.3.4.3 Total Phosphorus

As indicated in Table 3 above the Bay of Quinte is in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP

outfall and is subject to MOE Policy 2 with respect to total phosphorus and therefore has no

available capacity for TP assimilation. The current C of A, which is consistent with the

BQRAP, defines that the TP effluent must not exceed 0.3 mg/L and the loading should not

exceed 0.48 kg/d. At projected future flow conditions, with an effluent flow rate of 2,400

m3/d, the effluent TP would need to be reduced to 0.2 mg/L in order to maintain the same

loading. Therefore the proposed TP compliance limit at the Deseronto WWTP is 0.2 mg/L.

4.3.4.4 BOD5 and Dissolved Oxygen

A review of the ambient conditions shows that the discharge location in the Bay of Quinte is

Policy 1 with respect to DO which demonstrates that there is adequate assimilative capacity

available for BOD5. Based on this information, it is proposed to maintain the current effluent

cBOD5 compliance limit of 25 mg/L.

4.3.4.6 Total Suspended Solids

Low ambient TSS concentrations support that significant assimilative capacity is available in

the receiving water body with respect to suspended solids. It is proposed to maintain the

effluent TSS compliance limit of 25 mg/L. It is not expected that there will be a significant

increase in TSS levels in the Bay of Quinte as a result of the increased flow rate at the

Deseronto WWTP.

4.3.4.7 E.Coli

To protect the recreational use of the Bay of Quinte in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP,

it is proposed that a compliance level for E.coli be set at an annual geometric mean of 200

CFU / 100 mL.





Project # 07-3-7348

4.3.5 Outfall Requirements

4.3.5.1 Existing Outfall

The existing outfall is a 450 mm diameter polyethylene pipe extending south approximately

91.5 m from the shore. It is an open pipe discharge located approximately 1.5 m below water

level under average lake levels.

CORMIX simulations were completed on the existing open-pipe outfall at the proposed

future ADF of 2,400 m3/d, using a current velocity of 2 cm/s in the east-west direction and

considering seasonal variations to ambient water temperature.

The MOE Green Book5 states that initial mixing (i.e., the near field region) must have a

minimum ratio of 20:1 for wastewater discharges in the Great Lakes. Modelling results of

the mixing analysis indicated that dilution ratios attained in the near field region were

significantly below this ratio, and in all seasons and current speed scenarios, the minimum

required dilution ratio is not met. In order to obtain the 20:1 dilution ratio it is recommended

that the installation of an outfall diffuser be evaluated.

4.3.5.2 Preliminary Conceptual Outfall Design

Based on simulation results as described above, it was necessary to develop a conceptual

design for a proposed multi-port diffuser that would provide adequate dilution to complete

the assimilative capacity assessment and determine effluent limits for the required

expansion/upgrade to the Deseronto WWTP.

To ensure that the proposed diffuser would be able to convey WWTP peak flows without

backing up into the plant a hydraulic analysis was completed. Results indicated that a

diffuser affixed to the existing open-pipe outfall, with a minimum of three 150 mm ports is

required to accommodate the proposed peak flows at maximum Bay of Quinte water levels.

A mixing zone analysis was completed to ensure that the minimum mixing ratio of 20:1 was

maintained. Modelling was conducted using 75th percentile values for effluent and ambient

temperatures, minimum water depths and a conservative water current of 2 cm/s. It was

found that an alternating port configuration with six 150 mm ports spaced 4.5 m apart

provides sufficient mixing and adheres to hydraulic requirements. This conceptual design

totals a diffuser length of 27 metres, which is within the available 121.9 metre water lot.

4.3.5.3 Conceptual Outfall Design for CORMIX Modelling

A conceptual outfall design of six 150 mm ports at a spacing of approximately 4.5 m was

adopted for use in the assimilative capacity assessment and modeling of future flows. A

summary of dilution results using this conceptual design is provided in table 6 below.

5 Ministry of Environment and Energy, Procedure 1-5: Deriving Receiving-Water Based, Point-

Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters, July 1994. (MOE Green Book)





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 6 Dilution Ratios for Conceptual Diffuser Design

Season Dilution Ratio

Winter (February) 22.3 : 1

Spring (June) 24.9 : 1

Summer (August) 23.6 : 1

Fall (October) 20.0 : 1

Note:

1. The minimum dilution ratio required by MOE is 20:1.

This conceptual design is exclusively for the purposes of this assimilative capacity

assessment in order to simulate an outfall that meets hydraulic and dilution requirements. A

detailed design to optimize diffuser sizing should be conducted following the Class

Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process.

4.3.6 Mixing Zone Analysis

An analysis was conducted to determine the length of the mixing zone for un-ionized

ammonia in the effluent of the Deseronto WWTP. A mixing zone is defined as an area of

water contiguous to a point source where water quality does not comply with one or more of

the PWQOs. A mixing zone must be designed to be as small as possible (MOE Policy 5) and

is one factor in establishing effluent requirements. Conditions within a mixing zone must not

result in toxic conditions or interfere with water supply, recreational or other beneficial

water uses (MOE, 1994). In the case of the Deseronto WWTP, un-ionized ammonia mixing

zones were assessed. TP mixing zones were not assessed because ambient conditions already

exceed PWQO for TP concentrations, therefore the mixing zone will never reach the

PWQO. The analysis of un-ionized ammonia was conducted for projected future operating

conditions with an adopted design ADF of 2,400 m3/d.

4.3.6.1 Methodology

The analysis was conducted using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mixing

zone model Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System CORMIX Version 7.0. Since the Deseronto

WWTP outfall conceptual design is a submerged multi-port discharge, CORMIX2 was used

to simulate the plume. The model was used to predict the extent of the mixing zone

downstream of the discharge.

Four scenarios were modelled for ammonia: Winter (Jan – Mar), Spring (Apr – Jun),

Summer (Jul – Sept) and Fall (Oct – Dec). The model was run at the lowest observed Lake

Ontario water levels with a current velocity of 2 cm/s. This conservative estimate of water

level and ambient current velocity were used to determine the length of the mixing zone.

The conceptual design for the upgraded outfall is a 450 mm diameter outfall pipe that ends

at an alternating multi-port diffuser aligned approximately perpendicular to the shoreline

(extending to the south). The modelled outfall consists of 6 diffuser ports that are alternating

in direction from east to west. The ports discharge parallel to the lake bottom and are spaced





Project # 07-3-7348

4.5 m apart. The port diameters are 150 mm and are located at an average water depth of

approximately 1.5 m. The diffuser is located 91.5 metres from the shoreline and is 27 m in

length.

Hydraulic analysis shows that at least 4 of the 6 ports on the outfall must be opened to

convey peak flows under maximum Lake Ontario water levels. For the CORMIX modelling

it was assumed that all 6 ports were open.

4.3.6.2 Results

The results for the proposed conditions from the CORMIX modelling are shown in the Table

7 below Error! Reference source not found.for the ammonia model. Parameters shown

nclude plume length and dilution ratios attained in the near field region.

Table 7 Preliminary Results of Mixing Zone Modelling for NH3

Scenario Winter Spring Summer Fall

Distance downstream to meet NH3

PWQO (m)

8.8 195 153 19

Distance from shore to meet NH3

PWQO (m)

91 60 60 88

Near Field Region Dilution Ratio 22.9 24.9 23.6 20.0

Given that the mixing zone for ammonia extended greater than 100 metres beyond the

outfall in the spring and summer seasons, an iterative assessment was used with the

CORMIX model to determine a mixing zone length of less than 100 metres for all seasons.

Therefore reducing the spring TAN limit to 13 mg/L and the summer TAN limit to 8 mg/L,

the mixing zones were reduced to less than 100 metres for all seasons, as shown below in

Table 8.

Table 8 Final Results of Mixing Zone Modelling for NH3

Scenario Winter Spring Summer Fall

Distance downstream to meet NH3

PWQO (m)

8.8 94 98 19

Distance from shore to meet NH3

PWQO (m)

91 76 68 88

Near Field Region Dilution Ratio 22.9 24.9 23.6 20.0

At future conditions, the Provincial Water Quality Objective for un-ionized ammonia was

reached within the near-field region (NFR, zone of strong initial mixing) in the winter and

fall and in the far-field region (FFR, zone of passive ambient mixing) in the spring and

summer. The largest mixing zone extends approximately 100 metres in the summer, which is

considered a reasonable distance and is over 450 metres from the Deseronto WTP intake.





Project # 07-3-7348

Therefore for the two proposed discharge seasons: winter (November to May) and summer

(June to October), the recommended Total Ammonia Nitrogen effluent compliance limits

are 16 mg/L and 8 mg/L, respectively, as shown in the Table 9 below.

Table 9 Recommended Seasonal Effluent Ammonia Limits

Discharge

Period

75th

Percentile

Dissociation

Ratio

(%)

Proposed

Objective

Total

Ammonia

(mg/L-N)

Proposed

Compliance

Total

Ammonia

(mg/L-N)

Resultant Un-ionized

Ammonia

Concentration

(mg/L-NH3)

(objective/compliance)

Nov 1 – May

31 0.51 12 16 0.08 / 0.10

Jun 1 – Oct 31 1.18 5 8 0.07 / 0.12

The MOE Green Book states that initial mixing (i.e., the near field region) must have a

minimum ratio of 20:1 for wastewater discharges in the Great Lakes. In all seasons and in all

current scenarios, the minimum dilution ratio is met.

4.3.7 Summary and Recommendations

4.3.7.1 Summary of Findings

Key findings of this assimilative capacity assessment analysis for the Deseronto WWTP

Upgrade are as follows:

Based on available water quality data in the vicinity of the Deseronto WWTP outfall, the

receiver (Bay of Quinte) is MOE Policy 1 for un-ionized ammonia, E.coli and dissolved

oxygen and MOE Policy 2 for total phosphorus.

Low concentrations of TSS suggest that the Bay of Quinte has sufficient assimilative

capacity available.

To maintain the current C of A TP loading (0.48 kg/d) at the future ADF of 2,400 m3/d,

the TP effluent criteria would have to be reduced to 0.2 mg/L.

