municipality of brighton brighton …. l. richards & associates limited jlr 27271 ii figures...

M

M

BRIGHTON

MUNICIPAL

MUNICIPAL

N WASTEW

CLASS ENV

PHASE 2 R

Ap

Su

203-863

Kingsto

K

JL

LITY OF BRI

WATER TREA

VIRONMEN

REPORT (D

ril 10, 2017

bmitted by:

3 Princess St

on, ON Cana

K7L 5N4

LR 27271

IGHTON

ATMENT SY

NTAL ASSES

DRAFT)

treet

ada

YSTEM

SSMENT

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

TABLE

1.0 IN

1

1

1

2.0 S

2

2

3.0 P

4.0 A

4

4

5.0 ID

5

5

5

5

5

5

6.0 P

6

6

7.0 C

ity of BrightonWastewater T

ards & Assoc

E OF CON

NTRODUCT

Backg.1

Class .2

Objec.3

SUMMARY O

Key F.1

Phase.2

PHASE 2 PU

ADDITIONAL

Waste.1

Recei.2

DENTIFICAT

Evalu.1

Waste.2

Detail.3

.3.1 Proba

.3.2 Proba

.3.3 Evalu

PREFERRED

Descr.1

Opinio.2

CONCLUSIO

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

NTENTS

TION ............

ground ........

Environmen

ctives of the

OF PHASE 1

Findings .......

e 1 Problem

UBLIC AND A

L AND UPDA

ewater Treat

ving Water A

TION OF WA

ation and Se

ewater Treat

ed Evaluatio

able Costs -

able Costs –

ation Overvi

D SOLUTION

ription of the

on of Probab

ONS AND NE

stem Class E

...................

...................

ntal Assessm

Class EA ....

1 FINDINGS

...................

and Opport

AGENCY CO

ATED SPEC

tment Requi

Assessment

ASTEWATE

election Met

tment Altern

on of Wastew

Capital Cost

Lifecycle Co

iew ..............

N .................

e Preferred A

ble Cost for

EXT STEPS

A

i

...................

...................

ment Proces

...................

S .................

...................

tunity Statem

ONSULTAT

CIALIZED ST

irements .....

t..................

ER TREATM

thodology ...

natives Cons

water Treatm

ts ...............

osts ............

...................

...................

Alternative...

Preferred So

..................

...................

...................

ss ................

...................

...................

...................

ment ............

ION ............

TUDIES ......

...................

...................

ENT ALTER

...................

sidered ........

ment Alterna

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

olution (inclu

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

RNATIVES ..

...................

...................

atives ..........

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

uding lifecyc

...................

JLR 2

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

...................

cle upgrades

...................

27271

...... 3

...... 3

...... 7

...... 9

...... 9

...... 9

.... 10

.... 11

.... 12

.... 12

.... 13

.... 13

.... 13

.... 14

.... 17

.... 17

.... 17

.... 18

.... 20

.... 20

s) .. 20

.... 21

Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 ii

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Brighton Municipal Class EA Study Location .............................................................. 5

Figure 1-2 Municipality of Brighton Wastewater System .............................................................. 6

Figure 1-3 Municipal Class EA Process ........................................................................................ 8

TABLES

Table 4-1 Effluent Compliance Limits – Waste Stabilization Pond (ECA No. 3081-9XQNZK) ... 12

Table 5-1 Description and Preliminary Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ......... 14

Table 5-2 Total Estimated Cost of Treatment Alternatives (2017 $) ........................................... 17

Table 5-3 Total Estimated Annual Operating Cost of Preferred Alternative (2017 $) ................. 18

Table 5-4 Detailed Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Public Consultation Summary

Appendix B – Detailed Treatment Technology Evaluation

Appendix C – Conceptual Layouts

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

1.0 INTR

Back1.1

The Mun

(Class E

experien

also to e

In order t

Richards

of the Cla

The Mun

Municipa

Quinte W

to the so

tends to

overview

The com

system (

and forc

Provincia

sewage

via a 8.2

gravity to

commun

As noted

collection

equipped

complete

to Butter


ards & Assoc

RODUCTION

kground

nicipality of

EA) of their w

ced with tre

nsure that in

to fully defin

s & Associat

ass EA.

nicipality inc

ality within th

West to the e

outh. Highw

be a region

w of the Muni

munal sewa

(currently ra

emain, a sm

al Park, and

generated in

km long, 30

o the Lagoo

al sewage s

d above, the

n system.

d with three

e with inlet a

Creek, and

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

N

Brighton (t

wastewater

eatment (e.g

ncreased inf

e the proble

es Limited (

ludes the fo

he County o

east and the

ay 401 prov

nal focus for

icipality and

age system g

ted for 4,60

mall sub-are

d several kil

n the collect

00 mm force

on treatment

system.

Harbour Str

The SPS g

e dry pit ce

and outlet pip

related instr

stem Class E

3

the Municip

treatment s

g. elevated a

fluent flows f

ems and iden

JLR) was re

ormer Town

of Northumb

Town of Cra

vides the ma

r hamlets in

study locati

generally co

00 m3/day),

ea sewage

ometers of

tion system

emain to the

t system. R

reet SPS rec

generally co

ntrifugal typ

ping, a stand

rumentation

A

3

pality) initiate

system in Au

ammonia co

from future g

ntify a prefer

etained by th

and Towns

berland. The

amahe to the

ain east-wes

n the surrou

on.

onsists of the

the Harbour

pumping sta

gravity colle

is directed

Lagoon trea

Refer to Fig

ceives sewa

onsists of a

pe raw sewa

dby diesel g

and controls

ed a Class

ugust 2016

oncentration

growth can b

rred solution

he Municipal

ship of Brigh

e Municipali

e west, with

st corridor th

nding areas

e Brighton W

r Street Sew

ation and fo

ection sewe

to the Harb

atment syste

gure 1-2 for

ge from app

a wet well/d

age pumps

generator, a

s for the sta

Phase 2

s Environme

to address

s in the trea

be effectivel

n to address

lity to assist

hton and is

ity is bound

the shorelin

hrough the M

s. Refer to

Wastewater T

wage Pump

orcemain se

er. Approxim

bour Street S

em and the o

an overview

proximately h

dry well con

(lead/lag/st

wet well em

tion.

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

ental Asses

various pro

ated effluen

y accommod

these issue

in the comp

the most ea

ed by the C

ne of Lake O

Municipality,

Figure 1-1

Treatment La

ing Station

ervicing Pres

mately half

SPS and pu

other half flo

w of the Br

half of the ex

nfiguration a

tandby oper

mergency ov

AFT)

27271

sment

oblems

t) and

dated.

es, J.L.

pletion

astern

City of

Ontario

which

for an

agoon

(SPS)

squ’ile

of the

umped

ows by

righton

xisting

and is

ration)

verflow

Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 4

The wastewater treatment system consists of a 0.68 ha single cell aerated lagoon followed by a

single cell 5.44 ha waste stabilization pond with baffle partition curtains followed by a 2-cell

constructed wetland with a total surface area of 6.2 ha. There is also a chemical storage/feed

system used to facilitate continuous phosphorus removal. Chemical is introduced after the

aerated lagoon and upstream of the waste stabilization pond. Treated effluent from the waste

stabilization pond is discharged continuously to the constructed wetland and from the

constructed wetland it continuously discharges to a natural wetland and ultimately to Presqu’ile

Bay, which is located off the northeast shore of Lake Ontario.

