Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Phone: 613-475-1162 · 613-475-1830 · Fax: 613-475-2599 · Email: [email protected]
67 Sharp Road, Brighton, Ontario, K0K 1H0
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PW 2018-12Preliminary and Final Design Services
MBBR AdditionBrighton Wastewater Treatment System
PLEASE NOTE: BID REGISTRATION
Bid Registration is provided and mandatory to assist in the issuance of any addendum/addenda (via fax or email), should the need arise. Prospective Contractors are required to register and also, check Municipality’s Website site for any addendum(s) that may have been issued prior to submission of
their final documents. The Municipality of Brighton is not responsible for the Contractor's failure to register for updates or addendum/Addenda to the
originally posted Bid; it is the Contractor’s responsibility.
To Register Bid Please Email: [email protected]
Municipality of Brighton
Request for Proposal PW 2018 -12
Preliminary and Final Design Services
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System
July 18, 2018
The Corporation of the Municipality of Brighton
Request for Proposal PW 2018 – 12
Preliminary and Final Design Services - MBBR Addition for the Brighton Wastewater Treatment System
Please submit the complete proposal in sealed envelopes. Address label sheets provided by the Municipality shall be firmly affixed to the outside of the envelopes, quoting the above proposal number and forward to the following before the Closing Date and Time:
Ms. Linda Widdifield Director of Finance and Administrative Services Municipality of Brighton 35 Alice Street, P.O. Box 189 Brighton, Ontario K0K 1H0
Closing Date and Time: Friday, August 24, 2018 - 11:30 A.M. Local Time
Issued: July 18, 2018
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 1
Section 1 – Proposal Information
Description of Undertaking
The Municipality of Brighton (Municipality) wishes to engage the services of a consulting engineering firm (Consultant) to complete preliminary and final design to upgrade the Brighton Wastewater Treatment System with a Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR) system. The project will also include all approvals, tendering of the project and construction supervision and contract administration. Proposal Submission Deadline The Proposal must be received and time-stamped at Municipal Hall, located at 35 Alice Street, Brighton, Ontario, K0K 1H0 on or before the Proposal Closing Date and Time which shall be Friday, August 24, 2018 at 11:30 am local time. The Municipality is not responsible for proposals which arrive late, are not properly marked, or are delivered to any facility other than the Municipal Hall. Proposals received late will be rejected and returned un-opened. Proposal Criteria 1. Proposal Submissions
All proposals are to be submitted in sealed envelopes with the address label sheet(s), as provided by this RFP, affixed firmly to the front of the envelopes with all details completed as required on the envelopes. The Proposal must be submitted in two envelopes, as follows:
Envelope 1 – Engineering Proposal The first address label sheet entitled “Detailed Engineering Proposal” shall be firmly affixed to Envelope 1. This envelope shall contain four (4) original hard copies of the Engineering Proposal and a duplicate pdf copy on a memory stick. The Engineering Proposal shall not exceed 20 pages in length (excluding Appendices) and should include the following information at minimum. See also recommended Appendices at end of this section.
• A comprehensive but concise description of the Consultant’s company history, staff resources and applicable experience completing similar wastewater treatment plant designs, including application for MOECC and other approvals, tendering and contract administration and supervision. Indicate the firm’s base of operations and the main office from which the project will be completed. The main office shall be the normal work location of the named Project Manager.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 2
• A thorough description of the Consultant’s understanding of the scope of work, including a description of the key elements of the project,
• Identify the Project Manager and key project staff and sub-consultants for all phases of the assignment. Provide single page project team matrix showing Project Team and reporting structure. Such matrix to include staff names and staff function or discipline.
• Describe the relevant experience of the Project Manager and key project staff. Provide same for sub-consultants (including geotechnical engineering staff). Descriptions shall emphasize experience on similar wastewater treatment plant final designs. Provide references in Schedule 1 provided with this RFP. (See Appendix A below).
• Provide detailed Task/Time table (Table 1) showing the breakdown of staff time (in hours) for each Main Task and subtask. Main Tasks shall be Task 1 to Task 10 as per Section 3. Table 1 to be maximum 3 pages long on 11 by 17 inch (ledger) paper. Table to sum the total man hours for each person vertically. Table 1 shall also sum horizontally, all person hours for each subtask and Main Task.
• Table 1 is to show clearly the names and positions of each member of the Consultant’s project team and support staff as required to complete all tasks of the project. Table 1 is to also list sub-consultant staff and hours for sub-consultant staff for each task.
• Provide detailed graphical project schedule (Table 2) outlining the time requirements and date of completion of the project’s 10 Main Tasks, and subtasks, to complete the project, by the specified completion dates including: o start and finish dates of Main Tasks o milestone dates for provision of deliverables to the Municipality o Include provision of two to three weeks for Municipality review of deliverables
depending on level of review necessary;
Note: It is assumed that the preliminary design will take at most 2 months once engineering assignment awarded, and then an additional 3 months for final design (including preselection of the preferred MBBR vendor). Two months additional are assumed to apply and receive MOECC approvals. Overall project schedule is to tender the contract in spring, 2019 with an early summer, 2019 construction start. The Proposal is to include a discussion of the project schedule and will provide additional detail and explanation if the schedule is shorter, or longer, than generally described above. The following information is to be included in the Appendices of the Detailed Engineering Proposal. It is recommended that the Appendices be organized as follows:
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 3
Appendix A of Proposal. Include Section 4 (Form of Proposal, Schedule 1, Schedule 2 and Statement of Bidder). Total of 4 pages to be completed, signed by company principle, witnessed where indicated and dated. Appendix B of Proposal. Include corporate literature, including literature for any sub consultants. Appendix C of Proposal. Include professional profiles for all key staff, including key staff of any sub consultants. Appendix D of Proposal. Copy of standard insurance certificate for company for all insurances currently in place, including insurance certificates for any sub consultants. Include current WSIB insurance certificate(s) as well. Appendix E of Proposal. Copy of Certificate of Authorization from Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO). Include copy of same for sub consultants, as appropriate, including geotechnical sub consultants. Envelope 2 – Cost Proposal The second address label sheet entitled “Upset Cost Estimate” shall be firmly affixed to Envelope 2. This envelope shall contain two (2) hard copies of the Cost Proposal and one pdf copy of the Cost Proposal on a memory stick. The Cost Proposal shall be submitted in Envelope 2 separate from the Engineering Proposal. Prices shall not include HST. An Upset Cost Estimate Table (Table A) shall be prepared which shall be identical in structure as Table 1 (Task/Time Table) except this Table will also include the daily rates for all named staff members and sub-consultant staff. In addition, the Bid Form (on yellow paper) at the end of this RFP is to be completed and included in the Cost Proposal. The Upset Cost Estimate Table will clearly show the total cost of each staff member for each of the Main Tasks, as well as the total costs for each staff member for all tasks when added vertically. As well, total staff costs for each subtask (and a total cost for each Main Task) will be shown horizontally. Total fees and disbursements for each sub task and Main Task to be shown separately. Show also the total cost for each Main Task and Subtask (fees plus disbursements). Include line items in the Upset Cost Table for the $8,000 Contingency Item for geotechnical investigations plus a separate line for the $4,000 Contingency Items for concrete and compaction testing during the construction phase.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 4
The costs as presented in the Bid Form and in the Upset Cost Estimate Table are to match for each main task. The Municipality will pay directly for all tender advertisement costs and any fees charged by approval authorities Cost Proposal Allowances As above, the Cost proposal is to include an allowance of $8,000.00 for geotechnical investigations of the preferred location during preliminary and or final design. The Cost Proposal to also include an allowance of $4,000.00 for compaction and concrete testing during the construction phase. The above allowances exclude HST. Site Supervision Costs For purposes of pricing, the Cost proposal shall assume full time construction supervision for 8 calendar work weeks (a total of 40 days) at 10 hours on site per day. On site inspection time therefore to be assumed to be 400 hours. 2. Proposal Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria outline the areas of importance that will be considered in project award. Proposal submissions should satisfy all criteria points wherever possible. Consultants will be evaluated based on the following weighted evaluation factors: Quality Factors (Envelope 1) Firm's Qualifications and Experience on Similar Assignments 15% Project Team’s Experience and Structure 20% Project Understanding and Approach 10% Work Plan, Methodology, Communication and Quality Assurance Plan 15% Project Schedule 10% Subtotal 70% Cost Estimate Factor (Envelope 2) 30% Total 100%
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 5
3. Inquiries During Proposal Preparation
Inquiries regarding the interpretation or scope of the Request for Proposal shall be directed by email to;
Mr. Jeff Graham, P. Eng. GSS Engineering Consultants Ltd.
E-mail: [email protected]
Only clarifications confirmed in writing shall have any bearing on the Consultant selection process. All replies to inquiries will be answered in the form of an addendum and posted on the Municipal website. Bidders are required to monitor the Municipality’s website for any addendums. Bidders shall not make verbal inquiries to Municipal staff or any other related person including Council members. 4. Addenda Required additions, deletions or alterations in the requirements of the Request for Proposal documents will be supplied in the form of an addendum and posted on the Municipality’s website. All such changes shall become an integral part of the Request for Proposal documents. Proponents are required to insert and state on the Form of Proposal, in the space provided, the number of addenda reviewed as part of their proposal preparation, and as posted to the Municipality’s website during the Proposal period or provide an initialled copy of the addenda with the proposal submission. Failure to acknowledge all addenda may result in your proposal being disqualified. 5. Consultant Selection Committee
The Consultant Selection Committee will consist of representatives of the Municipality. An independent consultant(s) may be retained to assist with the selection process. Such consultant(s) shall be ineligible to submit a proposal for this RFP. 6. Public Opening
This proposal will be opened at a public opening following the Closing Date and Time on Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. Local Time. Proposals will be opened in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Town Hall. The opening will acknowledge receipt of submitted proposals only. Prices and detailed information will not be released.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 6
RFP Schedule
Milestone Dates Date
RFP Posted July 18, 2018
RFP Questions Received Deadline August 17, 2018
RFP Addenda / Answers to Questions Posted to the Municipality ’s Website August 21, 2018
Closing Date and Public Opening of Proposals August 24, 2018
Contract Awarded (est.) September 14, 2018
Engineering Agreement Signed (est.) September 21, 2018
7. Consultants to Investigate Consulting firms submitting a proposal shall understand and acknowledge that while this Request for Proposal outlines the scope of work and specific requirements, the Consultants shall satisfy themselves by such means as they prefer, as to the extent of work required to complete the assignment. 8. Engineering Agreement and Execution
The 2006 Municipal Engineers Association – Consulting Engineers of Ontario (MEA-CEO) Long form Agreement, as amended solely by the Municipality of Brighton, will be used as the contract document. The Agreement to be executed within fifteen calendar days of written notice of award. 9. Proposals to Address Requirements
All proposals shall address the requirements as per attached “Form of Proposal” in Section 4. All 4 pages provided in Section 4 to be completed and signed as an original document by an authorized signing officer. Corporate Seals are requested but are not mandatory. Faxed or reproductions of these pages are not acceptable. Vendors/Consultants are to submit their proposal packages to satisfy the Corporation's needs. 10. Irrevocable
Proposals are irrevocable for 60 calendar days from date of Proposal closing. All proposals shall be and remain irrevocable unless withdrawn prior to the designated closing time.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 7
11. Legible
All proposals to be typed with a minimum of color attributes using Arial font size 12.
12. Right to Reject or Not Open
The Municipality reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, and the lowest cost proposal will not necessarily be accepted. The Municipality reserves the right not to open a bid call should the Municipality deem, in its opinion, to have received an inadequate number of bid responses to the bid call and further the right is reserved to cancel and recall the competition. Unopened proposals will be returned to all vendors who responded. The Municipality reserves the right not to accept a proposal from any bidder who previously failed to accept a contract with the Municipality, or who provided unsatisfactory performance of a contract with the Municipality. The Municipality reserves the right not to accept a proposal from any person or corporation which includes any related corporation who, or which, has a claim or instituted a legal proceeding against the Municipality or against whom the Municipality has a claim or instituted a legal proceeding with respect to any previous contracts, bid submissions or business transactions who is listed as either the proposed general contractor or sub-contractor or vendor within the submitted proposal. As well, in the event that the project does not proceed to construction, for whatever reason, the Municipality reserves the right to terminate the project after the ECA has been applied for received, without cost or penalty. 13. No Claim for Compensation
No Proponent shall have any claim for any compensation of any kind whatsoever, as a result of participating in this RFP, and by submitting a proposal each proponent shall be deemed to have agreed that it has no claim. The Municipality assumes no responsibility or liability for costs incurred by the Vendors/Consultants prior to the entering into a written contract. 14. Proposal / Price / Taxes / Budget
All prices submitted shall be FIRM and in Canadian Dollars for the project and shall include, without limitation, all required labour, materials, disbursements. Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) is to be calculated separately. All costs incurred by the Proponent in carrying out research, investigation or otherwise as may be necessary for the preparation of a response to this Request for Proposal
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 8
shall be borne by the Proponent and will not be chargeable in any way to the Municipality. The award of this project is subject to final budget approval of the project by Brighton Council and/or senior Municipal staff. The Municipality reserves the right to change the scope of this project to bring the price within approved budget limits. The Municipality reserves the right to waive formalities and enter into negotiations with the successful Proponent in order to bring the project to within the budget available 15. Subject to Budget Provision
Should qualified bid submissions exceed the Municipality’s budget provision for this project, the Municipality reserves the right to cancel or recall the RFP process. 16. Adjustments Prior to Closing
Adjustments to submitted proposals by telephone, telegram, fax, or email shall not be considered. A bidder wishing to make adjustments to a submitted proposal must supersede it with a later proposal or letter enclosed in a proposal envelope and received on or before the closing time. Only the latest proposal received from a bidder will be opened and reviewed. 17. No Additional Content
Sketches, renderings or models illustrating the content of the proposal not otherwise requested or permitted are not to be supplied and will not be accepted by the Municipality. 18. Information Concerning Award
Only the successful Consultant will necessarily be advised of the proposal award. Those wishing to obtain information concerning the award may call the Muncipality at (613) 475 - 0670 during regular office hours. 19. Insurance
The following is taken from the Engineering Agreement. Satisfactory insurance certificates must be provided by the successful Consultant prior to signing of the Engineering Agreement. (a) The Consultant shall ensure that all insurance coverage, including all provisions
relating to insurance coverage set out in this section, are in place prior to the commencement of services pursuant to this Agreement.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 9
(b) During the Term of this Agreement, and any renewal or extension thereof, the Consultant will, at its expense (including the cost of deductibles) maintain in effect, with an insurer licensed in Ontario:
(i) a contract of general liability insurance for its operations, with limits of not less
than Five Million ($5,000,000) Dollars, in addition to coverages for defence and claimants’ costs, all for any one occurrence, including coverage’s for:
• personal injury including death; • property damage or loss (direct or indirect and including loss of use thereof); • broad form property damage; • contractual liability; • non-owned automobile liability; • products – completed operations; • contingent employers liability; • cross liability; • severability of interest; and • blanket contractual liability.
The policy of insurance shall name the Municipality of Brighton as an additional insured with respect to its interest in the operations of the Consultant; shall provide that the policy shall be non-contributing with, and apply only as primary and not as excess to any other insurance available to the Municipality; and shall also provide that neither the Consultant nor the insurer shall cancel, materially change or allow the policy to lapse without first giving the Municipality thirty (30) days prior written notice.
(ii) a policy of professional liability insurance for errors and omissions insurance
covering claims and expenses for liability for loss or damage arising from negligence in the provision of the services, of standard wording, with coverage of no less than Two Million ($2,000,000) Dollars exclusive of interest or costs per occurrence; and
(iii) a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance of standard wording, covering:
• motor vehicles owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Consultant,
in connection with the services provided or to be provided under this Agreement, with coverage of not less than Two Million ($2,000,000) Dollars per claim; and
(c) Every policy of insurance shall contain either no deductible amount or a
deductible amount which is reasonable considering the financial circumstances of the Consultant. The Consultant shall be responsible to pay all deductible amounts.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 10
(d) No policy shall contain any provision which would contravene the obligations of the Consultant hereunder or otherwise be to the detriment of the Municipality.
(e) The Consultant shall provide or cause to be provided to the Municipality, prior to
award of Contract, a certificate from its insurer, which shows that the policy or policies placed and maintained by it complies with the requirements of this agreement. No review or approval of any such insurance certificate by the Municipality shall derogate from or diminish the Municipality’s rights or the Consultant’s obligation contained in this Agreement.
(f) If at any time the Municipality is of the opinion that the insurance taken out by the
Consultant is inadequate in any respect, it shall forthwith advise the Consultant of the reasons therefore and the Consultant shall forthwith take out additional insurance satisfactory to the Municipality.
(g) The taking out of insurance shall not relieve the Consultant of any of its
obligations under this agreement or limit its liability hereunder.
(h) All policies of insurance shall be:
(i) written with an insurer licensed to do business in Ontario;
(ii) in form and content acceptable to the Municipality acting reasonably;
(iii) be non-contributing with, and will apply only as primary and not excess to any other insurance available to the Municipality; and
(iv) Contain an undertaking by the insurers to notify the Municipality in writing not less than thirty (30) days before any material change, cancellation, lapse or termination of the policies.
(i) Failure to provide the aforementioned insurance will result in the withholding of payments or at the sole option of the Municipality, forfeiture of the Contract.
20. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
The Consultant shall be responsible for and shall pay all dues and assessments payable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, the Employment Insurance Act or any other Act, whether Provincial or Federal, in respect to all his employees or operations and shall, upon request, furnish the Municipality of Brighton with satisfactory evidence that as, the Consultant, the provisions of any act have been complied with. A WSIB Clearance Certificate or Confirmation of Independent Operator Status must be submitted to the Municipality of Brighton prior to the execution of the contract.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 11
21. Intellectual and Proprietary Rights
Upon award, all trade secrets, copyright patents and other intellectual and proprietary rights are and remain the property of the Municipality. Also, all artwork and print production devices will become the property of the Municipality. As well, the Consultant shall provide all AutoCAD drawing files in original AutoCAD program files as well as PDF format, on electronic media. All such drawing files shall become the property of the Municipality. Submit such drawing files at the preliminary design, final design, tender and record drawing steps. The same will apply for all Word files and Excel files if deemed required by the Municipality. Consultant to submit original Word and Excel files as well as PDF versions at milestone dates on electronic media. Consultant shall provide all above computer files above at no extra cost. 22. Employment Standards Act
There are specific requirements of the Employment Standards Act (2000), which came into effect September 4, 2001. Requirements must be adhered to by any vendors responding to this bid call. 23. Conflict of Interest
The Municipality reserves the right to disqualify a Proposal where the Municipality believes a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists in regard to the Consultant and the intended project. The successful Consultant shall work solely and exclusively in the interests of the Municipality at all times to ensure that the project is successfully completed. The Consultant must identify current claims, potential claims, or disputes against the Municipality, if any, that the firm is involved with. The Consultant must identify current developer and development interest that the firm has in the service area, if any. This information and any conditions attached to the proposal will be considered in the Municipality’s evaluation of the proposal. The bidder asserts the following: • No person, firm or corporation other than the bidder has any interest in this proposal
or in the proposed contract for which this proposal is made and to which it relates.
• This proposal is made by the bidder without any connection, knowledge, comparison of figures or arrangement with any other person or persons making a proposal for the same work and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud.
• No member of the Council and no officer or employee of the Municipality is, will be,
or has become interested, directly or indirectly as a contracting party, partner,
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 12
stockholder, surety or otherwise howsoever in or in the performance of the said contract, or in the supplies, work or business in connection with the said contract or in any portion of the profits thereof, or any supplies to be used herein, or in any of the monies to be derived there from.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 13
Section 2 – Project Information Package
The Municipality of Brighton (Brighton) wishes to engage the services of a consulting engineering firm (Consultant) to complete a preliminary and final design to upgrade the Brighton Wastewater Treatment with a Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR) system.
A Schedule B Class EA is currently being completed. The Class EA final report will be recommending that a MBBR system be constructed near the downstream end of the facultative lagoon to provide primarily removal of ammonia. It is anticipated that the Class EA final report will be placed on the 30 day public review period in the near future.