A mixing analysis was completed on the existing open-pipe outfall and it was

determined that at the future ADF, dilution requirements are not met. A hydraulic

analysis was conducted to establish a conceptual outfall design for the assimilative

capacity assessment.

Mixing zone analysis was conducted using the conceptual outfall design for total

ammonia in winter, spring, summer, and fall scenarios. No water level or current data

was available for the Bay of Quinte, therefore lowest observed Lake Ontario water

levels and a current speed of 2 cm/s were recommended for use in the mixing zone

modelling for all seasons.

The results indicated that the predicted seasonal mixing zones are reasonable in extent

and the requirement for 20:1 dilution in the near field is met under all scenarios for

proposed future condition.





Project # 07-3-7348

4.3.7.2 Recommended Effluent Limits and Effluent Objectives

The recommended Deseronto WWTP compliance limits and effluent objectives are shown in

the Table 10 below.

Table 10 Recommended Design Objectives and Compliance Limits

Effluent Parameter Design Objectives Compliance Limits

cBOD5 (mg/L) 15.0 25.0

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 15.0 25.0

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.15 0.2


(mg/L)



5

12

8

16

E. Coli (CFU/100 mL) 100 200

It should be noted that quarterly toxicity testing would be required.

5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The preferred alternative will have to cost effectively address each of the components of the

noted shortcomings of the existing system. The preferred alternative will focus on improving

and upgrading the sewage treatment and collection system components for the Town of

Deseronto to satisfy the projected needs for the next 25 years. It is expected that

improvements to the collection system in addition to enforcement of sewer use bylaws will

enable these upgraded facilities to function beyond the 25-year design horizon as reserve

capacity is clawed-back.

A wide range of alternatives are available to address problems associated with sewage

treatment. However, the preferred alternative should protect the natural environment in a

manner that is fiscally responsible for all the funding partners. An impact analysis and

methods of mitigation of negative environmental effects with respect to each alternative was

developed see Appendix G (Technical Memorandum #3) for details.

The positive and negative impacts on the natural, social and economic environment are also

considered and evaluated.

Social effects such as aesthetics, community visibility, heritage, recreation, health and

enjoyment of property are considered in conjunction with natural effects on terrestrial and

aquatic life as well as groundwater, surface water and soils. Various alternatives have

varying economic impacts which are also assessed in arriving at the preferred alternative.

5.1 Alternatives

The potential alternatives included the following options:





Project # 07-3-7348

1) Do Nothing

2) Rehabilitate Sanitary Sewers to reduce Inflow and Infiltration

3) Upgrade Existing Facility

4) Build New Facility adjacent to Existing Facility

5) Build New Facility in New Location

6) Build Pipeline to Neighbouring Municipality

7) Upgrade Existing Facility and Build New Facility on MBQ Territory

5.1.1 Do Nothing

This alternative is based upon doing nothing to the existing plant. It does not address the

peak future flow or the future capacity needed due to forecasted growth for both Deseronto

and The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ). Likewise the alternative will not remedy

the deteriorated condition of the existing plant. This solution will not solve the problem and,

therefore, will not be evaluated further.

5.1.2 Rehabilitate Sanitary Sewers to reduce Inflow and Infiltration

This alternative involves undertaking measures to reduce extraneous flows into the system.

It would take several years to reduce extraneous flows and this alternative will not remedy

the aging plant infrastructure. This alternative will not solve the noted problems and

therefore will not be evaluated further. It should be noted, however, that this solution while

on its own will not solve the problems, should be considered in conjunction with the

eventual preferred solution as it has value and merit for improving the overall performance

of the Deseronto WWTP.

5.1.3 Upgrade Existing Facility

This alternative involves constructing new infrastructure on the existing site. The property

can accommodate the new infrastructure required to accommodate the identified increased

flows and will replace the aging infrastructure. The cost of property purchase is therefore

negated. It is noted that if this alternative is selected, to accommodate the Town’s goal of

development of a marina and residential accommodation adjacent to the property it may

require increased costs to ensure that odour and noise does not interfere with this

development. The public is familiar with the location of the plant and the impact that it has

on the local social, natural and economic environments (odour, visual, property value etc.).

From a timing perspective, this site is ‘ready’. This option is considered viable and should

be considered in more detail.

5.1.4 Build New Facility Adjacent to Existing Facility

This alternative includes constructing new infrastructure on existing Municipal property

immediately to the west of the existing plant or on private property immediately to the east.

To locate the plant to property immediately west of the existing will cause the loss of park

land and significantly impact the town’s goal of a marina and residential development on the

property and on adjacent properties. Locating the plant on properties to the east will require





Project # 07-3-7348

purchase of valuable waterfront properties. This option is considered viable and should be

considered in more detail.

5.1.5 Build New Facility in New Location

This alternative involves constructing new infrastructure on a location other than those in

Alternatives 3 and 4. Costs will be significant in that properties will need to be purchased,

new pumping facilities will be required and new outfalls constructed. Timing could prove to

be an issue if a location can’t be secured soon. This option is considered viable and should

be considered in more detail.

5.1.6 Build Pipeline to Neighbouring Municipality

This alternative involves constructing the necessary pumping and force main to transport the

raw sewage to an existing wastewater treatment facility. If such a facility can be utilized

there will be savings realized in operating costs. The three possible locations for terminating

the pipeline would be Napanee, Picton and Belleville. Cost and whether or not the receiving

facility would have capacity to handle the increased volume are the two driving factors for

the feasibility of the pipeline options.

Below (Table 11) is the estimated cost of each of these pipelines given the distance from

Deseronto. Using an estimate of $600/linear metre, $2,000,000 for pumping infrastructure

and where applicable $1,000,000 for water crossing.

Table 11: Estimated Costs for Pipelines to Neighbouring Municipalities

Pipeline Location Distance (m) Cost

Napanee 12,000 $9,200,000

Belleville 30,000 $20,000,000

Picton 28,000 $17,800,000

The costs to construct a pipeline to either Belleville or Picton are considered prohibitive. The

WPCP in Napanee does not have spare unreserved capacity and as such the costs to

construct a pipeline and plus the cost to construct additional treatment capacity is likewise

prohibitive. For these reasons this alternative is not considered to be viable.

5.1.7 Upgrade Existing Deseronto Plant and Build New Plant on MBQ

Territory

This alternative would involve building a new facility on the MBQ Territory as well as

expanding the existing WWTP in Deseronto. The Town currently has a contract to process

240m3 of wastewater per day from the MBQ. Under this new scenario the MBQ would





Project # 07-3-7348

build a separate facility, therefore 240m3 per day capacity would become available to the

Town of Deseronto. 400m3 per day of additional processing volume is required for the

Town of Deseronto, given the current flows and growth predictions for the future. Hence,

160m3 per day processing capacity will still be needed. In addition, the current Deseronto

plant is approximately 40 years old and is in poor condition. It requires substantial upgrades

simply to meet the current flow requirements and MOE guidelines. Therefore, under this

scenario the existing plant in Deseronto would still need to be updated and expanded. This

alternative also involves constructing the necessary pumping and force main to transport the

raw sewage to the new wastewater treatment facility on MBQ Territory and the construction

of a brand new plant and outfall mechanisms required to discharge the effluent. It will have

approximately twice the capital cost compared to upgrading the existing WWTP in

Deseronto (Option 3) and twice the on-going operational and maintenance costs of Option 3

as you now have to maintain two physically separate plants. Under this scenario the cost to

the MBQ would be greater than their portion of Option 3. This is reflected in the score for

capital/operating cost criteria in the matrix. This option is considered viable and will be

explored in more detail.

5.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Preferred Solution

Figure 10: Rationale behind selecting evaluation criteria

Evaluation Criteria Rationale

Meets Effluent Criteria (MOE/RAP) This is a must or the solution is not viable.

Potential

Site/Neighbourhood/Impact/Noise

/Odour /Aesthetics

Any project dealing with waste water treatment,

especially in an urban setting, is going to have

some public concern. Minimizing the potential

negative impacts of this is important to the

success and overall health of a project so it was

considered a factor for evaluation.

Property Acquisition /Availability Without available and suitable land for a

WWTP the problem is not solved so this

criterion becomes a critical factor in the success

of the project.

Expansion Potential Future planning is critical. This element

ensures that consideration has been given for

long term goals of the Municipalities.





Project # 07-3-7348

Ease of Integration/ Constructability These are important factors with potentially

significant capital impact as well as the overall

success of the project so this was entered as a

criterion.

Terrestrial Habitat /Wildlife

With any project that involves construction,

consideration for the local flora and fauna must

be given. It is the goal of this project to

minimize any negative impacts from

construction on the local natural environments.

All mitigation factors will be employed and all

attempts to reconstruct or rebuild natural habitat

will be undertaken when possible.

Archaeological Resources The presence of certain archaeological resources

on or near a potential project sites can impose

restrictions for land development and

construction. It is important to understand the

local resources and the impact they could have

on your project.

Ground Water /Surface Water For any project, urban or rural, you never want

to negatively affect ground or surface water

conditions. Water is the lifeblood of the world

and its ecosystems. Disturbing this is very

dangerous and could become very expensive for

parties that may be unfortunate enough to

pollute a large body of water like the Bay of

Quinte. This was considered a good candidate

to become part of the criteria for evaluation.

Transportation Reliance on fossil fuels, a non-renewable energy

source, has caused an upward trend in fuels

derived from them. As such, transportation

becomes an ever increasing and substantial

expense when considering any project.

Operability On-going and long term ability to operate the

WWTP in an economical, efficient and

compliant state will be the ultimate indicator of

the success of this project.





Project # 07-3-7348

Capital /Operating Costs Initial and on-going cost for any project is

paramount to its success. That is why this was

considered a criterion and also why it was the

only criterion given a .15 weighting factor.

Each of the above criteria has been assigned a weighting factor for the purpose of assisting

in determining a preferred solution. As each of the factors has a different impact on the

overall analysis, it should be noted that the group of factors as a whole is what generates the

preferred solution and that any one factor will not significantly skew results given the weight

assigned, as each of the potential alternate solutions is evaluated against the same criterion.

