Download - title Process Everett Wastewater Treatment Plant Schedule ... Documents/27052014 Everett WWTP... · Everett Community WWTP EA panel title EA Process This Schedule “C” Environmental

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

EA P

roce

ss

This Schedule “C” Environmental Assessment is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process.

As part of this Schedule “C” Environmental Assessment, Design Concepts will be evaluated, selected, and recommended for implementation.

Figure 1- Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process

Everett Wastewater Treatment Plant Schedule “C” Class Environmental Assessment

Schedule “B” Projects Generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing

facilities where there is potential for some environmental impacts. These projects require screening of alternatives for their environmental

impacts and completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process.

Provided no significant impacts are identified, Schedule “B” projects are approved and may proceed directly to Phase 5.

Schedule “A/A+” Projects Considered minor operation and maintenance activities and are

selected for pre-approval without requirements for further assessment.

These projects are typically limited in scale and present minimal impacts to the surrounding environment.

Schedule A+ projects require that the public be advised prior to project implementation.

Schedule “C” Projects These projects have the potential for significant environmental effects

and therefore must proceed under full planning and documentation procedures.

Requires that an Environmental Study Report be prepared and filed for review by the public and review agencies.

Generally consist of construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities (e.g. new Wastewater Treatment Plant with surface water discharge).

WE ARE HERE

This study will fulfill Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA Process, satisfying the requirements for Schedule ‘C’ projects

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Back

grou

nd R

evie

w Summary of Master Servicing Plan (MSP) Recommended Preferred Alternative

Everett Sanitary Master Servicing Plan (MSP) SolutionThe recommended preferred Sanitary Servicing Master Plan for the Everett included the following general characteristics:• Approximately 1,400m of gravity trunk sewer as shown in OPTION WWC-B, ranging in

diameter from 375mm to 525mm, with its main spine along Wales Ave. and discharging at a new SPS in the R&M Homes Subdivision.

• One (1) subsurface discharge WWTP, located to the north east of the proposed R&M Homes Development with room for future expansion to a surface water discharge facility.

• Future expansion of the treatment facility should also include an effluent pump and forcemain which discharges treated effluent to the Pine River, as shown in Option WWT-9

• Technical studies indicate expansion to a surface water discharge solution should occur once the serviced population exceeds 800 persons (300 units).

OPTION WWT-9

OPTION WWC-B

A Master Servicing Plan for Everett was completed in 2013, which resulted in a preferred servicing strategy for transportation, stormwater, water and wastewater

Population and Land-Use Projections• Existing Residential Population :1,929 Persons• Projected Future Residential Population: 9,444 Persons• Future Commercial Land Use Area: 10.3 ha (EP = 943 Persons)• Future Institutional Land Use Area: 13.6 ha (EP = 282 Persons)• Total Projected Equivalent Population (EP): 10,669 Persons

Existing Sewage Systems• No sanitary trunk sewer network currently exists within the Community of Everett. The

majority of Everett has individual septic systems with tile beds.• The only area in Everett with existing municipal sanitary service is the New Horizons

Subdivision which includes a Subsurface Discharge Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), with high operating and maintenance costs.

• The proposed R&M Homes Subdivision Draft Plan includes provisions for an initial subsurface discharge WWTP with initial capacity for an Equivalent Population (EP) of approximately 800 persons (300 Units).

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Back

grou

nd R

evie

w

The background information provided was used to develop and evaluate WWTP Design Concepts

• An Assimilative Capacity Study was completed by Greenland Consulting Engineers for the Pine River to determine if capacity to accept treated wastewater effluent for the proposed ultimate build-out population of Everett exists within the water course.

• The Study found that a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with treatment capacity for a population of approximately10,000 will not cause conditions downstream to exceed Provincial Water Quality Objectives under the conditions evaluated.

• In spite of the apparent capacity within the Pine River for additional nutrient loading, it was recommended through the MSP that additional measures be taken to ensure effluent quality is as high as possible. As such, a phosphorous concentration objective of 0.05 mg/L for treated WWTP effluent has been used in assessment of design concepts for the proposed Surface Water Outfall WWTP.

