Mun nicipallity of M Meaford Masster Plaan Water W an nd Wa astewatter Serrvicingg Volume 1 oof 2
Ap pril 2015
Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Project No. 114106 Prepared for: Municipality of Meaford Prepared By:
DRAFT ____________________________ Gary Scott, P.Eng. Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Phone: (705) 445 – 3451 Fax: (705) 445 – 0968 www.ainleygroup.com
Ainle ey & Associates Limited 28 80 Pretty River P Parkway, Collingw wood, Ontario L L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 • Fax: (705) 44 45-0968 E-mail: collingw wood@ainleygroup.com
May 5, 20 015
File No. 11 14106
Municipality of Meaford Operation ns Departmen nt 21 Trowbridge Street W West Meaford, Ontario N4L 1A1 okes, P.Eng. Attn: Sttephen A. Vo Director of Op D perations M of Meaford, W Water and Waastewater M aster Servicin ng Plan Ref: Municipality o
Dear Mrr. Vokes: Please find enclos sed 3 digiital and 5 hard copiies of the Master Plan Water and Wastew water Servic cing Report If you ha ave any questions or require furtther assista ance with th his matter, please feell free to contact the unde ersigned. Yours truly, AINLEY Y & ASSOC CIATES LIM MITED ng. Gary Scott, M.Sc., P.En
Crreating Quality Solutionss Together
List of A Abbrevia ations ADD ADF ASL BPS C of A CBOD CCTV CEAA CIPP Class EA EAAS GIS HGL HRT I&C I/I MAA MCC MH MLSS MMD MOECC MTO OCWA PIC RAS SCADA SLR SOR SPS SRT SWD TDH UV VFD WAS WTP WWTP
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Average Day Demand d Average Daily Flow Above se ea level Booster pumping stattion Certificaate of Approval Carbonaaceous bioche emical oxygen n demand Closed‐ccircuit televisiion Canadian Environmen ntal Assessme ent Agency n‐place pipe Cured‐in Municipal Class Envirronmental Assessment Extended aeration acctivated sludgge Geograp phic Information System Hydrauliic grade line Hydrauliic retention time Instrume entation and control Inflow and infiltration n Ministryy of Aboriginaal Affairs Machine e control centtre Manhole e Mixed liq quor suspend ded solids Maximum day deman nd Ministryy of the Enviro onment and C Climate Changge Ministryy of Transporttation Ontario Clean Water Agency Public in nformation Ce entre Return aactivated slud dge Supervissory control aand data acqu uisition Surface loading rate Surface overflow rate e Sewage pumping stattion Solids re etention time Side watter depth Total Dyynamic Head Ultraviolet Variable e frequency drive Waste activated sludge Water trreatment plan nt Wastewater treatment plant
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
i
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Executiive Summ mary The Municipality of Meaford retain ned Ainley Group to prepaare a Water aand Wastewaater Master P Plan in accordancce with the M Municipality’s Official Plan and the Classs EA procedu ure. The Master Plan addrresses the state of the existin ng infrastructture and iden ntifies existingg and future needs. The p preferred solu utions ular designs tto allow construction to m mimic future ggrowth over the next 30 yyears. are identiified as modu Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process for Mastter Plans werre followed to o develop thee Servicing M Master Plan for M Meaford. The studyy area is deffined as the current limitts of the Meeaford urban n settlement area. The area is th bounded by Centreville e Road to the e north, 7 lin ne to the wesst, Muir Road to the south h and Georgiaan Bay to the eaast. Existing vacant land within the study s area h as been zoned as resideential, commeercial, industrial or institution nal. The zonin ng allows for a better undderstanding of potential grrowth to guid de the water and d wastewaterr projects. The existing waater distributiion system in nfrastructure consists of a WTP, two (2) BPSs, waterr distribution n system and water sttorage. The existing waastewater syystem infrastruccture consists of a WWTP, five (5) SPSs aand a sewagee collection syystem.
Masterr Planning g Processs The Class EA was approved under O Ontario’s Environmental A Assessment Act and identiffies the proceess by which mu unicipal infrasstructure projects are to be e planned. Thhe process ideentifies an ap pproved proceedure that classifies projects in terms of schedules based on varyingg environmen ntal impact.
minimal adverse environm mental impactt Scchedule A – m Scchedule A+ ‐ minimal adve erse environm mental impacct, requires pu ublic notificattion Scchedule B – Potential forr some adverse environm mental effects, requires m mandatory co ontact with public and w d review agen ncies Scchedule C – potential forr significant environmenta e al effects, req quires mandaatory contactt with public and review agencies,, requires com mpletion of E nvironmentaal Study Report
ning process ffollows a five (5) step planning process.. The plann
Phase 1 – Prob blem or Oppo ortunity Definition Phase 2 – Iden ntification and d Evaluation of Alternativve Solutions to Allow a Preeferred Solutiion to be Recommended n of the Prefferred Phase 3 ‐ Evaluation of Altternative Design Conceptts for the Implementation So olution Phase 4 – Docu umentation o of the Rationaale, Planning, Design and C Consultation Process Phase 5 – Impllementation aand Monitoring
er planning process allowss for a group of related proojects or an o overall system m to be consid dered The maste before de ealing with eaach project individually. M Master plans aare long rangee plans that ffollow the Claass EA Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
ii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
planning process wherre at a minim mum Phases 1 1 and 2 must be completed. The Municcipality of Meeaford has prepaared this Masster Plan bassed generally on Approac h 2 outlined in the Class EA. The approach allows Scchedule B project require ements to be e fulfilled att the conclussion of Phase 1 and 2. SSelect Schedule B projects haave been iden ntified that w will require addditional stud dies in order tto satisfy thee Class EA require ements. The steerring committe ee for the Master Plan was w formed byy members o of the Municipality or Meeaford and Ainle ey Group. Th he steering committee c met m on a num mber of occaasions to discuss the pro oject’s progress aand develop ccontent for th he PICs. Public an nd agency consultation is mandatorry during th e master planning proccess to allow w for participattion during th he developme ent and evaluation of the sservicing alternatives. Thee public and reeview agencies were contactted with four (4) notices throughout the Class EA A process. Th he four (4) no otices were to in nform the pub blic of:
Sttudy Commen ncement – Ju uly 4, 2014 Phase 1 PIC – SSeptember 15 5, 2014 Phase 2 PIC – FFebruary 26, 2015 Sttudy Complettion – TBD
The comm ments and in nput received d from the pu ublic and revview agenciess was taken into considerration during the e planning process.
Existin ng Conditiions The Muniicipality of M Meaford is alo ong the shore eline of Georggian Bay and is located in n the Grey Co ounty. The socio o‐economic environment is influenced by the waterrfront locatio on, however o other industrries in the Municipality are the aggregaate and agriicultural induustries. In aaddition to tthe Georgian n Bay shoreliness, the Bighead River and tthe Niagara EEscarpment aare significantt natural feattures. The Bigghead River is an n extensive 3 30 km system m known for b being home tto a variety o of fish. The Niagara Escarp pment falls outside of the study area and ttherefore doe es not affect tthe master planning proceess.
Existin ng Municip pal Waterr System The Municipal water syystem consistts of the follo owing componnents:
Watermains W The water w distribu ution system is made up of approxim mately 57,000 0 m of watermain ranging in size from m 50 mm to 40 00 mm Water storage W e Reservoirs There e is an in‐gro ound reservoir with a cappacity of 2,3310 m3 and aan elevated w water 3 storagge tank with aa capacity of 5 570 m .
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
iii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Water Booste W r Pump Statio ons There is the Nelso on Street BPSS and the Stt. Vincent Street BPS thaat help to prrovide adequate pressure to Pressure ZZones 1 and 22 respectivelyy. ent Plant Water Treatm W The W WTP draws water from Geo orgian Bay andd has a rated capacity of 2 26,848 m3/ daay.
Existin ng Municip pal Waste ewater Sy ystem The municipal wastewater system cconsists of the e following coomponents:
ewers Se The syystem is com mprised of ap pproximately 35,080 m of gravity feed sewer pipee and 2,140 m of forcemaain. Wastewater P W Pumping Statiions The wastewater co ollection syste em has five (55) SPSs situatted throughout it to conveey the sewagge to the treattment plant. Wastewater T W Treatment Plaant The plant is a high rate activate ed sludge proocess plant w with continuou us discharge (after UV dissinfection) intto Georgian B Bay and aerobbic digestion with land dissposal of bio‐‐solids with a rated capacity of 3,910 m m3/day.
Future e Conditio ons To understand the fu uture needs of o the waterr and wastew water infrastructure in th he Municipality of Meaford, population growth dataa and land development d was assessed for full builld‐out planning w conditions (year 2031)). The expected growth in n the urban seettlement areea population is approxim mately 6,350 peo ople. Based on n the populattion increase,, water and w wastewater flo ow projection ns were madee. The current water dem mand is 1,460 0 m3/day, and d is expected tto increase 44,040 m3/day once full builld‐out is reached d. The future demand increase will be u used to estim ate the follow wing infrastru ucture upgrad des:
Watermain siz W e Water storage W pansion capacity exp Additional BPSSs or upgrades to existing sstations
Currently the ADF in M Meaford is 2,6 600 m3/day, w with an estim mated addition nal 4,040 m3//day. Full builld‐out conditions will be used d to examine the need for future upgra des includingg:
Sewermain siz S ze Treatment pla T ant expansion ns Additional SPS A Ss or upgrade es to existing stations
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
iv
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Proble em Identiffication Each com mponent of the t water an nd wastewatter system w was reviewed d to identifyy and define their condition, compliance e and perforrmance‐relate ed issues thhat affect exxisting and ffuture needss. The problems with each co omponent are e addressed b below: Water Sysstem Watermains
00 mm diame eter pipes do not comply w with MOECC gguidelines. 10 Corrosion and tuberculatio on to cast iro on pipes has affected stru uctural integrrity and decreeased caapacity.
Water Sto orage Reservo oir
When the pop W pulation excee eds 5,806 people, additio nal water sto orage will be needed to co omply with MOECC g w uidelines. An additional 1 1,830 m3 of sttorage will be e required ba sed on full bu uild‐out cond ditions.
Water Booster Station
he Nelson Strreet BPS is no ot sized adequ uately to provvide fire flow w under existing or full builld‐out Th co onditions. Th he St. Vincen nt Street BPSS has adequate capacity tto provide prressure during existing an nd full build‐out cond ditions.
eatment Plant Water Tre
Th he existing water filtratio w ed capacity iss 26,848 m3//day during M MDD, therefo ore no n plant’s rate exxpansion is ne ecessary. Im mprove pressure control in n the main prressure zone by installing V VFDs and mo odifying the co ontrol syystem.
Wastewater System Sewers
CCTV inspectio on and I/I stud dy has identiffied the areass of major deficiencies.
Sewage Pumping Statio ons
Th he five (5) SPSs are all in good conditions. All SPSs, excep pt for SPS No. 3, have enou ugh capacity ffor full build‐out condition ns. SP PS No. 6 has been prop posed in pre evious planni ng efforts to o service deevelopment in the so outhwest area of urban Meaford.
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
v
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Wastewatter Treatmen nt Plant
All of the com mponents of tthe WWTP ne eed to be uppgraded to m meet existing and ultimatee peak flow conditions. Th he disinfectio on capacity is insufficient to meet ultim ate ADFs. A review of the t plant caapacity (Ainle ey Group 20006) determiined that th he clarifiers are a co onsiderable h hydraulic botttleneck.
Alterna ative Solu utions & E Evaluation n A list of alternatives a was w formulated for each project p with the Do Noth hing and Limiit/Manage Grrowth evaluated d for each project. An evaluation waas completedd to allow fo or a preferreed solution tto be obtained. The evaluatiion criteria arre set out in tthe approvedd Class EA doccument based on the natu ure of otential proje ects and the values of th e communityy. The criteria and appropriate the studyy area, the po rating we ere developed d for use in the evaluatio on process. TThe alternativves for each project are listed below: Options General O
Do Nothing Liimit/Manage Growth
Water Disstribution 1. Watermain Re W ehabilitation (Relining) 2. Watermain Re W eplacement An additio onal solution combining rehabilitation and replacem ment was ideentified. This alternative aallows for pipe specific solutio ons to be iden ntified, resultting in a moree cost effectivve alternativee. orage Water Sto 1. Ellevated Storaage Tank 2. Sttandpipe 3. In n‐Ground Reservoir Constrructed at/abo ove the Minim mum Pressuree Elevation These alte ernatives were screened based on the eir ability to pprovide the n necessary flo oating storagee. The standpipe e alternative d did not meet this criterion and was rem moved from th he list shown n to the publicc. Water Booster Pump SStation 1. Construct BPS at the Waterr Tower Site 2. Construct BPS in the Parking Lot of the M Meaford & St . Vincent Com mmunity Centtre & Arena Water Tre eatment Plant Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
vi
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
1. Do Nothing 2. In nstall VFD Pum mps
Wastewatter Collection n 1. Sewermain Re S ehabilitation ((Relining) 2. Sewermain Re S eplacement Through tthe evaluation process it w was found th hat a combinaation of rehabilitation and d replacemen nt was an alternative that co ould allow fo or a sewermain specific solution. By analyzing eaach sewer seection ost effective aand problem sspecific solutiion results. individuallly, a more co Wastewatter Pumping No alternatives were id dentified; how wever the following upgraades were sugggested. SPS No. 1 N nitor New Flow Mo SCADA System S m SPS No. 2 Replace Pumps SC CADA System m SPS No. 3 Replace Pumps SC CADA System m Fllow Monitor SPS No. 4 Decommission n once the primary p customer, Knigh t of Meaforrd Lumber Factory, no longer re equires servicce SPS No. 5 needed No upgrades n SPS No. 6
es were exam mined for the e SPS as this project and location havve previously been No alternative he Report on Sanitary Sew wer Collection System Mod del (2004). exxamined in th
Wastewatter Treatmen nt Plant 1. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet th he ADF and ppeak flows exxpected at fu ull build‐out while ad ddressing the e existing I/I isssues. Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
vii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
2. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in 2 phasess with the ul timate WWTTP able to meet ADF and peak flows at full bu uild‐out while e addressing tthe existing I//I issues. M flows at the W WWTP by establishing an eequalization sstorage systeem while man naging 3. Manage peak f ADF through aan I/I reduction program. Upgrade thee existing WW WTP when I/II reduction can no lo onger supportt developmen nt. 4. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet the e ADF and peeak flows exp pected at full build‐out wiithout ad ddressing the e existing I/I isssues. 5. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in 2 phasess with the ul timate WWTTP able to meet ADF and peak flows at full bu uild‐out witho out addressing the existingg I/I issues. ere screened d based on technical t feaasibility and their ability to solve exxisting These altternatives we problem. Alternatives 4 and 5 did not resolvve the currennt flow prob blems and th herefore were not ed to be ideal and are not aanalyzed furtther. Alternattives 1, 2 and 3 were preseented to the p public considere and analyyzed in depth to allow for aa preferred so olution to be identified.
Preferrred Solution A preferre ed solution w was selected for each partt of the systeem based on the evaluatio on criteria raanking and public consultation. Dependingg on the situaation, the preeferred soluttion may invo olve a combin nation ernative soluttions to best solve the identified probleem. of the alte Water Distribution – The preferred solution was to combinne the two (22) alternativees and rehabilitate and replace watermains based on their individu ual needs. Floow testing w will be compleeted to allow w for a replacement plan to b be developed identifying th he need of eaach watermaain section an nd the timing of its placement. A Additional new w watermains have been identified fo or constructio on to allow fo or the repair/rep new deve elopment to b be serviced byy the distributtion networkk. Water Sto orage – The preferred solution is a 2,000 m3 in‐gr ound reservo oir on St. Vin ncent Street aat the south end d of the wate er distribution n system. The e tank will offfer floating sttorage to thee St. Vincent SStreet Booster ZZone with low wer operation n and mainten nance costs tthan an elevaated storage ttank. A watermain approximately 1400 m long will need to be e constructedd to connecct the reservvoir to the w water on system. distributio Water Tre eatment Plan nt – To allow for more con nsistent wateer pressure in n the water distribution syystem, VDFs will replace the e existing pump ps at the WTP. No additioonal plant exp pansion is necessary as th here is surplus caapacity. Wastewater Collection – The prefferred solutio on is to combbine both alternatives to allow relining and ng on the sew wermains ne eed. Pipe reli ning should be preferred where the u useful replacement dependin service liffe can be incrreased by at least 40 yearss. Other pipee sections that are more damaged shou uld be replaced tto increase th he lifespan an nd reduce I/I.
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
viii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Sewage P Pumping Stattion – No pre eferred solution was identtified for the existing SPSss as they aree all in good cond dition. Upgrades to SPSs N No. 1, No. 2 aand No. 3 aree suggested to o help improvve performan nce. A new SPS h has been proposed duringg previous plaanning initiatiives to servicee the new deevelopments in the southwesst of the Meaford urban se ettlement are ea. Additionaal studies are required to allow the Claass EA procedure e to be follow wed. Wastewater Treatment – The pre eferred solution was Alteernative 3 forr the expanssion of the W WWTP er and aeratioon basin tankks at the existting WWTP ssite to which invvolves establisshing the ultiimate clarifie be used fo or storm rete ention in the n near term.
Propossed Capita al Works Program m Proposed capital workks programs h have been de eveloped for Meaford’s w water and waastewater sysstems. eloped to allo ow for comp liance with M MOECC guideelines and to have Phased sttrategies havve been deve sufficient capacity for the increasin ng population n. The follow wing projects,, shown with h their appropriate Class EA sschedule, are incorporated d into the phaased program ms. Project P Water W Repair/Replac R cement of Existing Meaforrd Watermainns Establish New E w Meaford Watermains Establish New E w Watermainss for Planned Subdivisionss In‐Ground Sto I orage Reservo oir on Countyy Road 7 Water BPS on W n Water Towe er Site Decommissio D on Nelson Stre eet BPS Installation of I f VFDs at Watter Treatmen nt Plant Waste Water W r Relining/Reha R abilitation of Existing Meaford Sewerm ains Establish New E w Meaford Se ewermains Establish New E w Sewermainss for Planned Subdivisionss SPS No. 1 and S d No. 2 Upgrades SPS No. 3 Upg S grades of SPS No. 6 Construction C WWTP Refurb W bish and Dem molition of Old d Sludge Storaage Upgrade UV D U Disinfection C Channel Storm Equaliz S zation Basin C Chamber Repurpose St R orm Equalization Chambe er to Clarifier//Aeration New Headwo N orks Building C Construction New Biosolids N s Works New UV Disin N nfection Channel Odour Contro O ol System Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
ix
Class EA SSchedule A/A A+ A++ A A B** B B B B A A A A A++ A A A A A++ B** A A A A B B C C C C C C C C A A April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
*Additional studie es will need to be completed at the ttime of consstruction to aallow the Claass EA proce edure to be fo ollowed.
The costs incurred by tthe Municipality for the w water and wasstewater projects are show wn below. Some of by developme ent charges. TThe percentage paid for b by the Municiipality the projeccts are partiaally paid for b is indicate ed in the project name. Wate er System Improvement Plan n
Proje ect Name
Esstimated Cost
Phasse 1 Cond duct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Deve elop Rehabilitation and Replaacement Plan B Based on Flow Testing Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar (54% %) SCADA Desiggn for VFD Instaallation (54% %) Install VFDs aat the WTP (16% %) Design New Pressure Zone 2 BPS (16% %) New Pressure Zone 2 BPS C Construction Deco ommission Nelsson Street BPSS
$ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,140,000.00 0 $ 16,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 143,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Total Phase 1:
$ 2,406,000.00
Phasse 2 Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar
$ 2,140,000.00
Total Phase 2:
$ 2,140,000.00
Phasse 3 Remo ove and Replacce Remaining C Cast Iron Pipe – – 1250 m per yyear
$ 2,700,000.00
Total Phase 3:
$ 2,700,000.00
Phasse 4 Remo ove and Replacce All 100mm Non‐Cast Iron Pipe – 1000 m m per year
$ 2,000,000.00 0
Total Phase 4:
0 $ 2,000,000.00
Total Program:
$ 9,246,000.00 0
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
x
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Wasttewater System m Improvemen nt Plan Proje ect Name Phase 1 Desiggn New RAS/W WAS Pumping and Electrical Im mprovements WWTTP Refurbishment and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfe ection Channel (Add Addition nal Module) Sykess Street, Paul SStreet, and Ivan n Street Recon nstruction Deve elop a Disconne ection Program m for Illegal Con nnections Sewe er CCTV and MH Inspections Smokke Testing and Identification of Locations w with Illegal Con nections Notiffy Property Ow wners of Illegal Connections/D Disconnection Program Totall Phase 1: Phase 2 Williaam Street Sewer Susan n Street Sewerr Repair/Raise Low Lyying MH & Insttall Watertightt Covers (assum me 50 repairs) Revie ew CCTV Inspection Data and d Re‐evaluate R Rehab Prioritiees Revie ew Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Fllows Imple ement Disconn nection Program m (assume 500 0 connections)) 1 km of sewermain repairs each yyear Totall Phase 2: Phase 3 Union Street, Farrar Street and Bllake Street Sew wers Alberrt Street Sewerr (25%) SPS 3 Upgrad des Design (25%) SPS 3 Upgrad des Constructio on 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 3: Phase 4 I/I Stu udy Update SPS N No. 2 Upgradess Design SPS N No. 2 Upgradess Construction SPS 1 1 No. Upgradess Design SPS 1 1 No. Upgradess Construction 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 4: Phase 5 Contiinue System Re ehab as Guided d by CCTV Insp pection and I/I Study 1,000 0 m of sewerm main repairs eacch year Totall Phase 5: Phase 6 (50%) Design a New w Headworks B Building (50%) New Headwo orks Building Construction (50%) Design Odour Control Syste em (50%) Odour Contro ol System Consstruction Totall Phase 6: Totall Program:
Esstimated Cost $ 150,000.00 0 $ 2,550,000.00 0 50,000.00 0 $ $ 210,000.00 0 $ N/A A $ 200,000.00 0 $ 160,000.00 0 $ N/A A $ 3,320,000.00 0 $ 120,000.00 0 $ 80,000.00 0 $ 370,000.00 0 $ 10,000.00 0 $ 5,000.00 0 $ 750,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 3,355,000.00 0 $ 225,000.00 0 $ 100,000.00 0 $ 5,000.00 0 $ 51,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 2,381,000.00 0 $ 50,000.00 0 $ 20,000.00 0 $ 200,000.00 0 $ 22,000.00 0 $ 225,000.00 0 $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 2,517,000.00 0 $ TBD D 2,000,000.00 0 $ $ 2,000,000.00 0 $ 175,000.00 0 2,375,000.00 0 $ $ 175,000.00 0 $ 2,550,000.00 0 $ 5,275,000.00 0 $ 16,828,000.00 0
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xi
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
In additio on to the municipally fun nded projectts throughou t the urban area, there are a numb ber of projects that will be fu unded by development chaarges. The waater and wasstewater projects that are to be partially o or fully funde ed by develop pment charge es are shownn below. The percentage o of the projectt paid for by the e developer iss indicated in the project n name. Water Projects Coverred by Develo opment Charrges Project Nam me Coleman n Street Centre Street Union Sttreet Muir Stre eet County R Road 7 Construcction of New Pipes for New w Developme ent (46%) SC CADA Design ffor VFD Installlation (46%) Insstall VFDs at tthe Water Tre eatment Plan nt New In‐G Ground Reserrvoir Design aand Constructtion Connecting Pipe to In‐Ground Storrage to Netwo ork (84%) De esign New Pre essure Zone 2 2 Booster Stattion (84%) Ne ew Pressure ZZone 2 Booste er Station Con nstruction Construcction of Pipe ffor New Deve elopments Total
Pressure Zone 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ 14,000 $ 46,000 $ 794,000 $ 166,000 ‐ ‐ $1,020,000
Develop pment Chargees Pressuree Pressure Total Zone 3 Zone 2 ‐ $ 251,0 000 $ 251 1,000 ‐ $ 312,5 500 $ 312 2,500 ‐ $ 340,5 500 $ 340 0,500 ‐ $ 741,0 000 $ 741 1,000 $ 830,0 000 $ 830 0,000 ‐ ‐ N/A A ‐ ‐ $ 14 4,000 ‐ ‐ $ 46 6,000 ‐ 00 $1,170,0 000 $2,384 4,000 $ 420,00 $ 89,00 00 $ 245,0 000 $ 500 0,000 $ 67,00 00 ‐ $ 67 7,000 $ 757,00 00 ‐ $ 757 7,000 TBD 00 $3,890,0 000 $6,243 3,000 $1,333,00
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Wastewater Projects C Covered by D Development Charges Project Name Waste Wa ater Treatme ent Plant
Charged Areea Development Chargees
Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Design Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Constructio on Repurpose e Storm Equalization to Claarifiers/Aeratio on (Effluent Quality Trigger) Design Biosolids Storage Expansion olids Works Con nstruction New Bioso Design New w UV Disinfecttion Channel New UV Diisinfection Con nstruction (50%) Design a New Head dworks Buildin ng (50%) New w Headworks Building Constru uction (50%) Design Odour Conttrol System (50%) Odo our Control Systtem Constructtion
Entire Netwo ork
$ 2 220,000.00
Entire Netwo ork
$ 3,9 900,000.00
Entire Netwo ork
$ 2,2 250,000.00
Entire Netwo ork ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo
$ 3 310,000.00 $ 4,4 420,000.00 $ 2 200,000.00 $ 2,7 750,000.00 $ 1 175,000.00 $ 2,3 375,000.00 $ 1 175,000.00 $ 2,5 550,000.00
Sewage P Pumping Statiions (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Design (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Construction n Design and Con nstruction SPS No. 6 D
Area 3 Area 3 Area 6
$ 15,000.00 $ 1 153,750.00 TBD $ 6 600,000.00 $ 4 400,000.00 $ 4 420,000.00 $ 3 370,000.00 $ 2 290,000.00 $ 3 310,000.00 $ 2 250,000.00 $ 1 140,000.00
Sewermain Centre Stre eet Sewermain n Union Stre eet Sewermain Coleman SStreet Sewermaain St. Vincentt Street Sewerm main Muir Stree et Sewermain Nelson Street Sewermain n Miller Street Sewermain Pearson Sttreet Sewermain Constructio on of new pipe at intersection of Coleman n Street and Muir Stree et Constructio on of new pipe for Union n Street, Cole eman Street connection n
Total
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
Area 1 Area 1 Area 6 Area 2 Area 2 Area 1 Area 1 Area 1
TBD TBD
xiii
$22,2 273,750.00
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Table of Conte ents Volume 1 ................................................................... .......................................................... 1 Phase 1 ...................................................................... .......................................................... 2 1.0
Baackground Information n ................................. .......................................................... 3
1.1
Terms of Refference and A Authorization .......................................... .................................................. 3
1.2
Purpose of M Master Plan ................................................................... .................................................. 3
1.3
Study Area ....................................................................................... .................................................. 3
1.4
Existing Water System .................................................................... .................................................. 5
1.5
Existing Wastewater Syste em ........................................................... .................................................. 6
2.0
Su ummary of Master Planning Proce ess ............ .......................................................... 6
2.1
Background ..................................................................................... .................................................. 6
2.2
ning Procedure ............................................................ .................................................. 7 Master Plann
2.3
Steering Com mmittee and W Workshop Me eetings .............................. ................................................ 10
2.4
Participation n by Public, Re eview Agencies and Otherrs ................................................................... 10
3.0
Exxisting Cond ditions .......................................... ........................................................ 13
3.1
General ............................................................................................ ................................................ 13
3.2
Summary and Background d of Reports ............................................ ................................................ 13
3.3
Existing Mun nicipal Water System .................................................... ................................................ 14
3.3.1 1
Generall .................................................................................... ................................................ 14
3.3.2 2
Waterm mains ............................................................................. ................................................ 14
3.3.3 3
Water SStorage Reserrvoirs ....................................................... ................................................ 14
3.3.4 4
Water B Booster Pump p Stations ................................................ ................................................ 14
3.3.5 5
Water TTreatment Plaant ........................................................... ................................................ 15
3.4
Existing Mun nicipal Wastew water System m ......................................... ................................................ 17
3.4.1 1
Generall .................................................................................... ................................................ 17
3.4.2 2
Sewers ..................................................................................... ................................................ 17
3.4.3 3
Wastew water Pumping Stations................................................ ................................................ 17
3.4.4 4
Wastew water Treatme ent Plant ................................................. ................................................ 19
3.5 Natural Envirronment ....................................................................... ................................................ 19 April 2015 Municipality of Meaford Ainley Grou Water & W Waste Water Servicing up, File No. 11 14106 Master Plan xiv
4.0
Fu uture Condiitions ............................................ ........................................................ 20
4.1
Population G Growth .......................................................................... ................................................ 20
4.2
Water Demaand Projection ns ............................................................. ................................................ 22
4.3
Wastewater Flow Projections ......................................................... ................................................ 23
5.0
Prroblem Iden ntification ................... . ................. ........................................................ 24
5.1
Problem Stattement ......................................................................... ................................................ 24
5.2
Water – Capacity of Existiing Watermaiins ...................................... ................................................ 25
5.3
Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Sto orage Reservooir ................................................................. 27
5.4
Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Boo oster Stationss ................... ................................................ 27
5.5
Water – Capacity of Existiing Water Tre eatment Plantt ................... ................................................ 31
5.6
Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Sew wers .................................... ................................................ 33
5.7
Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Pum mping Station s .................. ................................................ 33
5.7.1 1
Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 1 ............................................... ................................................ 33
5.7.2 2
Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 2 ............................................... ................................................ 33
5.7.3 3
Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 3 ............................................... ................................................ 33
5.7.4 4
Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 4 ............................................... ................................................ 34
5.7.5 5
Sewage e Pumping Staation No. 5 ............................................... ................................................ 34
5.7.6 6
Future SSewage Pump ping Station N No. 6 .................................. ................................................ 34
5.8
Wastewater – Capacity off Existing Wasstewater Treaatment Plant ................................................ 34
5.8.1 1
Class EA A (2007) Reco ommendation ns ........................................ ................................................ 35
5.8.2 2
Changes since 2007 C Class EA ................................................... ................................................ 38
5.8.3 3
Existingg WWTP Issue es.............................................................. ................................................ 38
5.8.4 4
Changes to the Classs EA Recommendations .......................... ................................................ 39
Phase 2 ...................................................................... ........................................................ 41 6.0
Ge eneral Alternatives ........................................ ........................................................ 42
6.1
Do Nothing ...................................................................................... ................................................ 42
6.2
Limit/Managge Growth ..................................................................... ................................................ 42
7.0
Water Distrib W bution Alternatives ...................... ........................................................ 42
8.0
Water Storag W ge Alternatiives ............................ ........................................................ 43
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xv
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
9.0
Water Boost W er Pumpingg Station Op ptions ....... ........................................................ 44
10.0 Water Treatm W ment Plant Alternative es............... ........................................................ 48 11.0 Wastewater W Alternative es ............... ........................................................ 48 Collection A 12.0 Wastewater W Pumping A Alternatives ................. ........................................................ 49 13.0 Wastewater W Treatment Expansion Alternativees ..................................................... 51 14.0 Evvaluation Crriteria/Weighting and Ranking .... ........................................................ 53 15.0 Evvaluation off Water Distribution A Alternatives ........................................................ 54 15.1 Watermain R Renewal Costt Comparison .......................................... ................................................ 55 15.2 Evaluation off Watermain Renewal Alte ernatives ............................ ................................................ 55
16.0 Evvaluation off Water Sto orage Altern natives ...... ........................................................ 55 16.1 In‐Ground Sttorage Alternative ........................................................ ................................................ 56 16.2 Elevated Tan nk Alternative e ............................................................... ................................................ 56 16.3 Advantages aand Disadvan ntages of Storrage Alternatiives .............................................................. 57 16.4 Site Identification of Wate er Storage Altternatives .......................... ................................................ 57 16.4.1
In‐Ground Reservoir Site Identificcation ................................. ................................................ 57
16.4.2
Elevated d Tank Site Id dentification ............................................ ................................................ 58
16.1 Cost Comparrison of Storage Alternativves ...................................... ................................................ 59 16.2 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................... ................................................ 61
17.0 Evvaluation off Water Boo oster Pump p Station Altternatives ........................................ 61 17.1 Cost Comparrison of Wate er Booster Pump Station A lternatives ................................................... 62 17.2 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................................................................... 62
18.0 Evvaluation off Water Tre eatment Plaant Alternattives ................................................. 63 19.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Collectio on Alternattives ................................................. 64 19.1 Sewer Rehab bilitation Alternative .................................................... ................................................ 64 19.2 Sewer Replacement Alterrnative ..................................................... ................................................ 64 19.3 Advantages & & Disadvantaages of Waste ewater Collecttion Renewall Alternativess.......................... 65 19.4 Evaluation off Wastewaterr Collection R Renewal Alterrnatives ........................................................ 65
20.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Pumpingg Alternativves ................................................... 66 Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xvi
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
21.0 Evvaluation off Wastewatter Treatme ent Expansi on Alternattives ............................... 67 21.1 Alternative 1 1 – Full Plant EExpansion, Co ontinuing I/I R Reduction .................................................... 68 21.2 Alternative 2 2 – Phased Plaant Expansion n ......................................................................................... 71 21.3 Alternative 3 3 ‐ Equalizatio on Storage, I/I Reduction, FFuture Expansion ......................................... 74 21.4 Evaluation off Alternativess ............................................................... ................................................ 79
22.0 Prreferred Solutions .......................................... ........................................................ 80 22.1 Water Distrib bution .......................................................................... ................................................ 80 22.2 Water Storagge ................................................................................. ................................................ 81 22.3 Water Boostter Pump Stattions ........................................................ ................................................ 81 22.4 Water Treatm ment Plant ................................................................... ................................................ 82 22.5 Wastewater Collection .................................................................... ................................................ 82 22.6 Sewage Pum mping Stationss ............................................................... ................................................ 83 22.7 Wastewater Treatment ................................................................... ................................................ 84
23.0 Pu ublic and Re eview Agen ncy Comments ............ ........................................................ 84 24.0 Ge eneral Sum mmary and R Requiremen nts ............. ........................................................ 88 24.1 Proposed Service Area .................................................................... ................................................ 88 24.2 Proposed Waater Distributtion and Storaage System ........................ ................................................ 88 24.3 Proposed Waater Supply and Treatment System ............................ ................................................ 88 24.4 Proposed Waastewater Co ollection and P Pumping Systtem ............................................................... 89 24.5 Proposed Waaste Water Trreatment System ................................... ................................................ 89 24.6 Property Req quirements ................................................................... ................................................ 89 24.7 Environmenttal Impacts an nd Mitigation n Measures ......................... ................................................ 90 24.8 Permits and Approvals .................................................................... ................................................ 90 24.9 Applicable Class EA Sched dules ........................................................ ................................................ 90 24.10
Summary of Commitme ents Made du uring Master Planning Process ......................................... 91
25.0 Prroposed Capital Workss Program aand Costs .......................................................... 91 25.1 Water System m .................................................................................. ................................................ 91 25.2 Wastewater System ........................................................................ ................................................ 96 25.2.1
Sewage e Collection Syystem – I/I Re eduction Proggram ............................................................. 96
25.2.2
..................... ................................................ 98 Wastew water System Overall Plan ...................... .
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xvii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
List of Figures Figure 1 – – Study Area ffor the Meafo ord Master Plan ...................................... .................................................. 4 Figure 2 – – Class EA Flow w Chart Depicting Essentiaal Steps for Eaach Phase ...................................................... 9 Figure 3 – – Map of Meaaford Water D Distribution Syystem Pressuure Zones and d Water Facilities .................... 16 Figure 4 ‐ Comparison of Growth Fo orecasts ................................................... ................................................ 22 Figure 5 ‐ Water Use Projection for 2031 ....................................................... ................................................ 23 Figure 6 ‐ Sewage Flow w Projection to 2031..................................................... ................................................ 24 Figure 7 – – Identification of 100 mm Diameter Pip pes and Nodees with Inadeq quate Fire Flo ow ...................... 26 Figure 8 ‐ Existing Cond ditions for Avvailable Fire Flow during M Maximum Dayy Demand ................................. 29 Figure 9 ‐ Full Build‐Ou ut Conditions for Available Fire Flow du ring Maximum Day Demand ...................... 30 Figure 10 ‐ Historical Flow Data (200 06‐2013) ................................................. ................................................ 32 Figure 11 – Existing Un nit Process Caapacity ...................................................... ................................................ 35 Figure 12 – 2007 Class EA Plant Expansion Plan ............................................. ................................................ 36 Figure 13 – Booster Pu ump Station A Alternative 1 LLocation ............................. ................................................ 46 Figure 14 – Booster Pu ump Station A Alternative 2 LLocation ............................. ................................................ 47 Figure 15 ‐ Potential Lo ocation for Se ewage Pumping Station Noo. 6 ............................................................... 50 Figure 16 – In‐Ground Water Reservvoir Location .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 17 – Elevated Taank Location ................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 18 – Ultimate Plant Expansio on Process Capacities ............................................................................. 68 Figure 19 – Equalizatio on Tank and Future Expanssion Process CCapacities ..................................................... 76 Figure 20 ‐ Proposed TTimeline for W Waste System Improvemennt Plan .......................................................... 94 Figure 21 – Meaford W Water Servicin ng Improveme ent Plan ............................. ................................................ 95 Figure 22 – Inflow and Infiltration R Reduction Objjective ................................ ................................................ 96 Figure 23 – Proposed TTimeline for W Wastewater SSystem Improovement Plan .............................................. 102 Figure 24 ‐ Meaford Saanitary Servicing Improvem ment Plan ......................................................................... 103
List of Tables Table 1 – Expected Increase in Sewaage Flow and Water Demaand for Vacan nt Land in Stu udy Area ............... 5 Table 2 – List of Public and Review A Agencies .................................................. ................................................ 11 Table 3 ‐ P Population Growth for the e Municipalityy of Meaford ...................... ................................................ 20 Table 4 ‐ P Population Growth for the e Urban Area of Meaford ....................... ................................................ 21 Table 5 ‐ 2 2007 Municip pal Class EA Population Forrecasts ............................... ................................................ 21 Table 6 – Treated Wate er Storage Re equired Volum mes .................................... ................................................ 27 Table 7 ‐ W Water Deman nd ................................................................................. ................................................ 32 Table 8 – 2007 Class EA A Design Basis .............................................................. ................................................ 35 Table 9 – Compliance LLimits and Efffluent Objectives .................................... ................................................ 36 Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xviii
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Table 10 – – Recommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA ........................... ................................................ 37 Table 11 – – Criteria for Evaluation off Alternative SSolutions ........................... ................................................ 53 Table 12 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Watermain Renew wal Alternativees ............................................ 54 Table 13 – – Evaluation o of Watermain n Renewal Altternatives .......................... ................................................ 55 Table 14 ‐‐ Advantages vs. Disadvanttages of Elevaated and In‐G Ground Storagge Options. .............................. 57 Table 15 ‐‐ Estimated Cost Comparisson of Different Storage Allternatives ................................................... 59 Table 16 – – Evaluation o of Water Storrage Alternatives .................................... ................................................ 61 Table 17 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Water Booster Sta tion Alternattives ......................................... 62 Table 18 – – Evaluation o of Water Boo oster Pump Sttation Alternaatives ............................................................ 63 Table 19 ‐‐ Advantages & Disadvantaages of Waste ewater Collecction Renewaal Alternativess ......................... 65 Table 20 – – Sewermain Evaluation off Alternativess ......................................... ................................................ 66 Table 21 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 1 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 22 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 2 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 23 – – Sewage Pum mping Station n No. 3 Recom mmended Upggrades ......................................................... 67 Table 24 – – Flow Projecctions ............................................................................ ................................................ 68 Table 25 – – Recommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA ‐ Reevised ........................................................... 70 Table 26 – – Revised Upggrades of the 2007 Class EA as a Phasedd Expansion PPlan ......................................... 71 Table 27 – – Phased Expansion Cost EEstimations .............................................. ................................................ 73 Table 28 – – Peak Flow EEvent Summary ............................................................ ................................................ 74 Table 29 – – Flow Projecctions ............................................................................ ................................................ 75 Table 30 – – Detailed Cost Estimate: EEqualization TTank ................................... ................................................ 76 Table 31 – – Recommended Plant Upgrades ..................................................... ................................................ 77 Table 32 – – Capital Costt Estimates fo or Planned Up pgrades: Alterrnative 3 ...................................................... 79 Table 33 – – Evaluation o of WWTP Alte ernatives ................................................................................................. 79 Table 34 – – Comments from the Pub blic and Review Agencies ........................................................................ 85 Table 35 – – Class EA Sch hedules......................................................................................................................... 90 Table 36 – – Overall Watter System Im mprovement P Plan .................................................................................... 91 Table 37 – – Water Proje ects Covered by Developm ment Charges ...................................................................... 93 Table 38 – – Inflow and IInfiltration Re eduction Plan n ......................................................................................... 97 Table 39 – – Overall Wasstewater Systtem Improvem ment Plan .......................................................................... 99 Table 40 – – Wastewater Projects Covvered by Development Ch arges ......................................................... 101 Table 41 – – Sanitary Collection Syste em Defects for Future Conssideration .................................................. 104
Municipality of Meaford Water & W Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
xix
April 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Volume 1 Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
1
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
Phase 1 Problem Identification
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
2
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
1.0 Background Information 1.1 Terms of Reference and Authorization The Terms of Reference as outlined in the Request for Proposal issued by the Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford on April 3, 2014 is attached in Appendix A.