The only factor given a weight of .15 was Capital / Operating Costs. This was considered

the most important factor for the evaluation process and ultimate success of the project. All

other criterion were considered major or minor (determined by direct impact they would

have on the success of the project) and then given a weighting factor of .1 and .05

respectively.

The preferred alternative will have to cost effectively address the current and future needs of

the Deseronto WWTP. It should also consider the impact to the local social, natural and

economic environments. Achieving a balance between satisfying each of these elements and

allowing for a fiscally viable solution is the goal of this exercise.

Many potential alternative solutions to any problem or opportunity exist. These include a

wide range from status quo (do nothing) to very complicated and expensive solutions, as

well as solutions that will not solve the problem at hand. The solutions that would not

specifically solve the problem and those that were clearly not feasible were not evaluated as

part of the matrix below. These are the columns that appear with red highlights.

The following Table 12 provides a comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts of

the alternative solutions. The evaluation criteria have been developed based on five major

categories; Technical, Operational, Natural Environment, Social Environment and

Economics.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 12: Evaluation Matrix – Alternate Solutions

5.3 Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures that have been considered to address the potential environmental

impacts include:

Expand plant on existing site using small footprint processes where possible and by

construction phasing;

Re-use of existing infrastructure where practical and possible.

Prescribed construction techniques and best management practices, including:

Deseronto Waste Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project

Evaluation of Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Description/Elements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7

Do

No

thin

g

Re

ha

bil

ita

te S

an

ita

ry S

ew

ers

to

red

uce

In

flo

w &

In

filt

rati

on

Up

gra

de

Exi

stin

g F

aci

lity

Bu

ild

Ne

w B

esi

de

Exi

stin

g F

aci

lity

Bu

ild

Ne

w F

aci

lity

in

Ne

w L

oca

tio

n

Bu

ild

Pip

eli

ne

to

Ne

igh

bo

uri

ng

Mu

nic

ipa

lity

Up

gra

de

exi

stin

g s

ite

an

d b

uil

d

ne

w W

WT

P o

n M

BQ

Te

rrit

ory

Weighting

Factor Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Sco

re

We

igh

ted

Sco

re

Meet Effluent Criteria

(MOE/RAP) 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 0 0 5 0.5Site/Neighbourhood

/Impact/Noise /Odour

/Asthetics 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 0 5 0.5Property Acquisition

/Availability 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 5 0.5 1 0.1 0 0 4 0.4

Expansion Potential 0.1 0 0 0 0 3 0.3 4 0.4 4 0.4 0 0 4 0.4Ease of Integration

/Constructability 0.1 0 0 0 0 4 0.4 3 0.3 3 0.3 0 0 4 0.4Terrestrial Habitat /Wildlife 0.05 0 0 0 0 4 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 0 0 4 0.2

Archaeological Resources 0.05 0 0 0 0 4 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 0 0 4 0.2Ground Water /Surface

Water 0.05 0 0 0 0 4 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 0 0 4 0.2

Transportation 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 4 0.4 3 0.3 0 0 4 0.4

Operability 0.1 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 5 0.5 3 0.3 0 0 4 0.4Capital /Operating Costs 0.15 0 0 0 0 4 0.6 1 0.15 1 0.15 0 0 3 0.45

Total Weighted Score 1 0 0 4.4 3.55 2.85 0 4.05

* RED HIGHLIGHTS not considered as this alternative was previously eliminated.

Scoring - 5 is the highest (best). The highest score reflects the preferred solution.





Project # 07-3-7348

sediment control/fencing

silt fencing

surface water setbacks

re-vegetation of disturbed areas

woody vegetation removal between May 15 and July 10

conduct operations during daylight hours

use of equipment mufflers and adherence to noise bylaws

use of spill kits and designated equipment fuelling areas during construction

street sweeping, use of dust suppressants for haul routes

Consideration will be given for covering of the major treatment units (headworks, clarifiers,

aeration basin) to address potential noise, odour and aesthetic issues;

Use of noise dampening on blowers and within the blower room;

Enhanced buffers (tree screens);

Provide noise and odour attenuation;

Plan all in water work outside of fish spawning periods;

Use low impact site lighting.

6 EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR

PREFERRED SOLUTION

6.1 Background

The Deseronto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is an extended aeration (EXA) plant

with tertiary clarification using the Actiflo™ process and UV disinfection. The plant was

constructed as a secondary treatment facility in the early 1970’s and upgraded to a tertiary

treatment facility in the year 2000 to meet the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

effluent targets.

There are two package plants that form the system; Plant-A has a capacity of 1,360 m3/d and

Plant-B has a capacity of 175 m3/d when operated in EXA mode and 240 m

3/d when

operated in contact stabilization mode. Both plants are designed to operate in EXA mode to

provide more retention time and better nitrification; or contact stabilization mode during

high flow events. Contact stabilization mode provides an increased hydraulic capacity by

reducing the retention time within the system; however treatment performance, particularly

in terms of nitrification, is reduced in this operating mode.

The Certificate of Approval (C of A) rated average daily flow (ADF) capacity of the

Deseronto WPCP is 1,535 m3/day when operated in EXA mode and 1,600 m

3/d in contact

stabilization mode. The C of A does not identify a rated peak flow (PF).

The existing facility is operating near capacity and flows frequently exceed the C of A rated

ADF. Due to growth in the service area, flows to the Deseronto WWTP are expected to

further increase. The Town of Deseronto has retained The Greer Galloway Group (GGG), in

association with XCG Consultants Ltd. (XCG), to undertake a Class Environmental

Assessment (Class EA) following the Municipal Class EA process to determine the

preferred approach for upgrading the WWTP.





Project # 07-3-7348

6.1.1 Objectives

The purpose of this Technical Memorandum (TM) is to:

Identify a long list of alternative design concepts for secondary and tertiary treatment

and solids handling to meet future servicing requirements for the Deseronto WWTP

service area;

Complete a preliminary evaluation of the alternative design concepts and develop a short

list of feasible alternatives for detailed evaluation;

Develop conceptual level design requirements and footprints for each short-listed

option; and

Recommend a preferred design concept.

6.1.2 Data Sources

The following data sources were used in the preparation of this report:

Certificate of Approval No. 3-1429-87-886 for the Deseronto WPCP, issued by the

Ministry of the Environment dated January 22, 1988.

Amendment to Certificate of Approval No. 3-1429-87-886 for the Deseronto WWTP,

issued by the Ministry of the Environment dated September 5, 1995.

Amendment to Certificate of Approval No. 3-1429-87-886, Notice No. 1 (date not

available) for the Deseronto WWTP, issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Deseronto WPCP operational data from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011.

The Greer Galloway Group Inc. (2007). Deseronto Wastewater Treatment Plant Needs

Study Report.

XCG Consultants Ltd. (2009). Deseronto WPCP Preliminary Secondary Treatment and

Solids Train Unit Process Sizing Technical Memorandum.

6.2 Process Summary

The Deseronto WWTP is an EXA wastewater treatment plant with tertiary clarification

using the Actiflo™ process. The treatment process consists of preliminary treatment (grit

removal and comminution), secondary treatment (EXA activated sludge process and

clarifiers), tertiary treatment (high rate ballasted flocculation and sedimentation), and

effluent disinfection (ultraviolet disinfection). Sludge settled in the secondary clarifiers is

pumped via airlift pumping to either the aeration tanks as return activated sludge (RAS) or

as waste activated sludge (WAS) to the aerobic digesters for stabilization. Aerobically

digested biosolids are stored in a concrete storage tank. The treated effluent is discharged to

the Bay of Quinte.

The plant was built in the early 1970’s as a secondary plant to service wastewater flows

from the Town of Deseronto. A second treatment train was added in 1988 increasing the

plant capacity to 1,600 m³/day to provide additional treatment capacity for wastewater flows

from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ). Sludge storage and tertiary treatment

upgrades were added in the year 2000 to meet the Bay of Quinte RAP effluent targets for

total phosphorus (TP).





Project # 07-3-7348

Flow to the Deseronto WWTP enters a raw wastewater wet well which is equipped with one

grinder (channel Muffin Monster). Flow is pumped to a flow splitter and two grit channels

prior to secondary treatment. The secondary treatment consists of two EXA package plants

(Plant-A and Plant-B) which both can be switched to contact stabilization mode, as required

during wet weather conditions. The mixed liquor from the aeration tanks is directed to their

respective secondary clarifier. Alum is added to the wastewater to precipitate phosphorus prior

to secondary clarification. Settled sludge from a given plant is either returned (RAS) to that

plant’s aeration tanks by air lift pumping, or wasted (WAS) to the aerobic digestor. A bar

screen is located at the inlet of each secondary treatment plant. Plant-A effluent then passes

through a screen prior to mixing with Plant B effluent. The combined secondary clarifier

effluent is directed to tertiary treatment. Tertiary treatment consists of one high rate ballasted

flocculation/ sedimentation system (Actiflo™). Effluent from the tertiary treatment system is

directed to an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit prior to discharge to the Bay of Quinte.

6.3 Existing Certificate of Approval Ratings and Requirements

The existing plant rated capacities and final effluent requirements, based on: Certificate of

Approval No. 3-1429-87-886, issued January 22, 1988; Amendment to Certificate of

Approval No. 3-1429-87-886, issued September 5, 1995 and; Amendment to Certificate of

Approval No. 3-1429-87-886 Notice No. 1 (date not available), are summarized in Table 13

and Table 14.

Table 13 Certificate of Approval Rated Average Daily Flow

Operation Mode Plant-A(1)

Plant-B Overall

Extended Aeration 1,360 m3/d 175 m

3/d 1,535 m

3/d

Contact Stabilization 1,360 m3/d 240 m

3/d 1,600 m

3/d

Notes:

1. ‘Plant-A module’ capacities calculated as ‘Overall’ minus ‘Plant-B Module’ as the

original C of A for the Plant-A Module was not available.

It is noted that a peak flow capacity is not identified in the C of A.

The C of A specifies monthly effluent concentration objectives and compliance limits for

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS) and TP.

