TOWN OF LAKESHORE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EASTERN COMMUNITIES SEWAGE WORKS

Transcription

1 TOWN OF LAKESHORE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EASTERN COMMUNITIES SEWAGE WORKS Prepared for The Town of Lakeshore 419 Notre Dame Street, Belle River Ontario N0R 1A0 November 2012

2 Executive Summary GENERAL The Town of Lakeshore is located in Essex County in the Province of Ontario. Lakeshore is bounded by Lake St. Clair to the north, the Municipality of Chatham,Kent to the east, the Town of Tecumseh to the west with the Municipalities of Leamington, Kingsville and Essex abutting the southern municipal boundary. Lakeshore was established with the amalgamation of the former Townships of Tilbury North, Tilbury West, Rochester, and Maidstone, and the former Town of Belle River. The urbanized areas within the Town of Lakeshore which are serviced with sewage works include Belle River, Stoney Point, Comber and South Woodslee. Other urbanized areas that are not serviced include North Woodslee, Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road, Essex Fringe and Highway 401 Corridor. This Environmental Study Report (ESR) is the documentation of the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) for sanitary sewage works to service the Lakeshore Eastern Communities that include Stoney Point, Comber, Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place. Figure 1.1 shows the location of these communities. This ESR comprises Sections 1 to 13 inclusive and Appendices A to E inclusive. SECTION 1, INTRODUCTION This section provides background information and a description of the Class EA process. The Town of Lakeshore adopted its first comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan in November The Master Plan identified capacity problems within the Stoney Point and Comber sewage systems as well as environmental problems in the un,serviced areas of Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove. The Master Plan outlined the preferred solution which involves the construction of a new mechanical sewage treatment facility to be located in the Stoney Point area and decommissioning of existing sewage lagoons in Stoney Point and Comber. The preferred solution also involves new sanitary sewage collection systems in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place together with sewage pump stations and forcemains to transmit sewage from Stoney Point, Comber, Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place to the proposed new treatment facility. The Class EA process includes five phases. Phase 1 includes identification of the problem or opportunity and discretionary public consultation. Phase 2 includes identification and evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem, identification of environmental impacts of the alternative November 2012 E.1

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY solutions, consultation with the public and review agencies, selection of the preferred solution and determination of the project Schedule. Projects are classified as Schedule A, B or C depending on their complexity and potential for environmental impact. Phase 3 includes identification and evaluation of alternative design concepts, identification of environmental impacts and mitigating measures with respect to the design concepts, further consultation with the public and review agencies, and selection of the preferred design. Phase 4 includes the completion of the ESR and placing it on the public record, notification to the public and review agencies of completion of the Class EA and a 30,day review period providing the opportunity to request the Minister to require a proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act (which addresses individual EAs) before proceeding with the project. The Minister determines whether this is necessary. The Master Plan was prepared in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process and identified the project as Schedule C. This Class EA has been carried out in accordance with Phases 3 and 4. SECTION 2, EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS This section describes the existing sanitary sewage collection systems and sewage lagoons servicing the communities of Stoney Point and Comber. The areas currently serviced with individual septic tanks are identified as Lighthouse Cove and Rochester place together with the adjacent shoreline areas associated with these communities. This section also summarizes the results of a pollution survey documenting pollution in these two communities resulting from malfunctioning septic systems. SECTION 3, PROBLEM STATEMENT This short section restates the problem identified in the Master Plan which is as follows: Additional sewage treatment capacity is required in Stoney Point and Comber to service growth in the service areas. I/I problems exist in the Stoney Point sewer system and to a lesser degree in the Comber system. The Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place Areas require sanitary sewage servicing to address pollution problems related to existing malfunctioning septic systems and to address development pressures. SECTION 4, SERVICE AREAS The boundaries of the service areas identified as Stoney Point, Comber, Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place are more accurately defined and shown on separate drawings. SECTION 5, POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Population projections for each of the service area are developed in this section. These projections agree closely with the populations projected in the Lakeshore Official Plan. Maximum populations projections were established at 20% higher and minimum population projections were established at 20% lower. Average and maximum individual flow parameters November 2012 E.2

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY are identified from historic documentation of sewage flows in Stoney Point and Comber where sewage collection and treatment facilities have been in place for over 30 years. For Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place, where no communal sewage collection or treatment facilities exist, individual flow parameters were patterned after flow data from the existing Comber and Belle River systems. Based on the population and flow projections, the initial (Phase 1) construction of treatment facilities for an average daily flow of 3,200 m 3 /d and a maximum daily flow of 11,000 m 3 /d would serve the high growth requirements of Stoney Point and Comber and Lighthouse Cove to the year A Phase 2 plant expansion in the year 2020 to increase the capacity by 50% to 4,800 m 3 /d average daily flow and 16,500 m 3 /d maximum daily flow would permit the construction of a sewage collection system for Rochester Place and thus accommodate all four communities at low growth to the year The timing of Phase 3 and Phase 4 expansions to accommodate average daily flows of 6,400 and 8,000 m 3 /d respectively and peak daily flows and 22,000 m 3 /d and 27,500 m 3 /d respectively will depend upon the subsequent growth in the communities. SECTION 6, DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS There are no proposed changes to the existing sanitary sewer systems in Stoney Point and Comber. However, changes will be required for the pump stations and forcemains that would transmit sewage from these communities to the proposed new treatment facilities. For Stoney Point, the pump station that currently pumps sewage to the existing lagoons would require new pumps and extension of the existing forcemain from the lagoons to the proposed new treatment facilities. For Comber, the pump station that currently pumps sewage to the existing lagoons would require new pumps and a new forcemain from this pump station to the proposed new treatment facilities. For Lighthouse Cove, which is currently serviced with individual septic tank systems, a system of sanitary sewers and five pump stations is proposed to collect sewage for transmission to the proposed new treatment facilities. Pump Station No. 5 for this new system will receive sewage from the proposed Comber forcemain and transmit sewage from Lighthouse Cove and Comber through a new forcemain to the proposed new treatment facilities. For Rochester Place, which is also currently serviced with individual septic tank systems, a system of sanitary sewers and eight pump station is proposed to collect sewage for transmission through a new forcemain to the proposed new treatment facilities. SECTION 7, SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Six different treatment process were identified and following a preliminary evaluation of these processes, two were selected for detailed evaluation the extended aeration activated sludge process (EAAS) and the sequencing batch reactor process (SBR). A detailed comparison of these two options does not result in a distinct preference for one system over the other. Cost information at the conceptual design stage confirms that there is no distinct difference in cost. November 2012 E.3

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Denis St. Pierre Water Pollution Control Plant (DSPWPCP) was recently upgraded and converted from a SBR to an EAAS system. To date, operating experience with the EAAS system has been good and there may be some merit in utilizing the same process for the proposed Lakeshore Eastern Communities Water Pollution Control Plant (LECWPCP). The final choice of treatment process is left with the municipality to decide at the time of final design. SECTION 8, BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT The EAAS and SBR treatment processes both produce excess solids known as waste activated sludge. Biosolids management deals with all aspects of handling the waste sludge stream including storage, dewatering or thickening, stabilization and ultimate disposal. This section of the report reviews various possible biosolids management approaches with the objective of selecting the best system for the LECWPCP. The terms sludge and biosolids are often used interchangeably, although the term biosolids is more commonly used to describe sludge that has undergone treatment to render it suitable for land application. A number of disposal alternatives were considered including incineration, landfilling, farmland application and re,sale of the stabilized and processed biosolids product. Alternative biosolids stabilization processes that were considered include anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, lime stabilization, composting and pelletization. A biosolids management system consisting of aerobic digestion, sludge dewatering, sludge cake storage and seasonal application on farmland has been used successfully at the DSPWPCP for many years. Several benefits are identified in this section for integrating sludge management for the new plant with the existing DSPWPCP operations. A further evaluation considered the options of dewatering the biosolids at the new plant before trucking to the DSPWPCP for disposal or trucking the liquid biosolids to the DSPWPCP for dewatering and disposal. The alternative consisting of aerobic digestion at the new plant, followed by trucking digested sludge to the DSPWPCP for dewatering, storage and land application offers several advantages. It is recommended as the preferred option for Phase 1 because it is a proven process, it avoids a significant capital cost outlay in Phase 1, and it provides flexibility and time to gather actual operating information from the new plant. This operating data can be used in planning future Phases of construction to reassess sludge management options and make more informed decisions if changes are required. SECTION 9, DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES Several reuse alternatives for the existing sewage lagoons at Stoney Point and Comber were evaluated including peak flow attenuation, biosolids storage and conversion to parkland or recreational use. In both cases, the conversion to parkland or recreation use is the preferred option. A decommissioning procedure would include discharging the liquid content of the lagoons under the effluent quality conditions that are currently in place to approximately 300 cm depth. The remaining liquid could either be pumped into trucks and hauled for treatment at the DSPWPCP, or the remaining liquid could be allowed to dry and then trucked to the biosolids storage area at the DSPWPCP for disposal on farmland or landfilling. After the lagoons have November 2012 E.4

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY been emptied, the earth berms can be levelled and the area converted for parkland or other recreational use. SECTION 10, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN This section provides a comprehensive list of environmental impacts associated with the construction of the proposed sewage collection systems in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place, the forcemains that would transfer sewage from the Eastern Communities to the new treatment facilities, and the new treatment facilities adjacent to the existing Stoney Point lagoons. The adverse environmental impacts are few in number and minor in nature and can all be mitigated during construction. The positive social environmental impacts relate to the development of vacant lands that would not be possible without the new sewage collection systems and treatment facilities. A Stage 1 archaeological assessment conducted by Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. concluded that most of the current study area has been disturbed by previous construction and these areas have low potential for the discovery of Aboriginal or Euro, Canadian resources. However, areas along the lakeshore in the service areas of Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place, and the proposed site for the new treatment plant appear to have no visible disturbances and a Stage 2 survey is recommended for these areas before construction is undertaken. A Stage 2 survey determines if any archaeological resources are on the property using either pedestrian survey or test pit survey. SECTION 11, PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS The most significant property requirement is the site for the new treatment facility which was purchased by the municipality when the Stoney Point lagoons were constructed, with the intention of using this site for upgrades and expansions to the treatment facilities. Sites for the new pump stations in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place must be acquired. In addition, there will be a requirement for extensive easements on the CNR Right,of,way or on adjacent private property for the forcemain from Rochester Place. An alternate route for the Rochester forcemain would be located within the road allowance for Tecumseh Road through Stoney Point. Tables provided in this section, list the property requirements and the estimated costs. SECTION 12, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The MEA Class EA process was followed during the development of the Master Plan for Water and Wastewater which included Phases 1 and 2 of the process. The process has also been followed for the completion of the Class EA for the Eastern Communities Sewage Works which has included Phases 3 and 4 of the process. In the course of completing this ESR and the Master Plan, the public has been informed through notices and Open House presentations and review agencies have been provided with details of the proposed sewage works at the appropriate stages of the process. In this way, the public and the review agencies have had opportunities to submit comments and express any concerns arising from the proposed sewage works. Details of the information provided and the responses received from the public and review agencies are documented in Appendix D. November 2012 E.5

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 13, OPINION OF PROBABLE COST This section includes tabulations of the probable cost for the proposed sewage collection and transmission systems and for the decommissioning of the existing lagoon system. Also provided is the probable cost for each of the four identified stages of construction of the proposed treatment facilities. These probable costs are shown below in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 taken from this section of the ESR. Table 13.3 is a summary of typical homeowner charges for funding scenarios that include no grant, 1/3 grant and 2/3 grant. Detailed calculations for the funding alternatives are contained in Appendix E. Table 13.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Collection and Transmission Systems, and Decommissioning of Comber and Stoney Point Lagoons Item Wastewater pumping station upgrade and forcemain extension to transmit wastewater from Stoney Point to the proposed new treatment facility Wastewater pumping station upgrade and new forcemain to transmit wastewater from Comber to the proposed new treatment facility New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Lighthouse Cove Pump station and forcemain to transmit sewage from Lighthouse Cove to the proposed new treatment facility New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Rochester Place Pump station and forcemain to transmit sewage from Rochester Place to the proposed new treatment facility Decommission the existing sewage lagoons located in Stoney Point and Comber Probable Cost $ 395,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 18,755,000 $ 715,000 $ 24,311,000 $ 2,478,000 $ 2,500,000 Sub>total $ 52,154,000 Contingency Allowance 10% $ 5,215,400 Sub>total $ 57,369,400 Engineering Allowance 15% $ 8,605,400 Sub>total $ 65,974,800 Rochester Place Property Acquisitions and Easements $ 898,000 Lighthouse Cove Property Acquisitions and Easements $ 537,000 Sub>total $ 67,409,800 HST 1.76% $ 1,186,400 TOTAL $ 68,596,000 November 2012 E.6

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 13.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Sewage Treatment Facility Item Probable Cost Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Administration Building $1,600,000, Inlet Works and Grit Building (Screenings and Grit) Extended Aeration Tanks and Blower Facility Final Settling Tanks and Alum Storage & Feed Facility $2,200,000, $800,000, $3,300,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,900,000 $800,000 $800,000, UV disinfection $1,200,000 $600,000, $300,000,, Outfall $300,000, $300,000, Sludge Holding Tanks/Aerobic Digester $1,600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 Sub>total $12,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,600,000 $2,000,000 Contingency Allowance 10% $1,210,000 $310,000 $360,000 $200,000 Sub>total $13,310,000 $3,410,000 $3,960,000 $2,200,000 Engineering Allowance 15% $1,996,500 $511,500 $594,000 $330,000 Sub>total $15,306,500 $3,921,500 $4,554,000 $2,530,000 HST 1.76% $269,400 $69,000 $80,200 $44,500 TOTAL $15,576,000 $3,991,000 $4,634,000 $2,575,000 November 2012 E.7

9 Table 13.3 Summary of Typical Homeowner Charges for Funding Scenarios Including No Grant, 1/3 Grant and 2/3 Grant Community Funding Alternative No. 1-3,200 m 3 /d STP to service Stoney Point, Comber & Lighthouse + sewer system for Lighthouse Cove Alternative No. 2-4,000 m 3 /d STP to service Stoney Point, Comber & Rochester + sewer system for Rochester Place Alternative No ,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3A 4-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3B 5-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3C 6-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 4-2,400 m 3 /d STP to service only Stoney Point & Comber to Year 2020 Alternative No. 5-3,200 m 3 /d STP to service only Stoney Point & omber to Year 2030 Stoney Point 2 Comber 2 Lighthouse Rochester Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 None $0 $0 $4,571 $367 $0 $0 $3,621 $291 $0 $0 $3,253 $261 $1,344 $108 $3,925 $315 $1,179 $95 $3,842 $308 $4,879 $391 $5,692 $457 $0 $0 $8,405 $674 $0 $0 $8,392 $673 1/3 $0 $0 $3,048 $245 $0 $0 $2,414 $194 $0 $0 $2,168 $174 $1,035 $83 $2,686 $216 $786 $63 $2,561 $206 $3,333 $267 $3,835 $308 $0 $0 $5,604 $450 $0 $0 $5,595 $449 2/3 $0 $0 $1,523 $122 $0 $0 $1,207 $97 $0 $0 $1,084 $87 $517 $42 $1,343 $108 $393 $32 $1,281 $103 $1,455 $117 $1,812 $145 $0 $0 $2,800 $225 $0 $0 $2,797 $224 None $0 $0 $4,571 $367 $0 $0 $3,621 $291 $0 $0 $3,253 $261 $949 $76 $3,727 $299 $1,179 $95 $3,842 $308 $4,879 $391 $5,692 $457 $0 $0 $8,405 $674 $0 $0 $8,392 $673 1/3 $0 $0 $3,048 $245 $0 $0 $2,414 $194 $0 $0 $2,168 $174 $633 $51 $2,485 $199 $786 $63 $2,561 $206 $3,333 $267 $3,835 $308 $0 $0 $5,604 $450 $0 $0 $5,595 $449 2/3 $0 $0 $1,523 $122 $0 $0 $1,207 $97 $0 $0 $1,084 $87 $316 $25 $1,243 $100 $393 $32 $1,281 $103 $1,455 $117 $1,812 $145 $0 $0 $2,800 $225 $0 $0 $2,797 $224 None $58,535 $4,697 $29,268 $2,349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,899 $4,485 $27,950 $2,243 $56,885 $4,565 $28,443 $2,282 $44,279 $3,553 $22,140 $1,777 $47,979 $3,850 $23,989 $1,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1/3 $39,023 $3,131 $19,512 $1,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,265 $2,990 $18,633 $1,495 $37,923 $3,043 $18,961 $1,522 $29,519 $2,369 $14,760 $1,184 $32,065 $2,573 $16,033 $1,287 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2/3 $19,510 $1,566 $9,755 $783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,633 $1,495 $9,316 $748 $18,962 $1,522 $9,481 $761 $14,760 $1,184 $7,380 $592 $15,822 $1,270 $7,911 $635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 None $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,765 $3,030 $18,882 $1,515 $37,028 $2,971 $18,514 $1,486 $37,985 $3,048 $18,514 $1,486 $44,279 $3,553 $22,140 $1,777 $47,979 $3,850 $23,989 $1,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1/3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,176 $2,020 $12,588 $1,010 $24,685 $1,981 $12,343 $990 $25,323 $2,032 $12,662 $1,016 $29,519 $2,369 $14,760 $1,184 $32,065 $2,573 $16,033 $1,287 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2/3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,589 $1,010 $6,295 $505 $12,343 $990 $6,172 $495 $12,662 $1,016 $6,331 $508 $14,760 $1,184 $7,380 $592 $15,822 $1,270 $7,911 $635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 None $20,377,611 $22,315,875 $22,618,401 Town 7 1/3 $13,585,074 $14,877,250 $15,078,934 2/3 $6,792,537 $7,438,625 $7,539,467 $19,334,937 $12,889,958 $6,444,979 $19,044,401 $12,696,267 $6,348,134 $9,650,401 $6,433,600 $3,216,800 $19,289,504 $12,859,669 $6,429,835 $20,663,996 $13,775,997 $6,887,999 Notes: 1 Represents up-front charges of 50% of total assessment with remaining 50% due when building permit is obtained 2 Existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber serviced by existing lagoons are not assessed for new STP Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + decommissioning lagoons + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester assessed cost of their respective sewage collection systems Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + share of decommissioning lagoons + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester assessed cost of their respective sewage collection systems Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester equally share total cost of their sewage collection systems. Cost of decommissioning lagoons shared equally by all 4 communities Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber+ unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester equally share total cost of their sewage collection systems. Cost of transmission systems and decommissioning lagoons shared equally by all 4 communities. 7 Costs include 10% contingency allowance, 15% engineering and 13% HST 8 Annual Cost based on 5%/year for 20 years November 2012 E.8

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS General Phases in Class EA Process EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS STONEY POINT WASTEWATER SYSTEM COMBER SEWAGE SYSTEM AREAS PRESENTLY SERVICED BY PRIVATE ON,SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PROBLEM STATEMENT SERVICE AREAS GENERAL STONEY POINT SERVICE AREA COMBER SERVICE AREA LIGHTHOUSE COVE SERVICE AREA ROCHESTER PLACE SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS MASTER PLAN APPROACH Population Projections Flow Projections DESIGN APPROACH General Population Projections Flow Projections Sewage Treatment Facilities DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STONEY POINT Sanitary Sewer System Existing System Selected Design Pump Stations & Forcemain Existing Facilities Selected Design COMBER November 2012 i

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sanitary Sewer System Existing Facilities Selected Design Pump Station And Forcemain Existing Facilities Selected Design LIGHTHOUSE COVE Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Design Selected Design ROCHESTER PLACE Sewer System Master Plan Design Selected Design SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON AREA STP Master Plan Evaluation Comber Service Area Stoney Point Sewage Service Area Rochester Place Service Area Lighthouse Cove Service Area Preferred Alternative ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES Introduction Site Selection Discharge Requirements Potential Treatment Processes General Activated Sludge Treatment Systems Attached Growth Systems Comparison Of Treatment Process Alternatives COMPARISON OF EAAS AND SBR TREATMENT PROCESSES Treatment Plant Size And Staging Design Approach Preliminary Treatment Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (Eaas) Treatment Alternative Sequencing Batch Reactor (Sbr) Treatment Alternative Sludge Processing Disinfection Outfall Sewer Phosphorus Removal Electrical Supply Selection Of Preferred Treatment Process BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT GENERAL November 2012 ii

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.2 SLUDGE PRODUCTION BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AEROBIC DIGESTERS CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES REUSE OF STONEY POINT LAGOONS REUSE OF COMBER LAGOONS DECOMMISSIONING OF THE STONEY POINT AND COMBER LAGOONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Treatment Plant Site PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS SEWERS, PUMP STATIONS & FORCEMAINS Rochester Place Lighthouse Cove Comber Stoney Point SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Stoney Point PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY RESPONSE TO ESR FIRST NATION CONSULTATION OPINION OF PROBABLE COST GENERAL LEVEL OF ACCURACY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TYPICAL HOMEOWNER CHARGES Factors Affecting Homeowner Charges Funding Assistance Sewage Treatment Sewage Transmission Sewage Collection Decommissioning Existing Sewage Lagoons Land Acquisition and Easements Costs OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS November 2012 iii

13 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 5.1 Population Projections from Master Plan Table 5.2 Lakeshore Population Projection Table 5.3 Population Forecast by Growth Area Table 5.4 Population Projections Table 5.5 Stoney Point Sewage Flows 2001 to 2009 Table 5.6 Comber Sewage Flows Table 5.7 Design Flows Table 6.1 Stoney Point Pump Station No. 1 and Forcemain Table 6.2 Comber Pump Station and Forcemain Table 7.1 Effluent Quality Criteria Table 7.2 Comparison of Potential Treatment Table 7.3 Comparison of EAAS and SBR Treatment Processes Table 1.2 Estimated Sludge Production Table 1.3 Alternative Methods of Biosolids Stabilization and Disposal Table 1.3 Biosolids Management Components Table 1.4 Sludge Trucking Requirements Table 8.5 Aerobic Digester Sizing Table 9.1 Evaluation of Lagoon Reuse Alternatives Table 11.1: Property Requirements for Rochester Place Sewage Works Table 11.2 Property Requirements for Lighthouse Cove Sewage Works Table 13.0 Classification of Cost Estimates Table 13.1 Opinion of Probable Cost Collection and Transmission Systems, and Decommissioning of Comber and Stoney Point Lagoons Table 13.2 Opinion of Probable Cost Sewage Treatment Facility Table 13.3 Summary of Typical Homeowner Charges for Funding Scenarios Including No Grant, 1/3 Grant and 2/3 Grant November 2012 iv

