Post on 07-Feb-2018
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
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
This page intentionally left blank.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 2
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 3
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 4
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 5
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 6
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 7
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 8
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 9
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 10
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 11
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 12
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 13
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 14
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 15
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 16
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 17
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 18
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 19
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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/
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 20
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 21
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 22
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 23
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
Figure 3: Physiographic region
The Deseronto WWTP lies within the Napanee Plain.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 24
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
Figure 4: Bedrock Geology
The Deseronto WWTP lies on a Verulam formation comprised of inter-bedded limestone
and shale.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 25
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 26
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 27
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 28
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 29
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 30
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 31
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Maximum Month (kg/d) 401.3 468.3 349.2 406.3 679.1 72.0 751.1
TKN Loading
Average Day (kg/d) 36.3 49.3 42.2 42.6 71.2 3.4 74.6
Maximum Month (kg/d) 85.2 80.6 55.4 73.7 123.3 3.4 126.6
TP Loading
Average Day (kg/d) 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.8 9.8 0.7 10.5
Maximum Month (kg/d) 7.7 9.0 6.7 7.8 13.0 0.7 13.8
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 32
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 33
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 34
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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/
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 35
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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).
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 36
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Bay of Quinte RAP [BQRAP
(DDS)] 0.5 km Oct 2009 NH3 and TP
Bay of Quinte RAP [BQRAP
(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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 37
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 38
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 39
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 40
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 41
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 42
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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)
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 43
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 44
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 45
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 46
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Summer (Jun 1 to Oct 31)
Winter (Nov 1 to May 31)
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:
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 47
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 48
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 49
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 50
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 51
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 52
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 53
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 54
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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).
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 55
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 56
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 57
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 58
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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).
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 59
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
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 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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 60
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 61
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 62
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Process performance can be controlled
and optimized by varying biomass
inventory and sludge age in bioreactors
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 63
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
Table 20 presents a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the reviewed
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.
Process performance can be controlled
and optimized by varying biomass
inventory and sludge age in bioreactors
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 64
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 65
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 66
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Table 21 presents a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the reviewed
tertiary treatment processes.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 67
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
Table 21 Advantages and Disadvantages of Tertiary Treatment
Technologies
Technology Advantages Disadvantages
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 68
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 69
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Technology Advantages Disadvantages
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 70
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 71
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 72
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Disruption of adjacent residential,
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 73
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 74
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
construction techniques.
All construction impacts can be mitigated through good
construction techniques.
Disruption of terrestrial features Smallest construction footprint. Largest construction footprint. Medium construction footprint.
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent residential,
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
during construction activities.
Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners and residents
during construction activities.
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 75
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
with tertiary treatment.
Negligible impacts as future design effluent limits can be met
with tertiary treatment.
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent residential,
community, and recreational features
(noise, dust, odour, traffic)
Low disruption anticipated.
Potential for odours from biosolids storage.
Low disruption anticipated.
Potential for odours from biosolids storage.
Low disruption anticipated.
Potential for odours from biosolids storage.
Economic Environment
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.
Technical Environment
Performance and experience in
similar climates and at plants of
similar size
Very good experience/performance.
Proven treatment process with long history of application in
similar climates.
Very good experience/performance.
Proven treatment process with long history of application in
similar climates.
Very good experience/performance.
Proven treatment process with long history of application in
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.
Compatibility with existing
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.
Ability to consistently meet effluent
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 76
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent residential,
community and recreational
features
3 3 3
Economic Environment
Capital costs of construction 5 4 2
Technical Environment
Constructability 3 2 5
Operation Phase
Natural Environment
Effect on surface waters 4 4 4
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent residential,
community and recreational
features
3 3 4
Economic Environment
Annual Operating Costs 3 3 2
Technical Environment
Performance and experience in
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 77
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
Table 26 Summary of Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Alternatives
Evaluation Criterion Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 3
Compatibility with existing
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 78
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 79
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
through good construction techniques.
All construction impacts can be mitigated
through good construction techniques.
All construction impacts can be mitigated
through good construction techniques.
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.
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent
residential, community, and
recreational features
Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners
and residents during construction activities.
Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners
and residents during construction activities.
Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners
and residents during construction activities.
Minor noise and dust on adjacent land owners
and residents during construction activities.
Economic Environment
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.
Technical Environment
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.
A new tertiary treatment building consisting of
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.
A new tertiary treatment building consisting of
two new cloth media filtration units.
This alternative has the smallest footprint, and
will require the least amount of construction
requirements.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 80
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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.
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.
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent residential,
community, and recreational features
(noise, dust, odour, traffic)
Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated. Low disruption anticipated.
Economic Environment
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.
Technical Environment
Performance and experience in
similar climates and at plants of
similar size
Good performance/experience at other plants of
similar size.
Very good experience/performance.
Proven treatment process with a long history of
application in similar climates.
Very good experience/performance.
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.
Compatibility with existing
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.
Requires the construction of a new tertiary
treatment and disinfection building.
Low compatibility with existing infrastructure.
Requires the construction of a new tertiary
treatment and disinfection building.
Low compatibility with existing infrastructure.
Requires the construction of a new tertiary
treatment and disinfection building.
Ability to consistently meet effluent
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 81
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent
residential, community and
recreational features
3 3 3 3
Economic Environment
Capital costs of
construction 4 3 2 5
Technical Environment
Constructability 5 2 1 4
Operation Phase
Natural Environment
Effect on surface waters 5 5 5 5
Social/Cultural/Community Environments
Disruption of adjacent
residential, community and
recreational features
3 3 3 3
Economic Environment
Annual Operating Costs 1 5 3 4
Technical Environment
Performance and
experience in similar
climates and size
3 4 4 3
Operational
complexity/familiarity of 2 4 3 4
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 82
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Compatibility with existing
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.
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 83
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 84
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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 Greer Galloway Group Inc.
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
tguerrera@greergalloway.com
bbrooks@deseronto.ca
toddk@mbq-tmt.org
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 85
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
Project # 07-3-7348
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
All of which is respectfully submitted,
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
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
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade Environmental Study Report (ESR) FINAL PAGE 86
Deseronto WWTP Upgrade ESR DRAFT
The Greer Galloway Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
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