Table 14 Certificate of Approval Final Effluent Limits

Parameter Concentration Loading

BOD5 25 mg/L (1)

40 kg/d (1)

TSS 25 mg/L (1)

40 kg/d (1)

TP 0.3 mg/L (2)

0.48 kg/d (2)

Notes:

1. Per C of A No. 3-1429-87-886 dated January 22, 1988.

2. Per Amendment to C of A No. 3-1429-87-886 Notice No. 1 issued May 12, 2000.





Project # 07-3-7348

It is noted that the BOD5 and TSS effluent requirements are based on annual averages while

the TP requirements are based on a monthly average. The existing C of A does not specify a

total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) limit.

6.4 Historic Raw Wastewater Flows and Quality

A summary of the historic raw wastewater flows to the Deseronto WWTP from 2009 to

2011 is presented in Table 15. Table 16 provides a summary of the average raw wastewater

concentrations of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5), TSS, total Kjeldahl

nitrogen (TKN), and TP based on samples collected over the period from 2009 to 2011.

Table 15 Historical Raw Wastewater Flow (2007 to 2009)

Flow Year C of A Rated

Capacity (1)

2009 2010 2011

ADF (m3/d) 1,644 1,265 1,385 1,600

MDF (m3/d) 5,072 4,470 4,717 n/a

MDF Factor 3.1 3.5 3.4 n/a

Notes:

n/a: not applicable

1. Based on C of A No. 3-1429-87-886.

Historically, the plant has operated at an ADF of 1,431 m3/d, which is approximately 89

percent of the rated capacity. The historical maximum day flow (MDF) through the plant

was 5,072 m3/d. This value represents a maximum day peaking factor of 3.5. On an annual

basis, flows to the plant exceeded the C of A ADF rated capacity in 2009.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table16 Historic Average Raw Wastewater Concentrations

Parameter 2009

(mg/L)

2010

(mg/L)

2011

(mg/L)

3-Year

Average

(mg/L) (1)

Typical Raw Domestic

Wastewater Concentrations

(mg/L)

MOE, 2008 Metcalf &

Eddy, 2003 (2)

cBOD5 85

(119)

142

(210)

155

(275) 127 --

--

BOD5 (3)

102

(142)

171

(252)

186

(329) 153

150 - 200

mg/L

110 mg/L

(low)

190 mg/L

(med)

350 mg/L

(high)

TSS 181

(240)

239

(430)

217

(361) 211

150 - 200

mg/L

120 mg/L

(low)

210 mg/L

(med)

400 mg/L

(high)

TKN 22.9

(40.0)

39.2

(57.0)

29.2

(53.0) 30.6 30 - 40 mg/L

20 mg/L (low)

40 mg/L (med)

70 mg/L (high)

TP 3.5

(4.9)

4.7

(8.1)

4.1

(7.6) 4.1 6 - 8 mg/L

4 mg/L (low)

7 mg/L (med)

12 mg/L (high)

Notes:

Values in parentheses represent monthly maximum values

1. Based on average daily data from the period 2009-2011.

2. The “low”, “med”, and “high” refer to low, medium, and high strength wastewaters. Low

strength wastewaters based on approximate flow rate of 750 L/capita/d, medium strength

on 460 L/capita/d, and high strength on 240 L/capita/d.

3. Plant analysis reports cBOD5. The equivalent BOD5 was estimated based on a typical

BOD:cBOD ratio of 1.2.

Over the historic review period, the raw wastewater at the Deseronto WWTP could be

characterized as low strength with respect to TP, low-medium strength with respect to BOD5

and TKN, and medium strength with respect to TSS.





Project # 07-3-7348

6.5 Conceptual Level Design Flows and Loadings

The adopted design flows and loadings for preliminary secondary treatment and solids train

sizing for the proposed Deseronto WWTP peak flow capacity upgrades are presented in

Table 17 and Table 18, respectively.

Table17 Summary of Design Flows

Parameter Design Value

ADF 2,400 m3/d

MDF 6,785 m3/d

PIF 10,060 m3/d

Table 18 Summary of Design Raw Wastewater Quality

Parameter Design Average

Daily Loading (1)

Average Design

Concentration

BOD5 356 kg/d

(483 kg/d) 148 mg/L

TSS 580 kg/d

(865 kg/d) 242 mg/L

TKN 75 kg/d

(147 kg/d) 31 mg/L

TP 13.0 kg/d

(19.3 kg/d) 5.4 mg/L

Notes:

1. Values in parentheses represent maximum month values.

The rationale for the selection of the above process design flows is provided in "Technical

Memorandum #1 - Deseronto Municipal Class EA" (GGG, 2012) and the "Maximum Day

and Peak Flows and Loadings Design Basis - Deseronto WWTP" memorandum (XCG,

2012). This memorandum is provided in Appendix H

The conceptual level design flows and loadings were used to develop the treatment

alternatives as part of this study. It is recommended that the design basis (flows,

concentrations, and loadings) be reviewed and confirmed during preliminary design.

6.6 Design Effluent Objectives and Compliance Limits

The proposed effluent objectives and compliance limits for the Deseronto WWTP are

presented in Table 19 below. The background and rationale for the proposed effluent limits

are described in "Technical Memorandum - Deseronto WWTP Assimilative Capacity

Assessment" (XCG, 2012).





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 19 Recommended Design Objectives and Compliance Limits

Effluent Parameter Design Objectives

(mg/L)

Compliance Limits

(mg/L)

Effluent Loading

(kg/day)

cBOD5 (mg/L) 15.0 25.0 60

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 15.0 25.0 60

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.15 0.2 0.48


(mg/L)



5

12

8

16

19.2

38.4

E. Coli (CFU/100 mL) 100 counts/100mL 200 counts/100mL n/a

Note: Quarterly toxicity testing will also be required for acute lethality for Rainbow

Trout and Daphnia Magna

7 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS The following section provides a process-by-process review of alternative design concepts

that could be implemented at the upgraded Deseronto WWTP.

For the purposes of developing the alternative design concepts, the following assumptions

are made:

The upgraded plant will be located on the existing site;

The process will be required to provide year round nitrification in order to meet effluent

TAN limits in the summer and winter months; and

Sludge stabilization and biosolids storage will be provided onsite.

7.0 Preliminary Treatment

The new preliminary treatment unit processes will provide a screening and grit removal peak

flow capacity of 10,060 m3/d. The new headworks will include the construction of a new

headworks building equipped with the screening and grit removal and handling equipment

and odour control. If membrane bioreactors are selected as the preferred design concept, fine

screening (≤ 2mm) will be required. Otherwise, screen size should be ≤ 6 mm.

7.1 Secondary Treatment

A number of process options are available to provide nitrification to achieve the seasonal

effluent TAN objectives for the Deseronto WWTP. The following secondary treatment

technologies were considered for implementation at the Deseronto WWTP:

Extended aeration;

Conventional activated sludge (CAS);

Sequencing batch reactor (SBR);

Integrated fixed-film / activated sludge (IFAS); and





Project # 07-3-7348

Membrane bioreactor (MBR).

A review of each secondary treatment process identified in the long list of alternatives is

provided in the subsequent sub-sections. A process overview is provided in Appendix H.

The secondary treatment alternatives considered are all capable of achieving the effluent

TAN objective for the Deseronto WWTP. Details regarding the potential implementation of

each alternative at the expanded Deseronto WWTP are also included.

7.1.1 Alternative 1 - Extended Aeration

The Deseronto WPCP is currently employing an extended aeration treatment process

consisting of aeration and secondary clarification. EXA consists of an aerated biological

reactor (bioreactor) followed by a secondary clarifier. In the bioreactor, suspended biomass

degrades the influent organic material. The biomass is subsequently separated from the

effluent in a secondary clarifier. Thickened biomass from the clarifier underflow is recycled

to the aeration tank to maintain biomass concentration.

The aeration basin influent (raw sewage) is mixed with return activated sludge (RAS) from

the secondary clarifier at the entry of the basin by use of aeration where bacteria and

microorganisms are provided optimum conditions to encourage the breakdown/removal of

waste constituents of the wastewater. After flowing through the basin, the aeration basin

effluent (i.e. mixed liquor) is conveyed to a secondary clarifier to promote the settling of

bacteria and microorganisms and other solids. The settled biomass/activated sludge

accumulated at the bottom of the tank is returned to the aeration tank or is wasted out of the

process. Implementation of the EXA process for the upgraded and expanded Deseronto

WWTP will require providing sufficient bioreactor volume and additional secondary

clarifier capacity. This option would continue the use of aerobic digestion.

Implementation of this option could require staged construction due to site constraints.

7.1.2 Alternative 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge

The CAS process is a suspended growth process widely used for municipal wastewater

treatment, and is well suited for treating low to medium strength domestic wastewater, and

can be designed to nitrify year round.

The aeration basin influent (primary clarifier effluent) is mixed with RAS from the

secondary clarifier at the entry of the basin by use of aeration where bacteria and

microorganisms are provided optimum conditions to encourage the breakdown/removal of

waste constituents of the wastewater. After flowing through the basin, the mixed liquor is

conveyed to a secondary clarifier to promote the settling of bacteria and microorganisms and

other solids. The settled biomass/activated sludge accumulated at the bottom of the tank is

returned to the aeration tank or is wasted out of the process.

Implementation of the CAS process for the upgraded and expanded Deseronto WWTP

would include providing new primary clarifiers, sufficient bioreactor volume, and additional

secondary clarifier capacity. In addition, the existing digestion process would need to be

converted from aerobic to anaerobic digestion.





Project # 07-3-7348

7.1.3 Alternative 3 - Sequencing Batch Reactor

A SBR is a “fill-and-draw” activated sludge treatment system, where aeration and secondary

clarification processes are carried out sequentially in the same tank. Unlike other activated

sludge processes in which flow moves continuously along a series of tanks, the SBR is a

time-oriented batch system, which can satisfy different treatment objectives by simply

modifying the application and duration of mixing and aeration in a single-tank, making the

SBR process very flexible. A typical operating sequence for a SBR is composed of the

following five stages: fill, react (aeration), settle (mixing/aeration off to allow clarification),

draw (decant) and idle. Sludge wasting is generally conducted during the settle or idle

phases, but can occur in the other phases depending on the mode of operation.