The capacity of the new MBBR system is to match the existing average day, rated capacity of the lagoon system (4,600 m³/day) with an appropriate allowance for higher maximum day sewage flows. The final design is also to include features to facilitate expansion of the MBBR system in the future, if necessary.
The engineering assignment to also include the preselection of the preferred MBBR equipment and media vendor at the end of the preliminary design and include the vendor’s process design and equipment design in the final design phase of the project.
The Consultant is to also apply for all required approvals including obtaining an updated ECA from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) or subsequent ministry.
The Consultant shall also complete tendering of the project and provide all required construction supervision and contract administration services, including post completion warranty services.
1.1 Description of Existing Wastewater Treatment System
Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the existing Brighton Wastewater Treatment System including the initial aeration cell (cell), the large triangular stabilization pond (lagoon) with 3 baffles and inlet area of the two, parallel, artificial wetland cells (wetland). Figure 2 outlines the total property limits of the Wastewater Treatment System. The Brighton sewage system is classified as a Class 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant and a Class II Wastewater Collection System. The existing sewage lagoon system operates under Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) Number 3081-9XQNZK dated July 7, 2015. A copy of the ECA is provided at the end of this RFP in Appendix A. The wastewater treatment system has the following major components:
1. Sewage lagoon system. Located at 100 County Rd. 64, Concession B, Part Lot 33 and 34, Municipality of Brighton, Northumberland County. The site consists of the aerated cell, the 5.44 ha lagoon, a coagulant feed and mix system and two sludge drying beds. A small control building is provided which houses the coagulant feed
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 14
pumps and MCC’s etc. No back up generator is provided. Arena Creek runs adjacent to the aeration cell, lagoon and the wetland. The sewage lagoon system is located at the south end of Brighton.
The current, rated capacity of the sewage lagoon system is 4,600 m³/day (Average
Day Flow). 2. The constructed wetlands form part of the sewage lagoon system and are located
across from County Road 64 from the main lagoon component of the sewage lagoon system. The wetlands receive treated effluent from the lagoon portion of the sewage lagoon system and provide effluent polishing. The wetlands have continuous discharge to an existing marsh and Presqu’ile Bay.
Appendix B provides a copy of the 2017 annual report for the Brighton Wastewater Treatment System. This report provides current a summary of current sewage flows, raw sewage quality and effluent quality. A major issue with the existing system is inadequate ammonia treatment.
A more specific description of the Brighton Wastewater Treatment System is provided as follows:
a) An earthen berm aeration cell with area of 0.68 ha and depth of approximately 3 m. Aeration is provided with two, 11.2 kW mechanical aerators and two 18 kW floating, aspirator type aerators. Raw sewage enters the aeration cell for initial treatment.
b) Coagulant feed system featuring a coagulant mixing chamber located in the
discharge channel from the aeration cell. A Parshall flume is located in the outfall channel (with ultrasound level monitoring) to provide a continuous record of treated sewage flows.
c) An earthen berm, facultative stabilization lagoon receiving the effluent from the
aeration cell. The stabilization lagoon has an area of 5.44 ha with a depth of approximately 1.5 m. The effluent from the south end of the stabilization lagoon is sampled to confirm compliance with ECA effluent quality requirements. The stabilization lagoon is equipped with 3 floating baffles to minimize short circuiting in the lagoon.
d) Two parallel constructed wetland cells which receive treated flow from the
stabilization lagoon. The wetland cells are located on the south side of County Road 64. Each cell is of the same size and configuration and receives approximately the same influent flow from a flow splitting and measurement chamber located at the inlet end of the wetland cells. The total area of the wetland cells is 6.2 ha. Each cell has an outflow structure that discharges to a common effluent chamber. From the common effluent chamber, the final effluent discharges to natural wetlands at the
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 15
edge of Presqu’ile Bay. Effluent from the wetlands is sampled to confirm the quality of the effluent satisfies the effluent Objectives.
e) The coagulant feed system includes a 35 m³ external coagulant storage tank, two
chemical feed pumps located in basement of control building and discharge piping to the coagulant mixing chamber.
f) Control building located adjacent to south end of the aeration cell. This building
provides an electrical room area for the motor control center (MCC) for the incoming 3 phase power supply and alarm panel, and a work room, washroom and storage room area. A rudimentary office area is also provided to support the collection of operating records and to maintain the sewage lagoon system log book. The coagulant pumps and piping valve panel is located in the basement of the control building.
g) Power supply to Control Building is a single, 100 amp, three phase power supply. h) Sludge drying beds with underdrain system directing water drained from sludges to
return to the aerated cell. i) Aerated cell bypass piping. The bypass piping runs along the west side of the
aerated cell and can be used to bypass raw sewage around the aerated cell to the aerated cell outfall channel. However, this bypass piping is currently not usable.
1.2 General Description of MBBR Upgrade for the Wastewater Treatment System
As per section 1.1, the current, average day rated capacity of the wastewater treatment system is 4,600 m³/day. Sewage flows over the last several years have averaged approximately 3,000 m³/day though flows in 2017 averaged much higher (4,040 m³/day) due to very wet weather and extremely high water levels in Lake Ontario, which increased infiltration into sanitary sewers near the Presquile Bay waterfront.
In comparison, the average day sewage flow for 2016 was only 2,717 m³/day due to unusually dry and warm conditions in that year.
The Municipality has been completing repairs to the sanitary sewer system for the last three years to reduce infiltration rates. Overall, average sewage flows have remained similar for several years even though residential growth in Brighton remains strong. Such sewer repairs, and smoke testing of the sewers, are scheduled for 2018 and continued reduction of infiltration and inflow is anticipated.
The draft, Schedule B Class EA report prepared by JL Richards (dated April 2017) reviewed various treatment alternatives to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment system.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 16
The draft Schedule B report recommended consideration of a fixed media system to better treat ammonia. As well, Brighton Council recently passed a motion to complete the Schedule B Class EA with the preferred alternative being a MBBR system installed at the downstream end of the lagoon.
The following key criteria will apply to the MBBR system design:
- MBBR system to be rated for an average day flow of 4,600 m³/day with design features to facilitate expansion of the MBBR system in the future by approximately 50%.
- At the above capacity of 4,600 m³/day, the i) summer time ammonia effluent criteria to be 6 mg/l with an objective of 3 mg/l and ii) during the winter period the ammonia effluent criteria to be 8 mg/l with an objective of 4 mg/l, assuming the inflow temperature is as low as 0.5 deg. C.
- For the above ammonia limits, the inflow design concentration of ammonia to be 25 mg/l.
- The peak flow rate through the MBBR to be as high as 12,000 m³/day. At this peak flow rate, ammonia removal rates to decline by no more than 50% from the proposed limits above at the design flow rate of 4,600 m³/day.
- The MBBR system will receive influent from the stabilization lagoon (pond). This influent to the MBBR system will contain, periodically, large objects such as turtles as well as aquatic vegetation that grows in the stabilization lagoon. As such, during preliminary design, the consultant to consider a coarse bar screen (with manual cleaning) or an automatic bar screen. Such screening shall potentially be in a separate inlet building to protect the screening system during the winter.
- If an automatic screen is recommended, a screenings washer compactor system should not be required. Rather, the screenings need to be dried by gravity before being disposed of by the operators.
- The MBBR tankages may be a single tank or dual tank system. To be confirmed during preliminary design. If dual tank, each tank to be the same dimensions and same volume and one tank shall be fully functional if the other tank is off line.
- The Consultant shall complete a total station survey of the lagoon and all connecting piping, structures, etc. to the constructed wetlands and complete a hydraulic analysis to determine if the MBBR system can operate by gravity, or whether lagoon effluent needs to be pumped into the MBBR system with dedicated effluent pumping system. This survey to be done at the onset of the project.
- There is a possibility that a pumping system will be required to introduce lagoon effluent into the MBBR system, as the hydraulic gradient between the lagoon and the downstream wetlands is relatively flat. Effluent piping under County Rd 64 further complicates the existing hydraulic grade line. If screening is recommended, it shall be completed ahead of the pumping system.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 17
- The MBBR design must feature a fail safe system such that if the MBBR fails, or becomes plugged, the lagoon effluent will continue to flow over the existing lagoon effluent discharge structure to the downstream constructed lagoons, as it does now.
- The MBBR system will be constructed within reinforced concrete tanks partially or fully below grade and designed for water tight treatment of sewage. The Consultant will determine if the tank(s) need to be covered with a building or can be left open.
- Any pumping system required to introduce lagoon effluent into the MBBR to feature two (or three) influent sewage pumps and sized to allow one pump to be out of service and still pump the peak sewage flow of 12,000 m³/day.
- The MBBR system to feature an adjacent building to house the MBBR blowers and controls and all MCC’s/electrical etc. Building to be fully insulated and weatherproof.
- The building will feature an adjacent backup generator (external to building with weather and acoustic covers) to provide 100% back up power to operate the MBBR, the MBBR pumping system and blowers and all building electrical and control.
- The Consultant to determine if the MBBR to requires any effluent filtration system. - Figures 10-1, 10-2, 10-3 and 10-4 identify four (4) possible locations for the MBBR
system and associated control building. The consultant to review each location and identify the preferred location of the MBBR and building. The four alternatives are described briefly as follows, including preliminary advantages and disadvantages of each location:
Figure 10-1 (Alternative 1) – adjacent to wetlands on south side of County Road 64. Disadvantages may include minimal room to construct MBBR system due to proximity of Arena Creek and separation from control building and main access road on north side of County Road 64. A new hydro service likely required.
Figure 10-2 (Alternative 2) – adjacent and west of effluent outfall structure from lagoon. Disadvantages may include the need to relocate drainage ditch, further distance away from control building and main access road, power supply etc and need to travel along top of lagoon berm to access MBBR system.
Figure 10-3 (Alternative 3) – adjacent and east of effluent outfall structure from lagoon. While closer to main control building and lagoon access road than Alternative 2, still need to travel along top of lagoon berm to access. Adjacent Arena Creek may limit available room at this site.
Figure 10-4 (Alternative 4) – in south east corner of lagoon. Advantages include close proximity to main access road and existing control building and existing hydro supply. Potentially allows new bypass pipe from aeration cell discharge channel directly to MBBR which would allow bypass of lagoon for sludge removal etc. Disadvantages include adjacent, buried main Bell fiber line, and potential need to relocate lagoon baffle # 2 and lagoon baffle # 3.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 18
Section 3 – Key Requirements of Engineering Process
This project will include, but will not be limited to, the following Main Tasks:
Task 1: Review all existing information Task 2: Complete Preliminary Design Task 3: Complete preselection of preferred MBBR equipment supplier Task 4: Compete Final Design of MBBR Task 5: Apply and receive all MOECC approvals Task 6: Tender MBBR Project Task 7: Provide construction supervision services Task 8: Provide contract administration services including warranty services The above Main Tasks to be completed by the selected Consultant are outlined below. This list should be augmented as required and believed necessary based on the Consultant’s experience and knowledge. Task 1: Review all existing information. A summary of the activities to be undertaken in this task is as follows: • Meet with Municipal Council, staff and others to identify available background
information;
• Collect and review all annual operating reports, available Record Drawings, operating and maintenance data, etc.;
• Collect and review government agency information and policies;
• Inspect existing facilities with Municipal wastewater operations staff;
Task 2: Complete Preliminary Design
• Meet on site with Municipal staff and carefully review advantages and disadvantages of each of the four alternative locations of the MBBR
• As part of the above review of alternative locations, complete topographic survey of lagoon and north end of wetlands including all piping and chambers etc, Fully document existing hydraulic grade line conditions for average day flows and peak flows.
• Confirm preliminary depth of MBBR tank (or tanks) and tank dimensions. Confirm if MBBR pumping system is required and provide recommendation whether effluent filtration (for removal of excess suspended solids) is required.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 19
• Confirm if influent screening is required, including type of screen, and means to drain/store temporarily the screenings. Confirm building requirements.
• Recommend whether MBBR tankage should be contained within a building.
• Prepare preliminary design report which documents recommended location for MBBR system. Report to include full justification for selection of preferred location. Review carefully with Municipal staff.
• Report to also include schematic plan view and profile view to scale of MBBR system, preliminary elevations and hydraulic grade lines and tank volumes.
• Preliminary Design Report to also provide preliminary estimate of project cost and operating and maintenance costs.
Task 3: Preselection of Preferred MBBR Equipment Supplier. • Initiate preselection of MBBR equipment supplier immediately after preliminary
design report approved by Muncipality. • Prepare MBBR system preselection document in draft for review and approval by
Muncipality. Identify possible MBBR equipment suppliers with input from Muncipality. • Issue preselection document to suppliers and provide recommendation report to
Muncipality as to preferred MBBR supplier. • Recommendation report to include, at minimum, costs by each supplier to provide
process and tankage design for MBBR, costs by supplier to provide required blowers, diffusers, controls, MBBR media, media retention sieves etc. Report to also document performance warrantyies offered by each supplier, including guaranteed ammonia removal rates under winter and summer conditions.
• Recommendation report to identify preferred MBBR system supplier.
Recommendation report to also identify any changes to preliminary MBBR system design based on selected MBBR supplier equipment, normal tank depths or size etc.
• Update as necessary preliminary estimates of project cost and operations and
maintenance costs.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 20
Task 4: Compete Final Design of MBBR System
• Obtain MBBR process design from preferred MBBR equipment supplier. Confirm required MBBR tank volumes, configuration and dimensions.
• Compete geotechnical investigations for preferred location of MBBR system. As per Section 1, assume a cost allowance of $8,000,00 (plus HST) for geotechnical investigations. Include allowance in Cost proposal. Consultant to prepare tender with scope of geotechnical investigation and obtain at least 3 price proposals for geotechnical work. Final selection to be confirmed by Municipality. Cost to obtain costs to be included in proposal costs.
• Complete final design of MBBR tankage, pumping system (if required), influent
screening system, effluent filtration (if required), control building design and related design of all process and aeration piping, site work design, site electrical etc. Provide complete final design drawing set including all site work and site piping drawings, structural and architectural drawings, electrical and control drawings. Include backup generator details etc.
• Provide construction specifications and Form of Tender etc. When combined with
drawings, to form complete Contract Documents for project. • Prepare Design Report for project to satisfy MOECC application requirements.
Include all process design information from MBBR supplier.
• Provide updated project cost estimate as well as updated operations and maintenance cost.
Task 5: Apply and receive all MOECC Approvals • Submit final drawing set, specifications and Design Report to MOECC along with
ECA application. Obtain ECA amendment for MBBR project on behalf of Muncipality. • Submit additional applications to conservation authority, if necessary, for stream or
drainage relocations.
Task 6: Tender MBBR Project
• Consultant to prepare complete Tender Document package and assist Municipality in tendering the contract.
• Consultant to organize mandatory bidders meeting during tender period and provide
addendum documenting the bidders present. • Consultant to prepare all required addendums during tendering.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 21
• Consultant to review all tenders, check references for all least the two lowest bidders, and provide a recommendation of tender award.
Task 7: Provide construction supervision services
• Provide full time qualified site inspector. Assume total of eight work weeks of inspection time at 10 hours per day on site time.
• Site inspector to complete daily construction log and shall submit the construction
log book to the Municipality at the time of Substantial Performance. • Site inspector to take daily photos of key activities and email photos to Wastewater
Supervisor each day with summary notes. • Site inspector to arrange audit tests for compaction and arrange audit testing of
concrete. • Supervisor to immediately notify Consultant’s project manager and Muncipality of
any issue that might result in extra costs or delay of contract. • Supervisor shall take daily measurements of any item paid by quantity and record
such daily measurements or quantity in his log book. Task 8: Provide contract administration services including warranty services • Organize preconstruction meeting and attend site construction meetings at least
monthly. • Schedule all site meetings and prepare all meeting minutes.
• Compete compaction and concrete testing by approved materials testing company.
As per Section 1, assume a cost allowance of $4,000,00 (plus HST) for materials testing during construction. Include allowance in Cost proposal.
• Prepare payment certificates and review all requests for change orders and process
change orders when justified. • Determine Substantial Performance and Contract Completion and prepare such
documents when appropriate. • Provide as constructed drawings within 30 days of Substantial Performance. Provide
AutoCAD and pdf versions on memory stick and 3 copies of as constructed drawings on large format paper.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 22
• Prior to Substantial Performance, document all uncompleted work and all contract deficiencies, including associates values of uncompleted work and deficiencies.
• Complete warranty inspection of project approximately one month prior to the end of
the 12-month warranty period. Document warranty inspection and document all deficiencies.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 23
Section 4 – Form of Proposal, Schedules 1 and 2 and Statement by Bidder
These 4 pages are to be completed and signed and witnessed (where indicated) and included in the Proposal as Appendix A.
I/We hereby submit the attached proposal documents to satisfy the requirements as laid out by the Municipality of Brighton, inclusive of Addenda No(s): __________ (as applicable). I/We agree that we have reviewed and understand the proposal documents and I/We are capable and willing to perform the requirements of the contract and enter into a legal agreement with the Municipality in regard thereto and where the proposal is submitted by a Corporation, it shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the company. Should the proposal be submitted by a Partnership or Proprietor, it shall be signed by the partners or owner. I/We agree that this offer shall be irrevocable from the time the proposals are opened and for a period of 60 calendar days. ______________________________________________________________________ Proposal Submitted By: (Please type/print) Name of Signing Officer below ____________________________________________ Firm Name: ____________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________ Telephone: _____________________ Date: _____________________ Email of Singing Officer __________________________________________________ Signed and Submitted in the Presence of: ______________________________________ __________________________ Signing Officer Witness Note: This proposal will be received by the Closing Date and Time. Failure to complete and submit this Form of Proposal with original signatures as required will disqualify the proposal submission.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 24
Form of Proposal - Schedule 1
References
Please provide at minimum, three (3) references for similar projects that your firm has provided similar services for since January, 2010. References will be equal in complexity and service requirements as outlined in this proposal call.
Location and Project
Description
Name/Position/Phone #
of Reference
Start and Completion
Dates of Project
Note to Bidder: Refer to the Proposal Information Failure to provide Schedule 1 will render the proposal informal. Informal proposals will not be considered for award.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 25
Form of Proposal - Schedule 2
List of Sub-Consultants
Task
Name of Sub-Consultant
Address of Sub-Consultant
Value of Sub-Contract
Note to Bidder: Refer to the Proposal Information Names, addresses and contract amounts must be filled in and submitted with the proposal. If a sub-Consultant is not to be used for any work listed, then indicate "by own forces" under Task heading above. Failure to provide Schedule 2 will render the proposal informal. Informal proposals will not be considered for award.
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 26
Statement by Bidder
Bid Document Name: Preliminary and Final Design Services – MBBR Addition
Brighton Wastewater Treatment System. Bid Document Number: RFP No. 2018 - 10 Bidder Company Name: _____________________________________________ Bidder Company Address: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Email of Signing Officer _____________________________________________ 1. I/We have reviewed all terms and conditions of all forms included as part of this bid
package. 2. I/We have read and understand all of the terms and conditions of the forms
included as part of this bid package. 3. I/We understand that if our bid is successful, all requirements of the successful
bidder as outlined in this bid document will be completed by the time and in the format required.
Dated at ___________________this_________ day of _________________, 20_____. ____________________________ ____________________________________ Witness Signature of Signing Officer ____________________________________ Name of Signing Officer (Please Print) ____________________________________ Position
MBBR Addition Brighton Wastewater Treatment System RFP PW 2018 -12
July, 2018 Page 27
BID FORM Municipality of Brighton
Request for Proposal PW – 2018-12
Item or Task Description Cost
1 Review all existing information
2 Complete Preliminary Design
3 Complete preselection of preferred MBBR equipment supplier
4 Complete final Design of MBBR
5 Apply and receive all MOE approvals*
6 Tender MBBR Project
7 Provide construction supervision services
8 Provide contract administration services including warranty services
Allowance Geotechnical Investigation $ 8,000.00
Allowance Compaction and Concrete Testing $ 4,000.00
Total (excluding HST)
* Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks
Affix this address label sheet to the front of your envelope / submission.
Note: The address label sheet must be affixed to the front of your envelope / submission. The Municipality will not be held responsible for submissions that are not labeled.