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca

JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes

other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.

JW

KTK

BH

27271

FIGURE 1-1

BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO

LOCATION PLAN

UV33

401

401UV25

UV30

UV64

L a k e O n t a r i o

Presqu'ileBay

Trenton

Brighton

Colborne

Trent River

Murray Canal

MUNICIPALITY OFBRIGHTON

L a k eO n t a r i o!.

Brighton Water PollutionControl Plant

Urban Development

MUNICIPALITYOF TRENT HILLS

TOWNSHIP OFALNWICK/HALDIMAND

CITY OF QUINTE WEST

TOWNSHIP OF CRAMAHE

MUNICIPALITY OF TRENT HILLS

COUNTY OFPRINCE EDWARDCOUNTY

UV29

UV21

UV25

UV64UV3

UV26

UV30

UV40

UV33

UV41

UV27UV5

UV31

UV28

UV2 UV2

Presqu'ileProvincial Park

File

Lo

catio

n:

K:\

27

00

0\2

72

71

- B

righ

ton

La

go

on

\JL

R D

WG

\Pla

n\2

72

71

Mu

nic

ipa

lity.

mxd

Plo

t D

ate

: D

ece

mb

er

6, 2

01

6 2

:49

:03

PM

¯

0 2 4 61Kilometers

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JW

KTK

BH

27271


SYSTEM MAP (PUMPING STATION(S), FORCEMAIN, LAGOON SITE)

FIGURE 1-2

Presqu'ileBay

BRIGHTON WASTEWATERTREATMENT SYSTEM

HARBOUR ST. SEWAGEPUMPING STATION

PRESQU'ILEPARK SEWAGE

PUMPING STATION

File

Lo

catio

n:

K:\

27

00

0\2

72

71

- B

righ

ton

La

go

on

\JL

R D

WG

\Pla

n\2

72

71

Sys

tem

Map

.mxd

Plo

t D

ate

: D

ece

mb

er

6, 2

01

6 2

:52

:09

PM

¯̄

LegendGravity Flow

Harbour StreetSewage Pumping Station

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

Clas1.2

The Onta

process

purpose

(R.S.O. 1

The Mun

review p

detailed

and stak

Municipa

the Act.

2015.

This Clas

undertak

Phase 1

parties th

File that

Schedule

the proje

Class EA

The Clas

Schedule

required:

P

P

The Proje

2 of the C

of the En

period, th


ards & Assoc

ss Environm

ario Environ

so that pote

of the Act i

1990, c.E.18

nicipal Class

rocess while

site-specific

keholder age

al Engineers

Updates a

ss EA has b

kings have th

and Phase

hat may pote

documents

e is reviewed

ect needs to

A process ar

ss EA frame

e B projects

:

Phase 1 – Ide

Phase 2 – Ide

ect File shal

Class EA pro

nvironment a

hen the proje

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

mental Asse

nmental Ass

ential enviro

s to provide

8, s.2).

s EA proces

e ensuring t

c information

encies. In

Association

nd amendm

been initiated

he potential

2 specified

entially be a

the Class E

d to determi

proceed as

re completed

ework define

s, the comp

entify the Pro

entify Alterna

ll be made a

ocess for a m

and Climate

ect may proc

stem Class E

7

essment Pro

essment Ac

onmental eff

e for the pro

ss is follow

that the pro

n gathering

1987 the fi

n (MEA) on

ments were s

d as a Sched

for significa

under the M

ffected by th

EA process

ine if the pro

a Schedule

d.

es the proce

pletion of th

oblem and/o

ative Solutio

available for

mandatory 3

Change (M

ceed to impl

A

7

ocess

ct (the Act) s

ffects are co

otection and

ed for comm

oject meets t

and studies

irst Class E

behalf of On

subsequentl

dule ‘B’ proj

ant environm

Municipal Cla

he project, a

for the proj

oject is comp

e C undertak

ess for each

he following

or Opportuni

ons to the Pr

public and a

30-day perio

MOECC) for a

ementation

sets out a p

onsidered b

conservatio

mon types

the requirem

s, as well as

EA guidance

ntario Munic

y made in 1

ect. Projects

mental effect

ass EA. This

and the prep

ject. At the

plete under

king in which

type of pro

g Phases of

ity

roblem and/o

agency revie

d. If there a

a ‘Part II Or

(Phase 5).

Phase 2

planning and

efore a proj

on of the na

of projects

ments of the

s consultatio

e document

cipalities wa

1993, 2000,

s categorize

ts, and are

s includes co

paration of a

e end of Pha

a Schedule

h case Phas

oject (refer to

f the Class

or Opportun

ew at the com

are no reque

rder’ within t

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

d decision-m

oject begins.

atural enviro

to streamlin

e Act. It inv

on with the

prepared b

s approved

2007, 2011

ed as Sched

required to

onsultation w

a Class EA P

ase 2, the p

‘B’ Schedul

ses 3 and 4

o Figure 1-3

EA proces

ity

mpletion of P

ests to the M

this 30-day r

AFT)

27271

making

. The

nment

ne the

volves

public

by the

under

1, and

ule ‘B’

follow

with all

Project

project

le or if

of the

3). For

ss are

Phase

Ministry

review

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

Obje1.3

The obje

for the m

sewage s

The purp

including

Problem

Report a

and sum

2.0 SUM

Key 2.1

The follo

T

sa

m

su

o

w

T

p

ef

th

st

(w

A

ex

ov

in

th

T

tr


ards & Assoc

ectives of th

ective of this

main sewag

system over

pose of this

g providing a

Statement d

lso summar

marizes age

MMARY OF

Findings

wing are som

The raw sew

amples each

municipal wa

uggests that

ther sources

was originally

The main co

articular, am

ffluent) and

he six year

tabilization p

wetland) was

A detailed re

xisting syst

verloading,

nefficient ae

hroughout th

he wetland

reatment with

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

he Class EA

Class EA is

ge pumping

r a 20-year p

Report is t

a review of

determined d

izes Phase

ency and pub

PHASE 1 F

me of the ke

wage is rel

h year falling

astewater.

t non-reside

s) may be s

y designed fo

ncern over

mmonia con

objectives (

s reviewed,

pond. There

s not met in

eview of the

tem experie

potential sh

eration, rap

he year.

portion of th

h the except

stem Class E

9

A

s to identify t

station and

planning per

to summariz

the various

during Phas

1 findings (b

blic consulta

INDINGS

ey Phase 1 f

atively “hig

g in the rang

Some maxi

ential contrib

ignificant an

or treating.