Design of the SBR system and controls will have to account for the large design peaking

factors to the plant in order to ensure that during extended high flow events, all of the raw

wastewater flows will be captured. SBR systems are normally designed with a “Storm Flow”

operating mode during which the react cycle time is reduced to accommodate periods of

peak wet weather flow. Implementation at the Deseronto WWTP will require the

construction of SBR tankage.

7.1.4 Alternative 4 - Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge

The IFAS process combines fixed film biomass on carrier elements with suspended biomass

in the form of mixed liquor in one process. This can be accomplished as a hybrid system

consisting of the fixed film media and activated sludge mixed liquor in one tank, or a fixed

film process followed by an activated sludge process in series.

Implementation of the IFAS process for the upgraded and expanded Deseronto WWTP

would include providing sufficient bioreactor volume, including new IFAS media, a new

coarse or medium bubble diffuser aeration system in the bioreactors, and additional

secondary clarifier capacity.

7.1.5 Alternative 5 - Membrane Bioreactor

Membrane biological reactors (MBR) for municipal wastewater treatment consist of a

suspended growth biological reactor integrated with a membrane system.

The finely-pored hollow membranes are typically immersed in the aeration tank or

subsequent membrane tank, where they are in direct contact with the mixed liquor. Most

commonly a vacuum, applied by a suction pump to a header connected to the membranes,

draws the treated water through the membrane walls, while the mixed liquor remains in the

membrane tank. The external surface of the membranes is scoured using airflow, introduced

to the bottom of the membrane module to flush the surface of the membrane, and in addition

contribute to oxygen requirements of the bacteria. A diffused aeration system is used to

provide the remainder of the biological oxygen requirements within the aeration tanks.

Implementation of the MBR process for the upgraded and expanded Deseronto WWTP

would include providing a new membrane treatment system. A MBR system will provide

effluent quality that is equivalent to tertiary treatment. As such, there is no requirement for

separate tertiary treatment. Consequently, the existing Actiflo™ system, which was installed

in 2000, would not be required. High design peak flows will increase the membrane

requirements, increasing capital and O&M costs.





Project # 07-3-7348

7.1.6 Preliminary Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Design Alternatives

Table 20 presents a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the reviewed

treatment processes.

Table 20 Advantages and Disadvantages of Treatment Technologies

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Extended Aeration Robust treatment process with long

history of application in Ontario

Process performance can be controlled

and optimized by varying biomass

inventory and sludge age in bioreactors

Lower odour potential than CAS due to

lack of primary clarifiers and primary

sludge

Higher oxygenation requirements

than equivalently sized CAS plants

Potential for difficult construction

(staging due to site constraints)

Conventional Activated

Sludge Robust treatment process with long

history of application in Ontario




Requires construction of primary

clarifiers

Generates primary sludge as well

as WAS, which has more odour

potential than WAS alone

CAS does not offer any benefits

over EXA for facilities the size of

the Deseronto WWTP

Sequencing Batch Reactor Compact footprint requiring minimal

tankage

Potentially more efficient solids

separation due to quiescent conditions

during the settling phase

Lower odour potential than CAS due to

lack of primary clarifiers and primary

sludge

Limitations in the design and

operation of the decanting

mechanism can negatively impact

effluent quality

Careful selection of air piping and

diffusers is required to avoid

clogging during the fill and settle

phases

At larger flows, the complexity of

the control system increases

significantly





Project # 07-3-7348


treatment processes.

Based on the advantages and disadvantages summarized in Table 20, the following treatment

processes were short-listed and will be carried forward for more detailed evaluation:

Extended Aeration; and

Sequencing Batch Reactor.

CAS and IFAS were eliminated due to the fact that no significant benefits are offered over

the EXA process. MBRs were eliminated due to high capital and operating costs.

7.1.7 Secondary Treatment Design Alternatives

Based on the preliminary evaluation of alternatives, the following secondary treatment

alternatives were carried forward:

Alternative 1 - Extended Aeration; and

Alternative 3 - Sequencing Batch Reactors.

Conceptual level designs for each of the secondary treatment design alternatives were

developed and are presented in the subsequent sections. A detailed description of tankage

requirements, design parameters, and site layouts for each alternative are provided in

Appendix H.

7.1.7.1 Alternative 1 - Extended Aeration

The Deseronto WWTP currently utilizes an EXA treatment process, consisting of aeration

and secondary clarification. The existing Deseronto WWTP consists of two EXA package

plants, Plant-A and Plant-B, constructed in 1970 and 1988, respectively. According to the

Needs Study (GGG, 2007) both plants have experienced significant deterioration and

Integrated Fixed-Film

Activated Sludge Low operational complexity

Less susceptible to washout during peak

wet weather flows

Integrated biofilm growth on media

increases biomass density in bioreactors,

reducing tankage requirements.




Limited full scale experience in

Ontario

Generates primary sludge as well

as WAS, which has more odour

potential than WAS alone

IFAS does not offer any benefits

over EXA for facilities the size of

the Deseronto WWTP

May require pilot testing prior to

full-scale implementation

Membrane Bioreactor Tertiary quality effluent, eliminating the

need for separate tertiary treatment

Performance is not limited by solids

separation, allowing for less tankage

and a smaller footprint

Highest capital and operating cost

of the technologies reviewed





Project # 07-3-7348

corrosion, and require refurbishing. In addition, Plant-B has very limited hydraulic capacity.

Consequently, for this design concept two alternatives will be investigated:

Alternative 1a - Refurbish Plant-A, Decommission Plant-B, and Construct a New EXA

Treatment Train; and

Alternative 1b - Decommission Plant-A and Plant-B, and Construct Two New EXA

Treatment Trains.

Implementation of Alternative 1a at the Deseronto WWTP would require upgrades to the

existing aeration system and the design and construction of a new treatment train to treat a

design ADF of 1,040 m3/d. Alternative 1b would require the design and construction of two

new treatment trains to treat a design ADF of 2,400 m3/d.

Construction of Alternative 1a would include Plant-B being decommissioned and

demolished, followed by the construction of one new secondary treatment train consisting of

one aeration tank and one secondary clarifier east of Plant-A. During construction of the new

secondary treatment train, the existing treatment process can remain operational via Plant-A,

as Plant-B provides limited hydraulic capacity.

This construction sequence and layout result in a more compact new secondary treatment

footprint. This compact equipment layout allows for additional area on site for a potential

future expansion.

Construction of Alternative 1b requires a larger construction footprint and is more

complicated than Alternative 1a. To provide a compact new secondary treatment footprint,

construction will be staged thereby continuing plant operation during construction.

Construction of Alternative 1a would include Plant-B being decommissioned and

demolished, followed by the construction of one new secondary treatment train consisting of

one aeration tank and one secondary clarifier east of Plant-A. Once the new treatment train

is brought online, Plant-A can be decommissioned and demolished, and the second new

secondary treatment train can be constructed in its location.

This construction sequence and layout result in a more compact new secondary treatment

footprint. This compact equipment layout allows for additional area on site for a potential

future expansion.

7.1.7.2 Alternative 3 - Sequencing Batch Reactor

Implementation of Alternative 3 at the Deseronto WWTP would require construction of new

SBR tanks to treat a design ADF of 2,400 m3/d. For this alternative, an equalization tank

should be considered during preliminary design to reduce secondary treatment, tertiary

treatment, and disinfection tankage requirements.

Construction of Alternative 3 would include the construction of two new SBR tanks to the

east of Plant-A and Plant-B. During construction of the new secondary treatment train, the

existing treatment process can remain operational. Once construction of the new SBR tanks

is complete, both Plant-A and Plant-B can be decommissioned.





Project # 07-3-7348

7.2 Tertiary Treatment

7.2.1 Review of Tertiary Treatment Technologies

All secondary treatment processes being carried forward for more detailed evaluation will

require tertiary treatment to meet effluent TSS and TP objectives and effluent disinfection

prior to discharge to the Bay of Quinte. A number of process options exist to provide

phosphorus removal to achieve the final effluent TP objective limit of 0.15 mg/L. A long list

of solids and phosphorus removal options capable of achieving the effluent TP objectives

were developed.

The following tertiary treatment alternatives can be considered for the upgraded Deseronto

WWTP:

Ballasted flocculation;

Shallow bed granular media filtration;

Deep bed, continuous backwash filtration;

Cloth filtration; and

Membrane ultra-filtration.

7.2.2 Alternative 1 - Ballasted Flocculation

Currently at the Deseronto WWTP, tertiary treatment is provided by one Actiflo™ unit, a

high-rate ballasted flocculation/sedimentation system. The Actiflo™ has a C of A rated

average day and peak flow of 1,600 m3/d and 5,440 m

3/d, respectively.

In the ballasted flocculation process, a coagulant or polymer, such as alum, ferric sulphate

and/or anionic polymer, is used with a ballast material, typically micro-sand (micro-carrier

or chemically enhanced sludge can also be used) (MOE, 2008). Water is pumped into a

rapid-mix tank and coagulant is added. The ballast material is added to the chemically

stabilized and coagulated suspension of particulate solids and, simultaneously, the ballast

agent coagulates with the chemical precipitate and particulate solids to form “ballasted”

flocs (Young & Edwards, 2000). After flocculation, the suspension is transferred into a

sedimentation basin where the ballasted floc settles. The floc formed is heavier and larger

than conventional chemical floc and sedimentation can occur ten times faster than with

traditional processes (USEPA, 2003). A hydrocyclone separates the ballasting agent from

the ballasted floc and the ballasting agent is recycled back to the flocculation basin while the

sludge is sent for processing and disposal (Young & Edwards, 2000).

7.2.3 Alternative 2 - Shallow Bed Granular Media Filtration

Shallow-bed granular media filtration has shown good historical performance in tertiary

treatment operations. Granular media filtration is an advanced treatment process that

removes TSS and particulate phosphorus to a higher degree than secondary treatment alone.