Proposal Submission
From: Contact: Telephone:
Deliver to:
Ms. Linda Widdifield - Director of Finance and Administrative Services Municipality of Brighton, 35 Alice Street,
P.O. Box 189 Brighton, Ontario
K0K 1H0
Proposal Number: No. 2018 - 10 Closing Date and Time: July 31, 2018 at 2:00 pm Local Time Description: Preliminary and Final Design – MBBR Addition - Brighton Wastewater Treatment System
Envelope #1 - Engineering Proposal (no cost information is to be included in this envelope)
Affix this address label sheet to the front of your envelope / submission.
Note: The address label sheet must be affixed to the front of your envelope / submission. The Municipality will not be held responsible for submissions that are not labeled.
Proposal Submission
From: Contact: Telephone:
Deliver to:
Ms. Linda Widdifield - Director of Finance and Administrative Services Municipality of Brighton, 35 Alice Street,
P.O. Box 189 Brighton, Ontario
K0K 1H0 Proposal Number: No. 2018 - 10 Closing Date and Time: July 31, 2018 at 2:00 pm Local Time Description: Preliminary and Final Design – MBBR Addition - Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Envelope #2 - Cost Proposal
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Brighton SewageLagoon System - Existing Conditions
18-031
PROPERTY LIMIT OF THE BRIGHTON
WPCP, INCLUDING SEPARATE LANDS
SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 64 FOR
WETLANDS
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON
18-031 FIGURE 2
METERS
4002000
³
³
³
FIGURE 10-1
MBBR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON
METERS
100500
FINAL DRAWING INDICATED BY SEAL AND
SIGNATURE OF DESIGN ENGINEER
ALTERNATIVE 1
³
³
³
FIGURE 10-2
MBBR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON
METERS
100500
FINAL DRAWING INDICATED BY SEAL AND
SIGNATURE OF DESIGN ENGINEER
ALTERNATIVE 2
³
³
³
FIGURE 10-3
MBBR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON
METERS
100500
FINAL DRAWING INDICATED BY SEAL AND
SIGNATURE OF DESIGN ENGINEER
ALTERNATIVE 3
³
³
³
FIGURE 10-4
MBBR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON
METERS
100500
FINAL DRAWING INDICATED BY SEAL AND
SIGNATURE OF DESIGN ENGINEER
ALTERNATIVE 4
APPENDIX A
Current ECA – Brighton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Page 1 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Ministry of the Environment and Climate ChangeMinistère de l’Environnement et de l’Action en
matière de changement climatique
AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE APPROVALNUMBER 3081-9XQNZKIssue Date: July 7, 2015
The Corporation of the Municipality of Brighton
67 Sharp Road
Suburban Service, No. 8
Brighton, Ontario
K0K 1H0
Site Location: Town of Brighton WPCP
100 County Road 64
Lot 33 & 34, Concession B
Municipality of Brighton
County of Northumberland
You have applied under section 20.2 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19
(Environmental Protection Act) for approval of:
sewage Works servicing the Town of Brighton, for the collection, transmission, treatment and
disposal of domestic sewage, located at the above site location, rated at the capacity mentioned
below and consisting of the following Works;
Brighton Water Pollution Control Plant
(Rated Capacity )
Average Daily Flow 4,600 cubic metres per day
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
- a 0.68 hectare aerated lagoon with two (2) 11.2 kilowatts mechanical aerators;
- coagulant feed system consisting of one (1) 35,000 litres external storage tank, two (2)
chemical feed pumps (one (1) duty and one (1) standby), injection point at the chemical
Page 2 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
mixing chamber, and one (1) flash mixer;
- one (1) Parshall flume flow meter located in the mixing channel and measuring flow
directed into the stabilization pond;
- a 5.44 hectares waste stabilization pond equipped with three (3) floating baffles installed
from east to west direction to improve flow distribution, and effluent discharged to a
constructed wetland described below.
Constructed Wetland
The constructed wetland is located on the south side of County Road 64, immediately east of
Harbour Street)
- a constructed wetland having a surface area of 6.2 hectares, side slopes of 3:1 and 0.8 free
board, constructed south of the waste stabilization pond consisting of Wetland Cell # 1
and Wetland Cell # 2, each wetland cell consisted of a 300 millimetres shallow vegetative
terrace between 1.0 metre deep front and rear zones;
- a 600 millimetres diameter pipe constructed and connected from the waste stabilization
pond outflow chamber to the inlet flow structure of the constructed wetland;
- a 3.0 metres x 2.4 metres x 3.0 metres deep inlet flow structure constructed at the front
end of Wetland Cell # 1 to control waste stabilization pond effluent through weirs and
baffles to the wetland cells by 600 millimetres diameter pipes;
- a 3.0 metres x 2.4 metres x 3.05 metres deep outlet flow structure having weirs and
baffles, constructed at the rear end of Wetland Cell # 2 to receive wetland effluent from a
level control structure (equipped with stop logs) of each wetland cell and discharge
wetland effluent through three (3) outflow swales to the natural wetland in Prequ`ile Bay;
- two (2) 2.4 metres long emergency weir having a weir crest elevation of 79.0 metres,
constructed on the common berm at the rear ends of the two wetland cells and the rear
berm of Wetland Cell # 2; and
- three (3) flow meters: one (1) Parshall flume measuring flow into constructed wetland,
two (2) V notch weirs measuring flow into each of Wetland Cell #1 and Wetland Cell # 2,
and two (2) V notch weirs measuring effluent flows from each constructed wetland cell.
all other controls, electrical equipment, instrumentation, piping, pumps, valves and appurtenances
essential for the proper operation of the aforementioned sewage Works.
all in accordance with supporting documents listed in Schedule 'A'.
Page 3 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
For the purpose of this environmental compliance approval, the following definitions apply:
"Annual Average Concentration" means the arithmetic mean of the Monthly Average
Concentrations of a contaminant in the effluent calculated for any particular calendar year;
"Annual Average Loading" means the value obtained by multiplying the Annual Average
Concentration of a contaminant by the Average Daily Flow over the same calendar year;
"Approval" means this entire document and any schedules attached to it, and the application;
"Average Daily Flow" means the cumulative total sewage flow to the sewage works during a
calendar year divided by the number of days during which sewage was flowing to the sewage
works that year;
"BOD5" (also known as TBOD
5) means five day biochemical oxygen demand measured in an
unfiltered sample and includes carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand;
"By-pass" means diversion of sewage around one or more unit processes within the Sewage
Treatment Plant with the diverted sewage flows being returned to the Sewage Treatment Plant
treatment train upstream of the Final Effluent sampling location, and discharging to the
environment through the Sewage Treatment Plant outfall;
"CBOD5" means five day carbonaceous (nitrification inhibited) biochemical oxygen demand
measured in an unfiltered sample;
"Daily Concentration" means the concentration of a contaminant in the effluent discharged over
any single day, as measured by a composite or grab sample, whichever is required;
"Director" means a person appointed by the Minister pursuant to section 5 of the EPA for the
purposes of Part II.1 of the EPA;
"E. coli " refers to the thermally tolerant forms of Escherichia that can survive at 44.5 degrees
Celsius;
"Emergency Situation" means a structural, mechanical or electrical failure that causes a
temporary reduction in the capacity of the Sewage Treatment Plant or an unforeseen flow
condition that may result in:
a) danger to the health or safety of any person; or
b) injury or damage to any property, or serious risk of injury or damage to any property; or
c) treatment process biomass washout.
"Equivalent Equipment" means a substituted equipment or like-for-like equipment that meets the
Page 4 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
required quality and performance standards of a named equipment;
"Event" means an action or occurrence, at a given location within the Sewage Treatment Plant
that causes a Plant Bypass or Plant Overflow. An Event ends when there is no recurrence of a
Bypass or Overflow in the 12-hour period following the last Bypass or Overflow. Two Events
are separated by at least 12 hours during which there has been no recurrence of a Bypass or
Overflow;
"Final Effluent" means sewage discharge via the Sewage Treatment Plant outfall after undergoing
the full train of unit processes as listed in the Approval;
"Geometric Mean Density" is the nth root of the product of multiplication of the results of n
number of samples over the period specified;
"Individual Waste Loading" means the loading expressed in kilograms per day and calculated by
multiplying the concentration of a parameter in a sample by the total volume of effluent
discharged from the Works during the day in which the sample is taken;
"Limited Operational Flexibility” (LOF) means any modifications that the Owner is permitted to
make to the Works under this Approval;
"Ministry" means the ministry of the government of Ontario responsible for the EPA and OWRA
and includes all officials, employees or other persons acting on its behalf;
"Monthly Average Concentration" means the arithmetic mean of all Daily Concentrations of a
contaminant in the effluent sampled or measured, or both, during a calendar month;
"Monthly Average Daily Flow" means the cumulative total sewage flow to the sewage works
during a calendar month divided by the number of days during which sewage was flowing to the
sewage works that month;
"Monthly Average Loading" means the value obtained by multiplying the Monthly Average
Concentration of a contaminant by the Monthly Average Daily Flow over the same calendar
month:
"Notice of Modifications" means the form entitled "Notice of Modifications to Sewage Works";
"Owner" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Brighton and its successors and
assignees;
"OWRA" means the Ontario Water Resources Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as amended;
"Partial Treatment" means any treatment that does not include the full train of unit processes of
the Sewage Treatment Plant described and approved in the Approval;
Page 5 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
"Peak Flow Rate" means the maximum rate of sewage flow for which the plant or process unit
was designed;
"Plant Overflow" means a discharge to the environment from the Sewage Treatment Plant at a
location other than the plant outfall or into the plant outfall downstream of the Final Effluent
sampling location;
"Rated Capacity" means the Average Daily Flow for which the Works are approved to handle;
"Sewage Treatment Plant" means the entire sewage treatment and effluent discharge facility;
"Water Supervisor" means the Water Supervisor for the Peterborough Office of the Ministry; and
"Works" means the sewage works described in the Owner's application, and this Approval, and
modifications made under Limited Operational Flexibility.
You are hereby notified that this environmental compliance approval is issued to you subject to the terms and
conditions outlined below:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(1) The Owner shall ensure that any person authorized to carry out work on or operate any
aspect of the Works is notified of this Approval and the conditions herein and shall take
all reasonable measures to ensure any such person complies with the same.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by these conditions, the Owner shall design, build, install,
operate and maintain the Works in accordance with the description given in this
Approval, and the application for approval of the Works.
(3) Where there is a conflict between a provision of any document in the schedule referred to
in this Approval and the conditions of this Approval, the Conditions in this Approval shall
take precedence, and where there is a conflict between the documents in the schedule, the
document bearing the most recent date shall prevail.
(4) Where there is a conflict between the documents listed in the Schedule A, and the
application, the application shall take precedence unless it is clear that the purpose of the
document was to amend the application.
(5) The Conditions of this Approval are severable. If any Condition of this Approval, or the
application of any requirement of this Approval to any circumstance, is held invalid or
unenforceable, the application of such condition to other circumstances and the remainder
Page 6 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
of this Approval shall not be affected thereby.
2. CHANGE OF OWNER
(1) The Owner shall notify the Water Supervisor and the Director, in writing, of any of the
following changes within thirty (30) days of the change occurring:
(a) change of Owner;
(b) change of address of the Owner;
(c) change of partners where the Owner is or at any time becomes a partnership, and a
copy of the most recent declaration filed under the Business Names Act , R.S.O.
1990, c.B17 shall be included in the notification to the Water Supervisor; and
(d) change of name of the corporation where the Owner is or at any time becomes a
corporation, and a copy of the most current information filed under the
Corporations Information Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C39 shall be included in the
notification to the Water Supervisor.
(2) In the event of any change in ownership of the Works, other than a change to a successor
municipality, the Owner shall notify in writing the succeeding owner of the existence of
this Approval, and a copy of such notice shall be forwarded to the Water Supervisor and
the Director.
3. BY-PASSES
(1) Any By-pass or Plant Overflow is prohibited, except:
(a) in an Emergency Situation;
(b) where the By-pass / Plant Overflow is a direct and unavoidable result of a planned
maintenance procedure, the Owner notified the Water Supervisor 15 days prior to
the By-pass and the Water Supervisor has given written consent of the By-pass;
and
(c) where the By-pass / Plant Overflow is planned for research or training purposes,
the discharger notified the Water Supervisor 15 days prior to the By-pass / Plant
Overflow and the Water Supervisor has given written consent of the By-pass /
Plant Overflow.
(2) The Owner shall forthwith notify the Spills Action Centre (SAC) and the Medical Officer
of Health of all By-pass and Plant Overflow Events except the events occurring under
Page 7 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
subsection (1)(b). This notice shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
(a) the date, time, and duration of the Event;
(b) the location of the Event;
(c) the measured or estimated volume of the Event (unless the Event is ongoing);
(d) the reason for the Event; and
(e) the level of treatment the By-pass(es) and/or Plant Overflow(s) received and
disinfection status of same.
(3) The Owner shall submit By-pass and Plant Overflow Event Reports to the Ministry's local
office on a quarterly basis, no later than each of the following dates for each calendar
year: February 14, May 15, August 14, and November 15. Event Reports shall be in an
electronic format specified by the Ministry. In each Event Report the Owner shall include,
at a minimum, the following information on any Events that occurred during the
preceding quarter:
(a) the date of the Event(s);
(b) the measured or estimated volume of the Event(s);
(c) the duration of the Event(s);
(d) the location of the Event(s);
(e) the reason for the Event(s); and
(f) the level of treatment the By-pass(es) and/or Plant Overflow(s) received and
disinfection status of same.
(4) The Owner shall use best efforts to collect a representative sample consisting of a
minimum of two (2) grab samples of the By-pass / Plant Overflow and have it analyzed
for parameters outlined in Condition 5 (Effluent Limits Condition) using the protocols
specified in Condition 7 (Monitoring and Recording Condition), one at the beginning of
the Event and the second approximately near the end of the Event, to best reflect the
effluent quality of such By-pass or Plant Overflow.
(5) The Owner shall maintain a logbook of all Plant By-passes and Plant Overflows, which
shall contain, at a minimum; the types of information set out in subsection 2 (a) to 2(e) in
respect of each By-pass and Plant Overflow.
Page 8 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
4. EFFLUENT OBJECTIVES
(1) In order to ensure continuous compliance with the performance criteria stipulated in
Condition 5, the Owner shall use best efforts to design, construct and operate the Works
with the objective that the concentrations of the materials named below as effluent
parameters are not exceeded in the effluent from the constructed wetland.
Table 1 – Effluent Objective – Constructed Wetland
Effluent ParameterConcentration in Effluent
(milligrams per litre)
CBOD5
15.0
Total Suspended Solids 15.0
Ammonia + Ammonium
Nitrogen
10.0 *
15.0 **
Total Phosphorus 0.8
E. coli 200 organisms per 100 millimetres ***
* from May 01 to October 30; ** from November 01 to April 30; and
*** The Geometric Mean Density of E. coli in effluent should not exceed 200 organisms per
100 millimetres for any calendar month.
(2) The Owner shall use best efforts to:
(a) maintain the pH of the effluent from the Works within the range of 6.0 to 9.5,
inclusive, at all times;
(b) operate the Works within the Rated Capacity of the Works; and
(c) ensure that the effluent from the Works is essentially free of floating and settleable
solids and does not contain oil or any other substance in amounts sufficient to
create a visible film or sheen or foam or discolouration on the receiving waters.
(3) The Owner shall include in all reports submitted in accordance with Conditions 7 and 8 a
summary of the efforts made and results achieved under this Condition.
5. EFFLUENT LIMITS
(1) The Owner shall design, construct, operate and maintain the Works such that the
concentrations and waste loadings of the materials named below as effluent parameters
are not exceeded in the effluent from the waste stabilization pond.
Page 9 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Table 2 – Effluent Limit – Waste Stabilization Pond
Effluent ParameterConcentration in Effluent
(milligrams per litre)
Loading in Effluent
(kilograms per day)
CBOD5
30.0 138.0
Total Suspended Solids 40.0 184.0
Ammonia + Ammonium Nitrogen14.0 *
17.0 **
64.4 *
78.2 **
Total Phosphorus 1.0 4.6
* from May 01 to October 30; and
** from November 01 to April 30.
(2) For the purposes of determining compliance with and enforcing subsection (1):
(a) Non-compliance with respect to concentration of CBOD5 and Total Suspended
Solids in the effluent is deemed to have occurred when the Annual Average
Concentration of any of the parameters, as defined in this Certificate, based on all
grab samples taken in accordance with Condition 7, supplemented by spot
sampling by the Ministry's staff as necessary, prior to and during the effluent
discharge period, exceeds its corresponding concentration in effluent specified in
subsection (1).
(b) Non-compliance with respect to concentration of Ammonia + Ammonium
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in the effluent is deemed to have occurred when
the Monthly Average Concentration of any of the parameters, as defined in this
Approval, based on all grab samples taken in accordance with Condition 7,
supplemented by spot sampling by the Ministry's staff as necessary, during any
calendar months, exceeds its corresponding concentration in effluent specified in
subsection (1).
(c) Non-compliance with respect to total loading of CBOD5 and Total Suspended
Solids is deemed to have occurred when the Annual Average Loading of any of
the parameters, as defined in this Approval, based on all grab samples taken in
accordance with Condition 7, supplemented by spot sampling by the Ministry's
staff as necessary, during any twelve (12) consecutive calendar months, exceeds
its corresponding total loading from effluent specified in subsection (1).
(d) Non-compliance with respect to loading of Ammonia + Ammonium Nitrogen is
deemed to have occurred when the Monthly Average Concentration of the
Page 10 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
parameter, as defined in this Approval, based on all grab samples taken in
accordance with Condition 7, supplemented by spot sampling by the Ministry's
staff as necessary, during any calendar day, multiplied by the Average Daily Flow
over the seasonal period the sample was taken, exceeds its corresponding loading
from effluent specified in subsection (1).
(e) Non-compliance with respect to total loading of Total Phosphorus is deemed to
have occurred when the Monthly Average Loading of the parameter, as defined in
this Approval, based on all grab samples taken in accordance with Condition 7,
supplemented by spot sampling by the Ministry's staff as necessary, during any
twelve (12) consecutive calendar months, exceeds its corresponding total
loading from effluent specified in subsection (1).
(3) Paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) shall apply upon the issuance of this
Approval.
6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
(1) The Owner shall exercise due diligence in ensuring that, at all times, the Works and the
related equipment and appurtenances used to achieve compliance with this Approval are
properly operated and maintained. Proper operation and maintenance shall include
effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training,
including training in all procedures and other requirements of this Approval and the
OWRA and regulations, adequate laboratory facilities, process controls and alarms and
the use of process chemicals and other substances used in the Works.
(2) The Owner shall prepare an operations manual prior to the commencement of operation of
the sewage Works that includes, but not necessarily limited to, the following information:
(a) operating procedures for routine operation of the Works;
(b) inspection programs, including frequency of inspection, for the Works and the
methods or tests employed to detect when maintenance is necessary;
(c) repair and maintenance programs, including the frequency of repair and
maintenance for the Works;
(d) procedures for the inspection and calibration of monitoring equipment;
(e) a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan, consisting of contingency
plans and procedures for dealing with equipment breakdowns, potential spills and
any other abnormal situations, including notification of the Water Supervisor; and
(f) procedures for receiving, responding and recording public complaints, including
Page 11 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
recording any follow-up actions taken.
(3) The Owner shall maintain the operations manual current and retain a copy at the location
of the Works for the operational life of the Works. Upon request, the Owner shall make
the manual available to Ministry staff.
(4) The Owner shall provide for the overall operation of the Works with an operator who
holds a licence that is applicable to that type of facility and that is of the same class as or
higher than the class of the facility in accordance with Ontario Regulation 129/04.
7. MONITORING AND RECORDING
The Owner shall, upon commencement of operation of the Works, carry out the following
monitoring program:
(1) All samples and measurements taken for the purposes of this Approval are to be taken at a
time and in a location characteristic of the quality and quantity of the effluent stream over
the time period being monitored.
(2) For the purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply:
(a) Weekly means once each week; and
(b) Monthly means once every month.