14 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Figures Figure 1.1 Key Plan of Essex County Figure 1.2 Proposed Service Areas and Land Use Plan Figure 1.3 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process Figure 2.1 Proposed Stoney Point Sewage Service Area, Sanitary Sewers and Land Use Plan Figure 2.2 Proposed Comber Sewage Service Area, Sanitary Sewers and Land Use Plan Figure 2.3 Proposed Lighthouse Cove Sewage Service Area, Sanitary Sewers and Land Use Plan Figure 2.4 Proposed Rochester Place Sewage Service Area, Sanitary Sewers and Land Use Plan Figure 7.1 Treatment System Site Location Figure 7.2 Schematic Preliminary Treatment Figure 7.3 Schematic EAAS Treatment System Figure 7.4 Schematic SBR Treatment System Figure 7.5 Schematic U.V. Disinfection Figure 7.6 EASS Treatment System Site Plan Figure 7.7 SBR Treatment System Site Plan Figure 13.1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Classes of Estimate Diagram Appendix B Design Appendix C Property Requirements Appendix D Public and Review Agency Consultation Appendix E Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix F Technical Reports November 2012 v

15 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Town of Lakeshore is located in Essex County in the Province of Ontario. As shown on Figure 1.1, Key Plan of the County of Essex, Lakeshore is bounded by Lake St. Clair to the north, the Municipality of Chatham,Kent to the east, the Town of Tecumseh to the west with the Municipalities of Leamington, Kingsville and Essex abutting the southern municipal boundary. Lakeshore was established with the amalgamation of the former Townships of Tilbury North, Tilbury West, Rochester, and Maidstone, and the former Town of Belle River. The urbanized areas within the Town of Lakeshore which are serviced with sewage works include Belle River, Stoney Point, Comber and South Woodslee. Other urbanized areas that are not serviced include North Woodslee, Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place, Belle River Road, Essex Fringe and Highway 401 Corridor. This Class EA is concerned with the Lakeshore Eastern Communities which include Stoney Point, Comber, Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove. The Town of Lakeshore adopted its first comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan in November The Master Plan identified capacity problems within the Stoney Point and Comber sewage systems as well as environmental problems in the un,serviced areas of Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove. The Master Plan was prepared in accordance with Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process and outlined the preferred solution which involves construction of a new mechanical sewage treatment facility to be located in the Stoney Point area and decommissioning of the existing sewage lagoons which are located in Stoney Point and Comber. The preferred solution also involves new gravity sanitary sewer collection systems to service Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove together with wastewater pumping stations and forcemains to deliver wastewater from Comber, Stoney Point, Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove to the proposed new treatment facility in the Stoney Point area. Figure 1.2 shows the proposed service areas for the Lakeshore Eastern Communities Sewage Works. Further information may be obtained by viewing the Water and Wastewater Master Plan at The Town of Lakeshore is now undertaking Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA process which will involve evaluation of alternative designs for the proposed new treatment facility and gravity sewer collection systems, and preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) documenting the activities and recommendations from the Class EA process. November

16 INTRODUCTION 1.2 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS General The Environmental Assessment (EA) Act was passed in 1975 by the Province of Ontario to provide a mechanism for public participation in public projects. The EA Act provides a means for the public or interest groups to receive the needed assurances that the environment is being protected from adverse effects on any significant public project. If there are necessary adverse effects on the environment, the public also needs assurances that all essential measures are being taken to minimize these impacts. The proponent is to weigh the impacts of a number of possible alternative ways to achieve the desired objective and to select the best alternative based on a thorough examination of each. The EA Act recognized that certain municipal undertakings occur frequently, are small in scale, have a generally predictable range of effects or have relatively minor environmental significance. To ensure that a degree of standardization in the planning process is followed throughout the Province, the EA Act contemplated the use of the Class EA procedure for projects which require approval under the Act but which are not considered to be major environmental works. The work undertaken in this study includes Phases 3 and 4 the EA process and follows the planning and design process of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA, October 2000, as amended August 17, The Class EA document also serves as a statement for public use in the decision making process under the EA Act. Municipal staff and consultants can use the Class EA in planning design and construction of projects to ensure that the requirements of the EA Act are met. As part of the Class EA procedure, the proponent is required to state how the project is to proceed and gain approval under this EA Act. There are three approval mechanisms available to the proponent under the Class EA. Schedule A projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental affects and include a number of normal or emergency municipal maintenance and operational objectives. These projects are pre,approved and can proceed directly to implementation without following the full Class EA planning process. Schedule A+ projects include a new sub,class of activities introduced as part of the 2007 MEA Class EA amendments. Schedule A+ projects are also pre,approved similar to Schedule A, however, the public is to be advised prior to project implementation. Advising the public of the project implementation is a means to inform the public of what is being undertaken in their local area. The manner in which the public is advised is to be determined by the proponent. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities. In these cases, there is a potential for some adverse environmental impacts November

17 INTRODUCTION and therefore the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process including consultation with those who may be affected. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. These projects proceed through the environmental assessment planning process outlined in the Class EA and require preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to document the planning process Phases in Class EA Process The Class EA for municipal projects follows a five phase planning process that can be summarized as follows: Phase 1, Identification of the problem Phase 2 Identification of alternative solutions to the problem, consultation with review agencies and the public, selection of the preferred solution, and identification of the project as a Schedule A, A+, B or C activity. Phase 3, Identification of alternative design concepts (technical alternatives) for the preferred solution, evaluation of the alternative designs and their impacts on the environment, consultation with review agencies and the public and selection of the preferred design. Phase 4, Preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to document the planning, design and consultation process for the project. The ESR is placed on the public registry for scrutiny by review agencies and the public. Phase 5, Final design, construction and commissioning of selected technical alternative. Monitoring of construction for adherence to environmental provisions and commitments. The steps in each phase are identified in the flow diagram shown in Figure 1.3. November

18 2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS 2.1 STONEY POINT WASTEWATER SYSTEM The Stoney Point community and adjacent lakefront areas are serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system as shown in Figure 2.1. The first phase of the system was constructed in 1978 and included a collection system of gravity sewers, two pumping stations and two oxidation ponds. The collection system was expanded in 1991 westerly along St. Clair Road to the Rochester Town Line to service the lakefront properties. The gravity sewer collection system has infiltration and inflow (I/I) that exceeds the MOE allowance and the Town has been conducting video inspections to locate sources of I/I and is working toward reducing the I/I component of the wastewater flow. Raw sewage is pumped into two 5.4 ha (14 acres) oxidation ponds located on Tecumseh Road west of Little Creek. The treatment facility design was based on an average daily sewage flow of 920 m 3 /d (cubic meters per day). The ponds are routinely drained in a controlled manner with discharge to Little Creek approximately 820 meters upstream of where the Creek discharges into Lake St. Clair. Prior to being drained, the ponds are treated with aluminum sulphate for phosphorus removal. Sludge accumulation was removed from Cell 2 in August 2005, however Cell 1 has never been cleaned. 2.2 COMBER SEWAGE SYSTEM The Comber urban area is serviced by a wastewater collection and treatment system that was constructed in 1974 and includes a gravity sewer system, one pumping station and two oxidation ponds as shown in Figure 2.2. Raw sewage is pumped into two 2.43 ha (6 acres) oxidation ponds located in the south,east corner of the community south of County Road 46 and accessible from Windsor Avenue. The treatment facility was designed based on an average daily sewage flow of 430 m 3 /d. The ponds are routinely drained in a controlled manner with discharge to an open drain leading to No. 1 Government Drain which outlets to Big Creek with ultimate discharge into Lake St. Clair. Prior to being drained, the ponds are treated with aluminum sulphate for phosphorus removal. Sludge accumulation was removed from both cells in The results of Investigations conducted by the Town indicate that I/I in the gravity sewer collection system is slightly above the MOE allowance. Sewage flows are being monitored regularly for signs of any I/I increases that would justify remedial work. 2.3 AREAS PRESENTLY SERVICED BY PRIVATE ON>SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS Lighthouse Cove Area includes the shoreline area west of Lighthouse Cove which includes Laforet Beach, Crystal Beach and Couture Beach Roads as shown in Figure 2.3. November

19 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Rochester Place Area includes Deerbrook, St. Joachim and shoreline areas generally between Charron Line Road and Rochester Town Line Road including along the Ruscomb River as shown in Figure 2.4. These areas are not presently serviced by an existing municipal wastewater collection and treatment system. The residences are generally serviced by private on,site sewage disposal systems typically consisting of septic tanks and leaching beds. Prior to 1974, these systems were constructed with overflow pipes directed to local watercourses to prevent systems from overloading during wet weather conditions. A pollution survey was conducted between December 2006 and May 2007 to verify and document the presence and probable origin of reported and suspected pollution problems in local watercourses. In the Rochester Place Area, 93 water samples were collected and analyzed. Approximately 63% (58) of these samples had fecal coliform levels above the maximum acceptable level and of those samples, 73% (42) had a ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci definitively indicative of, or potentially indicative of, human origin. In Lighthouse Cove Area, 40 samples were collected and analyzed and approximately 30% (12) showed excessive fecal coliform levels and of those 12, 58% (7) were indicative of human origin. Based on the results of the pollution survey, together with lot size information obtained by a lot,by,lot survey, and the ages of the systems obtained from examination of septic system permits, it is evident that the pollution problems in these areas are a result of malfunctioning septic systems. November

20 3.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT Additional sewage treatment capacity is required in Stoney Point and Comber to service growth in the service areas. I/I problems exist in the Stoney Point sewer system and to a lesser degree in the Comber system. The Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place Areas require sanitary sewage servicing to address pollution problems related to existing malfunctioning septic systems and to address development pressures. November

21 4.0 SERVICE AREAS 4.1 GENERAL The Master Plan identified the existing service areas for the Stoney Point and Comber sewage works and the general extent of the proposed service areas for the communities that are not currently serviced with communal sewage works. Before proceeding with the identification and evaluation of alternative servicing systems and treatment processes, it is necessary to accurately establish the boundaries of these existing and proposed service areas in order that they fairly represent the extent of existing development and provide for future development in accordance with the Lakeshore Official Plan. These boundaries are described in the following paragraphs. Figure 1.2 shows the location of the service areas, the service area boundaries and the land use according to the Official Plan. 4.2 STONEY POINT SERVICE AREA The community of Stoney Point comprises mostly residential development with small pockets of commercial development. The boundary of the Stoney Point Sewage Service Area is dictated by the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system. The existing sewers have a finite hydraulic capacity established by the size and slope of the sewer pipes. The original design files for the existing sewers were reviewed carefully to identify the applicable tributary areas and establish the service area boundary for the existing sanitary sewer system. For land designated as Agricultural that is adjacent to and outside the service area, the service area boundary has been established along the limit of the road allowance abutting the agricultural land. Sewer connections would be provided only to existing dwellings and approved severances located in agricultural land not in the service area but with frontage on a sanitary sewer. The Town s Official Plan designates land as Employment in the southeast and extreme eastern sectors of the community that extends beyond the service area boundary established by the design of the existing sanitary sewers. According to the Official Plan, the Employment Areas are the focus of major concentrations of industrial,related employment growth and development in the Town, which may include manufacturing, logistics operations, warehousing, distribution, offices and related industrial and business park uses, in addition to ancillary highway commercial uses serving the Employment Area. Figure 2.1 shows the Official Plan Land Use for Stoney Point, the existing sanitary sewers and the service area boundary established by the sewer system. The Employment Area in close November

22 SERVICE AREAS proximity to the proposed Stoney Point Sewage treatment facility is included in the Stoney Point service Area in the Class EA. Characteristics of industrial wastewaters vary greatly from industry to industry, and consequently, treatment process for industrial wastewater also varies. Typical municipal wastewater treatment plants can't treat industrial wastewater with high concentrations of chemicals, pharmaceuticals and heavy metals. The Town s sewer use bylaw will provide direction on permissible concentrations at point of discharge of industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer system. If characteristics of industrial wastewaters can t meet sewer use bylaw standards, the industry will be required to undertake necessary onsite pre,treatment specific to their own wastewater characteristics in order to meet the standards for discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Industrial wastewater from the Stoney Point employment area can be handled by either expanding the existing Stoney Point collection system overtime through the replacement of the existing sanitary sewers with larger ones or providing a separate collection and conveyance system for the employment area. Details of the collection system from the employment area will be evaluated and determined during final design stage. Details of the collection system from the employment area will be evaluated and determined during final design stage. Wastewater flows discharged from the employment area are to be accommodated by modular expansion of the sewage treatment facility. The treatment processes are to be chosen to be well suited to modular expansion. 4.3 COMBER SERVICE AREA The community of Comber is also comprised of residential development with small pockets of commercial development. As in Stoney Point, the boundary of the Comber Sewage Service Area is also dictated by the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system. The existing sewers have a finite hydraulic capacity established by the size and slope of the existing sewers. The original design files for the existing sewers were reviewed carefully to identify the applicable tributary areas and establish the service area boundary for the existing sanitary sewer system. As in Stoney Point, for land designated as Agricultural that is adjacent to and outside the service area, the service area boundary has been established on the limit of the road allowance abutting the agricultural land. Sewer connections would be provided only to existing dwellings and approved severances located in agricultural land not in the service area but with frontage on a sanitary sewer. The Town s Official Plan designates land as Employment in the northwestern sector of the community that extends beyond the service area boundary established by the design of the existing sanitary sewers. It would be the developer s responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure to service the proposed development. November

23 SERVICE AREAS Figure 2.2 shows the Official Plan Land Use for Comber, the existing sanitary sewers and the service area boundary established by the sewer system. The proposed servicing area for Comber as outlined in Figure 2.2 coincides with the urban area boundary designated by the Lakeshore Official Plan. The Employment Area in the northwestern sector of the community of Comber is included in the Comber Service Area in the Class EA. The Town s sewer use bylaw provides direction on permissible concentrations at point of discharge of industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer system. If characteristics of industrial wastewaters can t meet sewer use bylaw standards, the industry will be required to undertake necessary onsite pre,treatment specific to their own wastewater characteristics in order to meet the standards for discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The main Comber pumping station and new forcemain from Comber to Stoney Point will be sized to accommodate wastewater flow from the Employment Area in the northwestern sector of the community of Comber. Industrial wastewater from the Comber employment area to the main Comber pumping station can be handled by either expanding the existing Comber collection system overtime through replacement of the existing sanitary sewers with larger ones or providing a separate collection and conveyance system for the employment area. Details of the collection system from the employment area will be evaluated and determined during final design stage. As in Stoney Point, wastewater flows discharged from the employment area will be accommodated by modular expansion of the sewage treatment facility. The treatment processes are chosen to be well suited to modular expansion. 4.4 LIGHTHOUSE COVE SERVICE AREA The Lighthouse Cove Area is characterized by residential development in Lighthouse Cove arranged along man,made canals with additional residential development identified as Laforet Beach, Crystal Beach and Couture Beach Road extending westerly along the shoreline of Lake St. Clair. There is a marina/restaurant located on the east side of the community at the mouth of the Thames River. The Master Plan identified the proposed service area for Lighthouse Cove. The Land Use for Lighthouse Cove Area has been carefully reviewed along with existing development to more accurately define the proposed service area boundary. Figure 2.3 shows the Official Plan Land Use for Lighthouse Cove Area, the proposed sanitary sewers and the corresponding proposed service area boundary. As in other service areas, for land designated as Agricultural that is adjacent to and outside the service area, the service area boundary has been established on the limit of the road allowance abutting the agricultural land. Sewer connections would be provided only to existing dwellings November

24 SERVICE AREAS and approved severances located in agricultural land not in the service area but with frontage on a sanitary sewer. 4.5 ROCHESTER PLACE SERVICE AREA Rochester Place Service Area as identified in the Master Plan includes residential development connected with the Deerbrook golf course, the residential community of St. Joachim and residential development along the Lake St. Clair shoreline generally between Charron Line Road and Rochester Town Line Road as well as residential development along the Ruscom River. Figure 2.4 shows the Official Plan Land Use for the Rochester Place Service Area, the proposed sanitary sewers and the corresponding service area boundary. As in other service areas, for land designated as Agricultural that is adjacent to and outside the service area, the service area boundary has been established on the limit of the road allowance abutting the agricultural land. Sewer connections would be provided only to existing dwellings and approved severances located in agricultural land not in the service area but with frontage on a sanitary sewer. November

25 5.0 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 5.1 MASTER PLAN APPROACH Population Projections The Master Plan provided growth projections for the 20 and 40 year horizons. The 20 year projections were intended to help guide the Town with respect to long,term planning decision making specifically related to growth management and residential/non,residential lands needs analysis within the Town s identified key growth areas. The Master Plan is not intended to direct where growth should proceed but to evaluate the servicing requirements based on the reasonable growth projections established for planning purposes. The Master Plan was carried out concurrently with the Official Plan and other long,term planning initiatives and an emphasis was placed by the Town to ensure consistency throughout these studies. The 40,year projections were provided in the Master Plan to evaluate long,term capacity requirements of major water and wastewater infrastructure components such as treatment plants to ensure adequate provisions are made for future land requirements. The 40,year projections were generally established assuming that the same growth projected over the initial 20 year horizon would also be realized over the 20 to 40 year planning horizon. Table 5.1 shows the population projections for the Lakeshore Eastern Communities as provided in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan Study. Table 5.1: Population Projections from Master Plan Service Area Existing 20>Year 40>Year (2005) (2025) (2045) Stoney Point 2,002 4,220 6,438 Comber 1,035 1,176 1,974 Rochester Place 2,159 2,862 3,816 Lighthouse Cove 1,270 2,609 3,948 Total Population 6,466 10,867 16, Flow Projections Sewage consists of wastewater generated by residential, commercial and industrial development in the community plus extraneous flows. Extraneous flow includes inflow and infiltration (I/I). Infiltration is water entering a sewer system and service connections from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections and manholes. Inflow is water discharged into a sewer system and service connections from such sources as roof leaders, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains, November

26 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS cooling water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch basins, storm water, surface run, off and street washes or drainage. In general, inflow increases with the amount of precipitation. Increases in inflow have also been observed during winter thaws that produce runoff from melting of accumulated snow cover. The average daily flow projections in the Master Plan for Stoney Point and Comber were developed from a review of historical flow data from their respective sewage treatment facilities for the years of 2002 to For Stoney Point, the average daily per capita sewage flow including extraneous flows for the existing serviced population was determined as 545 Liters per capita per day (Lpcd). A projected average flow of 455 Lcpd for future development was selected in anticipation of reduced wastewater generation from low flow plumbing fixtures and reduced extraneous flows resulting from remedial work in the sanitary sewer system. By applying these average sewage flow rates to the projected populations in the Master Plan, the projected average daily sewage flow in the year 2025 is 2,100 cubic meters per day (m 3 /d) and in the year 2045 is 3,108 m 3 /d. A similar analysis for Comber resulted in an average daily per capita flow including extraneous flows of 381 Lpcd for the existing service area. This average daily flow rate was applied to the population projections to determine average daily sewage flows of 449 m 3 /d in the year 2025 and 754 m 3 /d in the year In addition, the Master Plan considered possible future commercial and industrial development that increased the total daily average sewage flows for Comber to 1,409 m 3 /d in 2025 and 1,714 m 3 /d in For Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place which are not presently serviced by a municipal sewage system, an average per capita sewage flow of 455 Lpcd was assumed. The MOE Guidelines for Design of Sanitary Sewage Works recommends a design value for average daily domestic flow ranging from 315 Lpcd to 540 Lpcd including an average extraneous flow allowance of 90 Lpcd. The MOE Guidelines also recommend an allowance of 227 Lpcd for peak extraneous flow and determination of peak domestic component of sewage flow using the Harmon Formula. 5.2 DESIGN APPROACH General Population projections serve as a basis for determining future sewage flows. Accordingly, for design purposes, population projections are developed with a view to minimizing capital investment by designing and constructing specific facilities on the basis of shorter design periods if the facilities lend themselves to economic expansion in short term stages. For example, wastewater treatment facilities which represent a costly initial investment, can be constructed for short term needs, say 10 years, and expanded in short term modules rather than constructing a larger and costlier initial facility for longer terms. The decision regarding the November

27 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS selected initial design period is based upon anticipated growth rates, financing costs, economies of scale and other relevant factors. On the other hand, sanitary sewers are designed for the full development of the community within a defined service area because of the high initial sewer construction costs and the even higher costs to duplicate sewers particularly in utility corridors that are already filled with other underground utilities such as watermains, gas mains, telephone conduits and hydro cables. Similarly, sewage pump station structures are often designed to accommodate the pumping facilities for full development. The initial pumps can be designed for a shorter term and supplemented later with additional pumps or replaced with larger pumps as the community grows and when the need arises. Sewage forcemains require special design considerations because of the need to maintain cleansing velocities in the pipe. The design period for a forcemain is often dictated by the incremental cost to increase the pipe size to accommodate full development versus the cost to initially install the smaller pipe for a shorter design period and then duplicate the pipe installation at a later date. In those cases where the short term peak flows do not create cleansing velocities in the forcemain, the sewage pumps can be selected to deliver the wastewater at the cleansing velocity. In this case, the pump capacity will exceed the short term peak flows but the pump control system can be designed to cycle the pumps accordingly Population Projections Table 5.2 shows the growth projections for the Town of Lakeshore as obtained from Table 3.1 in the Town of Lakeshore Official Plan, November Table 5.2: Lakeshore Population Projection Year Population , , , , , ,095 Table 5.3 shows the population forecast for the year 2031 for the identified growth areas as obtained from Table 4.1 in the Town of Lakeshore Official Plan. November

28 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Table 5.3: Population Forecast by Growth Area Growth Area 2031 Combination of Maidstone and Belle River 34,985 Waterfront Residential Area 5,470 Stoney Point 3,370 Lighthouse Cove 1,980 Rochester Place/Deerbrook and St. Joachim 1,720 Comber 1,195 North/South Woodslee 1,025 Urban Fringe Area 650 Sub>Total Urban 50,385 Agricultural Area/Small Hamlets 8,710 Total Forecast Population Growth 59,095 Note: Numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding It should be noted that the growth areas identified in Table 5.3 as Stoney Point, Lighthouse Cove, Rochester Place/Deerbrook and St. Joachim, and Comber do not include the waterfront residential areas that are part of the proposed service areas identified in this ESR. The number of existing dwellings in the proposed service areas was determined from aerial mapping carried out in These numbers were increased by the building permits issued in the service areas for the years 2009 and The population in each service area for the year 2010 was determined by applying an occupancy of 2.89 persons per unit (ppu) to the number of dwellings. This occupancy was used in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, February, 2009 and in the design of the proposed sanitary sewer systems for Rochester and Lighthouse Cove. After separating the waterfront dwellings from the other dwellings in the respective service areas, population projections were developed for both portions of the service areas. There are a limited number of vacant lots in the waterfront residential areas of the Stoney Point and Lighthouse Cove service areas. These vacant lots are expected to be filled within 15 to 20 years. Rochester Place has a larger number of vacant lots in the waterfront residential area and these lots are expected to gradually fill over 40 years. For the non,waterfront portions of the service area populations, a growth rate was selected to produce a 2031 population that approximated the 2031 population forecast from the OP. For the Rochester Place service area, the 2010 population in the waterfront areas make up a significant portion of the service area population. The population in the other portion of the service area (Hamlets of Rochester Place and St. Joachim) includes the estimated summer population of 750 persons from a mobile home park in Rochester Place. Accordingly, the projected 2031 population for the Hamlet areas is 2459 persons as compared with the OP projected population of 1,720 persons. November