The process is designed to allow for continuous filtration through the filter bed that consists

of either single or dual media. Typically, the bed consists of sand (single media) or

sand/anthracite (dual media) media.

The solids in the secondary effluent (filter influent) are removed by the media by a variety of

mechanisms as the influent passes through the filter. Generally, the particulates are retained





Project # 07-3-7348

by the filter grains or previously deposited particulates by straining, interception, impaction,

sedimentation, flocculation, and adsorption (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).

The filtered effluent flows through the filter under drain system and a series of ports to the

effluent channel. The filter backwash is initiated and stopped automatically based on head

loss and/or run time.

7.2.4 Alternative 3 - Deep Bed, Continuous Backwash Filtration

Deep bed, continuous backwash filters consist of a vertical vessel with granular media, by

volume. The wastewater is distributed radially inside the filter bed and flows upward

through the downward moving media where the solids are removed. The filtrate overflows a

weir and exits at the top of the filter. Media within the filter is cleaned continuously by

recycling of the sand from the bottom of the filter through an airlift pipe and cleaning it in a

sand washer. Following cleaning, the sand is redistributed on the top of the sand bed. The

continuous cleaning of the filter media generates a constant supply of reject water.

7.2.5 Alternative 4 - Cloth Media Filtration

Cloth filtration consists of a process tank that contains several submersed disk filters. The

disks are configured in series in a vertical position, fixed on a horizontal cylindrical shaft.

During filtration, the wastewater enters the process tank and flows by gravity through the

cloth media on the stationary hollow disk. Solids collect on the outside of the cloth media,

and the filtrate flows through the hollow shaft that supports the disks and is directed to the

final effluent discharge. Cloth media filters require backwashing to remove the accumulated

solids on the media surface and restore their operating capacity. During filtration, heavier

solids settle to the bottom of the unit. Some backwash solids also accumulate at the bottom

of the tank. The settled solids are pumped out of the tank intermittently using the same pump

that is used for backwashing.

7.2.6 Alternative 5 - Membrane Ultrafiltration

Membrane ultrafiltration processes are typically used for advanced treatment of wastewater. A

high quality effluent, referred to as the permeate, is produced by passing the wastewater through

a membrane barrier. The permeate passes through the membrane surface while the impermeable

components are retained on the feed side creating a reject stream. In the membrane system the

particles are removed from the wastewater through surface filtration as the wastewater is passed

through the membrane surface and the particles are mechanically sieved out (Metcalf & Eddy,

2003).

Membrane ultrafilters require backwashing to remove the accumulated solids on the

membrane surface and restore their operating capacity. Membrane ultrafilters, like granular

media filters, will produce a recycle stream that will need to be returned to the upstream

processes for treatment.

7.2.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Design Alternatives


tertiary treatment processes.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 21 Advantages and Disadvantages of Tertiary Treatment

Technologies


Alternative 1 -

Ballasted

Flocculation

Operating staff is familiar

with technology

No backwashing

requirements

Can treat a wide range of

flows without reducing

removal efficiency

Compact footprint

Experience with regularly plugging

of unit and high operator attention

required

High chemical costs and maintenance

requirements due to use of coagulants

or polymers

Cleaning of ballasted material

Microsand or micro-carrier may

require replacement

Complex instrumentation

Require more operator judgement

and prompt response to provide

optimum dosages with changing

conditions

Alternative 2 -

Shallow Bed

Granular Media

Filtration

Widely used and proven

technology in Ontario

Operational simplicity

Low capital and operating

and maintenance costs

Low operating head

Solids overloading results in poor

effluent quality

Mudballs may form in filter, reducing

efficiency if there is biological

growth and/or emulsified grease

accumulated in filter media

Loss of filter media if improper

backwashing

Susceptible to fouling and clogging

Not effective for removal of

dispersed algae

High backwash volume

Alternative 3 -

Deep Bed,

Continuous

Backwash

Filtration

Small footprint

Ease of operation and

maintenance

Constant low volume of

reject water resulting in

less hydraulic impact on

other treatment processes

Large height requirements of the

filtration cells

Additional costs associated with

excavation

High head loss through filters

resulting in high pumping

requirements





Project # 07-3-7348

Alternative 4 -

Cloth Media

Filtration

Small footprint

Few moving parts

Low backwash volume

Ease of operation and

maintenance

Flexibility for future

expansion

Low operating head

Limited historical experience with

the operation and long-term

performance

Limited experience in Ontario

Alternative 5 -

Membrane

Ultrafiltration

Consistently produces a

high quality effluent

Small footprint

Can be integrated into an

automation and remote

control system

High energy requirements

Management of residual stream

Membranes are prone to fouling and

scaling

More intensive maintenance

requirements than other processes

Membrane degradation over time

increased by feed water with acids,

bases, pH extremes, bacteria, and

oxygen

May require an equalization tank

High operating and capital costs

Based on the advantages and disadvantages summarized in Table 21, the following treatment

processes were short-listed and will be carried forward for more detailed evaluation:

Alternative 1 - Ballasted flocculation;

Alternative 2 - Shallow bed granular media filtration;

Alternative 3 - Deep bed, continuous backwash filtration; and

Alternative 4 - Cloth media filtration.

The membrane ultrafiltration option was eliminated due to high capital and operating costs

and extensive maintenance requirements.

8 Disinfection Technologies UV disinfection and chlorination/de-chlorination were reviewed and evaluated for

implementation for disinfection of tertiary effluent at the upgraded and expanded Deseronto

WWTP. Currently, effluent disinfection is provided by one ultraviolet (UV) disinfection

unit, with a peak design capacity of 5,440 m3/d. presents a summary of the advantages and

disadvantages of each of the reviewed disinfection processes.





Project # 07-3-7348

8.1 Preferred Disinfection Alternative

Based on the results of this options analysis, it is recommended that UV disinfection be

selected as the preferred alternative solution at the Deseronto WWTP, despite the higher

capital, operation and maintenance, and life-cycle costs. This alternative was selected

primarily due to a lower potential of health and safety or environmental impacts relative to

chlorine disinfection. In addition, operations staff is familiar with this process.

The capacity of the existing UV system cannot handle the new peak flows, and it is difficult

to retain parts, as it is an old model that is no longer produced. Therefore it is recommended

that the old unit be decommissioned and a new UV system be installed. The new UV

disinfection system would be located downstream of the tertiary treatment process in the

tertiary treatment building. The peak disinfection capacity will be 10,060 m3/d at a design

maximum TSS concentration of 15 mg/L and design minimum UVT of 65%.

Table 22 Advantages and Disadvantages of Disinfection Technologies


UV Disinfection Operations staff are

familiar with the process

as it is currently used at

the Deseronto WWTP

No delivery or handling of

chemicals required

Non-toxic process;

therefore, there is no need

to monitor final effluent

chlorine residual

Higher capital, operation and

maintenance, and life cycle costs

compared to chlorine disinfection

Larger back-up power requirement

Chlorination /

De-chlorination Lower capital, operation

and maintenance, and life

cycle costs compared to

UV disinfection

Requires delivery and handling of

hazardous chemicals

Higher risk of health and safety

issues and environmental impacts due

to accidental releases

Operators need to control dosage of

two separate chemicals

Larger footprint than UV disinfection

Can produce disinfection by-products

(THMs) such as chloroform





Project # 07-3-7348

8.2 Sludge Handling

8.2.1 Sludge Stabilization

The preferred liquid treatment train design concepts do not include primary clarification;

therefore no raw sludge will be generated at the Deseronto WWTP. As aerobic digestion

processes are typically used to treat processes that generate WAS only, aerobic digestion

would be a suitable process for the Deseronto WWTP. Aerobic digesters benefit from a

lower capital cost and simpler operation than conventional anaerobic digestion, while being

less susceptible to odour issues and foaming. Aerobic digestion is the sludge stabilization

method currently in operation at the Deseronto WWTP.

For the purposes of this conceptual design, aerobic digestion has been identified as the

preferred sludge stabilization process because it results in the most conservative footprint

requirements. It should be noted, however, that alternate sludge stabilization technologies,

such as autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD), could be considered during

preliminary design.

For the purposes of developing the conceptual level design for the aerobic digesters, it was

assumed that decanting and supernatant withdrawal from both stages of the aerobic digester

would be practiced. Based on the MOE Design Guidelines (MOE, 2008), an additional 25%

volume should be provided in the aerobic digester in order to provide sufficient volume for

decanting and supernatant withdrawal. Based on providing an additional 25% volume, the

design volume for the aerobic digester is 910 m3.

To reduce hydraulic loading on the digesters, the option for sludge thickening prior to

digestion should be taken into consideration during the preliminary design; this decision will

be made based on the preferred secondary treatment process selected. The inclusion of a

sludge thickener will minimize the size of the digesters required and maximize the retention

times. At the same time, the option of utilizing ATAD rather than conventional aerobic

digestion should be reviewed.

8.2.2 Biosolids Storage

Aerobically digested biosolids may be stored for extended periods, ensuring that thorough

mixing of the contents, either by diffused air or mechanical mixing, is provided prior to

transfer to land application equipment. Liquid biosolids storage requirements can vary

depending on disposal practices and options available to the plant. Assuming liquid land

application is the sole means of disposal, provision of 240 days storage is encouraged as a

best practice in the Nutrient Management Act (MOE, 2011).

Currently, biosolids generated at the Deseronto WWTP are stored in a concrete biosolids

storage tank with a volume of 989 m3, equipped with one submersed mixer. The biosolids

storage tank has an operating depth of 5.85 m.

Assuming that the aerobic digesters achieve a sludge thickened to 2.0% due to supernating, a

biosolids volumetric flow of approximately 18 m3/d will be pumped to storage daily.

Therefore, a total biosolids storage tank volume of 4,320 m3 is required to provide the

recommended biosolids storage of 240 days (MOE, 2011). The new biosolids storage tank

will then require a volume of 3,330 m3.





Project # 07-3-7348

Based on aerial images of the plant and assuming a new storage tank operating depth of 5.85

m, the new biosolids storage tank will require a surface area of approximately 562 m2. There

is sufficient area available on the existing site to accommodate this biosolids storage

volume. However, this storage volume can be decreased if optional provisional methods for

biosolids disposal are available and employed by the Town.