(3) Samples shall be collected at the following sampling points, at the frequency specified, by
means of the specified sample type and analyzed for each parameter listed and all results
recorded:
Table 3 – Raw Sewage Monitoring – (sampled at influent structure)
Frequency Monthly
Sample Type Grab
ParametersBOD
5, Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus, and Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Page 12 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Table 4 – Effluent Monitoring – Waste Stabilization Pond
Parameters Sample Type Frequency
CBOD5
Grab Weekly
Total Suspended Solids Grab Weekly
Total Phosphorus Grab Weekly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Grab Weekly
(Ammonia + Ammonium) Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Nitrate Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Nitrite Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Temperature Grab Weekly
pH Grab Weekly
E. coli Grab Monthly
Table 5 – Effluent Monitoring – Constructed Wetland
Parameters Sample Type Frequency
CBOD5
Grab Weekly
Total Suspended Solids Grab Weekly
Total Phosphorus Grab Weekly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Grab Weekly
(Ammonia + Ammonium) Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Nitrate Nitrogen Grab Weekly
Nitrite Nitrogen Grab Weekly
E. coli Grab Monthly
Temperature Grab Weekly
pH Grab Weekly
Page 13 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
(4) The methods and protocols for sampling, analysis and recording shall conform, in order of
precedence, to the methods and protocols specified in the following:
(a) the Ministry's Procedure F-10-1, “Procedures for Sampling and Analysis
Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works (Liquid Waste
Streams Only), as amended from time to time by more recently published editions;
(b) the Ministry's publication "Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of
Industrial/Municipal Wastewater" (January 1999), ISBN 0-7778-1880-9, as
amended from time to time by more recently published editions; and
(c) the publication "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater"
(21st edition), as amended from time to time by more recently published editions.
(5) The temperature and pH of the effluent from the Works shall be determined in the field at
the time of sampling for Total Ammonia Nitrogen. The concentration of un-ionized
ammonia shall be calculated using the total ammonia concentration, pH and temperature
using the methodology stipulated in "Ontario's Provincial Water Quality Objectives" dated
July 1994, as amended, for ammonia (un-ionized).
(6) The Owner shall install and maintain (a) continuous flow measuring device(s), to measure
the flow rate of the effluent from the Works with an accuracy to within plus or minus 15
per cent (+/- 15%) of the actual flow rate for the entire design range of the flow measuring
device, and record the flow rate at a daily frequency.
(7) The Owner shall retain for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of their creation, all
records and information related to or resulting from the monitoring activities required by
this Approval.
8. REPORTING
(1) Ten (10) days prior to the date of a planned By-pass being conducted pursuant to
Condition 3 (By-passes Condition) and as soon as possible for an unplanned By-pass, the
Owner shall notify the Water Supervisor in writing of the pending start date, in addition to
an assessment of the potential adverse effects on the environment and the duration of the
By-pass.
(2) The Owner shall report to the Water Supervisor or designate, any exceedence of any
parameter specified in Condition 5 (Effluent Limits Condition) orally, as soon as
reasonably possible, and in writing within seven (7) days of the exceedence.
(3) In addition to the obligations under Part X of the Environmental Protection Act , the
Owner shall, within ten (10) working days of the occurrence of any reportable spill as
Page 14 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
defined in Ontario Regulation 675/98, bypass or loss of any product, by-product,
intermediate product, oil, solvent, waste material or any other polluting substance into the
environment, submit a full written report of the occurrence to the Water Supervisor
describing the cause and discovery of the spill or loss, clean-up and recovery measures
taken, preventative measures to be taken and schedule of implementation.
(4) The Owner shall, upon request, make all manuals, plans, records, data, procedures and
supporting documentation available to Ministry staff.
(5) The Owner shall prepare and submit a performance report to the Water Supervisor on an
annual basis, within ninety (90) days following the end of the period being reported
upon. The first such report shall cover the first annual period following the
commencement of operation of the Works and subsequent reports shall be submitted to
cover successive annual periods following thereafter. The reports shall contain, but shall
not be limited to, the following information:
(a) a summary and interpretation of all monitoring data and a comparison to the
effluent limits outlined in Condition 5 (Effluent Limits Condition), including an
overview of the success and adequacy of the Works;
(b) a description of any operating problems encountered and corrective actions taken;
(c) a summary of all maintenance carried out on any major structure, equipment,
apparatus, mechanism or thing forming part of the Works;
(d) a summary of any effluent quality assurance or control measures undertaken in the
reporting period;
(e) a summary of the calibration and maintenance carried out on all effluent
monitoring equipment; and
(f) a description of efforts made and results achieved in meeting the Effluent
Objectives of Condition 4 (Effluent Objectives Condition).
(g) a tabulation of the volume of sludge generated in the reporting period, an outline
of anticipated volumes to be generated in the next reporting period and a summary
of the locations to where the sludge was disposed;
(h) a summary of any complaints received during the reporting period and any steps
taken to address the complaints;
(i) a summary of all By-pass, spill or abnormal discharge events;
(j) a copy of all Notice of Modifications submitted to the Water Supervisor as a result
of Schedule B, Section 1, with a status report on the implementation of each
Page 15 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
modification;
(k) a report summarizing all modifications completed as a result of Schedule B,
Section 3; and
(l) any other information the Water Supervisor requires from time to time.
(7) The Owner shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of issuance of this Approval, submit a
Municipal Wastewater System Profile Information Form, and shall resubmit the
updated document every time a notification is provided to the Water Supervisor in
compliance with requirements of change of ownership under this Approval.
9. LIMITED OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
(1) The Owner may make modifications to the Works in accordance with the Terms and
Conditions of this Approval and subject to the Ministry’s “Limited Operational Flexibility
Criteria for Modifications to Sewage Works ”, included under Schedule B of this
Approval, as amended.
(2) Sewage works proposed under Limited Operational Flexibility shall adhere to the design
guidelines contained within the Ministry’s publication “Design Guidelines for Sewage
Works 2008”, as amended.
(3) The Owner shall ensure at all times, that the Works, related equipment and appurtenances
which are installed or used to achieve compliance are operated in accordance with all
Terms and Conditions of this Approval.
(4) For greater certainty, the following are not permitted as part of Limited Operational
Flexibility:
(a) Modifications to the Works that result in an increase of the Rated Capacity of the
Works;
(b) Modifications to the Works that may adversely affect the approved effluent quality
criteria or the location of the discharge/outfall;
(c) Modifications to the treatment process technology of the Works, or modifications
that involve construction of new reactors (tanks) or alter the treatment train
process design;
(d) Modifications to the Works approved under s.9 of the EPA, and
(e) Modifications to the Works pursuant to an order issued by the Ministry.
Page 16 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
(5) Implementation of Limited Operational Flexibility is not intended to be used for
piecemeal measures that result in major alterations or expansions.
(6) If the implementation of Limited Operational Flexibility requires changes to be made to
the Emergency Response, Spill Reporting and Contingency Plan, the Owner shall, as
deemed necessary in consultation with the Water Supervisor, provide a revised copy of
this plan for approval to the local fire services authority prior to implementing Limited
Operational Flexibility.
(7) For greater certainty, any modification made under the Limited Operational Flexibility
may only be carried out after other legal obligations have been complied with, including
those arising from the Environmental Protection Act , Niagara Escarpment Planning and
Development Act , Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act , Lake Simcoe Protection Act
and Greenbelt Act .
(8) Prior to implementing Limited Operational Flexibility, the Owner shall complete a Notice
of Modifications describing any proposed modifications to the Works and submit it to the
Water Supervisor.
Page 17 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Schedule 'A' forms part of this Approval and contains a list of supporting documentation / information received,
reviewed and relied upon in the issuance of this Approval.
SCHEDULE 'A'
1. Field Alert Number 4073-9XKJTL, created on June 17, 2015, by Ms. Viktoria Light, Drinking Water
Inspector, MOECC, Peterborough Office.
2. Existing ECA # 3560-8A8LEY, issued on November 17, 2010.
Page 18 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Schedule B
Limited Operational Flexibility Criteria for Modifications
to Municipal Sewage Works
1. The modifications to sewage works approved under an Environmental Compliance Approval
(Approval) that are permitted under the Limited Operational Flexibility (LOF), are outlined
below and are subject to the LOF conditions in the Approval, and require the submission of the
Notice of Modifications. If there is a conflict between the sewage works listed below and the
Terms and Conditions in the Approval, the Terms and Conditions in the Approval shall take
precedence.
1.1 Sewage Pumping Stations
a. Alter pumping capacity by adding or replacing equipment where new equipment is
located within an existing sewage treatment plant site or an existing sewage pumping
station site, provided that the modifications do not result in an increase of the sewage
treatment plant Rated Capacity and the existing flow process and/or treatment train
are maintained, as applicable.
b. Forcemain relining and replacement with similar pipe size where the nominal
diameter is not greater than 1,200mm
1.2 Sewage Treatment Process
a. Installing additional chemical dosage equipment including replacing with alternative
chemicals for pH adjustment or coagulants (non-toxic polymers) provided that there
are no modifications of treatment processes or other modifications that may alter the
intent of operations and may have negative impacts on the effluent quantity and
quality.
b. Expanding the buffer zone between a sanitary sewage lagoon facility or land
treatment area and adjacent uses provided that the buffer zone is entirely on the
proponent’s land.
c. Optimizing existing sanitary sewage lagoons with the purpose to increase efficiency
of treatment operations provided that existing sewage treatment plant rated capacity is
not exceeded and where no land acquisition is required.
d. Optimizing existing sewage treatment plant equipment with the purpose to increase
the efficiency of the existing treatment operations, provided that there are no
modifications to the works that result in an increase of the approved Rated Capacity,
and may have adverse effects to the effluent quality or location of the discharge.
Page 19 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
e. Replacement, refurbishment of previously approved equipment in whole or in part
with Equivalent Equipment, like-for-like of different make and model, provided that
the firm capacity, reliability, performance standard, level of quality and redundancy
of the group of equipment is kept the same or exceeded. For clarity purposes, the
following equipment can be considered under this provision: pumps, screens, grit
separators, blowers, aeration equipment, sludge thickeners, dewatering equipment,
UV systems, chlorine contact equipment, bio-disks, and sludge digester systems.
1.3 Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall
a. Replacement of discharge pipe with similar pipe size or diffusers provided that the
outfall location is not changed.
1.4 Sanitary Sewers
a. Pipe relining and replacement with similar pipe size within the Sewage Treatment
Plant site, where the nominal diameter is not greater than 1,200mm.
1.5 Pilot Systems
a. Installation of pilot systems for new or existing technologies provided that:
i. any effluent from the pilot system is discharged to the inlet of the sewage
treatment plant or hauled off-site for proper disposal,
ii. any effluent from the pilot system discharged to the inlet of the sewage treatment
plant or sewage conveyance system does not significantly alter the
composition/concentration of the influent sewage to be treated in the downstream
process; and that it does not add any inhibiting substances to the downstream
process, and
iii. the pilot system’s duration does not exceed a maximum of two years; and a
report with results is submitted to the Director and Water Supervisor three
months after completion of the pilot project.
2. Sewage works that are exempt from section 53 of the OWRA by O. Reg. 525/98 continue to be
exempt and are not required to follow the notification process under this Limited Operational
Flexibility.
3. Normal or emergency operational modifications, such as repairs, reconstructions, or other
improvements that are part of maintenance activities, including cleaning, renovations to existing
approved sewage works equipment, provided that the modification is made with Equivalent
Equipment, are considered pre-approved.
4. The modifications noted in section (3) above are not required to follow the notification protocols
under Limited Operational Flexibility, provided that the number of pieces and description of the
equipment as described in the Approval does not change.
Page 20 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
Page 21 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
The reasons for the imposition of these terms and conditions are as follows:
1. Condition 1 is imposed to ensure that the Works are built and operated in the manner in which
they were described for review and upon which approval was granted. This condition is also
included to emphasize the precedence of Conditions in the Approval and the practice that the
Approval is based on the most current document, if several conflicting documents are submitted
for review. The condition also advises the Owners their responsibility to notify any person they
authorized to carry out work pursuant to this Approval the existence of this Approval.
2. Condition 2 is included to ensure that the Ministry records are kept accurate and current with
respect to the approved works and to ensure that subsequent owners of the Works are made aware
of the Approval and continue to operate the Works in compliance with it.
3. Condition 3 is included to indicate that By-pass / Plant Overflows of untreated or partially treated
sewage to the receiving watercourse is prohibited, save in certain limited circumstances where
the failure to By-pass / Plant Overflow could result in greater injury to the public interest than the
Bypass itself where a By-pass / Plant Overflow will not violate the approved effluent
requirements, or where the By-pass / Plant Overflow can be limited or otherwise mitigated by
handling it in accordance with an approved contingency plan. The notification and
documentation requirements allow the Ministry to take action in an informed manner and will
ensure the Owner is aware of the extent and frequency of By-pass / Plant Overflow events.
4. Condition 4 is imposed to establish non-enforceable effluent quality objectives which the Owner
is obligated to use best efforts to strive towards on an ongoing basis. These objectives are to be
used as a mechanism to trigger corrective action proactively and voluntarily before environmental
impairment occur and before the compliance limits of Condition 5 are exceeded.
5. Condition 5 is imposed to ensure that the effluent discharged from the Works to the environment
meets the Ministry's effluent quality requirements thus minimizing environmental impact on the
receiver and to protect water quality, fish and other aquatic life in the receiving water body.
6. Condition 6 is included to require that the Works be properly operated, maintained, funded,
staffed and equipped such that the environment is protected and deterioration, loss, injury or
damage to any person or property is prevented. As well, the inclusion of a comprehensive
operations manual governing all significant areas of operation, maintenance and repair is
prepared, implemented and kept up-to-date by the Owner and made available to the Ministry.
Such a manual is an integral part of the operation of the Works. Its compilation and use should
assist the Owner in staff training, in proper plant operation and in identifying and planning for
contingencies during possible abnormal conditions. The manual will also act as a benchmark for
Ministry staff when reviewing the Owner's operation of the Works.
7. Condition 7 is included to enable the Owner to evaluate and demonstrate the performance of the
Works, on a continual basis, so that the Works are properly operated and maintained at a level
Page 22 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
which is consistent with the design objectives and effluent limits specified in the Approval and
that the Works does not cause any impairment to the receiving watercourse.
8. Condition 8 is included to provide a performance record for future references, to ensure that the
Ministry is made aware of problems as they arise, and to provide a compliance record for all the
terms and conditions outlined in this Approval, so that the Ministry can work with the Owner in
resolving any problems in a timely manner.
9. Condition 9 is included to ensure that the Works are operated in accordance with the application
and supporting documentation submitted by the Owner, and not in a manner which the Director
has not been asked to consider. These Conditions are also included to ensure that a Professional
Engineer has reviewed the proposed modifications and attests that the modifications are in line
with that of Limited Operational Flexibility, and provide assurance that the proposed
modifications comply with the Ministry's requirements stipulated in the Terms and Conditions of
this Approval, MOE policies, guidelines, and industry engineering standards and best
management practices.
Upon issuance of the environmental compliance approval, I hereby revoke Approval No(s).
3560-8A8LEY issued on November 17, 2010.
In accordance with Section 139 of the Environmental Protection Act, you may by written Notice served upon
me and the Environmental Review Tribunal within 15 days after receipt of this Notice, require a hearing by the
Tribunal. Section 142 of the Environmental Protection Act provides that the Notice requiring the hearing shall
state:
1. The portions of the environmental compliance approval or each term or condition in the environmental compliance approval in
respect of which the hearing is required, and;
2. The grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing in relation to each portion appealed.
Pursuant to subsection 139(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, a hearing may not be required with respect
to any terms and conditions in this environmental compliance approval, if the terms and conditions are
substantially the same as those contained in an approval that is amended or revoked by this environmental
compliance approval.
The Notice should also include:
3. The name of the appellant;
4. The address of the appellant;
5. The environmental compliance approval number;
6. The date of the environmental compliance approval;
7. The name of the Director, and;
8. The municipality or municipalities within which the project is to be engaged in.
And the Notice should be signed and dated by the appellant.
Page 23 - NUMBER 3081-9XQNZK
This Notice must be served upon:
The Secretary*
Environmental Review Tribunal
655 Bay Street, Suite 1500
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E5
AND
The Director appointed for the purposes of Part II.1 of
the Environmental Protection Act
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, OntarioM4V 1P5
* Further information on the Environmental Review Tribunal’s requirements for an appeal can be obtained directly from the
Tribunal at: Tel: (416) 212-6349, Fax: (416) 314-4506 or www.ert.gov.on.ca
The above noted activity is approved under s.20.3 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.
DATED AT TORONTO this 7th day of July, 2015
Fariha Pannu, P.Eng.
Director
appointed for the purposes of Part II.1 of the
Environmental Protection Act
AA/
c: DWMD Supervisor, MOECC Peterborough Office
Viktoria Light, Drinking Water Inspector
APPENDIX B
2017 Wastewater Treatment Plant Annual Report
The Municipality of Brighton 1
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
March, 2018
2017 WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT ANNUAL REPORT
Environmental Compliance Approval No 6166-AJJTGW
The Municipality of Brighton 2
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS
2.1 Flow Interpretation
2.2 Raw sewage quality
3.0 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT QUALITY
4.0 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND EFFLUENT QUALITY
5.0 OVERVIEW OF SUCCESS AND ADEQUACY OF WORKS
6.0 OPERATING PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
7.0 SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE
8.0 EFFLUENT QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL
9.0 SUMMARY OF CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE ON MONITORING EQUIPMENT
10.0 EFFORTS AND RESULTS TO MEET EFFLUENT OBJECTIVES
11.0 AMMONIUM NITROGEN
11.1 Total Phosphorus
11.2 CBOD and Suspended Solids
12.0 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
13.0 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS
14.0 SUMMARY OF BY-PASSES, SPILLS AND ABNORMAL DISCHARGES
15.0 SUMMARY OF SEWER WORK COMPLETED
16.0 RAINBOW TROUT TOXICITY TESTING
List of Tables Table I – Monthly Wastewater Flows to WPCP
Table II – Monthly Raw Influent to WPCP
Table III - Monthly Average Waste Stabilization Pond Effluent Quality
Table IV – Monthly Average Waste Stabilization Pond Effluent Load
Table V - Monthly Average Constructed Wetland Effluent Quality
Table VI - Overall Efficiency of WPCP Sewage Works System
Table VII – Summary of Operating Problems and Corrective Actions
Table VIII– Summary of Maintenance
The Municipality of Brighton 3
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
Table IX – Dates of Equipment Calibration
List of Appendices Appendix A – Notice of Modifications – Submitted to MOECC Under LOF Process – 2017
The Municipality of Brighton 4
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Brighton is pleased to present its Annual Performance Report for wastewater treatment for the operating period of January 1 to December 31, 2017. Brighton’s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) services a population of approximately 6,522 people or 3,263 homes and businesses, as well as Presqu’ile Provincial Park. The WPCP is classified as a Class 1 treatment facility that operates under amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) Number 6166-AJJTGW, issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) March 20, 2017. This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 10.5 of the ECA. This ECA includes Limited Operational Flexibility (LOF) provisions to allow expedited changes to the treatment operation, subject to final MOECC approvals and conditions. The WPCP is located at 100 County Road 64. Wastewater collected from the serviced area of the Municipality passes through four treatment components at the WPCP, in the order listed below: 1) A 0.7-hectare aerated cell (Lagoon #1) with two mechanical surface aerators, and two aspirating aerators. 2) A chemical mixing chamber where ferric chloride is added. 3) A 5.44-hectare waste stabilization pond (Lagoon #2) with three baffles. 4) A two-celled constructed wetland having a total surface area of 6.2 hectares. The effluent from the constructed wetland is discharged continuously into a natural wetland that borders Presqu’ile Bay, which is located off the northeast shore of Lake Ontario. 2.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS
The ECA stipulates that the rated flow capacity of the WPCP is a yearly average of 4,600 m3/day. The average flow for 2017 was 4,040 m3/day, which represents 87.8% of the rated flow capacity. The highest average flows occurred in May at a flow of 8,384 m3/day. The lowest average flows occurred in September at 2,088 m3/day. It should be stressed that 2017 was a wet year for precipitation, particularly during spring though to early summer. More importantly though, was water levels in Lake Ontario. In May and June, 2017 water levels in Lake Ontario peaked at record levels. This high lake level caused the groundwater level along the lake shore area to rise in a similar fashion and undoubtedly greatly increased flows into basement weeping tiles, causing a very large increase in sump pump flows being discharged to the sanitary sewer system. As well, the high ground water would increase the amount of water pressure bearing on the
The Municipality of Brighton 5
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
buried sewer system, increasing the infiltration into the sewer system though cracks in manholes and pipe joints. It should be pointed out the great increase in sewage flows in 2017 were almost entirely clean groundwater or rainwater. Flows in the sewer system dropped significantly, beginning in August, as lake levels dropped. According to the Monthly Water Level Bulletin (http://www.tides-marees.gc.ca/C&A/bulletin-eng.html), water levels in Lake Ontario peaked in May and June 2017, and then dropped by approximately 1 m over the summer and fall. Sewage flows also declined steadily during the same period and sewage flows returned to average flow levels (3,000 cmd or less) by August. Average sewage flows remained below 3,000 cmd for the balance of the year (other than November when average sewage flows increased with wet weather to approximately 3,700 cubic meters per day). We feel it is unlikely that water levels will return to record levels in Lake Ontario and thus average sewage flows are also expected to remain below 3,000 cmd, especially when combined with ongoing leak repairs in the sewer system. The maximum daily flow for the year was 18,052 m3 on May 6, 2017. The lowest daily flow was 1,580 m3 on September 20, 2017. There were no exceedances of the rated flow capacity of the WPCP in 2017, even though we had record high water levels in Lake Ontario, which caused extra high flows to the WPCP due to infiltration from Lake Ontario. Table 1 summarizes sewage flows in 2017.