29 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS For the Comber service area, there has been no equivalent population allowance for the Employment Areas since there are apparently no immediate plans for development of these areas. The Official Plan states that Employment Areas will be the focus of employment growth and accommodate a range of uses including manufacturing, logistics operations, warehousing, distribution, offices and related industrial and business park uses, in addition to ancillary highway commercial uses serving the Employment Area. Employment Areas do not support institutional uses or destination,oriented commercial and shopping uses, such as Large Format Retail uses. The sanitary sewer system design has allowed for an equivalent population density of 15 persons per acre in that portion of the Employment Area that lies within the service area boundaries. The population projections derived for the proposed service areas are shown in Table 5.4. For comparison purposes only, this table also shows the population projection for each proposed service area as determined by applying the OP growth rate for the entire Town of Lakeshore to the 2010 population for each service area. November

30 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Dwelling Occupancy ppu Table 5.4: Population Projections Community Dwelling Permits in Population s in Permits in 2009 Dwellings 2008 in 2010 in 2010 Stoney Point ,208 Comber Rochester Place ,124 Lighthouse Cove ,407 YEAR LAKESHORE 6 Per OP 5 Waterfront Other (15 Vacant 90 p/yr(20 yrs) STONEY POINT ,245 Lots) +60p/yr(20yrs) , , ,676 COMBER ROCHESTER PLACE LIGHTHOUSE COVE Total Per OP 5 10 p/yr Per OP 5 Waterfront Other 34 Total Per OP 5 Waterfront (8 Other (58 Vacant per/yr Vacant Lots) 3 30 p/yr Lots) ,153 2, ,433 2, ,124 1,400 1,724 3,124 1, ,117 1,407 7,719 7, ,630 2, ,523 2,301 1, ,242 1,404 1,759 3,163 1, ,147 1,438 8,010 7, ,780 2, ,613 2,394 1,045 1,000 3,334 1,408 1,794 3,202 1, ,177 1,469 8,237 8, ,930 2, ,703 2,487 1,074 1,010 3,425 1,413 1,829 3,242 1, ,207 1,501 8,464 8, ,080 2, ,793 2,580 1,103 1,020 3,517 1,417 1,864 3,281 1, ,237 1,532 8,691 8, ,230 2, ,883 2,673 1,132 1,030 3,609 1,421 1,899 3,320 1, ,267 1,563 8,917 8, ,380 2, ,973 2,766 1,161 1,040 3,701 1,425 1,934 3,359 1, ,297 1,594 9,144 8, ,510 2, ,063 2,859 1,189 1,050 3,791 1,429 1,969 3,398 1, ,327 1,625 9,367 8, ,640 2, ,153 2,952 1,217 1,060 3,881 1,434 2,004 3,438 1, ,357 1,657 9,590 9, ,770 2, ,243 3,045 1,245 1,070 3,971 1,438 2,039 3,477 1, ,387 1,688 9,812 9, ,900 2, ,333 3,138 1,274 1,080 4,061 1,442 2,074 3,516 1, ,417 1,719 10,035 9, ,030 2, ,423 3,231 1,302 1,090 4,152 1,446 2,109 3,555 1, ,447 1,750 10,258 9, ,065 2, ,513 3,324 1,328 1,100 4,234 1,450 2,144 3,594 1, ,477 1,781 10,462 9, ,100 3, ,603 3,417 1,354 1,110 4,317 1,455 2,179 3,634 1, ,507 1,813 10,666 9, ,135 3, ,693 3,510 1,380 1,120 4,399 1,459 2,214 3,673 1, ,537 1,844 10,870 10, ,170 3, ,783 3,603 1,406 1,130 4,482 1,463 2,249 3,712 2, ,567 1,875 11,074 10, ,205 3, ,873 3,693 1,431 1,140 4,564 1,467 2,284 3,751 2, ,597 1,906 11,278 10, ,583 3, ,963 3,783 1,441 1,150 4,595 1,471 2,319 3,790 2, ,627 1,937 11,353 10, ,961 3, ,053 3,873 1,450 1,160 4,625 1,476 2,354 3,830 2, ,657 1,969 11,427 10, ,339 3, ,143 3,963 1,460 1,170 4,655 1,480 2,389 3,869 2, ,687 2,000 11,502 11, ,717 3, ,233 4,053 1,469 1,180 4,685 1,484 2,424 3,908 2, ,717 2,031 11,576 11, ,095 3, ,293 4,113 1,479 1,190 4,715 1,488 2,459 3,947 2, ,747 2,061 11,651 11, ,473 3, ,353 4,173 1,488 1,200 4,745 1,492 2,494 3,986 2, ,777 2,091 11,725 11, ,851 3, ,413 4,233 1,498 1,210 4,776 1,497 2,529 4,026 2, ,807 2,121 11,800 11, ,229 3, ,473 4,293 1,507 1,220 4,806 1,501 2,564 4,065 2, ,837 2,151 11,874 11, ,607 3, ,533 4,353 1,517 1,230 4,836 1,505 2,599 4,104 2, ,867 2,181 11,949 11, ,985 3, ,593 4,413 1,526 1,240 4,866 1,509 2,634 4,143 2, ,897 2,211 12,023 12, ,363 3, ,653 4,473 1,535 1,250 4,896 1,513 2,669 4,182 2, ,927 2,241 12,098 12, ,741 3, ,713 4,533 1,545 1,260 4,926 1,518 2,704 4,222 2, ,957 2,271 12,173 12, ,119 3, ,773 4,593 1,554 1,270 4,957 1,522 2,739 4,261 2, ,987 2,301 12,247 12, ,497 3, ,833 4,653 1,564 1,280 4,987 1,526 2,774 4,300 2, ,017 2,331 12,322 12, ,875 3, ,893 4,713 1,573 1,290 5,017 1,530 2,809 4,339 2, ,047 2,361 12,396 12, ,253 3, ,953 4,773 1,583 1,300 5,047 1,534 2,844 4,378 2, ,077 2,391 12,471 12, ,631 3, ,013 4,833 1,592 1,310 5,077 1,539 2,879 4,418 2, ,107 2,421 12,545 12, ,009 3, ,073 4,893 1,602 1,320 5,107 1,543 2,914 4,457 2, ,137 2,451 12,620 13, ,387 3, ,133 4,953 1,611 1,330 5,138 1,547 2,949 4,496 2, ,167 2,481 12,694 13, ,765 3, ,193 5,013 1,621 1,340 5,168 1,551 2,984 4,535 2, ,197 2,511 12,769 13, ,143 3, ,253 5,073 1,630 1,350 5,198 1,555 3,019 4,574 2, ,227 2,541 12,843 13, ,521 3, ,313 5,133 1,640 1,360 5,228 1,560 3,054 4,614 2, ,257 2,571 12,918 13, ,899 3, ,373 5,193 1,649 1,370 5,258 1,564 3,089 4,653 2, ,287 2,601 12,992 13, ,277 3, ,433 5,253 1,658 1,380 5,288 1,568 3,124 4,692 2, ,317 2,631 13,067 13,956 Total TOTAL Per OP 5 Per Individual Community 1 Number of dwellings based on count from 2008 aerial mapping 2 Dwelling occupancy used for sewer design 3 Vacant lots filled by Includes 300 mobile home 2.5 ppu 5 Growth based on overall Lakeshore growth rate per OP and extended from 2031 to Lakeshore population projections from OP Table 3.1 and extended to 2050 November

31 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Flow Projections Sewage flow data from the Stoney Point sewage system for the years 2001 to 2009 were analyzed and the average, maximum and minimum total daily flows expressed as cubic meters/day (m 3 /d) and the per capita daily flows expressed as Liters per capita per day (Lpcd) are shown in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: Stoney Point Sewage Flows 2001 to 2009 Average Maximum Minimum Average Daily Flow m 3 /d 1,044 1,170 (2008) 914 (2003) Maximum Daily Flow m 3 /d 3,505 5,266 (2009) 2,514 (2006) Average Daily Per Capita Flow Lpcd Maximum Daily Per Capita Flow Lpcd 1,751 2,630 1,256 The minimum per capita daily sewage flow occurs during dry weather periods when there is little or no rainfall to contribute to extraneous flow. Accordingly, this can be taken as the wastewater flow component. The difference between the average and minimum figures (65 Lpcd) is an indication of the extraneous flow component of the sewage flow. The Town of Lakeshore has recently undertaken remedial measures to reduce the extraneous flow component. A review of the historic sewage flows over the past several years shows the beneficial results of these measures. For purposes of design for Stoney Point, the average and maximum daily per capita flows including extraneous flows of 450 Lpcd and 2,000 Lpcd respectively have been used in this report. Sewage flow data from the Comber system for the years 2001 to 2009 were analyzed and the average, maximum and minimum total daily flows expressed as m 3 /d and the per capita daily flows expressed as Lpcd are shown in Table 5.6. Table 5.6: Comber Sewage Flows Average Maximum Minimum Average Daily Flow m 3 /d Maximum Daily Flow m 3 /d 1,293 1,652 1,012 Average Daily Per Capita Flow Lpcd Maximum Daily Per Capita Flow Lpcd 1,249 1, The extraneous flow component of the sewage flow is 41 Lpcd (370,329). For design purposes, average and maximum daily per capita flows including extraneous flows of 425 Lpcd and 1,300 Lpcd respectively have been used in this report. Since Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove do not have a wastewater collection system there is no data upon which to base the design of new collection and treatment facilities. Per capita flows in these areas are expected to be similar to those in Comber and the Belle River Service November

32 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Area. For purposes of design, average and maximum daily per capita flows including extraneous flows of 425 Lpcd and 1,300 Lpcd respectively have been used in this report Sewage Treatment Facilities Table 5.7 shows the projected populations for each community for both high growth and low growth scenarios and the corresponding average and maximum daily sewage flows based on the flow parameters established in the preceding paragraphs. The high growth scenario is 20% higher than the projected population and the low growth scenario is 20% lower. In addition to the average and maximum flows for each community, the table also shows the total sewage flows from Stoney Point plus Comber, Stoney Point plus Comber and Lighthouse Cove, and Stoney Point plus Comber and Rochester Place, and the total flow for all four communities. These combinations of average and maximum daily flows for high and low growth scenarios are also shown graphically in Charts 5.1 and 5.2. The selected combinations represent the possible order of connection to the proposed new sewage treatment facilities. Since Stoney Point and Comber have existing sanitary sewer systems, the flows from these two service areas will be directed to the new treatment facilities when completed. It is not known at the time of preparation of this report which unserviced area will be the first to be serviced with a new sanitary sewer system. The initial construction of the treatment facilities for an average daily flow of 3,200 m 3 /d and a maximum daily flow of 11,000 m 3 /d would serve the low growth requirements to the year 2020 for Stoney Point and Comber plus Lighthouse Cove. A plant expansion in the year 2020 to increase the capacity by 50% to 4,800 m 3 /d average daily flow and 16,500 m 3 /d maximum daily flow would permit the construction of a sewage collection system for Rochester Place and thus accommodate all four communities to the year A further expansion of the treatment facilities in the year 2030 to 6,400 m 3 /d average and 22,000 m 3 /d maximum daily flows would accommodate much of the high growth scenario for all service areas. If high growth is experienced in all four service areas, another expansion would be required in the year 2040 to 8,000 m 3 /d average and 27,500 m 3 /d maximum daily flows. November

33 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Table 5.7: Design Flows YEAR POPULATION PROJECTIONS LAKESHORE ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE COMBER TOTAL COVE COMBER, ROCHESTER, LIGHTHOUSE COVE Average Daily Flow Maximum Daily Flow 425 Lpcd 1,300 Lpcd ,153 3,124 2,208 1, , ,230 3,320 2,673 1,563 1,030 8,586 STONEY POINT ,900 3,516 3,138 1,719 1,080 9,453 Average Daily Flow Maximum Daily Flow ,170 3,712 3,603 1,875 1,130 10, Lpcd 2,000 Lpcd ,717 3,908 4,053 2,031 1,180 11, ,607 4,104 4,353 2,181 1,230 11, ,497 4,300 4,653 2,331 1,280 12, ,387 4,496 4,953 2,481 1,330 13, ,277 4,692 5,253 2,631 1,380 13,956 YEAR HIGH GROWTH POPULATION PROJECTION LAKESHORE ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE COVE COMBER TOTAL YEAR ROCHESTER STONEY POINT HIGH GROWTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW m 3 /d LIGHTHOUSE COVE ,153 3,124 2,208 1, , ,328 1, ,631 2,229 2,958 3, ,230 3,437 2,801 1,626 1,064 8, ,461 1, ,993 2,684 3,453 4, ,900 3,751 3,393 1,845 1,149 10, ,594 1, ,354 3,138 3,948 4, ,170 4,064 3,986 2,063 1,233 11, ,727 2, ,716 3,593 4,443 5, ,717 4,377 4,578 2,282 1,318 12, ,860 2, ,078 4,048 4,938 5, ,607 4,691 5,010 2,501 1,402 13, ,993 2,755 1, ,351 4,414 5,345 6, ,497 5,004 5,441 2,720 1,487 14, ,127 2,993 1, ,624 4,780 5,751 6, ,387 5,317 5,872 2,938 1,571 15, ,260 3,230 1, ,897 5,146 6,157 7, ,277 5,630 6,304 3,157 1,656 16, ,393 3,467 1, ,171 5,512 6,564 7,905 COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER + LIGHTHOUSE STONEY POINT + COMBER + ROCHESTER TOTAL YEAR HIGH GROWTH POPULATION PROJECTION LAKESHORE ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE COVE COMBER TOTAL YEAR ROCHESTER STONEY POINT HIGH GROWTH MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW m 3 /d LIGHTHOUSE COMBER COVE STONEY POINT + COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER + LIGHTHOUSE STONEY POINT + COMBER + ROCHESTER ,153 3,124 2,208 1, , ,061 4,416 1,829 1,274 5,690 7,519 9,751 11, ,230 3,437 2,801 1,626 1,046 8, ,468 5,601 2,114 1,360 6,961 9,075 11,429 13, ,900 3,751 3,393 1,845 1,117 10, ,876 6,786 2,398 1,452 8,238 10,636 13,114 15, ,170 4,064 3,986 2,063 1,193 11, ,283 7,971 2,682 1,551 9,522 12,204 14,805 17, ,717 4,377 4,578 2,282 1,274 12, ,690 9,157 2,967 1,656 10,812 13,779 16,503 19, ,607 4,691 5,010 2,501 1,360 13, ,098 10,019 3,251 1,768 11,787 15,038 17,885 21, ,497 5,004 5,441 2,720 1,452 14, ,505 10,882 3,536 1,888 12,769 16,305 19,274 22, ,387 5,317 5,872 2,938 1,550 15, ,912 11,745 3,820 2,016 13,760 17,580 20,672 24, ,277 5,630 6,304 3,157 1,656 16, ,320 12,607 4,104 2,152 14,760 18,864 22,079 26,184 TOTAL YEAR L0W GROWTH POPULATION PROJECTION LAKESHORE ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE COVE COMBER TOTAL YEAR ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LOW GROWTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW m 3 /d LIGHTHOUSE COVE ,153 3,124 2,208 1, , ,328 1, ,631 2,229 2,959 3, ,230 3,203 2,538 1, , ,361 1, ,819 2,454 3,180 3, ,900 3,281 2,868 1,581 1,009 8, ,395 1, ,006 2,678 3,401 4, ,170 3,360 3,198 1,669 1,025 9, ,428 1, ,194 2,903 3,622 4, ,717 3,439 3,528 1,756 1,040 9, ,461 1, ,382 3,129 3,844 4, ,607 3,518 3,696 1,843 1,056 10, ,495 2, ,482 3,265 3,977 4, ,497 3,596 3,865 1,930 1,072 10, ,528 2, ,581 3,402 4,110 4, ,387 3,675 4,034 2,018 1,088 10, ,562 2, ,681 3,538 4,243 5, ,277 3,754 4,202 2,105 1,104 11, ,595 2, ,781 3,675 4,376 5,270 COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER + LIGHTHOUSE STONEY POINT + COMBER + ROCHESTER TOTAL YEAR L0W GROWTH POPULATION PROJECTION LAKESHORE ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE COMBER COVE TOTAL YEAR ROCHESTER STONEY POINT LOW GROWTH MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW m 3 /d LIGHTHOUSE COVE STONEY POINT + COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER + LIGHTHOUSE ,153 3,124 2,208 1, , ,061 4,416 1,829 1,274 5,690 7,519 9,751 11, ,230 3,203 2,457 1, , ,164 4,915 1,942 1,294 6,209 8,151 10,372 12, ,900 3,281 2,707 1,581 1,011 8, ,266 5,413 2,056 1,314 6,727 8,783 10,993 13, ,170 3,360 2,956 1,669 1,026 9, ,368 5,912 2,169 1,334 7,246 9,415 11,614 13, ,717 3,439 3,205 1,756 1,042 9, ,470 6,410 2,283 1,354 7,765 10,048 12,235 14, ,607 3,518 3,455 1,843 1,057 9, ,573 6,909 2,396 1,375 8,284 10,680 12,856 15, ,497 3,596 3,704 1,930 1,073 10, ,675 7,408 2,509 1,395 8,802 11,312 13,477 15, ,387 3,675 3,953 2,018 1,088 10, ,777 7,906 2,623 1,415 9,321 11,944 14,098 16, ,277 3,754 4,202 2,105 1,104 11, ,880 8,405 2,736 1,435 9,840 12,576 14,719 17,456 COMBER STONEY POINT + COMBER + ROCHESTER TOTAL November

34 POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS Chart 5.1: Average Daily Flow AVERAGE DAILY FLOW m 3 /d 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 High Growth Stoney Point+Comber Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber High Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Lighthouse Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Lighthouse High Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Rochester Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Rochester High Growth Total Low Growth Total Initial 3,200 m 3 /d Expand to 4,800 m 3 /d Expand to 6,400 m 3 /d Expand to 8,000 m 3 /d 2,000 1, YEAR Chart 5.2: Maximum Daily Flow MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW m 3 /d 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 High Growth Stoney Point+Comber Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber High Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Lighthouse Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Lighthouse High Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Rochester Low Growth Stoney Point+Comber+Rochester High Growth Total Low Growth Total Initial11,000 m 3 /d Expand to 16,500 m 3 /d Expand to 22,000 m 3 /d Expand to 27,500 m 3 /d 5, YEAR November

35 6.0 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 6.1 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS The Master Plan contains a review and evaluation of alternative wastewater collection systems including conventional gravity sewers, low pressure sewers and vacuum sewers. Following this review and evaluation which considered the advantages and disadvantages of each system, the recommended wastewater collection system for the unserviced communities of Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place is conventional gravity sewers. 6.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Golder Associates Ltd. was retained to conduct a preliminary geotechnical investigation in the areas of the proposed sewer systems in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place and along the proposed alignment for the forcemains from Comber, Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place and to submit a report on the findings together with recommendations regarding excavation and construction methods for the proposed sewage works. Field work was carried out in April 2010 consisting of 15 boreholes advanced to depths of about 6 to 8 meters below ground surface and including groundwater monitoring, standard penetration testing, soil sampling and vane testing. Soil samples were taken to Golder s laboratory in Windsor for further examination and laboratory testing. In addition, the report included borehole information from a number of previous geotechnical investigations in the area. A copy of the Golder report is in Appendix F. Much of the Lighthouse Cove area consists of low lying land that has been reclaimed by filling with materials obtained from the excavation of the numerous canals. The fill material is a mixture of sand, silt and clay. The influence of the water from the lake and canals together with the porosity of the silty, sandy subsoils resulted in groundwater seepage in the boreholes at approximately one meter below the ground surface. The Golder report notes that it will be necessary to provide some form of positive groundwater control such as a well point dewatering system to facilitate construction of the gravity sewers in this area. Accordingly, the design of the sewer system for this area has limited the sewer depth to approximately 2 meters in the upstream locations to reduce the excavation required and facilitate the installation of the sewers, thus partially offsetting the additional cost for dewatering. Nevertheless, construction of the sewers under these conditions will be extremely difficult and costly. The Golder report also noted that the materials excavated for sewer construction would be suitable for trench backfilling. With respect to the Rochester Place area, the Golder report notes that similar dewatering facilities will be required along the lakeshore west of the Ruscom River due to sandy subsoils and high water tables in this area. The silty sand extends 1 to 1.5 meters below ground surface and overlies stiff silty clay which provides suitable support for the proposed sewers. Accordingly, November

36 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS a design approach similar to Lighthouse Cove has been used along the lakeshore west of the Ruscom River. 6.3 STONEY POINT Sanitary Sewer System Existing System Stoney Point has a sanitary sewer system with a defined service area as outlined in Section 4 of this report and shown on Figure 2.1. The first phase of the sewer system which serviced the core area of Stoney Point and included the treatment facilities was constructed in 1978 and was designed on the basis of the following criteria: Per capita wastewater flow 450 Lpcd including infiltration Population Density 15 persons/acre Peak Factor per Harmon Formula 1+14/4+P 1/2 where P = population in thousands The second phase of the sewer system was constructed in 1991 and involved the extension of the sanitary sewer on St. Clair Road westerly to the Rochester Town Line Road. The design of this extension was based on the following criteria: Per Capita wastewater flow 450 Lpcd Infiltration Allowance 0.14 L/ha/s Population Density 25 persons/hectare Peak Factor per Harmon Formula 1+14/4+P 1/2 where P = population in thousands Selected Design A sanitary sewer is contemplated in the future on County Road 2 (Tecumseh Road) from St. Clair Road easterly to connect with the existing sanitary sewer at Columbus Drive. This sewer will service existing dwellings and future approved severances Pump Stations & Forcemain Existing Facilities There are five underground pump stations in the Stoney Point collection system. The pump stations consist of an underground vertical circular reinforced concrete structure supported on a reinforced concrete base slab and extending to the ground surface where it is capped with a reinforced concrete cover fitted with aluminum access hatches for servicing the pump station and equipment. The pumping facilities include two pumps (one duty and one standby) driven by submersible motors and held in place at the bottom of the structure by a November