• Recommended Effluent Quality Parameters for The Everett WWTP were developed as part of this EA and are presented below:

Effluent Requirements

Parameter Compliance Limit Design Objective

TP (mg/L) 0.1 0.051

Total Ammonia (mg/L) 1.8 1.82

TSS (mg/L) 10 53

BOD (mg/L) 10 53

Total Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 mL) 200 2004

Note:1) Recommended by the Everett Secondary Plan Master Servicing Plan (November 2012)2) Used by the Pine River Assimilative Capacity Study (December 2012)3) Proposed by the R&M for the in-process R&M WWTP4) ECA limit at the nearby Angus WWTP.

Other Relevant Background Information• Hydrogeological Report• Archaeological Report• Natural Environment Study• Existing Conditions Water & Wastewater

Servicing Studies• Natural Hazards Study• Pre-Development Drainage Study• Traffic and Transportation Study• Existing Draft Plans • Township of Adjala-Tosorontio & County

of Simcoe “As-Constructed” Drawings• The Community of Everett Master

Servicing Plan (MSP) Class EA

Assimilative Capacity, Effluent Requirements & PhasingWWTP Class EA Development PhasingPine River Assimilative Capacity Study• WWTP to be Constructed in Four (4)

Phases• Ultimate Servicing Capacity for an

Equivalent Population of 10,669 persons

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Eval

uatio

n C

riter

ia

The criteria listed above were used to evaluate WWTP Design Concepts

As part of the final solution selection process, both for the Everett MSP and the current WWTP & Surface Water Outfall Schedule ‘C’ Class EA “short listed” alternative solutions and concept designs were ranked against one another in relative terms for each of the evaluation criteria presented below.

Natural Environment Impacts:• Impacts of the option to vegetation, wildlife & the Natural Environment; and• Surface/groundwater quality and quantity implications;

Social / Cultural Environment Impacts:• Land Use & Archaeological Considerations;• Traffic impacts & interruption to residents; and• Visual landscape/aesthetic impacts of the option.

Technical/Operational Considerations:• Difficulty to construct or implement the Option relative to other alternatives; and• Operation & Maintenance Efficiency.

Economic Impacts:• Capital/construction costs;• Long term/operation & maintenance cost burden; and• Payment structure, cost recovery options for Municipality, Phasing Flexibility.

Design concept options were ranked using a colour coded system for each of the above criteria, where “green” represented the most preferred concept, “yellow” criteria represented less preferred concepts and criteria in “red” represented the least preferred concept.

The option which received the most “green” rankings became the recommended preferred design concept for each Design Concept Category (i.e. Wastewater Treatment, Site Plan, Forcemain Alignment etc.)

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n

Wastewater Treatment Plant LocationAs part of the Everett MSP Class EA Process, two (2) locations, shown below as Option 8 & Option 9, were shortlisted andevaluated in detail. Review of the MSP evaluation process indicates a number of advantages to Option 9:

• Preliminary investigations and concept designs being completed as part of the draft plan process result in less cost;

• Less impact to the natural environment including forested areas; and,• Least potential impact to the existing community and future development areas from the perspective of

noise and odour due to the direction of prevailing winds relative to the plant.

WWTP Locations were Evaluated as part of the MSP

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n

Short Listed Wastewater Process Design Strategies – Concept WWT-1 & WWT-2

Shortlisted Concepts Were Evaluated in Detail to Arrive at the Preferred Design Concept

Extended Aeration + Two Stage Filtration (WWT-1)

Extended Aeration + Membrane Filtration (WWT-2)

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n

Short Listed Wastewater Process Design Strategies – Concept WWT-3 & WWT-4


SBR + Two StageFiltration (WWT-3)

SBR + Membrane Filtration (WWT-4)

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n

Short Listed Wastewater Process Design Strategies – Concept WWT-5


Membrane Bio Reactor (WWT-5)

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n Short List Evaluation of Wastewater Process Design Strategies


LegendLess Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred

Liquid Treatment Strategies & RankingsEvaluation Criteria Design Strategy WWP-1 Option WWP-2 Option WWP-3 Option WWP-4 Option WWP-5

Extended Aeration + Two Stage Filtration Extended Aeration + Membrane Filtration SBR + Two Stage Filtration SBR + Membrane Filtration Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

Natural Environment Impacts

Energy Consumption Moderate energy consumption High energy consumption due to membrane operation Moderate energy consumption High energy consumption due to membrane

operationHigh energy consumption due to membrane

operation

Impact on receiving water It could produce good quality effluent Membrane could provide high quality effluent It could produce good quality effluent Membrane could provide high quality effluent Membrane could provide high quality effluent