Table I – Monthly Wastewater Flows to WPCP
Month Total Flow
(m3) Avg. Flow (m3/day)
Percent of the rated capacity (%)
January 112,226 3,620 79%
February 92,753 3,313 72%
March 118,181 3,812 83%
April 163,513 5,450 118%
May 259,905 8,384 182%
June 182,965 6,099 133%
July 129,650 4,182 91%
August 83,585 2,696 59%
September 62,627 2,088 45%
October 76,107 2,455 53%
November 110,777 3,693 80%
December 83,197 2,684 58%
Annual 1,475,486 4,040 87.8%
The Municipality of Brighton 6
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
2.1 Flow Interpretation The variations in the flow of wastewater received at the WPCP are caused by infiltration and inflow to the collection system, as a result of local precipitation events, fluctuations in ground water elevations and snow melt. In 2015, 2016, and 2017 sewer repair work was completed by Sewer Technologies which has reduced infiltration. Due to extreme conditions in 2017, (very high precipitation and very high lake levels), flows were greatly increased above normal. It is likely average sewage flows would have been significantly higher if sewer repairs had not been completed. 2.2 Raw Sewage Quality As per the ECA, raw sewage samples are to be collected and analyzed for select parameters once per month. However, for 2017, raw sewage samples were collected weekly as part of an intensive study of the WPCP to better assess ammonia. Table II as follows summarizes raw wastewater quality for 2017. For all months, results for all samples collected within a month were averaged to determine raw sewage quality values provided in Table II.
TABLE II - MONTHLY RAW INFLUENT TO WPCP
YEAR CBOD5 TSS TOTAL
PHOSPHOROUS TKN
AMMONIA NITROGEN
2017 Raw
Sewage (mg/L)
Raw Sewage (mg/L)
Raw Sewage (mg/L)
Raw Sewage (mg/L)
Raw Sewage (mg/L)
January 98.1 106.0 3.52 31.0 27.7
February 99.8 127.3 3.67 33.3 24.7
March 99.5 140.5 3.01 24.6 17.1
April 58.5 124.3 2.67 24.6 18.8
May 30.5 97.0 2.18 19.6 15.2
June 60.4 141.5 3.47 31.6 25.2
July 58.9 147.3 3.47 32.8 26.7
August 20.2 48.6 1.59 15.3 13.9
September 29.6 69.0 2.07 19.4 15.1
The Municipality of Brighton 7
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
October 23.0 40.8 1.62 14.9 12.9
November 23.0 97.8 1.62 27.7 10.6
December 97.1 217.6 5.9 42.4 12.9
Yearly Average
83.8 142.2 4.3 36.5 29.9
3.0 WASTEWATER EFFLUENT QUALITY Section 7 of the ECA lists monthly average limits for the levels of four parameters in the effluent from the waste stabilization pond. The parameters are: five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and ammonia plus ammonium nitrogen (ammonia). Section 9 of the ECA outlines the frequency that the parameters must be tested for and lists an additional six parameters that must be tested: total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, temperature and E.coli. In 2017, the effluent quality met the limits for the parameters tested, except for ammonia nitrogen from July to October inclusive and December (Table III).
Table III – Monthly Average Waste Stabilization Pond Effluent Quality
Parameter CBOD5 (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)
E. Coli (cfu/100mL)
pH
Effluent Limit (mg/L)
30 40 1.0 (May-Oct 14 mg/l) Nov-Apr 17 mg/l)
No Limit Specified
6.0-9.5
January 13.0 18.8 0.34 16.6 900 7.5
February 4.3 12.5 0.23 14.7 360 7.5
March 4.0 10.5 0.26 13.1 160 7.7
April 3.0 12.5 0.29 11.5 3700 7.9
May 2.6 12.4 0.31 8.4 5300 7.9
June 2.0 6.5 0.18 12.6 80 7.8
July 1.8 4.0 0.18 14.6 60 7.9
August 1.0 3.2 0.21 18.9 24 7.8
September 1.3 3.0 0.26 22.0 60 7.9
October 1.2 3.4 0.21 24.2 10 7.9
November 1.5 6.0 0.22 16.9 1880 7.8
December 2.0 5.8 0.27 18.7 20 7.7
The Municipality of Brighton 8
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
Section 7 of the ECA also lists effluent loading limits for CBOD5, TSS, TP and Ammonia Nitrogen. The effluent from the waste stabilization pond met the effluent loading limits for all required parameters other than ammonia limits highlighted below in Table IV.
Table IV – Monthly Average Waste Stabilization Pond Effluent Load
CBOD5 (kg/d) TSS (kg/d)
TP (kg/d)
Ammonia Nitrogen (kg/d)
ECA Limit 138 kg/d 184 kg/d 4.6 kd/d May-Oct 64.4 kg/d
Nov-Apr 78.2 kg/d
January 47.1 68.1 1.2 56.8
February 14.1 41.4 0.7 50.3
March 15.2 40.0 1.0 44.9
April 16.4 68.1 1.6 39.3
May 21.8 104.0 2.6 36.3
June 12.2 39.6 1.1 54.6
July 7.3 16.7 0.8 63.2
August 2.7 8.6 0.6 81.9
September 2.6 6.3 0.5 95.1
October 2.9 8.3 0.5 104.5
November (2016)* 5.5 22.2 0.8 71.4*
December (2016)* 5.4 15.4 0.7 79.0* *The last two months of the previous year are used for this calculation (seasonal) as per MOECC.
4.0 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND EFFLUENT QUALITY Section 6 of the ECA lists monthly average objectives for the levels of six parameters in the constructed wetland effluent (CBOD, TSS, TP, Ammonia Nitrogen, E. Coli and pH). Section 9 of the ECA outlines the frequency that the parameters must be tested and lists an additional three parameters that must be tested: nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and temperature. In 2017, the effluent quality met the limits for the parameters tested, with the exceptions of ammonia nitrogen for January and from June to December inclusive, and E-coli in January, April, August, September and December. See Table V.
Table V – Monthly Average Constructed Wetland Effluent Quality Objectives
The Municipality of Brighton 9
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
Parameter CBOD5 (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)
E. Coli (cfu/200
mL)
pH
Effluent Objective (mg/L)
15 15 0.8 (May-Oct 10 mg/l) Nov-Apr 15 mg/l)
200 6.0-9.5
January 3.6 6.2 0.16 18.0 400 7.8
February 2.0 4.0 0.12 14.7 20 7.7
March 2.0 3.3 0.09 13.1 14 7.8
April 2.8 4.6 0.16 10.1 40 7.8
May 1.6 5 0.52 6.5 380 7.8
June 1.5 5.8 0.47 11.9 200 7.9
July 1.8 4.0 0.26 12.4 100 7.7
August 1.2 4.0 0.29 16.9 254 7.6
September 2.3 3.9 0.44 20.0 1200 7.6
October 1.2 5.0 0.30 21.3 140 7.6
November 1.5 3.0 0.10 16.4 120 7.9
December 1.0 5.0 0.15 17.5 2500 7.8
5.0 OVERVIEW OF SUCCESS AND ADEQUACY OF WORKS For the most part, the WPCP is successfully treating the effluent for the key effluent parameters with the exception of ammonia nitrogen. As per Table III, there were exceedances of ammonia nitrogen for five of the twelve months in 2017. Table VI summarizes overall treatment efficiency of the lagoon system, based on effluent quality from the wetland portion of the treatment works compared to the raw sewage quality.
Table VI – Overall Efficiency of WPCP Sewage Works System
Date CBOD5 (%) TSS (%) TP (%) Ammonia
Nitrogen (%)
January 96.3 94.2 95.5 35.3
February 98.0 96.9 95.6 40.6
March 97.8 97.7 97.0 23.6
April 95.3 96.3 99.8 46.5
May 94.8 94.8 76.1 57.2
June 97.5 95.9 86.4 52.7
July 97.0 97.3 92.4 53.3
August 94.1 91.8 81.6 -21.9*
September 92.4 94.4 79.0 -32.0*
October 94.8 87.7 81.3 -64.8*
November 93.5 96.9 93.7 -55.2*
The Municipality of Brighton 10
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
December 99.0 97.7 97.5 -35.8*
Average 95.7% 95.1% 89.7% 8.3% * Indicates a production of Ammonia Nitrogen
6.0 OPERATING PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The following table summarizes main mechanical problems experienced in 2017 and the corrective actions taken.
Table VII – Summary of Operating Problems and Corrective Actions
LOCATION PROBLEM CORRECTIVE ACTION Lagoon New Chemical Tank replaced December 2017
Lagoon New Outside Containment ferric containment. 95% completed by Dec. 2017
Liftstation Liftstation debris (twice yearly maintenance)
Quinte Sewer clean wetwell
Liftstation Pumps (2) at liftstation complete rebuild
pumps repairs
Lagoon and Liftstation electrical panels clean contacts on switches
Lagoon Material build up around aeration pond
Cleaned once by contractor, second time inhouse.
Aerated cell Debris on aerators cleaned aerators twice
Loyalist Drive Lateral cleaning twice a year 3 homes on one service
Liftstation Degreaser Pump Install new pump
Liftstation debris in pumps open and remove debris
Lagoon chemical valves replace valves (2)
Lagoon Chemical Pump replace diaphragm (maintenance)
Lagoon Outside water stand replace old parts
Lagoon chemical line worn out parts - replaced
Liftstation Wetwell Lights replace with LED
Lagoon Outside light Replace with LED
7.0 SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE The following is an abbreviated summary of normal maintenance completed at the lagoon system and sewage pumping stations.
Table VIII – Summary of Maintenance
The Municipality of Brighton 11
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
DATE NAME OF EQUIPMENT MAINTAINED
ACTION
Weekly pH meter / DO Calibration (in-house)
Quarterly Flash mixer/ Aerators/Pumps
Grease/check oil
February yearly maint. or when required
Chemical Pump 1&2/ flush quarterly
Flushed and clean, replace Diaphragms
April Yearly Constructed wetland Trapping of muskrats
April yearly OCMIII, MultiRanger, Siemens Magmeter, LUT400
Calibration
Spring wetland levels Water levels lowered
Spring, summer and fall Aerators Removed debris
Summer Constructed wetland Water levels raised
Spring ferric system cleaned Flushed lines, clean pumps
November wetland levels Water levels raised
Spring and Fall Constructed wetland Trapping of muskrats
8.0 EFFLUENT QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL Wastewater exiting the aeration pond passes through a chemical dosing chamber. Ferric Chloride is the coagulant used to precipitate soluble phosphorus. It also aids in the settling of other substances and odour control. The dosing system operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The system is checked and logged daily by a wastewater operator. Samples are collected by a trained wastewater operator, following the applicable MOECC guidelines. All collected wastewater samples are sent weekly to an accredited laboratory for analysis. The results of the water samples are analyzed weekly by Brighton staff. A result showing non-compliance with the required wastewater quality stated in the ECA is reported to the MOECC, as required by the ECA.
The Municipality of Brighton 12
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
9.0 SUMMARY OF CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE ON MONITORING EQUIPMENT
Table IX – Dates of Equipment Calibration
DATE OF CALIBRATION Or Maintenance
EQUIPMENT CALIBRATED/Maint.
COMPANY PERFORMING CALIBRRATION/Maint.
April 2017 Yearly Flow monitors/ Mag Meters Franklin/MeasureMax
December 2017 Yearly DO meter/ DR2800/ Hach Technician
Weekly Do/pH meters In-house
10.0 EFFORTS AND RESULTS TO MEET EFFLUENT OBJECTIVES In May of 2015, Brighton retained the engineering and wastewater operations firm of GSS Engineering Consultants Ltd. (GSS) to assist with operation of the lagoon system. With the assistance of GSS, the Municipality of Brighton has implemented a number of interim efforts under the LOF process of the ECA to potentially improve performance of the lagoon treatment system. Four aerators are provided in the aerated cell. Total aerator power is approximately 60 kW. While total energy available in the aerated cell is relatively low (3.3 W/m³ based on total volume of 18,000 m³), all four (4) aerators, when running together, will suspend a significant amount of solids in the aerated cell. MOECC design guidelines recommends mixing energy of 15-25 W/m³ to fully suspend mixed liquor, suspended solids. In the early spring of 2016, the aerators were equipped with simple timers to allow all the aerators to operate at the same time and then turn off. The intent was to allow periods of settling during the aerator “off” period, to slowly build volatile suspended solids (VSS) in the aerated cell to achieve nitrification. However, simple on/off operation of the aerators was not successful in increasing VSS levels in the aerated cell. It was then proposed to combine the on/off aerator operation with manual “decanting” of the top layer of effluent from the aerated cell when the aerators were off. This would assumedly retain solids within the aerated cell and allow VSS to build to levels that would support nitrification. A Notice of Modification (Notification Number 7) for trial decanting, combined with on/off aeration, was submitted to MOECC in August, 2017. This notice is included in Appendix A. This modification was approved under the LOF conditions of the current ECA. The decant trial started on September 25, 2017. After approximately 8 weeks of trial, the manual decant process was terminated on November 29, 2017. At that time, the aerators were
The Municipality of Brighton 13
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
returned to their normal on/off cycle program. The following summarizes the results of the decant trial.
Method
Based on preliminary evaluations, the simplest method to achieve manual decanting was to: - Manually turn off all aerators at approximately 7 am
- Wait one half to one hour to allow settling of solids in the aerated cell
- Manually lift the first 6 inch stop log to release the first “batch” of clear decant
- After approximately 1 additional hour, manually remove the 2nd stop log to release a
second batch of clear decant
- Overall, such draining of decant lowered water levels in the aeration cell by
approximately 12 inches (300 mm).
- At approximately 2 pm, reinstall both stop logs and then turn on all aerators. The
aerated cell would slowly refill
- Allow aerators to run from 2 pm to approximately 7 am. Then repeat the decant
process.
The operators completed regular measurement of dissolved oxygen in the aerated cell. Generally, the 6 hour decant period (8 am to 2 pm) resulted in falling dissolved oxygen levels in the aerated cell, but oxygen levels normally did not fall below 1 mg/l. Once the aerators were restarted, there was sometimes a temporary, further sag in oxygen levels before oxygen levels rebounded to 4 to 6 mg/l. Normally, once the aerated cell was decanted for 6 hours, the remaining storage depth of approximately 12 inches (300 mm) was sufficient to store the incoming sewage flow until the next morning, without overtopping the stop logs. Results – Retention of VSS and Removal of Ammonia
Decanting, as noted above, began in late September 2017. The hoped-for result would be that VSS in the aerated cell would increase to at least 400 mg/l and potentially as high as 600 mg/l. Levels of VSS this high would provide the total mass of VSS in the aerated cell necessary to achieve nitrification. However, higher levels of VSS were not achieved. VSS levels in the aerated cell, when fully mixed using the available aerators, normally remained below 200 mg/l. Also, no additional removal of ammonia was achieved. While levels of ammonia in the aerated cell typically reduced 50% from levels in the incoming raw sewage, no additional removal of ammonia was achieved by the decanting process compared to the normal aeration process in the aeration cell.
The Municipality of Brighton 14
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
Overall, ammonia levels in the aerated cell effluent remained high (normally greater than 14 mg/l) throughout the decant trial period. There was some formation of nitrite and nitrate in the cell (evidence of some nitrification) but levels of nitrate remained low (typically below 1 mg/l) and were not appreciably higher than levels of nitrate formation seen before the decant trial. Table 1 also shows average levels of nitrite and nitrate in the aerated cell. To assist development of nitrifying bacteria in the aerated cell, loads of activated sludge from the Frankfort sewage plant were imported weekly and discharged into the aerated cell. Sludge was imported between September 27 and October 25, 2017. The Frankford sewage plant is an activated sludge plant that provides nitrification. As above, however, formation of nitrite/nitrates, and a buildup of VSS, did not occur at significant levels. Seeding with nitrifying sludge did not appear to improve ammonia removal. Other Results Other than ammonia, decanting appeared to improve the quality of effluent being discharged from the aeration cell to the large downstream lagoon (facultative lagoon). A key benefit was that relatively high clarity effluent, with few solids, was discharged to the downstream facultative lagoon. Average values of solids in the aerated cell decant in October, 2017, were 55 mg/l. However, this is based on an average of 5 weekly samples. Four of the samples had solids levels between 20 and 28 mg/l. However, the 5th sample (October 18) had an outlier value of 180 mg/l which significantly affected the monthly average value. For November 2017, the average value of decant solids was 39 mg/l. These levels of suspended solids (55 and 39 mg/l) were much lower than previous months where decanting was not practiced. Values of suspended solids in the aerated cell effluent for the months of January, 2017 to September, 2017 averaged 135 mg/l. BOD appeared to be further reduced in the aerated cell during the decanting trials. Values of CBOD in the decant were 11 mg/l in October and 13 mg/l in November. Compared to average values of incoming raw sewage BOD (average values of 76 mg/l in October and November) removal of BOD in the aeration cell was approximately 84%. An initial concern with the decant trial was whether effective dosing of ferric chloride to the “slug” release of decant could be achieved. Ferric chloride is added to the aerated cell effluent to remove phosphorus. During this trial, the operators would manually turn up the ferric pumps just before the stop logs were removed, and then turn down the pumps once the logs were reinstalled in the afternoon.
The Municipality of Brighton 15
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
However, phosphorus levels at the compliance point (discharge from the lagoon) were very low and averaged 0.21 and 0.22 mg/l, respectively, for October and November, 2017. Therefore, the initial concern of ferric dosing proved not to be a problem. Overall, effluent quality from the lagoon was excellent in 2017 (other than ammonia) and approached or exceeded tertiary quality levels for CBOD, Suspended Solids and Total Phosphorous for numerous months. While high flows very likely diluted pollutants in the treated effluent during 2017, sewage flows had returned to more normal levels by the time the decant trial began (i.e. less than 3,000 cmd during September, October and just under 3,700 cmd for November of 2017). Summary The decant process did not achieve the main objective of building VSS levels in the aerated cell and treating ammonia. While limited nitrification occurs in the aerated cell (based on observed but low levels of nitrite and nitrate), it would appear that the available bacterial mass is not sufficient to allow a long enough “sludge age” to develop which would support significant populations of nitrifying bacteria. Import of nitrifying sludge from the nearby Frankford STP did not significantly improve the level of nitrification in the aerated cell. While significant reduction of ammonia was not achieved, it is recommended that an automatic decant system for the aeration cell, in concert with on/off blower operation, be seriously considered for the following reasons: - The decanting process significantly reduced the sludge solids discharged to the
downstream facultative lagoon. This would significantly reduce sludge accumulation
in the lagoon.