37 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS separate pump base anchored to the base slab. The pump and motor unit is removable from ground level through a guide bar system and a lifting chain. Pump Stations Nos. 2 to 5 inclusive are lift stations where the discharge piping is extended vertically from the pump to a discharge chamber within the pump station structure. Sewage flows by gravity from the discharge chamber to the downstream sewer. Pump Station No. 1 is located on St. Clair Road at the east limit of the service area. This pump station discharges the entire sewage flow from the Stoney Point system through a 250 mm diameter forcemain to the sewage treatment facilities which consist of two 5.4 hectare seasonal retention oxidation ponds. The pump station structure consists of a 10 feet (3050 mm) diameter precast reinforced concrete wet well with a concrete top slab at grade level and supported on a reinforced concrete base slab. A separate building at Pump Station No. 1 houses control valves on the discharge pipes, flow metering and standby power facilities. The two submersible pumps, one standby and one duty, are each rated at 625 Igpm at 40.5 feet total discharge head (TDH) ( m). The standby power facilities include an engine driven generator set rated at 50 KVA Selected Design Table 6.1 shows the capacity of the existing pumps and wet well and the required future capacity of the pumps and wet well at 10 year intervals. The projected peak flows will exceed the capacity of the existing pumps. It can be seen that wet well capacity can be increased slightly to accommodate future increases in flow by raising the pump start and alarm levels. However, these levels should not be extended significantly upward into the inlet sewer as this will reduce the available response time to alarm situations. This could also cause surcharging in the sewer system and possible basement flooding. Based on the flow projections, the existing pump station structure will satisfy the wet well capacity requirements to the year At that time a new pump station would be required to provide additional wet well capacity. Since the existing sewage lagoons would be decommissioned when the proposed new sewage treatment plant is constructed, the existing sewage forcemain would be disconnected from the existing lagoons and extended to the new treatment plant. The velocity in the existing 250 dia forcemain falls within the MOE guidelines (0.6 to 3.0 m/s) for the entire range of peak flows. However, the velocity approaches the high end of these limits in the later stages. The existing forcemain is currently 33 years old and will eventually require replacement as it nears the end of its service life in the next 20 to 30 years. Accordingly, the extension of the forcemain should be 300 mm dia and the existing 250 mm dia portion would be replaced in the later stages. The longer forcemain and the higher elevation of the inlet at the new treatment plant will change the hydraulic conditions for the sewage pumps. New pumps will be required to accommodate the projected increase in peak flow and the new hydraulic conditions. The November

38 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS new pumps would be installed in the existing pump station and relocated when the new pump station is constructed. The new pumps will be driven by larger motors to suit the new conditions and this will necessitate replacement of the existing standby generator set that provides power to the pumps in the event of interruption in the normal power supply. Space is available in the existing generator building for a larger generator set. Preliminary pump selections are shown in Appendix B. Table 6.1: Stoney Point Pump Station No. 1 and Forcemain Peak Flow 2,000 Lpcd Forcemain Dia 250 mm Forcemain Area m 2 Pump No. 1 Start m Pump No. 2 Start m Pump stop exist m Well diameter m Well area m 2 Well volume exist m 3 Existing Pump L/s HWL Alarm exist m 600 Dia Inlet invert m YEAR PEAK FORCEMAIN REQ'D PUMP NO. 1 PUMP NO. 2 HWL POPULATION FLOW L/s VELOCITY m/s WELL VOL START ELEV m START ELEV m ALARM m , , , , , Red number denotes unacceptable levels for existing pump station Shaded number denots larger pumps required. It is important to note that the new pumps for Stoney Point Pump Station No. 1 should be equipped for variable speed operation to maintain continuous flow to the new sewage treatment facilities. This will help to reduce sudden changes in sewage flow that are detrimental to the sewage treatment process. Alternatively, if the variable speed feature is not provided, the pump station could discharge at a constant rate to another pump station at the new sewage treatment plant that would be (a) equipped with variable speed pumps, or (b) equipped with screw pumps. Such an arrangement would also eliminate the need for variable speed pumps at the Rochester Place, Comber and Lighthouse Cove pump stations. These alternatives will be investigated in detail during final design in order determine the preferred option. November

39 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 6.4 COMBER Sanitary Sewer System Existing Facilities Comber has a sanitary sewer system with a defined service area as outlined in Section 4 of this report and shown on Figure 2.2. The sewer system was designed on the basis of the following criteria. Per capita wastewater flow 450 Lpcd including infiltration Population Density 15 persons/acre Peak Factor per Harmon Formula 1+14/4+P 1/2 where P = population in thousands Selected Design There are no proposed changes or additions to the Comber sanitary sewer system Pump Station And Forcemain Existing Facilities An underground pump station in the Comber system located on Windsor Avenue at Elizabeth Avenue discharges sewage from the Comber service area through a 200 mm diameter forcemain to the existing sewage treatment facilities which consist of two 6,acre oxidation ponds located in the extreme southeast corner of the service area. The pump station was originally equipped with two submersible sewage pumps (one duty & one standby) each with a capacity of 200 Igpm at 41.5 feet TDH ( m). The pumps were sized to service a design population of 1,040 persons. In 2008 the pump station was upgraded and the pumps were replaced with pumps rated at 27 L/s at 18 m TDH. The original 150 mm dia forcemain was replaced with a 200 mm diameter forcemain to the oxidation ponds. A separate building at the Comber Pump Station houses control valves on the discharge pipes, flow metering and standby power facilities. In the 2008 upgrade, the existing 4 inch flowmeter was replaced with a 6 inch Magmaster electromagnetic flowmeter, and the existing standby power unit was replaced with a Koehler diesel powered generator unit rated at 50 KW Selected Design Table 6.2 shows the details regarding the existing Comber Pump Station. Since the existing Comber lagoons will be decommissioned when the proposed new sewage treatment is constructed at Stoney Point, sewage from Comber will be redirected through a new forcemain from the Comber Pump Station to Lighthouse Cove Pump Station No. 5. November

40 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS Table 6.2: Comber Pump Station and Forcemain Peak Flow 1,300 Lpcd Forcemain Dia m Forcemain Area m 2 Pump No. 1 Start m Pump No. 2 Start m Pump stop m Well diameter m Well area m 2 Well volume exist m 3 Existing Pump L/s HWL Alarm m 450 Dia Inlet invert m YEAR PEAK FORCEMAIN REQ'D PUMP NO. 1 PUMP NO. 2 HWL POPULATION FLOW L/s VELOCITY m/s WELL VOL START ELEV m START ELEV m ALARM m , , , , elevations from original pump installation 2 flow required for minimum velocity in forcemain As shown in Figure 1.2, the proposed new forcemain would extend from the existing Comber Pump Station to County Road 46 and easterly on County Road 46 to County Road 37 (Gracey Sideroad) northerly to the proposed site for Lighthouse Cove Pump Station No. 5 on the southwest corner of the intersection of Gracey Sideroad and the Canadian National Railway Right of Way. The total length of the forcemain would be approximately 11,500 m and would cross County Roads 46 and 42, Highway 401, the Little Creek Drain and other municipal drains. Preliminary designs were carried out for 200, 250 and 300 mm diameter forcemains and the preferred size is 200 mm. The existing pumps will deliver approximately 16.5 L/s through the proposed 200 mm dia forcemain. This flow will not maintain a proper self,cleansing minimum velocity of 0.75 m/sec. A velocity of less than 0.75 m/s could permit sedimentation in the forcemain that would require flushing of the forcemain at regular intervals and thus increase operating and maintenance costs. In order to maintain the minimum velocity in the 200 mm forcemain, new pumps with a capacity of 24 L/s would be required. If the new pumps are not equipped for variable speed operation to maintain continuous flow to the new sewage treatment facilities, then a pump station would be required at the new sewage treatment plant as described in Section Preliminary pump selections and forcemain size selection are shown in Appendix B. November

41 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS Due to the considerable length of the forcemain, sewage may be resident in the pipe for sufficient periods of time to result in the formation of hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide causes deterioration of concrete manhole and pump station structures, and is hazardous to human health even at low concentrations. Injection of an oxidizing agent into the sewage at the Comber Pump Station may be required to reduce the potential for hydrogen sulphide formation. Provision should be made at the pump station to permit the addition of a chemical storage and feed facility if necessary. Monitoring of the characteristics of the sewage discharged at the end of the forcemain should be undertaken for a period of time following the commissioning of the new pumping facilities and forcemain. This will provide the information needed to properly design the type and size of the chemical system required if hydrogen sulphide becomes a problem. 6.5 LIGHTHOUSE COVE Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Design There is no sanitary sewer system in the Lighthouse Cove area. A preliminary design of a proposed sanitary sewer system was prepared for the Master Plan. This design was based on the following criteria: Per capita flow Peak extraneous flow Harmon Peak Factor Minimum pipe size Population density Residential density 450 Lpcd 0.21 Liters per hectare per second (Lphas) 1+14/4+P 1/2 where P = population in thousands 200 mm 25 persons/hectare for vacant land 2.89 persons/dwelling for existing development The sewer system was designed with sufficient capacity to service existing and future development in the defined service area Selected Design Figure 2.3 shows the sewer design prepared for this ESR, based on the same criteria as in the Master Plan design, in which sewers would discharge generally from east to west and terminate at Pump Station No. 5 on Gracey Sideroad on the south side of the CNR right4of4way. This pump station, which would be designed to also accept sewage from the Comber forcemain, would discharge through a new forcemain that would follow a proposed easement along the south limit of the CNR westerly to the proposed new treatment plant. If the pumps for Pump Station No. 5 are not equipped to operate at variable speed, then a pump station would be required at the new sewage treatment plant as described in Section Preliminary designs were carried out for 200, 250, 300 and 350 mm diameter forcemains and the preferred size is 200 mm diameter. November

42 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS The preliminary geotechnical investigation provided information on subsoil and groundwater conditions that was not available when the Master Plan was prepared. The report on the preliminary geotechnical investigation indicated the presence of silty sands in the upper strata together with a high water table. These conditions exist in the shoreline areas and adjacent to the canals in the service area. The report notes that it will be necessary to provide some form of positive groundwater control such as a well point dewatering system to facilitate construction of the gravity sewers in these areas. Additionally, the minimum sewer depth was reduced from 3 meters to 2 meters to partially offset the additional cost of the dewatering system. The reduced minimum sewer depth may result in a need to install sewage pumps to service basement sanitary facilities in some dwellings with deeper basements. Those dwellings would be identified during final design. Gravity service will be provided for the main floor of all dwellings. It is noted that much of the shoreline area is designated as flood prone. Accordingly, sewer manholes would require watertight covers and vent pipes. An estimate of probable cost, taking into account the need for a dewatering system during construction and reduced minimum depth, was prepared for the sewer design that included the pump stations and those sewers required initially to service existing development. Sewers required for the development of vacant lands would be the responsibility of the developer. Estimates of the probable cost are presented in Chapter 13 of this report. Design details are provided in the Appendix B. 6.6 ROCHESTER PLACE Sewer System Master Plan Design There is no sanitary sewer system in the Rochester Place area. Preliminary designs for three alternative sanitary sewer systems were prepared for the Master Plan. These designs were based on the following criteria: Per capita flow Peak extraneous flow Harmon Peak Factor Minimum pipe size Population density Residential density 450 Lpcd 0.21 Lphas 1+14/4+P 1/2 where P = population in thousands 200 mm 25 persons/hectare for vacant land 2.89 persons/dwelling for existing development The sewer system designs included 1) a system that discharged to the Belle River sewage treatment plant, 2) a system that discharged to a proposed local treatment facility in the southeastern part of the system, and 3) a system that discharged to a proposed new area treatment facility in Stoney Point. After an evaluation of sewer and treatment alternatives, the third design was selected for the Master Plan and is shown on Figure 2.4. November

43 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS Selected Design The selected design consists of gravity sewers and seven pump stations that direct the sewage from the Rochester Place service area to Pump Station No. 8 located at the east end of the service area on Surf Club Drive at the CNR right,of,way. As in the Lighthouse Cove system, the sewer system was designed with sufficient capacity to service existing and future development in the defined service area. Pump Station Nos. 1 through 6 would be lift stations that lift the sewage to the upstream sewer. Pump Station No. 7 would discharge through a forcemain that would cross under the Ruscom River. Pump Station No. 8 would discharge through a forcemain extending to the proposed new treatment plant in Stoney Point. As in the Lighthouse Cove sewer system, the preliminary geotechnical investigation provided information on subsoils and groundwater conditions that was not available during the preparation of the Master Plan. Silty sand and high water table conditions exist along the shoreline in the Rochester Place service area and a well point dewatering system will be required to facilitate construction of the sanitary sewers in these locations. The sewer design for the shoreline areas was revised for a minimum depth of 2 meters to partially offset the cost of the dewatering system. It is noted that much of the shoreline area is designated as flood prone. Accordingly, sewer manholes would require watertight covers and vent pipes. In some areas with proposed shallow sewers, existing dwellings with deeper basements may require the installation of sewage ejector pumps. Those existing dwellings would be identified during final design. Gravity service is to be provided for the main floor of all dwellings. A backwater valve shall be placed at the exit point of the sanitary pipe under the homes with shallow sewers. When wastewater flows back toward the home In the event of a power failure, and/or pump malfunction, the valve closes and prevents it from re,entering. Under normal conditions, the valve allows wastewater to flow from the property out to the main sanitary sewer. If sewage ejector pumps are needed, the Town considers cost sharing options in these situations. Also, it is recommended that for subsequent new home construction where shallow sewers dictate the need for sewage ejector pumps, they would be provided by the homeowners. All sewage from the Rochester Place area would be discharged from proposed Pump Station No. 8 through a forcemain to the new sewage treatment plant at Stoney Point. There are several alternative routes for this forcemain. One of the alternatives would extend from Pump Station No. 8 at the South end of Surf Club Drive easterly along County Road 2 (Tecumseh Road) and through Stoney Point to the CNR right,of,way, and continue easterly on an easement abutting the South limit of the CNR right,of,way to the new sewage treatment plant which would be located on the East side of the existing Stoney Point lagoons. The construction of the forcemain through the urban part of Stoney Point would cause considerable traffic disruption and involve costly restoration of the Tecumseh Road pavement. The length of the forcemain would be approximately 7,600 meters. This forcemain would cross Tecumseh Road, Comber Road in Stoney Point, the CNR right,of,way, and several municipal drains. Some of the municipal drains will be at their widest where the forcemain crosses, as they are approaching November

44 DESIGN OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS their outlets to Lake St. Clair. Another alternative route would be an easement on the CNR Right,of,Way from Pump Station No. 8 to the new treatment plant. Still other alternatives would involve easements on private property abutting the north or south limits of the CNR Right,of, Way. The selected forcemain route will be determined following discussions with the CNR and other property owners during final design. Preliminary designs were carried out for 300, 350 and 400 mm diameter forcemains and the preferred size is 300 mm. As with the other pump stations that discharge to the new sewage treatment plant, the pumps must be equipped for variable speed operation to maintain continuous flow to the new sewage treatment facilities or a pump station would be required at the new plant as described in Section Due to the considerable length of the forcemain, sewage may be resident in the pipe for sufficient periods of time to result in the formation of hydrogen sulphide. As noted previously, hydrogen sulphide causes deterioration of concrete manhole and pump station structures, and is hazardous to human health even at low concentrations. Injection of an oxidizing agent into the sewage at the Pump Station No. 8 may be required to reduce the potential for hydrogen sulphide formation. Provision should be made at the pump station to permit the addition of a chemical storage and feed facility if necessary. Monitoring of the sewage characteristics should be undertaken for a period of time following the commissioning of the new pumping facilities and forcemain. This will provide the information needed to properly design the type and size of the chemical system required if hydrogen sulphide becomes a problem. An updated estimate of probable cost was prepared for the selected design, taking into account the need for a dewatering system during construction and reduced minimum depth in the shoreline areas. The estimate includes those sewers required initially to service existing development, together with the pump stations, and the forcemain to Stoney Point. The estimate of probable cost is included in Chapter 12 of this report. Design details are in Appendix B. November

45 7.0 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES 7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON AREA STP Master Plan Evaluation The Water and Wastewater Master Plan included a review of various wastewater servicing alternatives to address servicing needs in the Comber, Stoney Point, Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove study areas Comber Service Area The following wastewater servicing alternatives were identified to address the problems identified in the Comber sewage service area: 1. Upgrade and expand the existing Comber STF to accommodate projected growth within the existing service area and anticipated growth in the adjacent areas outside of the existing service area. 2. Decommission the existing Comber STF and convey sewage from the expanded Comber sewage service area identified in Alternative 1 to a new common area sewage treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain Stoney Point Sewage Service Area The following wastewater servicing alternatives were identified to address the problems identified in the Stoney Point sewage service area: 1. Upgrade and expand the existing Stoney Point STF to accommodate projected growth within the existing service area only. 2. Decommission the existing Stoney Point STF and convey sewage from the Stoney Point sewage service area to a new common area sewage treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain Rochester Place Service Area The following wastewater servicing alternatives were identified to address the problems identified in the Rochester Place sewage service area: 1. Construct a new wastewater collection system discharging sewage to a new wastewater treatment facility dedicated to servicing the Rochester Place service area only. 2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to the Denis St. Pierre WPCP via a new pumping station and forcemain. November

46 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES 3. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Rochester Place to a new common area treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain Lighthouse Cove Service Area The following wastewater servicing alternatives were identified to address problems identified in the Lighthouse Cove sewage service area: 1. Construct a new wastewater collection system discharging sewage to a new wastewater treatment facility dedicated to servicing the Lighthouse Cove service area only. 2. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Lighthouse Cove to the existing Tilbury Sewage Treatment Plant via a new pumping station and forcemain and obtain treatment capacity from the Municipality of Chatham,Kent. 3. Construct a new wastewater collection system and convey sewage from Lighthouse Cove to a new common area treatment facility via a new pumping station and forcemain Preferred Alternative The preferred wastewater servicing alternative, as identified through the Master Plan process, is to convey sewage from these four study areas to a common area wastewater treatment facility in the Stoney Point area. The common area treatment option was selected as the preferred alternative based on a review of environmental, social and economic factors and impacts. 7.2 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES Introduction The primary technical considerations when evaluating alternative treatment processes include the ability of a system to consistently meet the established discharge criteria, the feasibility of locating a suitable site for the process and of expanding the process to the ultimate capacity, the ability of the process to handle variations in hydraulic and organic loadings, requirements for sludge handling and disposal, and capital and operating costs. The following sections describe several wastewater treatment processes that might be considered for a common area wastewater treatment facility for the Lakeshore Eastern Communities Site Selection As noted in the Master Plan, selection of a site for a treatment facility is normally undertaken as part of Phase 3 of the Class EA process. However, in order to evaluate servicing alternatives, the Master Plan did include a cursory review of alternative sites for a new common area wastewater treatment plant. November

47 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES The site selected during preparation of the Master Plan is adjacent to the existing Stoney Point treatment facilities between the easterly lagoon cell and Little Creek. This land was originally purchased and reserved to accommodate an expansion of the lagoon system by the addition of a third lagoon cell. This site offers the following advantages for locating a common area treatment facility. The site is more than adequate in size to accommodate the projected footprint of a treatment system to meet both initial and long term servicing needs. The site is centrally located with respect to the Comber, Stoney Point, Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove service areas. The property is already owned by the Town of Lakeshore. The site is adequately separated from existing development and sensitive land uses in accordance with MOE buffer zone requirements. The site is surrounded by agricultural land to the south, east and west and abuts a conservation area to the north. The site provides direct access for effluent discharge into Little Creek. The site utilizes an existing wastewater treatment site in lieu of establishing a new site. In view of the numerous and distinct advantages offered by this site, no further review of alternative sites was carried out as part of preparation of this ESR. Accordingly, it is proposed to locate the new common area wastewater treatment facilities on the existing Stoney Point lagoon site between the easterly lagoon cell and Little Creek. The proposed treatment plant site is shown in Figure Discharge Requirements The MOE, in correspondence dated May 18, 2010, (copy in Appendix D) provided the following suggested effluent quality criteria for a new wastewater treatment plant discharging to Little Creek. November

48 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Table 7.1 > Effluent Quality Criteria Variable Effluent Objective Effluent Limit Units CBOD mg/l TSS mg/l TP mg/l Total Ammonia 3 (Apr 1 to Oct 31) 5 (Nov 1 to Mar 31) 4 (Apr 1 to Oct 31) 6 (Nov 1 to Mar 31 mg/l E. Coli,,,, 100 CFU/100mL ph,,,, 6.5 to 9.5 Unitless The correspondence from the MOE noted that the Stoney Point drinking water intake and any recreational beaches are sensitive local water uses which need to be protected and this is the reason for the relatively stringent E. coli criteria of 100 CFU/100mL Potential Treatment Processes General Several potential wastewater treatment processes are described in the following sections together with a review of their application to serve the needs of the Lakeshore Eastern Communities common area. Lagoon based treatment processes are not considered in this evaluation. Lagoon systems have been excluded due to the large land area required for this type of treatment and the general inability of lagoon based systems to meet the fairly stringent discharge requirements, especially during cold weather conditions. All of the treatment systems described in the following sections will require pretreatment in the form of screening and grit removal facilities to remove rags, debris, floating material, stones and grit from the raw sewage flow. These pretreatment facilities are required to protect downstream equipment and processes from pluggage and abrasion problems. Since screening and grit removal requirements are common for all of the potential treatment processes they are not a determining factor in evaluating and selecting the preferred treatment process Activated Sludge Treatment Systems In the activated sludge process, an environment is created where micro,organisms (activated sludge) can oxidize organic matter in the wastewater under controlled aerobic conditions. The process normally occurs in a tank (aeration tank) in which air is introduced to mix the contents and provide a source of oxygen for the micro,organisms. The micro,organisms consume the November