1.2 Purpose of Master Plan The Municipality of Meaford retained Ainley Group to prepare a Water and Wastewater Master Plan for the Urban Settlement Area in accordance with the Municipality’s Official Plan. The purpose of the Master Plan is to identify and assess the needs of the water and wastewater systems to effectively service the existing population, any presently un‐serviced parcels within the service area and future development areas. The report addresses the state of the current water and wastewater infrastructure, the future projected growth throughout the Urban Settlement Area, and identifies the preferred solution to accommodate full build‐out. A phasing plan is to be identified for each infrastructure project, allowing construction for water and wastewater infrastructure to meet future growth. The phased construction time frame is guided by development over the next 30 years, up to and including 2045. A Class EA process for Master Plans was followed to develop the Servicing Master Plan for Meaford. During the master planning process, Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process were addressed. The intent of this study was to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan, as well as provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. Analysis of all water and wastewater components was completed to understand where upgrades are necessary to address all servicing needs. Details of the preferred infrastructure projects, identified in the Servicing Master Plan, will be completed in succeeding reports. Volume 1 of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Report identifies the Master Plan. The Master Plan outlines the master planning process, existing conditions, future conditions, problem identification and identifies the alternatives and preferred solution. Volume 2 of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Report identifies the Technical Memoranda that were developed throughout the planning process. This project was undertaken based on technical memoranda that were presented at committee meetings. Each of the memoranda identifies the modelling and analysis that was undertaken during the master planning process to obtain the information identified in the Master Plan.
1.3 Study Area The Study Area is described as the current limits of the Urban Settlement Area shown in Figure 1.
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
3
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
Figure 1 – Study Area a for the Mea aford Maste er Plan The vacant land with hin the study area has been zoned as residential, commerccial, industrial, or institution nal under the Municipality’s Official Plan. The zooning was ussed to delineeate the pottential growth in n the Municiipality of Me eaford and how h this grow wth will affeect the water and wastew water systems. The expected d increase in sewage flow ws and waterr demands from each type of vacant zzoned land is sho own in Table 1.
Municipaality of Meafo ord Water & Waste Water Servicing Master P Plan
4
April 2 2015 Ainley Group p, File No. 114 4106
Table 1 – Expected Increase in Sewage Flow and Water Demand for Vacant Land in Study Area Vacant Area (Ha)
Equivalent Units
ADF Sewage m3/d
MDD Water m3/d
Urban Living Area >0.2 Ha
97.8
1427.9
642.5
1028
Urban Living Area <0.2 Ha
9.18
45.9
20.6
33
Urban Living Area with Proposal
23.99
593
266.9
427.2
Highway Commercial
19.52
‐‐‐
546.6
874.5
1.1
90
67.2
107.6
Industrial
28.54
‐‐‐
799.1
1,278.6
Special Policy Area 1
5.56
278
280.8
449.2
Special Policy Area 2
3.479
174
175.7
281.1
Total
189.17
2608.8
2799.5
4,479.2
Zone
Downtown Commercial
Table 1 outlines the total available land left in urban Meaford that can still be developed. The vacant land has been divided into land use based on the land use designations defined in Meaford Official Plan. The number of equivalent units was calculated based on the vacant area of each type of land use. The full build‐out sewage flows and water demands were than able to be calculated with total values of 2,799.5 m3/d and 4,479.2 m3/d respectively.
1.4 Existing Water System The existing water distribution system infrastructure consists of a WTP, two (2) BPSs, water distribution system and water storage at the WTP and in an elevated tank. The Meaford WTP has a rated capacity of 26,848 m3/day which is more than adequate for the current water usage having an ADD over the past 3 years of only 1,460 m3/day. The MDD over the past three (3) years was 2,374 m3/day which is 8.8% of the rated capacity of the WTP and is 18.4% of the design capacity of a single highlift pump (12,890 m3/day ) at the WTP. There is more than adequate capacity to provide the current MDD supply and for substantial growth. The WTP recently underwent control system upgrades in 2013 and the plant is in good condition and is in full compliance with regulations. The system has two (2) BPS; the St. Vincent Street BPS and the Nelson Street BPS. The St. Vincent Street BPS was constructed in 2010 and remains in good condition. The Nelson Street BPS currently does not provide adequate pressure under all demand conditions and does not comply with MOECC design guidelines. The water distribution system is in good to fair condition. As expected with any ageing network, older pipes need to be replaced to maintain the integrity of the system. The pipe diameters are generally Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
5
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
adequate for the current service population, however, there is inadequate fire protection in several areas due to undersized pipes. The total storage within the system is 2,880 m3 and the required storage based on MOECC design guidelines is 2,166 m3. This allows for adequate storage for existing demands and required fire flow. The storage is split between clearwell storage at the WTP of 2310 m3 and the elevated storage tank with a capacity of 570 m3.
1.5 Existing Wastewater System The existing wastewater system infrastructure consists of a WWTP, five (5) SPSs and a sewage collection system. The Meaford WWTP has an ADF over the past three (3) years of 2,600 m3/day which is below the plant’s rated capacity of 3,910 m3/day. The hydraulic reserve capacity is equivalent to an additional 1,210 residential units as per 2013. The average biological oxygen demand and total suspended solid effluent concentrations represent fairly weak sewage strength, likely due to high stormwater/groundwater I/I rates. The plant discharges into Georgian Bay and meets the current effluent limits. The plant was constructed in 1969 and several components have yet to be updated but require extensive updates. The plant also requires the addition of several processes and an ongoing program for major maintenance due to the age of the equipment and systems. A Class EA for plant expansion in 2007 established new effluent criteria for the plant. Upgrades may be required to meet more stringent nutrient removal requirements. The sewage collection network is aging and experiencing high levels of I/I resulting in increased network flows. Sewer upgrades have been identified through an I/I study that has been completed in conjunction with the Master Plan. The collection system has five (5) SPSs. All of the SPSs are in good physical condition, but SPSs No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 could benefit from control system upgrades.
2.0 Summary of Master Planning Process 2.1 Background The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approved under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act in October 2000, as amended in 2007, identifies the process by which municipal infrastructure projects are to be planned. The process identifies an approved procedure designed to protect the environment and provides an effective way of complying with the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class EA applies to infrastructure projects including municipal road, municipal transit, and municipal water and wastewater projects. The process classifies projects with varying environmental impact in terms of schedules:
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
6
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
Schedule A projects have minimal adverse environmental impact and are limited in scale. These projects include normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities. They are pre‐approved and may proceed without formal contact with the public. Schedule A+ projects are pre‐approved, however, require public notification prior to project implementation. Schedule B projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects including improvement projects and minor expansions to existing facilities. A screening process is required involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies. Schedule C projects have potential for significant environmental effects including the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. Due to the adverse environmental impact, Schedule C projects must proceed under the full Class EA planning and documentation procedure and require that an Environmental Study Report be completed. The planning process follows a five (5) step planning process.
Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity Definition Phase 2 – Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to Allow a Preferred Solution to be Recommended Phase 3 ‐ Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts for the Implementation of the Preferred Solution Phase 4 – Documentation of the Rationale, Planning, Design and Consultation Process Phase 5 – Implementation and Monitoring.
The Class EA Planning and Design Process Flow Chart (Figure 2) provides more detail on each phase of the planning process. The process identifies that due to varying project‐specific problems, environmental issues, community issues and solutions, a varying level of project complexity is required. To accommodate this, the Class EA defines the minimum requirements for environmental assessment planning allowing the process to be customizable. A key feature to the Class EA process is early and continuous mandatory consultation with the public and those who may be affected by the undertaking. The consultation allows for the public to be informed about the project and allowed to provide input that will be integrated into the study and decision‐making process.
2.2 Master Planning Procedure The master planning process allows for a group of related projects or an overall system to be considered prior to dealing with each individual project specific issue. Master plans are long range plans that integrate existing and future infrastructure needs with environmental assessment planning principles. The master planning procedure follows the Class EA planning process where at a minimum Phases 1 and 2 must be addressed. Four (4) master planning approaches are outlined in the Class EA, however, it is suggested to adapt the approaches based on the project specific needs.
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
7
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
The Municipality of Meaford has prepared this Master Plan in accordance with the Class EA based generally on Approach #2. Approach #2 involves the preparation of a Master Planning document at the conclusion of Phase 1 and 2 which is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of Schedule B projects. The Municipality of Meaford has identified select Schedule B projects in the Master Plan that will require additional studies in order to provide greater detail on the geotechnical and natural environment of the project site. All Schedule C projects that are identified in the Master Plan will require the completion of Phases 3 and 4.
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
8
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106
Figure 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Class EA Flow Chart Depicting Essential Steps for Each Phase Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 9
2.3 Steering g Committtee and W Workshop p Meeting gs During the study a stee ering committtee was form med of the fol lowing memb bers:
Steph hen Vokes (M Municipality off Meaford) Chriss Collyer (Mun nicipality of M Meaford) Rob A Armstrong (M Municipality o of Meaford) Darcyy Chapman (M Municipality o of Meaford) Brade ey Carbert (M Municipality o of Meaford) Gary Scott (Ainleyy) ey) Simon Glass (Ainle Julia Roest (Ainleyy)
e Steering Committee mett to discuss thhe master planning proceess on 5 occasions. During the project the dditional worrkshop meetings were con nducted to deevelop and disscuss contentt of the PIC b boards Two (2) ad for Phase 1 and Phase 2 PICs.
2.4 Particip pation by Public, Review Aggencies an nd Otherss Public and d agency con nsultation is m mandatory du uring a masteer planning process underr the requirem ments of the Class C EA process. For th his project, public and aagency partiicipation was integral to o the developm ment and evaluation of the servicing alte ernatives at ddifferent poin nts in the plan nning processs. The public and review w agencies we ere contacted d with four (44) different notices througghout the Claass EA process. A A notice of co ommencement was sent o out on July 4,, 2014 to pro ovide informaation on the sstudy, process and a how to get g involved. The second notice was ffor the Phasee 1 PIC which h was sent o out on August 27 7, 2014. The Phase 1 PIC ttook place on n Septemberr 15, 2014 fro om 7‐9pm at the Meaford d Hall. Commentts regarding tthe Phase 1 PIC were receiived until Sepptember 29, 22014. The thirrd notice wass send out on Fe ebruary 19, 20 015 regardingg the Phase 2 2 PIC which toook place on February 26,, 2015 from 7 7‐9pm at the Me eaford Hall. TThe Phase 2 P PIC identified d the water aand wastewatter alternativves and comm ments were rece eived until March 12, 2014. The final n notice was puublished on M May 13, 2015 5 in regards tto the study com mpletion. The e Notices werre put in the Meaford Exp ress and copies of the notice were sen nt out to each of the review agencies sepaarately. A cop py of the not ices and PIC boards is attaached in App pendix omments and input rece eived were taaken into coonsideration d during the p planning proccesses D. The co following the PICs. w agencies th hat were inclu uded in the m mailing list aree shown in Taable 2. The review
Municcipality of Meaford Waterr & Waste Waater Servicing Maste er Plan
10
April 2015 06 Aiinley Group, FFile No. 11410
Ta able 2 – List of Public P and Revie ew Agencies
Provincial & Fed deral Agencies Environmentt Canada - Environmental E Protection P Opera ations Division - On ntario Region Ministry of Environment and Climate C Change - Southwest Region Ministry of th he Environment - Owen Sound District Office - Drinking Water Management Division Canadian En nvironmental Assessment Agency y Fisheries & Oceans O Canada Transport Ca anada - Ontario Region R Transport Ca anada - Marine Safety S & Security Ontario Region
ario Clean Water A Agency Onta Minis stries of Tourism - Culture & Sportt stry of Natural Reesources - Midhurrst District Minis Onta ario Ministry of Aggriculture - Food a and Rural Affairs Minis stry of Transporttation - Corridorr Management S Section, West Region Minis stry of Municipal A Affairs and Housiing
Local Governm ment & Other Agencies Grey Sauble e Conservation Au uthority The Corpora ation of the Countty of Grey
Bluew water District Schhool Board Student Transportatioon Service Conso ortium of Grey Bru uce
The Town off The Blue Mounttains
d Ambulance EMS S - Grey County Land
Municipality of Grey Highland ds Township of Chatsworth City of Owen n Sound Township of Georgian Bluffs Bruce-Grey Catholic C District School S Board
Onta ario Provincial Pollice Grey y County Historicaal Society Grey y Bruce Health Seervices Grey y Bruce Health U nit SCS Consulting Grouup Ltd.
Aboriginal Con nsultation Ministry of Aboriginal A Affairs Aboriginal Affairs A & Northern n Development Canada C Consulltation Unit The Metis Na ation of Ontario Chiefs of On ntario Native Affairs Secretariat Metis Nation nal Council Georgian Ba ay Metis Council Moon River Metis Council
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
M'Ch higeeng First Natiion Nation Mississauga's of Scuggog Island First N
Credit Mississauga's of the C Moha awks of Akwesassne Moha awks of the Bay oof Quinte Moos se Deer Point Saug geen First Nation Sheg guiandah
11
April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106
Aamjiwnaang Alderville Firrst Nation Aundeck-Om mni-Kaning Beausoleil First Nation Chippewas of o Georgina Island Chippewas of o Kettle and Ston ny Point Chippewas of o Nawash First Nation N Chippewas of o Rama First Nattion Chippewas of o the Thames Firrst Nation Curve Lake First Nation Hiawatha Firrst Nation
Six Nations N of the Graand River Wahtta Mohawk Walp pole Island Wasa auksing First Nattion Zhiib baahaasing First N Nation Saug geen Ojibway nattion Environment Office Histo oric Saugeen Mettis Grea at Lakes Metis Coouncil Chippewas of Rama F First Nation Hiaw watha First nation Metis s Nation of Ontarrio
Utilities Rogers Com mmunications Inc. Powerstream m Inc. Bell Aliant
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
Hydrro One Enbrridge Gas
12
April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106
3.0 Existing C E Conditio ons 3.1 Generall The Municipality of Me eaford is locaated in Grey C County and iss bounded byy the City of O Owen Sound tto the west, the Town of Blue Mountains to the east aand the Georrgian Bay sho oreline to thee north. The ssocio‐ economicc environmen nt in Meaford d is influence ed by the watterfront locattion with a sstrong recreational tourist‐baased economy. Other indu ustries that are a also prevaalent in the Municipality are the aggrregate and agricu ultural industtries. The studyy area is defin ned as the Urban Settleme ent Area. Meaaford hopes tto manage an nd increase grrowth in this are ea over the n next twenty ((20) years. Growth is exp ected to takee place in thee waterfront area, downtown and within the older ind dustrial areas and areas deesignated “Fu uture Urban EExpansion” lo ocated primarily on the west sside of the Meaford Urban n Area. The pllanned growtth is within th he area servicced by municipall sewer and w water servicess.
3.2 Summarry and Ba ackground d of Repo orts A listing o of the backgro ound docume ents reviewed d in the efforrts to complette the Master Plan is conttained herein. Background In nformation Wastewater System B
20 004 Sanitary Sewer Collection System M Model (Ainleyy Group) 20 010 Sanitary Sewer Model Update (Ainley Group) 20 007 Meaford WWTP Classs EA Documen nt (EarthTechh) Meaford Wast M tewater Treattment Plant C Certificate of A Approval Bighead Pump ping Station Certificate of A Approval 20 010, 2013 Sew wage Uncommitted Reserrve Capacity R Reports 20 006 – 2013 W WWTP Annuall Reports (OC CWA) 20 006 – 2013 Bighead Pump ping Station A Annual Reportts Assimilative Caapacity Techn nical Memoraandum (GENIV VAR) 20 006 WWTP Capacity Analyysis (Ainley Group) 20 006 Peer Revview of Capacity Analysis (H Hydromantis)) 20 008 MOECC D Design Guidelines for Sewaage Works
Water Sysstem Backgro ound Informaation
Water Treatme W ent Plant Certificate of Approval 20 009 Ultimate Water Supplly & Distribution System M Model Updatee (Ainley Grou up) 20 006 – 2013 W WTP Annual Reports (OCWA) 20 008 MOECC D Design Guidelines for Drinking Water W Works
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
13
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Planning Information
20 014 Municipaality of Meafo ord Official Plan Meaford Zonin M ng By‐Law 20 008 Grey Cou unty Growth M Managementt Strategy Repport
3.3 Existing g Municip pal Water System 3.3.1 3 Gene eral The existing water syystem in the e Municipality of Meaforrd consists o of approximaately 57,500 m of watermain, 2,310 m³ of available clear well sttorage at thee WTP and 5570 m³ storaage in an eleevated storage taank, and two (2) BPSs. The wate er distributio on system, th he WTP, the e elevated sttorage tank and BPSs are owned by the Municipality of Meafo ord and operated and maintained m byy the Municipality of Meeaford Operaations ent. Departme
3.3.2 3 Wate ermains The Meafford water disstribution sysstem is made e up of 57,5000 m of watermain. The waatermain rangges in size from 50 mm to 400 4 mm with some waterr service connnections of 225 mm. Pipe replacementts and network e expansion haas resulted in a significantt range in thee age of pipees in the Meaaford system. The age range es from newlly constructe ed pipes to pipes approxim mately 120 yyears old, with the majorrity of pipes beiing constructted between n 1945 and 1965. The w watermains are construccted from seeveral different materials inccluding asbesttos cement, ccast iron, ducctile iron and d PVC as welll as copper fo or the water services.
3.3.3 3 Wate er Storage e Reservoirrs The water distribution system inclu udes two (2) sstorage facilitties (one (1) iin‐ground resservoir and one (1) elevated water storagge tank). The elevated water storage ttank is locateed in the vicin nity of Trowb bridge 3 Street and d Owen Stree et having a caapacity of 570 0 m . The in‐gground storage is located at the WTP w with a 3 3 capacity o of 2,310 m . TThe total usab ble storage vo olume of the system is 28880 m . Based on MOECC design guideliness, the require ed storage fo r the Municip pality of Meaaford at its cu urrent 3 on is 2,166.1 m m . There is ttherefore ade equate storagge supply witthin the systeem. It is noted d that populatio 80% of avvailable storage (74% of presently requ uired storagee) is located aat the WTP ass pumped sto orage. This mean ns that the high lift pumps must be capable of meeeting 80% of peak hour’s demands and d 80% of MDD p plus fire‐flow. Based on the existing po opulation, thee high lift pum mps must meeet 80% of MDD of 26.5 L/s plus p 145 L/s or o 80% of 17 71.5 L/s which is 137.2 L/ss which is lesss than the ccapacity of on ne (1) pump.
3.3.4 3 Wate er Boosterr Pump Sta ations The waterr distribution system curre ently has thre ee (3) pressurres zones:
Pressure Zone ‐ 1: Covers th he majority o of the Municippality of Mea ford and is lo ocated in the north eaast end from lake level exttending south h.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
14
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Pressure Zone ‐ 2 (Nelson SStreet BPS Pressure Zone)): Located in tthe west end d serviced by a BPS on Nelson Stre eet. It is separrated from Prressure Zone 1 by gate valves on Pearso on Street and d Glen ood Street bettween Thomppson Street and Noble Streeet Abbey Court and Collingwo
ent Street BPSS Pressure Zoone): Located d in the south h end serviced d by a Pressure Zone ‐ 3 (St. Vince ed from Presssure Zone 1 b by gate valves on Edwin SStreet, BPS on St. Vincent Street. It is separate e Street and LLegion Road aand on St. Vinncent Street SSouth of Aiken Street. between Lorne
pressure zone es and locatioons of water ffacilities for tthe Municipality of Refer to FFigure 3 for a map of the p Meaford. Two (2) B BPS are in operation to se ervice Pressurre Zones 2 annd 3. Nelson Street BPS feeeds into Preessure Zone 2 an nd the St. Vinccent Street BP PS feeds into Pressure Zonne 3. Nelson Sttreet BPS is lo ocated in the west end of the system oon Nelson Strreet between n Thompson SStreet and Noble e Street. The BPS has one e (1) pump w with a capacityy of 19 L/s att 27 m of TD DH. The pump p runs continuou usly to provide zone pre essure. The station s does not meet fiire flow requ uirements fo or the pressure zzone. The Nelson Street BPS is an olderr facility withoout any stand dby pumping or power sup pply. St. Vincen nt Street BPS is located on n St. Vincent Street south of Aikin Street. The BPS h has five (5) veertical multi‐stagge duty pum mps each rate ed at 22 L/ss at 37 m T DH and onee (1) low flow w protection n pre‐ pressurize ed well tank to help main ntain system pressures at low to no flow condition ns. The St. Vincent Street BPSS was constru ucted in 2010 0 and is complete with stanndby power.
3.3.5 3 Wate er Treatment Plant The WTP that providess potable watter to the Urb ban Settleme nt Area takess raw water from Georgian n Bay. The plant is located at 574 Grandview Drive in tthe Municipa lity of Meafo ord with a rated capacity (MDD) of 26,848 m3/day (311L/s) comprise ed of:
Raw Water inttake from Geo orgian Bay
A low‐lift pumping station with one (1) raw water w well equipped with one (1)) manually cleeaned sccreen and tw wo (2) low‐lifft pumps, on ne (1) duty aand one (1) standby, eacch having a rated caapacity of 311 1 L/s at 16.2 m m TDH
A treatment system consissting of an in‐line mixer aand polyalum minum chlorid de feed system for co oagulation, a filter system m (two (2) filte ers), a UV dissinfection sysstem (primaryy disinfection n) plus gaas chlorinatio on for secondary disinfection and proteection of the d distribution syystem.
A clearwell comprising two o (2) cells in sseries with Ceell 1 providin ng storage of 920 m3 and Cell 2 3 providing storaage of 1,390m m ,for a total treated wateer storage vollume of 2,310 0m3
mping station n equipped with w three (3)) high‐lift pumps, two (2)) duty and on ne (1) A high‐lift pum ed capacity o of 149.2 L/s att 76.2 m TDH H. A Singer prressure relief valve sttandby, each having a rate on the discharge side of the e high‐lift pum mp is set to li mit the disch harge pressure from the W WTP to ap pproximatelyy 550 kPa. Un nder normal operating coonditions onlly one (1) pu ump operatess at a time. The ope erator choose es the lead pu ump. Water level in the eelevated tankk controls the high‐ lifft pumps.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
15
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
A wastewater residual man nagement syystem consistting of a surgge tank with transfer pum mps, a trreatment clarrifier, chemical feed syste ems to enhannce filter backkwash wastewater settling and fo or dechlorinattion of backw wash wastewaater and filte r to waste waater, and two o (2) sludge p pumps to o pump sludgge from the trreatment clarifier into the sanitary sewer
Sttandby power
Th he plant app pears to be in full comp pliance with MOECC regu ulations and does not reequire upgrades, exce ept ongoing rregular maintenance, to seervice the exissting community.
3.4 Existing g Municip pal Wastew water Sysstem 3.4.1 3 Gene eral In total th he Municipality has five (5) SPSs to servvice the urbann area. All flo ows captured within the syystem are conve eyed to the M Meaford WWTTP located on n Grant Avenuue owned byy the Municipality and opeerated by OCWA. Through the t Municipaality’s effort to catalog th he condition of the seweer system byy CCTV inspeection, several major m deficien ncies have been b identifie ed. Most nootably a seriees of cracks,, holes and failed connectio ons were iden ntified along SSykes Street b between MH 10750 and M MH 10720 No orth of the Bigghead River. To a lesser deggree, cracks and a breaks have been ideentified on TTrowbridge Sttreet and Boucher Street. En ncrustation isssues have bee en identified at numerouss locations thrroughout thee sewer netwo ork.
3.4.2 3 Sewe ers The majority of the Me eaford urban area is serviced by a Munnicipal sanitary sewer systtem consisting of a of gravity sew wers and five e (5) SPSs. Th his system coomprises approximately 35,080 m of ggravity network o sewer pip pe and appro oximately 2,140 m of forccemain. Basedd on the exissting informaation from ass‐built Record Drawings, the majority of tthe network vvaries in age from 25‐45 yyears consisting predomin nantly ment and PVC C pipe. A maajor portion o of the flows, approximateely 80 of pre‐casst concrete, asbestos cem percent, is directed to a centrally lo ocated SPS (SP PS No. 1) on tthe east side of the Bigheaad River.
3.4.3 3 Wasttewater Pu umping Sttations The Meafford wastewaater collection n system has five (5) catchhment areas designated b by the five (5)) SPSs situated throughout th he urban areaa.
Area – 1: Located in the south west porrtion of the seewage collecttion system tthat feeds intto SPS No. 1 and makkes up the larggest catchme ent area in thee network. Area – 2: Locaated in the south east po ortion of the network mo ostly located east of St Vincent Sttreet. It feedss into SPS No.. 2 Area – 3: Locatted in the north section off the sewage collection syystem encompassing everyything north of Susan n Street. This area feeds into SPS No. 3 w which then feeeds into areaa 1. Area – 4: Enco ompasses only the Knightt of Meaford Lumber Facttory that feeeds into SPS N No. 4. Area 4 then feeds into area 1. Area – 5: Enco ompasses onlyy the marina and Canadia n Coast Guarrd and Harbour Masters O Offices fe eeding into SP PS No. 5. Areaa 5 then feeds into area 1..
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
17
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
3.4.3.1 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 1 SPS No. 1, also known as the Bighead River SPS,, is located eaast of Sykes SStreet and sou uth of the Bigghead el inverted siphon conneccts the area nnorth of the Bighead Riveer to the SPSS. The River. A double barre station was reconstruccted in 1991 and consistss of a reinforrced concretee wet well divided into tw wo (2) compartm ments by a common wall. The statio on is equippe ed with four (4) 66 kW su ubmersible ppumps, three (3) duty and d one (1) standby, each rated at 104.6 L//s at a TDH off 25.5 m. The station also includes a beelow grade reeinforced con ncrete control building structture housing a standby diesel d generattor, fuel sup pply, flow meeter, all assocciated piping, he eating, ventilaation, electriccal and contro ol system. There is a 600 mm diameter d ove erflow pipe with w provisioon for installiing chlorinattion equipmeent to A 300 mm diaameter forcem main connectts the disinfect aany raw sewaage overflows to the Bighead River. A Bighead R River SPS to th he WWTP loccated at 35 Grrant Avenue iin the south eeast end of M Meaford. 3.4.3.2 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 2 SPS No. 2 2 was constru ucted at the WWTP site in i 1978 to seervice the southeast area of Meaford.. The station is a wet well/dry well facility equipped d with two (22) variable sp peed 37 kW pumps (Fairbanks Morse model 5414) complete c witth Benshaw VFD drives. The wet w well has a sttorage capacity of approximately 22 m³. Flow monito oring at the sttation is donee using an En ndress & Hau user magneticc flow meter and d a seven (7) day circular cchart recorder. Overflow from SPS No. 2 is directed d to the mainttenance hatcch at the shorre of Georgian n Bay at the eend of Aiken Street. Overflo ow will only occur follow wing the surcharging of th he sewer sysstem and req quires manual operation of a gate located on a 450 mm m diameter crross line to th he existing 600 mm plant o outfall line. 3.4.3.3 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 3 SPS No. 3 is located on n the east sid de of Sykes Sttreet North d irectly north of Pete’s Creeek, approxim mately 150 m southeast of Grrandview Drivve. The statio on services a small residen ntial area at tthe northwesst end of the Urban Municipality. All flow w passing thro ough this staation is pump ped into the gravity sewer that eventuallyy passes thro ough the inve erted siphon aand into SPS No. 1. The sttation is equiipped with on ne (1) 12.5 L/s at 9.6 m TDH p pump and one (1) 2.2 kW pump rated ffor 3 L/s. 3.4.3.4 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 4 4 located at the east end d of Boucher Street, servi ces Stanley KKnights Limited. The stattion is SPS No. 4, equipped with two (2), 2.2 kW Myyers pumps. Flow F passing through thiss station is liffted to the ggravity eet to flow byy gravity to SP PS No. 1. sewer on Boucher Stre 3.4.3.5 Sewage Pu umping Stattion No. 5 Offices SPS No. 5 located on SSt. Vincent Street services the Canadia n Coast Guarrd and Harbour Masters O as well ass some washrrooms located at the Marina. The statiion is equipp ped with two (2), 1.5 kW M Myers pumps. Flow passing tthrough this station is lifte ed to the graavity sewer o on St. Vincentt Street to flo ow by gravity to SPS No. 1. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
18
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
3.4.4 3 Wasttewater Trreatment Plant The Meafford WWTP was construccted in 1969 9 and startedd service in 11970. The plant is a high h rate activated sludge proce ess plant with h continuous discharge (a fter UV disinfection) into Georgian Baay and aerobic digestion with land disposal of biosolids. The plant haas no processses specificallly for phosphorous removal. The plant is located in a residential are ea that can bbe liable to no oise and odou ur complaintss. The 3 plant is raated for an AD DF of 3,910 m m /day comprised of:
Th he head worrks consists of o one (1) co oarse bar scrreen with 255 mm bar spacing and on ne (1) au utomatic fine e bar screen w with 3 mm op penings. Therre is also an aaeration and secondary claarifier byypass line an nd odour suppression eq quipment thaat can be in ntroduced intto the headw works ch hannel on an as‐required b basis. Th here are two (2) circular aaeration tankss, operating i n parallel, each with an in nternal diameeter of 10 0.9 m and SW WD of 5.9 m. m There is a fine air bubbble diffuser ssystem in eacch of the aerration taanks. Tw wo (2) circulaar secondary clarifiers operate in parall el with an intternal diametter of 12.2 m and a SW WD of 2.9 m. m In each of the clarifiers there is a mechanical rrake arm and d skimmer blades, hopper, scum trough, scum m baffles and w weir plates. Th he parshall flume chamber is equipped d with continuuous level transmitters. UV disinfection in two (2) cchannels, one e (1) of whichh is equipped d with indepeendently power UV laamp moduless and one (1) channel equ uipped with w weir and isolaation gates fo or future UV lamp modules. Ther m re is also a UV V bypass pipe and isolationn valve. Th he WAS and RAS pumpingg stations each have two (2) pumps. TThe WAS pum mps dischargee into th he biosolids treatment facility. The RASS pumps dischharge into thee headworks. Th he biosolids sstabilization aand storage ffacility consissts of one (1)) two (2) stagge aerobic diggester co omplete with h the followin ng: two (2) air a blowers, tthree (3) slud dge transfer//decanting pu umps, one (1) two (2) celled liquid d biosolids sto orage tank annd one (1) bio osolids transfeer building. Th he septage an nd leachate receiving facility consists oof one (1) belo ow grade con ncrete storagee tank 3 with an approx w ximate volum me of 80 m . Th he Outfall se ewer is 600 mm m in diame eter, extendinng approximaately 450 m into Georgian Bay opposite the e end of Aikin Sttreet.
3.5 Natural Environm ment Meaford’ss significant natural featu ures include the t Georgian Bay shorelin nes, the Bighead River an nd the Niagara Escarpment. E The Bighead d River is an extensive 30km system with asso ociated tributaries dischargin ng into Georggian Bay. The e Bighead Rive er is known tto have the ffollowing fish species inhaabit it; rainbow ttrout, brown trout, bass, w whitefish and d Chinook sa lmon. With tthis variety off fish, the Bigghead River is a popular location for recre eational and sport fishing.. The Niagaraa Escarpmentt is located ou utside of the boundaries of the Meaford U Urban Area so does not faall within the study area o of the Masterr Plan. Additionaal natural fe eatures of Meaford incclude forestss, rolling vaalleys and w wetlands. Seeveral environmentally prote ected area corridors surrrounding thee watercoursee system aree located weest of Meaford’ss WWTP. Dire ectly south off Meaford’s W WWTP are thee shorelines o of the old Lakke Algonquin. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
19
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
A map of the various e environmentaal features, lo ocated withinn the Municip pality of Meafford, can be ffound in Appendix B of Meaford’s Officiial Plan. Add ditional mapss in the Mastter Plan iden ntify land usee and transportation.
4.0 Future Co F ondition ns To fully understand u th he Municipality of Meaford’s water annd wastewater infrastructture needs, ffuture conditions were assesssed. Full builld‐out condittions were esstimated usin ng population n growth data and land deve elopment plan nning, outline ed in Meaford d’s Official Plaan. Full build d‐out is defineed as the com mplete developm ment of all avaailable land w within the urban area as deescribed by th he Official Plaan.
4.1 Populattion Grow wth The Grey County Grow wth Managem ment Strateggy Report com mpleted by M Malone Given n Parsons Ltd d. was d to The Co orporation off the Countyy of Grey inn April 2008.. The reportt provides grrowth submitted projection ns for Municipalities within the Grey Co ounty. The poopulation pro ojections for tthe Municipality of Meaford are detailed in Table 3. Population within the m municipal areea is predicteed to increase by 1. approximately 5% everry five (5) yeaars until 2021 Ta able 3 - Population Grow wth for the M Municipality o of Meaford Municipality of Meafo ord
06 200
201 11
20116
20021
20 026
20 031
11,4 400
12,0 000
12,5500
13,1100
13,300
13,,500
w the Mu unicipality of Meaford haas occurred p predominantly within the rural Historically, growth within he number off dwellings inn the urban aarea increaseed by 104 an nd the areas. Between 2001 and 2006, th number o of dwellings in n the rural arrea increased d by 212. Thiss correspondss to a growth h allocation of 33% in the urb ban area and d 67% in the rural area. The T Growth M Managementt Strategy Report suggestss that Municipalities should adopt policie es that will encourage groowth within tthe urban areea and discourage growth in n the rural arrea. The Mun nicipality of Meaford M wass assigned a target to ach hieve 60% off total growth within the urbaan area. ord consolida ted on May 14th 2014 haas adopted seeveral The Officiial Plan for the Municipallity of Meafo policies to o encourage infilling and intensification n of the urba n area and discourage furrther develop pment of the su urrounding ru ural area. Th he Official Plaan projects aa total increease of 1,100 0 new houseeholds between 2006 and 202 26 for a popu ulation increase of 1,900. IIt is the goal o of the Municipality to havve 990 or 90% of o the additio onal dwellinggs within the urban area.. For the gro owth within the urban arrea, a minimum target of 10% % or 99 home es are to be e established thhrough intenssification. ed from Stattistics Canada’s website on July 30thh, 2014, stattes that the total Census data, retrieve populatio on in 2006 for the urban area a was 4,6 686 and increeased to 4,9992 by 2011, aan increase o of 306 residents.. The populaation of the Municipality increased fr om 10,948 in 2006 to 11,100 in 201 11, an increase of o 152 reside ents. This sugggests that th here is a net influx to thee urban Municiaplity and a net Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
20
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
efflux from the rural area. It also o suggests that the Municcipality’s receent efforts to o promote grrowth within the e urban area have been su uccessful and d that achieviing the goal o of having 90% % of new resiidents settle in the urban area is attainable e. M is able to co ontinue mee ting the 90% % urban setttlement goal, the Assumingg that the Municipality de by populatio on within the e urban area is projected in Table 4. The projectiions in Tablee 4 were mad allocatingg 90% of the p projected pop pulation incre ease for the M Municipality to o the urban aarea. Ta able 4 - Population Grow wth for the U Urban Area o of Meaford Meaford Urban Area
06 200
201 11
20116
20021
20 026
20 031
4,68 86*
4,99 92*
5,4442
5,9982
6,1 162
6,3 342
*SStatistics Can nada census d data. The Sched dule C Class EA for the WWTP W completed in 20077 also provideed population projectionss. The report prresented a “LLow” and “H High” forecasst for populaation growth within the municipal arrea as presented d below in Table 5. Table T 5 - 200 07 Municipal Class EA P Population F Forecasts
200 06
201 11
20116
20021
20 026
20 031
Low Foreccast
4,81 11
5,93 32
7,4438
8,9944
10,450
11,,957
High Fore ecast
4,88 83
6,14 48
8,1 56
10,1164
12,173
14,,181
h anticipated under the Grrey County Grrowth Managgement Strateegy is consideerably The population growth h that was prrojected in 20 007 for the C lass EA of thee WWTP. Bassed on the cu urrent lower thaan the growth growth ovver the past 8 years, the forecast from the Grey CCounty reporrt appears to be more in‐touch with the aactual trends.. A compariso on of the grow wth forecastss is presented d in Figure 4.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
21
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Comparison of P Populatio on Projecttions 16,000
Population in the Urban Area
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000 2006
2011
2016
Gre ey County Report FForecast
2021
Class EA Low Foorecast
2026
2031
Class EA High Forrecast
Figure e 4 - Comparison of Grow wth Forecassts
4.2 Water D Demand P Projection ns To determ mine the neccessary wate er infrastructure needed to adequateely service th he Municipality of Meaford, it is necessaary to first co onsider the full f build‐out scenario asssuming the d development of all nd in the urbaan area in acccordance with the Officiall Plan of the M Municipality of Meaford. B Based vacant lan on the cu urrent zoningg and amoun nt of vacant land, the ulttimate waterr demand was estimated d. The additional water use for f the urban n area is estiimated at 4,0040 m³/d upon ultimate build‐out wh hich is han the curre ent water dem mand of 1,4660 m³/d. The ultimate build‐out flow w will be significanttly greater th used to esstimate the n need for upgraading existingg infrastructuure such as the following:
Watermain siz W e capacity exp Water storage W pansion Additional watter BPSs or up pgrades to exxisting stationns
The wate er use is expected to increase proporrtionately wiith the popu ulation of thee urban areaa. The MOECC Design D Guidelines suggest that water systems s shouuld be based on 450 L/cap/day on thee high range. Based on data ffrom other Municipalities iin Ontario, thhe average waater use is ab bout 350L/cap p/day. The averaage of the past three (3)) years per capita c flow rrate in the M Municipality o of Meaford is 287 3 L/cap/dayy. The WTP capacity is 26,848 2 m /daay which is ssignificantly laarger than th he daily flow w. The water use e projection fo or 2031 show w the high, mo oderate, and water use flo ow is shown in Figure 5 below.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
22
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Projeccted Wate er Deman nd (Max D Day) 3,500
Flow (m3/day)
3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2006
2011
20 016
2021
Past Projected (350/L/cap/day))
2026
Projected (4450L/cap/day) Projected (2287 L/cap/day)
203 31
Figure 5 - Waterr Use Projecction for 2031 1
4.3 Wastew water Flow w Projectiions Wastewatter flows were also proje ected based on o the ultimaate build‐outt using the O Official Plan o of the Municipality of Meafo ord. Based on o the amount of vacantt land and zoning, it is eestimated th hat an additional 4,040m³/d of sewage flow will be produced p by the urban arrea when fully developed d. The current ADF is 2,600 m m³/d. The ultim mate build‐ou ut flow will b e used to exaamine the need for upgrad des to existing in nfrastucture ssuch as the fo ollowing:
Sewermain siz S ze Treatment pla T ant expansion ns Additional SPS A Ss or upgrade es to existing stations
The sewaage flow is exxpected to in ncrease propo ortionately w with the popu ulation of the urban areaa. The Municipality allots resserve capacitty to planne ed developmeents on the assumption that the avverage d has 2.4 pe ersons, each contributing 540 L/day oof sewage flo ows. MOECC design guidelines household suggest th he design of ssewage syste ems should be e based on ann average flow rate of 450 0 L/cap/day. Other Municipalities in Onttario have been b able to o achieve veery low per capita flow rates throu ugh a on strategies and the elim mination of I//I issues. A hiigh, moderate and combination of water use reductio low projection of sewaage flow for 2 2031 is shown n in Figure 6 bbelow.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
23
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Projected d Sewagee Flow 4,000 4 3,800 3 Flow (m3/d)
3,600 3 3,400 3 3,200 3 3,000 3 2,800 2 2,600 2 2006
2011
20 016
2021
Past
Pro ojected (540 L//cap/d)
Projected (300 L/cap p/d)
Ratted Capacity
2026
2031 1
0 L/cap/d) Projected (450
Figu ure 6 - Sewa age Flow Pro rojection to 2 2031
5.0 Problem P Identification 5.1 Problem m Stateme ent The functtion of the prroblem statem ment for the Meaford Maaster Plan Claass EA is to o outline the starting point of th he undertakin ng and define e the project sscope. Followingg evaluation of o the existin ng systems an nd the projeccted growth based on thee Official Plan n, the problem sstatement forr the Meaford d Master Plan n is outlined bbelow. The Meafford Water and Wastewatter systems m must continuee to meet the needs of thee community in the most economical and sustainable m manner, in full compliancee with regulattions, and with minimal im mpact on the naatural environ nment. As su uch, the existting systems have been reeviewed to id dentify and d define their cond dition, compliance and pe erformance‐re elated issues that might aaffect the ability of the sysstems to meet fu uture needs. As a result, th his master servicing study will address:: Water Sup pply
Th he replacement/ rehabiliitation of un ndersized an d older wattermains to provide adequate pressures and fire flows witthin the existing communiity. Exxisting pressu ure zone bou undaries and d BPS requireements to prrovide for reeplacement o of the exxisting Nelson n St. BPS, to meet the nee eds of growthh in the studyy area and to o provide a reeliable an nd secure sysstem. Additional wattermains to m meet the need ds of growth in the study aarea.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
24
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Water W storage e to meet the needs of growth g in thee study area and to provvide a reliablee and se ecure system.
Wastewatter Collection n
Th he replaceme ent/ rehabilitaation of deficcient sewermaains identified through I/I studies. Components o of the WWTP are over 45 yyears old and require upgrrading to meeet future need ds. Pe eak flows to tthe WWTP exxceed the dessign capacity of some treattment processses. Im mprovementss to the plant control systems have thhe potential to improve p plant perform mance an nd reduce energy use. An addendum m to the 200 07 Schedule C Class EA will be requ uired to add dress revised flow projections an nd to take account of reductions to peeak flows as a result of w wastewater syystem im mprovementss. Upgrades mayy be required to meet the rrevised efflueent requiremeents.