- Reducing sludge loads to the lagoon should improve lagoon effluent quality.
- Reduction of sludge loadings would defer the very expensive and disruptive process
to remove sludge from the lagoon.
- Reduced suspended solids in the decant may allow ferric dosing levels to be
decreased, as the ferric may become more available (i.e. used more efficiently) for
phosphorus removal. This would result in chemical cost savings.
- Decanting appears to improve BOD removal in the aerated cell. Combined with less
CBOD, less sludge, and potentially less phosphorus levels in the lagoon, the chance
of disruptive algae blooms in the lagoon may reduce.
The Municipality of Brighton 16
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
- While lagoon effluent results were excellent for much of 2017 (other than ammonia),
the decanting process did not appear to effect effluent quality in the lagoon. Rather,
it appeared that decanting from the aerated cell improved the quality of lagoon
effluent for CBOD, TSS and TP.
If an automatic decant system was installed, it would simplify the decanting procedure. Multiple decants each day (say four times per day) would avoid any overflow of mixed, aerated effluent (containing high levels of solids) to the downstream lagoon. If an automatic decanting system was installed, the existing timer system for the aerators would likely suffice. The only upgrade that could be considered is automatic, higher dosing of ferric chloride during the decant periods. 11.0 Ammonium Nitrogen Removal of ammonia nitrogen has been a long-standing issue for the Brighton WPCP. LOF provisions under previously issued Notices were undertaken largely to improve removal of ammonia nitrogen in the lagoon system. In 2017, efforts to improve ammonia removal focused on operation of the aerators on timers in conjunction with manual decanting of the aerated cell. These measures were intended to build levels of VSS and increase sludge age in the aerated cell to promote development of nitrifying bacteria. Efforts to reduce ammonia have continued at the same time a Class EA was being completed to determine the best long term treatment alternative. Previous testing by Enviro Sim (2016) indicated that the raw sewage is treatable (for significant ammonia removal) if proper treatment, with an established mass of nitrifying bacteria, is available. 11.1 Total Phosphorus As per Table III, there was no exceedance of the TP limit of 1.0 mg/l in 2017. Jar testing of the coagulant dosage was completed during the first three months of 2017 to optimize dosing levels of ferric chloride under cold water conditions. Levels of TP in wetland effluent remained below the Objective level of 0.8 mg/l for all months. 11.2 CBOD and Suspended Solids
The Municipality of Brighton 17
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
Levels of CBOD and Suspended solids remained below the compliance limit and objective limits for all months in 2017. 12.0 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT No sludge was removed during 2017. 13.0 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS The Municipality received no complaints in 2017 14.0 SUMMARY OF BY-PASSES, SPILLS AND ABNORMAL DISCHARGES There were no sewage by-passes, spills or abnormal discharges during this reporting period. 15.0 SUMMARY OF SEWER WORK COMPLETED Between 2010 and 2017, the Municipality completed significant maintenance of the sanitary sewer system. This work included flushing and TV inspection and progressed to major repairs of sewers and manholes to reduce infiltration. At the end of 2014, Sewer Technologies completed a priority sewer repair list with the most important problems rated at 5, and the least important problems rated at 1. The repair work has been carried out in 2015, 2016, 2017 and will continue into 2018. In seven years, the Municipality has spent approximately $700,000 on the collection system infrastructure. As noted, average flows have been reduced by approximately 500 cubic meter per day. This lower flow has increased the remaining treatment capacity, potential reduced pollutant loadings on the environment, reduced run time of pumping equipment and reduced energy usage for pumping raw sewage. In 2018, the Municipality plans to invest a further $150,000 on flushing, CCTV and repairs, after which all of the Municipality’s sewer will have been completed. Smoke testing is also planned to find direct inflow sources such as sump pumps and down spouts etc. 16.0 RAINBOW TROUT TOXICITY TESTING Since spring of 2015, Brighton has submitted quarterly samples of final effluent from the constructed wetlands to a toxicity laboratory in Guelph, Ontario (Aquatox Testing and Consulting Ltd.) for LC 50 testing using young rainbow trout.
The Municipality of Brighton 18
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
All tests completed in 2017 had zero mortalities. Sampling and testing have been done in accordance with Environment Canada requirements. Prepared by: Keith Lee, Wastewater ORO Jeff Graham, P. Eng. Municipality of Brighton GSS Engineering Consultants Ltd
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO MOECC UNDER LOF PROCESS – 2017
The Municipality of Brighton
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
I I I
Notice of Modification to Sewage Works
Ministry of the Environment
1.1 RETAIN COPY OF COMPLETED FORM AS PART OF THE ECA AND SEND A COPY
TO THE WATER SUPERVISOR (FOR MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS) OR DISTRICT MANAGER (FOR INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS)
Part 1- Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) with Limited Operational Flexibility (Insert the ECA 's owner, number and issuance date and notice number, which should start with "01" and consecutive numbers thereafter)
ECA Owner ECA number Issuance Dat Notice number (mm/dd/yy)
Municipality of Brighton 3081-9XQNZK 07/07/15 7
Part 2 - Description of the modifications as part of the Limited Operational Flexibility (Attach a detailed description of the sewage works)
Previously, Brighton installed timers on the existing four aerators in the aerated cell of the
sewage treatment works. On/off cycling of the aerators was attempted to retain biological
solids in the aerated cell, to increase sludge age and promote formation and retention of
nitrifying bacteria. This notice seeks to augment aeration timers by allowing removal of
existing stop logs (two, 6" tall stop logs) in the morning to "decant" clarified water from the
aerated cell when the aerators are off. Once the boards are reinstalled later in the same day, all aerators would be returned to operation.
Description shall include: 1. A detail description above of the modifications and/or operations to the sewage works
(e.g. sewage work component, locatlon, size, equipment type/model, material,
process name, etc.)
2. An assessment of t he anticipated environmental effects
3. Updated versions of, or amendments to, all relevant mechanical documents required by
this ECA that are affected by the modifications as applicable, e.g. site plan, design brief,
drawings, emergency and spill prevention plan, etc.
Part 3 - Declaration by Professional Engineer
I hereby declare that I have verified the scope and technical aspects of this modification and
confirm that he design:
1. Has been prepared or reviewed by a Professional Engineer who is licensed to practice the
Province of Ontario;
2. Has been designed in accordance with the Limited Operational Flexibility as described in
the ECA;
3. Has been designed consistent with Ministry's Design Guidelines, adhering to
engineering standards, industry’s best management practices, and demonstrating
ongoing compliance with s.53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act; and other
appropriate regulations.
The Municipality of Brighton
2017 Wastewater Annual Report
I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief the information
contained in this form is complete and accurate
Part 4 -Declaration by Owner
I hereby declare that:
1. I am authorized by the Owner to complete this Declaration;
2. The Owner consents to the modifications; and
3. This modifications to the sewage works are proposed in accordance with the Limited
Operational Flexibility as described in the ECA. 4. The Owner has fulfilled all applicable requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act,
I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief the information
contained in this form Is complete and accurate
EAS Form August 20, 2013
90222860 Date (mm/dd/yy}
08/25/2017
Consultants Ltd.
Bill Watson, P. Eng.
CAO Dale (mm/dd/yy)
08/25/2017
APPENDIX C
Phase 2 Report (Draft) – Brighton Wastewater Treatment System
JL Richards Engineers – April 2017
M
M
BRIGHTON
MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL
N WASTEW
CLASS ENV
PHASE 2 R
Ap
Su
203-863
Kingsto
K
JL
LITY OF BRI
WATER TREA
VIRONMEN
REPORT (D
ril 10, 2017
bmitted by:
3 Princess St
on, ON Cana
K7L 5N4
LR 27271
IGHTON
ATMENT SY
NTAL ASSES
DRAFT)
treet
ada
YSTEM
SSMENT
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
TABLE
1.0 IN
1
1
1
2.0 S
2
2
3.0 P
4.0 A
4
4
5.0 ID
5
5
5
5
5
5
6.0 P
6
6
7.0 C
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
E OF CON
NTRODUCT
Backg.1
Class .2
Objec.3
SUMMARY O
Key F.1
Phase.2
PHASE 2 PU
ADDITIONAL
Waste.1
Recei.2
DENTIFICAT
Evalu.1
Waste.2
Detail.3
.3.1 Proba
.3.2 Proba
.3.3 Evalu
PREFERRED
Descr.1
Opinio.2
CONCLUSIO
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
NTENTS
TION ............
ground ........
Environmen
ctives of the
OF PHASE 1
Findings .......
e 1 Problem
UBLIC AND A
L AND UPDA
ewater Treat
ving Water A
TION OF WA
ation and Se
ewater Treat
ed Evaluatio
able Costs -
able Costs –
ation Overvi
D SOLUTION
ription of the
on of Probab
ONS AND NE
stem Class E
...................
...................
ntal Assessm
Class EA ....
1 FINDINGS
...................
and Opport
AGENCY CO
ATED SPEC
tment Requi
Assessment
ASTEWATE
election Met
tment Altern
on of Wastew
Capital Cost
Lifecycle Co
iew ..............
N .................
e Preferred A
ble Cost for
EXT STEPS
A
i
...................
...................
ment Proces
...................
S .................
...................
tunity Statem
ONSULTAT
CIALIZED ST
irements .....
t..................
ER TREATM
thodology ...
natives Cons
water Treatm
ts ...............
osts ............
...................
...................
Alternative...
Preferred So
..................
...................
...................
ss ................
...................
...................
...................
ment ............
ION ............
TUDIES ......
...................
...................
ENT ALTER
...................
sidered ........
ment Alterna
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
olution (inclu
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
RNATIVES ..
...................
...................
atives ..........
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
uding lifecyc
...................
JLR 2
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
cle upgrades
...................
27271
...... 3
...... 3
...... 7
...... 9
...... 9
...... 9
.... 10
.... 11
.... 12
.... 12
.... 13
.... 13
.... 13
.... 14
.... 17
.... 17
.... 17
.... 18
.... 20
.... 20
s) .. 20
.... 21
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 ii
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Brighton Municipal Class EA Study Location .............................................................. 5
Figure 1-2 Municipality of Brighton Wastewater System .............................................................. 6
Figure 1-3 Municipal Class EA Process ........................................................................................ 8
TABLES
Table 4-1 Effluent Compliance Limits – Waste Stabilization Pond (ECA No. 3081-9XQNZK) ... 12
Table 5-1 Description and Preliminary Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ......... 14
Table 5-2 Total Estimated Cost of Treatment Alternatives (2017 $) ........................................... 17
Table 5-3 Total Estimated Annual Operating Cost of Preferred Alternative (2017 $) ................. 18
Table 5-4 Detailed Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Public Consultation Summary
Appendix B – Detailed Treatment Technology Evaluation
Appendix C – Conceptual Layouts
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
1.0 INTR
Back1.1
The Mun(Class Eexperienalso to eIn order tRichardsof the Cla
The MunMunicipaQuinte Wto the sotends to overview
The comsystem (and forcProvinciasewage via a 8.2 gravity tocommun
As notedcollectionequippedcompleteto Butter
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
RODUCTION
kground
nicipality of EA) of their w
ced with trensure that into fully defin
s & Associatass EA.
nicipality incality within thWest to the eouth. Highw
be a regionw of the Muni
munal sewa(currently raemain, a smal Park, andgenerated inkm long, 30
o the Lagooal sewage s
d above, the n system. d with threee with inlet a
Creek, and
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
N
Brighton (twastewater
eatment (e.gncreased infe the problees Limited (
ludes the fohe County o
east and the ay 401 provnal focus foricipality and
age system gted for 4,60mall sub-ared several kiln the collect00 mm forceon treatmentsystem.
Harbour StrThe SPS g
e dry pit ceand outlet pip
related instr
stem Class E
3
the Municiptreatment s
g. elevated afluent flows fems and idenJLR) was re
ormer Town of NorthumbTown of Cra
vides the mar hamlets instudy locati
generally co00 m3/day), ea sewage ometers of tion system
emain to the t system. R
reet SPS recgenerally contrifugal typping, a standrumentation
A
3
pality) initiatesystem in Auammonia cofrom future gntify a preferetained by th
and Townsberland. Theamahe to theain east-wesn the surrouon.
onsists of thethe Harbourpumping stagravity colleis directed Lagoon trea
Refer to Fig
ceives sewaonsists of ape raw sewadby diesel gand controls
ed a Classugust 2016 oncentrationgrowth can brred solutionhe Municipal
ship of Brighe Municipalie west, with
st corridor thnding areas
e Brighton Wr Street Sewation and foection seweto the Harb
atment systegure 1-2 for
ge from appa wet well/dage pumps
generator, a s for the sta
Phase 2
s Environmeto address s in the treabe effectiveln to address lity to assist
hton and is ity is boundthe shorelin
hrough the Ms. Refer to
Wastewater Twage Pumporcemain seer. Approximbour Street Sem and the o
an overview
proximately hdry well con
(lead/lag/stwet well emtion.
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
ental Assesvarious pro
ated efflueny accommodthese issue in the comp
the most eaed by the C
ne of Lake OMunicipality,
Figure 1-1
Treatment Laing Station
ervicing Presmately half SPS and puother half flow of the Br
half of the exnfiguration atandby oper
mergency ov
AFT)
27271
sment oblems t) and dated.
es, J.L. pletion
astern City of
Ontario which for an
agoon (SPS) squ’ile of the
umped ows by righton
xisting and is ration)
verflow
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 4
The wastewater treatment system consists of a 0.68 ha single cell aerated lagoon followed by a single cell 5.44 ha waste stabilization pond with baffle partition curtains followed by a 2-cell constructed wetland with a total surface area of 6.2 ha. There is also a chemical storage/feed system used to facilitate continuous phosphorus removal. Chemical is introduced after the aerated lagoon and upstream of the waste stabilization pond. Treated effluent from the waste stabilization pond is discharged continuously to the constructed wetland and from the constructed wetland it continuously discharges to a natural wetland and ultimately to Presqu’ile Bay, which is located off the northeast shore of Lake Ontario.
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JW
KTK
BH
27271
FIGURE 1-1
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
LOCATION PLAN
UV33
401
401UV25
UV30
UV64
L a k e O n t a r i o
Presqu'ileBay
Trenton
Brighton
Colborne
Trent River
Murray Canal
MUNICIPALITY OFBRIGHTON
L a k eO n t a r i o!.
Brighton Water PollutionControl Plant
Urban Development
MUNICIPALITYOF TRENT HILLS
TOWNSHIP OFALNWICK/HALDIMAND
CITY OF QUINTE WEST
TOWNSHIP OF CRAMAHE
MUNICIPALITY OF TRENT HILLS
COUNTY OFPRINCE EDWARDCOUNTY
UV29
UV21
UV25
UV64UV3
UV26
UV30
UV40
UV33
UV41
UV27UV5
UV31
UV28
UV2 UV2
Presqu'ileProvincial Park
File
Loc
atio
n: K
:\270
00\2
7271
- Br
ight
on L
agoo
n\JL
R D
WG
\Pla
n\27
271
Mun
icip
ality
.mxd
Plot
Dat
e: D
ecem
ber 6
, 201
6 2:
49:0
3 PM
¯
0 2 4 61Kilometers
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JW
KTK
BH
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
SYSTEM MAP (PUMPING STATION(S), FORCEMAIN, LAGOON SITE)
FIGURE 1-2
Presqu'ileBay
BRIGHTON WASTEWATERTREATMENT SYSTEM
HARBOUR ST. SEWAGEPUMPING STATION
PRESQU'ILEPARK SEWAGE
PUMPING STATION
File
Loc
atio
n: K
:\270
00\2
7271
- Br
ight
on L
agoo
n\JL
R D
WG
\Pla
n\27
271
Syst
emM
ap.m
xd
Plot
Dat
e: D
ecem
ber 6
, 201
6 2:
52:0
9 PM
¯̄
LegendGravity FlowHarbour StreetSewage Pumping Station
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
Clas1.2
The Ontaprocess purpose (R.S.O. 1
The Munreview pdetailed and stakMunicipathe Act. 2015.
This ClasundertakPhase 1 parties thFile that Schedulethe projeClass EA
The ClasSchedulerequired:
P
P
The Proje2 of the Cof the Enperiod, th
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
ss Environm
ario Environso that poteof the Act i
1990, c.E.18
nicipal Classrocess whilesite-specific
keholder ageal Engineers Updates a
ss EA has bkings have th
and Phase hat may potedocuments
e is reviewedect needs to A process ar
ss EA framee B projects:
Phase 1 – Ide
Phase 2 – Ide
ect File shalClass EA pronvironment ahen the proje
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
mental Asse
nmental Assential enviros to provide
8, s.2).
s EA procese ensuring t
c informationencies. In Associationnd amendm
been initiatedhe potential 2 specified entially be athe Class E
d to determiproceed as
re completed
ework defines, the comp
entify the Pro
entify Alterna
ll be made aocess for a mand Climate ect may proc
stem Class E
7
essment Pro
essment Aconmental effe for the pro
ss is followthat the pron gathering 1987 the fi
n (MEA) on ments were s
d as a Schedfor significa
under the Mffected by thEA process ine if the proa Schedule
d.
es the procepletion of th
oblem and/o
ative Solutio
available for mandatory 3Change (M
ceed to impl
A
7
ocess
ct (the Act) sffects are cootection and
ed for commoject meets tand studiesirst Class Ebehalf of Onsubsequentl
dule ‘B’ projant environm
Municipal Clahe project, afor the proj
oject is compe C undertak
ess for each he following
or Opportuni
ons to the Pr
public and a30-day perio
MOECC) for aementation
sets out a ponsidered bconservatio
mon types the requirem
s, as well asEA guidancentario Municy made in 1
ect. Projectsmental effectass EA. Thisand the prepject. At theplete under king in which
type of prog Phases of
ity
roblem and/o
agency revied. If there aa ‘Part II Or(Phase 5).
Phase 2
planning andefore a proj
on of the na
of projects ments of thes consultatioe document cipalities wa1993, 2000,
s categorizets, and are
s includes coparation of ae end of Pha
a Schedule h case Phas
oject (refer tof the Class
or Opportun
ew at the comare no requerder’ within t
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
d decision-moject begins.atural enviro
to streamline Act. It invon with the
prepared bs approved 2007, 2011
ed as Schedrequired to
onsultation wa Class EA Pase 2, the p‘B’ Schedul
ses 3 and 4
o Figure 1-3 EA proces
ity
mpletion of Pests to the Mthis 30-day r
AFT)
27271
making . The nment
ne the volves public
by the under
1, and
ule ‘B’ follow
with all Project project le or if of the
3). For ss are
Phase Ministry review
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
Obje1.3
The objefor the msewage s
The purpincludingProblem Report aand sum
2.0 SUM
Key 2.1
The follo
Tsamsuow
Tpefthst(w
Aexovinth
Ttr
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
ectives of th
ective of this main sewagsystem over
pose of this g providing a
Statement dlso summarmarizes age
MMARY OF
Findings
wing are som
The raw sewamples each
municipal wauggests thatther sources
was originally
The main coarticular, amffluent) and
he six yeartabilization pwetland) was
A detailed rexisting systverloading,
nefficient aehroughout th
he wetland reatment with
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
he Class EA
Class EA isge pumping r a 20-year p
Report is ta review of determined dizes Phase
ency and pub
PHASE 1 F
me of the ke
wage is relh year fallingastewater. t non-resides) may be sy designed fo
ncern over mmonia conobjectives (s reviewed,pond. Theres not met in
eview of thetem experiepotential sh
eration, raphe year.
portion of thh the except
stem Class E
9
A
s to identify tstation and
planning per
to summarizthe various
during Phas1 findings (bblic consulta
INDINGS
ey Phase 1 f
atively “higg in the rangSome maxi
ential contribignificant anor treating.
the past sevncentration (wetland effl, the ECA e are no limfive of the s
e wastewateences a n
hort circuitinid sludge a
he treatmention of some
A
9
the preferredd associatediod.
ze the result options thae 1 and to re
based on a sation activitie
findings:
h strength”ge of literaturmum values
butions to thend may be lo
veral years has exceed
luent) on selimits for toits specifiedix years rev
er treatmentnumber of g, and limitaccumulatio
t system doe marginal de
d strategies d forcemain
ts of Phaseat have beeecommend separate repes;
for a domre values fors are reporte waste streoading the la
is related toded the EC
everal occasotal phosph
d in the ECAiewed.
t system pechallenges
ted hydraulicn, and poo
oes not appeecreases in
Phase 2
for wastewan for the Br
e 2 of the Cen considerea preferred
port complete
mestic sewar medium to ted to be eveam (e.g. inagoon at a
o treated effCA limits (ssions. Addihorous wereA for E. Coli,
erformance including:
c detention or ammonia
ear to be proTotal Phosp
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
ater treatmenrighton com
Class EA proed to addresalternative. ed for that P
ge, with mhigh streng
ven higher. dustrial washigher rate t
fluent qualitystabilization itionally, in fe not met , but the obj
indicates thregular o
time, issuea effluent q
oviding signphorus.