49 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES organic matter in the wastewater and in so doing produce new cell mass. The micro,organisms and the wastewater are mixed for a period of time after which the mixture of new and old cells flows to a settling tank where the micro,organisms are settled and separated from the treated wastewater. A portion of the settled micro,organisms is re,cycled back to the aeration tank (return activated sludge) to maintain a desired concentration of micro,organisms and a portion of the settled sludge is wasted for disposal. There are several variations of the activated sludge process described as follows; Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) In the CAS process raw wastewater undergoes primary treatment through settling tanks, with or without chemical addition for phosphorous removal, prior to entering the activated sludge aeration tank. The main components in the treatment process include primary settling tanks, aeration tanks, air blowers, secondary settling tanks and activated sludge return pumps. The primary settling tanks (clarifiers) reduce organic and suspended solids loading on the activated sludge process thereby reducing aeration requirements and saving capital and operating costs. The advantages of primary treatment and the savings in aeration requirements generally apply to treatment plants with design capacities greater than 4,500 m 3 /d (1.0 MIGD). For smaller plants the savings in aeration tankage and operating costs are generally more than off,set by the extra costs for construction of the primary settling tanks and for primary sludge treatment and disposal. Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (EAAS) The extended aeration activated sludge process is a modification of the conventional activated sludge process in which primary settling tanks are omitted. Raw wastewater is introduced directly to the aeration tank. Longer aeration times of 18 to 24 hours and lower organic loadings are normally required to obtain acceptable effluent quality. As with the conventional activated sludge process, effluent from the aeration chamber flows to a settling tank where the suspended micro,organisms are separated from the treated wastewater. A high concentration of micro,organisms is maintained in the extended aeration process by re,circulating the majority of the solids from the settling tank back to the aeration tank. The extended aeration process normally provides good treatment including nitrification and is well suited to small communities with primarily domestic wastewater. The EAAS process is capable of accommodating variations in hydraulic loadings that are typical for small communities and produces less sludge than a conventional activated sludge plant. The extended aeration process is often considered to be more expensive for large treatment plants both in terms of capital cost for aeration tankage and operating costs for supplying air to the system. November

50 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) The sequencing batch reactor process is a modification of the extended aeration process in which the final settling tanks are omitted. As in the EAAS process the raw wastewater flows directly into the aeration tank. While in the aeration tank, the wastewater is aerated over a number of "air,on/air,off" cycles. The solids,liquid separation (i.e. final clarification) occurs during the air,off part of the cycle. During the latter part of the air,off cycle, treated effluent is decanted or withdrawn from the liquid surface. The SBR process can maintain a continuous wastewater inflow allowing flow equalization, biological oxidation, nitrification and final clarification to be carried out in one tank Attached Growth Systems Trickling Filter/Solids Contact (TF/SC) The trickling filter/solids contact (TF/SC) process makes use of both attached growth and suspended growth types of biological treatment. The trickling filter is an attached growth type of biological wastewater treatment system. In this process, wastewater is passed over a media to which micro,organisms attach themselves. Through aerobic cell metabolism the organic matter in the wastewater is consumed. The trickling filter consists of a bed of porous media with wastewater added at the top and allowed to cascade or trickle through its depth. A bacteriological slime attaches itself to the media and absorbs the organic matter in the wastewater. The media support system is designed in a manner which allows natural air circulation up through the filter to maintain aerobic conditions. Effluent from the trickling filter flows to a solids contact unit. The solids contact unit consists of aeration tank facilities similar to a small activated sludge system but with only 15 to 30 minutes retention time in the aeration tank. The solids contact unit conditions the sludge to enhance settling characteristics and provides some additional nitrification and BOD5 removal. Effluent from the solids contact unit flows to settling tanks where solids are separated from the treated wastewater. A portion of the settled solids is returned to the solids contact unit and the remainder is wasted for further sludge processing. Sludge production from a TF/SC process is reported to be less than that from an activated sludge process and is generally easier to settle and dewater. As well, there is an operating cost advantage with the TF/SC system since natural air circulation is used to aerate the trickling filter. Primary sedimentation is required in advance of the TF/SC process to reduce solids and organic loading and to remove larger solids and grease. This introduces the requirement for primary sludge stabilization, handling and disposal. November

51 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES To our knowledge there are currently no TF/SC systems in operation in Ontario although these systems are quite common in the mid,west and western United States. In colder climates treatment efficiency in small TF/SC plants may suffer due to heat loss in the trickling filter during very cold weather conditions. Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) The rotating biological contactor is another form of attached growth biological wastewater treatment system in which aerobic micro,organisms attached to the surface of rotating discs partially submerged in wastewater. Each RBC consists of a number of circular discs mounted on a horizontal shaft with approximately 40% of the disc diameter submerged in a contoured channel. As the discs rotate, a thin film of wastewater coats each disc and a bacteriological slim is formed. During rotation, the film is exposed to the atmosphere maintaining aerobic conditions. As with a trickling filter, excess bacteriological growth sloughs off and is carried with the effluent from the RBC treatment unit to a final settling tank where solids are separated from the treated wastewater. Nitrification can be obtained by installing RBC units in series. The organic matter is consumed by the first set of RBC's and nitrifying bacteria form on the latter RBC's to convert ammonia to nitrate. Primary sedimentation is required in advance of the RBC process to provide the necessary reduction in solids and organic loading together with removal of larger solids and grease. RBC's are normally installed outdoors with insulated covers and have proven to operate successfully in northern climates. Biological Aerated Filter (BAF) The biological aerated filter is another form of attached growth biological wastewater treatment process. The process is similar to that in a trickling filter but the media in this case is much smaller with a grain size similar to that in a sand filter. BAF units can be of the downward or upward flow type with upward flow units seeming to gain favour in recent years. Wastewater pre,treatment by primary sedimentation and very fine screening is required in advance of the BAF treatment units. The pre,treated wastewater is added to the bottom of the filter tank along with compressed air to maintain aerobic conditions throughout the tank. The wastewater and air flow up through the media in the tank with aerobic micro,organisms removing organic carbon in the lower and middle areas of the tank and nitrifying bacteria converting ammonia to nitrate in the upper reaches of the tank. In contrast to the trickling filter, excess biomass is not sloughed off but is maintained in the filter bed. Effluent from the BAF unit is very low in suspended solids and is acceptable for discharge without the need for final settling tanks. Excess biomass which accumulates within the filter must be removed by periodic backwashing of the filter units. Backwash water is usually re,circulated back to the front of the treatment works to co,settle with the raw wastewater in the primary November

52 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES settling tanks. Effluent water storage and backwash pumps are required for backwashing of the filter units. The BAF treatment process has been in operation in Europe for many years and there are several installations operating in the Province of Quebec. In recent years, two large BAF treatment systems have been installed in Windsor and Thunder Bay, Ontario. Primary sedimentation and fine screening are required ahead of the BAF process and this introduces the requirement for primary sludge handling facilities. A distinct advantage is that the BAF process does not require final clarification Comparison Of Treatment Process Alternatives The following table provides a comparison of the relative merits of the potential treatment processes. Item Table 7.2 Comparison of Potential Treatment Processes Process CAS EAAS SBR TF/SC RBC BAF Able to meet MOE yes yes yes yes yes yes effluent criteria Odor and minimal minimal minimal minimal minimal minimal environmental impacts Land area relatively similar site requirements for all processes requirements Primary settling yes no no yes yes yes tankage required Modular capacity yes yes yes yes yes yes expansion Sludge handling and Primary WBS WBS Primary Primary Primary disposal* + WBS only only + WBS + WBS + WBS Suitability for small possible yes yes possible yes possible treatment plant (4,800 m3/d and less) Ability to good good fair good fair good accommodate peak hydraulic loads * WBS = Waste biological sludge (known as waste activated sludge WAS for the CAS, EAAS, and SBR processes) All of the potential treatment processes are able to meet the effluent guidelines set out by the MOE. November

53 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES All of the processes are very similar and relatively benign in terms of odor and environmental impacts. Land area requirements for the different processes are comparable and, given the area available at the Stoney point site, should not be a significant factor in selecting the preferred process. While all of the processes could potentially be used to meet the needs of the Lakeshore Eastern Communities common area, the EAAS and SBR treatment systems have been commonly used in Ontario for smaller plants treating mainly domestic wastewater from residential service areas. Modular expansion is possible for all of the processes but the two processes that do not require primary settling tanks (EAAS and SBR) are particularly well suited to modular expansion and the SBR process has the added advantage of requiring neither primary nor final settling tanks. Sludge processing and disposal considerations are a significant factor in selecting a suitable treatment process. All of the potential treatment systems produce waste biological sludge. Since handling and disposal of waste biological sludge is a common requirement for all of the treatment options it will not be a determining factor in evaluating and selecting the preferred process. The EAAS and SBR processes are the only two potential treatment systems that do not require primary settling tanks and therefore do not produce any raw sewage sludge. Eliminating the need to handle, process and dispose of raw sewage sludge is an important benefit providing both capital and operating cost savings. Based on the foregoing evaluation, it is recommended that the EAAS and SBR processes be carried forward for a more detailed design analysis and comparison to select the preferred treatment process for the Lakeshore East common area. 7.3 COMPARISON OF EAAS AND SBR TREATMENT PROCESSES Treatment Plant Size And Staging As noted in section of this report, the initial (Phase 1) construction of treatment facilities for an average daily flow of 3,200 m 3 /d and a maximum daily flow of 11,000 m 3 /d would serve the high growth requirements of Stoney Point, Comber and Lighthouse Cove to the year A Phase 2 plant expansion in the year 2020 to increase the capacity by 50% to 4,800 m 3 /d average daily flow and 16,500 m 3 /d maximum daily flow would permit the construction of a sewage collection system for Rochester Place and thus accommodate all four communities at low growth to the year The timing of Phase 3 and Phase 4 expansions to accommodate average daily flows of 6,400 and 8,000 m 3 /d respectively and peak daily flows and 22,000 m 3 /d and 27,500 m 3 /d respectively will depend upon the subsequent growth in the communities. The benefits of following a staged approach include: Modular expansion triggered by community growth and/or expansion of the service area. November

54 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES The design of future stages can be optimized based on operations records, including flow rates, sewage strength, sludge quality and sludge quantity. Control of initial costs and apportionment of future costs to growth and expanded service area participants. In this section tankage sizing and configurations are presented for both the EAAS and SBR treatment processes. The plant layouts are based on the ultimate design capacity requirement of 8,000 m 3 /d with a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) capacity of 27,500 m 3 /d. The components that would have to be put in place for Phase 1 and each subsequent phase of the plant expansion are shown as part of the larger plant layout Design Approach The plant design and layout take into account the need for equipment and process redundancy to provide continuing treatment capability during maintenance and repair activities. The MOE publication Design Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008 states that standby or redundant capabilities need to be provided for satisfactory operation of the sewage works during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure and maintenance shutdowns. Generally, sewage pumping stations and treatment works should be designed so that with the largest flow capacity unit out,of,service the hydraulic capacity of the remaining units can handle the design peak instantaneous flow. The design of a sewage treatment plant, since it has an effluent discharge into the environment, should be based on the premise that the failure of any single component should not prevent the sewage works from meeting the required effluent quality and quantity criteria, while operating at design flows (i.e. Minimum to maximum design flows) Preliminary Treatment The preliminary treatment facilities described herein apply to both the EAAS and SBR processes. A schematic diagram of the proposed preliminary treatment facilities including expansion phasing information is shown in Figure Preaeration Preaeration facilities can be beneficial in cases where there is a long transit time in wastewater flow from the point of origin to the wastewater treatment plant. The purpose of preaeration is to reduce septicity by aerating to freshen the wastewater prior to entering the treatment process. Preaeration facilities typically consist of tankage at the plant inlet with air introduced into the tank either through diffusers or mechanical aeration. In the case of the Lakeshore East plant, two of the four communities to be serviced will convey wastewater to the plant through long forcemains and, accordingly, there may well be merit in providing a preaeration basin at the plant inlet. There is sufficient space available on the site to locate a preaeration basin and a final decision on the need for preaeration facilities can be made during the detailed design stage. November

55 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Fine Screening Screens are provided as part of preliminary treatment to remove rags, sticks and other oversized debris from the incoming raw sewage flow. This is done to protect downstream equipment and processes from reduced operating efficiency, increased maintenance, blockage or damage. The proposed design is comprised of the following. Provide three inlet screening channels. Two of the channels will serve as duty channels and the third will serve as a bypass channel. Each of the duty channels will be equipped with a mechanically cleaned screen with a capacity of 16,500 m 3 /d so that the combined capacity of the two channels will exceed the Phase 4 peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 27,500 m 3 /d. The bypass channel will be equipped with a manually cleaned bar screen and will be designed to accommodate the ultimate PWWF. The mechanically cleaned screens will provide fine screening with clear openings in the range of 7 to 10 mm whereas the manually cleaned screen will consist of a bar screen with clear openings of 12 to 15 mm. The screening facilities will be housed in a building that will also contain some components of the grit removal system. The fine screens will include a spray wash system and screenings compactor. A container will be provided for the screenings and grit. The container will be emptied as necessary and the contents disposed of at a sanitary landfill site. Phasing for installation of the screening facilities is proposed as follows; Phase 1 Construct one duty channel and one bypass channel with knock out provision for the addition of a third channel. Equip the duty channel with a fine screen with a capacity of 16,500 m 3 /d. Equip the bypass channel with a manually cleaned bar screen. Phase 2 no changes needed Phase 3 Construct third screening channel and equip with a fine screen with a capacity of 16,500 m 3 /d. Phase 4 No changes needed Grit Removal Grit removal is provided in advance of secondary treatment to remove stones, sand and other abrasive material to prevent undue wear of machinery and the unwanted accumulation of solids in channels and tanks. The proposed design is comprised of the following. Provide two vortex type grit removal tanks and associated pumps, cyclones and classifiers designed to accommodate the ultimate PDWF of 8,000 m 3 /d while providing removal of grit November

56 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES particles as fine as 150 microns. The grit removal facilities will also be capable of accepting the ultimate PWWF of 27,500 m 3 /d at a reduced removal efficiency. Phasing for installation of the grit removal facilities is proposed as follows; Phase 1 Install one grit removal system capable of removing particles as fine as 150 microns at a design flow of 4,800 m 3 /d and also capable of accepting a PWWF of 16,500 at a reduced removal efficiency. Phase 2, No changes needed Phase 3 Install a second grit removal system of the same size as provided in Phase 1 Phase 4, No changes needed Flow Measurement Flow measurement is required for compliance reporting purposes and to properly monitor and control plant operations. The proposed design is comprised of the following. Provide a Parshall Flume downstream of the screening and grit removal facilities. The flume will measure total flow through the treatment plant. Flows from the individual service areas can be separately measured and recorded using magnetic flow meters at the pumping stations serving the individual communities. A nesting type of Parshall Flume is proposed such that the throat width and measuring capacity can be increased to suit PWWF flow conditions for the various phases of construction Emergency Plant Bypass As previously noted, the plant design and layout incorporates equipment and process redundancy to provide continuing treatment capability during maintenance and repair activities. However, even with such redundancy, the MOE Guidelines recognize that unavoidable conditions can occur where the ability to bypass some processes should be incorporated into the design of the treatment works to minimize process washouts that may cause prolonged episodes of poor treatment performance. An unavoidable condition is defined as a condition beyond the reasonable foresight or control of the owner and operator of the works and includes exceptional acts of nature, third party actions (e.g., vandalism), or structural, mechanical or electrical failure. This study investigated whether the existing lagoons can be reused to provide a plant bypass to deal with emergency conditions. However, the proposed site doesn t have sufficient buffer zone for the reuse of the existing lagoons. According to the MOE guideline for sewage works (2008), a buffer separation of up to 400 metres would be required if there is any intent to continue to use the sewage lagoon as a component of the proposed Stoney Point sewage treatment facility. November

57 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES If the existing lagoon is converted to an emergency storage basin to temporarily store the bypassed flow, a control gate and piping need to be installed downstream of the grit removal facilities and upstream of the Parshall Flume to direct part or all of the incoming sewage flow to the existing eastern lagoon cell. A pumping station is also required to transfer the diverted flows back to the treatment plant. Considering there is insufficient buffer zone and it is costly to modify, operate and maintain the existing lagoons for emergency situations, it is evident that there is no need and economic advantage to utilizing the existing lagoon cell being used in emergencies for storage of plant bypasses. Instead of the reuse of existing lagoons, the proposed sewage pumping and treatment facilities are to be designed to have adequate redundancy and standby capability for satisfactory operation of the sewage works during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure and maintenance shutdowns. Sewage works is to be designed so that with the largest flow capacity unit out,of,service the hydraulic capacity of the remaining units can handle the design peak instantaneous flow. The sewage flow to any treatment process unit out of, service can be routed to remaining units in service with minimum impact on their performance. The failure of any single component should not prevent the sewage works from meeting the required effluent quality and quantity criteria, while operating at design flows. This plant bypass concept should be given more detailed consideration during final design Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (Eaas) Treatment Alternative This section describes the facilities proposed for the EAAS treatment alternative. A schematic diagram of the proposed EAAS treatment facilities including expansion phasing information is shown in Figure Selector Tankage Selector tankage is commonly provided with activated sludge treatment systems to favor the growth of desirable organisms and to reduce the growth of filamentous organisms. This is done to enhance the settling characteristics of the mixed liquor suspended solids thereby improving effluent quality and waste sludge concentration. Selector tankage is typically divided into three compartments with the first and second compartments being of equal volume and the third compartment being equal to the combined volume of the first two compartments. Selectors can be aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic and it is proposed to provide appropriate aeration and mixing equipment to give flexibility to operate the selector tankage in any of these three modes. Selector tankage can be provided as a separate tank upstream of the aeration tanks or can be incorporated at the inlet end of each individual aeration tank. The use of a separate selector November

58 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES tank offers advantages in terms of ease of operation and operational flexibility and is therefore proposed for use at the Lakeshore East Plant Aeration Tanks The proposed design of the EAAS aeration tanks is in accordance with criteria contained in the Ministry of the Environment Design Guidelines for Sewage Works The guidelines suggest a minimum hydraulic retention time of fifteen (15) hours in the aeration tank based on design flow. The guidelines also note a longer retention time may be required to achieve year round nitrification as is required for the Lakeshore East plant. Preliminary sizing of the tanks is therefore based on an eighteen (18) hour hydraulic residence time at design flow. Using this criteria, the tank volumes required for Phases 1 through 4 of the plant construction would be 2,400 m 3, 3,600 m 3,4,800 m 3, and 6,000 m 3 respectively. These volume requirements suggest multiple tanks each with a volume of 1,200 m 3 would provide logical expansion segments. However, in terms of treatment redundancy in Phase1, the loss of one of only two tanks for emergency conditions or repairs would seriously impact treatment capability. Accordingly the following tank sizing and staging is proposed. Phase 1 three (3) tanks at 1,000 m 3 each. Phase 2 add one (1) tank at 1,000 m 3 Phase 3 add one (1) tank at 1,000 m 3 Phase 4, add one (1) tank at 1,000 m 3 It is proposed that the tanks will be fitted with fine bubble air diffusers. An air supply of approximately 355 L/s will be provided to each tank with controls to automatically optimize air flow to meet dissolved oxygen and mixing requirement. The tankage sizing shown in Figure 7.3 is based on an assumed liquid depth of 5 m in the aeration tanks Final Clarifiers Mixed liquor flows from the aeration tanks to the final clarifiers where solids settle to the bottom of the clarifier and final effluent overflows from the surface of the clarifier to be disinfected prior to discharge into Little Creek. Most of the solids from the bottom of the clarifier are pumped back to the selector tanks (return activated sludge) and the remainder (waste sludge) is pumped to facilities for further processing and disposal. The proposed clarifier design is in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment Design Guidelines for Sewage Works In this case solids loading criteria govern for sizing of the clarifiers and the tank sizing (surface area) required for the four phases of construction would be as follows. Phase m 2 surface area required November

59 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Phase m 2 surface area required Phase m 2 surface area required Phase 4, 1030 m 2 surface area required The following tank sizing and staging is proposed to meet these requirements. Phase 1 two (2) 18 m diameter clarifiers 508 m 2 total surface area Phase 2 add one (1) 18 m diameter clarifiers 762 m 2 total surface area Phase 3 add one (1) 18 m diameter clarifiers 1016 m 2 total surface area Phase 4 no changes needed This proposed sizing and staging, as is the case with the aeration tanks, provides surplus capacity and improved redundancy in the initial stages of the plant development. The need for and timing of expansion phases can be adjusted based on plant operating efficiency. A sludge pumphouse will be provided as part of the clarifier installation. The pumphouse will be equipped with pumps to return activated sludge to the selector tankage and to pump waste sludge for further treatment and disposal. Pumping equipment will be added in stages to suit expansion of the EAAS treatment system. The final clarifiers will be fitted with automatic cleaning equipment to control algae accumulation on the clarifier launders and weirs. This is an important feature to reduce algae plugging problems in the ultraviolet disinfection process Sequencing Batch Reactor (Sbr) Treatment Alternative This section describes the facilities proposed for the SBR treatment alternative. A schematic diagram of the proposed SBR treatment facilities including expansion phasing information is shown in Figure Selector Tankage As is the case with the EAAS treatment alternative, selector tankage is recommended to enhance the growth of desirable organisms and to reduce the growth of filamentous organisms. Since there is no external return activated sludge stream with the SBR process it is not usual to provide a separate selector tank in advance of the SBR tanks, Accordingly, selector compartments and suitable mixing/aeration equipment will be required at the inlet of each SBR tank. November

60 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES SBR Tanks Unlike the EAAS process, there are no standard criteria for design and sizing of a sequencing batch reactor treatment process. There are several proprietary SBR processes being marketed and design standards and details vary from one supplier to another. The purposes of this section of the report is to provide as complete a comparison as possible between the EAAS and SBR processes in order to make an informed decision on the best process for the Lakeshore Eastern Communities Water Pollution Control Plant (LECWPCP). To do this it is not appropriate to select a specific proprietary SBR system for the comparison but rather to prepare a preliminary design and layout for a generic SBR process and use that to compare to the EAAS alternative. The following general information from the MOE guidelines has been taken into consideration for preliminary design of the SBR alternative More than two (2) SBR tanks should be provided Decantable volume and decanter capacity with the largest basin out of service should pass at least 75% of design peak daily flow without changing cycle times Decantable volume providing at least 4 hours hydraulic retention time with the largest basin out of operation and 100% peak daily flow Scum removal required Water depth of not less than 3.7 m at the end of the decant phase for simultaneous fill and draw process Oxygen transfer rates based on average water level Need for mixing without aeration Downstream processes, piping and conveyance channels need to be sized to handle peak discharge rates or provision needs to be made for flow equalization Another reference comparing the SBR process to a continuous flow activated sludge process for nutrient removal notes the following. Blowers and diffusers must be sized to deliver total oxygen requirements based on the total effective aeration time in the SBR tank The total installed SBR reactor volume will be similar to that of the aeration tanks plus clarifiers in a continuous flow system and capital and operating costs can be expected to be similar for given effluent quality and operating solids retention time November