5.2 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterrmains The wate er distribution n system in Meaford has a substanttial need for watermain rehabilitation n and replacement based on the age, size e and materiaal of the pipess. The currentt system expeeriences both h flow and presssure problem ms. The most significant problem p withh the networrk is the exisstence of 100 0 mm primarily cast iron watermains. MOECC M guide elines state tthat for systtems designeed to provide fire n, the diameter of waterm mains should d be a minim um of 150 m mm. Figure 7 shows the syystem protection nodes witth inadequate e fire flow (firre flow less th han 38 L/s) duuring MDD an nd fire flow conditions. Figgure 7 also show ws all 100 mm m diameter pip pes in red.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
25
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figure 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Identification of 100 mm Diameter Pipes and Nodes with Unacceptable Fire Flow
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 26
From Figu ure 7 it can b be seen that inadequate fire flow occuurs mainly in areas that arre serviced b by 100 mm wate ermain. Replacing these se ections of pip pe with 150 m mm diameterr watermain p provides adequate fire flow cconditions. Th he replaceme ent of these pipes will also allow compliiance with MOECC guidelines. Additionaally, all cast iron pipes in th he system are e of concern due to their age ranging ffrom 50‐100 yyears. Cast iron watermains aare known to o experience ccorrosion andd tuberculatio on which both negatively affect flow and remaining life. Corrosion affects the sttructural inteegrity of the p pipe increasin ng the chance of a watermain break. Tub berculation causes c a buildup of corroosion material inside thee pipe resultiing in decreased d pipe capaccity. To provide improved d and more reliable serviice to the w water customeers in Meaford, these pipes sshould be sch heduled for re epair or repla cement within the masterr plan program m.
5.3 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Storage R Reservoirr With a cu urrent water sstorage reserrvoir capacityy of 2,880 m3,, the Municip pality of Meaford has adequate capacity for f the existing populatio on. Based on MOECC storrage requirem ments, the cu urrent storagge can service a population of o 5,806 peop ple. The MOEECC outlines the method for obtainingg the total treated water sto orage requirements for a ssystem. With expected grrowth in the urban area aand a full builld‐out populatio on of approximately 12,00 00 people, calculations forr required sto orage volume were comp pleted and are sh hown below. Based on the e full build‐ou ut populationn, a fire flow o of 209.67 L/s for a duration of 3 hours was used in accordance with h MOECC Guiidelines. A m aximum day factor of 1.6 6707 (from exxisting ulate the MD DD. data) wass used to calcu Total Treaated Water Sttorage Requirrements = A + + B + C Where:
A = Firre Storage; B = Equalization Sto orage (25% off MDD); and mergency Storrage (25% of A A + B) C = Em Table 6 – Treated T Watter Storage Required Vo olumes A B C Tottal Storage
d Volume Required 2,2664.40 1,5003.67 9422.02 4,7110.09
Based on full build‐ou ut an addition nal 1,830 m3 of storage w will be requirred resulting in a total storage 3 volume off 4,710 m . With the majority of the current storage being llocated at th e WTP on thee north side o of the community, ested that ovverall system security be considered w when locatingg the additional water sto orage. it is sugge The added d storage sho ould provide ssecurity for peak demandss and fire flow w across the eentire system m.
5.4 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Booster Stations The Meafford water disstribution sysstem has two (2) BPS, Nelsson Street BPPS and St. Vinccent Street BPS, to maintain adequate pressure throughout the system. Moddelling was completed tto analyze syystem Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
27
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
pressuress for the exissting demand d scenario an nd for the fulll build‐out sscenario. The modelling results show how w the BPSs perform p unde er existing an nd full build‐oout scenarioss. Figures 8 aand 9 provid de the modellingg results durring MDD pllus fire flow for existingg conditions and full bu uild‐out cond ditions respective ely.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
28
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figure 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Conditions for Available Fire Flow during Maximum Day Demand
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 29
Figure 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Full Build-Out Conditions for Available Fire Flow during Maximum Day Demand
Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 30
The system pressures during MDD and fire flow show that thhe Nelson Strreet BPS is no ot sized adequ uately for full bu uild‐out cond ditions and caannot provide e adequate fiire flow undeer existing co onditions. Thiis BPS has only o one (1) pump p with no standby power or additional standby pum mps. This is o of greater con ncern, as the Me eaford Hospittal is located in the Nelson n Street Boosster Zone and d requires adeequate pressu ure to reduce po otential conse equences. The current BPSS is located inn the road rigght of way in a buried chaamber with no ro oom for expaansion. To increase the sysstem pressurees and fire flo ow in the Nelson Street Bo ooster Zone to an acceptable level, a new BPS needs to o be constructted. 010 and prov ides adequatte pressure to o St. Vincent SStreet The St. Vincent Street BPS was consstructed in 20 existing and fu ull build‐out cconditions. T his BPS has the necessaryy duty and staandby Booster ZZone during e pumps in place to deal with the plaanned expanssion in the so uth end of M Meaford. Analysis of the exxisting conditions shows that there are sevveral areas off low pressuree in the St. Viincent Street Booster Zonee. The low pressure is primarily due to und dersized pipes. The main n pressure zo one encompaases the majority of urbaan Meaford including thee urban coree, and extends from the lake e level to app proximately the 202 m eleevation conto our. It is supp plied directlyy from the WTP high lift pum mps. Pressure is controlled based on thhe existing eleevated tank w which contro ols the high lift pump p cycling. Based on the minimum elevated tannk level of 228 m elevatiion, a static w water pressure of only 26 m m (265 KPa) is available at the Presssure Zone 22 pressure bo oundary, wh hich is he minimum pressure requ uirement for the pressuree zone. The w water model sshows inadequatte to meet th that prop perties to the e north of Pre essure Zone 2 exhibit low w pressures aand this area extending fu urther north to Highway 26 will w see significant develo opment. Withh the existingg pressure zo one boundaryy, it is ea which gen nerally extendds from 200 m m elevation tto 195 m elevvation therefore possible that that the are could exh hibit low pressures if the e existing HGL, controlledd by the elevvated tank, aand pressure zone boundarie es remain.
5.5 Water – – Capacity y of Existin ng Waterr Treatme ent Plant Historical flow data at the Meaford d WTP was co ollected from the annual o operating repo orts dating baack to 2006. The e monthly AD DD and MDD o over the 8 year span are pplotted on Figgure 10 below w.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
31
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Hisstorical Flow Data (20006‐2013) 6000 5000
Flow (m3/d)
4000 3000 2000 1000
Monthly Maxim mum Day Demand
Sep‐13
Jan‐13
May‐13
Sep‐12
May‐12
Jan‐12
Sep‐11
May‐11
Jan‐11
Sep‐10
May‐10
Jan‐10
Sep‐09
May‐09
Jan‐09
Sep‐08
May‐08
Jan‐08
Sep‐07
May‐07
Jan‐07
Sep‐06 S 06
May‐06
Jan‐06
0
Monnthly Average Dayy Demand
Linear (Monthlyy Average Day Dem mand)
Figure 10 - Historic cal Flow Datta (2006-201 13) Over the 8‐year span the historical monthly MD DD and montthly ADD are typically higher in the waarmer months (M May through August). Thiss is mostly du ue to the wa rmer and dryyer weather increasing ou utdoor water use e for wateringg lawns/garde ens, filling pools etc. Theree are a few in nstances wherre the MDD o occurs in the colder months o or the MDD is very high compared to tthe other vallues. These h higher than normal MDD valu ues are typicaally due to a watermain break that occcurs and therre is a significcant loss of w water. These higgher than no ormal MDD values v have been b confirm med by the M Municipality of Meaford to be watermain breaks. Comparin ng these peakk values to the e existing WTTP rated capa city of 26,8488 m3/day, durring MDD it ccan be seen that no expansion n is necessaryy. The highestt MDD for thee past three ((3) years is 2,374 m3/day ((467.1 L/cap/dayy), which is 8.8% of the ratted capacity o of the WTP annd is 16.7% of the design ccapacity of a single high lift pump p at the WTP. Since the plant is required to meet MDD, there is mo ore than adequate capacity ffor the presen nt system. Evven when flow ws are increaased due to w watermain breeaks, the flow w was less than 20% of the W WTPs rated capacity. For the fu ull build‐out cconditions ultimate flow prrojections weere calculated d based on th he assumption n that all vacantt land is deve eloped accord ding to the current c zonin g and planning densities within the O Official Plan. The flow generatted from the vacant lands is calculated according to o the factors o outlined in Taable 7 below: mand Table 7 - Water Dem Land Designation Resid dential Comm mercial Indusstrial
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
Waterr Demand 300 L//cap/day 28 m3 /(ha*day) 28 m3 /(ha*day)
32
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
The Muniicipality of Meaford’s M GIS data was ussed to determ mine the disttribution of tthe water demand within the e water mode el based on th he land designation. The M MDD during ffull build‐out is estimated to be 3 4,040 m /day. This is 1 / 15% of the raated capacityy of the WTP,, showing thaat there is mo ore than adequate capacity e even after significant grow wth in Meaford’s urban setttlement areaa.
5.6 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing SSewers An I/I stud dy on the Me eaford Sanitarry Sewer System was comppleted in 20115. The Study has identified d that I/I remain ns a key issue e for the Mun nicipality movving forward. Extraneous fflows are mo ost prevalent south of the Bigghead River b between Janu uary and Marcch and coinciide with snow w melting eveents. Througgh the Municipality’s effort to catalog the e condition of o the sewer system by C CCTV inspection, several major deficiencies have been n identified. Most notablyy a series of cracks, holess and pipe misalignments were identified along Sykes Street south of the Bigheaad River. To aa lesser degreee, cracks and d breaks havee been identified throughout the remaind der of the collection nettwork. Encrustation issuees have also been identified at numerouss locations throughout the e sewer netw ork.
5.7 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing P Pumping Stations Examiningg the existingg capacity off the SPSs in the Meafordd Wastewateer Collection System allow ws for shortcomings and nece essary upgrad des to be iden ntified.
5.7.1 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 1 As indicatted previouslly, SPS No. 1 is equipped with four (44) (Flygt modeel CP3300) 6 66 kW submeersible pumps eaach rated at 1 104.6 L/s at a TDH of 25.5 m m. Two (2) puumps are run by a fixed sp peed drive and two (2) pumps are run by a variable sp peed drive. The T station is rated with aa total firm ccapacity of 18 81 L/s against a TDH of 51 m m. Peak hour flows to the station have been modeled for ultimaate build‐out to be 157 L/s, th herefore the SPS is sufficie ent to supporrt growth withhout any incrrease in capaccity. The statio on is in good overall condition and has experiennced very few operational issues. On ne (1) overflow incident occu urred at the sstation in 199 92 as the ressult of an opeerator error. The flow meeter at ment and nee ds to be replaaced. the station does not prrovide accuraate measurem
5.7.2 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 2 The pump ps at SPS No.. 2 are rated at 148 L/s att a TDH of 188.8 m. Peak hour flows to the station n have been mod deled for ultimate build‐o out to be 46 LL/s, thereforee the station is sufficient tto support grrowth without any increase in n capacity. The SPS iss in good ove erall condition n however it suffers from excessive ragg collection, ccausing the p pumps to become clogged. W When this occu urs the pump p is unable to function and d requires maanual assistan nce to rectify the e problem. W With an increaase in flow during full buiild‐out condittions, it is im mportant to co orrect this problem as it could d become inccreasingly pro oblematic in tthe future.
5.7.3 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 3 The statio on was origin nally oversized and include ed two (2) 722.5 L/s at 9.55 m TDH pum mps. One (1) pump has since been replaced with a 2.2 2 kW pump rated r for 10 L/s. For norm mal operation n the replaceement Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
33
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
pump is ccurrently morre than sufficiient to handle e flows at thee station. How wever, ultimaate build‐out flows are estimated to be 11 1 L/s ADF and d 32 L/s peak day. For ultim mate build‐ou ut it is recom mmended thatt both ps with VFD control be insttalled at the ssite. pumps are replaced byy 20 L/s pump on is in good o overall condittion with no rrecord of opeerational issuees. The statio
5.7.4 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 4 SPS No. 4 4 currently has adequate capacity forr both existinng conditionss and full build‐out condiitions, requiring no increase in capacity. The pumpingg station is inn good overaall condition with no reco ord of nal issues. This SPS currenttly services on nly one (1) cuustomer (Knigght of Meaforrd Lumber Facctory) operation which maay be shut dow wn in the neaar future. It iss recommendded that SPS No. 4 be deco ommissioned d once this occurrs with costs ffor demolition covered by the customeer.
5.7.5 5 Sewa age Pumpiing Station n No. 5 SPS No. 5 5 currently has adequate capacity forr both existinng conditionss and full build‐out condiitions, requiring no increase in capacity. The SPS is in n good overaall condition with no reco ord of operational issues.
5.7.6 5 Future Sewage e Pumping g Station N No. 6 Based on previous plaanning effortss as far back as 2003, thee need for a new SPS (SP PS No. 6) has been opment in the e southwest oof the urban aarea along the future section of identified in order to service develo Coleman Street. The proposed p loccation for the e future SPS is approximaately 100 m south of Meeaford Creek along Coleman SStreet. The co onstruction o of the station is development based an nd is not neceessary until the cconstruction in the southw west of the u urban developpment area ccommences. TThe station w will be located within w the easement of th he road. The new SPS wi ll create a new catchmen nt area whicch will encompasss the future section of Co oleman Streett.
5.8 Wastew water – Ca apacity of Existing W Wastewa ater Treattment Pla ant The existting WWTP in Meaford does not haave the cappacity to serrvice the ultimate population. Additionaally, a numbe er of minor upgrades u are required forr the SPSs w within the urb ban area. Ultimate populatio on is defined aas the full build‐out populaation for the existing comm munity bound daries. The Classs EA of the existing WWTTP was completed in 20077 and outlineed the expan nsion needs o of the plant on tthe basis of an expansion in the urban area to servicce a total pop pulation of 11,500 residen nts. It was assum med within the 2007 Classs EA that the e population in the urban n area of Meaaford would reach r expected to 11,500 byy 2027. This rrate of growth h is no longe o occur as hisstorical trends have shown n that average ggrowth rates are typically around 0.5% %/year in the urban area. Based on thee historical grrowth rate, the u urban area off Meaford willl not reach a population oof 11,500 with hin the next tthirty (30) yeaars. While the e rate of grow wth in the urban area is not expected too occur at succh a rapid pacce, the suggesstions for upgrad des and expansion to the existing plantt remain validd and are carried forward in the alternatives discussed in this Maste er Study. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
34
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Capacitiess of the curre ent unit proce esses at the W WWTP are shoown in Figuree 11.
Proce ess Capaccity In nlet Works
Process
Aerattion Basins
Clarifiers
Disinfection 0.0
2.0
4..0
6.0
8.0
10.00
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Peak Flow (ML/d) Existing
Design Flow
Peak Flow
Ultimate AD DF
Ultiimate Peak Day
Figure e 11 – Existing Unit Proccess Capaciity As shown n in Figure 11, the existin ng plant does not have eenough capaccity to meet the needs o of the ultimate developmentt in the urbaan area and upgrades u andd unit processs expansions of the plan nt are necessaryy. Of the five (5) SPSs in tthe urban are ea, only SPS N No. 3 requiress an increasee in pumping capacity to seervice the ultimaate populatio on. However,, the three (3) major SPSs (SPS No. 1, SSPS No. 2, and d SPS No. 3) w would all benefitt from I&C up pgrades.
5.8.1 5 Classs EA (2007 7) Recomm mendation ns In order tto accommod date the futurre flow to the e WWTP, an expansion off the facility w was recommeended and descrribed in the 20 007 Class EA. The design b basis for the uultimate plantt is summarissed in Table 8 8. Tab ble 8 – 2007 Class EA D Design Basiss Ultimaate Service Arrea Populattion Per Cap pita Flow Rate e (L/c/d) Total AD DF (m3/d) Peakingg Factor Peak Daay Flow (m3/d d)
11,5500 5515 6,0000 3.5 21,0000
The recom mmended upggrades to the e existing proccess are summ marised in Figgure 12.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
35
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Process Capaccity Exissting Inlet Worrks Inlet Scree ens Process
In nlet Grit Removval Aeration Basins Clarifie ers Tertiary Filtratio T on Exissting Disinfectio on Disinfectio on 0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2 25.0
3 30.0
Peak FFlow (ML/d) Existing
Expaansion
Removed
Peak Flow w
ADF (2013)
Predicted Flo ow (Ultimate)
Predicted d Flow (Peak)
Figure 12 2 – 2007 Cla ass EA Plantt Expansion Plan The expeccted effluent limits and de esign objectives of the 20007 Class EA are summarised in Table 9. Limits and E Table 9 – Compliance C Effluent Obje ectives Effluent P Parameter CBOD5 Total Susp pended Solidss Total Phosphorus Total Amm monia Non n‐Freeze Free eze pH
bjectives Compliance Limit Effluent Ob Monthlyy Avg. Mon nthly Loadingg Month hly Avg. Monthly Loaading (mg/L) (kg/d) (mgg/L) (kg/d) 15 87.4 110 58.3 15 87.4 110 58.3 0.8 4.7 2.9 00.5 3.0 17.5 17.5 3.0 5.0 29.1 29.1 5.0 6.0 – 9.5
A detailed description n of each initiaative to upgraade the plantt and the rationale for thee change is listed in Table 10.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
36
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Ta able 10 – Re ecommended Upgrades of the 2007 7 Class EA
Initiative::
Ratiionale: Achieve aerationn basin SRT off 10 days. Priimary clarifieer SOR and SLR capacityy identified aas being beetween 2400 m3/d nt from 3,910 m3/d to 2,700 and 2800 m3/d. Derate plan 3 d. m /d
Derate plaant capacity Establish a new influen nt forcemain.
Existting forcemaiin has been id dentified to b be undersized d. The existing scrreens have b been identifieed as a hyd draulic botttleneck. The sscreens are undersized and will be replaced. works buildin ng will housse properly sized The new headw scre eens and proovide contain nment for aan odour rem moval system and a gritt removal system.
Remove e existing inlet sscreens. Establish a new headw works buildingg.
Repairs are needded for the existing clarifiers and aerration basins as identifi ed by structu ural assessmeent.
Repairs to o concrete strructures
Replace steel s compon nents of seco ondary Unitts in service ffor >40 years,, which is thee expected lifeespan clarifiers. of th his equipmennt. Demolish the abandon ned digester.
No longer in use and there is no plan to use in the futurre.
New Screening facility: Two (2) sccreens, each 6,300 m3/d ADF / 21,300 m3/d peak New grit rremoval syste em Two (2) se eparators, each 21,000 m3/d capacity
Replacements too meet expeccted ADF/Peak flows. Inccludes 300 m3/d recyclee streams. Aeraation tanks a re drained an nnually to remove grit wh hich is time e consuming aand labour in ntensive.
New seco ondary treatm ment Two (2), 7 714 m3 rectan ngular tanks Total SRT 8‐10 days
Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. Addit ional capacity to meet AD DF of 6,000m m3/d in conjjunction withh existing aeraation basins.
New seco ondary clarifie ers Two (2) ciircular tanks 17.5 m diaa, 4.2 m SWD D each
Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. g Addittional capacitty sufficient to meet peak day flow w rate of 19,2440 m3/d
New tertiary treatmen nt system Two (2) trraveling bridgge sand filterss each 21,0 000 m3/d capaacity
moval to m meet the an nticipated reevised Phosphorus rem efflu uent limits byy MOECC or Federal Goverrnment.
New UV d disinfection syystem Two (2) ch hannels, total Currrent UV Systeem is underssized for the ultimate flow w and 6,000 m3/d ADF / wou uld also needd to be movved to incorp porate the teertiary 20,000 m3/d peak treaatment system m. Decommission and re emove existing UV disinfectio on. Expand biiosolids stabilization facilitty with Inco orporation off a specific b biosolids thickening proceess to new WAS thickening redu uce odours/ aaddress comp plaints. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
37
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Initiative:: New odou ur control sysstem New efflu uent pumpingg station Remove d diffuser caps ffrom outfall Upgrade electrical supply distributio on. New stand‐by power ggenerator
Ratiionale: To be b incorporaated as a part of the Mu unicipality’s o odour man nagement sttrategy to aaddress the historical o odour com mplaints at thee site. As p per the requirrements of th he 2007 Class EA Existting caps aare showingg signs of damage caausing inco onsistent rele ase of effluen nt. Existting MCC is rreaching the end of its useeful life and n needs and to be replaced. Existting generatoor not sufficieent to meet th he demands o of the expaanded plant.
5.8.2 5 Chan nges since 2007 Classs EA Since the 2007 Class EA A, there have e been change es to the projjected populaation growth rate as well aas the WWTP. This se ection will outtline the revissed populatio on and flow p projections an nd the ultimate fflow at the W reasoningg behind the p proposed chaanges. In 2007 itt was projected that the p population in the urban a rea of Meafo ord would reaach approxim mately 13,000 byy 2031. The historical h gro owth in the area does nott match the projection off the Class EA A and therefore the population projection n was revised. For the purpposes of this study it was eestimated thaat the populatio on in the urb ban area wo ould reach approximately a y 5,520 by 22031. This revised population estimation is based on a historical average gro owth rate of 0.5%/year w within the urban area. Further, based on an analysis o nd and the ccurrent zoningg, the of the total aarea of vacan nt and underddeveloped lan ultimate ((full build‐outt) population in the urban area is 12,0000. The 2007 Class EA provided a proje ection of ADFF and Peak Floow for 2031 o of 6,000 m3/d d and 20,000 0 m3/d ely. The flow w projection is based on the t 2031 poppulation. Flow w projectionss have been since respective recalculatted based on the ultimate e population o of the urban area and thee existing zon ning to an ultimate populatio on of 12,000. At the ultim mate build‐out of the urbaan area it is projected th hat the ADF aat the 3 3 WWTP will w be 5,950 m /d with a peak flow of o 17,650 m /d. At the ccurrent growtth rate this iis not expected to occur untiil 2180.
5.8.3 5 Existting WWTP P Issues The Meafford WWTP has a rated capacity of 3,91 10 m3/d, withh a peak flow capacity of 11,730 m3/d, aas per the current C of A. A review of th he plant capaacity by the Ainley Group p in 2006 determined thaat the existing clarifiers are aa considerable e hydraulic bo ottleneck, witth the surfacee settling ratee limiting thee peak 3 flow to 6,874 m /d. A review of the capacity analysis,, also comple eted in 20066, was condu ucted by Hyd dromantis Incc. The review co oncluded thatt the existingg aeration baasins are an aadditional bo ottleneck on the basis thaat the plant doe es not have the capacity for nitrificattion. The plaant was originally designed as a high h rate activated sludge proce ess, which is n no longer a tyypical configuuration and does not confo orm to the cu urrent design staandards for either e a convventional activvated sludge or EAAS plants. The repo ort states thaat the WWTP sh hould be designed to operrate at a SRTT much greateer than 10 daays at a MLSSS concentratiion of Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
38
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
less than 3500 mg/l. M MOECC guidelines for EAAS plants statee that the aeration step should have an SRT of fifteen (15) days and a HRT of att least fifteen (15) hours. Based on thee MOECC guid delines the pllant is most heavily constrain ned by the fiffteen (15) ho our HRT whicch would limit the ADF to 1,650 m3/d when compared d to the SRT constraint which w would limit l the plannt to an ADF of 2,566 m3/d. As it currently stands it is recommend ded that the MLSS be keptt at 3500 mg//L. omantis revie ew identified an additionaal constrainin g factor with h respect to the clarifiers aat the The Hydro Meaford WWTP. The existing clariffiers are mucch shallower than recomm mended by th he current M MOECC design gu uidelines. Hyd dromantis ide entified that since the claarifiers are sh hallow there is a much grreater potential for solids to over flow th he weirs at peak flows pa rticularly as tthe sludge blanket thickeens. In order to prevent p solid ds from leavin ng the sedimentation bassin it is recom mmended thaat the RAS raate be kept at 10 00%. Based on the MOECC C design guide elines before 2008, at an A ADF of 2600 m m3/d, a RAS rate of 100% with an MLSS of o 3500 mg/L the existing clarifiers weere limited to o a peak flow w of 5,316 m3/d to meet a peak p solids lo oading rate of o 120 kg/m2∙d. Since 20008, MOECC has increaseed the peak solids loading raate to 170 kg//m2∙d which increases the peak flow to 8,656 m3/d. The existing screens arre not ideallyy located at th he plant. In oorder to incorrporate new process train ns into the plant,, the headworks will need to be set bacck from the aeeration tank aarea in orderr to allow space for flow splittting after scre eening. The e existing scree en is also unddersized to meet the peak flows at the plant 3 with a peaak capacity off 9,842 m /d. The existing disinfectio on consists off two (2) chan nnels, one (1 ) equipped w with UV lamp modules rateed for ow of 5,720 m m3/d and a second channel equipped w with weir and isolation chaannel for future UV a peak flo lamp mod dules, with a UV bypass an nd isolation valve. The ex isting disinfecction is undersized to meeet the existing peak flows. Overall it has been re ecommended d that the plant be deratted to an AD DF of 2,700 m3/d with a peak 3 capacity o of 8,100 m /d d.
5.8.4 5 Chan nges to the e Class EA Recomme endations While the e majority of recommendaations from the 2007 Classs EA remain valid, there aare changes tto the Class EA that are recom mmended bassed on the re esults of this m master plan sstudy. The Class EA recomme ended that the plant be up pgraded to m meet the ADF of 6,000 m3/d d and 20,000 0 m3/d peak in one o single upggrade. Based d on the projected rate off growth and d the resultin ng increase in n flow over the next twenty (20) years, a full upgrade of the plant in order to sservice the ulltimate population ot be required d in the near tterm. should no As discusssed in the 20 007 EA, the effluent limit ffor phosphorrus is expecteed to changee as a result o of any upgrades to the plantt. However, a a new limit requiring r terttiary filtration n is not expeected. A survvey of plants discharging into o Georgian Baay close to Meaford suggeests that a pho osphorus limit of 1 mg/L w would be impose ed. An effluent concentration of 1 mg//L phosphoruus could be aachieved by aa single‐point alum injection. The changed d phosphoru us limit will in ncrease the volume of slludge producced. The exp pected m increase in sludge produ uction is 15% %. It is anticippated that th he plant can handle an A ADF of maximum Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
39
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
4420 m3/d / (a 15% inccrease from current ADF volumes) whhile still haviing sufficientt capacity to store sludge witthout a need for expansion, assuming h hauling occurrs every 6 mo onths. The influe ent forcemain n was identified as being u undersized fo r the ultimatee flows at thee WWTP. Based on available information, the influentt forcemain has a diametter of 450 m mm. A 450 m mm forcemain will provide su ufficient capaacity for the p projected peak flows. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
40
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Ph hase 2 2 Alte ernatiive So olution ns
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
41
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
6.0 General A G Alternattives For the water w and wastewater systems in Meaaford, deficienncies have beeen identified that will reequire future upgrades. In addition, the Meaford Officiaal Plan identi fies zoning fo or growth thaat will also ressult in additional water and d wastewater facilities. A A long list of alternativves was form mulated for each component of the systtem and is evvaluated base ed on establi shed criteria. The followin ng two (2) geeneral alternativves were also identified and are evaluatted as applicaable to all com mponents of tthe systems:
Do nothing Liimit/manage growth
6.1 Do Noth hing The Mastter Servicing Study must effectively de eal with all aaspects of th he problem sstatement. Th he Do water Nothing alternative a does not provvide any add ditional capaccity for Meaford’s Waterr and Wastew systems aand therefore e does not me eet the requirements of t he Official Plan. Due to tthe age of most of the existiing compone ents, and ch hanging Provincial Regulaations, the M Municipality will inevitab bly be required to upgrade most water and wastewaater systems in order to remain in ccompliance and to maintain the health an nd safety of tthe citizens o of Meaford. TThe Do Nothing Alternativve in these caases is therefore considered n not viable and d was screene ed out of the detailed com mparative asseessment.
6.2 Limit/M Manage Grrowth Not all of the problem ms identified w with the wate er and wastew water infrastructure in Meeaford are a result h, and so limiting growth w would not ad ddress all of tthe problemss. In addition,, placing a lim mit on of growth growth do oes not align with the Mu unicipality of Meaford appproved Officiaal Plan and b because of this the Limit/Man nage Growth Alternative w was screened out of the deetailed comparative assessment.
7.0 Water Di W istribution Alterrnatives As noted in Phase 1 of o the projecct and confirrmed throughh modeling, tthe existing water distrib bution quires improvvement to corrrect deficien cies, includin ng: being undeersized for exxisting system in Meaford req demand sscenarios; beiing partially p plugged due tto corrosion pproducts; and d due to age. While this seection addressess alternativess for watermaain renewal, tthere is no g lobal “preferrred alternative” for this aaspect of the pro oject. The prreferred alterrnative for eaach section oof watermain n will depend d on the partticular circumstaances in that street and waatermain con ndition. The inntent of this section is to identify guidelines for determining the preferred p solution on eacch section off watermain. Various w watermain ren newal uated during Phase 2 of th he master plaanning processs are: options arre available. The renewal options evalu 1. Watermain Re W ehabilitation (Relining) 2. Watermain Re W eplacement The main reasons that deteriorated d watermains should be reenewed are lissted below:
Preserve water quality
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
42
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Prevent structural failure Prevent water loss Im mprove hydraaulic capacity and pressure e
Relining is the most common c wattermain rehaabilitation opption available for metal pipes. Watermain relining in nvolves drillin ng back to pipe metal an nd using a maaterial such aas epoxy or cement morttar to protective ely line the in nside of the e existing pipes. The lining aadds a smootth non‐structural coating tto the interior surface of the e pipe which h prevents fu urther corrosiion and oxid dation of the pipe interio or and increases the hydrauliic capacity off the waterm main. The num mber of servvice connectio ons, valves, b bends and appurtenances will affect the ccost of the lining projects. The cost of liining is generrally less expeensive than replaacement, pro ovided the piipe has a reaasonable rem maining life. TThe expected service life o of the pipe can b be extended by 30 to 50 yyears with liniing procedurees if the pipe is in good structural cond dition. For older pipes, typical of the Meaford water sysstem, reliningg may not be the most eco onomical solu ution. ent is the other o most common c wattermain reneewal alternative and is more Watermain replaceme applicable e when a pipe e is closer to the end of itss useful life a nd may fail to o provide adeequate servicce and does not have enough h structural sttrength, and becomes proone to failuree. In Meaford d, one of the main concerns is the amou unt of underssized waterm mains and cleearly replacem ment is prefeerred for theese in order to p provide adequate service. While initial watermain rreplacement costs are mo ore expensivee than other renewal optionss, this option extends the useful life by far longer an nd reduces fu uture mainten nance costs. Replaced watermain sizes can be incre eased to meeet demandss thereby inccreasing hyd draulic capacity of the wate ermain. The service life of the wateermain will b be the full d design life o of the replacement pipe and ranges from 50 years to 125 years.
8.0 Water St W orage Allternativ ves There are e different types of municcipal water storage optio ns available ffor the Meafford Water SSupply System. The T two (2) main m categories include floating storagge and pump ped storage. Common typ pes of floating sttorage are elevated steel or composite e steel/concrrete tanks as well as grou und‐ based sttorage such as standpipes s where w stored water is ab bove the reqquired HGL. PPumped storrage consistss of a reservoir that can be located in‐gground, above ground or partially in‐gground wherre water is sstored e required HG GL and still ne eeds to be pumped, usuallly from an atttached BPS. TTo increase syystem below the security, tthe location o of a new storaage reservoir is suggested to be in the St. Vincent Sttreet Boosterr Zone on the so outh end of the water disttribution systtem, and at tthe highest eelevation. In aan emergenccy this tank could d then supplyy the whole system. The St. Vincent Strreet BPS alreaady pumps w water to the H HGL of the pressure zone, the erefore the construction o of pumped sttorage would d mean a losss of pressure to fill the reservoir and add ditional energgy to re‐pum mp the wate r. For this reeason, only ffloating storaage is considere ed for the St. Vincent Stree et Boosted Zo one. Three (33) options weere evaluated d during Phase 2 of the maste er planning prrocess: 1. Elevatted Storage Tank 2. Standp pipe Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
43
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
3. In‐Gro ound Reservo oir Constructe ed at above the Minimum m Pressure Eleevation
Elevated tanks, eitherr as steel or composite taanks, providee storage at or above thee required syystem pressure. Since no add ditional pump ping is requirred, this storaage is consideered as a seccure water storage option. Th he most common adopted d tank design n in Ontario i s a compositte tank design n which inclu udes a steel tankk on top of a concrete pe edestal. This type t of consttruction has larger initial costs but red duced yearly ope erational and d maintenance e costs becau use of the lackk of additionaal pumping reequired. The stand dpipe design combines the functions of o both elevaated and pum mped storagee. A standpip pe is a steel or concrete c cylin nder containing storage th hat is partiallly above the required sysstem pressure and partially below this le evel. The waater below the required system presssure is unussable withou ut the of a pumping station. Due e to the disadvantages asssociated with this type of w water storage, the addition o standpipe e design was n not considere ed as a viable option for thhis project. In‐ground d reservoirs constructed c of o concrete or o steel can aalso provide ffloating storaage, if constrructed above the e HGL. In‐ground concrete e storage allows for the abbility to have staged consttruction and is less visible to the public. nsion projectt, both elevatted tank storage and in‐grround For the proposed Meaaford water sstorage expan storage w will be considered, as thesse types of sttorage have sshown to be the best avaailable options. For the addittion of storaage within th he St. Vincen nt Street Booosted Zone, floating sto orage is the most appropriaate and econo omical solutio on, provided either as ann elevated tan nk or as an in n‐ground con ncrete reservoir.
9.0 Water Bo W ooster Pu umping Station Optionss The Nelso on Street BPSS does not provide adequaate hydraulicc capacity to Pressure Zon ne 2 (Nelson SStreet Boosted Zone). Z The station s does not have staandby pumpiing capacity or standby p power. A new w BPS should be e installed to correct the n non‐complian nce issues andd improve th he hydraulic ccapacity within the pressure zone. The hospital is loccated within the pressuree zone; thereefore it is im mperative thaat the provide adequ uate fire flow ws and pressures for the ho ospital. hydraulic capacity be improved to p ning the Nelso on Street Pressure Zone, two (2) alternnatives have b been identifieed for a new w water In examin BPS. onstruct BPS at the Water Tower Site 1. Co 2. Co onstruct BPS in the Parkin ng Lot of the Meaford & SSt. Vincent Co ommunity Ceentre & Arenaa Alternativve 1 is at the existing watter tower site e. The properrty is large enough to acccommodate aa BPS. This property is owned d by the Mun nicipality, the erefore there will be no laand acquisitio on costs assocciated with this alternative. O One major advantage of th his site is thatt the waterm main feeding tthe tower pro ovides good sucttion pressure e to the BPS u under all dem mand scenari os. Approxim mately 335m of watermain n that would con nnect to Presssure Zone 2 w would need tto be upgradeed from a 1500 mm diametter watermain to a 200 mm diameter waatermain to ensure e adequ uate pressur es and flowss from pump p discharge tto the Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
44
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
pressure zzone. Figure 13 shows location 1 for th he proposed B BPS. The otheer advantagee of this altern native is that it facilitates ch hanges to the e Pressure Zo one 1 operattion by dediccating the w water tower tto the Nelson Street Booster Zone. w BPS in the e parking lot of the Meafford & St. Viincent Comm munity Alternativve 2 is to construct a new Centre & Arena. This p property is ow wned by the Municipality,, therefore th here will be n no land acquiisition costs associated with this option. The 150 mm m diameterr watermain (approximattely 240 m) along Collingwo ood Street wo ould need to be upgraded d to a 200mm m diameter w watermain fro om the new B BPS to Thompson Street to provide ade equate water supply to the station.. A new 200 0 mm watermain mately 340 m) will have to be installed to connect innto the existin ng watermain n at Pressuree Zone (approxim 2. Figure 1 14 shows locaation 2 for the proposed B BPS.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
45
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figure 13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Booster Pump Station Alternative 1 Location Municipality of Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 46
Figure 14 – Booster Pump Statio on Alternativ ve 2 Location Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan
47
April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106
10.0 Water Tr W reatmen nt Plant A Alternattives The existing WTP is in full compliiance with all regulationss and can meet the full build‐out demand without e expansion or u upgrade. The e only issue to o be addresseed at the WTPP is low presssure in some areas of the main pressure zone controlle ed by the high h lift pumps aand elevated ttank. It is noted that when the WTP pumps are in operation, o th is pressurezo one has adeq quate pressurre. To further an nalyse why th his area experriences low pressure, the hhydraulic model was run w with Pressuree Zone 1 being su upplied from the elevated d tank with no WTP pumpps running. Th his situation likely occurs often as the pumps cycle offf and on as th he elevated tank fills. Moddel results baased on Presssure Zone 1 ssupply from just the elevated d tank exhibit significant pressure droop across the pressure zone. In the exxisting area expe pa (8 – 10 psi) when thee WTP eriencing pressure problems, the presssure drops bby 60 – 70 Kp pumps are switched offf and the are ea is supplied d by the elevaated tank. Mo odeling resultts show that when the minim mum HGL in the pressure zzone is increaased from 23 2 m ASL (which is the tank full elevatio on) to 239 m ASSL (which is typically t the HGL H at the WTP W from thee high lift pumps), all areas of the preessure zone have e adequate prressure. To solve tthis problem, two (2) alternatives were considered:
Alternative 1: Expand the Nelson St Booster B Zonee to encompaass all areas experiencingg low pressure probllems pumps continu uously Alternative 2: Change operaating strategyy to operate tthe high lift p
11.0 Wastewa W ater Collection A Alternatiives As noted in Phase 1 off the project ,, through CCTTV inspectionn and reiteratted in the I/I Study, the exxisting sanitary collection c system in Meafford requires improvemennt to correct deficiencies, including: broken While and crackked pipes, missaligned jointts, being parttially pluggedd due to encru ustation; and due to age. W this sectio on addresses alternatives for sewermain renewal, t here is no glo obal “preferred alternative” for this aspecct of the projject. The prefferred alternative for eacch section of sewermain w will depend o on the particularr circumstances for that street and sew wermain cond ition. The inttent of this seection is to identify guideliness for determining the pre eferred solutiion on each section of seewermain. V Various sewermain renewal o options are avvailable. Thesse renewal op ptions includee: 1. Sewermain Re S ehabilitation (relining) 2. Sewermain Re S eplacement The main reasons for rrenewal of sewermains are e to prevent sstructural faillure and to I/I sources.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
48
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
12.0 Wastewa W ater Pum mping Altternativ ves The existiing SPSs were e all identifie ed to be in go ood conditionn and have su ufficient capaacity to handle full build‐out conditions. H However, sevveral were ide entified that ccould allow ffor improved performancee. The following upgrades we ere identified:: SPS No. 1 New Flow Mo N nitor SCADA System S m SPS No. 2 Replace Pumps CADA System m SC SPS No. 3 Replace Pumps SC CADA System m Fllow Monitor SPS No. 4 Decommission n once custom mer no longerr requires usee of the SPS SPS No. 5 needed No upgrades n An additio onal SPS will b be required to service devvelopments inn the south en nd of urban M Meaford. SPS No. 6 will require to be consstructed in the e area shown n in Figure 155 and will servvice developm ments along ffuture Coleman Street and w will be require e to be constructed prior tto any develo opments in the area. The need for SPS No. 6 was also o identified in n the Municip pality of Meaaford – Reporrt on Sanitaryy Sewer Colleection system Model M (2004). SPS No. 6 would be co ompleted witthin the eassement of th he road, therrefore requiring no land acqu uisition.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
49
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figure 15 – Potential Lo ocation for Sewage S Pum mping Station n #6 Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan
50
April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106
13.0 Wastewa W ater Trea atment E Expansio on Altern natives The problems identifie ed for the Meaford WWTP include:
of the plant exxceed 45 years of age and require upgrrades to meett future need ds. Components o eak flows to tthe plant exce eed the desiggn capacity off some treatm ment processees. Pe Im mprovementss to the plant control systems have thhe potential to improve p plant perform mance an nd reduce energy use. Upgrades are rrequired to m meet the revissed effluent r equirements.