Groundwater quality implications It would require high volume of excavation and dewatering

It would require high volume of excavation and dewatering



It would require low volume of excavation and dewatering

Natural Environment Overall Rating

Social / Cultural Environment Impacts

Noise and Odour It would create moderate level of noise and odour It would create moderate level of noise and odour It would create moderate level of noise and odour It would create moderate level of noise and odour It would create moderate level of noise and odour

Traffic impacts & interruption to residents The main traffic resulted from liquid treatment is chemical delivery for phosphorous removal

The main traffic resulted from liquid treatment is chemical delivery for phosphorous removal



The main traffic resulted from liquid treatment is chemical delivery for phosphorous removal and

membrane cleaning

Social / Cultural Environment Overall Rating

Technical/Operational Considerations

Performance reliability, robustnessand resilience

It would be able to produce effluent meeting the objectives. However, the system is sensitive to

secondary clarifier performance. Adding septage into the treatment process could significantly

impact the clarifier performance.


secondary clarifier performance. Adding septage into the treatment process could significantly

impact the clarifier performance.


flow variations and ability to settle sludge. Adding septage into the treatment process could

significantly impact the clarification performance.


flow variations and sludge settlability.

It would produce effluent with quality meeting and beyond the objectives. It is more resilient to load variations. Flow variations could be addressed

with additional membrane units.

Operation & Maintenance Requirements and Complexity

It would require operations on secondary and tertiary processes.




It would only require operations on one system (MBR) to meet the required water quality.

Future Proofing and Flexibility

It would be difficult to meet more stringent effluent phosphorous limits. It has moderate level of

flexibility for future expansion due to large footprint requirements.

It would be able to meet more stringent effluent phosphorous limits. It has moderate level of


It would be difficult to meet more stringent effluent phosphorous limits. It has moderate level of flexibility for future expansion due to largest

footprint requirements.

It would be able to meet more stringent effluent phosphorous limits. It has moderate level of


It would be able to meet more stringent effluent phosphorous limits. It has high level of flexibility for future expansion due to moderate footprint

requirements.

Technical/Operational Considerations Rating

Economic Impacts

Capital/construction costs It has moderate capital cost It has the highest capital cost Largest Footprint - Moderate to high capital cost It has the highest capital cost It has the lowest capital cost

Long term/operation & maintenance cost burden It has low long term O&M cost It has high long term O&M cost It has low long term O&M cost It has high long term O&M cost It has moderate long term O&M Cost

Life Cycle Cost (including revenue potential from septage treatment) High Life Cycle Cost Highest Life Cycle Cost Similar Life Cycle Cost to WWP-1 Similar Life Cycle Cost to WWP-2 Moderate Life Cycle Costs

Economic Ranking

Overall Ranking:

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Con

clus

ion

& N

ext S

teps

A Final Design Concept will be Prepared Following Public and Agency Consultations

Extended Aeration (with Tertiary Filtration) WWTP Cost Assessment

Design Strategy WWP-5

Estimated Total Maintenance & Operational Costs (2014 $) $13 - $15 Million

Estimated Capital Cost (2014 $) $26 - $28 Million

Estimated 20 Year Life Cycle Cost $39 - $43 Million

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) WWTP Cost Assessment

Design Strategy WWP-1

Estimated Total Maintenance & OperationalCosts (2014 $) $12 - $14 Million

Estimated Capital Cost (2014 $) $31 - $34 Million

Estimated 20 Year Life Cycle Cost $43 - $48 Million

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n Short Listed WWTP Site Plan Design Concepts


Concept SP-1 Concept SP-2 Concept SP-3

• Proposed Design by R&M Homes• MBR Plant Expansion to the North

of Office/Blower and Solids Storage• Solids Storage Located East of

Office/Blower

• MBR Plant Expansion to the South of Office/Blower and Solids Storage

• Solids Storage East of & Connected to Office/Blower Building

• MBR Plant Expansion to the South of Office/Blower and Solids Storage

• Office/Blower Building Located East of Solids Storage Building & Separated by Parking Lot / Buffer Zone

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n Short List Evaluation of Site Plan Design Concepts


Less Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred

Evaluation Criteria

Concept SP-1 Concept SP-2 Concept SP-3

R&M Homes Proposed WWTP Configuration -Treatment Expansion to North of Admin Building

Connected Equipment & Admin Buildings - Headworks & Treatment Train Expansion to South of Admin

Building

Buffer Between Equipment & Admin Buildings -Headworks & Treatment Train Expansion to South of

Admin BuildingNatural Environment Impacts

Impacts of the option to vegetation, wildlife & the Natural Environment Shorter Ring Road than SP-3 Shorter Ring Road than SP-3 Longer ring road, but potential to offset with additional

Landscaping

Surface/groundwater & Air quality implications Construction Dewatering could be required. Office Building downwind of Headworks

Construction Dewatering could be required. More stringent indoor air quality requirements.