AFT)
27271
nt and munal
ocess, ss the This
Phase)
onthly th raw This
stes or than it
y. In pond
four of in the jective
at the rganic s with quality
nificant
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
DaS
Ucap
Phas2.2
Based onproblem/
The Brig
collection
continuo
stabilizat
removal.
(ECA) N
The syst
projected
increase
approxim
Based on
determin
required
Phospho
configura
raw sewa
the treate
the organ
of the tre
of concer
In additio
part of Ph
within the
is require
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
Due to the pproximately
Street SPS a
Updated popapacity of thlanning perio
se 1 Problem
n the informa/opportunity
ghton comm
n sewers,
usly dischar
tion pond, a
The treatm
No. 3081-9XQ
tem currently
d to occur w
hydraulic lo
mately 60% t
n an evalua
ned that the
by ECA N
orus. A revie
ation of the L
age combine
ed effluent e
nic loadings
eatment syst
rn.
on, the Harb
hase 1 of th
e next 7 yea
ed.
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
age and y $500,000 nd Lagoon i
pulation andhe existing trod for this st
m and Oppo
ation develostatement w
munal sewag
a main pu
rged lagoon
constructed
ment system
QNZK which
y services a
within the 2
oading to th
to 70% of its
ation of the a
treatment s
No. 3081-9X
ew of histori
Lagoon bas
ed with phys
exceedances
received fro
tem is not pr
our Street S
e Class EA.
ars approxim
stem Class E
1
condition oin infrastrucs required o
flow projecreatment systudy.
ortunity Sta
oped and anwas develope
ge system
umping stat
based treat
d wetland an
is currently
h stipulates
an estimated
20 year plan
he treatment
s ECA rated
available op
system has
XQNZK, pa
rical raw sew
sed treatmen
sical limitatio
s. The syste
om the collec
roviding any
SPS and the
Due to the
mately $500,0
A
10
of the existcture rehabi
over approxim
ctions show stem is not a
atement
alyzed durined for the pr
generally co
tion, a sma
tment system
d a continuo
y licensed un
certain ope
d population
nning period
t system. Th
“hydraulic” c
perational his
s regular dif
articularly fo
wage quality
nt system, in
ons of the tr
em, as curre
ction system
y significant
Lagoon bas
age and co
000 in infras
ting infrastrilitation and mately the n
w that the cuanticipated t
ng Phase 1 oroject:
onsists of s
aller sub-ar
m that inclu
ous chemica
nder Environ
erational and
n of 6462 an
d that will g
The system i
capacity.
storical trea
fficulties in a
or ammonia
y, hydraulic i
ndicates that
reatment sys
ently configu
m. Further th
treatment w
sed treatmen
ndition of th
structure reh
Phase 2
ucture, it imaintenanc
next 7 years.
urrently appto be exceed
of this Class
several kilom
rea pumpin
udes an aera
al feed syste
nmental Com
d performan
nd some pop
generate add
is currently
ted effluent
achieving th
a and in so
input and th
t the relati
ystem is the
ured, is not c
he constructe
with respect
nt system we
e existing in
abilitation an
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
s estimatedce at the Ha.
proved ECA ded in the 20
s EA, the foll
meters of g
g station a
ation cell, a
em for phosp
mpliance Ap
nce requirem
pulation gro
ditional flow
only operat
data, it has
he effluent q
ome cases
he overall ph
ively high str
primary cau
capable of tr
ed wetland p
to the param
ere evaluate
nfrastructure,
nd maintena
AFT)
27271
d that arbour
rated 0-year
lowing
gravity
and a
waste
phorus
proval
ments.
owth is
ws and
ting at
s been
quality
Total
hysical
rength
use for
reating
portion
meters
ed as
,
ance
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 11
3.0 PHASE 2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION
The Class EA process requires consultation with parties that may potentially be affected by the project. As part of Phase 2, the consultation plan developed in Phase 1 was followed in order to facilitate communication with the public and various agencies and other interested parties. Refer to Appendix A for the Phase 2 Public Consultation Summary and supporting documentation.
Key components of Phase 2 Stakeholder consultation include:
Reviewing the Public Consultation Plan (developed in Phase 1) Project Team/Committee Meetings Responding to Public Stakeholder Comments Responding to Review Agency Comments Maintaining Project Mailing List and Contacts Public Information Centre Notice of Completion
Key consultation correspondence from Phase 2 is included in Appendix A. A brief summary of some of the key results of this consultation is presented below:
MOECC - The MOECC reviewed the Phase 1 Report and other available information on the project and determined that the existing effluent limits will remain in place. The Ministry noted that the Class EA evaluation should consider that some add-on treatment options could provide incidental improvements in overall effluent quality. Improvements in BOD and TSS in addition to ammonia were of particular interest in to the MOECC. The MOECC indicated that they do not anticipate giving credit to the effluent quality improvements that the constructed wetland may provide.
MNRF – The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) provided general
information on the databases available. It was also noted that any expansions of the existing infrastructure should not be placed within the Provincially Significant Wetland (adjacent to the engineered wetland). A site assessment was also recommended to identify the presence of any Species at Risk and/or their habitat.
A mandatory Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held in advance of finalizing this Phase 2 Report. The PIC will solicit additional input for consideration in establishing the final preferred alternative.
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
4.0 ADD
Phase 1 relevant properly Some adoutlined
Trea4.1
The wasevaluatioClass EAlagoon isincrease
The exisThe MOEDuring theffect asfocus onphosphoforward isome inccorrespo
Table 4-
CBO
Tota
Amm
Tota
Note** fro
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
DITIONAL C
of the Clasexisting conidentified a
dditional key below.
ated Effluen
tewater treaon of projectA and baseds anticipatedto the ECA
ting ECA coECC was cohis consulta part of this addressingrous. The Minto prelimincidental imp
ondence with
1 Existing E
Para
OD5
al Suspended
monia + Amm
al Phosphoru
es: * from Maom Novemb
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
CONDITIONS
ss EA involvnditions and nd evaluateconditions a
nt Requirem
atment systeed growth w
d on this evad to be lessrated capac
ompliance reonsulted neation, it was
s undertakingg the issues
MOECC indicnary design,provements h the MOECC
Effluent Com
ameter
d Solids
monium Nitr
us
ay 01 to Octer 01 to Apr
stem Class E
1
S AND CON
ved problemconstraints
ed in considand constra
ments
em is rated fwithin the sealuation, the s than the ccity during th
equirementsar the end of
confirmed tg. It was no associated
cated that du consideratiin the trea
C is provide
mpliance Li
Conin
30
40
ogen 1417.
1
tober 30 ril 30
A
12
NSTRAINTS
m/opportunityto ensure th
deration of aints were als
for an Averarvice area w20-year des
current ratehis time perio
s for the treaf Phase 1 anthat the cur
oted by the Mwith ammo
uring the evaion should batment of Td in the Con
imits – Was
ncentration Effluent
0.0 mg/L
0.0 mg/L .0 mg/L * 0 mg/L ** .0 mg/L
y definition,hat feasible all of the prso confirmed
age Day Flowas undertaksign average
ed capacity od.
atment systend early on irrent ECA reMOECC thaonia removaaluation of obe given to
TSS and cBnsultation Su
ste Stabiliza
Loading iEffluent
138.0 kg/d
184.0 kg/d64.4 kg/da78.2 kg/day
4.6 kg/da
Phase 2
which includalternative s
roject specifd early on in
ow (ADF) of ken as part e day raw sand there is
em are outliinto Phase 2equirementsat enhancedal and to a lptions in Phalternatives
BOD5. Docuummary (Ap
ation Pond
in t Non-
day Annu
day Annuay * y ** Mont
ay Mont
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
ded identifysolutions cofic circumstan Phase 2 an
4,600 m3/daof Phase 1 ewage flow s no need
ined in Tabl2 of the Class are to rem treatment sesser extenase 2 and m
s that can pmentation opendix A).
-compliance
ual Average
ual Average
thly Average
thly Average
AFT)
27271
ing all uld be ances. nd are
ay. An of this to the for an
le 4-1. ss EA.
main in should nt total moving rovide of this
e
e
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
Rece4.2
Based onthe ratedwas deem
5.0 IDEN
Eval5.1
The maisolutionssolutionswastewaIt is also “generalitypically developeClass EA
In order transpare
In D S
The first those altalternativ
Based oconducteexperienconducte
N E S F
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
eiving Wate
n the aboved capacity ismed not to b
NTIFICATIO
uation and
n objective s to the probs to the probter projects important to
zed solutionfurther exp
ed during a pA process an
to facilitate ent and logic
nitial screeniDetailed evalSelection of a
evaluation sternatives thves are not c
on the initiaed. Evaluatioce on simila
ed using crite
Natural EnvirEngineering aSocial and Co
inancial Imp
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
er Assessm
e-noted conss not requirebe required.
ON OF WAST
Selection M
of Phase 2blem(s) (andblem(s), incgenerally reo note that tn” to the proplored as papreliminary and referred to
the evaluatcal three par
ng of alternauation of scr
a preferred a
stage considhat fully addcarried forwa
al screeningon criteria w
ar assessmeerion in the f
ronment andand Technicommunity W
pacts
stem Class E
1
ent
sultation withed for this p
TEWATER
Methodolog
of a Class/or opportunluding the ‘
esult in the idthe objectiveoblem and art of Phasand detailedo as Implem
tion and selrt assessme
atives; reened alteralternative.
ders the overess the proard to a more
g, a detailewere developents and in cfollowing fou
Archeologycal Considera
Well Being
A
13
h the MOECparticular und
TREATMEN
gy
s EA is to idnities) identifDo Nothing’dentification e of Phase not necessa
se 3 of a Sd design stagmentation).
lection of thnt process w
rnatives; and
erall feasibilitoblem stateme detailed ev
ed assessmped based onconsultation ur major crite
y ations
CC and givedertaking, a
NT ALTERN
dentify and fied in Phas’ option, areand review 2 is to focusarily all of thSchedule C ge (i.e. inclu
he preferredwas establis
d
ty of the potment. This valuation sta
ment of the n a review owith Munici
eria categori
Phase 2
en the fact tha receiving w
NATIVES
evaluate pose 1. All reae consideredof a broad rs on a deterhe intricate
Class EA uded as part
solutions dhed. This p
tential solutistep ensure
age.
short list of the backgripal staff. Thies:
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
hat an increwater asses
ossible alterasonable pod. Class EArange of solurmining an odetails whicand then fof Phase 5
during Phaserocess inclu
ons and idees that unre
of alternativround informhe evaluatio
AFT)
27271
ase in sment
rnative otential As for utions. overall ch are further of the
e 2, a uded:
entifies ealistic
ves is mation, on was
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
Once thalternativa preferre
Initia5.2
Several asupport a
Table 5-
Option 1
1) Do no
Option 2
2A) Remcells
2B) Optimupgrade/
2C) Modvolume a
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
he detailed ve(s) was ideed alternativ
al Screening
alternatives a recommen
1 Descriptio
Alternativ
: Do nothing
thing
: Optimize/M
move sludge
mize baffle d/refurbish ex
ify lagoon opand/or aerati
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
evaluation entified for pve.
g of Alterna
are presentendation to eit
on and Prel
ve
g
Modify Curre
from lagoon
design and xisting baffle
perating on
stem Class E
1
was compresentation
atives
ed in Table 5ther carry the
liminary Eva
ReviewenvironmECA limThis optaddressRecomm
nt Lagoon O
n Reviewaddressshould oRecommto be co
s Review(Cell Noown but improvinnot meeonly conRecommto be coReviewsystem identifiedof the otAdding aassociatRecomm
A
14
pleted, a n to stakehol
5-1 along wie alternative
aluation of
Re
: This optionment as efflu
mits and couldtion has not s the problemmendation:
Operations : Sludge rem
s the identifieonly be consmendation:onsidered in: Optimizing
o. 2) will not ait should pro
ng lagoon reeting ECA rensidered in cmendation:onsidered in: Previous uhave provend problems. ther options additional lated with ammmendation:
recommendlders and to
ith a summae forward for
Wastewate
eview/Recom
n would haveuent would lid also resultbeen carried
m. Do not car
moval has pred issues onsidered in co Carry forwn combinat
g baffle desigaddress all t
rovide some etention timeequirements.combination Carry forwn combinat
upgrades to tn not to be e
A new aerabeing carrie
agoon volummonia treatm Do not car
Phase 2
ded preferreo solicit input
ary of the revr further eva
er Treatmen
mmendation
e a negativeikely continut in fines to td forward as
rry forward
roven in the n its own. Thombination wward but onltion with othgn in the stathe identifiedadditional tr
e and reduce. This alternawith other o
ward but onltion with oththe existing
effective in adation systemed forward (se will not ad
ment. rry forward
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
ed alternatit prior to fina
view carried luation or no
t Alternativ
n
e effect on thue to exceedthe Municipas it does not
past to not his alternativewith other oply as an opther alternatbilization pod problems oreatment by e overall riskative should
options. ly as an opther alternatlagoon aeraddressing th is part of sosee below). ddress the is
AFT)
27271
ve or alizing
out to ot.
ves
he d the ality.
e ptions. tion tives
ond on its
ks in be
tion tives
ation he ome
ssues
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 15
2D) Optimize alum dosage for phosphorous removal
Review: Optimizing alum dosage will not address all of the identified problems on its own but should help to resolve the issues with periodic phosphorous exceedances from the lagoon. Recommendation: Carry forward but only as an option to be considered in combination with other alternatives
2E) Upgrade/refurbish the constructed wetland
Review: Refurbishing the wetland is not anticipated to address all of the identified issues on its own. Initial conversations with the MOECC suggest that the effluent objects on the wetland are for data collection purposes only. Refurbishing the wetland, however, may provide some additional treatment and reduce overall risks in not meeting ECA requirements. Recommendation: Carry forward but only as an option to be considered in combination with other alternatives
1F) Investigate and divert any identified high strength waste streams away from the lagoon system
Review: As part of the preferred alternative, the Municipality should continue to work with its ICI customers in the community to assess options for reducing high strength sewage discharges to the collection system. Reducing the strength of the influent loading to the lagoon system will assist in mitigating risks of impacts to the existing treatment system (and any new systems) and the resulting treated effluent concentrations. Recommendation: Carry forward but only as an option to be considered in combination with other alternatives
Option 3: Install Specialized Treatment System to Complement the Existing Lagoon System
3A) Install complete mix activated sludge process upstream of existing lagoons (e.g. Biolac Treatment System)
Review: These options (Option 3) have all been reviewed based on information received from technology providers and all have the potential to meet the current effluent criteria and address the key issues in the problem statement. Recommendation: Carry forward
3B) Upgrade aeration in the existing aeration cell and install submerged aerated bio-film reactors in the existing stabilization pond (e.g. WCS Bio-Shell)
3C) Upgrade/expand aeration in the existing cells and install an attached growth reactor following the existing stabilization pond (e.g. SAGR)
3D) Add pre-screening and install a fixed film biological treatment process upstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. SMBR, MBBR)
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 16
3E) Upgrade aeration in the existing aeration cell and install a fixed film biological treatment process downstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. SMBR, MBBR)
3F) Add pre-screening and install a bioreactor with activated sludge process and membrane technology upstream of the existing lagoons (e.g. MBR)
Option 4: New Mechanical Treatment Plant
4) Replace lagoon completely with a new mechanical treatment plant
Review: This option has the proven ability to meet the current effluent criteria and address the key issues in the problem statement; however, the costs are anticipated to be much higher than the other options and significant changes to the site and operations would be required making it unaffordable to the Municipality. Costs are estimated to be $15M to $25M with annual operating costs in the $750,000 range. Recommendation: Do not carry forward
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
Deta5.3
5.3.1 P
An Opiniaccuracythat havesimilar pr
5.3.2 P
Based ofacilities,summariassumedoperationphospho
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
ailed Evalua
Probable Co
on of Probay was develoe not fully berojects, profe
Table 5
Option 2: O 2a. Rem 2b. Upg 2d. Opt 2e. Ref 2f. DiveOption 3: In 3a. Com 3b. Sub 3c. Sub 3d. Fixe 3e. Fixe 3f. ActivNotes:
1. Esti2. Inclu
des3. Inclu4. Inclu
Probable Co
on the cost the annua
zed in Tabd that the tns staff and rous remova
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
ation of Was
osts - Capita
ble Construcoped for eaceen developessional jud
5-2 Total Es
Optimize/Modmove sludgegrade/refurbiimize alum durbish the coert high strennstall Speciamplete Mix Abmersible Aebmerged Attaed Film Bioloed Film Biolovated Sludge
mated cost oudes compuign and newudes aeratioudes upgrad
osts – Lifecy
of existing al operating
ble 5-3. Fortreatment syelectricity co
al system an
stem Class E
1
stewater Tre
al Costs
ction Costs ch of the alteped. The OPgment, and
stimated Co
Option
dify Current e from lagoonish existing bdosage (studonstructed wngth waste s
alized TreatmActivated Sluerated Bio-Fached Growtogical Proceogical Procee with Memb
of full desludutational flu
w, as well as on upgrades ded/expande
ycle Costs
operations g costs of r the purpoystem is oposts for blow
nd equipmen
A
17
eatment Alt
(OPCC) withernates and PCC’s were equipment c
ost of Treatm
Lagoon Open cells 1. baffles 2. dy componewetland streams ment Systemudge Procesilm Reactorsth Reactor 4ss – upstreass – downst
brane Techn
dging of aeraid dynamicsmodified bain existing a
ed aeration i
and informaeach parti
ses of estaperating at wers and punt replaceme
ternatives
h a Class ‘Dincludes alldeveloped
costs provide
ment Altern
erations
ent only)
m to the Exisss s 3. 4. am tream 3. nology
ation and stas (CFD) mo
affles in the saeration celln both exist
ation from scular treatm
ablishing opits ECA ramps. Chem
ent costs hav
Phase 2
D’ (Indicative owances fobased on paed by suppli
natives (201
EstimatedCost (20
$ 1,000$ 300,$ 30,0$150,0
No on-sitting Lagoon
$4.5$4.5$7.0$4.5$3.0
$10.0
abilization podelling to stabilization . ing cells.
suppliers anment alternperational coated capacitical costs asve not been
2 Report (DRA
JLR 2
Estimate) ler design eleast experieniers.
17 $)
d Capital 017 $)
0,000 000
000 000 te cost System
5M 5M
M 5M
M 0M
ond. optimize pond.
nd similarly ative have osts it has ty. Costs inssociated wincluded.
AFT)
27271
evel of ments
nce on
sized been been
nclude ith the
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 18
Table 5-3 Estimated Annual Operational Costs of Treatment Alternatives (2017 $)
Option Estimated Operations Cost ($/year)
3a. Complete Mix Activated Sludge Process $200,000 3b. Submersible Aerated Bio-Film Reactors $200,000 3c. Submerged Attached Growth Reactor $300,000 3d. Fixed Film Biological Process - upstream $200,000 3e. Fixed Film Biological Process - downstream $200,000 3f. Activated Sludge with Membrane Technology Info not provided by supplier
5.3.3 Evaluation Overview
Table 5-5 summarizes the detailed evaluation of the screened alternatives for the treatment system. Each option was assigned an evaluation impact level (refer to Table 5-4) for each evaluation criteria. This method provides an overall assessment of the positive and negative impacts of each alternative. This method was used as it is recognized that there could be more than one option or technology that can address the problem and that additional consideration of these technologies could be undertaken either as part of a Phase 3 (i.e. Schedule C continuation of this Class EA) or as part of a pre-design stage. For the detailed evaluation refer to Appendix B.