61 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES More diffusers are required in an SBR system and installed blower horsepower is more and increases with a decreasing number of reactors. A SBR design has been developed incorporating the foregoing information. The preliminary design is based on providing a SBR reactor volume that is approximately equal to the combined volume of the aeration tankage and final clarifiers for the EAAS alternative. Details of the sizing and staging of the SBR tankage are as follows. Phase 1 provide four (4) tanks at 1,000 m 3 each. Phase 2 add two (2) tanks 1,000 m 3 each Phase 3 add two (2) tanks 1,000 m 3 each Phase 4, add two (2) tanks 1,000 m 3 each This proposed sizing and staging is similar to the EAAS alternative in that it provides surplus capacity and improved redundancy in the initial stages of the plant development. The need for and timing of expansion phases can be adjusted based on plant operating efficiency. The amount of air required by the microorganism (activated sludge) will be approximately equal for both the EAAS and SBR processes. However the SBR system operates in a batch mode with air on air off cycles. Since air supply to the SBR is intermittent, the rate of supply must be higher during the air on portion of the cycle. Consequently, larger air blowers are needed for the SBR process but they will operate for fewer hours than the smaller blowers used in the EAAS process Scum Removal It is necessary to remove scum during the treatment process because it is unsightly and, more importantly, it can impair effluent quality if not properly collected and removed. In the EAAS alternative scum is automatically removed by skimming mechanisms on the final clarifiers. In the SBR process scum accumulates on the surface of the SBR tanks and different SBR suppliers offer different approaches to scum collection and removal. If the SBR process is selected as the preferred alternative, careful consideration will be required to ensure that an efficient scum removal mechanism is included in design of the SBR system Flow Equalization Each cycle in the SBR process consists of four distinct phases fill, react, settle and discharge. Since the discharge (decant) period is usually significantly shorter than the fill period the discharge flow rate from the SBR is greater than the wastewater flow rate into the SBR. This means that piping and processes downstream of the SBR tanks must be designed to November

62 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES accommodate both higher flow rates and intermittent flows. Alternatively, flow equalization tankage and flow control facilities are needed to even out flow fluctuations. Flow equalization tankage is shown on the SBR schematic diagram (Figure 7.4). The provision of flow equalization facilities is recommended to remove the need for oversizing of the ultraviolet disinfection facilities and also to eliminate operating problems associated with intermittent flow through the disinfection system Sludge Processing Details of alternative biosolids (sludge) handling, stabilization and disposal alternatives are presented in Chapter Disinfection Effluent guidelines from the MOE require the inactivation of E. coli bacteria to a level of 100CFU/100mL or less in the plant effluent prior to discharge to the receiving body of water. The MOE has indicated that this relatively stringent criterion for E. coli has been set in recognition of the need to protect sensitive local water uses including the Stoney Point water intake and recreational beaches. The correspondence from the MOE indicates their experience is that this level of disinfection can be achieved with UV disinfection facilities. A schematic layout for the proposed UV disinfection system including expansion phasing information is shown in Figure 7.5. The proposed system consists of two (2) channels each equipped with two banks of UV lights. The channels include removable side inserts to permit widening of the UV banks as required to accommodate future flows. The proposed staging for construction of the UV facilities to disinfect the treated effluent is as follows. Phase 1 provide two (2) channels with one (1) bank of lights in each channel. Each bank rated at 5,500 m 3 /d for a combined capacity of 11,000 m 3 /d Phase 2 add a second bank of UV lights in each channel to increase capacity to 22,000 m 3 /d Phase 3 no action needed Phase 4 remove side inserts from channels and expand the four UV banks to a capacity of 7,000 m 3 /d each and a combined capacity of 28,000 m 3 /d It is noted that the capacity provided in Phase 2 exceeds the expected peak flow for that Phase but is convenient for flow splitting and provides some backup capacity. The foregoing sizing and construction staging information applies to both the EAAS and SBR options and assumes that the SBR process includes equalization tankage. If equalization tankage is not provided, the UV facilities will need to be enlarged to accommodate peak flows November

63 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES from the SBR process and some form of effluent recycle system will be needed to avoid excessive on,off cycles of the UV bulbs Outfall Sewer Following treatment, the plant effluent will discharged to Little Creek through an outfall pipe or channel Phosphorus Removal The effluent criteria set out by the MOE indicate the effluent objective and effluent limit for phosphorus is 0.5 mg/l and 0.7 mg/l respectively. It is proposed to dose alum to enhance sedimentation and achieve the required level of phosphorus removal. Liquid alum storage and metering pump facilities will be needed for both the EAAS and SBR processes Electrical Supply Normal Power Electrical supply to the proposed treatment plant will be from the nearest available source Standby Power A diesel powered standby generator set will be installed at the proposed treatment plant site to provide continuous operation of the treatment facility during power outages Selection Of Preferred Treatment Process The EAAS and SBR processes are both viable treatment options for the LECWPCP. Table 7.3 provides a comparison of some aspects of the two treatment alternatives. A comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two systems does not result in a distinct preference for one system over the other. Literature sources and design experience indicate that properly designed EAAS and SBR systems can be expected to be relatively equal in terms of capital and operating costs. Capital cost information in a later section of this report confirms that, at the conceptual design phase, there is no distinct difference in cost between the two processes. Figure 7.6 provides a preliminary layout of the various components of the EAAS alternative on the proposed treatment plant site. Figure 7.7 provides similar information for the SBR alternative. It is noted that the Town of Lakeshore has experience with both treatment processes. The capacity of the DSPWPCP was recently upgraded and, at the same time, the treatment process was converted from a SBR system to an EAAS system. To date, operating experience with the EAAS system has been good and there may be some merit in utilizing the same process at the LECWPCP. By using the same treatment process at the LECWPCP, operator training would be November

64 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES confined to a single treatment process and assignment of operating staff to any one of the Town s treatment facilities would be simplified. It is recommended that the final choice of treatment process be left to the discretion of the municipality at the time of final design. Table 7.3 Comparison of EAAS and SBR Treatment Processes Item Process Proven treatment technology for small communities Preliminary treatment Selector tankage EAAS Yes in use at many wastewater treatment plants in Ontario Screening and grit removal required External selector tank possible SBR Yes in use at many wastewater treatment plants in Ontario Screening and grit removal required Selector baffling needed in each SBR tank Aeration tank volume Tank volume less than SBR Tank volume greater than EAAS Aeration equipment Less diffusers and smaller blower horsepower More diffusers and greater blower horsepower Aeration energy required Approximately equal Approximately equal Final clarifiers Required Not required Equalization tankage and controls Not required Required or downstream components require oversizing Disinfection facilities Same for both processes Same for both processes Biosolids management Same for both processes Same for both processes November

65 8.0 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT 8.1 GENERAL The EAAS and SBR treatment processes both produce excess solids known as waste activated sludge. Biosolids management deals with all aspects of handling the waste sludge stream including storage, dewatering or thickening, stabilization and ultimate disposal. This section of the report reviews various possible biosolids management approaches with the objective of selecting the best system for the LECWPCP. As a matter of interest, the terms sludge and biosolids are often used interchangeably, although the term biosolids is more commonly used to describe sludge that has undergone treatment to render it suitable for land application. 8.2 SLUDGE PRODUCTION The MOE Guidelines provide information on typical sludge generation rates and characteristics for various treatment processes. Typical sludge production figures for the EAAS process (and the SBR process) with phosphorus removal are listed as follows; Liquid sludge 13.3 L per cubic meter of sewage treated Solids concentration range 0.4% to 1.9% average 0.9% Volatile solids content 60% Dry solids 120 grams per cubic meter of sewage treated or 55 grams per capita per day In addition to these typical sludge generation figures, historical sludge production rates for the Denis St. Pierre Water Pollution Control Plant (DSPWPCP) have been reviewed to help predict sludge generation rates at the Lakeshore East plant. The DSPWPCP is an EAAS plant treating mainly domestic wastewater and should therefore have similar sludge generation levels as the proposed Lakeshore Eastern Communities Water Pollution Control Plant (LECWPCP). Information contained in the May 2008 Predesign Report & Design Brief for upgrading of the DSPWPCP indicates that the average total historical sludge production at the plant was about 167 grams of dry solids per cubic meter of sewage treated. This is approximately 39% higher than the MOE guideline value of 120 grams dry solids per cubic meter of sewage treated. The cause of higher than typical sludge production at the plant is not known. A communication from plant operating staff indicates the solids concentration in the waste activated sludge is typically in the range of 1% to 1.2%. Table 8,1 provides a comparison of anticipated sludge production levels using the MOE typical criteria and the operating information from the DSPWPCP. November

66 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT Table 8.1 Estimated Sludge Production Phase Flow (m 3 /d) 3,200 4,800 6,400 8,000 Dry Solids (kg per day) MOE Typical Criteria DSPWPCP Data ,068 1,336 Volume of Waste Sludge (m 3 /d) MOE Criteria (0.9% solids concentration DSPWPCP Data (assume 1.1% solids concentration) This table shows that there is a marked difference in sludge generation figures between typical criteria and historical information from the DSPWPCP. The plant operating records show sludge production levels that are approximately 39% higher on a weight basis. On a volume basis the difference is only approximately 15% because the average sludge concentration of 1.1% at the plant is greater than the typical figure of 0.9%. For the purposes of this report, the higher sludge production levels have been used for preliminary design and sizing of the biosolids management system. This is a conservative approach and will likely result in some oversizing especially for the initial Phase of construction. The sizing of biosolids management components for future Phases of the plant expansion can be adjusted as necessary based on actual operating records at the LECWPCP plant. 8.3 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES There are a number of potential sludge stabilization and disposal alternatives available. Table 8,2 provides a summary of several different biosolids disposal options as well as the advantages and disadvantages of several alternative stabilization processes. November

67 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT Table 8.2 > Alternative Methods of Biosolids Stabilization and Disposal Ultimate Disposal Incineration Landfilling Farmland Application ReSale or Giveaway Stabilization Process Anaerobic Digestion (ultimate disposal by landfilling or farm land application) Aerobic Digestion (ultimate disposal by landfilling or farmland application) Lime Stabilization (ultimate disposal by landfilling or farmland application) Composting (Disposal includes landfill, farmland application and possibly re&sale or giveaway) Pelletization (ultimate disposal alternatives include landfill, farmlands and possibly sale as fertilizer additive) Comments no incinerators in close proximity within Essex County or Chatham Kent prohibitive cost and permitting requirements for new incinerator requires dewatering facilities to reduce leachate forming potential and improve manageability at landfill ongoing requirement for dewatering, haulage and tipping fees may require stabilization of biosolids for pathogen reduction stabilization of biosolids for pathogen reduction necessary abundance of suitable farmland haulage of biosolids required but usually no disposal charge beneficial reuse farm operations and weather dictate frequency of disposal infrequent disposal introduces requirement for extensive liquid biosolids storage or biosolids dewatering and sludge cake storage facilities beneficial reuse may generate revenue to offset operating costs requires a market demand requires extensive processing and quality control capital intensive Comments high capital costs very expensive and complex system for low design capacity not viable for this size of application well stabilized end product suitable for farmland application simple, relatively odor free process commonly used at small EAAS plants low odor potential energy intensive significant capital cost but far less than anaerobic digestion low energy consumption suitable for application on farmland requires dewatering of unstabilized biosolids for efficient use of lime high odor potential requiring odor control system end product susceptible to bacterial regrowth following ph fall storage of dewatered stabilized biosolids difficult beneficial reuse potential market for sale or giveaway capital intensive high odor potential current compost guidelines very restrictive making unrestricted use unobtainable difficult to store finished product in odor free form potential market for sale very significant volume reduction suitable for long term storage and easy handling capital intensive requires strict quality control for sale purposes not viable for this size of application November

68 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT The two ultimate disposal options that are best suited for use at the LECWPCP plant are landfill disposal or disposal by application on farmland. Construction of new incineration facilities is definitely not a viable option and there are no existing incineration facilities that can be used within reasonable proximity of the plant site. Resale or giveaway as a disposal method is not recommended as an alternative due to high costs associated with the need for extensive processing and strict quality control. Dewatering of unstabilized sludge followed by sludge cake disposal by landfilling does offer the advantage of being a relatively low cost option. Negative factors associated with this alternative are odour potential, the need to meet fairly stringent cake dryness criteria, ongoing haulage and tipping fees, the potential need for sludge stabilization and the potential for changes in landfill requirements over time. Considering the sludge stabilization processes that are available, it is evident that anaerobic digestion, composting and pelletization are not preferred choices for this application. Anaerobic digestion has a high capital cost and is rarely, if ever, used at small treatment plants. Pelletization is also very capital cost intensive and is best suited for large treatment plants. Composting has a number of restrictions and disadvantages as noted in the table and is not recommended for this application. A lime stabilization process could potentially be used at the new treatment plant to condition sludge for application on farmland. Negative factors associated with lime stabilization include high odour potential and difficulties associated with storage of dewatered, lime stabilized, sludge cake. The biosolids management process that appears to be most advantageous for this application is sludge stabilization by aerobic digestion followed by sludge dewatering and sludge cake disposal either on farmland or by landfilling. Aerobic digestion is a proven process commonly used for sludge stabilization at EAAS plants. This process is fairly simple to operate and produces a well stabilized end product suitable for use on agricultural land. The capital and operating costs associated with the process are significant but are comparable to or less than the other alternative processes (with the possible exception of landfill disposal of unstabilized sludge). It is particularly relevant to this study that a biosolids management system consisting of aerobic digestion, sludge dewatering, sludge cake storage and seasonal application on farmland has been used successfully at the DSPWPCP for many years. The municipality has a Certificate of Approval for a storage/transport site that is approximately 8 acres in size and located a short distance from the plant. During August and September of each year the stored biosolids are removed from the site and applied to farmland. The municipality is very familiar with the regulatory requirements for this process including submitting and obtaining approval for new biosolids application sites. Based on a brief discussion with operating personnel there does not appear to be concern with respect to obtaining ongoing approvals for land application. The aerobic digestion sludge dewatering sludge cake storage land application alternative for biosolids management is a proven system. Selecting this process for the new November

69 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT treatment plant may also provide an opportunity to use some of the existing facilities at the DSPWPCP to process biosolids from the new plant. Several benefits could result from integrating sludge management for the new plant with the existing DSPWPCP operations i.e. centralized operations would eliminate duplication of sludge management components and enhance operating and maintenance efficiencies DSPWPCP operating personnel are familiar with sludge handling, dewatering and disposal Reduction in capital cost for the new plant Comments on possible sharing of biosolids management components between the new plant and the DSPWPCP are provided in Table 8,3. Table 8.3 Biosolids Management Components Biosolids Management Component Comments on Possible Sharing Options Aerobic digestion Sludge Dewatering Sludge Cake Storage Hauling liquid waste sludge to DSPWPCP for processing, not feasible, no surplus aerobic digester capacity available. Construct additional aerobic digesters at the DSPWPCP to serve the new plant lack of space more economical to construct digesters at new plant Construct aerobic digesters at new treatment plant Haul liquid digested sludge to DSPWPCP for dewatering using existing centrifuge facilities Existing centrifuges operate 24 to 40 hours per week extend operating hours to accommodate sludge from new plant Sludge transfer tank required at DSPWPCP if offloading to existing digesters not acceptable Centrate returned to DSPWPCP treatment process Construct centrifuge dewatering facilities at new plant Sludge cake dewatered at DSPWPCP taken to existing storage site Truck dewatered sludge cake from new plant to existing DSPWPCP site for storage Obtain approval for and construct new storage/transfer site for sludge cake from new plant possibly adjacent to treatment plant Land Application Combine permitting and land application for sludge from new plant with operations at existing site Obtain a Non,Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan approval issued under the Nutrient Management Act by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and provide equipment at new site for loading and application on land November

70 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT In terms of permits and approvals for biosolds management, the MOE continues to issue Systems Certificates of Approvals for transportation of biosolids, however, the MOE no longer issues Certificates of Approval (Organic Soil Conditioning Site Certificates of Approval) for application of municipal sewage biosolids to agricultural land to provide valuable nutrients to soil and crops. Biosolids can still be applied to farmland under existing Certificates of Approval that are still in force. However, by December 31, 2015 all of these Certificates of Approval will expire. A Non,Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan is to be developed to comply with the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA) and its General Regulation (O. Reg. 267/03). The NASM approval is to be obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Based on the information in Table 8,3, the following three alternatives have been identified for processing and disposal of waste sludge from the new plant. Alternative 1 Aerobic digestion at the new plant Sludge dewatering at the new plant Sludge cake storage at a new storage/transfer site Land application Alternative 2 Aerobic digestion at the new plant Sludge dewatering at the new plant Sludge cake trucked to the existing DSPWPCP storage/transfer site Land application Alternative 3 Aerobic digestion at the new plant Liquid digested sludge trucked to the DSPWPCP Sludge dewatering at the DSPWPCP Sludge cake trucked to the existing DSPWPCP storage/transfer site Land application Alternatives 2 and 3 both offer capital cost saving when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 offers the most potential savings in that it eliminates the need for sludge dewatering at the new plant and, like Alternative 2, also eliminates the need for a new biosolids storage/transfer site. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would require new and amended approvals for hauling liquid digested sludge or sludge cake from the LECWPCP plant to the DSPWPCP and for using the existing storage/transfer site. Alternative 3 would also require longer centrifuge operating hours at the DSPWPCP and would impose a minor additional load on the plant for centrate treatment. The capital cost savings will be offset to some extent by the requirement to truck either dewatered sludge cake (Alternative 2) or liquid digested sludge (Alternative 3) from the new plant to the DSPWPCP site. The haul distance between the new plant and the existing DSPWPCP is relatively short being approximately 40 km round trip. An estimate of trucking requirements for Alternatives 2 and 3 is presented in Table 8,4. There is definite benefit in consolidating biosolids storage and land application activities for both plants at the existing DSPWPCP storage/transfer site. This eliminates the need for and cost of finding, obtaining approval for, developing and operating a new sludge cake storage/transfer site. November

71 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT Alternative 2, which includes installing and operating centrifuge facilities at the new plant, has minimal trucking requirements ranging from 1 to 2 loads of sludge cake per week in Phase 1 increasing to just over 3 loads per week in Phase 4. Alternative 3 involves considerably more trucking ranging from 8 truckloads of liquid digested sludge per week in Phase 1 to approximately 20 loads per week in Phase 4. The advantage of this approach is that it eliminates need for new centrifuge facilities at the LECWPCP plant thereby reducing capital costs and avoiding some duplication in operating cost. It is interesting to note that using MOE typical sludge production figures would result in only 6 truckloads of liquid digested sludge per week in Phase 1 increasing to 15 loads per week in Phase 4. Table 8.4 Sludge Trucking Requirements (1) Phase Flow (m 3 /d) 3,200 4,800 6,400 8,000 Alternative 2 Dewatered Sludge Cake Cake volume (m 3 /d) assumes 20% cake solids Alternative 3 Liquid Digested Sludge Truckloads (2) 1 to 2 loads/week 1 to 2 loads/week 2 to 3 loads/week 3+ loads/week Sludge volume (m 3 /d) assumes 2% solids content Truckloads (3) 8 to 9 12 to to loads/ week loads/ week loads/ week loads/ week Notes: (1) Based on DSPWPCP sludge production data in Table 8>1 (2) Assumes 15 m 3 load size with watertight truck box required to transport sludge cake at 80% water content (3) Assumes 23 m 3 (5000 Imperial gallon) tank truck For the initial phase of construction of the LECWPCP plant it is recommended that biosolids management Alternative 3 be selected as the preferred option. This alternative, consisting of aerobic digestion at the new plant, followed by trucking digested sludge to the DSPWPCP for dewatering, storage and land application, offers several advantages as previously noted. It is recommended as the preferred option for Phase 1 because it is a proven process, it avoids a significant capital cost outlay in Phase 1 and it provides flexibility and time to gather actual operating information from the new plant. This operating data can be used in planning future Phases of construction to reassess sludge management options and make more informed decisions if changes are required. Provision will be included in the layout of the new treatment plant for the possible future addition of sludge dewatering facilities. November

72 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT 8.4 AEROBIC DIGESTERS The MOE Design Guidelines for design of aerobic digesters include the following criteria. An aerobic sludge digestion system should include provisions for digestion, supernatant separation, sludge concentration and sludge storage. These provisions may be accomplished in separate tanks or processes, or within the digestion tanks. Multiple digestion units capable of independent operation are desirable and should be provided in plants where the design average daily flow exceeds 380 m3/d. Sizing should be designed to achieve a minimum solids retention time (SRT) of 45 days, including both digester stages and the SRT of the activated sludge treatment process. Two stages with a minimum of one digester in each stage should be provided. It is recommended that 2/3 of the total digester volume be in the first stage and 1/3 be in the second stage. If supernatant separation is performed in the digestion tank, a minimum of 25 percent additional tank volume is required. A loading rate of 1.6 kg/(m3d) volatile solids based upon first stage volume only should be provided. These criteria have been used to develop the preliminary aerobic digester sizing information shown in Table 8.5. The digester sizing assumes that 15 days of the required 45 day SRT is provided in the EAAS or SBR process with the remaining 30 days in the aerobic digesters. The sizing further assumes a 25% increase in tank volume to account for supernatant separation in the digestion tank rather than in a separate tank. Also, sizing of the digesters is based on DSPWPCP operating data in Table 8.1 and not MOE typical sludge quantity and quality information. Table 8.5 Aerobic Digester Sizing Phase Flow (m 3 /d) 3,200 4,800 6,400 8,000 Aerobic Digester Volume m 3 1,010 1,505 2,000 2,500 Suggested Digester Tankage 2 1,000 m 3 each No changes needed No changes needed Add third tank with 1,000 m 3 volume For preliminary design purposes, and recognizing the MOE requirement for multiple digestion units capable of independent operation, it is suggested that two digestion tanks each with a November

73 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT volume of 1,000 m 3 be provided in Phase 1. A digestion tank size of 1,000 m 3 is consistent with the 1,000 m 3 size of each of the aeration tanks and SBR tanks. This should give some economy in design and common wall construction. Provision of 2,000 m 3 of digestion tank volume in Phase 1 far exceeds the calculated requirement. However, the calculated volume is based on the assumption that sludge will be wasted to the digester at a 1.1% solids concentration and will thicken to a concentration of 2% in the digester. If the concentration of the waste sludge stream is less than assumed or if the solids concentration in the digester does not reach 2% then the 1,000 m 3 calculated digester volume would be insufficient. Provision of surplus digester volume also provides flexibility to store sludge and tailor a sludge trucking schedule to coincide with the availability of dewatering capacity at the DSPWPCP. 8.5 CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING FACILITY It is noted in Section 8.3 that biosolids management Alternative 3 be selected as the preferred option of the initial phase of construction of the LECPCP plant. This alternative requires trucking digested sludge to the DSPWPCP for dewatering. It was predicted during study and design of the DSPWPCP upgrades that additional dewatering capacity would be needed to meet 20 year design requirements for handling sludge generated from the DSPWPCP. However, in the interim, the upgrades of the existing centrifuge dewatering facility at the DSPWPCP was deferred until anticipated sludge concentration improvements and operational run times from the conversion to an extended aeration process can be evaluated and assessed. Dewatering capacity at the DSPWPCP shall be revisited during the detailed design of the initial phase of the LECPCP plant. November