Construction Dewatering could be required. Best Option with respect to indoor air quality


Social / Cultural Environment ImpactsLand Use & Archaeological Considerations

(Including First Nations)No significant Issues – Provides 100 m separation from

nearest residential property (Barzo)No significant Issues – Provides 100 m separation from

nearest residential property (Barzo)No significant Issues – Provides 100 m separation from

nearest residential property (Barzo)

Noise & Odour Considerations No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation) No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation) No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation)

Visual landscape/Aesthetic impacts No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation) No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation) No Significant Impacts (with adequate mitigation)



Difficulty to construct or implement the Option relative to other alternatives

Expansion to north will require additional measures to maintain air quality due to prevailing winds. Separate

foundations for Admin / Equipment Buildings

Single foundation for Admin / Equipment Buildings connected building will be more complicated

mechanically.

Least difficult option to construct from an indoor air quality perspective. Multiple foundations.

Operation & Maintenance Efficiency Similar for all options. Similar for all options. Similar for all options.


Economic Impacts

Capital/construction costs Higher excavation costs due to number of buildings. Lower excavation costs due to number of buildings. Higher ring road & excavation costs

Long term/operation & maintenance cost burden Similar for all options. Similar for all options. Similar for all options.

Payment structure, cost recovery options for Municipality, Phasing Flexibility

Expansion to south is preferable from a phasing perspective. Re-use of R&M Facilities is possible.

Expansion to south is preferable from a phasing perspective. Re-use of R&M Facilities more difficult.

Expansion to south is preferable from a phasing perspective. Re-use of Proposed R&M Facilities is

possible.Economic Ranking

Overall Ranking:

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Deta

iled

Eval

uatio

n Forcemain Routing Design Concepts & Short List Evaluation


Evaluation CriteriaConcept FM – 3 (A & B) Concept FM - 4

Forcemain From R&M Homes WWTP via R&M Homes future subdivision & CR 13.

Forcemain From R&M Homes WWTP via Barzo Lands future subdivision & CR 13.

Natural Environment Impacts

Impacts of the option to vegetation, wildlife & the Natural Environment

Discharge pipe would need to be constructed in existing Environmental Setback. MitigationMeasures will be required.

Same discharge pipe impacts as Concept FM 3.

Surface/groundwater quality implicationsLess dewatering as there are no watercourse crossings.

Less dewatering as there are no watercourse crossings.


Social / Cultural Environment Impacts

Land Use & Archaeological Considerations (Including First Nations)

Alignment will require a Stage 2 Archeological Assessment. Easement required for FM.

Alignment will require a Stage 2 Archeological Assessment. Easement required for FM.

Traffic impacts & interruption to residentsConstruction impacts limited to County Road 13

Construction impacts on County Road 13, slightly less than FM - 1 due to shorter length.

Visual landscape/Aesthetic impacts Minimal visual impact. Minimal visual impact.



Difficulty to construct or implement the Option relative to other alternatives

Moderate Forcemain depth but requires the longest run of pipe. This option follows the approved draft plan road layout for the R&M Homes Subdivision.

Moderate Forcemain depth, requires less pipe length than Concept FM – 3, but follows an unapproved subdivision plan within the Barzo Lands.

Operation & Maintenance Efficiency Single SPS will require regular maintenance. Single SPS will require regular maintenance.


Economic Impacts

Capital/construction costsCapital Costs of Forcemain is expected to be approximately $400,000

Capital Costs of Forcemain are expected to be slightly greater than $400,000.

Long term/operation & maintenance cost burdenLowest maintenance cost due to single SPS and shallower sewers.

Similar maintenance costs as Concept FM - 3

Payment structure, cost recovery options for Municipality, Phasing Flexibility

Flexible recovery as alignment allows for installation in approved R&M Homes draft plan of subdivision lands.