The primary purpose of any actio on strategy at a the Meaf ord WWTP iis to providee solutions to the identified problems. A As such, the presented alte ernatives eac h address thee componentts of the plant that have reacched the end of their useful life, the isssue of peak fllows and aim m to minimisee the energy u use of the ultimaate system. TThe main obje ective is to maaintain the efffluent qualitty within the eeffluent objectives of the plaant C of A. Baased on the p previous stud dies of the WW be anticipateed that the pllant is WTP it may b unable to o meet the effluent e objecctives for nitrification wh ile operatingg at an ADF iin excess of 2,700 m3/d. Furrther, studiess at the plantt have recom mmended limiiting peak flo ows to the plant to 8,100 m3/d due to bo ottlenecks created by the in nlet works an nd clarifiers. Over 2011‐2013 the ADF A at the Meaford M WW WTP was 2,6000 m3/d with h a peak flow w of 11,780 m3/d. Assumingg the recomm mended capaacity of 2600 m3/d, the pplant is curreently operatin ng at 96% off ADF capacity aand 145% of peak capacityy. Due to the e present flow ws and expeccted flows fro om growth, acctions are necesssary to eithe er resolve prrocess bottle enecks or to manage flow ws in order tto ensure efffluent quality is maintained aas developme ent occurs. A Alternatives innclude: P to meet th he ADF and p peak flows exxpected at fu ull build‐out while 1. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP ad ddressing the e existing I/I issues. 2. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in two (2) p phases with the ultimatee WWTP ablee to meet ADF and peak flows at full build‐outt while addre essing the exiisting I/I issuees. M peakk flows at th he WWTP by b establishin ng an equallization storaage system while 3. Manage managing m ADF through an a I/I reducttion program m. Upgrade tthe existing WWTP wheen I/I re eduction can no longer support develo opment. 4. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P to meet the e ADF and peeak flows exp pected at full build‐out without ad ddressing the e existing I/I issues. 5. Exxpand the exxisting WWTP P in two (2) p phases with the ultimatee WWTP ablee to meet ADF and peak flows at full build‐outt without add dressing the eexisting I/I isssues. ent configurattion of the W WWTP is not iideal for the integration o of additional process unitss. The The curre existing h headworks fee ed directly in nto the aeratiion basins wiith no space provided for flow splittingg to a new treattment train. In order to expand e the WWTP, W a new w headworks would need to be established upstream of the aeratiion basins to provide spacce for a flow ssplitting cham mber. As this is the case, o option 1, 2, 4, an nd 5 would all a require thaat a new heaadworks buildding be estab blished as a ccomponent o of any plant upgrades in orde er to have sufficient peak ccapacity evenn with reductiion of I/I. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
51
Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Equalization storage provides a sim mple solution for managingg the excessivve peak flowss in the shortt term without m moving ahead d with an expaansion to the e plant. Equal ization storagge would imp prove the flexxibility of the pllant and allo ow the operrators to ove ercome existting peak flo ow issues. Esstablishing a flow equalizatiion system will w not provvide additionaal ADF capaccity. In order to keep th he ADF below w the recommended capacitty of the plan nt an I/I reducction program m would be n needed. The I/I program w would e extraneouss flows at a faster f pace tthan develop pment. Based d on the histtorical be requirred to reduce growth raates of the urb ban area and the potential for flow redduction, this iss a feasible so olution. Additionaally, successfu ully reducing I/I will provvide benefits upstream off the WWTP specifically aat the Bighead R River syphon. Without red duction of I/I,, the syphon will need to be expanded d to accommodate peak flow ws at ultimate build‐out. For the re easons discusssed above, tthe reduction n of I/I shouldd remain a p priority for th he Municipality. As such, optiions 4 and 5 aare not consid dered to be id deal and are nnot considereed further.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
52
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
14.0 Evaluatio E on Criterria/Weig ghting and Rank king The criterria to be used d for evaluatio on of alternative solutionss for water and wastewatter projects are set out in the e approved C Class EA docu ument. Based on the natu re of the stu udy area, the potential pro ojects and the vvalues of the ccommunity, aa suggested ccriteria listingg and weightiing has been developed fo or use in the evaaluation proce ess. The criteria and weigh hting are pressented in the Table 11. Table T 11 – Criteria C for Ev valuation of Alternative S Solutions Criteria C
Sub‐Criteeria
ng (%) Weightin
Land Use P Planning
15
Natural En nvironment
10
Social Environment
20
uality, Noise aand Vibration Air Qu
10
Qualitty of Life
5
Comm munity Accesssibility
5
nvironment Cultural En
10
eological Archae
5
Heritaage Features
5
Considerations Technical C
25
Perforrmance
5
Technical Suitabilit y
5
ng Phasin
5
Constrruction Consiiderations
5
Operaational Considderations
5
ons Economic Consideratio
20
Capitaal Cost
10
Operaating Costs
10
Total Weigghting
0 100
The Mastter Planning process will result in the determinati on of infrasttructure need ded to sustaiin the existing community c and service grrowth within n the urban aarea. The evvaluation criteeria were ussed to compare viable alternaative solution ns for the diffferent parts oof the water aand waste waater systems being ed. This allow wed for the solutions s for all the infrasstructure neeeds to be meet on a consistent considere basis. Eacch alternative e was rated b between 1 and 5 on its peerformance under each criterion, wherre 1 is based poor perfformance and d 5 is exceptio onal perform mance. The altternative solu utions that sccore highest b on the ran nking system will become the recomme ended solutioon from the M Master Planning process. Aprill 2015 Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing up, File No. 11 14106 Water & W Ainley Grou 53 Master Plan
15.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Disttribution n Alterna atives Both rene ewal options have their ad dvantages and d disadvantagges. Table 12 below outlin nes the advan ntages and disadvantages of tthe watermain renewal op ptions: Table 12 - Advantages s & Disadvan ntages of Wa enewal Alterrnatives atermain Re R Renewal Type R Rehabilitatio on
ntages Advan uption and noise are Traffic interru onfined to two o (2) pits for e each section co Hyydraulic capaccity improved d Minimal excavation/streetscape intterference re equired Re estores corro osion resistance of pipe an nd extends usseful life Le ess up‐front co osts than rep placement Co ould add 30‐5 50 years to service s life if f the structural integrity of the existing pip pe is good Co onstruction caan be phased
R Replacementt
Watermain W sizze can be increased to acccommodate demands Re epair costs will w be lower because the ne ew pipe can b be expected to o have lower brreak rates com mpared to older pipes Hyydraulic capaccity increased d to required am mount Re educed waterr loss Pip pe material ccan be chosen to suit the Municipality’s n needs and soil conditions Watermain W can be replace ed with less dissruption of w water service Lo ocal contracttors likely more m readily avvailable Lo onger service life Structural integgrity of pipe iss good onstruction can c be coord dinated with Co Municipal imprrovement plans
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
54
Disadvantaages Bends, tees, valvess & fittings cause may need tto be difficul ties and m removeed for reliningg Bypasss line is req quired to prrovide water service durring cleaningg and process lining p Work ccannot be effeectively perfo ormed in the winter, as th he bypass linee may freeze Contractors may not be llocally ble availab High m mobilization ccosts; it is no ot cost effectivve for sm mall rehabilitation projectts Diametter of the pipe will be redu uced Pipes m must be thoro oughly cleaneed and dried b before applicaation of liningg Shorterr service life compared to o pipe replaceement Does n not improve sstructural inttegrity of pipee disruptive to o streetscapee than More d alternaative of rep pairing breaks or rehabillitation All serrvice connecctions have to be reinstated Higher initial costts than repaair or rehabillitation
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
15.1 1 Waterm main Rene ewal Cost Comparison Based on modeling results, a total of 15,650 m of waterma in could be cconsidered fo or rehabilitatiion or replacement. It is estim mated that the initial capittal costs to replace a wattermain are 550% higher than rehabilitation. Based on a simple payyback period, it would require an incrrease in useful life approaaching 50 yeaars to ment alternativve. make the rehabilitation alternative more cost efffective than tthe replacem
15.2 2 Evaluation of Wa atermain Renewal Alternatiives Table 13 b below outline es evaluation of each wate ermain renew wal alternativee. Table T 13 – Ev valuation of Watermain Renewal Altternatives Reh habilitation
Alte ernatives Weighting (%) 15 10
Qualitaative Rankking 5 4
Soccial Environm ment
20
Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration
Replaacement
0.755 0.400
Qualitative Rankin ng 5 3
122
0.800
12
0.75
10
4
0.400
3
0.30
Quaality of Life
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Com mmunity Acce essibility
5
4
0.200
4
0.20
Cultural Environ nment
10
8
0.400
8
0.40
Arcchaeological
5
3
0.155
3
0.15
Herritage Feature es
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Tecchnical Consid derations
25
188
0.900
24
1.20
Perrformance
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Tecchnical Suitab bility
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Phaasing
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Con nstruction Considerations
5
3
0.155
4
0.20
Ope erational Con nsiderations
5
3
0.155
5
0.25
Eco onomic Considerations
20
5
0.500
7
0.70
Cap pital Cost
10
3
0.300
3
0.30
Ope erational Cost
10
2
0.200
4
0.40
Tottal
100
Scorre:
3.755
Score::
4.10
Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment
Scorre
Score 0.75 0.30
16.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Storrage Alte ernatives Additionaal storage is required to meet the MO OECC guideli nes for wateer storage un nder full builld‐out conditions. Currently the t system has h 2,880 m3 of storage aavailable betw ween the eleevated tank iin the e Street and Owen Street and an in‐gground reservvoir at the W WTP. An additional vicinity off Trowbridge Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
55
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
1,830 m3 (approximately 2,000 m3) will be needed, bringingg the total syystem storagee to 4,710 m m3. To increase tthe system se ecurity during MDD and ffire flow scennarios, the neew storage lo ocations exam mined for the different alterrnatives are located awayy from existinng storage, o on the south end of the w water distributio on system.
16.1 1 In‐Grou und Storag ge Alternative In‐ground d water storage is a viable e option for M Meaford and has unique ccharacteristiccs when compared to other rreservoirs. Du ue to Meaforrd’s landscape e, an in‐grounnd reservoir can be locateed so that it ssits at the system’s HGL, elim minating the need for additional pum mping. This prrovides a mo ore secure form of orage. In‐grou und concrete reservoirs can have stagged constructtion; which reeduces the ccapital water sto and operaational costs since a smalller reservoir iis initially buiilt. When req quired, the seecond phase o of the reservoir can be built tto meet dem mand needs. H However, duee to the small size of the p proposed Meeaford reservoir this may no ot be the mo ost economiccal solution. This type o of constructio on also allow ws for minimum visual/ aesth hetic impact o on the surrou unding comm unity. No tan nk painting is required, red ducing maintenance costs wh hen compared d to elevated d water stora ge. This typee of storage requires moree land when com mpared to the e elevated tan nk alternative e because of iits larger foottprint. The reservoir will have e approximate e dimensionss of 20 m x 200 m x 5 m deeep and would d consist of tw wo (2) cells. It would w be req quired to be located at the 260 m ellevation leveel which is co onsistent witth the system’s HGL and which exists alo ong a ridge to the south east of the pressure zon ne on each siide of County Ro oad 7, some 5 500 m south o of Muir Stree et. To connectt the reservoir to the systeem, approxim mately 1,400 m o of 400 mm pipe would havve to be consstructed from m Sykes Streett to the proposed location n. The reservoir would be bu uried with only a valve chamber and aaccess road visible to the public. It cou uld be accommo odated on a 0.5 Ha site app proximately 7 70 m by 70 m .
16.2 2 Elevated d Tank Allternative e Elevated tank storage also provide es secure watter storage aand is easy to o operate, sim milar to in‐grround concrete tanks. Additionally, they can be considered as an identifiable llandmark forr communitiees and take up less land than the same in‐ground sto orage facilityy of equal vo olume. The m main disadvantage associated d with elevatted storage taanks is that tthey must be repainted on n a regular b basis (every tw wenty (20) yearss) resulting in large mainte enance costs. The other m ain disadvanttage is associated with saffety in climbing tto enter the tank. They caan also suffer from ice foormation insid de the tank. Different styyles of elevated ttanks exist, raanging from sspheroidal sh hapes with steeel shafts succh as the Wassaga Water Tower, to composite cylindricaal tanks with concrete shafts. he St. Vincent Street Boo osted Zone th here is vacannt land availaable sufficien nt to constru uct an Within th 3 elevated ttank. The 2,0 000 m elevatted tank wou uld be constr ucted at a grround elevatiion around 215 m, requiring a pedestal/ttank approxiimately 45 m m high. The tank would be connectted to an exxisting watermain on Centre SStreet adjacent the site.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
56
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
16.3 3 Advanta ages and D Disadvan ntages of SStorage A Alternativ ves Both of th he two (2) waater storage aalternatives h have advanta ges and disad dvantages wh hich are impo ortant in the decision makingg process. Taable 14 outlin nes the adva ntages and d disadvantagess of both eleevated storage an nd in‐ground storage. Table 14 - Adva antages vs. Disadvantag D ges of Elevatted and In-G Ground Stora age Options.
Storage Type T
Advan ntages
Disadvantag ges
Unpleasing aaesthetics to ssome (subjecctive)
ecure Floatingg Storage Se Elevated Storage e
Id dentifiable laandmark to some Access to sttorage cell iss via a long ladder (subjective) with climb asssist equipmeent Storage cell iis a confined space Re equires less laand Eaase of operattion
Painting costt
Se ecure Floatingg Storage
Storage cell iis a confined space
No Painting cost
Requires more land than elevated storrage
Lo ow energy costs
ow energy costs Lo In‐Groun nd Storage e
Eaase of operattion
Acccess to storaage cell is a sshorter ladder Le ess visual Imp pact Ph hased constru uction
16.4 4 Site Iden ntification of Wate er Storage e Alternatives Two (2) separate storaage sites havve been seleccted for the ttwo (2) differrent storage options identtified. minimal costs to be incurrred. Both sitees are The storaage sites suit the type of storage and allow for m located so outh east of M Meaford within the St. Vincent Street B Boosted Zone.
16.4.1 1
In‐Groun nd Reserv voir Site Id dentificatio on
Several crriteria were id dentified in th he site selection for the pootential in‐gro ound tank. Th he most significant criteria was that the siite have an elevation equaal to the syst em’s HGL (2660 m) to elim minate the neeed for o had to be laarge enough ffor in‐ground storage and have road acccess. Only one (1) pumping. The site also location w was able to saatisfy all the ccriteria and iss shown in Figgure 16. Otheer sites in thee surroundingg area at the sam me elevation do not have e road accesss, making theem non‐viable locations. TThe site is lo ocated along Gre ey Road 7, sou uth of Muir Sttreet. The are ea is residenttial‐zoned lan nd that is currrently tree covered with no existing e deve elopment. To allow this site s to be us ed for an in‐ground reseervoir, 1,400 m of additional 400 mm waatermain will have to be co onstructed too connect thee reservoir to the existing w water distributio on network w which stops att Muir Street..
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
57
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figu ure 16 – In-G Ground Wate er Reservoir Location Municipality of Meaaford & Waste Watter Servicing Water & Masterr Plan
58
April 2015 Ainleey Group, Filee No. 114106
16.4.2 1
Elevated d Tank Site e Identificcation
The main criterion in selecting a siite for the po otential elevaated water taank was that it be municiipally‐ owned lan nd. This will aallow for redu uced capital ccosts. Site eleevation was n not a concern, as elevated tanks located on land below the HGL still provide secu ure floating sttorage. The only site in thee St. Vincent SStreet Boosted ZZone that is m municipally ow wned is the old landfill sitee on Centre Sttreet. This sitte is located o on the west side of Centre Sttreet just norrth of Russettt Drive show wn in Figure 117. The site h has an elevatiion of 213.5 m. e been identtified as posssible water tower locattions; howevver, they aree not Additionaal sites have municipallly‐owned. Should an ele evated tank be the prefferred altern native, the M Municipality could approach landowners in the Muir SStreet/Centre e Street area should a larrger or more prominent site be required. For the purposes of the Master Plan n, the formerr landfill site is used for the elevated d tank alternativve.
16.1 1 Cost Com mparison n of Storag ge Alternatives A cost anaalysis has bee en completed d for the estim mated capital costs and op peration and m maintenance costs over a 50 year life span n for both alternatives. Th he calculationn spreadsheetts are includeed in Appendiix E. A summary of the costt comparison is presented in Table 15. Table 15 5 - Estimated d Cost Comp parison of D Different Storrage Alterna atives C Capital Cost O Operation and Maintenance Costs Major Mainte enance Costs TTotal Cost P Present Value Cost
Elevated Sttorage $ 3,150,0 $ 00 $ 550,00 $ 00 $ 1,000,0 $ 00 $ 4,700,0 $ 00 $ 3,425,0 $ 00
In‐Ground SStorage $$ 3,191,0 000 $$ 550,000 $$ ‐ $$ 3,991,0 000 $$ 3,404,0 000
1
All costs represent 201 14 values exce ept for the nett present valuee cost which ttakes into acco ount a discount raate of 4% over the time perio od analyzed.
The elevated storage aalternative results in the lo owest capital cost which in ncludes the co ost of constru uction neering. Land cost is not in ncurred as the e intended sitte is already o owned by Meeaford. The annual and engin operation n and maintenance costs aare low for th he elevated ttank since miinimal upkeep is necessarry and no pumpiing is require ed. Large majo or maintenan nce costs refl ect the frequ uency and higgh cost of painting the tank (every twentyy (20) years). The in‐gro ound storage e alternative results in sim milar but slighhtly higher caapital costs w which includees the cost of co onstruction, land cost, waatermain construction andd engineeringg fees. The higher capital costs are due to the Municiipality not ow wning any lan nd near the H HGL and therrefore needin ng to purchasse the c are low since minim mal upkeep is necessary an nd no land. The annual operration and maintenance costs pumping is required. N No major maintenance cossts are incurr ed, greatly reeducing the total costs oveer the 50 year pe eriod. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
59
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figurre 17 – E Elevated d Tank Location n
Municipaality of M Meaford W Water & & Waste W Water Seervicing Master P Plan
April 20 015 Ainley Gro oup, File No. 114106 60
16.2 2 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 16 b below outline es the evaluattion for each storage optioon. Table 16 – Evaluation of Water Sttorage Altern natives Alte ernatives
Elevaated Storage Weighting (%) 15 10
Qualitaative Rankking 5 4
Soccial Environm ment
20
Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration
und Storage In‐Grou
0.755 0.400
Qualitative Rankin ng 3 3
133
0.800
14
0.90
10
3
0.300
4
0.40
Quaality of Life
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Com mmunity Acce essibility
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Cultural Environ nment
10
7
0.355
8
0.40
Arcchaeological
5
4
0.200
4
0.20
Herritage Feature es
5
3
0.155
4
0.20
Tecchnical Consid derations
25
166
0.800
22
1.10
Perrformance
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Tecchnical Suitab bility
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Phaasing
5
1
0.055
3
0.15
Con nstruction Considerations
5
3
0.155
4
0.20
Ope erational Con nsiderations
5
4
0.200
5
0.25
Eco onomic Considerations
20
5
0.500
7
0.70
Cap pital Cost
10
3
0.300
3
0.30
Ope erational Cost
10
2
0.200
4
0.40
Tottal
100
Scorre:
3.600
Score::
3.85
Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment
Scorre
Score 0.45 0.30
17.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Booster Pum mp Statio on Alterrnatives Both alte ernatives for the Nelson Street (Presssure Zone 2) water BPPS have their advantagess and disadvanttages. Table 1 17 below outlines the advaantages and ddisadvantagess of the two ((2) alternativees:
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
61
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 17 - Advantages A & Disadvanttages of Wa ater Booster Station Alte ernatives Renewal Type Advantages A Alternattive 1 Municipally owned land d (Water Tower Transmission main alrready exists to Site) the water tower, would only have to connect to o the existing watermain Plenty of sspace on prop perty for a BPPS Treed lot,, BPS would not be visibble from the rroad Allows the e BPS to be integrated i w with the Presssure Zone 1 1 operation to facilitate a change in operatiion strategy Alternattive 2 Municipally owned land d (Meaforrd Plenty of sspace available for a BPS Commun nity Centre & Arena Parking Lot)
Disadvaantages Disccharge watermain will haave to be u upgraded
Visib ble from the rroad Both h suction and discharge wateermain will have to o be upgrraded
17.1 1 Cost Com mparison n of Waterr Boosterr Pump Sttation Alte ernativess The cost for Alternativve 1 is less expensive com mpared to Altternative 2, ssince Alternaative 1 would d have ermain that would w need to be installed or upgraaded. The co ost of the waater BPS for both less wate alternativves would be relatively the e same.
17.2 2 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 18 b below outline es the evaluattion of each aalternative.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
62
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table e 18 – Evalua ation of Watter Booster P Pump Station Alternative es Alte ernatives
Alternative 1
Alterrnative 2
0.755 0.500
Qualitative Rankin ng 5 5
155
1.000
15
1.00
10
5
0.500
5
0.50
Quaality of Life
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Com mmunity Acce essibility
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Cultural Environ nment
10
8
0.400
8
0.40
Arcchaeological
5
3
0.155
3
0.15
Herritage Feature es
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Tecchnical Consid derations
25
199
0.955
19
0.95
Perrformance
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Tecchnical Suitab bility
5
5
0.255
5
0.25
Phaasing
5
3
0.155
3
0.15
Con nstruction Considerations
5
3
0.155
3
0.15
Ope erational Con nsiderations
5
3
0.155
3
0.15
Eco onomic Considerations
20
8
0.800
7
0.70
Cap pital Cost
10
4
0.400
3
0.3
Ope erational Cost
10
4
0.400
4
0.4
Tottal
100
Scorre:
4.400
Score::
4.30
Weighting (%) 15 10
Qualitaative Rankking 5 5
Soccial Environm ment
20
Air Quality, Noisse and Vibration
Critteria Lan nd Use Planniing Nattural Environment
Scorre
Score 0.75 0.50
18.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa ater Trea atment P Plant Altternatives The Meafford WTP req quires no exxpansion for existing and full build‐ou ut conditions,, as the plan nt has sufficient capacity. To eliminate prressure proble ems in the m main pressuree zone, two (2) alternativees are evaluated d: Alternativve 1 would increase the Nelson Street pressure zonne boundary aand construct a larger Preessure Zone 2 BP PS to supply tthe larger pre essure zone. While this altternative wou oblem uld solve the pressure pro for the hiigher elevatio ons, it would still result in n pressure fluuctuations fo or other custo omers in the main pressure zone as the h high lift pumps cycle on aand off. It woould also mean installatio on of larger p pumps d‐by power unit u in a boosted zone wh hen the existting high lift pumps alreaady have suffficient and stand capacity tto meet all pe eaks in the maain pressure zzone and alsoo have stand‐by power avaailable. Alternativve 2 would increase the HGL of the maain pressure zzone to 239 m m elevation (aan increase o of 7 m or 10 psi), would lockk in the elevvated tank an nd would opperate the main pressure zone as a cclosed ould require installation off VFDs on thee high lift pum mps and the m modification o of the pressure zzone. This wo Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
63
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
control syystem to creaate an even p pressure thro oughout the ppressure zonee under all deemand condiitions. While the e elevated tan nk would rece eive flows fro om the high liift pumps forr filling, it cou uld be dedicatted to the supply of the Ne elson Street boosted zone, reducingg the size off pumps and d stand‐by p power requireme ent. The elevated tank cou uld also still b be available tto the main p pressure zonee under emergency condition. ment to operaating quality aand economyy, as well as the reduced ccapital Based on the substanttial improvem cost, Alternative 2 is preferred to Alternative 1.
19.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Collecction Alte ernative es The recen nt CCTV inspe ections and I//I Study has identified deeficiencies thrroughout thee Meaford sanitary sewer collections systtem that require improve ements. The deficiencies identified incclude: broken n and cracked p pipes, misalign ned joints, be eing partially plugged due to encrustattion and due to age. To ad ddress these pro oblem areas the preferre ed alternative for each ssection of seewermain wiill depend on the condition of the pipe w with no unive ersal preferre ed alternativee for the entirre system. Th he two (2) ren newal dentified are ssewermain re ehabilitation ((relining) or ssewermain reeplacement. options id
19.1 1 Sewer R Rehabilita ation Alte ernative Trenchlesss sewer rehabilitation is a commonlyy used methhod for the rrehabilitation n of comprom mised sewermaiins. Several methods m for trenchless re ehabilitation exist and incclude: pipe b bursting, slipllining, and CIPP. Each rehabilitation meth hod can successfully reduuce I/I, and bo oth sliplining and pipe bursting provide im mproved structural integrity equivalentt to a fully repplaced pipe. CIPP rehabiliitation will prrovide a minor im mprovement in structurall integrity but is not recom mmended fo or severely daamaged pipess. The number of o service con nnections willl affect the cost c of the li ning projectss, as servicess need to be recut from the new pipe. The cost of linin ng is generallyy less expensiive than replaacement, pro ovided the pip pe has 30 to 50 yearss with a reasonaable remaining life. The expected servicce life of the ppipe can be eextended by 3 CIPP if the pipe is in good g structurral condition.. Sliplining aand pipe bustting both pro ovide a full 80‐100 year lifecycle. For older pipes, typ pical of the Meaford M wateer system, CIPP relining m may have a h higher lifecycle ccost. Further, the mobilizattion costs forr rehabilitatioon methods teend to be mu uch higher thaan for replacement, making tthe relining off short pipe sections unecoonomical.
19.2 2 Sewer R Replacement Alternative Sewermain replaceme ent is the oth her most com mmon sewerr renewal altternative. It is more applicable when a pipe is closer tto the end of its useful life e and may faiil to provide aadequate serrvice, and doees not have enough structuraal strength and becomes prone to fai lure. While initial sewermain replaceement costs are typically morre expensive tthan other re enewal optionns, this option extends thee useful life longer and reducces future maaintenance co osts. The servvice life of thee sewermain w will be the full design life o of the replacement pipe and ranges from 80 to 125 yeaars.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
64
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
19.3 3 Advanta ages & Disadvanta ages of Wa astewaterr Collectio on Renew wal Alternatives Both rene ewal options have their ad dvantages and d disadvantagges. Table 19 below outlin nes the advan ntages and disadvantages of tthe wastewatter collection renewal optiions: Table e 19 - Advan ntages & Dis sadvantages s of Wastew water Collectiion Renewal Alternatives R Renewal Type R Rehabilitatio on
R Replacementt
Advan ntages uption and noise are Traffic interru onfined to two o (2) pits for e each section co Hyydraulic capaccity improved d Minimal excavation/streetscape intterference re equired Re estores corro osion resistance of pipe an nd extends usseful life Le ess up‐front co osts than rep placement Co ould add 30‐5 50 years to service s life if f the structural integrity of the existing pip pe is good Co onstruction caan be phased I/I reduction epair costs will w be lower because the Re ne ew pipe can b be expected to o have lower brreak rates com mpared to older pipes Hyydraulic capaccity increased d Re educed I/I Pip pe material ccan be chosen to suit the Municipality’s n needs and soil conditions Caan be replace ed with less disruption d of f se ewer service Lo ocal contracttors likely more m readily avvailable Lo onger service life Structural integgrity of pipe iss good Co onstruction can c be coord dinated with Municipal imprrovement plans
Disadvantaages Servicee connections cannot be used for 224 hours in most cases. Constru uction mustt be coordiinated with reesidents. Work ccannot be effeectively perfo ormed in the winter, as th he bypass linee may freeze Contractors may not be llocally ble availab High m mobilization ccosts; it is no ot cost effectivve for sm mall rehabilitation projectts Shorterr service life compared to o pipe replaceement disruptive to o streetscapee than More d alternaative of rep pairing breaks or rehabillitation All serrvice connecctions have to be reinstated Higher initial costts than repaair or rehabillitation
19.4 4 Evaluation of Wa astewaterr Collectio on Renew wal Altern natives Table 20 o outlines evalu uation of each h sewermain renewal alte rnative.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
65
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 20 0 – Sewerma ain Evaluatio on of Alterna atives Alterna atives
Rehaabilitation
Replacement
Weighting (%)
Qualitativve Rankingg
Scoree
Qualitaative Ranking
Sco ore
Land Usse Planning Naturall Environmen nt
15
5
0.75
5
0.7 75
10
4
0.40
3
0.3 30
Social EEnvironment
20
12
0.80
12 2
0.7 75
Air Quality, Noise an nd Vibration
10
4
0.40
3
0.3 30
Quality of Life
5
4
0.20
5
0.2 25
Commu unity Accessib bility
5
4
0.20
4
0.2 20
Cultural Environmen nt
10
8
0.40
8
0.4 40
Archaeo ological
5
3
0.15
3
0.1 15
Heritage Features
5
5
0.25
5
0.2 25
Techniccal Considerations
25
18
0.90
24 4
1.2 20
Perform mance
5
4
0.20
5
0.2 25
Techniccal Suitability
5
4
0.20
5
0.2 25
Phasingg
5
4
0.20
5
0.2 25
Constru uction Considerations
5
3
0.15
4
0.2 20
Operatiional Conside erations
5
3
0.15
5
0.2 25
Econom mic Considera ations
20
5
0.05
7
0.7 70
Capital Cost
10
3
0.30
3
0.3 30
Operatiional Cost
10
2
0.20
4
0.4 40
Total
100
Score:
3.75
Scorre:
4.1 10
Criteria a
20.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Pump ping Alternativess No alternative optionss were identiified for SPS as they weree identified tto all be in go ood condition and capable of handling full build‐out condition ns. However,, upgrades that will reesult in improved performance are identified. Identiffied below are upgrades to SPS No. 11, No. 2 and No. 3 that w would improve e existing conditions at thesse sites and h help deal withh future build d‐out conditio ons. SPS No. 4 and No. 5 require no upgraades at this ttime. SPS No. 4 is to be deecommissioned once the Knight of Meeaford Lumber Factory F shuts down and no n longer req quires its servvice. The deccommissionin ng costs are to be incurred b by the Knight of Meaford LLumber Facto ory. Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 1 are listed iin Table 21:
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
66
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 21 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 1 Recommen nded Upgrad des Upgrade Monitor New Flow M SCADA Systtem
Cost ($2015) $ 150,000 $ 75,000
Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 2 are listed iin Table 22: Table 22 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 2 Recommen nded Upgrad des Upgrade Replace Pumps SCADA Systtem
Cost ($2015) $ 125,000 $ 75,000
Upgrades recommended at SPS No.. 3 are listed iin Table 23: Table 23 2 – Sewage e Pumping Station S No. 3 Recommen nded Upgrad des Upgrade Replace Pumps SCADA Systtem Flow Monittor
Cost ($2015) $ 80,000 $ 75,000 $ 50,000
In order tto support fu ull build‐out, a new SPS w will be requireed to supportt development in the Coleman Street are ea in the soutthwest of Me eaford’s urban settlement area. The staation will be located at th he low point alon ng the future e section of C Coleman Stree et with a new w forcemain required alon ng Coleman SStreet towards Muir M Street. The timing and complettion of the ssiting of this station will be dependent on developm ment in the area. ow of The ultim mate flows pro ojected at SP PS No. 6 are approximatelly 520 – 610 m3/d ADF w with a peak flo 3 1300 – 16 600 m /d. It is recommend ded that this station incluude two (2) 100 L/s pumps (one (1) dutyy, one (1) standb by) to service e the ultimate e developmen nt scenario. TThe station w will discharge into the sew wer on Muir Stre eet and sewaage will subssequently flo ow by gravityy to the WW WTP. Approximately 400 m of forcemain n will run from the SPS towards Mu uir Street. A n additional catchment area (area 6 6) will encompasss the properrties that are serviced by SSPS No. 6 It is estimated that SPSS No. 6 and fo orcemain will cost $750,0000.
21.0 Evaluatio E on of Wa astewate er Treatm ment Ex xpansion n Alte ernativess To allow for the currrent Meaford d WWTP to meet the nneeds of the growing co ommunity, fivve (5) alternativves were deve eloped to add dress bottlenecks and to m manage flows in the systeem. Out of th he five (5) alternatives outlined in Section n 13.0, three e (3) are eva luated in depth below to o allow for aa final Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
67
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
alternativve to be reco ommended. The other two (2) alteernatives did not resolve the currentt flow problems and thereforre were not considered to be ideal and are not analyyzed further.
21.1 1 Alternative 1 – Fu ull Plant E Expansio on, Contin nuing I/I R Reduction n A full plan nt expansion at the Meafo ord WWTP to service the uultimate popu ulation would d closely follow the recommendations of the t 2007 Class EA. However, betweenn the reduced ultimate population an nd the eduction, the e ultimate flo ow is expectted to be lower than orriginally projeected. continuattion of I/I re Additionaally, since 20 007 the MOEECC design guidelines g forr sewage wo orks have beeen modified d. The expected flows at ultim mate build‐ou ut are summaarised in Tablee 24. Table 24 – Flow Proje ections ADF (m3/d) 2,740 5,940 5,350
2013 Ultimate Ultimate witth I/I Reduction
P Peak Day (m3/d) 10,870 17,700 15,600
The proce ess expansion ns required to o meet the ulttimate flows aare summarissed in Figure 18.
Process Capaccity Exissting Inlet Worrks
Process
Inlet Scree ens In nlet Grit Removval Aeration Basins Clarifie ers Disinfectio on Exissting Disinfectio on 0.0
2.0 0
4.0
6.0
8.00
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
1 18.0
Peak FFlow (ML/d) Existing
Expaansion
Removed
Peak Flow w
ADF (2013)
Predicted Flo ow (Ultimate)
Predicted d Flow (Peak)
Figure F 18 – Ultimate U Plan nt Expansion n Process C Capacities As describ bed in the 20 007 Class EA, it is recomm mended that tthe existing in nlet works bee decommissioned and a new w headworkss building be established at the site tto house both new inlet screens and a grit removal system. s The addition of the grit remo oval system w will alleviate tthe need to have the aerration basins offf line once each year to rem move the acccumulated seddiment. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
68
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Based on the current design guidelines for exxtended aerattion plants p providing nitrrification, thee HRT should be e ≥ 15 hours aand the SRT sshould be ≥ 1 15 days at th e ADF for thee biological sttep. For an A ADF of 3 3 5,400 m /d the ultima / te plant shou uld have a tottal aeration vvolume of 3,3375 m . An aadditional aerration 3 volume off 2,275 m for aeration is ttherefore req quired. The curre ent design gu uidelines for secondary claarifiers speci fies a maxim mum SOR of 4 40 m3/m3/d and a peak solid ds loading raate of 170 kgg/m2/d. At a RAS rate of 100% and a MLSS of 350 00 mg/L, thee total 2 clarifier area required to meet the e ultimate pe eak flow is 4550 m . Assum ming a SWD o of 4.5 m, thee total 3 settling vo olume needed is 2025 m . The capacity . y of the existiing clarifiers h has been brought into queestion by the caapacity report review byy Hydromantiis specificallyy due to thee lower SWD D than is typ pically recommended. Consid dering that th he plant has consistently met the efflu uent limits fo or nitrification and solids ove er the past 6 6 years, while operating at an ADF a round 2,700 m3/d, it is aassumed theey will continue to be capab ble of treating this portio on of the flow ng 2,700 m3//d, an w. To treat the remainin additional 230 m2 of clarifier area iss required wh here the peakk solids loadin ng rate is the limiting facto or. As discusssed, the existting plant headworks reprresent a majoor bottleneckk and will neeed to be replaced. The 2007 7 Class EA re ecommended a headworkks building thhat containeed screening, grit removaal and odour con ntrol. This reccommendatio on is carried fforward, as g rit accumulattion in the aeeration basinss is an ongoing isssue at the W WWTP. The existiing UV disinfe ection system m consists of two (2) channnels, one eq quipped with UV lamp mo odules 3 rated for 5,720 m /d, aand a second channel equipped with w weir and isolattion channel ffor future UV V lamp modules. While the se econd channel could be equipped witth an additio onal UV mod dule the peakk flow rating would not be su ufficient to m meet the ultim mate demand s. In order to o meet the ultimate demands it is recomm mended that a new UV dissinfection sysstem be estabblished at thee site with a p peak flow cap pacity 3 of 16,000 m /d. n this option n. Based on n the The recommendation for tertiaryy filtration iss not carriedd forward in anticipate ed effluent limit phosph horus of 1 mg/L, m tertiarry filtration is not requ uired. An efffluent concentraation of 1 mg//L phosphoru us can be mett and exceedeed by using co oagulant addition. Table 25 ssummarises tthe recommended upgrade es for the faccility.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
69
Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Table 25 2 – Recomm mended Upg grades of the e 2007 Classs EA - Revissed
Initiative::
Ratiionale: Achieve aerationn basin SRT of fifteen (15) days. Prrimary clariifier SOR andd SLR capacity identified aas being bettween 2400 0 m3/d and 22800 m3/d. Deerate plant frrom 3,910 m3/d to 2,70 00 m3/d.
Derate plaant capacity Establish a new influen nt forcemain.
Existting forcemaiin has been id dentified to b be undersized d. The existing scrreens have b been identifieed as a hyd draulic botttleneck. The sscreens are undersized and will be replaced. works buildin ng will housse properly sized The new headw scre eens and proovide contain nment for aan odour rem moval system and a gritt removal system.
Remove e existing inlet sscreens. Establish a new headw works buildingg.
Repairs are needded for the existing clarifiers and aerration basins as identifi ed by structu ural assessmeent.
Repairs to o concrete strructures
Replace steel s compon nents of seco ondary Unitts in service ffor >40 years,, which is thee expected lifeespan clarifiers. of th his equipmennt. Demolish the abandon ned digester.
No longer in use and there is no plan to use in the futurre.
New Screening facility: Two (2) sccreens, each 5,400 m3/d ADF / 16,000 m3/d peak New grit rremoval syste em Two (2) se eperators, each 16,000 m3/d capacity
Replacements too meet expectted ADF/Peakk flows.
Aeraation tanks a re drained an nnually to remove grit wh hich is time e consuming aand labour in ntensive.
New seco ondary treatm ment Two (2), 1 1,138 m3 rectaangular tankss Total SRT fifteen (15) d days
y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments Currrent capacity of growth. Addit ional capacity to meet AD DF of 5,400m m3/d in conjjunction withhin existing aeeration basinss.
New seco ondary clarifie ers Two (2) ciircular tanks 12.2 m diaa, 4.2 m SWD D each Three (3),, 21 L/s RAS p pumps Three (3),, 15 L/s WAS pumps New UV d disinfection syystem Two (2) ch hannels, total 5,400 m3/d ADF / 16,000 m3/d peak Decommission and re emove existing UV disinfectio on.
Currrent capacity y is not sufficient to meet the requirem ments of growth. g Addittional capacitty sufficient to meet peak day flow w rate of 166,000 m3/d in conjuncttion with exxisting clariifiers. Refurbiishment of RA AS/WAS pum mping station.
Currrent UV Systeem is undersizzed for the ulltimate flow.
Expand biiosolids stabilization facilitty with Inco orporation off a specific b biosolids thickening proceess to new WAS thickening redu uce odours/ aaddress comp plaints. New odou ur control sysstem Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
To be b incorporaated as a part of the Mu unicipality’s o odour man nagement sttrategy to aaddress the historical o odour Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou 70
Initiative::
Ratiionale: com mplaints at thee site. As p per the 2007 CClass EA requ uirements. Existting caps aare showingg signs of damage caausing inco onsistent rele ase of effluen nt. Existting MCC is rreaching the end of its useeful life and n needs to be replaced. Existting generatoor not sufficieent to meet th he demands o of the expaanded plant.
New efflu uent pumpingg station Remove d diffuser caps ffrom outfall Upgrade e electrical supply and distributio on. New stand‐by power ggenerator
In 2007 the estimated d capital costt of the plantt upgrade waas $26.5 milllion. This estimate includeed $3 million fo or tertiary treatment which has been rremoved. Bassed on an infflation rate of 2.2% since 2007, the estimated capital ccost for this p project in 2015 is $28 millioon. This alternative will alllow for the plant’s capacitty to be upgraaded immediiately removiing all bottle necks in the sysstem. With alll the capital costs up front, future cossts will consiist of routinee maintenance and replacements as needed. The dow wnside to this alternative iis the high caapital cost to o construct a plant that will o operate at approximately 5 50% capacity for the next 15‐20 years.
21.2 2 Alternative 2 – Phased Pla ant Expan nsion The phase ed plant expaansion is base ed on the reco ommendatio ns of the 20007 Class EA an nd aims to prrovide a plan to e expand the plant that will meet the immediate needds of the Mun nicipality while moving tow wards a plant th hat will be capable of mee eting the ultim mate demandds. Ideally, a phased plantt expansion w would occur in e equal stages. However, du ue to the exissting layout oof the WWTP,, a multi‐stagge expansion is not feasible for f some pro ocesses. Table e 26 provide es a summaryy of the upggrades requirred to expand the WWTP to o meet ultimate demandss and provide es a suggesteed order in w which the up pgrades shou uld be completed. Table T 26 – Re evised Upgrrades of the 2007 Class EA as a Phased Expan nsion Plan Phase:
Initiative:
Rationale: Repairs aree needed for the exxisting clarifiers and aeration basins as iden ntified by structuraal assessmentt.
Repairs to cconcrete strucctures
1
Replace steel compo onents of secondary Units in servvice for >40 yyears, which is the clarifiers. expected lifeespan of this equipment. Refurbish RA AS/WAS pum mping station Three (3), 21 L/s RAS pum mps mps Three (3), 15L/s WAS pum
RAS/WAS p pumping stattion reachingg the end of its usseful life.
Upgrade ele ectrical supplyy and distribu ution.
2
Derate plant capacity
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
71
Existing MC CC is reachin ng the end of its useful life an nd needs to b be replaced. Achieve aerration basin SSRT of fifteen n (15) days. Prim mary clarifierr SOR and SLR capacity identified as beiing between 2400 m3/d and 22800 m3/d. D Derate plant from Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Phase:
Initiative:
Rationale: d. 3,910 m3/d tto 2,700 m3/d The existingg screens havve been iden ntified as a hydraulic bottleneck. The screen ns are undersized aand will be reeplaced. The new headworks bu uilding will h house properly ssized screen ns and prrovide containment for an odou ur removal syystem m. and a grit reemoval system
Remove existing inlet scrreens.
Establish a n new headworrks building. New screens Two (2) scre eens, each 3 5,400 m /d ADF d peak 16,000 m3/d New grit rem moval system m Two (2) seperators, each h 16,000 m3/d d capacity
Replacemen nts to meet expected ADF/Peak flows. Aeration taanks are draained annually to remove gritt which is tim me consumingg and labour inten nsive. Current cap pacity is not sufficient to meet the requireements of ggrowth. Additional capacity to meet ADF of 4,050 m3/d in conjunction within eexisting aerration basins. Current cap pacity is not sufficient to meet the requireements of ggrowth. Additional capacity suffficient to meeet peak dayy flow rate of 12,0050 m3/d in conjunction with existing clarifiers.