the past sev

ncentration

(wetland effl

, the ECA

e are no lim

five of the s

e wastewate

ences a n

hort circuitin

id sludge a

he treatmen

tion of some

A

9

the preferred

d associated

iod.

ze the result

options tha

e 1 and to re

based on a s

ation activitie

findings:

h strength”

ge of literatur

mum values

butions to the

nd may be lo

veral years

has exceed

luent) on se

limits for to

its specified

ix years rev

er treatment

number of

g, and limit

accumulatio

t system do

e marginal de

d strategies

d forcemain

ts of Phase

at have bee

ecommend

separate rep

es;

for a dom

re values for

s are report

e waste stre

oading the la

is related to

ded the EC

everal occas

otal phosph

d in the ECA

iewed.

t system pe

challenges

ted hydraulic

n, and poo

oes not appe

ecreases in

Phase 2

for wastewa

n for the Br

e 2 of the C

en considere

a preferred

port complete

mestic sewa

r medium to

ted to be ev

eam (e.g. in

agoon at a

o treated eff

CA limits (s

sions. Addi

horous were

A for E. Coli,

erformance

including:

c detention

or ammonia

ear to be pro

Total Phosp

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

ater treatmen

righton com

Class EA pro

ed to addres

alternative.

ed for that P

ge, with m

high streng

ven higher.

dustrial was

higher rate t

fluent quality

stabilization

itionally, in f

e not met

, but the obj

indicates th

regular o

time, issue

a effluent q

oviding sign

phorus.

AFT)

27271

nt and

munal

ocess,

ss the

This

Phase)

onthly

th raw

This

stes or

than it

y. In

pond

four of

in the

jective

at the

rganic

s with

quality

nificant

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

D

a

S

U

ca

p

Phas2.2

Based on

problem/

The Brig

collection

continuo

stabilizat

removal.

(ECA) N

The syst

projected

increase

approxim

Based on

determin

required

Phospho

configura

raw sewa

the treate

the organ

of the tre

of concer

In additio

part of Ph

within the

is require


ards & Assoc

Due to the

pproximately

Street SPS a

Updated pop

apacity of th

lanning perio

se 1 Problem

n the informa

/opportunity

ghton comm

n sewers,

usly dischar

tion pond, a

The treatm

No. 3081-9XQ

tem currently

d to occur w

hydraulic lo

mately 60% t

n an evalua

ned that the

by ECA N

orus. A revie

ation of the L

age combine

ed effluent e

nic loadings

eatment syst

rn.

on, the Harb

hase 1 of th

e next 7 yea

ed.

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

age and

y $500,000

nd Lagoon i

pulation and

he existing tr

od for this st

m and Oppo

ation develo

statement w

munal sewag

a main pu

rged lagoon

constructed

ment system

QNZK which

y services a

within the 2

oading to th

to 70% of its

ation of the a

treatment s

No. 3081-9X

ew of histori

Lagoon bas

ed with phys

exceedances

received fro

tem is not pr

our Street S

e Class EA.

ars approxim

stem Class E

1

condition o

in infrastruc

s required o

flow projec

reatment sys

tudy.

ortunity Sta

oped and an

was develope

ge system

umping stat

based treat

d wetland an

is currently

h stipulates

an estimated

20 year plan

he treatment

s ECA rated

available op

system has

XQNZK, pa

rical raw sew

sed treatmen

sical limitatio

s. The syste

om the collec

roviding any

SPS and the

Due to the

mately $500,0

A

10

of the exist

cture rehabi

over approxim

ctions show

stem is not a

atement

alyzed durin

ed for the pr

generally co

tion, a sma

tment system

d a continuo

y licensed un

certain ope

d population

nning period

t system. Th

“hydraulic” c

perational his

s regular dif

articularly fo

wage quality

nt system, in

ons of the tr

em, as curre

ction system

y significant

Lagoon bas

age and co

000 in infras

ting infrastr

ilitation and

mately the n

w that the cu

anticipated t

ng Phase 1 o

roject:

onsists of s

aller sub-ar

m that inclu

ous chemica

nder Environ

erational and

n of 6462 an

d that will g

The system i

capacity.

storical trea

fficulties in a

or ammonia

y, hydraulic i

ndicates that

reatment sys

ently configu

m. Further th

treatment w

sed treatmen

ndition of th

structure reh

Phase 2

ucture, it i

maintenanc

next 7 years.

urrently app

to be exceed

of this Class

several kilom

rea pumpin

udes an aera

al feed syste

nmental Com

d performan

nd some pop

generate add

is currently

ted effluent

achieving th

a and in so

input and th

t the relati

ystem is the

ured, is not c

he constructe

with respect

nt system we

e existing in

abilitation an

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

s estimated

ce at the Ha

.

proved ECA

ded in the 20

s EA, the foll

meters of g

g station a

ation cell, a

em for phosp

mpliance Ap

nce requirem

pulation gro

ditional flow

only operat

data, it has

he effluent q

ome cases

he overall ph

ively high str

primary cau

capable of tr

ed wetland p

to the param

ere evaluate

nfrastructure,

nd maintena

AFT)

27271

d that

arbour

rated

0-year

lowing

gravity

and a

waste

phorus

proval

ments.

owth is

ws and

ting at

s been

quality

Total

hysical

rength

use for

reating

portion

meters

ed as

,

ance



3.0 PHASE 2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION

The Class EA process requires consultation with parties that may potentially be affected by the

project. As part of Phase 2, the consultation plan developed in Phase 1 was followed in order to

facilitate communication with the public and various agencies and other interested parties. Refer

to Appendix A for the Phase 2 Public Consultation Summary and supporting documentation.

Key components of Phase 2 Stakeholder consultation include:

Reviewing the Public Consultation Plan (developed in Phase 1)

Project Team/Committee Meetings

Responding to Public Stakeholder Comments

Responding to Review Agency Comments

Maintaining Project Mailing List and Contacts

Public Information Centre

Notice of Completion

Key consultation correspondence from Phase 2 is included in Appendix A. A brief summary of

some of the key results of this consultation is presented below:

MOECC - The MOECC reviewed the Phase 1 Report and other available information on

the project and determined that the existing effluent limits will remain in place. The

Ministry noted that the Class EA evaluation should consider that some add-on treatment

options could provide incidental improvements in overall effluent quality. Improvements in

BOD and TSS in addition to ammonia were of particular interest in to the MOECC. The

MOECC indicated that they do not anticipate giving credit to the effluent quality

improvements that the constructed wetland may provide.

MNRF – The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) provided general

information on the databases available. It was also noted that any expansions of the

existing infrastructure should not be placed within the Provincially Significant Wetland

(adjacent to the engineered wetland). A site assessment was also recommended to

identify the presence of any Species at Risk and/or their habitat.

A mandatory Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held in advance of finalizing this Phase 2

Report. The PIC will solicit additional input for consideration in establishing the final preferred

alternative.