Less flexible as alignment is located within lands without an approved draft plan of subdivision.

Economic Ranking

Overall Ranking:Less Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred

Concept FM-3

Concept FM-4

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Con

clus

ion

& N

ext S

teps

Summary of Recommended Design ConceptsThe recommended overall preferred design concept for the Everett WWTP and Outfall includes the following Preferred Concepts for WWTP Location, Wastewater Process Design, Site Plan Design & Forcemain Alignment & Outfall Location respectively:

• WWTP to be located north-east of R&M Homes Subdivision (Option WWT-9 as per the Everett Secondary Plan MSP);

• Wastewater Treatment & Process to be MBR with no primary clarification and offsite disposal of solids (Design Strategy WWP-5);

• WWTP Site Plan to include buffer between Office and Equipment Room with Headworks & MBR to the South (Design Concept SP-3);

• Forcemain Alignment shall go west through the R&M Homes property, Outfall Design Concept FM-3 with Mitigation Option B (effluent polishing) to be investigated at the detailed design stage.


Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Con

clus

ion

& N

ext S

teps


Potential Impact Mitigation Strategy

Surface Water Quality & Monitoring of Effluent

From WWTP

• Investigation of Concept FM-3B - Discharge treated effluent to a rehabilitated gravel pit west of County Road 13

• Nutrient offsetting and downstream monitoring of nutrient loading are proposed• Proposed WWTP effluent objective is 0.05mg/L for Total Phosphorus, approximately

half of the allowable discharge within the Pine River Assimilative capacity• The Certificate of Approval for the WWTP will require, that effluent quality is monitored

and effluent limits and objectives are achieved

Infringement on Environmental Protection and Hazard Setback Areas

• Outlet pipe alignment to be located within existing road right of way until pipe reaches northern boundary of natural areas west of County Road 13

• Outlet to go through former quarry lands to minimize impacts to environmental/hazard areas

Stormwater Management & Drainage

• Engineering & Landscape design for WWTP Site and FM Alignment to be designed to match existing drainage patterns and in accordance with Township and NVCA Requirements

Removal of Trees & Vegetation

• Recommended Solution minimizes impacts to existing vegetation• Restore Construction areas with native species

Residential Impacts (Noise, Odour & Visual

Impacts)

• WWTP Architectural Design should compliment surrounding community (e.g. Creemore "Barn" WWTP)

• Detailed WWTP Landscape design should include screening (i.e. berms, trees and other plantings)

• Detailed WWTP Site Plan design should include adequate buffers for noise and odour

Creemore WWTP

Source: www.canadianconsultingengineer.com

What is Mitigation?• Additional Considerations which

help to further reduce environmental impacts

• Example: Architectural design for the Creemore WWTP was made to blend into the rural landscape

Ever

ett C

omm

unity

WW

TP E

Apa

nel t

itle

Con

clus

ion

& N

ext S

teps


Potential Impact Mitigation Strategy

Sediment & Erosion Control • Sedimentation and erosion control strategies will be developed for each individual site prior to construction.

Disturbance to Trees & Vegetation

• Recommended Solution minimizes impacts to existing vegetation• Construction areas to be restored with native species

Traffic• Consultation with Ministry of Transportation, County of Simcoe, local utilities and school boards may be required

prior to or during construction.• Affected Property Owners will be notified in advance of construction schedule and duration.

Temporary Impacts (e.g. dust, noise & vibration)

• Construction activities will be limited to day-light hours to minimize impacts to residents.• Dust and storm water controls to be implemented during construction.

Next Steps• Conduct Agency and Public Consultations on the Recommended Preferred Design Concepts (this Open House);

• Incorporate PIC and Agency comments into the Final Design Concept Selection;

• Develop Implement Strategy preferred Design Concept

• Finalize the Environmental Study Report (ESR) and Publish Notice of Study Completion (Estimated Timing: July 2014); and,

• Place the ESR and Class EA Summary Report on public review and comment for a period of 30 days.

If no Part II Order Requests are received during the ESR 30 day review period , the Class EA would be concluded and the project would proceed to the implementation stage following the 30 day review period.

Download - title Process Everett Wastewater Treatment Plant Schedule ... Documents/27052014 Everett WWTP... · Everett Community WWTP EA panel title EA Process This Schedule “C” Environmental

Top Related