New second dary treatmen nt One (1), 1,1 138 m3 rectangular tank Total SRT fiffteen (15) dayys
New second dary clarifier One (1) circular tank 12.2 m dia, 4.2 m SWD each
Retrofit exiisting UV channels and provide an Doubles thee current dissinfection cap pacity additional U UV module to 11,440 m m3/d. New effluen nt pumping sttation 3
4
5
As per the 22007 Class EA requirementts. No longer in use and th here is no pllan to Demolish th he abandoned d digester. use in the fu uture. Existing caps are showing signs of daamage Remove difffuser caps fro om outfall. causing inco onsistent release of effluen nt. Incorporatio on of a sspecific bio osolids Expand biossolids stabilizzation facilityy with new thickening process to reduce od dours/ WAS thicken ning address com mplaints. To be inco orporated ass a part off the Municipalityy’s odour man nagement strrategy New odour control syste em to address tthe historical odour comp plaints at the site. New second dary treatmen nt Additional ccapacity to m meet ADF of 5,400 One (1), 1,1 138 m3 rectangular tank m3/d in conjunction within exxisting aeration bassins. Total SRT fiffteen (15) dayys New second dary clarifier Additional ccapacity sufficcient to meett peak day flow rate of 1 One (1) circular tank 16,000 m3//d in
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
72
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Phase:
Initiative: 12.2 m dia, 4.2 m SWD each New UV disinfection systtem Two (2) channels, total 5,400 m3/d ADF 16,000 m3/d d peak Decommission and remove existing UV disinfection.
Rationale: conjunction with existingg clarifiers.
UV System is undersized d for the ultimate flow.
Existing geenerator no ot sufficientt for expanded pllant.
New stand‐by generator
The estim mated costs off each phase inclusive of design are sum mmarised in TTable 27. Table 27 7 – Phased Expansion E C Cost Estimattions Expansion Ph E hase Phase 1 P Phase 2 P Phase 3 P Phase 4 P Phase 5 P
Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal:
Cost (2015 Dollars) $2,15 50,000.00 $56 69,750.00 $2,71 19,750.00 $8,05 50,000.00 $2,13 33,250.00 $10,18 83,250.00 $2,00 00,000.00 $53 30,000.00 $2,53 30,000.00 $6,20 00,000.00 $1,64 43,000.00 $7,84 43,000.00 $5,36 60,000.00 $1,42 20,400.00 $6,78 80,400.00
The plantt expansion will w be complleted in five (5) stages too allow the p plant to meett the needs o of the growing p population. Phase 1 should occur within the next fiive (5) years based on thee remaining u useful life of the e equipment suggested to o be rehabiliitated and thhe current co ondition. Phase 2 should occur when the e plant begin ns to have difficulty meeting effluentt objectives. Phase 3 and d Phase 4 arre not imperativve to the operation of the e plant and m may occur wh en convenien nt for budgetting purposess. The timing of Phase 5, sim milar to Phase e 2, will be de ependent up on the abilityy of the plant to meet efffluent objectivess. This phase ed approach will allow the t construcction phases to follow p population grrowth allowing for f the Municipality to ch hange the tim meline if thee predicted p population grrowth changees. By completin ng the expansion in stage es, the initial capital costss will be reduced with th he remaining costs incurred in i the future. The Municiipality will haave more tim me to come u up with the n necessary fun nds to complete the project.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
73
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
21.3 3 Alternative 3 ‐ Eq qualizatio on Storagge, I/I Red duction, Future Expansiion Between 2006 and 2014 the greaatest flow evvents at thee Meaford W WWTP have o occurred bettween m event s. Over this period, the highest dailyy flow December and Januarry as a result of snow melting occurred during Decem mber 2008 w with a max day flow of 13,,880 m3. Duriing January o of 2008 the W WWTP 3 experiencced a peak day flow of 12,508 m . Since 2008, thhe most seveere peak day flow occurreed on January 30th 2013 with h a peak day fflow of 11,77 74 m3/d. Whiile the flow o on this day is only slightly aabove the C of A A rated capaciity of the plan nt, it is well above the plannt’s recommeended re‐rateed peak capaccity of 3 8,100 m /d. The event / is shown in TTable 28 as re ecorded in thee plant annuaal report. Tab ble 28 – Pea ak Flow Even nt Summary Date 013 1/28/20 1/29/20 013 1/30/20 013 1/31/20 013 02/01/2 2013 02/02/2 2013
ADF (m3/d) 2,279.00 6,769.00 11,774.00 0 7,217.00 5,653.00 3,896.00
Pe eak (m3/d) 00.00 4,40 7,87 72.00 15,252.00 12,300.00 90.00 6,89 6,60 00.00
DF) (CCapacity – AD (m3/d) 5821 1331 ‐3674 883 2447 4204
(Peak C Capacity – Peeak) (m3/d) 3700 228 ‐7152 ‐4200 1210 1500
As seen in n Table 29, th he plant treate ed an excess of 3,674 m3 bbased on a peeak capacity o of 8,100 m3/d d. The 2013 peaak flow event was caused by a 22 mm m rain storrm which ressulted in rap pid melting o of the accumulated snowfall. Based on th he informatio on provided in the annuaal report, thee peak flow eevents that occu urred during 2008 were also the result of heavy raains causing a rapid snow w melt. The rapid melting events have h historically occcurred over aa one (1) to ttwo (2) day p period and w would therefo ore be well acco ommodated by b a temporaary storage option o such as an equaliization tank. Due to the short duration of the peak flow events, it would be possible for the stored ssewage to bee pumped ou ut and w the following days. The plant has a need foor an expansiion of the aeeration basins and treated within clarifiers, based on pre evious reports. It is propossed that the cclarifier and aaeration tankk be constructted at the site to o be used as equalization storage in th he short term m before bein ng modified tto operate to o their intended manner. An n equalization tank for th he Meaford W WWTP would d need to bee large enou ugh to temporarily store the flow over and above the peak capa city for an eevent as desccribed abovee. The required ultimate clarifier and aeration volume e is suitable ffor the purpo oses of equalization storaage as shown in the followingg discussion. In order to accommodate growth aand ensure the plant conti nues to meett the effluentt objectives, aa plan for reduciing I/I will be required to keep the ADFF below 2,7000 m3/d. Based d on the 2014 I/I Study Reeport, there is significant s opportunity to reduce extraaneous flowss and reclaim m reserve cap pacity at the plant. 3 During th he month of April 2014 an estimated 2,458 m /d of flow was determined to be extran neous, 3 which translates to an increase in tthe yearly AD DF of 205 m / d. In terms o of growth plan nning, 205 m3/d of d capacity through I/I reductions would be sufficientt to service an n additional eeighteen (18) years reclaimed Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
74
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
of growth h in the urban n area based o on the historiical growth raate and an asssumed sewagge production n rate of 450 L/ccap/day. Based on the known extent of exttraneous flow ws and the hhistorical ratee of growth iin the urban area, a I/I reducttion would be an effectivve solution fo or the plant ffor the next 15‐20 equalizatiion storage and years. Eve entually, oppo ortunities forr I/I reduction n become lim mited or impraactical and a plant upgrad de will be required to increasse capacity. TThe existing aand projectedd flow rates ffor the ultimaate populatio on are d in Table 29. presented Table 29 – Flow Proje ections ADF (m3/d) 2,740 5,940 5,350
2013 Ultimate Ultimate witth I/I Reduction
P Peak Day (m3/d) 10,870 17,700 15,600
It is expeccted that by ccontinuing wiith the existin ng I/I reductioon program tthe Municipallity can reducce the 3 ultimate p peak day from m the 17,700 m /d to 15,600 m3/d. Based on the current design guidelines for exxtended aerattion plants p providing nitrrification, thee HRT should be e ≥ 15 hours aand the SRT sshould be ≥ 1 15 days at th e ADF for thee biological sttep. For an A ADF of 3 3 5,400 m /d, the ultima / ate plant shou uld have a tottal aeration v olume of 3,3775 m . The curre ent design gu uidelines for secondary clarifiers speciifies a maxim mum SOR of 4 40 m3/m3‐d and a peak solid ds loading raate of 170 kgg/m2‐d. At a RAS rate of 100% and a MLSS of 350 00 mg/L, thee total 2 clarifier area required to meet the e ultimate pe eak flow is 4550 m . Assum ming a SWD o of 4.5 m, thee total 3 aeration vvolume neede ed is 2025 m . While the e need for equalization sto orage is required in the sh ort term, it iss anticipated that this neeed will be elimin nated by the reduction off inflow sourrces and pla nt expansion n. It is recom mmended thaat the tankage ffor the future e clarifiers an nd aeration b basins be des igned to opeerate as equaalization storaage in the short term. This course c of actiion will deferr the need foor full expanssion in the sh hort term an nd will spread ou ut the investtment in the plant over a a longer timee period. Thee total additiional tank vo olume 3 needed to o treat the ulttimate flows is 3,622 m , w which is very similar to thee calculated vvolume needeed for an equalizzation tank to meet the ccurrent needss. The addittional space rrequirementss for benching and appurtenaances should be taken into o account in the design. D Design of the tanks for futu ure modificattion is importantt for both the e reduction o of long term ccapital costs aas well as maanagement off space at thee site. This aspecct of Alternattive 3 is integrral to its viability in compaarison to the o other alternaatives presentted. When de evelopment outpaces o the e ability of the Municippality to reduce extraneous flows, aand a subsequent loss in effluent quality is experience ed, the seconnd phase of the program sshould be inittiated p should be expanded to meet th he ultimate fflows. The p process expan nsions requirred to and the plant service the population at ultimate b build‐out are summarised in Figure 19.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
75
Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Proce ess Capacitty Existing Inlet Works Inlet Screens
Process
Inllet Grit Removal Aeration Basins Clarifiers Disinfection Ultim mate Disinfection 0.0 0
2.0
4.0
6 6.0
8.0
10.0
112.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Peak Floow (ML/d) Existing
Repurpose EQ Tank
Reemoval
Expan nsion
Peak Flow
ADF (2013)
Prredicted Flow (Ultimaate)
Predicted Flow (Peak)
Figure 19 9 – Equaliza ation Tank an nd Future Exxpansion Prrocess Capa acities Given the e existing site e plan, the best b location to constructt the proposeed tankage iss at the souttheast corner of the site. Constructing at this location w would involvee demolishingg the abandon ned sludge storage tank. The estimated caapital cost of the equalizattion tank connstruction is $$4.13 million, a cost breakkdown is presentted in Table 3 30. Table 30 – Detailed Co ost Estimate : Equalizatio on Tank Cate egory Gene eral Sitew works Strucctural Civil Proccess Mechaniccal Electtrical I&C//SCADA
Sub Total:
Design (7%) min (8%) Consstruction Adm Perm mits/ Approvaals Sub Total: Conttingencies (10 0%) Total: Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
76
Cost (22015 Dollars)) $250,000.00 0 $350,000.00 0 $$1,550,000.00 0 $300,000.00 0 $350,000.00 0 $300,000.00 0 $120,000.00 0 $$3,220,000.00 0 $225,000.00 0 $258,000.00 0 $50,000.00 0 $$3,753,000.00 0 $375,000.00 0 $$4,128,000.00 0 Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Additionaal costs will be e incurred du uring the I/I re eduction projject. A numbeer of damageed areas havee been identified in the I/I Stu udy which pro ovides a basiss to continuee reduction off extraneous flow. Additio onally, ested that a n new by‐law sh hould be put in place to b an all sump p pump and eavvestrough sanitary it is sugge sewer con nnections and d actions shou uld be taken tto enforce thhe sewer sue restrictions. As discusssed above, it is expecte ed that equaalization stor age and I/I reduction effforts will prrovide significantt capacity for the Municipality for the e next 15‐20 years. Howeever, a plant expansion w will be required eventually, and a a numbe er of refurbishments to thhe plant are needed in th he near‐term m. The recommended plant upgrades are ssummarised in Table 31. Table 31 – Recom mmended Pllant Upgrade es Term: Planning T
Initiative:
Rationale: n SRT of 15 days. Achieve aeeration basin Primary clarifier SOR and SLR cap pacity ommit to the operation of the plant at Co identified aas being bettween 2400 m3/d a d decreased capacity and 2800 m3/d. Operatte the plant w within these param meters. Repairs arre needed for the exxisting Re epairs to conccrete structurres clarifiers an nd aeration b basins as iden ntified by structural assessmen nt. Re eplace steel components o of secondary Units in serrvice for >40 years, which is the claarifiers. expected liffespan of thiss equipment.
Short‐Term
Re etrofit existiing UV chaannels and Doubles th he current dissinfection cap pacity 3 to 11,440 m prrovide an additional UV mo odule m /d. Up pgrade ele ectrical disstribution.
supply
and Existing MCC is reaching the end of its useful life aand needs to be replaced.
Ne ew stand‐by p power generaator
Existing generator not sufficient to meet the demand ds of the expanded plant.
Re efurbish RAS//WAS pumpin ng station Th hree (3), 21 L//s RAS pumpss Th hree (3), 15L/ss WAS pumpss
RAS/WAS pumping station reaching the end of its u useful life.
Establish a new w headworks building.
Medium‐TTerm
Re emove existin ng inlet screen ns. Ne ew screens Tw wo (2) screenss, each 5,4 400 m3/d ADF 16 6,000 m3/d pe eak
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
The new h headworks building will h house properly sized screens and prrovide containmen nt for an odour rem moval system and d a grit removval system. The existing screens have been iden ntified as a hydrau ulic bottlenecck. The screen ns are undersized and will be rreplaced. Replacemeents to ADF/Peak fflows.
77
meet
exp pected
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Planning T Term:
Initiative: Ne ew grit removval system Tw wo (2) separattors, each 16 6,000 m3/d caapacity Re emove diffuse er caps from o outfall
epurpose storm tank Re Claarifiers/Aerattion Basins
Long‐Term m
Rationale: Aeration taanks are draained annually to remove grit which is tim me consuming and labour intensive. Existing cap ps are showin ng signs of daamage causing inconsistent releease of efflueent. Repurposed d storm taanks will prrovide aeration ccapacity to meet AD DF of to 5,400m3/d in conjunction within exxisting aeration basins and claarifier capacity to 00 m3/d alongg with meet peak flow of 16,00 the existingg clarifiers.
Ne ew UV disinfe ection system m Tw wo (2) channe els, total 5,4 400 m3/d ADF Current UV V System is u undersized fo or the 3 16 6,000 m /d pe eak ultimate flo ow. De ecommission and remove existing UV dissinfection. Incorporatiion of a specific bio osolids Exxpand biosolids stabilizattion facility thickening process to reduce od dours/ wiith new WAS thickening address com mplaints. To be inccorporated aas a part of the manageement Municipalitty’s odour Ne ew odour con ntrol system strategy to o address thee historical o odour complaints at the site. As per the requirementss of the 2007 7 Class Ne ew effluent pumping statio on EA
This alternative will re esult in impro ovements to tthe entire sannitary collection system w with improvem ments he sanitary sewers and th he Meaford W WWTP. By firrst focusing o on the I/I pro oblem, the up pfront to both th capital co osts will be reduced. On nce the popu ulation grow wth exceeds the I/I redu uction, the W WWTP improvem ments can be e completed d in phases to meet thee needs of the growingg population.. This alternativve will allow for a more op ptimized syste em. Unexpectted peaks in fflow will no lo onger occur d during storm eve ents, allowingg for more con nsistent flow through the treatment traain. The capitaal costs assocciated with th he upgrades d described in eeach planningg term are summarised in Table 32 below..
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
78
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 32 2 – Capital Cost C Estimattes for Plann ned Upgrade es: Alternative 3 Planning Term P m Short‐Term S Upgrades U Medium‐Term M m Upgrades U Long‐Term L Upgrades U
Cost (2015 Dollars) $2,50 00,000.00 $62 25,000.00 $3,12 25,000.00 $5,20 00,000.00 $1,30 00,000.00 $6,50 00,000.00 $13,20 00,000.00 $3,30 00,000.00 $16,50 00,000.00
Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal: Construction Engineering and Contingenciees (25%) Totaal:
21.4 4 Evaluation of Altternativess Table 33 outlines the e comparativve evaluation n of the threee (3) alternatives based d on the Class EA evaluation n criteria. Table 33 3 – Evaluation of WWT TP Alternativves Alternatives Criteria Land Use Pla anning Natural Environment
Option 1 Weigghting Quaalitative ore Sco (%) Raanking 15 1 4 0.660 10 1 5 0.550
Op ption 2
on 3 Optio
Qualitativee Qualitaative Score Score Ranking Ranking 4 0.60 5 0.75 5 0.50 4 0.40
Social Enviro onment
20 2
4
0.880
4
0.61
4
0.70
Air Quality, N Noise and Vibration
10 1
4
0.440
4
0.40
3
0.30
Quality of Liffe
5
4
0.220
4
0.01
4
0.20
Community A Accessibility
5
4
0.220
4
0.20
4
0.20
Cultural Enviironment
10 1
5
0.550
5
0.50
5
0.50
Archaeologiccal
5
5
0.225
5
0.25
5
0.25
Heritage Features
5
5
0.225
5
0.25
5
0.25
Technical Considerations
25 2
3
0.775
3
0.85
4
0.95
Performance e
5
4
0.220
4
0.20
3
0.15
Technical Suiitability
5
4
0.220
4
0.20
4
0.20
Phasing
5
1
0.005
3
0.15
5
0.25
ons Construction Consideratio
5
3
0.115
3
0.15
4
0.20
Operational C Consideration ns
5
3
0.115
3
0.15
3
0.15
Economic Co onsiderationss
20 2
2
0.440
4
0.70
5
1.00
Capital Cost
10 1
2
0.220
4
0.40
5
0.50
Cost Operational C
10 1
2
0.220
3
0.30
5
0.50
Total
100 1
Sccore:
3.555
Scoree:
3.76
Score:
4.30
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
79
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
22.0 Preferred P d Solutio ons Alternativve solutions were identiffied for each h section of the Municip pality of Meaaford’s water and wastewatter systems. EEvaluation criiteria, focusin ng on environnmental effeccts, were devveloped alongg with weightinggs for each criteria c and a ranking syystem to alloow a preferrred solution to be identtified. Identified below is th he preferred solution forr each syste m componen nt. Selection of the prefferred solution aalso took into consideratio on input and ccomments re ceived from tthe public and review agencies. Dependin ng on the sittuation, the preferred so olution may involve a co ombination o of the altern native solutions to best solve the identified problem.
22.1 1 Water D Distribution The existiing water disstribution sysstem is adequate to suppport development to full build‐out bu ut will require pipe repair an nd replaceme ent of current pipes to m eet MOECC gguidelines an nd to combatt pipe deteriorattion. Addition nally local development w watermains arre to be addeed to the systtem by developers or by the Municipality to support m multiple new d developmentss. east expensivve option to implement o on an initial capital cost basis. Watermain rehabilitattion is the le ul life, However, if the structural integrityy of the watermain does nnot support aa lengthy incrrease in usefu watermain relining is not effective e. Relining does not alwaays improve the structural integrity o of the o a watermaain break wo uld not chan nge if it is relined. Therefo ore, it watermain; therefore the chance of would not be economical to reline a watermain n that has po or structural integrity. Th he disruption n from construction is minim mal, only the entry and exit pits woulld have to b be dug, which h would keep the restoratio on cost down n. The wate ermain canno ot be used dduring the cleeaning and rrelining proceess; a bypass lin ne must be used to provid de water to aall customerss. The reliningg should not be done in ccolder months, ssince the bypass line could d freeze. The e relining can decrease thee inside diam meter of the p pipe; a small diam meter pipe w would decreasse the hydrau ulic capacity of the pipe. SSince many o of the pipes w within Meaford that should be renewed are 100 mm m diameter ppipes, makingg their diam meter even sm maller would no ot be beneficcial to the water w distribu ution system.. One of the main reasons to renew w the watermain is to increaase the hydraaulic capacityy within the ssystem. Watermain rehab bilitation is a good option for structurallyy sound wate ermain and where w the sizze of the waatermain doees not need to be changed. ent is the mo ore expensive e option to im mplement. Th here is a largge up front ccapital Watermain replaceme cost to re eplace the watermain; ho owever, money is saved iin operationaal costs. Theese operation n cost savings in nclude not rep pairing waterrmain breaks,, and less unaaccounted for water. Rep placing waterm mains allows the e Municipalitty to install th he size of waatermain to ssuit the distribution system m needs based on future needs and build d‐out. If the w watermain is too small to provide adeq quate hydrau ulic capacity tthen a larger wattermain may be installed tto improve th he hydraulic ccapacity throu ughout the syystem. Watermain replacement is more disruptive th han watermaain relining. The most co ommon meth hod of watermain replacement is open cut c method; this usually involves excaavation of up p to half the road to instaall the watermain. This can caause disruptio on to nearby residents wh ile constructiion is being co ompleted. The follow wing is recom mmended for tthe Meaford water distribbution system m upgrade: Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
80
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Where there is W s a need to in ncrease the d diameter of thhe watermain n to meet serrvice delivery goals th hen the watermain should be replaced Adequately sizzed cast iron n or ductile iron waterm ains should be replaced where the u useful ervice life can nnot be incre eased by at least 40 yearss, if the useful life can bee increased b by at se le east 40 years the watermain may be reh habilitated Asbestos cement pipes should be repllaced rather than repaireed where theey are structturally in nadequate
To determ mine the rep placement strrategy for ad dequately‐siz ed cast iron pipes, flow testing shou uld be completed to understtand the con ndition each pipe is in. TThis information can be u used to deveelop a replacement plan makking sure more e critical pipe es are replaceed first. The water distribution n system expaansion and up pgrades fall uunder Schedu ule A and A+ in the Class EEA list of municipal water and wastewate er projects. All pipe repairr and replaceement is Scheedule A alongg with the construction of new pipe for the planned subdivisions. Alll new pipe beeing construccted under exxisting Municipally‐owned road falls unde er Schedule A+. A Throughoout the master planning p process the p public was conssulted on the e reconstructtion and exp pansion projeects. Schedulle A and A+ projects aree pre‐ approved and all addittional requirements have b been fulfilled .
22.2 2 Water S Storage Water sto orage is adequate to suppo ort the existin ng communitty and some d developmentt. The constru uction of a 2,000 0 m3 in‐ground reservoir on St. Vincent Street (Counnty Road 7) is the recommended solutio on for the expan nsion of wate er storage in Meaford, to meet the baalance of devvelopment up p to full build d‐out. This reserrvoir will bene efit all consum mers and new w developmennt in urban M Meaford. The in‐ground solution is slightly more cost effective e and received the e highest scoore from the assessment completed, w which incorporaated the apprroved Class EA document criteria. The in‐ground faacility will offeer floating storage to the so outh end of the t water disstribution sysstem and reqquire very lo ow maintenan nce costs intto the future. ect falls unde er Schedule B in the Classs EA list of municipal w water and wastewater pro ojects. This proje Additionaal investigatio ons and repo orts need to be completeed with regaards to the ssite’s geotechnical characteristics and naatural enviro onment, befo ore all requi rements havve been fulfilled. This caan be completed when the in n‐ground rese ervoir constru uction becom mes necessaryy to support d development..
22.3 3 Water B Booster Pu ump Statiions The St. Vincent Street BPS is adequ uate to suppo ort full build‐oout for the St. Vincent Strreet Booster Zone. The Nelso on Street BPS needs to be renewed to m meet the neeeds of the exissting community and grow wth in the pressu ure zone. Two o (2) locations were identiified for this nnew BPS. Both locations are viab ble options fo or a new BPSS. The recom mmended solu ution for the location of aa new BPS for Pressure Zone e 2 is Location n 1 at the waater tower si te. There is aadequate spaace for a new w BPS, and the w watermain fee eding the tow wer would pro ovide adequaate suction prressure to thee BPS. There is less Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
81
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
watermain that would d need to be installed or u upgraded for this alternattive; therefore it is the cheaper option. This proje ect falls unde er Schedule B in the Classs EA list of municipal w water and wastewater pro ojects. Through tthe master planning proce ess, Phases 1 and 2 of the planning pro ocess have beeen completed and all requirrements have e been fulfilled. The pro oject is locatted on an exxisting Municcipally‐owned d site housing th he elevated tank.
22.4 4 Water T Treatmen nt Plant The WTP is adequate to meet the e needs of full build‐out.. An upgradee is recommeended to improve pressure ccontrol in the e main pressu ure zone by in nstalling VFDss and modifying the contro ol system. The VFD installatio on at the WTTP falls underr Schedule A in the Class EA list of mu unicipal wateer and wastew water projects. The project is pre‐apprroved and caan proceed without folllowing the p public notificcation e outlined in the Class EA. procedure
22.5 5 Wastew water Collection The existiing wastewatter collection n system is adequate to ssupport deveelopment to full build‐outt with only locall developmen nt sewermain ns to be com mpleted by deevelopers or by the Municipality wherre the sewermaiins support m multiple devellopments. The Master Serrvicing Study has also iden ntified the neeed for upgrades to the existin ng sewermain ns. n rehabilitatio on is less exp pensive to im plement than n full replaceement on an initial In general, sewermain ost basis. However, facto ors such as the length annd structural integrity of sewermain being capital co replaced, the traffic co onditions witthin the area and numberr of service connections m must be taken n into account. CIPP relining does not always impro ove the strucctural integritty of the seweermain, meaning the chan nce of a break w would not chaange if it is re elined. There efore, it woul d not be eco onomical to reline a sewermain that has poor p structurral integrity. In these case es, if a relininng strategy iss preferred, either slipliniing or pipe burssting would be b more appropriate, as structural inttegrity would d be improveed. The disru uption from consstruction is m minimal, for CIPP the liner is installed frrom MH to M MH. Slipliningg and pipe bursting both requ uire only enttry and exit pits to be du ug. The seweermain canno ot be used d during the reelining process; tthe rehabilitaation must be e coordinated d with the ressidents along the section tto ensure theey are not attem mpting to use e the sewer for a minimum m of 24 hourrs. Both slip lining and CIPP will reducce the internal d diameter of th he sewer pipe e, however itt will also deccrease the loccal infiltration n rates and reeduce the frictio on factor of th he pipe. Sewermain replaceme ent is the mo ore expensive e option to im mplement. Th here is a largge up front ccapital cost to replace r the sewermain; however, depending onn the section being rep paired, often pipe replacement has a low wer lifecycle ccost. The mo ost common method of seewermain replacement is open od; this usuaally involves excavation e off up to half tthe road to install the sew wermain. This can cut metho cause disrruption to ne earby residents while consstruction is beeing completted, howeverr the sewer seervice can be maaintained thro oughout consstruction. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
82
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
The follow wing is recom mmended for tthe Meaford sewer collecttion system u upgrade:
Pipe relining should be pre s eferred where the useful service life ccan be increaased by at leaast 40 ye ears. Sm mall pipe secctions requirring rehabilitaation should be replaced d due to the high mobilizzation co osts associate ed with relinin ng.
The waste ewater collecction system e expansion an nd upgrades ffall under Sch hedule A and A+ in the Claass EA list of mu unicipal waterr and wastew water projectss. All sewer rrepair and reeplacement iss Schedule A along with the cconstruction of new pipe ffor the planned subdivisioons. All new sewers being constructed u under existing Municipal‐ow M ned road falls under Sche edule A+. Thhroughout thee master plaanning processs the dule A and A+ projects aree pre‐ public was consulted o on the reconsstruction and expansion p rojects. Sched approved and all addittional requirements have b been fulfilled .
22.6 6 Sewage Pumping g Stationss The existing SPSs are aadequate to support development to fuull build‐out ccondition. hey all have eenough capaccity to No preferrred solutionss were identified for the ffive (5) existinng SPSs as th handle exxisting and full build‐out co onditions. The following uupgrades were suggested ffor SPSs No. 1 1, No. 2 and No. 3 to help improve perform mance. monitor, SCAD DA system up pgrade SPS No. 1 – new flow m SPS No. 2 – replace pumps, SCADA system upgraade SPS No. 3 – replace pumps, SCADA system upgraade, flow monnitor upgradee 4 is to be deco ommissioned when the cu ustomer no loonger requirees its servicess and No. 5 reequire SPS No. 4 no improvvements at th his time. The SPS u upgrades fall under Schedu ule A in the C Class EA list oof municipal w water and waastewater pro ojects. Schedule A projects are pre‐approved and therrefore the M unicipality caan proceed w with these pro ojects without h having to follo ow the public notification p procedures seet out in the Class EA. A sixth SP PS has been p proposed to support deve elopment in tthe south eaast area of th he communityy. SPS No. 6 will be necessaryy to service de evelopments the future Cooleman Streeet. upgrades for SSPS No. 1 and d No. 2 fall un nder Schedulee A and SPS N No. 3 falls und der Schedule A+ in The SPS u the Class EA list of mun nicipal water and wastewaater projects. These projeccts are pre‐ap pproved, therrefore the Municcipality can proceed witho out following the public nootification pro ocedure set o out in the Class EA. The construction of SPS S No. 6 faalls under Schedule B in the Class EA A list of municipal water and wastewatter projects. Construction of this SPS will require additional sttudies including Environm mental Managem ment, Archaeo ological and Geotechnical studies. Theese can be u undertaken w when develop pment proposalss are received d for the area. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
83
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
22.7 7 Wastew water Trea atment Overall, itt is recomme ended that th he Municipaliity adopt Alt ernative 3 fo or the expanssion of the W WWTP which invvolves establisshing the ultiimate clarifie er and aeratioon basin tankks at the existting WWTP ssite to be used for f storm rettention in the e near term. The plant c urrently expeeriences sign nificant peak flows which willl be effective ely managed by establishing equalizattion storage aat the site. Itt is recommeended that the cclarifier and aaeration basin tankage be e designed too be effectivee as storm rettention tankss until they are rrequired in orrder for the p plant to meet effluent objeectives. The I//I reduction p program is inttegral to this altternative as iit has been id dentified in p previous studdies that the existing WW WTP may be n not be 3 able to meet the C of A A effluent lim mits while ope erating at an ADF greater than 2,700 m m /d. The objeective b to reducee extraneouss flows at tthe same pace as of the I/I reduction program will therefore be developm ment and kee ep the plantt ADF at approximately 2,600 m3/d.. This will allow the plaant to essentiallyy be operate ed as an EAA AS plant with a capacity oof 2,700 m3/d d and an 8,10 00 m3/d peak and maximize the level of ttreatment. ng on the project for the W WWTP upgrad des, differentt schedules in n the Class EA A process mu ust be Dependin followed. The WWTP refurbishme ent and demolition of thee old sludgee storage, up pgrades to th he UV disinfectio on channel and odour con ntrol system construction all fall underr Schedule A and are therrefore pre‐appro oved projectss that can pro oceed withou ut following tthe public no otification pro ocedure set o out in the Class EA. The sto orm equalization basin faalls under Scchedule B an nd can proceeed following the completio on of the Master Plan as the required Class EA procedure in Phases 1 and 2 have been completed. The repurrposing of the storm equalization bas in, new head dworks building, new bio osolids works and d new UV disinfection all require the Schedule C pprocedure to o be followed d. This will reequire additional phases to be e followed alllowing the en ntire Class EA A procedure to o be completed.
23.0 Public an P nd Revie ew Agenccy Comm ments Public con nsultation is aan importantt part of the C Class EA proccess, allowingg public and rreview agenccies to become informed and comment throughout the processs. For the M Master Plan, public inputt and commentts were receivved and incorporated into o the planninng process. Taable 34 outlin nes the comm ments that were e received th hroughout the consultatio on process foollowing the Phase 1 PIC and Phase 2 2 PIC. Copies of all the correspondence iss attached in Appendix D. Member of the public an nd review ageencies that proviided commen nts on the serrvicing plan re eceived respoonse letters.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
84
Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Table 34 – Comments fro om the Public an nd Review Agen ncies NAME & CONTA ACT INFO
N Notice C Commencement - July 4, 2014
DATE E OF CONTA ACT
REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC
AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE
“If it apppears that CEAA 2012 may apply to yoour proposed projecct, you must providee the Agency with a description of the prroposed project. Pleaase see the link below to the Agency’s guide g to preparing a project description. Guide to Preparing a Descrription of a Designateed Project http://w www.ceaa.gc.ca/63D3D025-2236-49C9-AA169DD89A A36DA0E6/Guide_to__Preparing_a_Descrription_of_a_Designaated_Projec t_undeer_CEAA_2012.pdf If you believe b the project iss not subject to a fedeeral environmental aassessment, and doo not submit a projecct description, we kinndly request that yyou remove the Ag gency from your disstribution list. If youu have questions, pllease get in touch with w our office througgh the switchboard att 416-952-1576.” Pleasee direct future correespondence to Ms. Sandy-McKenzie, 8 Creswick Court, Barrie, ON, L4M 2J77 “Basedd on the information submitted, s ministry sstaff is unable to provvide specific matters of ministry interestt with this project at tthis time other than our general legislattive mandates around environmental mannagement and protecction.” The Crrown delegated the procedural p aspects off consultation to the M Municipality and Ainley. The following primary p contacts weree provided: C Saugeenn Ojibway Nation Envvironmental Jakke Linklater, Officer Coordinator, Office, R.R. # 5, Wiarton, ON, N0H 2T0, (5199)534-5507, jakeelinklater@saugeenoojibwaynation.ca Auddrey Erin Holden, Lands and Resourrces Consultation C Coordinator Histtoric Saugeen Metis, 204 High street, Boox 1492 Southamptonn, ON, N0H 2L00, (519)483-4000, sauugeenmetisadmin@bbmts.com Jam mes Coture, Greeat Lakes Meti s Council, (5199)370-0435, trueelyfine14@yahoo.ca Jam mes Wagar, Consulttation Assessment C Coordinator Lands, Resources andd Consultations Metiss Nation of Ontario, 2222-75 Sherbourne S St., Toronto, ON, M5A 2P9, (416)9777-9881, jamesw@meetisnation.org
Response No requirred
of
C Canadian Environmental A Assessment Agency
July 4, 2014
July 11, 2014 2
C Chippewas of Rama FN
July 4, 2014
July 14, 2014 2
M MOECC
July 4, 2014
July 16, 2014 2
Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S
85
No requirred No requirred
response response
April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106
H Hiawatha First Nationn
July 4, 2014
REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC July 21, 2014 2
M MTO
July 4, 2014
July 30, 2014 2
August 27,, 2014
October 17, 1 2014
February 19, 2015
February 24, 2015
NAME & CONTA ACT INFO
DATE E OF CONTA ACT
MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S
AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE
Hiawattha indicated that thee project at this time has minimal potentiaal to impact Hiawattha First Nations’ righhts at this time. Theyy want to continue to be advised of anyy updates and reserve the right to com mment later. They w want to be contaccted if artifacts are fouund. “MTO has an interest in this study as it may haave impacts on the H Highway 26 corridoor. MTO wishes to coontinue to be on the ccirculation list and bee involved in this stuudy as it proceeds. MTO advises a that new or proposed servicinng infrastructure shoould not be placedd within the Highway 26 property limits. TThe study should bee evaluating other alternatives a other than the Highway 26 coorridor.”
No requirred
response
No requirred
response
The MA AA provided the folloowing contact informaation: Chieef Roland Monaguee, Beausoleil First Nation (Christian Island), 11 Ogeemaa Miikaan, Christtian Island, ON, L6M M 0A9, (705)247-20511, (Fax)24722339, bfnchief@chimnisssing.ca Arleene Chegahno, Chippewas of Nawashh Unceded First Naation (Cape Crooker), R.R. # 5, 135 Lakeshore L Road, Wiiarton, ON, N0H 2T00, (519)53416889, (Fax)534-2130, Reception.admin@naw R washa.ca Chieef Veron Roote, Chhippewas of Saugeeen, R.R. # 1, 64933 Hwy. 21, Souuthampton, ON, N0H 2L0, (519)797-2781 , (Fax)797-2978 Peteer Couture, Interim President, P Great Lakkes Metis Council, 3880 9th street Easst, Owen Souund, ON, N44K 1P1, (5199)370-0435, osaareametiscouncil.live.ca Mettis Nation of Ontarioo Head Office, Metis Consultation Unit, 5500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D, Ottawa, O OM, K1N 9G44, Fax (613)725-42255
No requirred
response
“Bill Arrmstrong has retired from the Ministry. I will be looking afterr his files in Bruce and Grey until I retiree in April. For this project, would you please send yourr PIC PowerPoints too me when these documents become public? We circulaate these materials iinternally to t progress of Classs EA projects. acquaiint internal staff with the In the future, all corresponndence regarding thiss project should be send to my
Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Februuary 27, 2015.
N Notice of PIC #1 - August 27, 2014 M MAA
N Notice of PIC - February 19, 2015 M MOECC R Region
Southw western
Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
86
April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106
NAME & CONTA ACT INFO
DATE E OF CONTA ACT
REPLY RECE EIVED FROM NOTICE NOTES/DATES/ ET TC
M MTO
February 19, 2015
February 26, 2015
G Grey Sauble Conseervation A Authority
February 19, 2015
March 4, 2015
A Aundeck-Omni-Kaninng First N Nation
February 19, 2015
March 5, 2015
C Chippewas of the Thames T FFirst Nation
February 19, 2015
March 5, 2015
M MTO
February 27, 2 2015
March 10, 2015
G Grey Sauble Conseervation A Authority
March 9, 2015 2
March 10, 2015
Municipality of M Meaford Water & Waste Water Servicing Master Plan
MAJO OR ITEMS OF CO ONCERN COMMENTS S
AAL’S RE ESPONSE & DATE
attentioon or to the attentionn of the "Regional EAA Coordinator" in Lonndon. Craig Newton, our remaining Cooordinator, should be ccopied on important ee-mails.” “MTO still has an interest in this study as it maay have impacts on thhe Highway M staff is unavailaable to attend Public Information 26 corridor. Unfortunately MTO Centree No. 2 in person. Thherefore, would you please provide our ooffice with a copy of o the display boards for our review and ccomment. You can eemail PDF’s of the display d boards to mee directly. MTO advises a that new or proposed servicinng infrastructure shoould not be placedd within the Highway 26 property limits. TThe study should bee evaluating other alternatives a other than the Highway 26 coorridor.” Requeested any relevant infformation that their offfice may require. Identifiied that the First nation communities oof the Robinson Huuron Treaty and/or the Manitoulin Treaaty area are affectedd either directly or inndirectly but that furrther consultation at this t time is not requirred. “In ourr screening of your correspondence c we hhave identified no concerns with your project or the informaation that you have ppresented to us at this time. We feel that due to the scopee of your project, wee will no longer needd to receive regularr updates. We assk that if there are anny changes to your pproject that are of a substantive nature that you keep us infoormed.” “Basedd on our review of thhe Public informationn Centre No. 2 boardds, it would appearr that the recommendded solutions for the Meaford water and W Wastewater system ms should not havee any direct impactt to the Highway 226 corridor. Howevver, with that said, MTO M advises that shoould new servicing innfrastructure be prooposed, the study should s evaluate alteernatives other than placement within the Highway 26 corriidor.” The MTO wished to continuue to be on the circullation list for this project. “Please notice that some of o the proposed worrk may require permiits from our made under the Conservation office under Ontario Reegulation 151/06 m Authorrities Act.” They request continued invvolvement as the Classs EA process movees forward
87
Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Februuary 27, 2015.
Sent PIC No. 2 boards via email on Marchh 9, 2015. No response requirred No requirred
response
No requirred
response
No requirred
response
April 2015 Ain nley Group, File N No. 114106
24.0 General S G Summarry and Requirem ments 24.1 1 Propose ed Service e Area The propo osed service area includes everything within the M Meaford urbaan settlementt area. The seervice th area is bo ounded by Centreville Ro oad to the no orth, 7 Linee to the westt, Muir Road to the south h and Georgian Bay to the eaast. The area encompasses the urban ccentre of Meaaford. Undeveeloped land w within the propo osed service aarea has been n zoned as ressidential, com mmercial, industrial or insttitutional, allo owing an estimated full bu uild‐out popu ulation to be b estimatedd. The zonin ng also provvided an acccurate understan nding of how w developme ent will take place in M eaford. This information was used in the developm ment of the prrojects identiffied in the Maaster Plan.
24.2 2 Propose ed Water Distributtion and SStorage Sy ystem Examinatiion of the Meaford waterr distribution system allow wed for the iidentification n of watermaains in need of rehabilitation r and replace ement. Currently the systtem experien nces lowered pressure in areas where the ere are inade equately sized d pipes. The preferred soolution outlinees that both rehabilitation and replacement of inadeq quate waterm mains will allow for the moost suitable an nd most cost effective solution. Flow testiing will be conducted on aall cast iron w watermain to gain knowled dge on the exxisting condition of the pipes and to unde erstand what solution willl most effect ively improvee the currentt situation. A All 100 mm diam meter waterm main will be replaced to comply with MOECC guidelines, whicch states thaat the minimum diameter off watermain is 150 mm. N New sectionss of watermaain will be constructed to allow n the urban se ettlement are ea to be conn ected to the system. future devvelopment in With an in ncreasing pop pulation, morre water storaage is requireed by the MO OECC guidelinees. To increasse the systems sstorage, an in‐ground wate er storage resservoir has beeen proposed d at the south h end of the urban settlemen nt area on County C Road 7. The reserrvoir will be 2000 m3 off floating sto orage requirin ng no pumping due to the grround elevatio on of the rese ervoir. ent Nelson Street BPS doe es not provide adequate ffire flow to the Nelson Sttreet Booster Zone The curre and is plaanned to be decommissio oned. To replace this BPSS, a new stattion will be cconstructed aat the water tow wer location. TThis new BPSS will improve e the pressurees and fire flo ows in Pressure Zone 2, wh hich is importantt because the e hospital is lo ocated within n this pressuree zone.