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

4.0 ADD

Phase 1

relevant

properly

Some ad

outlined

Trea4.1

The was

evaluatio

Class EA

lagoon is

increase

The exis

The MOE

During th

effect as

focus on

phospho

forward i

some inc

correspo

Table 4-

CBO

Tota

Amm

Tota

Note** fro


ards & Assoc

DITIONAL C

of the Clas

existing con

identified a

dditional key

below.

ated Effluen

tewater trea

on of project

A and based

s anticipated

to the ECA

ting ECA co

ECC was co

his consulta

part of this

addressing

rous. The M

into prelimin

cidental imp

ondence with

1 Existing E

Para

OD5

al Suspended

monia + Amm

al Phosphoru

es: * from Maom Novemb

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

CONDITIONS

ss EA involv

nditions and

nd evaluate

conditions a

nt Requirem

atment syste

ed growth w

d on this eva

d to be less

rated capac

ompliance re

onsulted nea

tion, it was

s undertaking

g the issues

MOECC indic

nary design,

provements

h the MOECC

Effluent Com

ameter

d Solids

monium Nitr

us

ay 01 to Octer 01 to Apr

stem Class E

1

S AND CON

ved problem

constraints

ed in consid

and constra

ments

em is rated f

within the se

aluation, the

s than the c

city during th

equirements

ar the end of

confirmed t

g. It was no

associated

cated that du

considerati

in the trea

C is provide

mpliance Li

Conin

30

40

ogen 1417.

1

tober 30 ril 30

A

12

NSTRAINTS

m/opportunity

to ensure th

deration of a

ints were als

for an Avera

rvice area w

20-year des

current rate

his time perio

s for the trea

f Phase 1 an

that the cur

oted by the M

with ammo

uring the eva

ion should b

atment of T

d in the Con

imits – Was

ncentration Effluent

0.0 mg/L

0.0 mg/L

.0 mg/L * 0 mg/L **

.0 mg/L

y definition,

hat feasible

all of the pr

so confirmed

age Day Flo

was undertak

sign average

ed capacity

od.

atment syste

nd early on i

rrent ECA re

MOECC tha

onia remova

aluation of o

be given to

TSS and cB

nsultation Su

ste Stabiliza

Loading iEffluent

138.0 kg/d

184.0 kg/d

64.4 kg/da78.2 kg/day

4.6 kg/da

Phase 2

which includ

alternative s

roject specif

d early on in

ow (ADF) of

ken as part

e day raw s

and there is

em are outli

into Phase 2

equirements

at enhanced

al and to a l

ptions in Ph

alternatives

BOD5. Docu

ummary (Ap

ation Pond

in t

Non-

day Annu

day Annu

ay * y **

Mont

ay Mont

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

ded identify

solutions co

fic circumsta

n Phase 2 an

4,600 m3/da

of Phase 1

ewage flow

s no need

ined in Tabl

2 of the Clas

s are to rem

treatment s

esser exten

ase 2 and m

s that can p

mentation o

pendix A).

-compliance

ual Average

ual Average

thly Average

thly Average

AFT)

27271

ing all

uld be

ances.

nd are

ay. An

of this

to the

for an

le 4-1.

ss EA.

main in

should

nt total

moving

rovide

of this

e

e

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

Rece4.2

Based on

the rated

was deem

5.0 IDEN

Eval5.1

The mai

solutions

solutions

wastewa

It is also

“generali

typically

develope

Class EA

In order

transpare

In

D

S

The first

those alt

alternativ

Based o

conducte

experien

conducte

N

E

S

F


ards & Assoc

eiving Wate

n the above

d capacity is

med not to b

NTIFICATIO

uation and

n objective

s to the prob

s to the prob

ter projects

important to

zed solution

further exp

ed during a p

A process an

to facilitate

ent and logic

nitial screeni

Detailed eval

Selection of a

evaluation s

ternatives th

ves are not c

on the initia

ed. Evaluatio

ce on simila

ed using crite

Natural Envir

Engineering a

Social and Co

inancial Imp

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

er Assessm

e-noted cons

s not require

be required.

ON OF WAST

Selection M

of Phase 2

blem(s) (and

blem(s), inc

generally re

o note that t

n” to the pro

plored as pa

preliminary a

nd referred to

the evaluat

cal three par

ng of alterna

uation of scr

a preferred a

stage consid

hat fully add

carried forwa

al screening

on criteria w

ar assessme

erion in the f

ronment and

and Technic

ommunity W

pacts

stem Class E

1

ent

sultation with

ed for this p

TEWATER

Methodolog

of a Class

/or opportun

luding the ‘

esult in the id

the objective

oblem and

art of Phas

and detailed

o as Implem

tion and sel

rt assessme

atives;

reened alter

alternative.

ders the ove

ress the pro

ard to a more

g, a detaile

were develop

ents and in c

following fou

Archeology

cal Considera

Well Being

A

13

h the MOEC

particular und

TREATMEN

gy

s EA is to id

nities) identif

Do Nothing’

dentification

e of Phase

not necessa

se 3 of a S

d design stag

mentation).

lection of th

nt process w

rnatives; and

erall feasibilit

oblem statem

e detailed ev

ed assessm

ped based on

consultation

ur major crite

y

ations

CC and give

dertaking, a

NT ALTERN

dentify and

fied in Phas

’ option, are

and review

2 is to focus

arily all of th

Schedule C

ge (i.e. inclu

he preferred

was establis

d

ty of the pot

ment. This

valuation sta

ment of the

n a review o

with Munici

eria categori

Phase 2

en the fact th

a receiving w

NATIVES

evaluate po

se 1. All rea

e considered

of a broad r

s on a deter

he intricate

Class EA

uded as part

solutions d

hed. This p

tential soluti

step ensure

age.

short list

of the backgr

ipal staff. Th

ies:

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

hat an incre

water asses

ossible alter

asonable po

d. Class EA

range of solu

rmining an o

details whic

and then f

of Phase 5

during Phase

rocess inclu

ons and ide

es that unre

of alternativ

round inform

he evaluatio

AFT)

27271

ase in

sment

rnative

otential

As for

utions.

overall

ch are

further

of the

e 2, a

uded:

entifies

ealistic

ves is

mation,

on was

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

Once th

alternativ

a preferre

Initia5.2

Several a

support a

Table 5-

Option 1

1) Do no

Option 2

2A) Remcells

2B) Optimupgrade/

2C) Modvolume a


ards & Assoc

he detailed

ve(s) was ide

ed alternativ

al Screening

alternatives

a recommen

1 Descriptio

Alternativ

: Do nothing

thing

: Optimize/M

move sludge

mize baffle d/refurbish ex

ify lagoon opand/or aerati

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

evaluation

entified for p

ve.

g of Alterna

are presente

ndation to eit

on and Prel

ve

g

Modify Curre

from lagoon

design and xisting baffle

perating on

stem Class E

1

was com

presentation

atives

ed in Table 5

ther carry the

liminary Eva

ReviewenvironmECA limThis optaddress

Recomm

nt Lagoon O

n Reviewaddressshould o

Recommto be co

s Review(Cell Noown but improvinnot meeonly con

Recommto be co

Reviewsystem identifiedof the otAdding aassociat

Recomm

A

14

pleted, a

n to stakehol

5-1 along wi

e alternative

aluation of

Re

: This optionment as efflu

mits and couldtion has not s the problem

mendation:

Operations

: Sludge rems the identifieonly be cons

mendation:onsidered in

: Optimizingo. 2) will not a

it should prong lagoon reeting ECA rensidered in c

mendation:onsidered in

: Previous uhave provend problems. ther options additional lated with amm

mendation:

recommend

lders and to

ith a summa

e forward for

Wastewate

eview/Recom

n would haveuent would lid also resultbeen carried

m.