74 9.0 DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES 9.1 REUSE OF STONEY POINT LAGOONS There are a number of potential reuse alternatives available for the Stoney Point lagoons. Table 9,1 provides a summary of several different reuse options as well as the advantages and disadvantages of several alternative reuses. STORAGE & DISPOSAL CONCEPT Peak Flow Attenuation Table 9.1 Evaluation of Lagoon Reuse Alternatives ADVANTAGES Potential to reduce upfront capital costs; Minimize effect of peak flows on secondary process; DISADVANTAGES Potential for groundwater contamination; Continued maintenance of existing lagoon berms; Increased operating costs as diverted flow need to be pumped back to the plant; Increased maintenance/cleaning of peak flow attenuation pond Biosolids Storage in Lagoons Reduction in upfront capital costs Potential for odors; Potential issues with berm integrity; Not amenable for dewatered biosolids; Parkland or Recreational site Least O&M cost No odors or other pollution issues Potential high capital cost If the existing lagoons can be reused for peak flow attenuation, sewage treatment at the new plant can be designed for an average daily flow value with some components capable of providing partial treatment at a peak design flow. Peak flow attenuation would allow for temporary storage of flows in excess of the plant s design flow, thereby, reducing the size of the plant that is required to handle peak flows. The diverted flows would be sent to one of the lagoons where it will be held until flows have dropped back to normal levels. A pumping station will be required to transfer the diverted flows back to the treatment plant. Considering it is costly to modify, operate and maintain the existing lagoons for peak flow attenuation, it is evident that this option is not a preferred choice for this application. Therefore, the new sewage treatment plant would be designed to provide full treatment for peak flow. November

75 DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES There could be potential savings with the storage of biosolids in one of the existing lagoons. If the existing lagoons can be reused for sludge storage, the size of biosolids management facility could be reduced. This option is not considered to be the preferred choice due to high capital costs and potential odor production. Converting the existing lagoons to parkland or a recreational site is considered to be a preferred choice for this application. The cells would be desludged and the sludge hauled to the Town s waste transfer site for landfill or an approved farmland location. Once sludge haul is completed, the dykes would be leveled and the site may be used for parkland or recreational purposes. The decommissioning shall comply with the requirements detailed in the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04) related to site assessment and clean up. Reuse of the lagoon site for residential housing, agricultural, commercial, industrial is not recommended. 9.2 REUSE OF COMBER LAGOONS Sewage from the Comber service area will be conveyed by a pumping facility to the new plant for treatment. The existing Comber pumping station must be modified for this purpose. The Comber lagoons can be reused for peak flow attenuation, which would allow for temporary storage of flows in excess of the pumping station s design flow, thereby, reducing the size of the pumping facility that is required to handle peak flows. The diverted flows would be sent to one of the lagoons where it will be held until flows have dropped back to normal levels. A drain line will be required to transfer the diverted flows back to the Comber pumping station. Considering it is costly to modify, operate and maintain the existing lagoons for peak flow attenuation, it is evident that this option is not a preferred choice for this application. There is no sewage treatment facility near the Comber lagoons. Storage of biosolids in one of the Comber lagoons is not considered to be a preferred choice. Converting the existing lagoons to agricultural, parkland or recreational site is considered to be a preferred choice for this application. The cells are desludged and the sludge hauled to the Town s waste transfer site for landfill or an approved farmland location. Once sludge haul is completed the dykes would be leveled and the site may be used for agricultural, parkland or recreational purposes. The decommissioning shall comply with the requirements detailed in the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04) related to site assessment and clean up. Reuse of the lagoon site for residential housing, commercial, industrial is not recommended. 9.3 DECOMMISSIONING OF THE STONEY POINT AND COMBER LAGOONS The existing lagoons can only be decommissioned once the new plant has been successfully commissioned. The decommissioning of the lagoons can be completed as part of construction of the new plant or after the new plant is put in service. The decommissioning of the lagoons can be completed as follows: November

76 DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES 1. The liquid content of the lagoon would be pumped to approximately 0.3 m (1 foot) depth at the overflow weir. The effluent quality would be monitored and the liquid transfer would be discontinued if the effluent quality exceeds discharge criteria. 2. The remaining liquid and solids can be removed by: a) Pumping the liquid and solids into tankers for disposal at the DSPWPCP; or b) Allowing the lagoon to dry then excavating the dried sludge layer out of the lagoon and into trucks for disposal at the plant or the Town s waste transfer site for landfill. 3. After all sludge is removed, the site of the lagoon can be graded by leveling the earth dikes into the lagoon. Any other excavated earthen material can be used to fill in the lagoon provided that the material is acceptable for this application. The decommissioning shall comply with the requirements detailed in the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04) related to site assessment and clean up. November

77 10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN 10.1 SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS Stop Pollution of Local Water Courses The proposed sanitary sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place will collect and deliver sewage from developed areas to the proposed new sewage treatment plant which will discharge a treated effluent to the Little Creek that meets current MOE standards. The construction of the proposed sanitary sewer systems will permit the decommissioning of the existing septic tank systems which were found to be the sources of pollution in local water courses. This is the most important beneficial environmental impact of the proposed sewage collection systems. Construct Dwellings on Existing Building Lots Too Small for Septic Systems Construction of dwellings is restricted on a number of existing vacant lots because they are not large enough for installation of septic systems to current standards and thus would remain vacant. The construction of the sanitary sewers will permit the construction of dwellings on these vacant lots subject to other municipal restrictions. Development of Vacant Land Vacant tracts of land that would otherwise remain vacant without sanitary sewer service could be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational uses subject to appropriate land use designations in the Official Plan. Acquisition of Property and Easements on Agricultural Land Property will be required for pump station sites. Permanent easements for sewers and temporary easements to permit sewer construction will be required in some areas where existing road allowances or rights,of,way are narrow or non,existent. For the most part, pump station sites and sewer easements will be located in residential areas. However there will be a requirement for some agricultural land particularly for sewer and forcemain easements. The municipality will acquire property at fair market value, which basically means that it is sold at the price that other real estate is selling for in that area. The municipality may obtain the services of an accredited appraiser to assist in establishing the fair Market value and related compensation for the land' required for the Project. Below is a brief description of typical process for the property acquisition: a) Identify and contact effected property owners b) Procure the services of qualified appraiser November

78 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN c) Present Letter of Offer to property owner d) Negotiate agreement with property owner e) Obtain appropriate Municipal approval for acquisition of property f) Present an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to property owner g) Conduct any required survey work and due diligence for the property h) Close on the property acquisition The Municipality will pay for all costs of acquiring the property for its purposes, including the cost of the appraisal of the property, compensation related to the land, survey costs, and reasonable closing fees. Heritage Resources In accordance with the Checklist for Determining Archaeological Potential from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was conducted for lands impacted by this project. The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment concluded that nearly all of the current study area has been disturbed by previous construction. These areas have low potential for the discovery of Aboriginal or Euro,Canadian resources and require no further archaeological field work. However, several areas along the south shore of Lake St. Clair in the service areas of Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove appear to have little or no visible disturbance. These areas have moderate to high potential for the discovery of Aboriginal or Euro,Canadian resources and are recommended for further Stage 2 surveys prior to proceeding with construction. A Stage 2 survey determines if any archaeological resources are on the property using either pedestrian survey or test pit survey. The report on the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment by Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. can be viewed in Appendix F. Crossing Water Courses The proposed sewers and forcemains will cross watercourses including the Ruscom River, Little Creek and several municipal drains. There will be a need to minimize disruption of flow and drainage, and to implement erosion control methods during these crossings. Open cut construction across small drains may be permitted during periods where there is little or no flow. Directional drilling procedures will be specified for crossing the larger drains and water courses. Crossing Railway Rights>of>Way Rail traffic should not be disrupted by sewer or forcemain construction. Permits to cross railways would be obtained from the railway company. In all railway crossings, directional drilling procedures should be used to install steel casings for insertion of sewer or forcemain pipes. November

79 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN Permits to Take Water Some areas with sandy subsoils and high water tables have been identified in the Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place areas where well point dewatering systems will be required to facilitate sewer and forcemain construction. The use of these dewatering systems will require the acquisition of a Permit to Take Water from the MOE. Trees in the Sewer Alignment Small healthy trees interfering with the sewer alignments would be relocated. For larger healthy trees that cannot be easily relocated, directional drilling procedures would be specified for installation of pipes under the large trees. Trees interfering with alignment of sewers or forcemains that are assessed in poor condition will be removed during construction. Disruption of Traffic Construction of the proposed sanitary sewers will result in temporary detours or lane restrictions that will disrupt traffic in the area and interfere with access for some residents and businesses. All emergency services must be notified of detours prior to commencement of construction. Services that may experience temporary detours or delays include school buses, mail delivery and garbage collection. Where the alignment for sewers or forcemains follows a County Road, approval of the alignment would be obtained from the County of Essex. Crossing of the Comber forcemain under Provincial Highway 401 on Gracey Sideroad is not expected to cause traffic disruption but will require approval from the Ministry of Transportation. Inconvenience During Sewer Construction Construction activities will create noise and traffic from construction vehicles resulting in temporary inconvenience to residents and businesses. Cost to Residents Residents benefitting from the proposed sanitary sewer systems will be required to pay the capital and operating costs of the proposed sanitary sewer systems SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Treatment Plant Site Several factors must be considered in siting a wastewater treatment facility including technical, environmental and economic aspects. Technical considerations include proximity of the site to the area being serviced, proximity to a receiving water body for effluent discharge, geotechnical conditions and suitability for future expansion. Environmental considerations include impacts on both the natural and social environments. Economic impacts relate primarily to the cost to construct the treatment facility on one site compared to another. Typically, these costs include November

80 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN costs for land purchase, conveyance of sewage to the facility, conveyance of effluent from the facility and construction of the facility itself. The proposed treatment facility site is illustrated in Figure 7.1. The following criteria were used to evaluate the suitability of the proposed treatment plant site: Buffer Zone The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has developed Guidelines with respect to recommended separation or buffer zone distances between various sizes and types of wastewater treatment facilities and nearby "sensitive" land uses. In some cases these Guidelines are applied as policy by MOE staff especially where there is a proposal for expansion of a large treatment facility and where there are concerns related to the generation of odours or noise. An application to the MOE for approval of air and noise emissions from any proposed treatment facility is required under the regulations of the Provincial Environmental Protection Act. A copy of the July 1995 version of Guideline D,2 "Compatibility Between Sewage Treatment and Sensitive Land Use" is included in Appendix C. The guideline indicates that: 1. Where practical, sensitive land uses should not be placed adjacent to treatment facilities. 2. When new facilities or enlargements to existing facilities are proposed, an adequate buffer area should be acquired as part of the project. Plants with a capacity of less than or equal to 500 m 3 /d (0.1 MGD) have a recommended separation distance of 100 metres. Plants with a capacity greater than 500 m 3 /d but less than 25,000 m 3 /d (5.5 MGD) have a minimum separation distance of 100 metres and a recommended separation distance of 150 metres. 3. When the lagoons are proposed as a component of the proposed sewage treatment facility, the recommended separation distance for lagoons varies from 100 to 400 m. The ultimate capacity of the proposed treatment facility is 8,000 m 3 /d and the existing Stoney Point Sewage lagoons will be decommissioned and not used as a component of the proposed Stoney Point sewage treatment facility. Therefore, the minimum separation of 100 metres, and the recommended separation of 150 metres would apply. The MOE has indicated sensitive land use in the context of this Guideline can be defined as: "A use associated with residences, schools, hospitals and senior citizen homes or other land uses where humans and the natural environment may be adversely affected by emissions from the facilities". The proposed treatment plant site is located to provide a buffer zone of more than 150 m from the closest residential property line to any open tankage. This buffer zone exceeds the minimum requirements as outlined by the MOE. The buffer zone will help minimize potential impacts on adjacent lands and effectively mitigate potential impacts related to aesthetics. November

81 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN Heritage Resources The Mayer report on the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment noted that the proposed site for the new treatment plant is currently situated within an undisturbed ploughed agricultural field. Mayer has recommended a Stage 2 pedestrian survey prior to construction of the treatment facilities. Proximity to Receiving Water Body The treatment plant site is located adjacent to Little Creek which discharges to Lake St. Clair approximately 360 m north of the site. Natural Environment The proposed site is separated from the Tremblay Beach Conservation Area by the CNR Right, of,way as shown on Figure 7.1. Proximity to Arterial Roadway County Road 2 is a major arterial roadway that provides direct access to the Lakeshore Eastern Communities and neighbouring areas. It is expected that there will not be any significant traffic disruptions during the construction of the treatment facility. Availability of Land Land availability is not a concern since the proponent for this project currently owns the land required to construct the treatment facility works. Requirements of Flood Proofing The proposed treatment plant site is located on the periphery of lands that are designated as Lake St. Clair Floodprone Areas in the Official Plan and in the Zoning By,Law. Flood proofing measures have previously been undertaken on the site including a berm along the west bank of Little Creek. The proposed treatment plant is located on the land in Concessions 10 and 11, which is located on the periphery of lands that are designated as Lake St. Clair Floodprone Areas. The proposed plant site is under the jurisdiction of the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). The ERCA was contacted to verify whether additional flood proofing measures would be required for the proposed treatment plant site, and no specific comments have been received to date. In the final design phase, an application of flood proofing measures must be submitted to the ERCA for review and approval. Cost of Sewage Conveyance To minimize the cost of the sewage collection system (sewers and pumping stations), it is desirable to locate a treatment facility in proximity to the areas being serviced. The proposed November

82 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN treatment facility site is located within the Lakeshore Eastern Communities and therefore the cost of sewage conveyance is not considered to be a critical issue. Removal of Agricultural Land The site is designated in the Official Plan as Lake St. Clair Floodprone Areas. The treatment plant site is owned by the Town of Lakeshore and was purchased in the 1970 s at the time of construction of the sewage lagoons for the purpose of expanding the treatment facilities in the future. Although the land has been farmed since it was purchased by the Town, it was purchased for treatment plant purposes many years ago. Suitability of Future Expansion The proposed treatment facility site is sufficiently sized to permit future expansions to service the ultimate development of the Lakeshore Eastern Communities. Proximity to Existing Dwellings As discussed previously, the proposed treatment plant site is located to provide a separation of more than 150 m from the closest residential property line to any open tankage. This buffer zone exceeds the minimum requirements as outlined by the MOE. Based on the criteria discussed above, the proposed treatment plant site as illustrated in Figures 7.1 is suitable for the construction of the EAAS treatment facility to service the Lakeshore Eastern Communities. November

83 11.0 PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS 11.1 SEWERS, PUMP STATIONS & FORCEMAINS Rochester Place Descriptions and estimated costs of the preferred and alternate property acquisitions required for the eight proposed pump stations, and the easement requirements for several sewers and the forcemain from Pump Station 8 to the proposed new sewage treatment facilities are shown in Table Aerial photos showing these property requirements are in Appendix C. A description as to how the municipality proposes to acquire required properties and easements in presented in Section Lighthouse Cove Descriptions and estimated costs of the preferred and alternate property acquisitions required for the five proposed pump stations, and the easement requirement for several sewers and the forcemains from Pump Station No. 4 and Pump Station 5 are shown in Table Aerial photos showing these property requirements are in Appendix C. A description as to how the municipality proposes to acquire required properties and easements in presented in Section Comber There does not appear to be any requirement for land or easement acquisitions for the Comber forcemain extending from the Comber Pump Station to Lighthouse Cove Pump Station No Stoney Point There are no property requirements for the Stoney Point sewage collection system SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Stoney Point There are no property requirements for the proposed sewage treatment plant since it will be located adjacent to the existing lagoons on property that is currently owned by the Town of Lakeshore. November

84 PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS Table 11.1: Property Requirements for Rochester Place Sewage Works Location Preferred Site Alternate Site Photo No. Estimated Cost 2 Pump Station No. 1 Property No. 1038, parcel with 18 m frontage on East side of Property No. 1038, parcel with 18 m 1 $ 100,000 County Road 31 (West Ruscom River Road) abutting North frontage abutting preferred site side of Property No.1122 Pump Station No. 2 Property No. 440, parcel with 18 m frontage on East side of County Road 31 abutting South limit of CNR right,of,way Pump Station No. 3 Parcel with 18 m frontage on East side of East Ruscom River Road abutting North side of Property No Property No. 439, parcel with 18 m frontage on West side of County Road 31 Parcel on either side of the preferred site 3 Pump Station No. 4 Property No. 448, parcel with 18 m frontage on South side of Parcel with 18 m frontage abutting County Road 2 (Tecumseh Rd) abutting East side of Property preferred site, or parcel with 18 m No. 428 frontage on South side of County Road 2 abutting West side of Property No $ $ $ 100, , ,000 Pump Station No. 5 Property No. 670, parcel with 18 m frontage on South side of County Road 2 abutting Property No Parcel with 18 m frontage abutting East side of preferred site, or Property No. 667, parcel with 18 m frontage on North side of County Road 2 abutting Property No $ 100,000 Pump Station No. 6 Parcel with 18 m frontage on South side of Lakeshore Park opposite Property No. 935 Pump Station No. 7 Parcel with 23 m frontage and 35 m depth on South side of County Road 2 abutting West side of Property No (across from entrance to Rochester Place mobile home park) Pump Station No. 8 if forcemain easement on north side of CNR Pump Station No. 8 if forcemain easement on south side of CNR Forcemain from PS. 8 (Alternate Route) 1 Property with 20 m frontage on north side of Surf Club Drive and 30 m depth, across from Property No Property with 20 m frontage on south side of County Rd 2 and 30 m depth, abutting Property No m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting south limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from County Rd 2 easterly to Rochester Townline Rd approximate length 470 m 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting south limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Rochester Townline Rd easterly to Comber Sideroad. Portion of easement at Comber Sideroad abuts Property Approx length 3,700 m. Parcel on either side of preferred site 6 Parcel abutting West side of preferred site. Parcel abutting east side of preferred site. 8 Parcel abutting east side of preferred site. 8 Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design 7 9 9, 10 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 4,700 $ 37,000 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting south Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Comber Sideroad discussions with CNR during final design easterly to Tecumseh Rd. Portion of easement at Comber Sideroad abuts Property Approx length 1,480 m. 11 $ 14,800 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting south Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Tecumseh Rd to discussions with CNR during final design Stoney Point lagoons access road, approx length 1,000 m 12 $ 10,000 Forcemain from PS. 8 (Alternate Route) 1 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from County Rd 2 easterly to Rochester Townline Rd. Approx length 470 m. 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Rochester Townline Rd easterly to Comber Sideroad. Portion of easement near Comber Sideroad is on widened portion of CNR right,of,way. Approx length 1,265 m. Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design 9 9,10 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting south Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Comber Sideroad discussions with CNR during final design easterly to Tecumseh Rd. Portion of easement at Comber Sideroad abuts Property Approx length 1,480 m. 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting north Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Tecumseh Rd to discussions with CNR during final design Stoney Point lagoons access road. Approx length 1,000 m Forcemain from PS. 8 (Alternate Route) 1 Charron Beach Rd Sewer Charron Beach Rd Sewer Ross Beach Rd Sewer Ross Beach Rd Sewer Ross Beach Rd and Valentino Dr Sewer Tecumseh Rd from PS No 8 to Clairview Dr no easements required. Costly pavement restoration through Stoney Point. 10 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of, way from Property 653 to Tellier Drain at Property 731. Approx length 600 m. Deerbrook Dr. Sewer 10 m permanent easement, approx length 415 m. None 19 $ 4,150 Riverside Rd. Sewer 10 m permanent easement, approx length 400 m. None 19 $ 4,000 Total Estimated Cost for Rochester Place Property 1 Selected forcemain route subject to discussions with property owners and CNR during final design 2 Estimated easement cost $10/m Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design 6 m permanent and 9 m temporary easement abutting north Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to limit of CNR right,of,way and extending from Tecumseh Rd to discussions with CNR during final design Stoney Point lagoons access road, approx length 1,000 m. 12 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of, Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to way from Stuart Lane easterly to Property 477 at Polski discussions with CNR during final design Drain, Approx length 665 m. 10 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of, Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to way from Property 477 easterly to Moison Creek at Property discussions with CNR during final design 545, Approx length 530 m. 10 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of, Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to way from Moison Creek to Strong Rd, Approx length 395 m. discussions with CNR during final design 10 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR right,of, Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to way from Property 633 to Property 653. Approx length 140 m. discussions with CNR during final design Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design $ $ $ $ $ 6,650 5,300 3,950 1, $ 6, ,000 November

85 PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS Table 11.2: Property Requirements for Lighthouse Cove Sewage Works Location Preferred Site Alternate Site Photo No. Estimated Cost 1 Pump Station No. 1 Parcel with 23 m frontage on North side of Harbor Rd on east Abutting east side of preferred site, and 1 $ 100,000 side of water crossing parcel on south side of Harbor Rd directly across preferred site Pump Station No. 2 Pump Station No. 3 Pump Station No. 5 Forcemain from PS No. 4 Forcemain from PS No. 5 Property 551 on west side of Tisdelle across from Cove Marina Parcel on east side of Tisdelle with 30 m frontage on Cove Marina property across from Property 535 Property on west side of Melody Dr between Rivait and Quenneville Pump Station No. 4 Parcel on west side of Melody Dr between Properties and Parcel with 30 m frontage on west side of Gracey Sideroad at south limit of CNR right,of,way Easement on Property Easement could abut the easement for the existing watermain if sufficient horizontal separation can be provided, approx length 700 m. 6 m permanent and 10 m temporary easement abutting south limit of CNR Right,of,Way extending from PS No. 5 across Properties 525 and to the site for the new STP, approx length 550 m. Properties and abutting Property Parcel abutting north limit of preferred site 4 Similar parcel on east side of Gracey Sideroad at south limit of CNR Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design. Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design. 2 3 $ $ $ 100, , ,000 5 $ 100, $ $ 7,000 5,500 Couture Beach Rd Sewer 4.6 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR Right,of, Way from end of existing 4.6 m lane at Property to Property and 8 m wide temporary easement on CNR Right,of,Way from Property to Property 15110, approx length 1,030. Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design. 8 $ 10,300 Sewer Crossing at Dupuis Drain from Couture Beach to Crystal Beach 6 m permanent and 10 m temporary easement across CNR Easement across and on CNR right,of, Right,of,Way from Property to south limit of CNR, around way subject to discussions with CNR Dupuis Drain pump house site and along south limit of CNR, during final design across CNR to Property 14330, approx length 330 m. 9 $ 3,300 Crystal Beach Rd Sewer Laforet Beach Rd Sewer 3.7 m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR Easement on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design. Right-of-Way and 8 m temporary easement on CNR Right-of- Way from Property easterly to Property 13070, approx length 835 m. 12m permanent easement abutting north limit of CNR Right-Easemenof-Way and 8 m temporary easement on CNR Right-of-Way on CNR right,of,way subject to discussions with CNR during final design. from Gracey Sideroad westerly to Property 12580, approx length 250m. Total Estimated Cost for Lighthouse Cove Property 1 Estimated Easement Cost $10/m 10 $ $ 8, $ 2, ,000 November