Table 5-4 Evaluation Impact Level
Evaluation Impact Level Indicator Potential for Positive Impact +1
No Anticipated Impact 0
Potential for Negative Impact -1
Appendix C contains conceptual layouts of each of the technologies and how they could be integrated into the existing site.
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 19
Table 5-5 Summary Evaluation Matrix M
AJO
R C
RIT
ERIA
MINOR CRITERIA
OPT
3A
C
OM
PLET
E M
IX
AC
TIVA
TED
SL
UD
GE
PRO
CES
S
OPT
3B
SU
BM
ERSI
BLE
A
ERA
TED
BIO
-FI
LM R
EAC
TOR
S
OPT
3C
SU
BM
ERG
ED
ATT
AC
HED
G
RO
WTH
R
EAC
TOR
O
PT 3
D
FIXE
D F
ILM
B
IOLO
GIC
AL
PRO
CES
S (U
PSTR
EAM
) O
PT 3
E FI
XED
FIL
M
BIO
LOG
ICA
L PR
OC
ESS
(DO
WN
STR
EAM
) O
PT 3
F A
CTI
VATE
D
SLU
DG
E W
ITH
M
EMB
RA
NE
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
NA
TUR
AL
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
AN
D
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
Y
Effect on Fish and Aquatic Habitat +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
Effect on Wetlands, Woodlands, Wildlife
Habitat 0 0 -1 0 0 0
Effect on Archeological
Potential Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENG
INEE
RIN
G A
ND
TEC
HN
ICA
L C
ON
SID
ERA
TIO
NS
Proven Cold Weather
Installations +1 -1 +1 +1 +1 -1
Ability to Meet Effluent Criteria +1 0 +1 +1 +1 +1
Degree of Process Control +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1
Ease of Operation -1 +1 +1 0 0 -1
Capability with existing site +1 +1 -1 +1 0 +1
Opportunities for Future Expansion +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1
SOC
IAL/
CO
MM
UN
ITY
WEL
L B
EIN
G
Impacts During Construction 0 0 -1 0 0 0
Compatibility with Surrounding Land
Use and Visual Impact
0 0 -1 0 0 0
Noise and Odour Effects during
Operation +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
Maintenance (Short Term and Long Term Requirements)
-1 -1 0 -1 +1 -1
Capital Cost 0 0 -1 0 +1 -1
TOTAL 5 0 -2 6 8 2
MunicipalBrighton W
J. L. Richa
6.0 PRE
Desc6.1
Based oSpecializoverall nredundanconstructidentifiedoverall ptechnologrefurbishparticulaprocess overall be
The main
P A C E M
In additiohas seve
C P M
m
Opin6.2
An OpiniaccuracyAllowanc
ity of BrightonWastewater T
ards & Assoc
EFERRED S
cription of t
on the evaluzed Treatmeet benefit toncy and to tated wetland
d in Option 2referred solgy implemening the conr specialize(3A) and thenefit to the
n benefits of
Proven full scAbility to meeControlled proEasily expandModerate upf
on, the fixederal added be
ComparativelPotential for rManufacturermeasuremen
nion of Prob
on of Probay was deveces for desig
n Treatment Sys
ciates Limited
OLUTION
the Preferre
uation methent System too the Municipake advanta), this optio
2 – Optimizinutions. This ntation, upg
nstructed weed treatmenthe fixed filmMunicipality
f each of the
cale Canadiaet current effocess that cdable procesfront capital
d film biologenefits for co
ly lower capreduced necr’s warrantet point)
bable Cost f
ble Construceloped for fgn elements
stem Class E
2
ed Alternativ
hodology utio Complemepality. In ord
age of existinn should be
ng and Modiincludes a rading baffleetland, and t system to
m biological y based on i
preferred so
an and cold fluent criteriacan be adjusss with minimcosts and o
gical processonsideration
ital cost invecessity to upee on effl
for Preferre
ction Costs full implemes that have
A
20
ve
lized, it waent the Exisder to mitigang facilities/ie completedfying Currenvery thorouges in the stadiverting hi
o be selecteprocess (3Dnformation a
olutions in O
weather insta, with qualitsted to achiemal capital cngoing oper
s located don by the mun
estment grade aeratiuent qualit
ed Solution
(OPCC) withentation of not fully bee
as determineting Lagoon
ate risk and nfrastructure
d in combinant Lagoon Ogh de-sludgabilization poigh waste sed, the comD or 3E) apavailable at t
Option 3 are
tallations; ty that is bet
eve consistencost to increarational costs
ownstream onicipality:
ion equipmety (with ef
(including
h a Class ‘Dall element
en develope
Phase
ed that Optn System pro
ensure appe (i.e. the exation with s
Operations asing programond, optimizstreams. Witmplete mix ppear to prthis time.
the following
tter than curnt effluent quase treatmes.
of the stabil
ent in Cell 1 ffluent at
lifecycle up
D’ (Indicative ts of the ped are includ
e 2 Report (DR
JLR 2
tion 3 - Insovided the hropriate treaxisting lagoo
some of the s being part
m prior to anzing alum doth regardsactivated s
ovide the h
g:
rent ECA limuality;
ent capacity;
lization pond
ECA comp
pgrades)
Estimate) lepreferred soded. The OP
RAFT)
27271
stall a highest atment on and
items of the y new
osage, to the sludge highest
mits;
and
d (3E)
pliance
evel of olution. PCC’s
Municipality of Brighton Brighton Wastewater Treatment System Class EA Phase 2 Report (DRAFT)
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 21
were developed based on past experience on similar projects, professional judgment, and equipment costs provided by suppliers.
Table 6-1 Opinion of Probable Cost for Preferred Solution
Component Estimated Capital
Cost (2017 $) (Option 3E)
Install Specialized Treatment System $3,000,000 Remove sludge from lagoon cells $1,000,000 Upgrade/refurbish existing baffles $ 300,000 Optimize alum dosage (study component only) $ 30,000 Refurbish the constructed wetland $ 150,000 Complete Lifecycle Upgrades at SPS and Lagoon $ 500,000
Sub-Total $4,980,000 Engineering and Contingency (30%) $ 1,500,000
Grand Total (rounded) $ 6,500,000
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
A Public Information Centre will be held to inform the general public, project stakeholders, and review agencies of the preliminary findings of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports and to obtain input on the recommendation of the preferred alternative. In addition, the Phase 2 report will be circulated to the MOECC for comment. Following the public meeting, receipt of comments from affected parties and review agencies, and confirmation of a preferred alternative, the Municipality will be in a position to post the Class EA Project File that documents the Class EA process. After the 30-day period for comment closes the Municipality will be in a position to implement the preferred option and proceed directly into preliminary design. The design would be based on the analysis presented within this Schedule B and the conceptual layouts for the preferred alternatives identified in Phase 2 that take the environmental factors into consideration (e.g. potential impacts to the constructed wetland, etc.).
Alternatively, the Municipality may elect to further define the technologies presented as part of Option 3 (each of which would meet the treatment level criteria) by undertaking a Schedule C Class EA.
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix A
Appendix A
Public Consultation Summary
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix B
Appendix B
Detailed Treatment Technology Evaluation
MAJOR C
NATUENVIRO
ANARCHAE
ENGINEAND TEC
CONSIDE
CRITERIA
URAL ONMENT ND EOLOGY
E
E
EERING CHNICAL RATIONS
D
E
MINOR CRITE
Effect on FishAquatic Hab
Effect on WetlaWoodlands
Wildlife Habi
Effect on Archeologic
Potential Impa
Proven ColWeather
Installation
Ability to MeEffluent Crite
Degree of ProControl &
Availability Performanc
Guarantee
Ease of Opera
Capability wexisting site HGL, electricservicing, et
ERIA COM
h and itat
POSITdischaimprov
ands, s, itat
NO IMoccur wetlan
cal acts
NO IMpotent
ld
ns
POSITand cohowevenviro
eet eria
POSITbe proECA liAmmomg/L.
cess &
of ce e
POSITprocescontrorequirewould storag
ation NEGAmay reinput.
with (i.e. cal tc)
POSITbuildinfor RAelectricupgrad
OPT 3MPLETE MIX
SLUDGE PR
TIVE: Quality oarged to surfaceve.
MPACT: No conin the engineer
nd.
MPACT: No arctial has been id
TIVE: Numerouold weather insver, process sunmental condit
TIVE: High quaoduced that is bmits for all par
onia will be in th
TIVE: There aress variables thaolled. The existied for treatmenbe used for slue/stabilization.
ATIVE: Automaequire more reg
TIVE: No new tngs are requireAS would be bycal servicing wding.
3A X ACTIVATEDROCESS
of effluent e water will
nstruction will red or natural
cheological dentified on site
us Canadian/ stallations, ubject to extremtions.
ality effluent wilbetter than the rameters. he range of <5
e a number of at can be ing lagoon is nnt; however, it udge
ted process thagular operator
tankage or d; flow except
y gravity. Site would need
D SUBMEF
POSITIVdischargeimprove.
NO IMPAoccur in twetland.
e. NO IMPApotential
me
NEGATIVinstallatiocold weat
l
NO IMPAmeet the
ot
NEGATIVaerated bhigher delagoon alcontrol is be slow to
at POSITIVrequired o
POSITIVbuildings continue electrical upgrading
OPT 3BERSIBLE AERFILM REACT
E: Quality of efed to surface w
ACT: No constrthe engineered
ACT: No archeohas been iden
VE: No full scalons and limited ther installation
ACT: The efflueECA limits.
VE: The submebio-film reactorsegree of controone, however, limited and theo respond.
E: Limited opeonce establish
E: No new tankrequired, flow to be by gravitservicing woul
g.
RATED BIO-TORS
ffluent water will
ruction will d or natural
ological tified on site.
le Canadian number of ns generally.
ent quality will
ersible s have a l then a process e system may
rator input is ed.
kage or would y. Site ld need
SUBMEGROW
POSITIVE: Qdischarged timprove.
NEGATIVE: reduce the eby approxim
NO IMPACTpotential has
POSITIVE: Nand cold weahowever, suenvironment
POSITIVE: Hbe producedECA limits foAmmonia wimg/L.
NEGATIVE: growth reactdegree of coalone, howelimited and tto respond.
POSITIVE: Lrequired onc
NEGATIVE: Pumping maon the locatielectrical serupgrading.
OPT 3CRGED ATTAWTH REACT
Quality of efflueto surface wate
New treatmenengineered wetately 50%.
T: No archeologs been identifie
Numerous Canather installatiobject to extremtal conditions.
High quality effd that is better tor all parametell be in the rang
Submerged attors have a higontrol then a lagver, process cohe system may
Limited operatoce established.
New cells are ay be required don of reactor crvicing would n
ACHED TOR
ent er will
Pdim
t cells will tland area
Now
gical ed on site.
Np
nadian/ ons,
me
Pahe
fluent will than the
ers. ge of <5
PbEAra
ttached her goon ontrol is y be slow
Pfafihfo
or input is Nthin
required. depending ells. Site
need
Pbceu
OFIXED FILPROCESS
POSITIVE: Quadischarged to smprove.
NO IMPACT: Noccur in the engwetland.
NO IMPACT: Npotential has be
POSITIVE: Numand cold weathehowever, subjecenvironmental c
POSITIVE: Goobe produced thaECA limits for aAmmonia will beange.
POSITIVE: Theactors that canixed film biolog
however, the laor treatment.
NO IMPACT: Ahat may requirenput.
POSITIVE: No buildings are recontinue to be belectrical servicupgrading.
OPT 3DM BIOLOGICS (UPSTREA
ality of effluent urface water w
o construction gineered or nat
o archeologicaeen identified o
merous Canadier installationsct to extreme conditions.
od quality efflueat is better than
all parameters. e in the 5 – 15
ere are a numb be controlled
gical process; goon is still req
Automated proce periodic oper
new tankage oequired; flow woby gravity. Sitecing would need
CAL AM)
FP
will POSdiscimp
n will tural
NO newouts
al on site.
NO pote
ian/ s,
POSandhowenv
ent will n the
5 mg/L
POSbe pECAAmmrang
ber of in the
quired
POSfactfixedhowfor t
cess rator
NO thatinpu
or ould
e d
NO tankhavelecupg
OPTFIXED FILM ROCESS (DO
SITIVE: Qualitycharged to surfrove.
IMPACT: Miniw treatment cellside of the cons
IMPACT: No aential has been
SITIVE: Numer cold weather i
wever, subject tironmental con
SITIVE: Good qproduced that iA limits for all pmonia will be inge.
SITIVE: There ors that can bed film biologica
wever, the lagootreatment.
IMPACT: Autot may require put.
IMPACT: Newkage and a blowe a minimal foo
ctrical servicingrading.
T 3EBIOLOGICAOWNSTREA
y of effluent face water will
mal footprint ofl could be placestructed wetlan
archeological n identified on s
rous Canadianinstallations, to extreme nditions.
quality effluents better than th
parameters. n the 5 – 15 mg
are a number oe controlled in tal process; on is still requir
omated processperiodic operato
w downstream wer building wootprint. Site g may not need
L M)
ACTMEM
POSITdischaimprov
f ed nd.
NO IMoccur iwetland
site. NO IMpotenti
/ NEGATweathetemperC.
t will he
g/L
POSITbe prodECA limAmmomg/L.
of the
red
POSITprocescontrolexistingtreatme
s or
NEGATprocestime oprequire
ould
d
POSITbuildingfor RASelectricupgrad
OPT 3TIVATED SLUMBRANE TEC
IVE: Quality of rged to surfacee.
PACT: No consn the engineered.
PACT: No archal has been ide
TIVE: Limited ner installations, rature must be
IVE: High qualduced that is bemits for all parania will be in th
IVE: There ares variables thaled in this procg lagoon is not ent.
TIVE: A technics that may requperator input. M regular cleani
IVE: No new tags are requiredS would be by gcal servicing woing.
FUDGE WITH CHNOLOGY
effluent e water will
struction will ed or natural
heological entified on site.
number of cold influent above 9 deg.
ity effluent will etter than the
ameters. e range of <5
a number of t can be ess. The required for
cally advanced uire full/part
Membranes ng.
ankage or d; flow except gravity. Site ould need
.
d
MAJOR CRITERIA MINOR CRITERIA OPT 3A
COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
OPT 3BSUBMERSIBLE AERATED BIO-
FILM REACTORS
OPT 3CSUBMERGED ATTACHED
GROWTH REACTOR
OPT 3DFIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (UPSTREAM)
OPT 3EFIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL
PROCESS (DOWNSTREAM)
OPT 3FACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY
Opportunities for Future Expansion
POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required additional aeration tubes can be added to the modules without the need for additional basins.
NEGATIVE: The number of units can be increased; however, the level of effort to install would be similar to a new installation.
NEGATIVE: The number of process cells could be increased; however, the level of effort would be relatively high and additional land would be required.
POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the quantity of the media in the basin can be increased at a low cost and without the need for additional basins.
POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the quantity of the media in the basin can be increased at a low cost without the need for additional basins.
POSITIVE: If a treatment capacity increase is required the number of membrane modules can be increased, however, these are relatively high cost.
SOCIAL/ COMMUNITY WELL
BEING
Impacts During Construction
NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to the existing lagoon site and impacts to neighboring properties would be minimal.
NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to the existing lagoon site and impacts to neighboring properties would be minimal.
NEGATIVE: Construction activities will take place in the wetland and may be disruptive to users of this area.
NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to the existing lagoon site and impacts to neighboring properties would be minimal.
NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to a small footprint and impacts to the area during construction would cause minimal disruption.
NO IMPACT: Construction is limited to the existing lagoon site and impacts to neighboring properties would be minimal.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land
Use and Visual Impact
NO IMPACT: All changes will be in existing lagoon, visible changes will be minor.
NO IMPACT: All changes will be in existing lagoon, visible changes will be minor.
NEGATIVE: Changes in the wetland may not be compatible with current recreational use.
NO IMPACT: All changes will be in existing lagoon, visible changes will be minor.
NO IMPACT: Minimal footprint outside of the constructed wetland would be expected..
NO IMPACT: All changes will be in existing lagoon, visible changes will be minor.
Noise and Odour Effects during
Operation
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
POSITIVE: Noise and odour will be similar the current operations. May be minor odour improvements due to enhanced treatment.
J. L. Richards & Associates Limited JLR 27271 Appendix C
Appendix C
Conceptual Layouts
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE
OPTION 3ASSFile L
ocati
on: K
:\270
00\27
271 -
Brigh
ton La
goon
\JLR
DWG\
Plan\2
7271
Opti
on 3A
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
1, 20
17 3:
15:12
PM
¯
0 100 200 30050Meters
Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
New Blowers inExisting Building
New Treatment Tanks inExisting Cell #1
New Pre-ScreeningEquipment
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
SUBMERSIBLE AERATED BIO-FILM REACTORS
OPTION 3BSSFile L
ocati
on: K
:\270
00\27
271 -
Brigh
ton La
goon
\JLR
DWG\
Plan\2
7271
Opti
on 3B
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
0, 20
17 2:
01:48
PM0 100 200 30050
MetersNote: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
¯
New Blowers inExisting Building
Upgrade Existing Aerationin Existing Cell # 1
New Treatment Systemin Existing Cell # 2
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
SUBMERGED ATTACHED GROWTH REACTOR
OPTION 3CSSFile L
ocati
on: K
:\270
00\27
271 -
Brigh
ton La
goon
\JLR
DWG\
Plan\2
7271
Opti
on 3C
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
1, 20
17 4:
05:24
PM
0 100 200 30050Meters
Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
¯
New Blowers inExisting Building
New Aeration Equipmentin Cell # 1
Two New Treatment Cellsin Engineered Wetland( Covered in Peat or Mulch )
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
New Supplemental AerationEquipment in Cell # 2
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
FIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (UPSTREAM)
OPTION 3DSSFile L
ocati
on: K
:\270
00\27
271 -
Brigh
ton La
goon
\JLR
DWG\
Plan\2
7271
Opti
on 3D
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
0, 20
17 3:
32:20
PM
¯
0 100 200 30050Meters
Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
New Blowers inExisting Building
New Treatment Tanks inPart of Existing Call #1
New Pre-ScreeningEquipment
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
FIXED FILM BIOLOGICAL PROCESS (DOWNSTREAM)
OPTION 3ESSFile L
ocati
on: K
:\270
00\27
271 -
Brigh
ton La
goon
\JLR
DWG\
Plan\2
7271
Opti
on 3E
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
1, 20
17 3:
29:17
PM
0 100 200 30050Meters
Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
¯
New Treatment Tankand Blower Building
Upgrade Existing Aeration inExisting Cell #1 (Optional)
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
(COUNTY ROAD 64)
PRINCE EDWARD STREET
APPL
EWOO
D DR
IVE
HARBOUR STREET
DRAWING NO.:
DESIGN:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DRAWING:
PROJECT:
www.jlrichards.ca
JLR NO:This drawing is copyright protected and maynot be reproduced or used for purposes
other than execution of the described workwithout the express written consent of
J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.
JWKTK
27271
BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM CLASS EAMUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO
ACTIVATED SLUDGE WITH MEMBRANE
OPTION 3FSSFile L
ocati
on: \\
kgdc
01\P
rojec
ts\27
000\2
7271
- Brig
hton L
agoo
n\JLR
DWG
\Plan
\2727
1 Opti
on 3F
.mxd
Plot D
ate: A
pril 1
0, 20
17 3:
29:04
PM
¯
0 100 200 30050Meters
Note: Wastewater Treatment System property limits are approximate only. Not a legal survey.
New Blowers inExisting Building
New Treatment Tank inPart of Existing Call #1
New Pre-ScreeningEquipment
StabilizationLagoon(Cell 2)
EngineeredWetland