24.3 3 Propose ed Water Supply an nd Treatm ment Systtem Through tthe master pllanning proce ess it was ide entified that tthe capacity o of the existing water treattment system haas adequate ccapacity to provide water to Meaford customers du uring existingg and full builld‐out conditions. er planning process identified the need d for VFDs at the WTP to aallow for morre consistent w water The maste pressure tthroughout th he systems diurnal period.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
88
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
24.4 4 Propose ed Wastew water Colllection a and Pump ping Syste em Examinatiion of the Me eaford wastew water system m allowed for the identification of seweermains in neeed of rehabilitation and replacement. Ovverall, the systtem experiennces a high leevel of I/I as id dentified by tthe I/I Study. Bo oth rehabilitattion and repllacement of d damaged pippes should bee considered on a case‐byy‐case basis to d determine the e most cost e effective metthodology forr sewer upgraades. Regardless of extran neous flow, the collection system has su ufficient capaacity to servvice the ultim mate develop pment population, requiring only the exte ension of trun nk mains into new developpment areas. SPS No. 1 (Bighead River) R and No. 2 (Meaford WWTP) bboth have su ufficient capaacity to meeet the demands of the ultim mate develop pment; I&C upgrades foor both SPS No. 1 and No. 2 have been recommended. SPS No o. 3 will requiire pump upggrades in ordeer to service the ultimate development; I&C upgrades have also be een recomme ended for SPSS No. 3. No upgrades havve been reco ommended fo or SPS No. 4 or SSPS No. 5. It sshould be no oted that the primary funcction of SPS N No. 4 is to service the Knigght of Meaford Lumber Facto ory which maay be shut down in the ne ar future. The Municipalitty should havve this ecommissioned at the tim me the facto ory is shut doown. The cost of decommissioning w will be station de incurred b by Knight of M Meaford Lumber Factory. A future SSPS will be required to servvice the new developmennt areas in thee southern po ortion of the urban area alongg Coleman Sttreet. A statio on location haas been propoosed on Coleman Street in n order for seewage to be pum mped south to Muir Streett and connecct into sewagee catchment area 2. The n new SPS will result in a new catchment area (area 6). Catchment aarea 6 will enncompass thee future expaansion of Coleman Street.
24.5 5 Propose ed Waste Water Trreatment System The master planning process p has reiterated r the e findings of f previous rep ports that the Meaford W WWTP does not have sufficie ent capacity to meet the d demands of tthe ultimate developmentt. A plan has been developed d to ensure the plant has ccapacity to handle the inteense peak flo ow events thaat occur durin ng the spring as w well as the ye early ADF. The upgraades required d to service tthe ultimate population innclude a new w headworks facility, additional aeration ccapacity, add ditional clarifier capacity, aa new disinfeection system m and an exp pansion of thee bio‐ solids han ndling facility. In order to effectively m manage peak flows in nearr term, it is reecommended d that the Municcipality design and construct the future aeration annd clarifier taanks to be useed as interim m peak flow equalization in order to reduce hydrau ulic overload ing at the p plant during peak flows. The managem ment of ADFs aat the plant w will be tied to the ongoing management of I/I that iss being underrtaken by the Mu unicipality. The ultimate WWTP w will have an AD DF capacity off 5,400 m3/d with a peak fflow capacity of 16,000 m3/d.
24.6 6 Propertty Require ements Meaford w will need to aacquire land ffor the in‐gro ound storage reservoir. Th he proposed llocation for the in‐ ground storage reservo oir is on Greyy Road 7 apprroximately 5000 m south off Muir Road. TThe site allow ws the in‐ground d reservoir to be elevated tto the same level as the H GL, eliminatin ng the need ffor pumps. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
89
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
The remaining projectss will be consstructed on land that is currrently owned d by the Mun nicipality.
24.7 7 Environ nmental Im mpacts an nd Mitiga ation Mea asures As the plaanning term ffor the projeccts described within the M Master Plan arre not planned to be comp pleted within the e near term, Archaeologiccal Assessmen nts and detai led Environm mental Managgement Planss have not been completed at this time. TThe results of these assesssments will fu ully describe tthe environm mental n measures necessary for tthe future pro ojects. mitigation
24.8 8 Permitss and App provals No permitts or approvaals will be neccessary for an ny of the projeects outlined in this Masteer Plan.
24.9 9
Appllicable Cla ass EA Sch hedules
The proje ects associate ed with each of the preferred solutionns are listed in Table 35 w with the applicable Class EA SSchedule. C EA Scchedules Table 35 – Class Project P Class EA SSchedule Water W Repair/Replac R cement of Existing Meaforrd Watermainns A/A A+ Establish New E w Meaford Watermains A++ Establish New E w Watermainss for Planned Subdivisionss A A In‐Ground Sto I orage Reservo oir on Countyy Road 7 B** Water BPS on W n Water Towe er Site B B Decommissio D on Nelson Stre eet BPS B B Installation of I f VFDs at Watter Treatmen nt Plant A A Waste Water W r Relining/Reha R abilitation of Existing Meaford Sewerm ains A A Establish New E w Meaford Se ewermains A++ Establish New E w Sewermainss for Planned Subdivisionss A A SPS No. 1 and S d No. 2 Upgrades A A SPS No. 3 Upg S grades A++ of SPS No. 6 Construction C B** WWTP Refurb W bish and Dem molition of Old d Sludge Storaage A A Upgrade UV D U Disinfection C Channel A A Storm Equaliz S zation Basin C Chamber B B Repurpose St R orm Equalization Chambe er to Clarifier//Aeration C C New Headwo N orks Building C Construction C C New Biosolids N s Works C C New UV Disin N nfection Channel C C Odour Contro O ol System A A *Additional studie es will need to be completed at the ttime of consstruction to aallow the Claass EA edure to be fo ollowed. proce Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
90
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
24.1 10 Summary of C Commitm ments Mad de during Master P Planning Processs Througho out the masster planningg process, public and review agency consultaation resulteed in commitments that we ere carried ou ut during the e planning prrocess. MOEC CC Southwesttern Region, MTO, Grey Saub ble Conservattion Authoritty, Hiawatha First Nation, Chippewas o of the Thamees First Nation and Aundeck‐Omni‐Kaningg First Nation n all requeste ed to be kep t up to datee on the detaails of the prroject. d MAA provid ded contact information of First Natioons that cou uld be affecteed by the prroject. CEAA and These Firsst Nations we ere added to tthe contact list for all correespondence.
25.0 Proposed P d Capital Works Program m and Co osts 25.1 1 Water S System A phased strategy hass been develo oped for the overall wateer distribution n and treatm ment system aand is presented d in Table 36. The phased d strategy inccludes projeccts that will b be covered paartially coverred by developm ment charges. The percenttage paid for by the Mun icipality is indicated in the project nam me. A proposed timeline for the suggested work is provided in Figu re 20. Table 36 – Overall Wa ater System Improvemen nt Plan Proje ect Name
Esstimated Cost
Phasse 1 Cond duct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Deve elop Rehabilitation and Replaacement Plan B Based on Flow Testing Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar (54% %) SCADA Desiggn for VFD Instaallation (54% %) Install VFDs aat the WTP (16% %) Design New Pressure Zone 2 BPS (16% %) New Pressure Zone 2 BPS C Construction Deco ommission Nelsson Street BPSS
$ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,140,000.00 0 $ 16,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 143,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Total Phase 1:
$ 2,406,000.00
Phasse 2 Remo ove and Replacce 100mm Casst Iron Pipe – 1000 m per yeaar
$ 2,140,000.00
Total Phase 2:
$ 2,140,000.00
Phasse 3 Remo ove and Replacce Remaining C Cast Iron Pipe – – 1250 m per yyear
$ 2,700,000.00
Total Phase 3:
$ 2,700,000.00
Phasse 4 Remo ove and Replacce All 100mm Non‐Cast Iron Pipe – 1000 m m per year
$ 2,000,000.00 0
Total Phase 4:
0 $ 2,000,000.00
Total Program:
$ 9,246,000.00 0
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
91
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
The goal of the Impro ovement Plan Phase 1 iss to obtain aa baseline of the conditio on of waterm mains, improve current c presssure issues and a to start replacing r wa termains thaat do not com mply with M MOECC guideliness. Flow testing will be com mpleted on the e cast iron pi pes in the network to see which pipes are in greater need for replaacement due e to corrosion and tubercculation and which pipes can be improved through rehabilitation measures. A rehabilitation and replaceement plan w will be develo oped from thee data collected during flow ttesting. This p plan will be u used during thhe rest of Phaase 1 as well as Phases 2 and 3 to prioritiize pipe rehabilitation and d replacemen nt. 1000 m peer year of 1000 mm diameeter cast iron pipe, identified to be replaaced by the rehabilitation and replaccement plan,, will be rep placed to improve pressure issues and allow MOECC guideline co ompliance. Thhe existing pumps at the Water Treattment Plant will be replaced w with VFDs to help reduce current presssure issues beeing experien nced by the p public. To further improve prressure issuess, specificallyy in the Nelsoon Street Boo oster Zone, the existing N Nelson Street BPSS will be deco ommissioned d and replaced by a new B BPS at the waater tower sitte. The imporrtance of the new w BPS is that it will allow for adequate ffire flow at thhe Meaford G General Hospiital. The main purpose of P Phase 2 is to expand Meafford’s water sstorage capacity. To allow w for the in‐grround m be instaalled along C County Road 7 to connecct the reservoir to be constrructed, new watermain must reservoir to the systtem. This ad dditional watter storage is needed w when the po opulation reaches approximately 5,800 people. p The watermain w an nd reservoir is development‐related aand will likelyy only proceed w when overall system storaage capacity d does not meeet MOECC req quirements. TThe remainin ng 100 mm cast iiron pipe will also be remo oved and rep placed during Phase 2. 10000 m will be rreplaced each h year in accordaance with the e rehabilitatio on and replacement plan. The objecctive of Phase e 3 is to remo ove all remaining cast ironn pipe in the water distrib bution system m. The rehabilitation and rep placement plan p will be used to ideentify the pipe priority aand also wh hether replacement or relinin ng is the prefe erred solution. Since thesse pipes diam meters meet M MOECC guideelines, pipe rehaabilitation can n be used forr watermains that are stilll in good con ndition. 1000 0 m of pipe w will be identified to be replace ed/rehabilitated each year. of the Improvvement Plan will be to remove all addditional 100 m mm watermain that is non n‐cast Phase 4 o iron. Thiss will allow the entire sysstem to be in compliancee with MOEC CC guideliness and help reeduce pressure iissues caused d by inadequaately sized pip pes. In additio on to the repaairs and replaacements nee eded throughhout the urbaan settlement area, there are a number of o watermain ns and waterr distribution n infrastructuure that will be required to service ffuture planned d developmentss. The projectts that are to o be partially or fully fundeed by develop pment chargees are shown in Table #. The e demand off existing con nditions was compared w with full build‐out conditio ons to determine e the costs incurred by the municip pality verses developmen nt with only the develop pment charges shown below. Developer ch harges have b been divided by the 3 hyd draulic pressure zones thatt exist throughout the netwo ork. This is be ecause some e of the projeects only affeect certain pressure zonees and because tthe growth in each pressurre zone variess. Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
92
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Tab ble 37 – Watter Projects Covered by Developme ent Charges Project Nam me Coleman n Street Centre Street Union Sttreet Muir Stre eet County R Road 7 Construcction of New Pipes for New w Developme ent (46%) SC CADA Design ffor VFD Installlation (46%) Insstall VFDs at tthe Water Tre eatment Plan nt New In‐G Ground Reserrvoir Design aand Constructtion Connecting Pipe to In‐Ground Storrage to Netwo ork esign New Pre essure Zone 2 2 Booster Stattion (84%) De (84%) Ne ew Pressure ZZone 2 Booste er Station Con nstruction Total
Pressure Zone 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $ 14,000 $ 46,000 $ 794,000 $ 166,000 ‐ ‐ $1,020,000
pment Chargees Develop Pressuree Pressure Total Zone 2 Zone 3 ‐ $ 251,0 000 $ 251 1,000 ‐ $ 312,5 500 $ 312 2,500 ‐ $ 340,5 500 $ 340 0,500 ‐ $ 741,0 000 $ 741 1,000 ‐ $ 830,0 000 $ 830 0,000 ‐ ‐ TBD 4,000 ‐ ‐ $ 14 $ 46 6,000 ‐ ‐ 00 $1,170,0 000 $2,384 4,000 $ 420,00 $ 89,00 00 $ 245,0 000 $ 500 0,000 $ 67,00 00 ‐ $ 67 7,000 $ 757,00 00 ‐ $ 757 7,000 $1,333,00 00 $3,890,0 000 $6,243 3,000
The consttruction of ne ew pipes for new develop pment includees all constru uction within new develop pment areas. No cost was give en to this item m as the pipe e size and lenggths are curreently unknow wn. These costts will be determ mined and inccurred by the developer. A propose ed timeline fo or the suggessted work is p provided in Fiigure 20. Thee timeline inclludes projects that are funde ed by both the e Municipality and development chargges. The watermains that aare affected b by the Improvem ment Plan are shown in Figgure 21.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
93
Aprill 2015 Ainley Grou up, File No. 11 14106
Figure 20 - Proposed Timeline for Water System Improvement Plan ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
Phase 1 Conduct Flow Testing on Cast Iron Pipes Develop Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan Based on Flow Testing Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year SCADA Design for VFD Installation Install VFDs at the Water Treatmetn Plant Design New Pressure Zone 2 Booster Station New Pressure Zone 2 Booster Station Construction Decommission Nelson Street Booster Station Phase 2 Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year Construction of New Pipe on County Road 7/St. Vincent Street New In-Ground Water Storage Facility Design and Construction Construction of New Pipe on County Road 7/St. Vincent Street to connect In-Ground Storage to Network Phase 3 Remove and Replace 100 mm Cast Iron Pipe - 1000 m per year Phase 4 Remove and Replace All 100 mm Non-Cast Iron Pipe - 1250 m per year
1305 days 261 days 260 days 1305 days 261 days 260 days 261 days 260 days 262 days 1304 days 1304 days 261 days 781 days 262 days
Fri 01/01/16 Fri 01/01/16 Mon 02/01/17 Fri 01/01/16 Fri 01/01/16 Mon 02/01/17 Mon 01/01/18 Tue 01/01/19 Wed 01/01/20 Fri 01/01/21 Fri 01/01/21 Fri 01/01/21 Mon 03/01/22 Tue 31/12/24
Thu 31/12/20 Fri 30/12/16 Fri 29/12/17 Thu 31/12/20 Fri 30/12/16 Fri 29/12/17 Mon 31/12/18 Mon 30/12/19 Thu 31/12/20 Wed 31/12/25 Wed 31/12/25 Fri 31/12/21 Mon 30/12/24 Wed 31/12/25
1304 days 1304 days 1304 days 1304 days
Thu 01/01/26 Thu 01/01/26 Wed 01/01/31 Wed 01/01/31
Tue 31/12/30 Tue 31/12/30 Mon 31/12/35 Mon 31/12/35
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2
94
t ia Sc o
! (
Dr
( !! (
! ( ! (
! (
tr Cen
R eville
d
! (
! (
Alg on q
! (
! (
La ke sh or e
Rd
! (
uin
S
Dr
! (
! (
Water Treatment Plant
! (
! (
Ave
Ford
! (
Gr an
! (
dv ie ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! (
w
Dr
! " ¬ ! " " 5¬ ± ! " b ¬ ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
rt ry C Albe n St Hele ! (
! (
Country
Cres ! (
! (
C
e Ridg
! (
! (
Sy k
! ( ! (
! (
( ! ( !
St
Replacement Details
N
! (
! (
St Stewart
No Programed Upgrades
! (
an Sus
! (
! (
St
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
e ay Av Fairw
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! (
m Willia
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! ( ( !! ( ! (
Greater than 100mm Cast Iron replacement
( !! ( ! ( ! (
! (
St
! (
r t St Albe ! (
! ( ! (
Dr rews
! (
rt Albe
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
(! ! (! ! ((
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
( ! (!
W er St Park
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
" 5
! (
! (
W er St Park ! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (
! (
! (
( !! ( ! (
t on S Nels
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
W
! (
! (
( (! !! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
e St bridg w o r T
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
y St Berr
! (
Bo
! (
! (
r St uc h e
! ( ! (
! (
! (
res
! (
! (
! (
o ri
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! (
St aret Marg
! ( ! ! ( ( ! (
! (
( !! ( ! (
Pa u
Lorne St
! (
! (
lS ! (
Ed win S ! (
t
Ja me s
! ( ! (
! (
Louisa St ! (
Blake St
! (
"¬ 5 ! " ! " ! ¬ " ¬ ! ! ( (( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (
! ( ! ! ( (
nS t
! (
S Thom
e e Av Grac
! (
ay Av e
! ( ! (
! (
t
! (
St
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
on D r
! (
! (
Sy ke s ! (
! (
St S ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Hi gh ! (
! ( ! ( ! (
Zone 3
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
t er y S t g om Mon
( !! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
!! ! ( ( (
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! ( (! ( !! (
McKibb
R
! (
St
! (
! (
( ! ( !
ive tt Dr usse
! (
Reservoir
! (
! ( ! (
! (
nt St S St Vince
! (
! (
! ± " b
! (
( !! ( ! (
Pumps
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
St Augusta
n Colema
Augusta
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
12
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Gr
! (
! (
! (
! (
! " ¬
! (
! (
! (
! (
St
! (
( ! ( ! ( !
! (
! (
! (
n Aike
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Cr es
Iva
! (
St
! (
Gran t Ave
! (
! (
ent St St Vinc
! (
Farrar St
n rto Bu
! (
! (
! (
St
! (
! ( ! (
! (
tE
! (
St Eliza ! (
PRV
side Ave
ve Middle A
! (
( ! ( !
( ! (!
! (
Lake
! ( ( ! ( !
" 5
! (
! (
r Pollard D
! (
ue
Graham
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Av en
! (
! (
! (! (
! (
Gre
! (
! (
! (
ad y Ro
! (
! (
! (
Ve ra
! (
! (
! (
ve Parkview A
Nodes
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
( !
! (
! ( ! (
( ! ( ! ! (
Vic t
! (
St
tE
! (
St mark Den
eld Dr Greenfi
r St Gardine
! (
r Mille
! (
! (
! (
aC
! ( ! (
tW nS wi Ed
! (
! (
lS shal Mar
! (
! (
( !! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
E
St
! (
! (
! (
! (
Tanks
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! Ö
! (
! (
! (
St
e St bridg Trow
! (
! (
! (
Rd
W
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Le gio n
! (
! (
y St Berr
! ( ! (
Legend
! (
! (
! (
ry Hen
n St
! Ö
n Owe
o Nels
St
Zone 2
! (
e St
! ( ( !! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
Noble
! ( ! (
! (
g Brid
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
( ! (!
St
! (
! " ¬
! (
( (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ( !
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
E
t Fuller S
t od S gwo in ll o C ! " ¬
! (
! (
Cook
Iro
rive od D
! (
! (
! (
St
To be Decommissioned n wo
Future Developer
! (
St
! (
Future Municipal
Zone 2 Booster Station
! ( ! (
ld fie
! (
n Pearso
! (
! (
St
! (
t d Cr w oo St Birch bard Lom
! ( ! (
Nelson Street Booster Station
! ( ! (
! (
y Ba
Zone 1
! (
nd St A
Future Consideration
! (
( !! (
! (
St
! (
100mm Cast Iron replacement
! (
St
ria Victo
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
pson Thom
! ( ! (
! (
d Ridge R
! (
Meadow Lane
! (
es
! (
! (
! (
26
! (
! (
Dr r ee k
Watermains
! (
! (
! (
wa y
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
High
! (
! ( ! (
wa y
26
! (
Union S
! ( ! (
re D thmo Swa
! (
! (
t
! (
r
! (
Centre St
7th Line
! (
Muir
St ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! (
Old H ighwa y
! (
! (
! (
oad Grey R
! (
Future Water Storage Facility ! (
3 rd
7
! (
! Ö ! (
Meaford Servicing Master Plan - Water Supply System 0
0.25
0.5
1
1.5
2 Kilometers
1:10,000
Lin e
26
25.2 2 Wastew water Systtem 25.2.1 2
Sewage C Collection n System – I/I Reducction Progrram
Maintaining a WWTP A ADF below 2,,700 m3/d an nd ensuring thhe effluent objectives con ntinue to be m met is the primaary driver for an I/I reduction program.. Based on tthe 2015 I/I SStudy Report there is significant opportunity to reduce extraneous fflows and recclaim reservee capacity at tthe plant. Du uring the mon nth of 3 April 2014 4, an estimatted 2,458 m /d of flow wa / as determineed to be extraneous, whicch translates to an 3 increase in the yearly ADF of 205 m m /d. While fully eliminati ng I/I during the spring m melt is not feaasible, this pointt serves to illlustrate the extent e and se everity of exxtraneous flow ws in the collection systeem. In terms of ggrowth plann ning, 205 m3/d of reclaime / ed capacity thhrough I/I red ductions wou uld be sufficieent to h rate service an n additional e eighteen (18) years of grow wth in the urbban area baseed on the histtorical growth and an assumed sewagge production n rate of 450 L/cap/day. wth rate and the cumulatiive reduction n in I/I requireed to maintain the Figure 22 shows the projected grow 3 uirement to keeep up with d developmentt is an approximate plant ADFF at 2600 m /d. Overall, the yearly requ 3 20 m /d in i I/I reductio on each yearr. Additionallyy, the contin uation of I/I reduction will ensure thaat the sewage flows will not e exceed the caapacity of the e Bighead Riveer syphon.
Inflow aand Infiltrration Redution Taarget 3200
Meaford WWTP ADF (m3/d)
3000
2800
2600
2400 I/I Reduction 2200
Prrojected ADF Taarget ADF
2000
Year
Figure 22 – Inflow and Infiltration R Reduction Ob bjective or reducing I//I is presented in Table 38 . A phased action plan fo
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
96
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 38 8 – Inflow an nd Infiltration n Reduction Plan
Planning T Term:
Initiative:
eplace Identiffied Damaged d Pipe Re
1‐5 years
5‐10 years
Deescription: Sykes Streett ‐ MH 10750 to MH 1 10720 (North of Ivan St. to Marggaret St.) Ivan Street –– MH 10791 to MH 10760 (from Sykes St. halffway to Victo or St.) William Streeet – MH 117 730 to MH 1 11680 (from Thomp pson St. to Co ook St.) Susan Streett – MH 326 630 to MH 3 32620 (from Thomp pson St. halfw way to Mary SSt.)
Sm moke Testing
Coomplete smo oke testing and notify home ow wners with illeegal connections.
Disconnection Program
Deevise a proggram to discconnect imp proper sew wer connections in the urrban area eith her by inccentive or pen nalty.
Co ontinue MH and CCTV Insp pection
nspections an nd CCTV inspeection Coontinue MH in of pipes in thee network that have yet to be insspected
MH 11491 to o MH 11490 (from Farrar St. – M Union Streett) 490 to MH 1 11470 Union Streett – MH 114 (from Farrar to North of LLouisa) eplace Identiffied Damaged d Pipe Re 11501 Blake Streett – MH 11500 to MH 1 (from Louisa,, South on Blaake) 730 to MH 1 11690 Albert Streeet – MH 117 (from Cook SSt. to West off Thompson) Moonitor and identify the amount if I/I Monitor I/I contribution c to the redduction that occurred from the first 5 years WWTP W of the I/I reducttion plan Coomplete smoke testing iff inflow is sttill an Sm moke Testing isssue from proh hibited conneections Ta ke actions to owards discon nnecting imp proper been rectified d. For co nnections that have not b exaample: fine// increase ssewer chargees of En nact Disconne ection Program m useers who still have prohib bited connecctions. Altternatively, fiix the existingg issue and charge thee sewer user for the cost. Ide entify Addittional Pipe Defect Froom the continued CCTV in nspection, identify Lo ocations ad ditional areas of damaged d pipe
10‐15 yeaars
I/I Study
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
Coomplete an I/I study to determinee the im mpact of reducction program m and identifyy new loccations for rehabilitation. 97
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Planning T Term:
Initiative:
Deescription:
Re eplace/ Reline R Daamaged Pipe
15‐20 yeaars
25.2.2 2
Id dentified
Fixx areas of daamaged sewer pipe that have beeen identifieed by the continued CCTV insspection, and d confirmed th hrough I/I Stu udy.
Moonitor and identify the amount if I/I Monitor I/I contribution c to the redduction occu urred from th he first 5 yeaars of WWTP W thee I/I reduction plan. Fixx areas of daamaged sewer pipe that have Re eplace/ Reline R Id dentified beeen identifieed by the continued CCTV Daamaged Pipe insspection, and d confirmed th hrough I/I Stu udy.
Wastewa ater System Overalll Plan
A phased strategy forr the overall wastewater collection annd treatment system is presented below in Table 39. The phased strategy inclludes projectts that will bee covered parrtially covered by develop pment charges. TThe percentage paid for by the Municip pality is indiccated in the p project name.. For project aat the WWTP that are new process or pro ocess being re eplaced the coosts were spllit based on the increase in n ADF from currrent condition ns to full build‐out conditions. Any proocess at the W WWTP being expanded in order to accomm modate development will be paid for solely throughh developmen nt charges.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
98
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 39 – Ov verall Waste ewater Syste em Improvem ment Plan Project Name Phase 1 1 Design New RAS/WASS Pumping and Electrical Improvements WWTP Refurbishmentt and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfection Channel (A Add Additional Module) Sykes Sttreet, Paul Stre eet, and Ivan Street Reconstrruction Develop p a Disconnection Program fo or Illegal Conne ections Sewer C CCTV and MH Inspections Smoke TTesting and Ide entification of Locations with h Illegal Conne ctions Notify P Property Owne ers of Illegal Co onnections/Disconnection Proogram Total Ph hase 1: Phase 2 2 William Street Sewer Susan Street Sewer Repair/Raise Low Lyin ng MH & Install Watertight Co overs (assume 50 repairs) Review CCTV Inspectio on Data and Re e‐evaluate Reh hab Priorities Review Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Flow ws Implement Disconnecction Program ((assume 500 connections) 1 km off sewermain re epairs each yeaar Total Ph hase 2: Phase 3 3 Union SStreet, Farrar Street and Blake Street Sewerrs Albert SStreet Sewer (25%) SPS 3 Upgradess Design (25%) SPS 3 Upgradess Construction 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 3: Phase 4 4 I/I Studyy Update SPS No. 2 Upgrades Design SPS No. 2 Upgrades Co onstruction SPS 1 No. Upgrades Design SPS 1 No. Upgrades Co onstruction 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 4: Phase 5 5 Continu ue System Rehaab as Guided b by CCTV Inspecction and I/I Stuudy 1,000 m m of sewermain n repairs each year Total Ph hase 5: Phase 6 6 (48%) D Design a New H Headworks Buillding (48%) N New Headworkks Building Construction (48%) D Design Odour C Control System (48%) O Odour Control SSystem Construction Total Ph hase 6: Total Prrogram:
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
99
Esstimated Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
150,000 0.00 2,550,000 0.00 50,000 0.00 210,000 0.00 N N/A 200,000 0.00 160,000 0.00 N N/A 3,320,000 0.00 120,000 0.00 80,000 0.00 370,000 0.00 10,000 0.00 5,000 0.00 750,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 3,355,000 0.00 225,000 0.00 100,000 0.00 5,000 0.00 51,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 2,381,000 0.00
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
50,000 0.00 20,000 0.00 200,000 0.00 22,000 0.00 225,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 2,517,000 0.00 TTBD 2,000,000 0.00 2,000,000 0.00 168,000 0.00 2,280,000 0.00 168,000 0.00 2,448,000 0.00 5,064,000 0.00 16,617,000 0.00
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
The goal o of the Improvvement Plan Phase 1 is to rehabilitate tthe existing p plant and con ntinue I/I redu uction efforts. Rehabilitation efforts will extend e the useful life of tthe existing p plant. The co ontinued effo orts to 3 ntain the ADF of the plant below 2,6000 m /d and su ustain the abiility of the plaant to reduce I/II aim to main meet efflu uent criteria. The primary objective e of Phase 2 2 of the Imprrovement Plaan is to estaablish the futture clarifiers and aeration b basins at the WWTP site tto be used for peak flow m management. The continu uation of I/I eefforts is suggested to contiinue with an n increased effort to haave improperr sewer conn nections rem moved throughout urban Meaaford. With peak flows effecctively managged by the interim retentiion tank, Phaase 3 of the IImprovementt Plan continuess to focus on n the reduction of I/I to increase reseerve capacityy at the plant to allow fo or the continuattion of develo opment. At Phase 4 it is suggested that all o of the SPS upggrades be com mpleted. Furtther, it is sugggested that tthe I/I Study be updated to determine the e best course of action witth respect to continuing reehabilitation o of the sanitary ccollection systtem. Phase 5 of the improve ement plan co onsists of the e continuationn of I/I reducttion efforts. Phase 6 of the plan is initiated when w the WWTP W can noo longer meeet the efflueent criteria aand is essentiallyy a full plant expansion. A At this point tthe interim s torm tanks w will be retrofitted to operaate as aeration b basins and claarifiers to servvice the full b build‐out pop ulation. In additio on to the repaairs and replaacements nee eded throughhout the urbaan area, there are a numb ber of projects tthat will be re equired to se ervice the ultimate develo pment. The p projects that are to be partially or fully funded by deve elopment chaarges are show wn in Table 440. The percentage of the project paid ffor by oper is indicaated in the pro oject name. D Developer chaarges have beeen divided b by the 6 catch hment the develo areas that exist througghout the network. This iss because som me of the prrojects only affect certain areas and becau use the growth in each are ea varies. The e new processs or processees being replaaced at the W WWTP were divided based on the increasse from the current c ADF to the full build‐out ADF. Expansion aat the WWTP that is as a resu ult of develop pment will paid for in full bby developmeent charges.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
100
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Table 40 – Wastew water Projec cts Covered by Develop pment Charg ges
Project Name ater Treatme ent Plant Waste Wa
Charged Areea Development Chargees
Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Design Future Claarifier and Ae eration/ Temp porary Equalizzation Tank Constructio on Repurpose e Storm Equalization to Claarifiers/Aeratio on (Effluent Quality Trigger) Design Biosolids Storage Expansion olids Works Con nstruction New Bioso Design New w UV Disinfecttion Channel New UV Diisinfection Con nstruction (52%) Design a New Head dworks Buildin ng (52%) New w Headworks Building Constru uction (52%) Design Odour Conttrol System (52%) Odo our Control Systtem Constructtion
Entire Netwo ork
$ 2 220,000.00
Entire Netwo ork
$ 3,9 900,000.00
Entire Netwo ork
$ 2,2 250,000.00
Entire Netwo ork ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo ork Entire Netwo
$ 3 310,000.00 $ 4,4 420,000.00 $ 2 200,000.00 $ 2,7 750,000.00 $ 1 182,000.00 $ 2,4 470,000.00 $ 1 182,000.00 $ 2,6 652,000.00
Sewage P Pumping Statiions (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Design (75%) SPS No. 3 Upgrade es Construction n Design and Con nstruction SPS No. 6 D
Area 3 Area 3 Area 6
$ 15,000.00 $ 1 153,750.00 $ 7 750,000.00 $ 6 600,000.00 $ 4 400,000.00 $ 4 420,000.00 $ 3 370,000.00 $ 2 290,000.00 $ 3 310,000.00 $ 2 250,000.00 $ 1 140,000.00
Sewermain Centre Stre eet Sewermain n Union Stre eet Sewermain Coleman SStreet Sewermaain St. Vincentt Street Sewerm main Muir Stree et Sewermain Nelson Street Sewermain n Miller Street Sewermain Pearson Sttreet Sewermain Constructio on of new pipe at intersection of Coleman n Street and Muir Stree et
Total
Area 1 Area 1 Area 6 Area 2 Area 2 Area 1 Area 1 Area 1
TBD
$22,4 484,750.00
The new pipe to be constructed c at a the interse ection of Colleman Streett and Muir Sttreet is for aa new ment area. The e size of and length of sew wermain is unnknown, therrefore an oveerall cost could not developm be determ mined. The de eveloper of th his area will b be responsiblle to calculate and incur aall costs assocciated with this n new sewermaain. A propose ed timeline fo or the suggessted work is p provided in Fiigure 23. Thee timeline inclludes projects that are both M Municipally funded and fu unded by developer chargees. The sewermains that aare affected b by the Improvem ment Plan are e shown in Figgure 24. The catchment arreas are show wn on the maap including aarea 6 which will be added to o the system o once SPS No. 6 is constructted.
Municipality of Meaford Waste Water Servicing Water & W Master Plan
101
Aprill 2015 up, File No. 11 14106 Ainley Grou
Figure 23 ‐ Proposed Timeline for Wastewater System Improvement Plan ID 1
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
Waste Water Treatment Plant
5849 days
15‐12‐31
38‐06‐01
2
Design New RAS/WAS Pumping and Electrical Improvements
263 days
15‐12‐31
17‐01‐02
3
Meaford WWTP Refurbishment and Demolishion of Old Sludge Storage
262 days
17‐01‐03
18‐01‐03
4
Upgrade UV Disinfection Channel (Add Additional Module)
130 days
17‐04‐03
17‐09‐29
5
Future Clarifier and Aeration/ Temporary Equalization Tank Design
260 days
17‐01‐02
17‐12‐29
6
Future Clarifier and Aeration/ Temporary Equalization Tank Construction
261 days
18‐01‐01
18‐12‐31
7
Monitor Effluent Quality to Ensure Compliance
3914 days
19‐01‐01
33‐12‐30
8
Repurpose Equalization to Clarifiers/Aeration (Effluent Quality Trigger)
261 days
34‐01‐02
35‐01‐01
9
Design a New Headworks Building
261 days
34‐12‐01
35‐11‐30
10
New Headworks Building Construction
261 days
35‐12‐03
36‐12‐01
11
Design Biosolids Storage Expansion
261 days
35‐06‐01
36‐05‐30
12
New Biosolids Works Construction
261 days
36‐06‐02
37‐06‐01
13
Design New UV Disinfection Channel
261 days
36‐01‐01
36‐12‐30
14
New UV Disinfection Construction
261 days
36‐12‐31
37‐12‐30
15
Design Odour Control System
261 days
36‐06‐02
37‐06‐01
16
Odour Control System Construction
261 days
37‐06‐02
38‐06‐01
5915 days
16‐01‐01
38‐09‐02
17
Sanitary Collection System
18
Sykes Street and Ivan Street Sewer
262 days
16‐01‐01
17‐01‐02
19
Develop a Disconnection Program for Illegal Connections
86 days
16‐01‐01
16‐04‐29
20
Sewer CCTV and Manhole Inspections
5829 days
16‐05‐02
38‐09‐02
44
Smoke Testing and Identification of Locations with Illegal Connections
5829 days
16‐05‐02
38‐09‐02
68
Notify Property Owners of Illegal Connections & Disconnection Program
1075 days
16‐09‐05
20‐10‐16
74
William Street Sewer
260 days
19‐08‐01
20‐07‐29
75
Susan Street Sewer
261 days
20‐09‐01
21‐08‐31
76
Review CCTV and Manhole Inspection Data and Identify Rehabilitation Priorities
88 days
20‐01‐01
20‐05‐01
77
Review Flow Rates and Compare to Historical Flows
85 days
21‐01‐04
21‐04‐30
78
Repair/Raise Low Lying Manholes & Install Watertight Covers Where Appropriate
109 days
21‐05‐03
21‐09‐30
79
Impliment Disconnection Program
4225 days
21‐08‐02
37‐10‐09
97
Union Street, Farrar Street and Blake Street Sewer
262 days
22‐12‐01
23‐12‐01
98
Albert Street Sewer
262 days
24‐07‐01
25‐07‐01
99
Inflow and Infiltration Study
195 days
26‐01‐01
26‐09‐30
100
Continue Collection System Rehabilitation as Guided by CCTV Inspection and I&I Study 2934 days
27‐01‐01
38‐03‐31
101 Sewage Pumping Stations
2240 days
27‐11‐01
36‐05‐30
102
SPS 3 Upgrades Design
261 days
27‐11‐01
28‐10‐30
103
SPS 3 Upgrades Construction
261 days
28‐10‐31
29‐10‐30
104
SPS 2 Upgrades Design
261 days
31‐04‐01
32‐03‐30
105
SPS 2 Upgrades Construction
261 days
32‐03‐31
33‐03‐30
106
SPS 1 Upgrades Design
261 days
34‐06‐01
35‐05‐31
107
SPS 1 Upgrades Construction
261 days
35‐06‐01
36‐05‐30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 203 H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H2H1H
102
t ia Sc o Dr
le R trevil Cen
d
Alg on q
La ke sh or e uin
Rd
S
Dr
! ( ! ( ! (
Ave Ford
! (
Gr an ! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! ( rt ry C Albe!( !(
! ( ! (
( !! (
C r ee
k Dr ! (
S ! ( yk
! (
! ( ! (
! (
es
! (
! (
! (
( ! ( !
t an S Sus !(
! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
St!A
! (
! (
! (
St
! (
! (
! (
m St !( Wil!(lia
! (
! (! (
! (
Dr
rt St Albe ( ! (!
! (
(
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
n Pearso
! (
W!(
! (
! (
! ( ! (
br Trow !(
! ( ! (
St
! (
! (
St
! (
t ! (
! ( ! (
! (
Louisa St ! (
! (
! (
Farrar St
! (
S Thom
! (
! (
e G!(rac!(
! (
Gr
! (
ay Av e ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
t er y S tgom !( !( n o M ! ( ! ( ! (
! (
Area 2 ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
on D r
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
nt St S St Vince
! (
! (
McKibb
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
Ave
! (
! (
! (
! (
Wet Wells
! (
! ! " ¬
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
( ! ( !
! ( ! (
n St Colema
R
! (
! (
! ( ! (
!
! (
! (
! (
St Augusta !(
! (
! (
side Ave
! (
! (
! (
! (
ive t t Dr usse ! (
! (
! (
! (
St Augusta
! (
! (
! (
! (
n St Aike !( ! (
! (
Av!(e
! (
12
! (
! (
! (
! (
t
Gre
! (
! (
! (
! (
Pumps
Sanitary Forcemains
! ( ! ( (Gran ! ( ! t ! ! ! ( ((
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
ad y Ro
Bu
! (
St
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
tE
! (
Lake
! (
! (
ent St St Vinc
Blake St
( ! (!
! ( ! (
Ja !( !( me ! (s C res ! ( t S n rto ! (
St Eliza!( ! (
! " ¬
WWTP
ve Middle A
! (
! (! (
! (
r Pollard D
Lorne St
! (
lS
! (
! (
! (
( !! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
Pa u
ue ! (
! (
! (
Ed ! ( win ! ( S
! (
Av en
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
St aret Marg !(
! ( ! (
! (
Ve ra
! (
! (
! (
Graham
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades
! (
! (
! (
! (
E l St shal !( Mar
St mark Den
r St Gardine
eld Dr Greenfi
! (
ve!( Parkview!(A !(
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Area 1
! (
! (! (
! (
! (
Sanitary Manholes
SPS # 2
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
tW nS wi Ed
! (
! ! ( ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
r Mille
! ( ! (
! (
St
! ( ! (
(! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ! ( ! ( (! ! " ! ¬ " ¬ ! " ! (¬ !¬ " ! ( S!(t E !(!( cher !(!( Bou !( !( ! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ( ! (!
! (
! (
! (
ry Hen
(
y Berr
St
t ge S !( wbrid Tro !
! (
! (
! (
! (
n Owe
! (
St
tW on S
Noble
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
y St Berr !( !(
! (
Rd
! (
St idge
Le gio n
! (
! ( ! !¬ ! " " ¬
! ( ! (
! (
Legend
Are a4
! (
! (! (
! (
res
! (
! (
( !! ( ! (
! (
! (! (
aC
! (
! (
t
! (
! (
! (
! (
o ri
! (
! ( ! (
t ge S Brid !(
! ( ! (
S Cook
! ( ! (
Decommission in Future
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! ( ( ! (!
tE on S Nels !(
! ( ! (! ( ! (
! (
SPS # 4
! ( ! !¬ ! " " ¬
t Fuller S
t od S gwo Co!(llin
! (
! (
! (
Nels
! ( ( ! ! ! ( (
SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades
5
! (
! (
! ( ( ! ( ! ( !
Vic t
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
Future Developer
Ar ea
( ! ( !
St ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
SPS # 1 St
W !( er St !( !(!(!( Park
W er St!( Par!(k
! (
ive d Dr
! ( ! (
! (
Crt ood!( irc!(hw St B ! ( bard Lom
Future Municipal
! (
! (
! (
wo o Iron
! (
ld fie
! (
! (
y Ba
! (
! ( ! (
SPS # 5
! ( ! (
! (
! (
Future Consideration
! ( rt S t Albe !( !(!(
! (
! (
ws ndr e
5-10 Years
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
St
ria Victo
! (
1-5 Years
! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( !! " ¬ ! " ¬
(! !! ( (
! (
! (
Ave !(
! (
! (
! (
! (
pson Thom
irw!(ay
! ( Fa ! (
Duration Until Replacement No Programed Upgrades
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
N ! (
St Stewart
! (
d Ridge R
26
Meadow Lane
! ( ! (
St
Sanitary Sewers
Pump Upgrades SCADA Upgrades Instrumentation/Control Upgrades
! (
! (
! (
wa y High
! (
! ( ! (
SPS # 3
! ( ! (
n St Hele !(
! (
! (
e Ridg !(
! ( ! (
! (
nS t
! (
Cres Countr!(y !(
Dr
! (
! (
Area 3
w
! (
Iv a
! ( ! (
dv ie
! (
! (
Sy ke s
St ! S (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! ( ! (
! (
Area 6
! (
! (
! (
! (
! (
Union S
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
t
SPS # 6
! (
! (
! (
re thmo Swa
Dr
! (
Centre
7th Line
New Developer
! ( ! (
! (
St
! (
! (
St M!(uir
! (
! ( ! (
! (
! (
! (
! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! (
! (
! (
Highway 26
! ( ! (
! (
Old H ighwa y
! (
oad Grey R
! ( ! (
! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
3 rd
7
Meaford Servicing Master Plan - Wastewater System 0
0.25
0.5
1
1.5
2 Kilometers
1:10,000
Lin e
26
A number of defects have been identified throughout the collection system that are not considered to be critical at this time, however they should be given future consideration for repair and will be reevaluated during Phase 4 of the improvement plan. Table 40 provides a listing of the defects and their locations. Table 41 – Sanitary Collection System Defects for Future Consideration Location
Defect
Boucher Street MH 132 to MH 131 @ 1 m @ 31.0, 31.6 m MH 130 to MH 125 @ 16.9, 21.8, 30.3, 41.9 m Centennial Street MH 11450 to MH 11440 @ 78.1 m Coleman Street MH 12800 to MH 12790 @ 60.3 m Grandview Drive MH 32591 to MH 32600 @ 1.6 m MH 32591 to MH 32590 @ 40.1 m MH 32590 to MH 32580 @ 9.4 m Margaret Street MH 176 to MH 177 @ 49.3 m Marshall Street MH 10860 to MH 10850 @ 17.5 m Middle Avenue MH 22680 to MH 22670 @ 55.6 MH 20360 to MH 22670 @ 39 m Montgomery Street MH 20510 to MH 20500 @ 88.7 m Nelson Street MH 12161 to MH 12150 @ 47.8 m Noble Street MH 12211 to MH 12220 @ 79.3 m Parklane Crescent MH 22730 to MH 22740 @ 62.4 m MH 22730 to MH 22720 @ 57, 82.6 m MH 22700 to MH 22670 @ 19.6 m Trowbridge Street MH 12450 to MH 12451 @ 0.4, 2.4 m MH 12460 to MH 12470 @ 103 m MH 12460 to MH 12450 @ 7.7, 25.7, 93.4, 129.3 m MH 12460 @ 148.3 m
Pipe broken Longitudinal/ Circumferential Cracking Offset Joint Circumferential crack Intruding connection, Infiltration Open Joint Broken Pipe at Joint Joint Displacement Hole in sewer (possible repair) Broken Pipe Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration at joint Hole in pipe Infiltration Cracking Cracking Joint Displacement Multiple Cracks Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe Joint Offset
Municipality of Meaford Water & Wastewater Servicing
April 2015 Ainley Group, File No. 114106 104
Appendix – A Terms of Reference and Authorization
The assignment will include, but will not be limited to, the following tasks: Task 1: Problem Statement, and Background Review and Analysis (Class EA Phase I) Through consultation with Municipality staff, the Consultant is to finalize the Problem Statement for inclusion in the Notice of Study Commencement. The Consultant shall review all available background studies and document/characterize existing conditions in the Study Area including land uses, topography, existing servicing systems, roads and natural features. This Study Area Profile will rely primarily on existing sources. However, fieldwork, as needed, will be completed to provide necessary information to prepare the Study Area Profile. Based on input from the Steering Committee on population projections and growth areas, the Consultant shall confirm proposed service areas, water demands and wastewater generation rates. Attend Steering Committee Meeting(s) to review and provide input into: i.
profile of the study area;
ii.
study area issues and data collection;
iii.
population projections, water demands, wastewater generation rates; and,
iv.
initial identification of alternative solutions.
Prepare Progress Report #1 and submit it to the Steering Committee for comment describing the problem statement, background studies and their findings, assumed population and growth areas, Profile of the Study Area, water demands and wastewater generation rates. Progress Report # 1 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report. The Municipality intends to hold a Phase 1 Public Information Centre (PIC) to obtain comment on the Problem Statement, Study Area and the Service Area. The successful consultant is to allow for arranging, holding and attending a Phase 1 PIC. The Consultant shall prepare a letter to all technical agencies and prepare the Notice for the local newspapers advertising the PIC and soliciting comments on the Master Plan. Task 2: Identification of Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase II) The Consultant is to identify servicing alternatives including combinations of alternatives which would address the problem statement and the study objectives. Only reasonable alternatives
and combinations of alternatives which meet the study objectives will be carried forward. The Consultant will provide descriptions and cost estimates for each alternative solution, complete with drawings and other supporting materials for review by the Steering Committee. In considering the preparation of the Class EA Master Plan, the Municipality is required to fully assess all reasonable alternatives to address the identified problem. As noted previously, with respect to water supply and wastewater treatment options, the Master Plan is to be based on the premise that the Meaford Water Treatment Plant and the Meaford Wastewater Treatment Plant will be used to service areas rather than the establishment of new facilities. In addition the municipal servicing options, as required by the Class EA process, this Class EA study will assess the following activities within the Study Area as part of the possible alternatives:
Do Nothing Limit Community Growth Water Efficiencies Reduction of Infiltration and Inflow
The successful consultant will be required to expand on all options to include new pipeline routes, upgrades to existing pump stations, new pump station and water storage facility locations. Consideration is to be given to modular design of all future water and wastewater infrastructure, including pipelines, to allow for coordinated future growth throughout the Municipality. Land requirements for future pump stations and water reservoirs are to be adequately sized to allow for staging of modular designs. In each of the series of possible solutions, the Master Plan will address the “Do Nothing” alternative to provide a baseline comparison for solutions. Each respondent to this RFP is to provide with the Qualitative Submission, a preliminary Outline of their Master Plan Document in the form of a Draft Index. This submission will be used in the evaluation of the proposals. The Project Team will develop social/environmental/technical criteria for the evaluation of alternatives. As a key part of assessing the viability of proposed alternatives, the Study will identify a series of criteria by which to measure each alternative. These will include, but not be limited to, the following topics:
Social Environment Land Use – compatibility with Official Plan Community cohesiveness Noise and mitigation Construction Impacts and mitigation Heritage Archaeology Agricultural land Quality of Life - Health and Safety
Natural Environment Environmentally sensitive areas Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s) Woodlots Creeks Fisheries Wetlands (including PSW’s) Wildlife and Birds Vegetation Air quality Stormwater issues
Technical Ability to satisfy design criteria Capacity Phasing Capabilities Geometrics (vertical and horizontal) Reliability Approvability (Review Agencies) Land Requirements (ease of acquiring) Structural Considerations (Geotechnical) Maintenance and operating needs Architectural considerations (general only based on surrounding development) Utility considerations (hydro supply, etc.)
Cost Capital Operating
Attend Steering Committee meeting(s) to review and provide input into alternatives and combinations of alternatives, and criteria by which alternatives will be evaluated. Task 3: Evaluation and Selection of Preliminary Preferred Solutions (Class EA Phase II) The Consultant shall assess alternatives using the selected evaluation criteria and identify “Recommended” solutions. This will be an iterative evaluation process, including refinement of alternatives, new options and combinations as they arise. A matrix evaluation method may be employed to ensure that each alternative is assessed against the same criteria. Based on the Profile of the Study Area and selected evaluation criteria, the Consultant is to assess the potential impacts and net effects (after mitigation) of each of the alternative water and wastewater solutions. At this stage, the site location and/or route of each alternative will be presented in sufficient detail so that mitigation methods can be assessed and environmental impacts addressed.
The Consultant shall identify “Recommended” alternatives or combination of alternatives. This identification shall list the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative solution and clearly state the reasons for the selection of the “Recommended” alternatives. This assessment may use a single project-by-project method or take a systems approach. The Consultant shall attend Steering Committee meeting(s) to review and provide input into:
The identification of alternatives and combinations of alternatives; The evaluation of alternatives; The selection of “Recommended” solutions; and To present Draft public open house information to the Municipality for review and comment.
The Consultant shall prepare Progress Report #2 and submit it to the Municipality for comment prior to the Phase 2 PIC. Progress Report #2 will include documentation of all alternatives, evaluation criteria, the evaluation of alternatives and the rationale for the selection of the “Recommended” solutions. Progress Report # 2 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report. Task 4: Public Consultation The Consultant shall prepare a letter to all technical agencies and put a notice in local newspapers advertising the Phase 2 PIC and soliciting comments on the Master Plan. The Steering Committee will host a Phase 2 PIC to solicit public comments and suggestions on the following:
Problem statement; Existing conditions/background/Study Area Profile; Alternative solutions; Evaluation criteria; Evaluation of alternative solutions, and “Recommended” solutions.
This Phase 2 PIC will be in the form of an open house – drop-in centre. The Consultant shall prepare Progress Report #3 to document the results of the PIC by compiling a summary of the comments and questions received along with a listing of the Municipality’s responses to same. Progress Report #3 is to be in a format that can be easily converted to the Master Plan Report. Task 5: Prioritizing Preferred Solutions The successful consultant shall recommend a prioritization list of the recommended projects for Municipality review and approval and for inclusion in the Master Plan Document. The Consultant is to recommend a phasing program for all preferred solutions complete with anticipated completion dates. Task 6: Master Plan Documentation
The Consultant shall document the results of the study by compiling Progress Reports #1-3 into a single Master Plan document. The Master Plan will identify all water and wastewater projects required to address the problem statement and satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process. The Master Plan Document is to be structured such that each of the service areas has it own sections (water and wastewater). Along with this project listing, the Master Plan will provide detailed information about the following for each project:
Class EA Schedule Proposed facility location and or pipeline route Dimensions of property required and preliminary layout of proposed facility Brief description of the function of the facility Anticipated construction date required Prioritization (based on criteria established) Capital cost estimate
The Master Plan will also include mitigation measures for the proposed preferred solutions outlining the steps necessary to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts of the proposed projects (e.g., best management practices included in the consideration of the net effects). The Master Plan will also address implementation measures in which all the required permits and approvals are clearly listed for each project (e.g., Certificate of Approval, Permit To Take Water, etc.). This Master Plan will include results of the Steering Committee, technical agencies and public consultation. Given the nature of the Class EA process, the outcome of the evaluation cannot be predicted. However, for the purposes of the terms of reference for this project, the Municipality has assumed that most of the projects will be classified as Schedule B Activities under the MEA Class EA Document. Creek crossings may need to be identified as Schedule C Projects, requiring additional Class EA planning. This will depend on the feasibility of using trenchless methods for pipeline installation giving consideration that creek crossings will be Schedule “B” Projects. However, the selected consultant will be required to identify all applicable projects and confirm their associated Class EA Schedules. A Steering Committee meeting will be held to review and provide input into the draft Master Plan. The Municipality will review the draft Master Plan and provide comments prior to the finalization of the Report to ensure that it incorporates the comments of the public, technical agencies and Steering Committee. The Consultant shall finalize the Master Plan and provide copies to the Municipality along with an electronic version. For budgeting and scheduling purposes, the following Report Deliverables must be included:
Progress Report # 1 – one digital and 3 hard copies Progress Report # 2 – one digital and 3 hard copies Progress Report # 3 – one digital and 3 hard copies Draft Master Plan for Municipality review prior to the 2nd PIC – one digital and 3 hard copies (no Appendices)
Draft Master Plan for MOE review prior to 30 day public review – three digital and 6 hard copies, with all Appendices Draft Master Plan for 30-day public review complete with all Appendices and related background Reports – three digital and 5 hard copies (2 for public display) Final Master Plan following 30-day public review – three digital and five hard copies complete with all Appendices and related background Reports.
The consultant will make presentations to the Municipality of Meaford Council on three separate occasions to present the Progress Reports. The Municipality will publish a Notice of Completion for the Schedule B Projects for the required 30-day review period and release the draft Master Plan for review and comment. The Consultant shall identify a specific number of hours of time for the Project Manager to review and comment on written public or agency questions or comments resulting from the Notice of Completion. No Time is to be budgeted for receiving and addressing any requests for a “Part II Order”. The Consultant shall identify any Ministry of Transportation requirements with respect to obtaining easements and the installation of proposed infrastructure within the Highway 26 Corridor. The Consultant shall identify and determine the complexity of proposed specific works based on actual communications with MTO representatives on the potential construction methods and MTO requirements based on the complexity of the work. This information is to be included in a separate Clause of the Master Plan.
Appendix ‐ B Minutes of Meetings
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON
L4N 8Z7
Tel: (705) 726-3371
726-4391
•
Fax: (705)
Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
PROJECT MEETING # 1 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
June, 18 2014
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
Introductions Engineering Agreement Project Goals and Objectives
Discussion on Municipal goals for project
Team Roles
Consultant Municipality o Steering Committee o Workshop attendees
Communications
Management Data Collection Field work
Schedule and Workplan
Fix Key Dates o Council Meetings? (Election?) o Steering Committee Meetings o Workshops o PICs
Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 1
Public Consultation Program
Agency Contact List First Nations Contact list Notice of Commencement Agency Letter Discussion on Public Contact sequence/PIC formats
Data Collection
Populations/Growth/Official Plan Potential Developments WWTP Class EA Amendment
Other Issues Document6
Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 2
MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com
MINUTES OF PROJECT INITIATION MEETING PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106
DATE:
Wednesday June 18, 2014
LOCATION:
Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom
TIME:
1:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Reid Mitchell, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group
DISTRIBUTION:
All Present
1.
Project Documentation Three copies of the Engineering Agreement have been signed by the Municipality and provided to Ainley. Ainley will sign and return two copies to the Municipality. Action by Ainley Ainley has submitted its WSIB Clearance Certificate and Certificates of Insurance.
2.
Project Goals and Objectives The Municipality must reserve adequate funds for future development and expansion of the distribution, collection and treatment systems. A primary objective of the study is to provide a basis to determine adequate development charges to ensure funds are available for required capital projects. This study will provide descendible costs to ensure all future costs are covered. Although there have been various projects completed to look at future servicing there has never been one comprehensive study linked directly to D.C. charges. The study will also provide the Municipality with a basis to schedule ongoing maintenance of roadways with repairs or upsizing of pipelines as required minimizing long term costs. The
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 1
study will provide for the proper coordination of infrastructure development. The study is to be confined to build-out of the existing Meaford community and is not to consider developments remote from this community. The plan is to provide a logical growth plan in practical phasing. It is the policy of the Municipality to promote growth. 3.
Team Roles Ainley will be primarily responsible for all aspects of the servicing study. The Municipality will be responsible to support the Ainley team by providing required information for completion of the study. The Steering Committee will be the primary source of guidance and reviews to Ainley from the Municipality. Steering Committee Members:
4.
Stephen Vokes Chris Collyer Rob Armstrong Darcy Chapman Brady Carbert
Communications All project communications from Ainley to the Municipality will be distributed to all members of the Steering Committee. Gary Scott will be the primary source of contact for communications from the Municipality to Ainley, however other team members will be in contact with the Municipality as required.
5.
Schedule and Workplan A preliminary schedule was included in the Ainley proposal. This showed a completion date (after the 30 day review) of March 17, 2014. This is still the target date and will be sufficient to support the D.C. Study. It is likely that the D.C. Study consultant will be appointed this year and that coordination will take place before the Servicing Study is complete. Given the delayed start to the project a slightly revised table of key dates were presented and discussed. The following “Key Dates” were discussed: Steering Committee Meeting # 1: Rescheduled from July 30, 2014 to August 13, 2014 Council Presentation # 1: Cancelled (PIC will be schedules the same day as Council) Public Information Centre # 1: Rescheduled from September 17, 2014 to September 8, 2014 Steering Committee Meeting # 2: Confirmed September 24, 2014 Steering Committee Meeting # 3: Confirmed October 29, 2014 Generally deliverables will be provided for Steering Committee review and revised following
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 2
discussion with the steering committee. Any workshop, PIC’s or Council Presentations would follow review by the Steering Committee. The current schedule provides adequate time for the Municipality to integrate the findings of the study into the changes to the development charges. It was agreed upon that one Workshop should be replaced with an “Educational Session” for the new Council after the election takes place. It was agreed that the local developers should be invited to a Workshop to be held before the initiation of Phase 2 of the project. It was suggested that the developers be split into two separate groups based on size. The Municipality will canvas interest among some of the developers and the workshops will be arranged accordingly. Action by Municipality 6.
Public Consultation Program Copies of the Draft Agency Contact List, First Nations Contact List, Notice of Commencement, and Agency letter were distributed at the meeting to all attendees for review and comment. Action by Municipality Ainley suggested that the Notice of Commencement be finalized and issued as soon as possible following review by the Steering Committee. The Municipality will review and recommend changes to the draft documents and return to Ainley to be finalised. Action by Municipality
7.
Data Collection Ainley will hold an internal meeting and complete an information gap analysis to determine what documentation is currently available to our team and what is required from the Municipality. The results of this analysis will be provided to the Municipality. Action by Ainley A meeting will be held with the planning department to review development/ build-out plans.
8.
Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 1 and will be held at the Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line – Boardroom on August 13, 2014. Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible. Minutes prepared by:
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 3
S. D. Glass, E.I.T.. Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/ S:\114106\Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Intiation Meeting MINUTES - Final.docx
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Initiation Meeting June 18, 2014
File No. 114066 Page 4
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON
L4N 8Z7
Tel: (705) 726-3371
726-4391
•
Fax: (705)
Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
PROJECT MEETING # 2 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
August, 25 2014
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
1. Progress since Last Meeting 2. Overall Status/Ongoing Issues 3. PIC No.1
Discussion on Timeline Review of presentation materials
4. Discussion on Overall System Summary
Water Distribution Storage Treatment Sewage Collection Sewage Pumping Stations WWTP
5. Activities To Next Committee Meeting 6. Other Issues
Document6
Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014
File No. 114106 Page 1
MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com
MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING #2 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106
DATE:
Monday August 25, 2014
LOCATION:
Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom
TIME:
1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
PRESENT:
Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group
DISTRIBUTION:
All Present
1.
Progress Since Last Meeting The models of the water distribution and waste water collection systems are now up to date with existing infrastructure. Some minor improvements to the models are still being completed but they will be addressed in the near term. All the required field inspections have been completed. The majority of the data collection has been completed. At this time Ainley is reviewing the land area of vacant lots available for development and working towards ultimate flow projections. The six technical memoranda that backup the information to be presented at PIC No.1 are under progress and will be submitted to the municipality by Friday, August 29th. Action by Ainley
2.
Overall Status/ Ongoing Issues At this point in time Ainley is approximately 2 months behind the schedule provided to the Municipality as a part of the original proposal. Despite the early delays the completion date after the 30 day review period is not expected to change.
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014
File No. 114106 Page 1
3.
PIC No.1 An additional meeting to finalise the materials for PIC No.1 was proposed by Ainley. A meeting was arranged for 1:00 pm on Thursday September 4th at the Operations Centre. A newspaper advertisement will be prepared by Ainley and will be submitted to the Municipality by August 26th for publication in the Meaford Express. The advertisement will be run on the September 3rd and September 10th issues. Final materials for PIC No.1 must be submitted by Tuesday September 9th to ensure it can be incorporated in the council meeting minutes. PIC No.1 will be booked for 7:00 pm on Monday September 15th. The preferred location for the meeting is at the Meaford Town Hall but the final location will be subject to availability. The current progress on the presentation materials was discussed and feedback was provided by the Steering Committee to Ainley. The suggested changes will be incorporated by Ainley. Action by Ainley
4.
Discussion on the Overall System Summary The progress on the Technical Memoranda was discussed. A draft copy of the population growth technical memorandum was distributed at the meeting. The population growth projection based on the Grey County Growth Management Strategy was discussed. The Steering Committee has agreed to review the growth projections and determine if it is valid based on the historical trends. The reviewed document will be returned to Ainley by the end of the day on August 26th.
5.
Activities to Next Committee Meeting A newspaper advertisement for PIC No.1 will be prepared and submitted to the Municipality by Tuesday August 26th to be published in the Meaford Express. The six technical memoranda will be completed and submitted to the Municipality by Friday August 29th. Presentation materials will be completed in draft form and submitted to the Municipality ahead of the review meeting scheduled for September 4th. Action by Ainley
6.
Next Meeting The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 3 and will be held at the Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Boardroom on September 4th, 2014. Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible. Minutes prepared by:
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014
File No. 114106 Page 2
S. D. Glass, E.I.T.. Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/ S:\114106\Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Intiation Meeting MINUTES - Final.docx
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #2 August 25, 2014
File No. 114106 Page 3
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON
L4N 8Z7
Tel: (705) 726-3371
726-4391
â&#x20AC;˘
Fax: (705)
Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
PROJECT MEETING # 3 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
October, 30 2014
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
Progress since Last Meeting (Models)
Water Opportunities
Wastewater Opportunities
Where to go from here?
Other Issues
Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #3 October 30, 2014
File No. 114106 Page 1
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON
L4N 8Z7
Tel: (705) 726-3371
726-4391
•
Fax: (705)
Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING # 4 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
February, 2 2015
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
Progress since Last Meeting Overall Status/Ongoing Issues Summary of Wastewater Model Results Summary of Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation
Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Sewage Collection
Wastewater Project Recommendations Summary of Water Model Results Summary of Water Alternatives Evaluation
Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Storage Distribution
Water Project Recommendations Project Assignments
Development Charges Developer Cost Town Cost
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 1
Project Priorities
Sewage Collection (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20) Water Distribution (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)
Suggested Completion Schedule for PIC and Deliverables Next Committee Meeting Other Issues
Document6
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 2
MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com
MINUTES OF PROJECT MEETING # 4 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Study Ainley Project No. 114106
DATE:
Monday February 2, 2015
LOCATION:
Operations Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 157859 7th Line - Boardroom
TIME:
1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
PRESENT:
Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group Julia Roest, Ainley Group
DISTRIBUTION:
All Present + Darcy Chapman
1.
Progress Since Last Meeting The models of the water distribution and waste water collection systems are now up to date with existing infrastructure. The trunk main layout for ultimate development is now reflected within the sewer and water models. Both models have been calibrated to existing conditions. The technical memoranda for both the sewer and water model have been distributed to the Municipality for review/comment. Action by Municipality The technical memoranda for water system and wastewater system alternatives have been completed in draft and have been distributed to the Municipality for review/comment. Action by Municipality The two technical memoranda that backup the information to be presented at PIC No.2 will be updated based on the comments of the Municipality and finalised preceding the public meeting on February 26th, 2015. Action by Ainley
2.
Overall Status/ Ongoing Issues At this point in time Ainley is approximately 1 month behind the schedule provided to the
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 1
Municipality as a part of the original proposal. Despite the delays the completion date after the 30 day review period is not expected to change. An additional meeting to finalise the materials for PIC No.2 was proposed by Ainley. The follow-up meeting will be held on Tuesday February 17th. A newspaper advertisement will be prepared by Ainley and will be submitted to the Municipality for review by February 13th. The ad will be run in the Meaford Express on February 19th and February 25th. Final materials for PIC No.2 must be submitted by Friday February 13th for review by the Municipality preceding the meeting to be held on February 17th. PIC No.2 will be booked for 7:00 pm on Thursday February 26th. The preferred location for the meeting is at the Meaford Town Hall but the final location will be subject to availability. Action by Ainley 3.
Summary of Wastewater Model Results The results of the wastewater collection model were discussed. In order to understand the impact the potential Meaford Highlands development would have on the sanitary collection system, the Municipality would like an understanding of available sewer capacity from the sewer main on Sykes Street at Muir Street to the WWTP. Available capacity is to be calculated for the present day and ultimate build out scenarios. Action by Ainley
4.
Summary of Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation The progress on the Technical Memoranda was discussed. A draft copy of the Wastewater Alternatives and Evaluation memorandum was distributed to the Municipality for review and comment. Action by Municipality Progress on the draft report will be continued by Ainley and the report will be finalised when comments are received from the Municipality. The municipality identified that the final report recommendations should include a statement to the effect that SPS#4 should be decommissioned in the event that the Knights of Meaford factory on Boucher Street is shut down. Action by Ainley
5.
Wastewater Project Recommendations The yearly target to be targeting for wastewater projects was discussed. The budget allocated to complete wastewater capital projects is approximately $400,000/year. However the Municipality does not want the planning process to be restricted by the existing budget. A target budget was not agreed upon during the meeting. Project planning will be completed on the basis of prioritizing high impact projects particularly with respect to I/I reduction.
6.
Summary of Water Model Results The results of the water model were discussed. Following on from discussion at the last
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 2
meeting concerning low pressure areas in Zone 1, Ainley had completed further analysis supplying the Zone from the Tank and confirmed that there is an 4 – 12 psi change in pressure across the zone when the pumps at the WTP are cycled off with the largest swing in the NW area. Ainley had looked at two scenarios to correct this. 1 Is to increase the size of the boosted zone through the NW area. 2 Is to operate Zone 1 as a closed zone (as St Vincent area) at a higher pressure. Since the pressure swings extend over the whole zone, increasing the Nelson Street Zone does not solve the problem for everyone. Based on this Ainley suggested that the best solution is to operate the main zone as a closed pressure system supplied by the WTP pumps 100% of the time. Adding VFD drives will also provide the opportunity to give everyone a constant pressure. Town confirmed that during the tank repainting the pressure was better with the system running off the WTP pumps and when they switched back to the tank control they again experienced pressure swings. The Town is in agreement to switch to control from the WTP. The water model will be update to reflect the recommended changes to the Nelson Street boosted zone and the operation of the WTP high lift. Action by Ainley 7.
Summary of Water Alternatives Evaluation The alternatives for the water distribution system were discussed. The main alternative Within the technical memorandum two water storage alternatives providing floating storage have been identified. One is an elevated tank and the other an in-ground tank. Although the evaluation is close the in-ground reservoir on 7 th Line South of Muir Street has been identified as the preferred solution on the basis of cost and operational safety as well as aesthetics. The Municipality will approach the property owners at the identified site prior to the PIC. Action by Municipality
8.
Water Project Recommendations
Action by Ainley
The priorities for the water distribution system were discussed and identified as follows: 1) Feeder main from the WTP to the Water Tower 2) Fire flow in the Nelson St. boosted zone 3) Fire flow/ Removal of 4”Cast Iron Pipes throughout the urban area The priorities identified will be reflected in the Master Plan 8.
Project Assignments
Action by Ainley
The assignment of water and wastewater projects to developer charges, developer costs or town costs were discussed. The Municipality preferred to discuss the separation of the projects with Darcy Chapman. Ainley provided a set of maps with future developments included for the Municipality to discuss internally and provide direction to Ainley. Action by Municipality 9.
Next Meeting The next meeting to be held will be Steering Committee # 5 and will be held at the Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line – Boardroom on February 17th 2015. Any errors and/or omissions from these Minutes should be reported to the undersigned as soon as possible.
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 3
Minutes prepared by:
S. D. Glass, E.I.T.. Ainley & Associates Limited SDG/
S:\114106\1 Project Management Gary Stuff\Project Meeting Minutes & Agendas\Minutes\Steering Committee Meeting No4 MINUTES.docx
Municipality of Meaford Minutes of Project Meeting #4 February 2, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 4
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 • Fax: (705) 726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
PROJECT MEETING # 5 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
February, 17 2015
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
Progress since Last Meeting Overall Status/Ongoing Issues Committee Comments on Draft Wastewater Alternatives Evaluation
Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Sewage Collection
Committee Comments on Draft Water Alternatives Evaluation
Overall System Strategy Treatment Pumping Stations Storage Distribution
Review of Draft PIC Boards Suggested Completion Schedule for Deliverables Next Committee Meeting Other Issues
Document6
Municipality of Meaford Agenda of Project Meeting #5 February 17, 2015
File No. 114106 Page 1
AGENDA
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 • Fax: (705) 726-4391 Email: barrie@ainleygroup.com
PROJECT MEETING # 6 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan
DATE:
April 15, 2015
TIME:
1.00 pm to 4.00 pm
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre
Progress since Last Meeting
PIC Completion Completion of Draft Servicing Studies
Review of Draft Master Servicing Studies Review of Drawings Review of Draft Project Budget Tables Review of Sites for Schedule B Projects
SPS Site Reservoir Site Optioning Land
Draft Notice of Completion Other
Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015
Issues
Meeting # 5 Page 1
MINUTES Ainley & Associates Limited
280 Pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, ON L9Y4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 Email: collingw ood@ainleygroup.com
MINUTES OF PROJECT # 6 PROJECT:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Waste Water Servicing Plane
DATE:
Wednesday April 15, 2015
LOCATION:
Meaford Operations Centre – 157859 7th Line - Boardroom
TIME:
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Stephen Vokes, Municipality of Meaford Chris Collyer, Municipality of Meaford Darcy Chapman, Municipality of Meaford Brady Carbert, Municipality of Meaford Gary Scott, Ainley Group Simon Glass, Ainley Group Tori Giangrande. Ainley Group
DISTRIBUTION:
All Present
1.
Progress Since Last Meeting
PIC No. 2 took place on February 26th, 2015 at Meaford Hall. The information presented at the PIC included background information, problem statement, evaluation criteria, alternative solutions and recommended solutions. The draft servicing plan has been completed and has been distributed to the municipality for review/comments. The Municipality has begun to review the document and will try to finish reviewing by Friday April 17th, 2015. Action by Municipality 2.
Review of Draft Master Servicing Studies
The municipality has been able to review the first half of the draft master servicing document. No major issues were found in the review thus far. The municipality outlined the comments they have made so far on the document which were the following:
Include a list of abbreviations and definitions. Make sure to refer to abbreviations by their full name the first time they appear in a document. For the number of units left for the WWTP put “as per 2013” into the report. Make sure to highlight
Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015
Meeting # 5 Page 3
the number of units left for the WWTP in the presentation. On page 9 put in “May 12th” as date of Notice of Completion. Put units into full form (eg. Kilowatt-hour instead of kWh) Review process description of WWTP Refer to Meaford as Urban Meaford not Town. Bighead river is one word Additional comments or corrections to the document will be sent to Ainley for review allowing a final copy of the master servicing document to be produced. Action by Municipality The municipality identified that the new phosphorus limits will result in increased sludge production and was wondering if additional digester storage is needed. Ainley will check to see if this change will result in a need for additional digester storage. Action by Municipality 3.
Developer Charges Additional projects were identified as being able to be covered by developer charges for both water and wastewater infrastructure. For water infrastructure the VFD installation, In-Ground Storage Reservoir on County Road 7 and Booster Station on Nelson Street can be partially paid for by developer charges. For the wastewater infrastructure sections of the new wastewater treatment plant and Sewage Pumping Station No. 6 can be paid for by developer charges. SPS No. 4 decommissioning is the responsibility of the developer. The water and wastewater systems will be split into zones and areas, respectively, to allow developer charges to be properly allocated. The developer charges need to include everything to full build-out. Action by Municipality
4.
Review of Drawings
The zones and areas need to be overlaid onto the drawings. There are 3 zones for the water distribution system that have already been developed based on the booster zones. For the wastewater collection system 6 catchment areas are to be developed based on the pumping station collection areas. Action by Municipality 5. Review of Draft Project Budget Tables A review of the current budget tables needs to be completed to not include development charges. A separate table should be constructed with a breakdown of the development charges. An average cost per year is not necessary for the Municipality charges. The cost breakdown chart should be put in the report to council and presented as well as placed in the executive summary. Action by Ainley 6. Review of Sites for Schedule B Projects Meaford has talked to the owner of the land for the in-ground reservoir. The reservoir will require about half a Ha of land. For the Master Plan Ainley can complete a drawing with a reservoir outline on it. Action by Ainley Different options were reviewed for the location and configuration of SPS No. 6. A site visit was conducted after the meeting to assess field conditions. It was decided that SPS No. 6 would only service Coleman Street Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015
Meeting # 5 Page 3
with a forcemain along Coleman Street to Muir Street. In the future when development in this area is planned more detailed design can occur for SPS No. 6. 7.
Draft Notice of Completion
The draft notice of completion was review by the Municipality. The publish date for the notice will be on May 13th, 2015 the first Wednesday following the council meeting. The second address that the Master Plan will be available at has to be changed to the Meaford Library. Action by Ainley Minutes prepared by: V.E. Giangrande, E.I.T.. Ainley & Associates Limited
Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing April 15, 2015
Meeting # 5 Page 3
Appendix ‐ C Select Background Reports
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date:
July 10, 2012
To:
Rakesh Sharma, GENIVAR
Copies: From:
Michelle Albert and Emily Ghosh, GENIVAR
Project No.:
OS-08-134-11-OS
Subject:
Meaford WWTP Assimilative Capacity Study Update
1.
Introduction
The Meaford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1969 to service the Municipality of Meaford and to provide treatment for hauled wastes from neighbouring areas. In 2007, a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed to address long term wastewater treatment requirements for the Municipality. It was assumed at the time of the Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report (ESR) that the Municipality’s current population would double by 2026, thus doubling the hydraulic capacity of Meaford WWTP. In the ESR, the WWTP’s effluent limits and required treatment upgrades were determined based on this assumption. However, since the WWTP is currently operating below its rated capacity and based on the approved developments in Meaford at this time, a 20% increase in population would more likely represent future growth and future capacity requirements. The objective of this Technical Memorandum is to confirm whether the effluent limits recommended in the 2007 ESR are still suitable for the Meaford WWTP if only a 20% increase to the rated capacity, from 3,910 m3/d to 4,692 m3/d, is undertaken.
2.
Wastewater Treatment Facility Description
2.1
Description of Facilities
Meaford WWTP is located at 35 Grant Street in the Town of Meaford, as shown on Figure 2-1 on the following page. Meaford WWTP receives raw sewage from four pumping stations in the Meaford service area. The WWTP operates as an activated sludge plant with aerobic sludge stabilization and storage and Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and is operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA). The key treatment processes and operations include: • • • • • •
Raw wastewater pumping station Preliminary treatment (screening) Conventional Activated Sludge System (aeration tanks, secondary clarifiers) UV Disinfection System Outfall to Georgian Bay Aerobic Digestion with land disposal of biosolids
2.2
Wastewater Flows and Plant Treatment Capacity
The Meaford WWTP operates under Certificate of Approval #0440-6A4JXX issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on March 15, 2005. The current rated capacity of the plant is 3,910 m3/d, however based on OCWA’s 2011 Performance Report, the plant’s 2011 annual average daily flow was only 2,679.3 m3/d which is 68.5% of the design capacity. This was a 12% increase from flows recorded in 2010.
MARKHAM
600 Cochrane Drive, 5th Floor, Markham, Ontario L3R 5K3
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Tel.: (905) 475-7270 Fax: (905) 475-5994
Technical Memorandum Page 2 Figure 2-1 Location of Meaford WWTP (Source: Municipality of Meaford Official Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Schedule A-1 Land Use Plan, 2005)
N
In light of the current flows to the plant and approved subdivisions planned for the future, it has been estimated that future plant flows will increase by 20% above the current rated capacity of 3,910 m3/d to 4,692 m3/d. In the 2007 ESR, the peaking factor was assumed to be 3.5. Also, based on the 2011 Performance Report, a maximum peak daily flow of 9,505 m3/d was recorded at the plant, which is 3.5 times the plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual average daily flow in 2011. Therefore, a peaking factor of 3.5 will also be used for this report.
2.3
Treated Water Effluent Quality as per the 2007 ESR
The current and earlier proposed effluent limit are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Current and Earlier Proposed Effluent Limits Current Effluent Limit (C of A at 3,910 m3/d)Note1 Parameter
Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR at 6,000 m3/d)Note 2
mg/L
kg/d
mg/L
kg/d
CBOD5
20
78.2
15
90.0
TSS
20
78.2
15
90.0
Total Phosphorus
4
15.6
0.8
4.8
Total Ammonia Note 3 non-freeze period
3
11.7
3
18.0
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 3 Current Effluent Limit 3 Note1 (C of A at 3,910 m /d)
Parameter
mg/L 5
freeze periodNote 3 pH
Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR at 6,000 m3/d)Note 2
kg/d 19.6
mg/L 5
kg/d 30.0
6.0 – 9.5
6.0 – 9.5
Note 1
Certificate of Approval #0440-6A4JXX
Note 2
Municipality of Meaford Wastewater Treatment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report 3 (EarthTech, November 2007) (Values in ESR are incorrect for 6,000 m /d, updated values shown)
Note 3
Non-freeze period from May 15 to September 30 . Freeze Period from October 1 to May 14 .
3.
th
th
st
th
Receiving Water Impact Assessment
The level of impact of wastewater plant effluent on the receiving waters is based on the ability of the receiving waters to assimilate substances. Assimilative capacity is defined as “the limit of a water body to transform and/or incorporate substances (e.g. nutrients) by the ecosystem, to the point that the water quality does not degrade below a predetermined level” (MOEE, 1994a). An assessment of the capacity of the receiving waters (Georgian Bay) to assimilate 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), effluent total suspended solids (TSS), total ammonia and total phosphorous (TP) is discussed in this section.
3.1
Provincial and Federal Guidelines used to Quantify Impacts to Receiving Waters
To quantify the impact of the Meaford WWTP discharges on Georgian Bay was evaluated based on Ministry of Environment Procedure B-1-5 “Deriving Receiving Water Based Point Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters” (MOE 1994a) which includes water quality objectives (called the Provincial Water Quality Objectives or PWQOs) for various water quality parameters. Other important guidance and procedural documents utilized includes: • • • • • •
Recreational Water Quality Guidelines and Aesthetics (CCME, 1998), Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality (Health Canada, 2009), Procedure F-5-1 “Determination of Treatment Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works Discharging to Surface Waters”, “Derivation of Effluent Criteria for Certificates of MOE” (MOE, 1992), “Guide for Applying for Approval of Municipal and Private Water and Sewage Works” (MOE, 2000) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of Freshwater Systems (CCME, 2004)
Both federal and provincial regulations were utilized in this assessment and therefore in the situation that a parameter had different federal and provincial criteria, the more stringent criteria were used.
3.2
Objectives of Receiving Water Assessment
The objectives of a receiving water assessment are: 1. to determine the effectiveness of the Meaford WWTP outfall and diffusers 2. to determine the representative background water quality and current velocities of Georgian Bay in the vicinity of the Meaford WWTP outfall; 3. to determine the representative effluent conditions; 4. to conduct an assessment of the assimilative capacity of the Georgian Bay receiving waters based on worst case conditions; and 5. to confirm the effluent limits for the Meaford WWTP
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 4
3.3
Previous Receiving Water Assessment at Higher Design Capacity (6,000 m3/day)
As part of the 2007 EA, a Technical Memorandum called the Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech was completed to address receiving water impacts for future flows of 6,000 m3/day. For this evaluation, data was gathered for the Meaford WWTP and Georgian Bay for integration into a CORMIX model to assess effluent impacts to the Bay. The background information gathered from the previous study and described in the following section will also be utilized for completing this tech memo. The results of the previous study will also be reviewed.
3.3.1
Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffusers
The Meaford WWTP outfall consists of a 600 mm diameter concrete pipe and four (4) 450mm diffusers which discharges wastewater effluent into Georgian Bay. The outfall discharge point is located approximately 425 m from the shore and is approximately 3 km from the Meaford Water Treatment Plant Intake. As shown in Figure 3-1 below, the outfall pipe is buried below the lake bed with only the diffusers exposed above the lake bed surface. An underwater visual inspection completed by Watech Services in November 2006 as part of the 2007 EA Study found that the pipe was still under full cover and the diffusers were in good overall condition. However, the diffusers were covered in marine growth and zebra mussels and the caps were damaged or missing. Regular maintenance and removal of the remaining caps was recommended as part of the report. Figure 3-1 Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffuser Profile (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007)
Other characteristics of the outfall, diffuser and ports are summarized in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1 Meaford WWTP Outfall and Diffuser Details (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Value Outfall Length
450 m
Diffuser Length
15 m
Number of Diffuser Ports
4
Port Diameter
400 mm
Port Distance to the shore
425 m
Port Vertical Angle
90ยบ
Port Discharge Elevation
~0.9 m above lake bed
Lake Depth at Diffuser
3.3m in 2007, 3.7m long-term
Bathymetric data was also reviewed to establish circulation patterns near the outfall discharge ports. The bathymetry of Georgian Bay and local bathymetry near the outfall are shown on Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, respectively. As discussed in the 2007 Study and shown in the figures, it is likely that the receiving waters have an unstratified water column at the diffuser ports due to the shallow shelf in that area. Furthermore, the currents will mostly occur in the central part of the Bay, where the shelf is deeper.
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 5 Figure 3-2 Bathymetry of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay with Topography (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/huron.html) [Blue>130m; Green 70-130m; Yellow 40-70m; Red<40m]
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-3 Bathymetry at Meaford WWTP Outfall (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007)
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 6
3.3.2
Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions
The receiving water – Georgian Bay - ambient conditions and future effluent conditions were identified and used to simulate the impact on the receiving water by using LHOPS-POM and CORMIX modeling software. High background pollutant concentrations, pH levels and temperatures (75th percentile) in the receiving water body were determined in order to assess the suitability of wastewater effluent criteria under worst case conditions. The ambient data that was reviewed included temperature, pH, and current velocities as summarized in Table 3-2. Ambient temperature values were provided by a 1974 study of Georgian Bay by E.A. Bennett (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and ambient pH values by the Ministry of the Environment. The results from the LHOPS – POM model were used to estimate current velocities in the vicinity of the Meaford WWTP outlet. All of this data was then incorporated into CORMIX to conduct an assessment of the assimilative capacity of the Georgian Bay receiving waters for a wide range of ambient and effluent conditions. Table 3-2 Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions Parameter Value
Source
Ambient Temperature
Min Temp = 0ºC Max Temp = 19ºC (August)
1974 study of Georgian Bay by E.A. Bennett (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
Lake Temperature
Summer = 19 to 20ºC Winter = 0 to 4ºC Lake turn over = 4ºC (occurs in November and April)
2007 ESR Assimilative Capacity Study
Lake pH
8.3
2007 Ministry of the Environment Email Correspondence
Current Velocities
Summer currents are long shore with maximum speed of 50 cm/s NNW to SSE or SSE to NNW. Winter currents have a maximum speed of 30 cm/s.
Baird Associates
3.3.3
Meaford WWTP Effluent Water Quality
The Meaford WWTP Effluent Water conditions are summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Georgian Bay Background Water Quality and Current Conditions Parameter Value
Source
Effluent Temperature
Summer = 22.2ºC Winter = 8 to 11ºC Fall Lake Turnover = 13ºC Spring Lake Turnover = 10ºC
2007 ESR Assimilative Capacity Study
Effluent pH
6.4 to 8.0 (75% Percentile value = 7.6)
2006 Meaford WWTP Operations Data
3.3.4
Determination of Assimilative Capacity of Georgian Bay
Various water quality parameters were assessed under the worst case conditions using CORMIX modeling software. In order to use this software, it was first necessary to determine the dilution ratio at various distances from the outfall and the shore using CORMIX 2 software. The dilution ratios at 100m and 200m are provided in the following table. Table 3-4 Dilution Ratios (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Dilution Ratio
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 7 Table 3-4 Dilution Ratios (Source: Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech, July 2007) Parameter Dilution Ratio 100m from outfall
70:1 (median dilution) 35:1 (75th percentile dilution)*
200m from shore (or half distance to the shore)
115:1 (median dilution) 70:1 (75th percentile dilution)
*assumed that the dilution ratio will reduce to 18:1 under winter conditions due to ice cover.