86 12.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12.1 NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT As part of the Class EA process, a Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Lakeshore News on March 26, 2010 and April 2, In addition to a brief description of the study to be undertaken by the Town of Lakeshore, this Notice invited comments from the public with respect to the project. A copy of this Notice is in Appendix D. A copy of the Notice was also sent to Review Agencies and Mandatory Contacts together with a drawing showing the proposed service areas and an Introductory Brief which provided a description of the existing wastewater systems, the problems being addressed by the Class EA, the preferred solutions that have been identified and a general outline of the work plan and timetable. A copy of this information is also included in the Appendix together with a list of the Review Agencies and Mandatory Contacts RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT Written comments were received from the following: 1. Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Culture Services Unit 2. Ministry of the Environment, Southwest Region 3. Town of Leamington, Director of Public Works 4. Ministry of Transportation, West Region 5. Town of Tecumseh, Director of Public Works 6. Transport Canada, Ontario Region 7. Union Gas Limited, Windsor 8. Hydro One Networks Inc., Toronto 9. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Western Municipal Services 10. Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer District 11. Claude Giroux, Lakeshore resident All written comments were acknowledged in writing with appropriate responses. Copies of written comments and acknowledgements are in Appendix D. November

87 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND OPEN HOUSE An Open House was conducted on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 2:00 p.m.,7:00 p.m. in Stoney Point Sportsman s Club (6348 St. Clair Rd., Stoney Point), to present information regarding alternative designs for the preferred solution and to solicit input from the public. A Notice of the Open House was placed in both the Lakeshore News on May 10 th and 17 th, 2012 and Tecumseh Shoreline on May 11 th and 18 th, A copy of the open house notice published in the Lakeshore News and Tecumseh Shoreline and posted on the Town s website is included in Appendix D. A letter was also sent to Review Agencies and Mandatory Contacts together with an electronic copy of draft ESR report. A copy of this information is included in Appendix D together with a list of the Review Agencies and Mandatory Contacts PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY RESPONSE TO ESR Written comments were received from the following: 1. Ministry of the Environment, Southwest Region 2. Ministry of Transportation, West Region 3. Transport Canada, Ontario Region 4. Municipality of Chatham,Kent 5. Municipality of Leamington 6. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Consultation and Accommodation Unit 7. Corporation of the County of Essex 8. Bell Aliant All written comments were acknowledged in writing with appropriate responses. Copies of written comments and acknowledgements are in Appendix D. November

88 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12.5 FIRST NATION CONSULTATION First nations consultation was completed in accordance with the Municipal Class EA First Nations Consultation requirements. As part of this Class EA, communications with First Nations agencies and communities are being undertaken in parallel with the other stakeholder communications and consultations. Letters were sent to the following First Nations groups and organizations at study commencement and public open house to solicit their interest or non, interest in the study: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Policy and Relationships Branch; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada including o Litigation Management & Resolution Branch; o Lands and Trusts Services; o Specific Claims Branch; and o Treaties and Aboriginal Government Métis Nation of Ontario Response was received from Ms. Allison Berman, Regional Subject Expert for Ontario, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In response to the request for information concerning consultation with Aboriginal and First Nation communities in the vicinity of the Eastern Communities Sewage Works project for Lakeshore, Ontario, Ms. Berman of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provided Aboriginal consultation information (claims, litigation, ongoing negotiations) in the vicinity of this project. Refer to Appendix D for the information. According to the information provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the study area is not currently part of any known First Nations claims. No other responses to the study have been received to date. Further opportunities and follow,up reminders are being provided for consultation with the following six First Nations, which are mentioned in the Aboriginal consultation information provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Aamjiwnaang (Sarnia, Ontario) Caldwell First Nation (Leamington, Ontario) Chippewas of the Thames (Muncey, Ontario) Moravian of the Thames (Thamesville, Ontario) Munsee,Delaware Nation (Muncey, Ontario) Walpole Island (Wallaceburg, Ontario) November

89 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Follow,up reminders were sent to these First Nations groups prior to the issuance of the Notice of Completion. Ms. Louise Hillier, Chief of Caldwell First Nation, requested a meeting with the consultant to discuss the proposed Eastern Communities Sewage Works. Per Ms. Hillier s request, a meeting with Caldwell First Nation councilors (Mr. Lonnie Dodge, Ms. Isabel Lewis, Ms. Janne Peters and Mr. Darryl Oirschot) was held on December 6, The proposed sewage works were presented at the meeting. The comments received were positive. Caldwell First Nation councilors were aware that the proposed sewage works would have positive impact on water quality in surface water bodies including the Lake. Summary of items discussed at the meeting on December 6, 2012 held at Caldwell First Nation Council office in Leamington, Ontario are presented in Appendix D. Although contact with some of other First Nations was established prior to ESR filing (see Appendix D), no comments have been received to date. November

90 13.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 13.1 GENERAL This chapter discusses the estimate of probable cost for the recommended design concept to: Construct a new mechanical sewage treatment facility in the Stoney Point area; Wastewater pumping station upgrade and forcemain extension to deliver wastewater from Stoney Point to the proposed new treatment facility;\ Wastewater pumping station upgrade and new forcemain to deliver wastewater from Comber to the proposed new treatment facility; New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Lighthouse Cove together with wastewater pumping stations and forcemains to deliver wastewater from Lighthouse Cove to the proposed new treatment facility; New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Rochester Place together with wastewater pumping stations and forcemains to deliver wastewater from Rochester Place to the proposed new treatment facility; and Decommission the existing sewage lagoons located in Stoney Point and Comber An estimate can be described as an attempt to project what someone else will be willing to contract for in the future to do construction work which has not yet been defined and which is subject to changes in scope, design, and market conditions LEVEL OF ACCURACY Estimates of probable cost are typically provided throughout various stages of a project s life cycle. There are a number of classifications for estimates that identify typical minimum and maximum probable costs or levels of accuracy. These classifications vary widely by industry but all are based on the fact that the level of accuracy is directly proportional to the level of detail available at each stage of the project. The level of accuracy increases as the project moves through the various stages from planning to preliminary design to final design. A wide range of accuracy would be expected at the planning stage of project development because a number of details would be unknown. As the project moves closer to completion of final design, the estimate would become more accurate due to the increased level of detail available and the reduced number of unknown issues. November

91 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Table 13.0 includes a summary of typical estimate classifications used throughout a project s development including a description of the project stage and range of accuracy. Figure 13.1 is a graphical presentation of the same information. Table 13.0 Classification of Cost Estimates Class Description Level of Accuracy 1 Conceptual Estimate +50% to,30% Screening of alternatives. Stage of Project Lifecycle 2 Study Estimate +30% to,15% Treatment system master plans. 3 Preliminary Estimate +25% to,10% Pre,design report. 4 Detailed Estimate +15% to,5% Completed plans and specifications. 5 Tender Estimate +10% to,3% This is the actual tender price and it can vary depending on the amount of contingency allowance consumed. The opinions of probable cost in this study are estimated at the study stage (Class 2) and the corresponding level of accuracy could range from 15% to +30% from the opinion presented in the report OPINION OF PROBABLE COST In addition to the level of accuracy discussed, the opinion of probable cost was prepared taking into consideration the following factors. All estimates are fourth quarter, 2011 dollars based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 1094 for Toronto (August 2011). It is assumed the Contractor will have unrestricted access to the site and will complete the work during normal working hours from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday. There is no allowance for premium time included. Labour costs are based on union labour rates for the Windsor area. An allowance is included for mobilization and demobilization and the Contractor s overhead and profit. Equipment costs are based on vendor supplied price quotations and historical pricing of similar equipment. Bulk material and equipment rental costs used are typical for the Windsor area. The estimate does not include the cost of application or permit fees. Building construction is assumed to be in concrete or brick and block HST is included in the pricing at 1.76%. November

92 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Allowances for engineering and contingencies (15% and 10% respectively) are included in the estimate. No allowance is included for interim financing costs or legal costs. No allowance is included for escalation beyond the date of this report. It is not known whether contaminated soil conditions would be encountered in the areas proposed for sewers, pumping stations and treatment facility. The potential impact cannot reasonably be determined at this point and no allowance is included in the estimate for this eventuality. Another factor that could impact the estimate is the possible presence of archaeological resources at the proposed treatment facility site or at pumping station locations. The potential impact cannot reasonably be determined at this point and no allowance is included in the estimate for this eventuality. November

93 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Table 13.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Collection and Transmission Systems, and Decommissioning of Comber and Stoney Point Lagoons Item Wastewater pumping station upgrade and forcemain extension to transmit wastewater from Stoney Point to the proposed new treatment facility Wastewater pumping station upgrade and new forcemain to transmit wastewater from Comber to the proposed new treatment facility New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Lighthouse Cove Pump station and forcemain to transmit sewage from Lighthouse Cove to the proposed new treatment facility New gravity sanitary sewage collection system to service Rochester Place Pump station and forcemain to transmit sewage from Rochester Place to the proposed new treatment facility Decommission the existing sewage lagoons located in Stoney Point and Comber Probable Cost $ 395,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 18,755,000 $ 715,000 $ 24,311,000 $ 2,478,000 $ 2,500,000 Sub>total $ 52,154,000 Contingency Allowance 10% $ 5,215,400 Sub>total $ 57,369,400 Engineering Allowance 15% $ 8,605,400 Sub>total $ 65,974,800 Rochester Place Property Acquisitions and Easements $ 898,000 Lighthouse Cove Property Acquisitions and Easements $ 537,000 Sub>total $ 67,409,800 HST 1.76% $ 1,186,400 TOTAL $ 68,596,000 November

94 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Table 13.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Sewage Treatment Facility Item Probable Cost Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Administration Building $1,600,000, Inlet Works and Grit Building (Screenings and Grit) Extended Aeration Tanks and Blower Facility Final Settling Tanks and Alum Storage & Feed Facility $2,200,000, $800,000, $3,300,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,900,000 $800,000 $800,000, UV disinfection $1,200,000 $600,000, $300,000,, Outfall $300,000, $300,000, Sludge Holding Tanks/Aerobic Digester $1,600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 Sub>total $12,100,000 $3,100,000 $3,600,000 $2,000,000 Contingency Allowance 10% $1,210,000 $310,000 $360,000 $200,000 Sub>total $13,310,000 $3,410,000 $3,960,000 $2,200,000 Engineering Allowance 15% $1,996,500 $511,500 $594,000 $330,000 Sub>total $15,306,500 $3,921,500 $4,554,000 $2,530,000 HST 1.76% $269,400 $69,000 $80,200 $44,500 TOTAL $15,576,000 $3,991,000 $4,634,000 $2,575,000 November

95 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 13.4 TYPICAL HOMEOWNER CHARGES Factors Affecting Homeowner Charges There are a number of factors that can affect the homeowner charges for the proposed sewage works. Three of the most significant factors include: 1. Funding assistance from senior levels of government 2. The staging of the construction of sewage works to service the four communities/s service areas 3. The method by which the cost of specific components of the sewage works will be recovered. The components include treatment, transmission, collection, lagoon decommissioning Funding Assistance The cost of the project is such that the typical homeowner would have difficulty bearing the cost without funding assistance from the senior levels of government. Recent funding assistance programs have been structured with one,third of the cost borne by the municipality, and one, third borne by each of the provincial and federal governments. At the time of preparation of this ESR, there are no funding assistance programs available for sewage projects. The alternatives for capital cost recovery that are presented in this report are based on three possible funding assistance scenarios: 1) no funding assistance, 2) one,third funding, and 3) two,thirds funding. The contribution from each level of government may vary within these scenarios depending on the programs that are established. Table 13.3 is a summary of alternatives that may be considered for determining the assessment of costs to owners of existing dwellings and vacant buildable lots. Assessments have been determined for each alternative using the three possible funding scenarios. Details regarding each alternative are included in Appendix E Sewage Treatment The cost for the new sewage treatment plant (STP) would be assessed to the properties that would benefit from these facilities. Since property owners with existing dwellings connected to the sanitary sewer systems in Stoney Point and Comber have previously been assessed the cost of the existing lagoon systems, they would not be assessed for the new STP. However, owners of existing dwellings in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place would be assessed the cost of treatment facilities when sanitary sewer systems are constructed in their communities and they can then benefit from the treatment facilities. Owners of vacant buildable properties would be assessed 50% of the cost at the time of construction of the treatment facilities and the remaining 50% would be payable when a building permit is issued. November

96 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST The treatment of sewage from Comber at the new STP is dependent upon the upgrading of the existing pump station and construction of the new forcemain from Comber to Lighthouse Cove Pump Station No. 5 and the new forcemain from Lighthouse Cove Pump Station No. 5 to the new STP. Similarly, the discharge of sewage from Stoney Point to the new STP is dependent upon the upgrade of Stoney Point Pump Station No. 1 and the extension of the existing forcemain from the existing lagoons to the new STP. Accordingly, owners of vacant buildable properties in Stoney Point and Comber cannot be assessed for the cost of the new STP until the upgrading of their respective pump stations and construction of the forcemains are completed. For example, the Phase 1 treatment capacity of 3,200 m 3 /d (Alternative No. 1) can accommodate the projected sewage flow to the year 2020 for the high growth scenario for Stoney Point, Comber and Lighthouse Cove. Accordingly, the sewage collection system for Lighthouse Cove including Pump Station No. 5 and the forcemain to the new STP, and the forcemain from Comber can be constructed concurrently with the new STP. Thus, those receiving immediate benefit from the new treatment facilities would include owners of existing dwellings in Lighthouse Cove plus owners of the vacant buildable lots in Lighthouse Cove, Stoney Point and Comber. Properties in Rochester Place would not receive immediate benefit from the new STP and thus would not be assessed. For Alternative No. 2, the treatment capacity would be 4,000 m 3 /d to service the projected sewage flow to the year 2020 for Stoney Point, Comber and Rochester Place. Those receiving immediate benefit from the new treatment facilities would be assessed, including owners of existing dwellings in Rochester Place plus owners of vacant buildable lots in Rochester Place, Stoney Point and Comber. Properties in Lighthouse Cove would not receive immediate benefits from the new STP and thus would not be assessed. For Alternative Nos. 3, 3A, 3B and 3C, the treatment capacity would be 4,800 m 3 /d to service the projected sewage flow to the year 2030 for all four communities. Those receiving immediate benefit from the new treatment facilities would be assessed including owners of existing dwellings in Rochester Place and Lighthouse Cove and owners of vacant buildable lots in all four communities. For Alternative Nos. 4 and 5, the treatment capacities would be 2,400 and 3,200 m3/d to serve only Stoney Point and Comber to the years 2020 and 2030 respectively Sewage Transmission Sewage from all four communities would be transmitted by their respective pump stations and forcemains to the new STP located in Stoney Point. The cost of the transmission facilities to service each community will depend to a large extent on the distance to the new STP. It could be argued that property owners in one community should not have a cost advantage over those in another community by virtue of their location relative to the new STP. Accordingly, the total cost of the transmission systems could be shared equally by property owners in the four communities, or alternatively, the total cost of the transmission systems can be recovered by the November

97 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST municipality through a general levy. In Alternative 3C, the total cost of all transmission systems would be shared equally by all the property owners in the four communities. In all other Alternatives the cost of transmission would be recovered by the municipality through a general levy Sewage Collection In Alternative No. 1, a new sewage collection system would be constructed for Lighthouse Cove. In Alternative No. 2, a new sewage collection system would be constructed for Rochester Place. In Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B and 3C, new sewage collection systems would be constructed for Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place. Alternative Nos. 4 and 5 do not include sewage collections systems for either Lighthouse Cove or Rochester Place. In Alternative Nos. 3 and 3A, the property owners in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester are assessed for the cost of their respective sewage collection systems and it can be seen that the assessed cost for sewage collection is considerably higher in Lighthouse Cove due to the relatively smaller number of properties being assessed. In Alternatives 3B and 3C, the total cost of both sewage collection systems is shared equally by the two communities Decommissioning Existing Sewage Lagoons The existing lagoons in Stoney Point and Comber currently serve only the existing dwellings in those two communities. In Alternative Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the cost of decommissioning the lagoons is recovered by a general levy. In Alternative No. 3A, the cost of decommissioning the lagoons is shared on the basis of allocated treatment capacity to each community. In Alternative Nos. 3B and 3C, the cost is shared equally by all four communities Land Acquisition and Easements Costs Land for new pump station sites would be purchased and easements would be acquired for sewers and forcemains that form part of the new sanitary sewage collection systems in Lighthouse Cove and Rochester Place. Land costs are included in the cost of the sewage collection systems where the land is required OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Historic annual O & M costs for the Denis St. Pierre Water Pollution Control Plant have been reviewed to help predict O & M costs at the Lakeshore East Plant. It is predicted that the annual O & M cost for the plant with Phase 1 capacity of 3,200 m³/d is in the range of $750,000. November

98 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT FOR LAKESHORE EAST SEWAGE WORKS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Table 13.3 Summary of Typical Homeowner Charges for Funding Scenarios Including No Grant, 1/3 Grant and 2/3 Grant Community Funding Alternative No. 1-3,200 m 3 /d STP to service Stoney Point, Comber & Lighthouse + sewer system for Lighthouse Cove Alternative No. 2-4,000 m 3 /d STP to service Stoney Point, Comber & Rochester + sewer system for Rochester Place Alternative No ,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3A 4-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3B 5-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 3C 6-4,800 m 3 /d STP to service all communities + sewer systems for Lighthouse Cove & Rochester Place Alternative No. 4-2,400 m 3 /d STP to service only Stoney Point & Comber to Year 2020 Alternative No. 5-3,200 m 3 /d STP to service only Stoney Point & omber to Year 2030 Stoney Point 2 Comber 2 Lighthouse Rochester Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 Home Annual 8 Lot 1 Annual 8 None $0 $0 $4,571 $367 $0 $0 $3,621 $291 $0 $0 $3,253 $261 $1,344 $108 $3,925 $315 $1,179 $95 $3,842 $308 $4,879 $391 $5,692 $457 $0 $0 $8,405 $674 $0 $0 $8,392 $673 1/3 $0 $0 $3,048 $245 $0 $0 $2,414 $194 $0 $0 $2,168 $174 $1,035 $83 $2,686 $216 $786 $63 $2,561 $206 $3,333 $267 $3,835 $308 $0 $0 $5,604 $450 $0 $0 $5,595 $449 2/3 $0 $0 $1,523 $122 $0 $0 $1,207 $97 $0 $0 $1,084 $87 $517 $42 $1,343 $108 $393 $32 $1,281 $103 $1,455 $117 $1,812 $145 $0 $0 $2,800 $225 $0 $0 $2,797 $224 None $0 $0 $4,571 $367 $0 $0 $3,621 $291 $0 $0 $3,253 $261 $949 $76 $3,727 $299 $1,179 $95 $3,842 $308 $4,879 $391 $5,692 $457 $0 $0 $8,405 $674 $0 $0 $8,392 $673 1/3 $0 $0 $3,048 $245 $0 $0 $2,414 $194 $0 $0 $2,168 $174 $633 $51 $2,485 $199 $786 $63 $2,561 $206 $3,333 $267 $3,835 $308 $0 $0 $5,604 $450 $0 $0 $5,595 $449 2/3 $0 $0 $1,523 $122 $0 $0 $1,207 $97 $0 $0 $1,084 $87 $316 $25 $1,243 $100 $393 $32 $1,281 $103 $1,455 $117 $1,812 $145 $0 $0 $2,800 $225 $0 $0 $2,797 $224 None $58,535 $4,697 $29,268 $2,349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,899 $4,485 $27,950 $2,243 $56,885 $4,565 $28,443 $2,282 $44,279 $3,553 $22,140 $1,777 $47,979 $3,850 $23,989 $1,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1/3 $39,023 $3,131 $19,512 $1,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,265 $2,990 $18,633 $1,495 $37,923 $3,043 $18,961 $1,522 $29,519 $2,369 $14,760 $1,184 $32,065 $2,573 $16,033 $1,287 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2/3 $19,510 $1,566 $9,755 $783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,633 $1,495 $9,316 $748 $18,962 $1,522 $9,481 $761 $14,760 $1,184 $7,380 $592 $15,822 $1,270 $7,911 $635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 None $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,765 $3,030 $18,882 $1,515 $37,028 $2,971 $18,514 $1,486 $37,985 $3,048 $18,514 $1,486 $44,279 $3,553 $22,140 $1,777 $47,979 $3,850 $23,989 $1,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1/3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,176 $2,020 $12,588 $1,010 $24,685 $1,981 $12,343 $990 $25,323 $2,032 $12,662 $1,016 $29,519 $2,369 $14,760 $1,184 $32,065 $2,573 $16,033 $1,287 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2/3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,589 $1,010 $6,295 $505 $12,343 $990 $6,172 $495 $12,662 $1,016 $6,331 $508 $14,760 $1,184 $7,380 $592 $15,822 $1,270 $7,911 $635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 None $20,377,611 $22,315,875 $22,618,401 Town 7 1/3 $13,585,074 $14,877,250 $15,078,934 2/3 $6,792,537 $7,438,625 $7,539,467 $19,334,937 $12,889,958 $6,444,979 $19,044,401 $12,696,267 $6,348,134 $9,650,401 $6,433,600 $3,216,800 $19,289,504 $12,859,669 $6,429,835 $20,663,996 $13,775,997 $6,887,999 Notes: 1 Represents up-front charges of 50% of total assessment with remaining 50% due when building permit is obtained 2 Existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber serviced by existing lagoons are not assessed for new STP Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + decommissioning lagoons + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester assessed cost of their respective sewage collection systems Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + share of decommissioning lagoons + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester assessed cost of their respective sewage collection systems Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber + transmission cost to STP + unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester equally share total cost of their sewage collection systems. Cost of decommissioning lagoons shared equally by all 4 communities Town pays for STP capacity for existing homeowners in Stoney Point & Comber+ unallocated STP capacity. Lighthouse & Rochester equally share total cost of their sewage collection systems. Cost of transmission systems and decommissioning lagoons shared equally by all 4 communities. 7 Costs include 10% contingency allowance, 15% engineering and 13% HST 8 Annual Cost based on 5%/year for 20 years November