The preferred design concept for the solids handling process is additional aerobic sludge

digestion capacity and biosolids storage. The final site layout should be determined during

preliminary and detailed design.

9 DETAILED EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

9.1 Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation criteria described in Table 23 were used to evaluate the design alternatives.

The construction phase and operation phase were each evaluated considering impacts on the

natural environment, social/cultural/community environment, technical environment, and

cost. For the purposes of the evaluation, all evaluation criteria were assumed to be equally

weighted.

An information matrix was prepared to present information on each design alternative. The

information included impacts associated with each alternative, potential mitigation measures

to reduce the predicted impacts, and the net impacts (i.e. those impacts which remain after

mitigation).

An evaluation matrix was prepared where a score between 1 and 5 was assigned to each

alternative for each evaluation criteria, as follows:

Score of 1 – Does not meet criterion / negative impact / highest cost.

Score of 2 – Meets some aspects of the criterion / potential for negative impact.

Score of 3 – Results in no significant change to impact / middle range cost.

Score of 4 – Meets most aspects of the criterion / little to no negative impact.

Score of 5 – Meets criterion objectives / positive impact / lowest cost.

For each alternative, a total score was calculated as the sum of the individual criteria scores.

The alternative design concepts were ranked according to the total scores. The alternative

design concept with the highest total score was selected as the preferred alternative design

concept.

9.2 Secondary Treatment Evaluation Results

Table 23, 24 and 25 present the information matrices for the evaluation of alternative design

concepts, while Table 26 presents the results of the evaluation of the alternative design

concepts.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 23 Evaluation Criteria

Group Criteria Definition

Construction Phase

Natural Environment Effect on surface waters This criterion refers to the effects of the construction of the alternative design

concept on the surface water quality, quantity, and aquatic ecosystems.

Disruption of terrestrial features This criterion refers to the temporary disruption or displacement of terrestrial

features during construction activities.

Social/Cultural/

Community

Environments

Disruption of adjacent residential,

community, and recreational

features (noise, dust, odour, traffic)

This criterion addresses the potential nuisance impacts on adjacent land owners and

residents as a result of construction.

Economic

Environment

Capital costs of construction This criterion provides an estimate of capital cost of the alternative.

Technical

Environment

Constructability This criterion addresses the ability to maintain the performance of the treatment

process during construction.

Operation Phase

Natural Environment Effect on surface waters This criterion refers to the effects of operation of the alternative on surface water

quality.

Social/Cultural/

Community

Environments


community, and recreational

features (noise, dust, odour, traffic)

This criterion addresses the potential nuisance impacts (noise, odour, traffic, visual

intrusion) on adjacent land owners and residents as a result of the operation of the

facility at the re-rated capacity with operation of the design alternative.

Economic

Environment

Annual operating costs for processes

that vary between the alternatives

This criterion addresses the cost of operation of the alternative. The alternatives

were scored for this criterion based on the estimated annual operating costs of

processes that vary between the alternatives. Processes that are similar between the

alternatives and the labour at the WWTP were assumed constant.





Project # 07-3-7348

Technical

Environment

Performance and experience in

similar climates and at plants of

similar size

The criterion refers to the performance and experience of operating other WWTPs

similar in size and design to the alternative design concept, in climates comparable

to that of the Deseronto area.

Operating requirements This criterion refers to the operational complexity of the alternative in terms of

operator attention and staffing requirements.

Compatibility with existing

infrastructure

This criterion refers to the compatibility of the alternative with existing

infrastructure in terms of the application/use of existing equipment and ability for

retrofit.

Ability to consistently meet effluent

criteria

This criterion refers to the ability for the alternative to consistently be able to meet

the proposed WWTP C of A effluent criteria.




Project # 07-3-7348

Table 24 Preliminary Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Alternative Design Concepts During the Construction Phase

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1a – Retain Plant A and Construct One New EXA

Train Alternative 1b – Construct Two New EXA Trains Alternative 3 – Construct Two New SBR Trains

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters All construction impacts can be mitigated through good

construction techniques.

All construction impacts can be mitigated through good


All construction impacts can be mitigated through good


Disruption of terrestrial features Smallest construction footprint. Largest construction footprint. Medium construction footprint.

Social/Cultural/Community Environments


community, and recreational features Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners and residents

during construction activities.

Potential for shortest construction duration.

Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners and residents


Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners and residents


Economic Environment

Capital costs of construction Lowest capital costs. Higher capital cost than Alternative 1a, but lower than

Alternative 3.

Highest capital costs.

Technical Environment

Constructability A new headworks building consisting of screening and grit

removal, one new aeration tank, one new secondary clarifier, a

new tertiary treatment building consisting of the preferred

tertiary treatment alternative and UV disinfection, a new first

stage aerobic digester, and a new biosolids storage tank.

The new secondary treatment train and a tertiary treatment

building can be constructed to the east of Plant-B. The existing

treatment process can continue operation during the

construction of the new tanks.

The new digester and biosolids storage tankage could be

constructed while keeping the existing two package plants,

including digestion online.

A new headworks building consisting of screening and grit

removal, two new aeration tanks, two new secondary clarifiers,

a new tertiary treatment building consisting of the preferred

tertiary treatment alternative and UV disinfection, two new

staged aerobic digesters, and a new biosolids storage tank.

One new secondary treatment train and a new tertiary treatment

building can be constructed to the east of Plant-B and the new

digester and biosolids storage tankage can be constructed on the

west section of the property. The existing treatment process can

continue operation during the construction of the first new

secondary treatment train. Plant-A can then be decommissioned

and the second new secondary treatment train can be

constructed in its place.

A new headworks building consisting of screening and grit

removal, two new SBR tanks, a new tertiary treatment building

consisting of the preferred tertiary treatment alternative and UV

disinfection, two new staged aerobic digesters, and a new

biosolids storage tank.

The new SBR tanks and tertiary treatment building can be

constructed to the east of Plant-B. The existing treatment

process can continue operation during the construction of the

new tanks.

The new digester and biosolids storage tankage could be

constructed while keeping the existing two package plants,

including digestion online.

Can easily phase-in construction of this alternative.




Project # 07-3-7348

Table 25 Preliminary Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Alternative Design Concepts During the Operation Phase

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1a – Plant A Plus One New EXA Train Alternative 1b – Two New EXA Trains Alternative 3 – Two New SBR Trains

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters Negligible impacts as future design effluent limits can be met

with tertiary treatment.

Negligible impacts as future design effluent limits can be met


Negligible impacts as future design effluent limits can be met




community, and recreational features

(noise, dust, odour, traffic)

Low disruption anticipated.

Potential for odours from biosolids storage.






Operating costs Low annual operating cost relative to Alternative 3.

Comparable operating costs to Alternative 1b.

Low annual operating cost relative to Alternative 3.

Comparable operating costs to Alternative 1a.

Highest annual operating cost relative to other alternatives.




similar size

Very good experience/performance.

Proven treatment process with long history of application in

similar climates.



similar climates.



similar climates and common in plants of similar size.

Operational complexity/familiarity of

operations staff with process Low complexity.

Operations staff familiar with processes involved in treatment

by EA.

Requires operation of two trains with complex flow splitting.

Low complexity.

Operations staff familiar with processes involved in treatment

by EA.

Moderate complexity.

Flow through process with moderately complex operational

control requirements.

Operations staff does not have experience operating an SBR

process; however, training should be fairly straightforward.

Operating requirements/Operation

time usage Medium operating requirements. Lowest operating requirements compared to the other

alternatives.

Highest operating requirements compared to the other

alternatives.


infrastructure Good compatibility with existing infrastructure.

Need new bioreactor and clarifier.

Requires the construction of two new treatment trains.

Involves decommissioning of existing infrastructure.

Requires the construction of two new treatment trains.

Involves decommissioning of existing infrastructure.


requirements Able to consistently meet effluent criteria with tertiary

treatment.

Able to consistently meet effluent criteria with tertiary

treatment.

Able to consistently meet effluent criteria with tertiary

treatment.





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 26 Summary of Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 3

Construction Phase

Natural Environment

Effect on surface water quality 3 3 3

Disruption of terrestrial features 2 1 1



community and recreational

features

3 3 3


Capital costs of construction 5 4 2


Constructability 3 2 5

Operation Phase

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters 4 4 4



community and recreational

features

3 3 4


Annual Operating Costs 3 3 2



similar climates and size 4 5 4

Operational

complexity/familiarity of

Operations staff with process

4 5 3

Operating

requirements/Operation time

usage

3 5 2





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 26 Summary of Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 3


infrastructure 4 3 3

Ability to consistently meet

effluent requirements 4 4 4

Total Score 45 45 40

9.2 Recommended Preferred Secondary Treatment Alternative

Any of the secondary treatment design concepts will be able to achieve the proposed effluent

objectives at the Deseronto WWTP with tertiary treatment. The results of the detailed

evaluation are summarized in Table 27.

Alternatives 1a and 1b received the same score, while Alternative 3 received the lowest

score primarily due to capital and operating costs and operating requirements.

Alternative 1a had the lowest capital and operating costs and requires the smallest footprint,

however, Alternative 1b provides preferable operating conditions, as there will be simple

flow splitting and it eliminates the use of one package plant and one train with separate

digestion.

Table 27 Total Scores for Each Secondary Treatment Alternative

Alternative Process Total Score

1a Refurbish Plant-A and Construct One New

Extended Aeration Treatment Train 45

1b Construct Two New Extended Aeration Trains 45

3 Construct Two New SBR Trains 40





Project # 07-3-7348

Based on the total scores summarized in Table 26, Alternatives 1a and 1b received the

highest scores. It should be noted however, that Plant A is a steel tank that was constructed

over 40 years ago and may be nearing the end of its useful life. New plants are more energy

efficient and easier to operate. Therefore, although the evaluation scores for Alternatives 1a

and 1b are equal and Alternative 1a has a lower capital cost, the long term costs of

maintaining Plant A in service in comparison to the construction of two new plants and

marginally higher capital cost of Alternative 1b, lead to the conclusion that Alternative 1b

should be selected as the preferred secondary treatment design concept.