Do not car

moval has pred issues onsidered in co

Carry forwn combinat

g baffle desigaddress all t

rovide some etention timeequirements.combination

Carry forwn combinat

upgrades to tn not to be e

A new aerabeing carrie

agoon volummonia treatm

Do not car

Phase 2

ded preferre

o solicit input

ary of the rev

r further eva

er Treatmen

mmendation

e a negativeikely continut in fines to td forward as

rry forward

roven in the n its own. Thombination w

ward but onltion with oth

gn in the stathe identifiedadditional tr

e and reduce. This alternawith other o

ward but onltion with oth

the existing effective in adation systemed forward (se will not ad

ment.

rry forward

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

ed alternati

t prior to fina

view carried

luation or no

t Alternativ

n

e effect on thue to exceedthe Municipas it does not

past to not his alternativewith other op

ly as an opther alternat

bilization pod problems oreatment by e overall riskative should

options.

ly as an opther alternat

lagoon aeraddressing th is part of sosee below). ddress the is

AFT)

27271

ve or

alizing

out to

ot.

ves

he d the ality.

e ptions.

tion tives

ond on its

ks in be

tion tives

ation he ome

ssues



2D) Optimize alum dosage for phosphorous removal

Review: Optimizing alum dosage will not address all of the identified problems on its own but should help to resolve the issues with periodic phosphorous exceedances from the lagoon.

Recommendation: Carry forward but only as an option to be considered in combination with other alternatives

2E) Upgrade/refurbish the constructed wetland

Review: Refurbishing the wetland is not anticipated to address all of the identified issues on its own. Initial conversations with the MOECC suggest that the effluent objects on the wetland are for data collection purposes only. Refurbishing the wetland, however, may provide some additional treatment and reduce overall risks in not meeting ECA requirements.


1F) Investigate and divert any identified high strength waste streams away from the lagoon system

Review: As part of the preferred alternative, the Municipality should continue to work with its ICI customers in the community to assess options for reducing high strength sewage discharges to the collection system. Reducing the strength of the influent loading to the lagoon system will assist in mitigating risks of impacts to the existing treatment system (and any new systems) and the resulting treated effluent concentrations.


Option 3: Install Specialized Treatment System to Complement the Existing Lagoon System

3A) Install complete mix activated sludge process upstream of existing lagoons (e.g. Biolac Treatment System)

Review: These options (Option 3) have all been reviewed based on information received from technology providers and all have the potential to meet the current effluent criteria and address the key issues in the problem statement.

Recommendation: Carry forward

3B) Upgrade aeration in the existing aeration cell and install submerged aerated bio-film reactors in the existing stabilization pond (e.g. WCS Bio-Shell)

3C) Upgrade/expand aeration in the existing cells and install an attached growth reactor following the existing stabilization pond (e.g. SAGR)

3D) Add pre-screening and install a fixed film biological treatment process upstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. SMBR, MBBR)



3E) Upgrade aeration in the existing aeration cell and install a fixed film biological treatment process downstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. SMBR, MBBR)

3F) Add pre-screening and install a bioreactor with activated sludge process and membrane technology upstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. MBR)

Option 4: New Mechanical Treatment Plant

4) Replace lagoon completely with a new mechanical treatment plant

Review: This option has the proven ability to meet the current effluent criteria and address the key issues in the problem statement; however, the costs are anticipated to be much higher than the other options and significant changes to the site and operations would be required making it unaffordable to the Municipality. Costs are estimated to be $15M to $25M with annual operating costs in the $750,000 range.

Recommendation: Do not carry forward

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

Deta5.3

5.3.1 P

An Opini

accuracy

that have

similar pr

5.3.2 P

Based o

facilities,

summari

assumed

operation

phospho


ards & Assoc

ailed Evalua

Probable Co

on of Proba

y was develo

e not fully be

rojects, profe

Table 5

Option 2: O 2a. Rem 2b. Upg 2d. Opt 2e. Ref 2f. DiveOption 3: In 3a. Com 3b. Sub 3c. Sub 3d. Fixe 3e. Fixe 3f. ActivNotes:

1. Esti2. Inclu

des3. Inclu4. Inclu

Probable Co

on the cost

the annua

zed in Tab

d that the t

ns staff and

rous remova

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

ation of Was

osts - Capita

ble Construc

oped for eac

een develop

essional jud

5-2 Total Es

Optimize/Modmove sludgegrade/refurbiimize alum durbish the coert high strennstall Speciamplete Mix Abmersible Aebmerged Attaed Film Bioloed Film Biolovated Sludge

mated cost oudes compuign and newudes aeratioudes upgrad

osts – Lifecy

of existing

al operating

ble 5-3. For

treatment sy

electricity co

al system an

stem Class E

1

stewater Tre

al Costs

ction Costs

ch of the alte

ped. The OP

gment, and

stimated Co

Option

dify Current e from lagoonish existing bdosage (studonstructed wngth waste s

alized TreatmActivated Sluerated Bio-Fached Growtogical Proceogical Procee with Memb

of full desludutational flu

w, as well as on upgrades ded/expande

ycle Costs

operations

g costs of

r the purpo

ystem is op

osts for blow

nd equipmen

A

17

eatment Alt

(OPCC) with

ernates and

PCC’s were

equipment c

ost of Treatm

Lagoon Open cells 1. baffles 2. dy componewetland streams ment Systemudge Procesilm Reactorsth Reactor 4

ss – upstreass – downst

brane Techn

dging of aeraid dynamicsmodified bain existing a

ed aeration i

and informa

each parti

ses of esta

perating at

wers and pu

nt replaceme

ternatives

h a Class ‘D

includes all

developed

costs provide

ment Altern

erations

ent only)

m to the Exisss s 3. 4. am tream 3. nology

ation and stas (CFD) mo

affles in the saeration celln both exist

ation from s

cular treatm

ablishing op

its ECA ra

mps. Chem

ent costs hav

Phase 2

D’ (Indicative

owances fo

based on pa

ed by suppli

natives (201

EstimatedCost (20

$ 1,000$ 300,$ 30,0$150,0

No on-sitting Lagoon

$4.5$4.5$7.0$4.5$3.0

$10.0

abilization podelling to stabilization . ing cells.

suppliers an

ment altern

perational co

ated capacit

ical costs as

ve not been

2 Report (DRA

JLR 2

Estimate) le

r design ele

ast experien

iers.