All of the parameters were then entered into CORMIX to analyze various scenarios. The study concluded that the water quality objectives set by the MOE were met for all of the key parameters tested and that objectives were met within one half of the distance to shore or 200 m from the outfall. The parameters, their respective objectives and CORMIX modeling results are shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5 2007 ESR Modeling Results for 6,000 m3/d Parameter Objective
CORMIX Modeling Parameters / Results
Un-ionized ammonia
20 µg/L (PWQO at edge of near field for protection of aquatic life)
Parameter (for worst case scenario): - Max Summer month effluent temperatures - 75%-ile effluent pH - 75%-ile dilution - 75%-ile ambient pH and water temp. Result: - <4 µg/L at half distance to shore (Objective met)
Total Ammonia
500 µg/L (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Objective at water supply intakes)
Result: - <300 µg/L at 100 m from outfall during winter period (Objective met)
E.coli
100 counts/100 mL (PWQO for Swimming at the Beach)
Result: - Highest in winter at 3 counts per 100 mL at half the distance to shore (Objective met)
Total Phosphorus
20 µg/L (Interim PWQO for the control of algae. Objective at the Regulated Mixing Zone; Typically half the distance from the diffuser to the shore)
Parameter: - Max Summer/Winter effluent temperatures - 75%-ile effluent pH - 75%-ile ambient pH and water temp. Result: - 7 µg/L in the summer (Objective met) - 14 µg/L in the winter (Objective met)
3.4
Evaluation of the Impact to Georgian Bay by the Newly Predicted Future Flow (4,692 m3/day)
Presented in Table 3-6 below, are the new proposed effluent criteria (concentrations and loadings), which can be discharged into Georgian Bay from the Meaford WWTP with no adverse environmental impacts on the Bay and/or shoreline. These criteria were based on those proposed in the Evaluation of Near field Water Quality at the Outfall of the Meaford WWTP Diffuser by EarthTech in 2007 for 6,000 m3/d because it is expected that the assimilative capacity model results will not worsen by lowering the effluent flows to 4,692 m3/d, but will actually improve. The only exception is the total phosphorus (TP) limit which is proposed to be 1.0 mg/L. As per the Ministry of Environment Guideline F-8 “Provision and Operation of Phosphorus Removal Facilities at Municipal, Institutional and Private Sewage Treatment Works” (April 2004), it is required that the majority of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Ontario discharge TP concentrations of a maximum 1.0 mg/L in
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
Technical Memorandum Page 8
their effluent. As shown in the table below, despite the increase in the TP concentration limit, the mass loadings are still lower than what was originally being proposed in the 2007 ESR. This is because the lower discharge volume (4,692 m3/d) has a lesser impact on the Bay and/or shoreline. Similarly, the other effluent parameters mass loadings are reduced more than 20% from the previous effluent limits due to the lower flow rate. Since the assimilative capacity study completed in 2007 meets all MOE water quality requirements, it is expected that the proposed effluent criteria for 4,692 m3/d will also be within the lake’s assimilative capacity limit and will satisfy the MOE water quality requirements. Table 3-6 Effluent Limit Comparison Earlier Proposed Effluent Limit (2007 ESR Parameter at 6,000 m3/d)Note 1
Newly Proposed Effluent Limit (at 4,692 m3/d)
Difference in Mass Loadings
mg/L
kg/d
mg/L
kg/d
kg/d
CBOD5
15
90.0
15
70.4
-19.6
-28%
TSS
15
90.0
15
70.4
-19.6
-28%
Total Phosphorus
0.8
4.8
1.0
3.7
-1.1
-30%
3 5
18.0 30.0
3 5
14.8 23.5
-3.2 -6.5
-22% -28%
Total Ammonia Note 2 non-freeze period Note 2 freeze period pH
6.0 – 9.5
%
6.0 – 9.5
Note 1
Municipality of Meaford Wastewater Treatment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report 3 (EarthTech, November 2007) (Values in ESR are incorrect for 6,000 m /d, updated values shown)
Note 2
Non-freeze period from May 15 to September 30 . Freeze Period from October 1 to May 14 .
4.
th
th
st
th
Conclusion
In conclusion, based on the findings of this Technical Memorandum which was developed using sound engineering principles, there should not be any adverse water quality impacts to the receiving waters by increasing the effluent flow from Meaford WWTP by 20% and following the effluent limits proposed in Table 3-6.
S:\OS\08\OS-08-134-11-OS - Meaford WWTP\Assimilative Capacity Tech Memo rev9.docx
420 Sheldon Drive, Suite 201 Cambridge, Ontario, Canada N1T 2H9 Tel: (519) 624-7223 Fax: (519) 624-7224 E-mail: info@hydromantis.com Web: www.hydromantis.com
20 November 2006 912-01 Robin Dunn, CET, PAdm., M.A. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, ON N4L 1A1 Subject: Peer Review of Capacity Analysis Report for the Meaford WWTP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report Dear Mr. Dunn,
Hydromantis is pleased to submit this letter report for the review of the Capacity Analysis completed by Ainley & Associates Limited and dated August 2006. Upon your review of our findings, we would be pleased to answer any questions or clarify any issues that the municipality may have. The Municipality of Meaford Official Plan projected conservative growth of between 2000 and 4000 persons to the year 2023 (Operation Department Report 2006-02), but recent monitoring showed that the growth may occur more rapidly. The Municipality is aware that it has sufficient water supply capacity, but has insufficient wastewater treatment capacity to sustain the expected growth. Thus, the Municipality embarked on a Capacity Analysis of the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and recently has invited proposals for the Class EA for the upgrade and expansion of the WWTP. In this regard, Hydromantis was retained by Meaford to provide a Peer Review of the Capacity Analysis provided by Ainley & Associates Limited. This letter report is the peer review of the Capacity Analysis. The review has focussed on the liquid processing train of the WWTP rather than the sludge train, since the sludge train is a newer process and appears to have excess capacity. In general, the WWTP is described well in the Capacity Analysis Report and in the Certificate of Approval (C of A) attached to the report. Some treatment and performance data are provided in the report, together with an analysis of unit process loadings, particularly for the biological treatment system including an activated sludge system with aeration and secondary clarification. There is no primary clarification process as usually provided in a conventional activated sludge system. This report reviews the key calculations and the unit process ratings provided for the liquid train.
Certificate of Approval (3697-62MGNC) The C of A is the legal document that states treatment requirements at the WWTP in accordance with the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). Several key parameters are stated in the C of A that governs the WWTP until an amended or new C of A is obtained. Some of these are noted below. 1. Type of Wastewater Treatment Plant = High Rate Activated Sludge 1
2. Average Day Design Flow (ADF) = 3910 m3/day 3. Peak flow to be treated before bypasses occur = 11,730 m3/day 4. Sanitary sewage pumping capacity = 12,700 m3/day (147 L/s) 5. Pre-treatment screening peak flow = 8640 m3/day (100 L/s) 6. UV Disinfection peak capacity = 5720 m3/day 7. Effluent objectives and effluent limits are stated in the C of A for CBOD5, suspended solids (SS), total phosphorus, total ammonia nitrogen (freezing and non-freezing periods), and pH. Freezing period for nitrification is more stringent (this should be verified with MOE). Our experience is that seasonal ammonia limits are more stringent in warm water conditions and greater un-ionized ammonia concentration at the higher temperature and likely receiver higher pH value. Excessively high un-ionized ammonia can lead to effluent toxicity to aquatic organisms.
Unit Process Criteria Stated in Capacity Analysis Report The Capacity Analysis report provides a desktop assessment of the process unit capacities of the Meaford WWTP. In particular, the following points summarize the major liquid stream capacities of the plant expressed in the Capacity Analysis report. 1. Pre-treatment design peak flow = 9842 m3/day 2. Bypass channel rated peak flow = 9842 m3/day 3. Aeration Tank ADF = 4404 m3/day to provide 6 hours hydraulic retention time (HRT) in aeration at ADF 4. Secondary Clarifier Peak Capacity = 6874 m3/day based on peak surface overflow rate (SOR) criteria for nitrifying biological system 5. UV Disinfection peak flow = 5280 m3/day (manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specification) The report clearly states that the plant unit processes do not have the capacity to treat the C of A peak flow value of 11,730 m3/day, and we concur with this conclusion. We have additional comments regarding the biological treatment system review as described below.
Aeration Process Criteria The Capacity Analysis report provides key operational calculations for the aeration tank as summarized in Table 1. These are compared to typical design parameters for High Rate, Conventional and Extended Aeration activated sludge systems in Table 1. The Meaford WWTP is unique in that it has no primary clarifiers, shorter HRT than an extended aeration WWTP and has a nitrification requirement. Based on the C of A and Table 1, we believe that the aeration process is a major limiting factor for achieving nitrification. The Capacity Report essentially indicates the unit process as a Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) process due to the 6-hour HRT; however, the C of A indicates it to be a High Rate Activated Sludge (HRAS) process. In this case we believe the HRAS better describes the situation, particularly for the nitrifying (ammonia removal) mandate in the C of A. Generally, a CAS system would include primary clarification in advance of secondary biological treatment and this is not the case at Meaford. 2
Table 1. Aeration Process Operational Parameters
Criteria
Units
Capacity Analysis Report
Organic Loading Rate
kg BOD5/m3.day
0.41
F/Mv
day-1
0.19 to 0.25
Detention Time or Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)
hours
6
Solids Retention Time (SRT)
days
MLSS
mg/L
10.9 (@ 3000 mg/L MLSS)
High Rate Activated Sludge
Conventional Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
C of A indicates the plant is a HRAS; MOE design guidelines do not recommend for nitrification
MOE Guidelines for Nitrification
0.31 to 0.72
0.17 to 0.24
0.05 to 0.25
0.05 to 0.15
6
=15
> 10 at 5ยบC
>15
2749 to 3500
As seen in the above table, the Meaford WWTP key operational parameters are within the limits defining the activated sludge portion for a nitrifying CAS; however, there is no advantage obtained from primary clarification for removal of settleable organics and inerts. It is clear from the performance data (Appendix B of Capacity Analysis report) for final effluent that the plant is not always able to meet the ammonia limits under these conditions, despite providing excellent removal of the conventional parameters CBOD5 and SS. Twelve months from January 2003 to March 2006 were out-of-compliance with respect to ammonia plus ammonium nitrogen (if the C of A limits are correct). This occurs even at flows below the design ADF; however, several months are above the C of A ADF. Many Ontario plants are designed without primary clarifiers that provide nitrification, but these are usually designed as Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (EAAS) with long HRTs. The Meaford WWTP does not meet the design guidelines for this situation. Even for the CAS, Meaford is at the minimum range for F/Mv and SRT. Thus, we believe the Meaford WWTP is heavily constrained by biological capacity for nitrification. This is demonstrated by the out of compliance ammonia plus ammonium nitrogen observed compared to the C of A limits. 3
In our opinion, the WWTP should be designed with the ability to operate with SRT >>10 days and MLSS <3500 mg/L which is not likely feasible in the existing plant.
Secondary Clarifier Criteria The Capacity Analysis report provides key operational calculations for the secondary clarifiers as summarized in Table 2. These are compared to typical design parameters for Activated Sludge and Extended Aeration activated sludge systems in Table 2. The Capacity Report clearly states that the secondary clarifiers are limiting at peak flows and up to the peak design flow at which bypasses are allowed according to the C of A. We concur with this conclusion. In fact, we believe that the secondary clarifiers are likely to be more heavily overloaded in terms of SOR and SLR (solids loading rate) than suggested in the Capacity Analysis report. The Capacity Analysis report defines the SOR as the limiting factor (Appendix E) at a flow of 6874 m3/day by manipulating the MLSS concentration between 2750 and 3500 mg/L, and the return activated sludge flow rate as low as 50%. The report does state that the SLR is also potentially a constraining factor. The clarifiers are shallow (2.9 m or ~9feet) compared to most modern secondary clarifiers which are frequently designed with a tank depth of as much as 4.6 m or 15 feet and sometimes deeper. This provides better clarification and some capacity to handle higher solids loading with the buildup of an underflow sludge blanket. The Meaford clarifiers are too shallow to allow this particularly at peak flow, and unlikely to benefit by reduced recycle flow rate because of the buildup of a sludge blanket and its carry-over into the effluent at high flows. Operationally it would be difficult to reduce the MLSS concentration in a timely fashion with higher flows and then increase it after the passage of high flow. In addition, the higher MLSS is required to enhance nitrification which is a major limiting factor, but other factors also limit nitrification. Thus, we believe the SLR is more limiting than the SOR at Meaford and likely limits the clarifiers more severely than the Capacity Report states. In our opinion, with the shallow clarifiers, the recycle ratio should be kept near 100%. For nitrification, the MLSS and SRT should be as high as possible. From this standpoint the secondary clarifier hydraulic capacity is likely closer to the lower value of 3619 m3/day than the 5807 m3/day value. Under this scenario, the plant is unlikely to perform well at the peak design flow and not to the C of A peak flow before bypass is permitted. A future combination of aeration expansion and clarifier expansion should be coupled to ensure the correct ratio of these two unit processes is obtained. From a positive standpoint, the Meaford WWTP did provide nitrification to the required limits in some months and nitrates are evident in the effluent. In many months the nitrification criteria was met. In addition, the effluent SS concentration approached the design limit in a few of the months. However, as flows to the plant increase with community growth, it will continue to be more difficult to achieve nitrification and maintain the solids inventory in the plant.
4
Table 2. Secondary Clarifier Operational Parameters MOE Design Guidelines
Tank Depth
Surface Overflow Rate (SOR) @ Peak Flow
Solids Loading Rate (SLR) @ Peak Flow Notes:
Units
Meaford @ C of A Peak Flow of 11,730 m3/day
Activated Sludge with nitrification
Extended Aeration
Capacity Report
m
2.9
3.6 to 4.6
3.6 to 4.6
no comment made
L/m2.s (m3/m2.d)
kg/m2.day
0.58 (50)
0.34 (29.4)
241a
= 120
0.41 (35.4)
= 120
6874 m3/d using 0.34 (29.4)
3619 m3/da 5807 m3/db 8009 m3/dc using 120 kg/m2.day
a. 3500 mg/L & 100% RAS b. 2750 mg/L & 100% RAS c. 2750 mg/L & 50% RAS
Review of 2006 Process Information In November 2006, Hydromantis received and reviewed treatment plant operating data for analysis. In cold weather months (January to March) in early 2006, the plant flows were higher than the balance of the year with January and March above the C of A limit. During the cold months, the plant biomass in terms of MLSS (mixed liquor suspended solids) was the lowest ranging from about 1700 mg/L to 2200 mg/L from January through March. This is the most critical period for ammonia removal due to the lower wastewater temperature, and these months had the highest ammonia concentrations. Since ammonia removal is required in winter, the MLSS concentration must be higher; however, the clarification process is likely to limit the ability to raise the MLSS concentration in these winter months. This corroborates the limits commented upon regarding the criteria for F/Mv and SRT earlier in this report. In the 2006 winter period, these key parameters that are indicators of ability to remove ammonia would be at critical levels, i.e. not supportive of ammonia removal.
Ultraviolet Disinfection Based on the C of A, the manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specification and the apparent problems that exist with disinfection, it is clear that the system is under-designed for the peak flow condition. We understand that the supplier may be providing perspective on this issue. Two other possible factors are the effect of leachate iron content on UV transmission and potential overtopping of 5
the system at high flows. We recommend that UV transmissivity and collimated beam tests be performed as a starting point. In addition, iron concentration of effluent during leachate input should be checked.
Digestion and Biosolids Storage We have done a cursory review of the biosolids management sections and have no comments regarding its capacity per se. One concern regarding odour control would be the degree and timing of decanting the tanks. If aeration is stopped during decanting, potential septic conditions may result in odour emanation.
Options for Optimization of the Existing System There are few options available for optimizing the existing plant. 1. One element that should be verified is the plant flow metering accuracy, although we have no information to indicate that it is incorrect. It is simply good policy to verify flow measurements, particularly when flows become critical. 2. Most importantly, the seasonal total ammonia criteria for the plant should be verified. More stringent total ammonia limits in winter are unusual, unless specific reasons are indicated. Relaxation of the winter criteria may assist with future optimization. Indications are that a possible error occurred and the seasonal criteria are mistakenly reversed in the C of A (see pages 3 and 4). 3. The potential to make use of the unused old digesters could be considered for day-by-day peak flow shaving. However, this will not assist with seasonally sustained high flows that occur over an extended time period. Peak flow shaving may assist in reduction of the peak flow rates and reduce these peak flow loadings to critical unit processes (see page 2). 4. Coagulant addition could be considered to improve clarification performance during critical periods. Overall, we recommend that the Municipality wait until initial results of the Class EA underway indicate the likely direction of the work to be done for the long term. If you have any questions, please contact us without hesitation. Sincerely, Hydromantis, Inc. Joe Stephenson, M.Eng., P.Eng. Director cc: David Free, CAO/CFO
6
Appendix ‐ D Public Consultation Documentation
(Communication Plan, Correspondence, PICs, Notices)
Agency Contact Information Title First Last Provincial & Federal Agencies
Title
Company
Address 1
Address 2
Town
PC
Environment Canada Environmental Protection Operations Division Ontario Region
867 Lakeshore Road
P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, ON
L7R 4A6
905-336-4953
519-873-5013
Mr.
Rob
Dobos
Manager, Environmental Assessment Section
Mr.
Bob
Aggerholm
Regional Environmental Planner
Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change
733 Exeter Road
London, ON
N6E 1L3
Mr.
Craig
Newton
Coordinator
Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change
733 Exeter Road
London, ON
N6E 1L3
733 Exeter Road
London, ON
N6E 1L3
Regional EA Coordinator
Mr.
John
Ritchie
Water Compliance Supervisor
Mr.
Jeremy
Schultz
Project Manager, Ontario Region
Southwest Region Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Owen Sound District Office, Drinking Water Management Division, Ministry of the Environment
Telephone
101 - 17th Street East
3rd Floor
Owen Sound, ON
N4K 0A5
1-519-371-4687
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 907
Toronto, ON
M4T 1M2
416-952-1576
Email only to: fisheriesprotection@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
e-mail only
Att: Environmental Coordinator (PHE)
Transport Canada Ontario Region
4900 Yonge Street
A/Manager Navigable Waters Protection Operations Manager West Highlands Hub
Transport Canada Marine Safety & Security Ontario Region
100 Front Street South
Ontario Clean Water Agency
78 Centennial Road
Ministries of Tourism, Culture & Sport
400 University Avenue
Ms.
Kelly
Thompson
Mr.
Scott
Craggs
Mr.
Tom
Chrzan
Director, Regional Services Branch
Ms.
Kim
Benner
District Planner
Ms.
Carol
Neumann
Rural Planner
Ms.
Ann
Baldwin
Regional Director
Midhurst District Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ministry of Transportation, Corridor Management Section, West Region
1-855-852-8320 Toronto, ON
M2N 6A5
416-952-0485
Sarnia, ON
N7T 2M4
1-519-383-1863
Unit 6
Orangeville, ON
L9W 1P9
519-941-1938
2nd Floor
Toronto, ON
M7A 2R9
416-314-6680
Midhurst, ON
L0L 1X0
705-725-7534
Elora, ON
N0B 1S0
519-846-0941
London, ON
N6E 1L3
519-873-4335
4th Floor
2284 Nursery Road 6484 Wellington Rd. 7 659 Exeter Road
Unit 10
Mr.
Tyler
Shantz
Planner - Western Region Ontario
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
659 Exeter Rd. 2nd Floor
London, ON
N6E 1L3
1-800-265-4736
Mr.
Scott
Oliver
Team Lead Western Region Ontario
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
659 Exeter Rd. 2nd Floor
London, ON
N6E 1L3
1-800-265-4736
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority The Corporation of the County of Grey
237897 Inglis Falls Road 595 - 9th Avenue East
The Corporation of the County of Grey
595 - 9th Avenue East
The Town of The Blue Mountains
32 Mill Street
The Town of The Blue Mountains
32 Mill Street
Municipality of Grey Highlands
P.O. Box 409
Local Government & Other Agencies Mr.
Tim
Lanthier
Watershed Planner
Mr.
Lance
Thurston
CAO Director of Planning & Development Director Engineering & Public Works Interim Head of Planning Director of Transportation & Environmental Services
Mr.
Randy
Scherzer
Mr.
Reg
Russwurm
Mr.
Jim
Dyment
Mr.
Chris
Cornfield
Mr.
Will
Moore
CAO/Clerk
Township of Chatsworth
R.R. #1,
Ms.
Ruth
Coursey
CAO
City of Owen Sound
City Hall
Mr.
Murray
Hacket
CAO
Jim
Aitken
Supervisor of Maintenance
177964 Grey Road 18
Mr.
Township of Georgian Bluffs Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board Bluewater District School Board Student Transportation Service Consortium of Grey Bruce Land Ambulance EMS Grey County Ontario Provincial Police
317057 Hwys 6 & 10
Mr.
Peter
Wilgress
Mr.
Al
Gibb
Manager, Plant Services Administration
Mr.
Mike
Muir
Director of EMS
Mr.
Michael
Guilfoyle
Inspector
Mr.
Frank
Bassingthwaite
President
Grey County Historical Society Grey Bruce Health Services
R.R.#4
Owen Sound, ON
519-376-8998 519-372-0219, ext. 1237
P.O. Box 310
Thornbury, ON
N0H 2P0
888-258-6867
P.O. Box 310
Thornbury, ON
N0H 2P0
888-258-6867
Markdale, ON
N0C 1H0
1-888-342-4059
Chatsworth, ON
N0H 1G0
519-794-3232
Owen Sound, ON
N4K 2H4
519-376-1440
316837 Highway 6 808 2nd Avenue East R.R.#3
Owen Sound, ON Hanover, ON
Box 190
Chesley, ON
341 - 1st Avenue North
Chesley, ON
595 - 9th Avenue East
Owen Sound, ON P.O. Box 307, R.R.#2
Chatsworth, ON
Box 548
Markdale, ON
1800 8th St. E.
Owen Sound, ON
Mr.
Neil
Havens
Mr.
Chris
Munn
Director
Grey Bruce Health Unit
101 17th Street East
Owen Sound, ON
Dr.
Hazel
Lynn
Chief Medical Officer
Grey Bruce Health Unit
101 17th Street East
Owen Sound, ON
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA)
160 Bloor St. East
Att: Consultation Unit
519-376-3076
N4K 3E3
Engineering Manager
Aboriginal Consultation
N4K 5N6 N4K 3E3
Owen Sound, ON
799 - 16th Avenue 351 - 1st Avenue North
Owen Sound, ON
9th Floor
Toronto, ON
N4K 5N5 N4N 3A1 N0G 1L0 N0G 1L0 N4K 3E3 N0H 1G0 N0C 1H0 N4K 6M9 N4K 0A5 N4K 0A5 M7A 2E6
519-376-2729 519-364-5820 519-363-2014 519-363-2972 1-800-567-4739 519-794-7827 info@greycountyhs.ca 519-376-2121 1-800-263-3456 1-800-263-3456 416-326-4757
Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada Consultation Unit (AANDC-CAU)
5H - 5th Floor
Manager of Way of Life Framework
The Metis Nation of Ontario
500 Old St. Patrick St.
Administrative Office
Chiefs of Ontario
Saunders
Director
Native Affairs Secretariat
(AANDC not contacted for this project as project is not on Aboriginal lands) Mr.
Brian
Tucker
Att: Mr.
Richard
Gatineau, QC
K1A 0H4
819-934-3696
Unit 3
Ottawa, ON
K1N 9G4
807-274-1386 (direct) 613-798-1488 (ssecretary)
111 Peter Street
Suite 804
Toronto, ON
720 Bay Street
4th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5V 2H1 M5G 2K1 K2P 0M6 L4R 4K6 L0K 2B0
613-232-3216
Ms.
Lynette
Davis
Director of Operations
Mr.
David
Dusome
President
Georgian Bay Metis Council
4-340 MacLaren Street 355 Cranston Crescent
Mr.
Larry
Duval
President
Moon River Metis Council
P.O. Box 386
Washago, ON
Metis National Council
Ottawa, ON P.O. Box 4
Midland, ON
First Nation Communities as per ATRIS Search Chief
Christopher
Plain
Aamjiwnaang
978 Tashmoo Avenue
Sarnia, ON
Chief
James Robert
Marsden
Alderville First Nation
P.O. Box 46
Roseneath, ON
Chief
Patsy
Corbiere
Aundeck-Omni-Kaning
R.R. #1, COMP 21
Little Current, ON
Chief
Roland
Monague
Beausoleil First Nation
General Delivery
Cedar Point, ON
Chief
Donna
Big Canoe
Chippewas of Georgina Island
R.R. #2
Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point
6247 Indian Lane
Kettle & Stony Point First Nation, ON
R.R. #5
Wiarton, ON
200-5884-Rama Road
Rama, ON
R.R. #1
Muncey, ON
Chief
Thomas M.
Bressette
Chief
Arlene
Chegahno
Chippewas of Nawash First Nation Chippewas of Rama First Nation Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
P.O. Box 13
Sutton West, ON
Ms.
Sandy
McKenzie
Chief
R.K. (Joe)
Miskokomon
Chief
Phyllis
Williams
Curve Lake First Nation
General Delivery
Curve Lake, ON
Chief
Gregory Lloyd
Cowie
Hiawatha First Nation
R.R.#2
Keene, ON
Chief
Joe
Hare
M'Chigeeng First Nation
P.O. Box 333
Chief
Kelly
Larocca
Mississauga's of Scugog Island First Nation
22521 Island Road
Port Perry, ON
Mr.
Danny
Stock
Mississauga's of the Credit
P.O. Box 260
Bala, ON
Chief
Maurice Bryan
LaForme
Mississaugas of the Credit
R.R.#6
Hagersville, ON
Chief
Michael
Mitchell
Mohawks of Akwesasne
P.O. Box 579
Cornwall, ON
53 Hwy 551
M'Chigeeng, ON
N7T 7H5 K0K 2X0 P0P 1K0 L0K 1C0 L0E 1R0 N0N 1J1 N0H 2T0 L3V 6H6 N0L 1Y0 K0L 1R0 K0L 2G0 P0P 1G0 L9L 1B6 P0C 1A0 N0A 1H0 K6H 5T3
705-526-6335 705-689-3941 519-336-8410 905-352-2011 705-368-2228 705-247-2051 705-437-1337 519-786-2125 519-534-1689 705-325-3611 519-289-5555 705-657-8045 705-295-4421 705-377-5362 905-985-3337 705-762-2354 905-768-1133 613-575-2250
Chief
Donald
Maracle
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
R.R. #1
Deseronto, ON
Chief
Barron
King
Moose Deer Point
P.O. Box 119
MacTier, ON
Chief
Randall
Kahgee
Saugeen First Nation
R.R.#1
Southhampton, ON
Chief
Richard
Shawanda
Sheguiandah
P.O. Box 101
Sheguiandah, ON
Chief
Gail Ava
Hill
P.O. Box 5000
Ohsweken, ON
Chief
Phillip Angus
Six Nations of the Grand River
Franks
Wahta Mohawk
P.O. Box 260
Bala, ON
Chief
Burton
Kewayosh, Jr.
Walpole Island
R.R.#3
Wallaceburg, ON
Chief
Warren L.
Tabobondung
Wasauksing First Nation
P.O. Box 250
Parry Sound, ON
Irene
Kells
Zhiibaahaasing First Nation
36 Sagon
Zhiibaahaasing, ON
Tony
Dominguez
Rogers Communications Inc.
1 Sperling Drive
Barrie, ON
Powerstream Inc.
161 Cityview Blvd.
Vaughan, ON
Bell Aliant
183 Hunter Street West
Hydro One
40 Olympic Drive
Dundas, ON
Enbridge Gas
500 Consumers Rd.
North York, ON
Enbridge Gas
municipalnotices@enbridge.com
Saugeen Ojibway nation Environment Office
RR #5
Historic Saugeen Metis
204 High Street
Great Lakes Metis Council
trylyline14@yahoo.ca
Chippewas of Rama First Nation
Chief Utilities Mr.
System Planner Supervisor of Capital Access Network Manager Planning Department Manager of Area Planning & Design Field Rep., Customer Connections
Mr.
Todd
Bowman
Ms.
Mike
Johnson
Ms.
Joanna
MacDarmid
Mr.
Ian
Taylor
Ms.
Jennifer
Cooper
Mr.
Jake
Linklater
Office Coordinator Lands and Resources Consultation Coordinator
Ms.
Audrey
Erin Holden
Mr.
James Robert
Coture
Ms.
Karry
Sandy-McKenzie
Ms.
Diane
Sheridan
Ms.
Julie
Bottos
Mr.
Ken
Teasdale
Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations Land Resources Consultation Worker Senior Project Manager
Floor 2
Peterborough, ON
K0K 1X0 P0C 1H0 N0H 2L0 P0P 1W0 N0A 1M0 P0C 1A0 N8A 4K9 P2A 2X4 P0P 1X0 L4M 6B8 L4H 0A9 K9H 2L1 L9H 7P5 M2J 1P8
Wiarton, ON
N0H 2P0
Southhampton, ON
N0H 2L0
8 Creswick Court
Barrie, ON
L4M 2J7
Hiawatha First nation
123 Paudash Street
Hiawatha, ON
K9J 0E6
SCS Consulting Group Ltd.
30 Centurian Drive
Ministry of Transportation
3659 Exeter Road
Box 1492
Suite 100
Markham, ON London, ON
L3R 8B8 N6E 1L3
613-396-3424 705-375-5209 519-797-2781 705-368-2781 519-445-2201 705-762-2354 519-627-1481 705-746-2531 705-283-3963 705-737-4660 ext. 6907 905-417-6900 ext.31317 705-876-8759 905-627-6058 1-416-758-7927 (direct)
Ainley & Associates Limited
550 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 ď&#x201A;§ Fax: (705) 726-4391 E-mail barrie@ainleygroup.com
July 4, 2014.
File #114106
Environmental Protection Operations Division â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ontario Region Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road, P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Attn:
Mr. Rob Dobos Manager, Environmental Assessment Section
Re:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Study Commencement
Dear Mr. Dobos, The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use. This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process (Approach #2) as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011) with the intent to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+ , and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. This notice is to advise you of the commencement of the Master Plan process and to provide you with opportunity to comment on the project. Please refer to the attached copy of the Notice of Study Commencement for further details regarding the project. Further correspondence regarding this project will follow in the coming months and you will be notified in advance of a Public Information Centre scheduled for this project. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager T:\114106\07-Consultation\Notice of Commence\114106 Meaford SP N of C Agency letter June 2014 DRAFT.doc
Creating Quality Solutions Together
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT
The Study The Municipality of Meaford is undertaking a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The process will involve an assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities. The study area is described as the current limits of the Urban Settlement Area as identified in the Municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Official Plan and illustrated in the accompanying key plan. The Process This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011). It will follow Approach #2 with the intent to fulfill the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. How to Get Involved As public consultation is a key component of the Class EA process, two Public Information Centres are planned for this project. Advance notice will be provided to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment. For further information regarding this project, please contact either of the following members of the study team: Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
This Notice issued July 4, 2014. Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
Ainley & Associates Limited
550 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8Z7 Tel: (705) 726-3371 ď&#x201A;§ Fax: (705) 726-4391 E-mail barrie@ainleygroup.com
September 3, 2014.
File #114106
Rogers Communications Inc. 1 Sperling Drive Barrie, ON, L4M 6B8 Attn:
Mr. Tony Dominguez System Planner
Re:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Public Information Centre
Dear Mr. Dominguez: The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use. This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process (Approach #2) as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011) with the intent to satisfy the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+ , and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. This notice is to advise you of an upcoming Public Information Centre scheduled for this project. Please refer to the attached notice for additional details. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager T:\114106\07-Consultation\02-Notice of PIC\01-FINAL PKG\114106 Meaford SP PIC Agency letter September 2014 DRAFT.doc
Creating Quality Solutions Together
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF PHASE 1 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
The Study Further to the Notice of Commencement (issued July 4, 2014), the Municipality of Meaford is continuing to undertake the completion of a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The process involves the assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities. Problem Statement The Study will identify specific upgrades/expansions/extensions of the existing wastewater collection and treatment system and the existing water treatment, distribution and storage system that are necessary to meet the needs of growth in the Urban Settlement area of the Municipality of Meaford. The Process This study is being completed in accordance with the Master Plan process as identified in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (amended 2011). It will follow Approach #2 with the intent to fulfill the Class EA requirements for the Schedule A, A+, and select Schedule B projects identified within the Master Plan as well as to provide the basis for future Schedule C projects. Public Information Centre A Phase 1 Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned to provide further information to the public on the Problem Statement and to receive input and comment from interested persons. Public Information Centre (PIC) Time: Date: Location:
Open House: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday, September 15, 2014 Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East
Public input and comment on the Problem Statement will be incorporated into the planning process. Comments will be received until Monday September 29, 2014. A future Public Information Centre (Phase 2) will be held to present the evaluation of the proposed servicing options. A Notice will be issued prior to the future PIC date. If you have any comments or questions, or if you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive project information, please contact the Consultant undertaking the study. Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca This Notice issued August 27, 2014.
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE September 15, 2014 SIGN IN SHEET – PLEASE PRINT NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO.
E-MAIL ADDRESS
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre – September 15, 2014 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. – Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East
COMMENT SHEET NAME OF RESPONDENT:
Please print all responses.
REPRESENTING (Agency, Municipality, Property Owner, Tenant, etc.):
ADDRESS (Including Postal Code, Telephone Number & Email Address):
COMMENTS (Please use the back of this sheet if necessary)
Do you wish to be informed of additional PICs and the publication of the Notice of Study Completion?
□
Yes
□
No
Please submit this comment sheet by September 29, 2014 to: Mr. Stephen Vokes Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
Ainley & Associates Limited
280 pretty River Parkw ay, Collingw ood, Ontario, L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 E-mail collingw ood@ainleygroup.com
February 19, 2015.
File #114106
Environment Canada – Environmental Protection Operations Division – Ontario Region 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6 Attn:
Mr. Rob Dobos Manager, Environmental Assessment Section
Re:
Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Notice of Public Information Centre No. 2
Dear Mr. Dobos: The Municipality of Meaford has retained the services of the Ainley Group to develop a Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan for the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The objective of the study is to develop a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use. The Study is being conducted as a Master Plan within the MEA Class EA process. Population growth has been identified in accordance with the Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan. To meet the growth requirements and to address deficiencies within the existing water and wastewater systems, upgrades will be necessary and have been identified during Phase 2 of the study. Alternative solutions for both water and wastewater servicing have been evaluated and recommendations established. This notice is to advise you of an upcoming Public Information Centre No. 2 scheduled for this project. The evaluation and recommendations for the alternative solutions of each capital project will be presented at the upcoming Public Information Centre No. 2. Please refer to the attached notice for additional details. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned or Mr. Stephen Vokes, Director of Operations, Municipality of Meaford at 519- 538-1060 or via email at svokes@meaford.ca Yours truly, AINLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager
Creating Quality Solutions Together
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF PHASE 2 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
The Study Further to the Notice of Commencement (issued July 4, 2014) and the Phase 1 Notice of Public Information Centre (August 27, 2014), the Municipality of Meaford is continuing to undertake the completion of a Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan with the objective of developing a comprehensive, long-term water and wastewater servicing strategy for existing and future land use within the Urban Settlement Area of the Municipality. The process involves the assessment of the existing servicing infrastructure to identify necessary upgrades and future servicing priorities. Problem Statement The Study will identify specific upgrades/expansions/extensions of the existing wastewater collection and treatment system and the existing water treatment, distribution and storage system that are necessary to upgrade existing infrastructure and to meet the needs of growth in the Urban Settlement area of the Municipality of Meaford. Alternative Solutions During Phase 2 of the study, alternative solutions were identified and analyzed for each component of the project to find the most appropriate solution for the Municipality of Meaford including do nothing and limit/ manage growth. Preferred Alternative Solutions have been established for the Meaford Wastewater Treatment and Collection System and for the Meaford Water Supply System. Public Information Centre A Phase 2 Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned to present the evaluation of the proposed servicing alternatives and to receive input and comment from interested persons. Public Information Centre (PIC) Time: Date: Location:
Open House: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Thursday, February 26, 2015 Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East
Public input and comment on the Problem Statement will be incorporated into the planning process. Comments will be received until Thursday March 12, 2015. If you have any comments or questions, or if you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive project information, please contact the Consultant undertaking the study. Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
This Notice issued February 19, 2015. Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2 – February 26, 2015 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. – Meaford Hall, South Gallery, 12 Nelson Street East
COMMENT SHEET NAME OF RESPONDENT:
Please print all responses.
REPRESENTING (Agency, Municipality, Property Owner, Tenant, etc.):
ADDRESS (Including Postal Code, Telephone Number & Email Address):
COMMENTS (Please use the back of this sheet if necessary)
Do you wish to be informed of additional PICs and the publication of the Notice of Study Completion?
□
Yes
□
No
Please submit this comment sheet by September 29, 2014 to: Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
The Municipality of Meaford Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN Further to the Phase 2 Public Information Centre (PIC) held on February 26, 2015, the Municipality of Meaford has prepared a Master Plan following Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to determine infrastructure requirements (water and wastewater) to service existing and future development areas in accordance with Meaford’s Official Plan. Based on study findings to date and comments received from the public and review agencies, the recommended solutions have been developed and are shown on plans in the Master Plan document. The Master Plan identifies the preferred infrastructure that will be needed to maintain service levels to existing customers and to service future growth while minimizing environmental impacts. The main components are listed below. While the Master Plan addresses need and justification for the proposed infrastructure on a broad level, more detailed studies/planning for specific projects listed in the Master Plan will be completed at a later date, in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS This Notice of Study Completion is issued with respect to the following Schedule A, A+ and Schedule B projects. Schedule C Projects are subject to additional study in accordance with Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Further notification will be issued with respect to the Schedule C Projects when they proceed to Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA planning process. SCHEDULE A PROJECTS – Pre-approved projects:
Repair of Existing Meaford Watermains Establish New Watermains for Planned Subdivisions Installation of VDFs at Water Treatment Plant Relining/Rehabilitation of Existing Meaford Sewermains Establish New Sewermains for Planned Subdivisions Sewage Pumping Stations 1 and 2 Upgrades WWTP Refurbish and Demolition of Old Sludge Storage Upgrade UV Disinfection Chamber at WWTP New Odour Control System at WWTP
SCHEDULE A+ PROJECTS – Pre-approved projects requiring this Notice:
Replacement of Existing Undersized Meaford Watermains Establish New Meaford Watermains on: o Muir Street, o Centre Street, o Union Street, o Coleman Street, o St. Vincent Street. Establish New Meaford Sewermains on: o Centre Street, o Union Street, o Coleman Street, o St. Vincent Street, o Muir Street, o Nelson Street, o Miller Street, o Lousia Street. Sewage Pumping Station 3 Upgrades
SCHEDULE B PROJECTS – Activities which were subject to the Class EA screening process, and subject to this 30 day review period:
In-Ground Storage Reservoir on County Road 7 and watermain on County Road 7 Water Booster Pump Station on Water Tower Site Decommission Nelson Street Booster Pump Station Construction of Sewage Pumping Station 6 and forcemain adjacent Coleman Street Construct Storm Equalization Basin at WWTP
SCHEDULE C PROJECTS – Activities which are subject to additional study through Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Class EA process based on the solutions outlined in the Master Plan:
Repurpose Storm Equalization Chamber to Clarifier/Aeration New Headworks Building Construction at WWTP New Biosolids Works at WWTP New UV Disinfection Channel at WWTP
PUBLIC REVIEW
The Master Plan document is available for review for a period of 30 days, at the addresses provided below from Thursday, May 14, 2015 to Friday, June 12, 2015. The Master Plan is also available on the Municipality website. The Master Plan will be reviewed and revised taking into consideration the comments which are received as a result of this Notice. The recommended Master Plan projects will be presented to Council for approval. Municipal Administrative Building 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario Tel: 519-538-1060
Meaford Public Library 15 Trowbridge St. W. Meaford, Ontario
COMMENTS The Municipality is interested in receiving any comments that you may have about the projects outlined in the Master Plan. For further information you may contact either the Municipality or the Consultant undertaking the study. During this 30-day review period, anyone who has any outstanding concerns with one or more of the Schedule B projects listed above that cannot be resolved through discussions with the Municipality of Meaford may request that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be submitted to the Minister of the Environment at the Address below. Copies of the Part II Order requests should also be sent to the Study Contacts as listed below. If no request for a Part II Order is received by June 12, 2015, the Municipality of Meaford may proceed to design and construction of the Schedule B projects listed above as set out in the Master Plan. The Honourable Glen Murray Minister of the Environment and Climate Change 11th Floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto ON M7A 2T5 STUDY CONTACTS Mr. Stephen Vokes, P. Eng. Director of Operations Municipality of Meaford 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, Ontario, N4L 1A1 Tel: (519) 538-1060 Fax: (519) 538-1556 svokes@meaford.ca
Mr. Gary Scott, M. Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager Ainley Group 280 Pretty River Parkway Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J5 Tel: (705) 445-3451 Fax: (705) 445-0968 scott@ainleygroup.com
This Notice issued April 13, 2015. Any input received during this process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. Information collected will be used in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
Appendix ‐ E Cost Estimates