9.4 Tertiary Treatment Preliminary Evaluation Results

Table 28 and Table 29 present the information matrices for the evaluation of alternative

design concepts, while 30 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of the

alternatives design concepts.




Project # 07-3-7348

Table 28 Preliminary Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Alternative Design Concepts During the Construction Phase

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1 – Ballasted Flocculation Alternative 2 – Conventional Shallow Bed,

Automatic Backwash Filtration Alternative 3 – Continuous Backwash Filtration Alternative 4 – Cloth Media Filtration

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters All construction impacts can be mitigated

through good construction techniques.

All construction impacts can be mitigated






Disruption of terrestrial

features Smallest construction footprint, as the existing

unit would remain in operation and only one

new unit would be required.

Medium construction footprint. Largest construction footprint. Smaller construction footprint relative to

Alternatives 2 and 3.


Disruption of adjacent

residential, community, and

recreational features

Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners

and residents during construction activities.








Capital costs of construction Lower capital cost than Alternatives 2 and 3, as

the existing unit would remain in operation and

only one new unit would be required. Higher

capital cost than Alternative 4.

Medium capital cost relative to other

alternatives.

Highest capital cost relative to other alternatives. Lowest capital cost relative to other alternatives.


Constructability A new tertiary treatment building consisting of

the existing ballasted flocculation unit and one

new unit.

This alternative has the smallest footprint, and

will require the least amount of construction

requirements.

A new tertiary treatment building consisting of

two new automatic backwash filtration units.

This alternative has a smaller footprint than

alternative 3 and a larger footprint than

Alternatives 1 and 4. The site and construction

requirement will fall between the two

alternatives.


two new continuous backwash filtration units.

This alternative has the largest footprint, and will

require the largest construction area.

Likely requires excavation due to the equipment

height requirements.


two new cloth media filtration units.

This alternative has the smallest footprint, and

will require the least amount of construction

requirements.




Project # 07-3-7348

Table 29 Preliminary Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Alternative Design Concepts During the Operation Phase

Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1 – Ballasted Flocculation Alternative 2 – Conventional Shallow Bed,

Automatic Backwash Filter Alternative 3 – Continuous Backwash Filter Alternative 4 – Cloth Media Filtration

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters Negligible impacts as this tertiary treatment

alternative was selected based on its ability to

meet future design effluent limits.

Negligible impacts as this tertiary treatment







alternative was selected based on its ability to meet

future design effluent limits.



community, and recreational features

(noise, dust, odour, traffic)

Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated.


Operating costs Highest operating costs relative to other

alternatives.

Lowest operating costs relative to other

alternatives.

High operating costs relative to Alternatives 2

and 4.

Low operating costs, slightly higher than

Alternative 2.




similar size

Good performance/experience at other plants of

similar size.


Proven treatment process with a long history of

application in similar climates.


Proven treatment process with a long history of

application in similar climates.

Very good experience/performance at a WWTP of

similar size.

Limited experience in Ontario.

Operational complexity/familiarity of

operations staff with process Moderate complexity.

Operations staff is familiar with this technology.

Poor operator experience with this technology.

Low complexity.

Requires backwashing.

Low complexity.

Constant supply of reject water.

Low complexity.

Requires backwashing.

Operating requirements/Operation

time usage Highest operating requirements compared to the

other alternatives. Historically has required high

operator attention.

Moderate operating requirements compared to

Alternative 4.

Moderate operating requirements compared to

Alternative 4.

Lowest operating requirements compared to the

other alternatives.


infrastructure Best compatibility with existing infrastructure.

Requires the construction of a new tertiary

treatment and disinfection building.

Currently unit will remain in use; therefore only

one new unit will be required.

Low compatibility with existing infrastructure.










requirements Able to consistently meet effluent criteria. Able to consistently meet effluent criteria. Able to consistently meet effluent criteria. Able to consistently meet effluent criteria





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 30 Summary of Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Alternatives

Evaluation Criterion Alternative

1

Alternative

2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Construction Phase

Natural Environment

Effect on surface water

quality 5 5 5 5

Disruption of terrestrial

features 5 2 1 4



residential, community and


3 3 3 3


Capital costs of

construction 4 3 2 5


Constructability 5 2 1 4

Operation Phase

Natural Environment

Effect on surface waters 5 5 5 5



residential, community and


3 3 3 3


Annual Operating Costs 1 5 3 4


Performance and

experience in similar

climates and size

3 4 4 3

Operational

complexity/familiarity of 2 4 3 4





Project # 07-3-7348

Table 30 Summary of Evaluation of Tertiary Treatment Alternatives

Evaluation Criterion Alternative

1

Alternative

2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Operations staff with

process

Operating

requirements/Operation

time usage

2 5 4 5


infrastructure 4 3 3 3

Ability to consistently meet

effluent requirements 5 5 5 5

Total Score 47 49 42 53

9.5 Recommended Preferred Tertiary Treatment Alternative

Any of the tertiary treatment design concepts will be able to achieve the level of phosphorus

removal required at the Deseronto WWTP. The results of the detailed evaluation are

summarized in Table 31.

Table 31 Total Scores for Each Tertiary Treatment Alternative

Alternative Process Total Score

1 Ballasted Flocculation 47

2 Conventional Shallow Bed, Automatic Backwash

Filtration 49

3 Dual Continuous Backwash Filtration 42

4 Cloth Media Filtration 53

Alternative 1 received low scores in the operation phase primarily due to poor operator

experience with the existing unit and high operating costs. As a result of the higher capital

and operating costs and large footprint, Alternative 3 had lower ratings than the other

alternatives.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 have similar scores, with Alternative 4 having a slight

advantage because of the smaller footprint, low construction and operating costs, and

constructability.

Based on the total scores summarized in Table 31, Alternative 4 - Cloth Media Filtration is

the preferred tertiary treatment process.





Project # 07-3-7348

10 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPT

The preferred design concept for the new Deseronto WWTP involves:

A new preliminary treatment works consisting of screening and grit removal in a

headworks building equipped with screening and grit handling equipment and odour

control capability;

Two new EXA treatment trains each consisting of one new bioreactor with fine pore

diffusers and one new secondary clarifier;

A new tertiary treatment building to house the preferred tertiary treatment alternative

(Cloth Media Filtration);

A new UV disinfection system;

Additional aerobic digestion capacity and biosolids storage;

A new standby generator; and

Decommissioning of the existing Deseronto WWTP.

A site plan showing the conceptual layout of the new Deseronto WWTP is presented in

Figure 8. This site layout is conceptual only and the final site layout will be determined

during preliminary and detailed design.

Figure 8 Extended Aeration with Tertiary Cloth Media Filtration

Conceptual Site Plan Layout





Project # 07-3-7348

The total capital budget for the project outlined above is approximately $8 million, as shown

in the base of option (i.e. Option 1) of the conceptual design budget in Appendix J. Detailed

design considerations will allow further clarification of this budget. The operating costs are

presented in Technical Memorandum 4, in Appendix H.

Table 32 Costs for Preferred Design

Detailed Design,

Approvals, Construction

Administration

Construction

Construction

Contingency

Annual Operation

and Maintenance

$863,000 $6,483,000 $648,300 $577,000

11 ESR CONCLUSIONS

11.1 Class EA Schedule

The project involves increasing the rated capacity of the Deseronto WPCP on the existing

site using portions of the existing works along with substantial new infrastructure. The

proposed undertaking is confirmed as a Schedule C activity as defined by the Municipal

Class Environmental document for Municipal Water and Waste Water Projects. This ESR

and the planning and public consultation process have been completed in accordance with the

requirements outlined in the Municipal Class EA process.

11.1 Part II Order Provisions

The public is invited to ask review this document and provide further input to this process

before the EASR is confirmed at the end of the 30-day review period. Comments should be

directed toward any of the following:

Mr. Tony Guerrera, P.Eng.

Mr. Bryan Brooks

Mr. Todd Kring

Project Manager

Clerk

Director of Community

Infrastructure


The Town of Deseronto

The Mohawks of the Bay of

Quinte

1620 Wallbridge-Loyalist Road

331 Main St. P.O. Box 310

13 Old York Rd

Belleville, Ontario

Deseronto, Ontario

Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory

K8N 4Z5

K0K 1X0

K0K 1X0

T: (613) 966-3068

T: (613) 396-2440

T: (613) 396-3424

F: (613) 966-3087

F: (613) 396-3141

F: (613) 396-3627

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Failing satisfactory resolution of this expressed concern, the public may file a request a Part

II Order by contacting the following in writing:

The Minister of the Environment





Project # 07-3-7348

135 St. Clair Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5

All of which is respectfully submitted,


Tony Guerrera, P.Eng.

Project Manager

12 REFERENCES Ministry of the Environment. Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. 2008.

Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Fourth Edition. Toronto.

2003.USEPA (2003).

The Greer Galloway Group. Deseronto Wastewater Treatment Plant Needs Study Report.

2007.

Water Environment Federation. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Manual

of Practice No. 8. 1998.

XCG Consultants Ltd.. Technical Memorandum: Deseronto WPCP Preliminary Secondary

Treatment and Solids Train Unit Process Sizing. 2009





Project # 07-3-7348

13 APPENDICES

13.1 Appendix A – Needs Study

13.2 Appendix B – Project Notices and Stakeholders

13.3 Appendix C – PIC files

13.4 Appendix D – Archaeological Assessment

13.5 Appendix E – Technical Memorandum #1

13.5 Appendix F – Technical Memorandum #2

13.5 Appendix G – Technical Memorandum #3

13.5 Appendix H – Technical Memorandum #4

13.9 Appendix I – Assimilative Capacity Study

13.10 Appendix J – Preferred Alternatives – Cost Breakdown

13.11 Appendix K – STP Policies, Source Water Protection, Setbacks

13.12 Appendix L – CofA, MTA

Documents

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT (ESR) DESERONTO WASTE WATER ...deseronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/deseronto-wwtp-upgrade-es… · The Greer Galloway Group Inc. Engineers and Planners