17 $)

d Capital 017 $)

0,000 000

000 000 te cost System

5M 5M

M 5M

M 0M

ond. optimize pond.

nd similarly

ative have

osts it has

ty. Costs in

ssociated w

included.

AFT)

27271

evel of

ments

nce on

sized

been

been

nclude

ith the



Table 5-3 Estimated Annual Operational Costs of Treatment Alternatives (2017 $)

Option Estimated Operations Cost

($/year) 3a. Complete Mix Activated Sludge Process $200,000 3b. Submersible Aerated Bio-Film Reactors $200,000 3c. Submerged Attached Growth Reactor $300,000 3d. Fixed Film Biological Process - upstream $200,000 3e. Fixed Film Biological Process - downstream $200,000 3f. Activated Sludge with Membrane Technology Info not provided by supplier

5.3.3 Evaluation Overview

Table 5-5 summarizes the detailed evaluation of the screened alternatives for the treatment

system. Each option was assigned an evaluation impact level (refer to Table 5-4) for each

evaluation criteria. This method provides an overall assessment of the positive and negative

impacts of each alternative. This method was used as it is recognized that there could be more

than one option or technology that can address the problem and that additional consideration of

these technologies could be undertaken either as part of a Phase 3 (i.e. Schedule C continuation

of this Class EA) or as part of a pre-design stage. For the detailed evaluation refer to Appendix

B.

Table 5-4 Evaluation Impact Level

Evaluation Impact Level Indicator

Potential for Positive Impact +1

No Anticipated Impact 0

Potential for Negative Impact -1

Appendix C contains conceptual layouts of each of the technologies and how they could be

integrated into the existing site.



Table 5-5 Summary Evaluation Matrix M

AJO

R C

RIT

ER

IA

MINOR CRITERIA

OP

T 3

A

CO

MP

LE

TE

MIX

A

CT

IVA

TE

D

SL

UD

GE

P

RO

CE

SS

OP

T 3

B

SU

BM

ER

SIB

LE

A

ER

AT

ED

BIO

-F

ILM

RE

AC

TO

RS

OP

T 3

C

SU

BM

ER

GE

D

AT

TA

CH

ED

G

RO

WT

H

RE

AC

TO

R

OP

T 3

D

FIX

ED

FIL

M

BIO

LO

GIC

AL

P

RO

CE

SS

(U

PS

TR

EA

M)

OP

T 3

E

FIX

ED

FIL

M

BIO

LO

GIC

AL

P

RO

CE

SS

(D

OW

NS

TR

EA

M)

OP

T 3

F

AC

TIV

AT

ED

S

LU

DG

E W

ITH

M

EM

BR

AN

E

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

NA

TU

RA

L

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AN

D

AR

CH

AE

OL

OG

Y

Effect on Fish and Aquatic Habitat

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

Effect on Wetlands, Woodlands, Wildlife

Habitat 0 0 -1 0 0 0

Effect on Archeological

Potential Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G A

ND

TE

CH

NIC

AL

C

ON

SID

ER

AT

ION

S

Proven Cold Weather

Installations +1 -1 +1 +1 +1 -1

Ability to Meet Effluent Criteria

+1 0 +1 +1 +1 +1

Degree of Process Control

+1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1

Ease of Operation -1 +1 +1 0 0 -1

Capability with existing site

+1 +1 -1 +1 0 +1

Opportunities for Future Expansion

+1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1

SO

CIA

L/

CO

MM

UN

ITY

W

EL

L B

EIN

G

Impacts During Construction

0 0 -1 0 0 0

Compatibility with Surrounding Land

Use and Visual Impact

0 0 -1 0 0 0

Noise and Odour Effects during

Operation +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

Maintenance (Short Term and Long Term Requirements)

-1 -1 0 -1 +1 -1

Capital Cost 0 0 -1 0 +1 -1

TOTAL 5 0 -2 6 8 2

MunicipalBrighton W

J. L. Richa

6.0 PRE

Desc6.1

Based o

Specializ

overall n

redundan

construct

identified

overall p

technolog

refurbish

particula

process

overall be

The main

P

A

C

E

M

In additio

has seve

C

P

M

m

Opin6.2

An Opini

accuracy

Allowanc


ards & Assoc

EFERRED S

cription of t

on the evalu

zed Treatme

et benefit to

ncy and to ta

ted wetland

d in Option 2

referred sol

gy implemen

ing the con

r specialize

(3A) and th

enefit to the

n benefits of

Proven full sc

Ability to mee

Controlled pro

Easily expand

Moderate upf

on, the fixed

eral added be

Comparativel

Potential for r

Manufacturer

measuremen

nion of Prob

on of Proba

y was deve

ces for desig

n Treatment Sys

ciates Limited

OLUTION

the Preferre

uation meth

ent System to

o the Municip

ake advanta

), this optio

2 – Optimizin

utions. This

ntation, upg

nstructed we

ed treatment

he fixed film

Municipality

f each of the

cale Canadia

et current eff

ocess that c

dable proces

front capital

d film biolog

enefits for co

ly lower cap

reduced nec

r’s warrante

t point)

bable Cost f

ble Construc

eloped for f

gn elements

stem Class E

2

ed Alternativ

hodology uti

o Compleme

pality. In ord

age of existin

n should be

ng and Modi

includes a

rading baffle

etland, and

t system to

m biological

y based on i

preferred so

an and cold

fluent criteria

can be adjus

ss with minim

costs and o

gical process

onsideration

ital cost inve

cessity to up

ee on effl

for Preferre

ction Costs

full impleme

s that have

A

20

ve

lized, it wa

ent the Exis

der to mitiga

ng facilities/i

e completed

fying Curren

very thoroug

es in the sta

diverting hi

o be selecte

process (3D

nformation a

olutions in O

weather inst

a, with qualit

sted to achie

mal capital c

ngoing oper

s located do

n by the mun

estment

grade aerati

uent qualit

ed Solution

(OPCC) with

entation of

not fully bee

as determine

ting Lagoon

ate risk and

nfrastructure

d in combina

nt Lagoon O

gh de-sludg

abilization po

igh waste s

ed, the com

D or 3E) ap

available at t

Option 3 are

tallations;

ty that is bet

eve consisten

cost to increa

rational costs

ownstream o

nicipality:

ion equipme

ty (with ef

(including

h a Class ‘D

all element

en develope

Phase

ed that Opt

n System pro

ensure app

e (i.e. the ex

ation with s

Operations as

ing program

ond, optimiz

streams. Wit

mplete mix

ppear to pr

this time.

the following

tter than cur

nt effluent qu

ase treatme

s.

of the stabil

ent in Cell 1

ffluent at

lifecycle up

D’ (Indicative

ts of the p

ed are includ

e 2 Report (DR

JLR 2

tion 3 - Ins

ovided the h

ropriate trea

xisting lagoo

some of the

s being part

m prior to an

zing alum do

th regards

activated s

ovide the h

g:

rent ECA lim

uality;

ent capacity;

lization pond

ECA comp

pgrades)

Estimate) le

preferred so

ded. The OP

RAFT)

27271

stall a

highest

atment

on and

items

of the

y new

osage,

to the

sludge

highest

mits;

and

d (3E)

pliance

evel of

olution.

PCC’s



were developed based on past experience on similar projects, professional judgment, and

equipment costs provided by suppliers.

Table 6-1 Opinion of Probable Cost for Preferred Solution

Component Estimated Capital

Cost (2017 $) (Option 3E)

Install Specialized Treatment System $3,000,000 Remove sludge from lagoon cells $1,000,000 Upgrade/refurbish existing baffles $ 300,000 Optimize alum dosage (study component only) $ 30,000 Refurbish the constructed wetland $ 150,000 Complete Lifecycle Upgrades at SPS and Lagoon $ 500,000

Sub-Total $4,980,000 Engineering and Contingency (30%) $ 1,500,000

Grand Total (rounded) $ 6,500,000

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

A Public Information Centre will be held to inform the general public, project stakeholders, and

review agencies of the preliminary findings of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports and to obtain

input on the recommendation of the preferred alternative. In addition, the Phase 2 report will be

circulated to the MOECC for comment. Following the public meeting, receipt of comments from

affected parties and review agencies, and confirmation of a preferred alternative, the Municipality

will be in a position to post the Class EA Project File that documents the Class EA process. After

the 30-day period for comment closes the Municipality will be in a position to implement the

preferred option and proceed directly into preliminary design. The design would be based on the

analysis presented within this Schedule B and the conceptual layouts for the preferred

alternatives identified in Phase 2 that take the environmental factors into consideration (e.g.

potential impacts to the constructed wetland, etc.).

Alternatively, the Municipality may elect to further define the technologies presented as part of

Option 3 (each of which would meet the treatment level criteria) by undertaking a Schedule C

Class EA.

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix A

Appendix A

Public Consultation Summary

J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix B

Appendix B

Detailed Treatment Technology Evaluation

MAJOR C

NATUENVIRO

ANARCHAE

ENGINEAND TEC

CONSIDE

CRITERIA

URAL ONMENT ND EOLOGY

E

E

EERING CHNICAL RATIONS

D

E

MINOR CRITE

Effect on FishAquatic Hab

Effect on WetlaWoodlands

Wildlife Habi

Effect on Archeologic

Potential Impa

Proven ColWeather

Installation

Ability to MeEffluent Crite

Degree of ProControl &

Availability Performanc

Guarantee

Ease of Opera

Capability wexisting site HGL, electricservicing, et

ERIA COM

h and itat

POSITdischaimprov

ands, s, itat

NO IMoccur wetlan

cal acts

NO IMpotent

ld

ns

POSITand cohowevenviro

eet eria

POSITbe proECA liAmmomg/L.

cess &

of ce e

POSITprocescontrorequirewould storag

ation NEGAmay reinput.

with (i.e. cal tc)

POSITbuildinfor RAelectricupgrad

OPT 3MPLETE MIX

SLUDGE PR

TIVE: Quality oarged to surfaceve.

MPACT: No conin the engineer

nd.

MPACT: No arctial has been id

TIVE: Numerouold weather insver, process sunmental condit

TIVE: High quaoduced that is bmits for all par

onia will be in th

TIVE: There aress variables thaolled. The existied for treatmenbe used for slue/stabilization.

ATIVE: Automaequire more reg

TIVE: No new tngs are requireAS would be bycal servicing wding.

3A X ACTIVATEDROCESS

of effluent e water will

nstruction will red or natural

cheological dentified on site

us Canadian/ stallations, ubject to extremtions.

ality effluent wilbetter than the rameters. he range of <5

e a number of at can be ing lagoon is nnt; however, it udge

ted process thagular operator

tankage or d; flow except

y gravity. Site would need

D SUBMEF

POSITIVdischargeimprove.

NO IMPAoccur in twetland.

e. NO IMPApotential

me

NEGATIVinstallatiocold weat

l

NO IMPAmeet the

ot

NEGATIVaerated bhigher delagoon alcontrol is be slow to

at POSITIVrequired o

POSITIVbuildings continue electrical upgrading

OPT 3BERSIBLE AERFILM REACT

E: Quality of efed to surface w

ACT: No constrthe engineered

ACT: No archeohas been iden

VE: No full scalons and limited ther installation

ACT: The efflueECA limits.

VE: The submebio-film reactorsegree of controone, however, limited and theo respond.

E: Limited opeonce establish

E: No new tankrequired, flow to be by gravitservicing woul

g.

RATED BIO-TORS

ffluent water will

ruction will d or natural

ological tified on site.

le Canadian number of ns generally.

ent quality will

ersible s have a l then a process e system may

rator input is ed.

kage or would y. Site ld need

SUBMEGROW

POSITIVE: Qdischarged timprove.

NEGATIVE: reduce the eby approxim

NO IMPACTpotential has

POSITIVE: Nand cold weahowever, suenvironment

POSITIVE: Hbe producedECA limits foAmmonia wimg/L.

NEGATIVE: growth reactdegree of coalone, howelimited and tto respond.

POSITIVE: Lrequired onc

NEGATIVE: Pumping maon the locatielectrical serupgrading.

OPT 3CRGED ATTAWTH REACT

Quality of efflueto surface wate

New treatmenengineered wetately 50%.

T: No archeologs been identifie

Numerous Canather installatiobject to extremtal conditions.

High quality effd that is better tor all parametell be in the rang

Submerged attors have a higontrol then a lagver, process cohe system may

Limited operatoce established.

New cells are ay be required don of reactor crvicing would n

ACHED TOR

ent er will

Pdim

t cells will tland area

Now

gical ed on site.

Np

nadian/ ons,

me

Pahe

fluent will than the

ers. ge of <5

PbEAra

ttached her goon ontrol is y be slow

Pfafihfo

or input is Nthin

required. depending ells. Site

need

Pbceu

OFIXED FILPROCESS

POSITIVE: Quadischarged to smprove.

NO IMPACT: Noccur in the engwetland.

NO IMPACT: Npotential has be

POSITIVE: Numand cold weathehowever, subjecenvironmental c

POSITIVE: Goobe produced thaECA limits for aAmmonia will beange.

POSITIVE: Theactors that canixed film biolog

however, the laor treatment.

NO IMPACT: Ahat may requirenput.

POSITIVE: No buildings are recontinue to be belectrical servicupgrading.

OPT 3DM BIOLOGICS (UPSTREA

ality of effluent urface water w

o construction gineered or nat

o archeologicaeen identified o

merous Canadier installationsct to extreme conditions.

od quality efflueat is better than

all parameters. e in the 5 – 15

ere are a numb be controlled

gical process; goon is still req

Automated proce periodic oper

new tankage oequired; flow woby gravity. Sitecing would need

CAL AM)

FP

will POSdiscimp

n will tural

NO newouts

al on site.

NO pote

ian/ s,

POSandhowenv

ent will n the

5 mg/L

POSbe pECAAmmrang

ber of in the

quired

POSfactfixedhowfor t

cess rator

NO thatinpu

or ould

e d

NO tankhavelecupg

OPTFIXED FILM ROCESS (DO

SITIVE: Qualitycharged to surfrove.

IMPACT: Miniw treatment cellside of the cons

IMPACT: No aential has been

SITIVE: Numer cold weather i

wever, subject tironmental con

SITIVE: Good qproduced that iA limits for all pmonia will be inge.

SITIVE: There ors that can bed film biologica

wever, the lagootreatment.

IMPACT: Autot may require put.

IMPACT: Newkage and a blowe a minimal foo

ctrical servicingrading.

T 3EBIOLOGICAOWNSTREA

y of effluent face water will

mal footprint ofl could be placestructed wetlan

archeological n identified on s

rous Canadianinstallations, to extreme nditions.

quality effluents better than th

parameters. n the 5 – 15 mg

are a number oe controlled in tal process; on is still requir

omated processperiodic operato

w downstream wer building wootprint. Site g may not need

L M)

ACTMEM

POSITdischaimprov

f ed nd.

NO IMoccur iwetland

site. NO IMpotenti

/ NEGATweathetemperC.

t will he

g/L

POSITbe prodECA limAmmomg/L.

of the

red

POSITprocescontrolexistingtreatme

s or

NEGATprocestime oprequire

ould

d

POSITbuildingfor RASelectricupgrad

OPT 3TIVATED SLUMBRANE TEC

IVE: Quality of rged to surfacee.

PACT: No consn the engineered.

PACT: No archal has been ide

TIVE: Limited ner installations, rature must be

IVE: High qualduced that is bemits for all parania will be in th

IVE: There ares variables thaled in this procg lagoon is not ent.

TIVE: A technics that may requperator input. M regular cleani

IVE: No new tags are requiredS would be by gcal servicing woing.

FUDGE WITH CHNOLOGY

effluent e water will

struction will ed or natural

heological entified on site.

number of cold influent above 9 deg.

ity effluent will etter than the

ameters. e range of <5

a number of t can be ess. The required for

cally advanced uire full/part

Membranes ng.

ankage or d; flow except gravity. Site ould need

.

d

MAJOR CRITERIA MINOR CRITERIA OPT 3A

COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS

OPT 3BSUBMERSIBLE AERATED BIO-

FILM REACTORS

OPT 3CSUBMERGED ATTACHED

GROWTH REACTOR

OPT 3DFIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (UPSTREAM)

OPT 3EFIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL

PROCESS (DOWNSTREAM)

OPT 3FACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY

Opportunities for Future Expansion

POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required additional aeration tubes can be added to the modules without the need for additional basins.

NEGATIVE: The number of units can be increased; however, the level of effort to install would be similar to a new installation.

NEGATIVE: The number of process cells could be increased; however, the level of effort would be relatively high and additional land would be required.

POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the quantity of the media in the basin can be increased at a low cost and without the need for additional basins.

POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the quantity of the media in the basin can be increased at a low cost without the need for additional basins.

POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the number of membrane modules can be increased, however, these are relatively high cost.

SOCIAL/ COMMUNITY WELL

BEING

Impacts During Construction

NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to the existing lagoon site and impacts to neighboring properties would be minimal.


NEGATIVE: Construction activities will take place in the wetland and may be disruptive to users of this area.


NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to a small footprint and impacts to the area during construction would cause minimal disruption.


Compatibility with Surrounding Land

Use and Visual Impact

NO IMPACT: All changes will be in existing lagoon, visible changes will be minor.


NEGATIVE: Changes in the wetland may not be compatible with current recreational use.


NO IMPACT: Minimal footprint outside of the constructed wetland would be expected..


Noise and Odour Effects during

Operation

POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.






J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix C

Appendix C

Conceptual Layouts

(COUNTY ROAD 64)

PRINCE EDWARD STREET

APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE

OPTION 3ASSFile L

ocati

on: K

:\270

00\27

271 -

Brigh

ton La

goon

\JLR

DWG\

Plan\2

7271

Opti

on 3A

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

1, 20

17 3:

15:12

PM

¯

0 100 200 30050Meters

Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.

New Blowers inExisting Building

New Treatment Tanks inExisting Cell #1

New Pre-ScreeningEquipment

StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)

EngineeredWetland

(COUNTY ROAD 64)


APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


SUBMERSIBLE AERATED BIO-FILM REACTORS

OPTION 3BSSFile L

ocati

on: K

:\270

00\27

271 -

Brigh

ton La

goon

\JLR

DWG\

Plan\2

7271

Opti

on 3B

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

0, 20

17 2:

01:48

PM0 100 200 30050

MetersNote: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.

¯


Upgrade Existing Aerationin Existing Cell # 1

New Treatment Systemin Existing Cell # 2


EngineeredWetland

(COUNTY ROAD 64)


APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


SUBMERGED ATTACHED GROWTH REACTOR

OPTION 3CSSFile L

ocati

on: K

:\270

00\27

271 -

Brigh

ton La

goon

\JLR

DWG\

Plan\2

7271

Opti

on 3C

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

1, 20

17 4:

05:24

PM

0 100 200 30050Meters


¯


New Aeration Equipmentin Cell # 1

Two New Treatment Cellsin Engineered Wetland( Covered in Peat or Mulch )


EngineeredWetland

New Supplemental AerationEquipment in Cell # 2

(COUNTY ROAD 64)


APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


FIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (UPSTREAM)

OPTION 3DSSFile L

ocati

on: K

:\270

00\27

271 -

Brigh

ton La

goon

\JLR

DWG\

Plan\2

7271

Opti

on 3D

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

0, 20

17 3:

32:20

PM

¯

0 100 200 30050Meters



New Treatment Tanks inPart of Existing Call #1



EngineeredWetland

(COUNTY ROAD 64)


APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


FIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (DOWNSTREAM)

OPTION 3ESSFile L

ocati

on: K

:\270

00\27

271 -

Brigh

ton La

goon

\JLR

DWG\

Plan\2

7271

Opti

on 3E

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

1, 20

17 3:

29:17

PM

0 100 200 30050Meters


¯

New Treatment Tankand Blower Building

Upgrade Existing Aeration inExisting Cell #1 (Optional)


EngineeredWetland

(COUNTY ROAD 64)


APPL

EWOO

D DR

IVE

HARBOUR STREET

DRAWING NO.:

DESIGN:

CHECKED:

DRAWN:

DRAWING:

PROJECT:

www.jlrichards.ca




JWKTK

27271


ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH MEMBRANE

OPTION 3FSSFile L

ocati

on: \\

kgdc

01\P

rojec

ts\27

000\2

7271

- Brig

hton L

agoo

n\JLR

DWG

\Plan

\2727

1 Opti

on 3F

.mxd

Plot D

ate: A

pril 1

0, 20

17 3:

29:04

PM

¯

0 100 200 30050Meters



New Treatment Tank inPart of Existing Call #1



EngineeredWetland

municipality of brighton brighton …. l. richards & associates limited jlr 27271 ii figures...

Documents